Mike L.
It's important now and again to be reminded of the fundamental argument.
Or, at least, it is important for me to remind myself of it.
Unlike many other political blogs Israel Thrives welcomes a wide array of opinions because we are non-partisan. We are conservatives and we are liberals. We are Democrats and independents and, I'm guessing, one or two of us may actually be Republicans.
In any case, this is what I think is important:
THE FUNDAMENTAL ARGUMENT:
The progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, creates and supports venues that demonize and defame the Jewish state, thereby also creating hatred toward the Jewish people.
Such venues include political journals, such as, but not limited to, Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and the UK Guardian, numerous universities throughout the United States and Europe, various NGOs with an anti-Israel agenda, and the entire progressive-left movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) the Jewish people of the state of Israel.
These venues and organizations do not generally criticize Israel, but dehumanize that country.
For this reason, among others, the progressive movement, and the activist base of the Democratic Party, undermines the well-being and safety of Jews around the world, sometimes resulting in violence toward us.
Therefore, as a matter of common sense and basic human decency, Jews should leave the progressive movement and the Democratic Party as we seek to build alternative political structures that are not home to toxic anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, who would see us robbed of self-determination and self-defense.
The Day of the Dhimmi is Done - Michael Lumish, Proprietor
Monday, September 3, 2012
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Anti-Zionism and the Left: A Response to Jon Haber
Mike L.
I've started doing a little blogging for the Times of Israel and my "Anti-Zionism and the Left: A Response to Jon Haber" is the first of these, reprinted below.
My intention is to publish over there maybe once a week, or so, and to reprint that material here after a few days.
And, so, yes, this was my first piece for TOI and, in a sense, it just seems rather unnecessary. The genesis of the piece, as I reference below, was a bit of hoo-ha on Jon Haber's DivestThis! blog concerning whether or not BDS / anti-Zionism was a sub-political movement on the progressive-left. I was quite surprised at the vehemence with which people like fizziks insisted that this is not the case.
I just find it remarkably odd when smart people who are knowledgeable on a topic absolutely refuse to acknowledge the obvious out of ideology and / or political partisanship.
If they want to argue that the progressive movement is in need of reform on this issue then I am with them, but don't sell me the ostrich routine.
In any case, below is the piece.
.
.
.
Within the pro-Israel / pro-Jewish blogosphere Jon Haber's DivestThis! blog does an outstanding job of covering and discussing the movement for boycott, divestment, and sanction (BDS) of the Jewish state. Recently there was much hoo-ha on DivestThis! around the question of whether the western BDS movement, and thus anti-Semitic anti-Zionism more generally, tends primarily to come out of the progressive-left. There were a number of highly strident voices maintaining that anti-Semitic anti-Zionism is not of the left. I maintain that not only is BDS, in the west, primarily a progressive cause, but that it is obviously a movement that is coming out of the western left.
Furthermore, I unequivocally state this as someone who comes out of the progressive-left.
In response to the controversy Haber published a piece entitled, "Israel Left and Right" in which he tells us why he tends "to avoid trying to force-fit the whole Arab-Israeli conflict into a Left-Right continuum." In his piece Haber makes some excellent points and although he is not writing in response to my specific question, as an expert on the BDS movement he nonetheless makes claims that are pertinent to my assertion.
There are two questions that need to be asked in order to determine the truthfulness of the claim. 1) Do the promoters of BDS, i.e., those who represent anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the west see themselves as on the progressive-left or on the conservative-right? And 2) Do they promote BDS within venues that are self-consciously progressive or conservative?
It should be clear that if a political movement claims to represent a political point of view and if, furthermore, it expresses itself from within venues that also claim to represent that same political point of view, then it is more than fair to assign that movement to that part of the political continuum. In other words, if the BDSers claim to be conservative Republicans and if they are published in, say, the Weekly Standard, then it is fair to claim BDS as part of the conservative political movement. If, on the other hand, BDSers claim to be of the progressive-left and if they are published in, say, the UK Guardian, then it is fair to claim BDS as part of the progressive-left.
As to the former question, Haber says that, "For the boycotters, claiming to represent not a rejected fringe movement but the heart and soul of all progressive politics, helps them to punch well above their limited political weight." Thus Haber agrees with me that BDSers see themselves as representing progressive politics. They therefore represent a political sub-movement that sees itself as coming out of the left. Such a conclusion should not be the least bit controversial, because it is obvious on its face. The people who promote anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the west today, via the movement for BDS, are self-consciously on the left.
Period.
The second question is whether or not progressive-left venues represent a home for the BDS movement? The answer to that question, sadly, is "yes." Whether it is prominent political publications, such as Daily Kos or the Huffington Post or the UK Guardian, or whether it is elite universities, such as Harvard or Yale or the University of Pennsylvania, BDS (and thus anti-Semitic anti-Zionism) is promoted from within venues associated with the progressive-left.
We can therefore fairly conclude that, indeed, the anti-Semitic BDS movement, in the west, is a movement of the left.
Those who are uncomfortable with this fact due to their political loyalties will argue that while BDS may claim to be of the left, they do not represent progressive values, and / or they will claim that even if BDS does come out of the left, the left has largely rejected it.
I am in sympathy with both these arguments, but fail to see how they mitigate my claim that BDS is a movement on the left? My suggestion is not that anti-Semitic anti-Zionists represent progressive-left values, merely that they claim to do so. BDSers claim to support the boycott of, divestment from, and sanction of Israel because they believe that Israel is a racist, colonialist, imperialist, apartheid entity that is persecuting the "native" population. This is their claim and it is obviously a claim packed with progressive-left resonances and notions. It is obviously a claim of the left and not of the right. This could hardly be more clear.
Where those who wish to spare the progressive movement association with BDS / anti-Zionism are on firmer ground is when they insist that BDS is only a fringe movement. There is, in fact, considerable truth to this claim and no one knows it better than Haber. Anyone who reads DivestThis! knows that BDS suffers failure after failure in their efforts to get universities and co-ops and unions to divest from Israel and companies that do business with the Jewish state.
My claim, however, has never been that anti-Semitic anti-Zionism has a large following either within the progressive movement or within the Democratic party. My claim has always been that they operate out of the progressive movement, and within the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic party and, thus, have a seat within the larger coalition. If they were not an accepted part of the larger coalition on the left then they would not be operating out of progressive-left venues such as those referenced above.
I agree with Haber when he says, "Today’s progressives still have work to do creating a vocabulary that will allow them to similarly kick BDS and other practitioners of anti-Israel “disease politics” out of the tent without feeling guilty over a lack of 'inclusiveness.' We have been fortunate that genuine progressive institutions have almost universally rejected the blandishments of the boycotters. But there is some intellectual heavy lifting to be done to explain in ideological terms that are commonly accepted across the left-end of the political spectrum as to why BDS and liberalism have nothing in common and should have nothing to do with one another."
Haber thus agrees with me that BDS / anti-Zionism is in "the tent." In this way Haber agrees that BDS / anti-Zionism sees itself as on the progressive-left and has a place within the broader constituency of the movement, the "tent."
Any Jewish person, or friend of Israel, should find that totally unacceptable. It would be something akin to expecting black people to accept the Klan as part of the modern Democratic party. Just as black people have far too much self-respect to work with a political movement that accepts Klansmen as part of the larger coalition, so we must reject the progressive-left until such a time as it rids itself of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.
Just as, in Haber's words, "political conservatives (at least in the US) have put a fair amount of intellectual energy (and took some risks) by pushing religious bigots masquerading as anti-Zionists (such as Pat Buchannan) out of their 'mainstream,'" so progressives and Democrats must rid themselves of those who seek harm to the Jewish people.
Pretending to be an ostrich through denying the obvious is clearly not the answer and, thankfully, Haber, himself, does not have that problem. He agrees that BDS thinks of itself as on the left and that it is in the progressive-left "tent."
And that is nothing more, nor anything less, than my claim. My dispute is not with Haber, but with those on the Jewish left who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
I've started doing a little blogging for the Times of Israel and my "Anti-Zionism and the Left: A Response to Jon Haber" is the first of these, reprinted below.
My intention is to publish over there maybe once a week, or so, and to reprint that material here after a few days.
And, so, yes, this was my first piece for TOI and, in a sense, it just seems rather unnecessary. The genesis of the piece, as I reference below, was a bit of hoo-ha on Jon Haber's DivestThis! blog concerning whether or not BDS / anti-Zionism was a sub-political movement on the progressive-left. I was quite surprised at the vehemence with which people like fizziks insisted that this is not the case.
I just find it remarkably odd when smart people who are knowledgeable on a topic absolutely refuse to acknowledge the obvious out of ideology and / or political partisanship.
If they want to argue that the progressive movement is in need of reform on this issue then I am with them, but don't sell me the ostrich routine.
In any case, below is the piece.
.
.
.
Within the pro-Israel / pro-Jewish blogosphere Jon Haber's DivestThis! blog does an outstanding job of covering and discussing the movement for boycott, divestment, and sanction (BDS) of the Jewish state. Recently there was much hoo-ha on DivestThis! around the question of whether the western BDS movement, and thus anti-Semitic anti-Zionism more generally, tends primarily to come out of the progressive-left. There were a number of highly strident voices maintaining that anti-Semitic anti-Zionism is not of the left. I maintain that not only is BDS, in the west, primarily a progressive cause, but that it is obviously a movement that is coming out of the western left.
Furthermore, I unequivocally state this as someone who comes out of the progressive-left.
In response to the controversy Haber published a piece entitled, "Israel Left and Right" in which he tells us why he tends "to avoid trying to force-fit the whole Arab-Israeli conflict into a Left-Right continuum." In his piece Haber makes some excellent points and although he is not writing in response to my specific question, as an expert on the BDS movement he nonetheless makes claims that are pertinent to my assertion.
There are two questions that need to be asked in order to determine the truthfulness of the claim. 1) Do the promoters of BDS, i.e., those who represent anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the west see themselves as on the progressive-left or on the conservative-right? And 2) Do they promote BDS within venues that are self-consciously progressive or conservative?
It should be clear that if a political movement claims to represent a political point of view and if, furthermore, it expresses itself from within venues that also claim to represent that same political point of view, then it is more than fair to assign that movement to that part of the political continuum. In other words, if the BDSers claim to be conservative Republicans and if they are published in, say, the Weekly Standard, then it is fair to claim BDS as part of the conservative political movement. If, on the other hand, BDSers claim to be of the progressive-left and if they are published in, say, the UK Guardian, then it is fair to claim BDS as part of the progressive-left.
As to the former question, Haber says that, "For the boycotters, claiming to represent not a rejected fringe movement but the heart and soul of all progressive politics, helps them to punch well above their limited political weight." Thus Haber agrees with me that BDSers see themselves as representing progressive politics. They therefore represent a political sub-movement that sees itself as coming out of the left. Such a conclusion should not be the least bit controversial, because it is obvious on its face. The people who promote anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the west today, via the movement for BDS, are self-consciously on the left.
Period.
The second question is whether or not progressive-left venues represent a home for the BDS movement? The answer to that question, sadly, is "yes." Whether it is prominent political publications, such as Daily Kos or the Huffington Post or the UK Guardian, or whether it is elite universities, such as Harvard or Yale or the University of Pennsylvania, BDS (and thus anti-Semitic anti-Zionism) is promoted from within venues associated with the progressive-left.
We can therefore fairly conclude that, indeed, the anti-Semitic BDS movement, in the west, is a movement of the left.
Those who are uncomfortable with this fact due to their political loyalties will argue that while BDS may claim to be of the left, they do not represent progressive values, and / or they will claim that even if BDS does come out of the left, the left has largely rejected it.
I am in sympathy with both these arguments, but fail to see how they mitigate my claim that BDS is a movement on the left? My suggestion is not that anti-Semitic anti-Zionists represent progressive-left values, merely that they claim to do so. BDSers claim to support the boycott of, divestment from, and sanction of Israel because they believe that Israel is a racist, colonialist, imperialist, apartheid entity that is persecuting the "native" population. This is their claim and it is obviously a claim packed with progressive-left resonances and notions. It is obviously a claim of the left and not of the right. This could hardly be more clear.
Where those who wish to spare the progressive movement association with BDS / anti-Zionism are on firmer ground is when they insist that BDS is only a fringe movement. There is, in fact, considerable truth to this claim and no one knows it better than Haber. Anyone who reads DivestThis! knows that BDS suffers failure after failure in their efforts to get universities and co-ops and unions to divest from Israel and companies that do business with the Jewish state.
My claim, however, has never been that anti-Semitic anti-Zionism has a large following either within the progressive movement or within the Democratic party. My claim has always been that they operate out of the progressive movement, and within the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic party and, thus, have a seat within the larger coalition. If they were not an accepted part of the larger coalition on the left then they would not be operating out of progressive-left venues such as those referenced above.
I agree with Haber when he says, "Today’s progressives still have work to do creating a vocabulary that will allow them to similarly kick BDS and other practitioners of anti-Israel “disease politics” out of the tent without feeling guilty over a lack of 'inclusiveness.' We have been fortunate that genuine progressive institutions have almost universally rejected the blandishments of the boycotters. But there is some intellectual heavy lifting to be done to explain in ideological terms that are commonly accepted across the left-end of the political spectrum as to why BDS and liberalism have nothing in common and should have nothing to do with one another."
Haber thus agrees with me that BDS / anti-Zionism is in "the tent." In this way Haber agrees that BDS / anti-Zionism sees itself as on the progressive-left and has a place within the broader constituency of the movement, the "tent."
Any Jewish person, or friend of Israel, should find that totally unacceptable. It would be something akin to expecting black people to accept the Klan as part of the modern Democratic party. Just as black people have far too much self-respect to work with a political movement that accepts Klansmen as part of the larger coalition, so we must reject the progressive-left until such a time as it rids itself of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.
Just as, in Haber's words, "political conservatives (at least in the US) have put a fair amount of intellectual energy (and took some risks) by pushing religious bigots masquerading as anti-Zionists (such as Pat Buchannan) out of their 'mainstream,'" so progressives and Democrats must rid themselves of those who seek harm to the Jewish people.
Pretending to be an ostrich through denying the obvious is clearly not the answer and, thankfully, Haber, himself, does not have that problem. He agrees that BDS thinks of itself as on the left and that it is in the progressive-left "tent."
And that is nothing more, nor anything less, than my claim. My dispute is not with Haber, but with those on the Jewish left who refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Why Israel Doesn't Trust Obama
Mike L.
Two interesting stories this morning as I drink my coffee.
First, the Wall Street Journal.
Those of you who think that the Obama administration honestly intends to prevent Iranian nukes are deluding yourselves. You are engaging in nothing more than wishful thinking. The Obama administration's policy has not been one of preventing Iranian nukes, but one of preventing Israel from defending itself from the development of those nukes.
There are no good options here, but unless the Jews of the Middle East are prepared to live or die according to the whims of the Iranian mullahs (thus throwing the Zionist project into the trash) they will have to take care of things on their own. Obama cannot be counted on and, in fact, will do everything that he possibly can to make sure that Israel does not do what Israel may need to do.
The other story from Y-Net is this:
The Obama administration is clearly not to be trusted.
The Obama administration wrecked any potential that there may have been in the peace process and then blamed Israel for the foreseeable outcome of its own failed policies. The Obama administration insists, for all intents and purposes, that it has every right to tell Jewish people where we may, or may not, be allowed to live in our historical capital of Jerusalem. And, furthermore, the Obama administration is at least partly responsible for the rise of radical Islam throughout the Middle East and the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
This man is no friend to Israel, no friend to the Jewish people, and his foreign policies are making the world a more perilous place.
He very much needs to go away.
Two interesting stories this morning as I drink my coffee.
First, the Wall Street Journal.
Barack Obama is fond of insisting that he "has Israel's back." Maybe he should mention that to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
In remarks to journalists in London quoted by the Guardian, General Martin Dempsey warned that any Israeli attack on Iran would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programs." He also said economic sanctions on Iran were having an effect and needed more time to work, but that the good they were doing "could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely."...
No wonder the Israelis are upset—at the U.S. Administration. It’s one thing to hear from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he wants to wipe you off the map: At least it has the ring of honesty. It’s quite another to hear from President Obama that he has your back, even as his Administration tries to sell to the public a make-believe world in which Iran’s nuclear intentions are potentially peaceful, sanctions are working and diplomacy hasn’t failed after three and half years...
The irony for the Administration is that its head-in-the-sand performance is why many Israeli decision-makers believe they had better strike sooner than later. Not only is there waning confidence that Mr. Obama is prepared to take military action on his own, but there’s also a fear that a re-elected President Obama will take a much harsher line on an Israeli attack than he would before the first Tuesday in November.
If Gen. Dempsey or Administration officials really wanted to avert an Israeli strike, they would seek to reassure Jerusalem that the U.S. is under no illusions about the mullahs’ nuclear goals—or about their proximity to achieving them. They’re doing the opposite.
Since coming to office, Obama Administration policy toward Israel has alternated between animus and incompetence. We don’t know what motivated Gen. Dempsey’s outburst, but a President who really had Israel’s back would publicly contradict it.
Those of you who think that the Obama administration honestly intends to prevent Iranian nukes are deluding yourselves. You are engaging in nothing more than wishful thinking. The Obama administration's policy has not been one of preventing Iranian nukes, but one of preventing Israel from defending itself from the development of those nukes.
There are no good options here, but unless the Jews of the Middle East are prepared to live or die according to the whims of the Iranian mullahs (thus throwing the Zionist project into the trash) they will have to take care of things on their own. Obama cannot be counted on and, in fact, will do everything that he possibly can to make sure that Israel does not do what Israel may need to do.
The other story from Y-Net is this:
Official: Obama will make Netanyahu pay
Israeli security officials on Saturday tried to downplay the Pentagon's decision to significantly scale back its participation in a joint military exercise with Israel next month, but some government officials said the decision came as a response to the growing tensions between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office and the Obama administration.
"This is the Obama administration's response to the dinner party Netanyahu held in (Mitt) Romney's honor," a senior member of the political-security cabinet told Ynet, while another official said the Pentagon's decision "isn’t boosting deterrence and is not making the Iranians sweat...
"The US elections are in two months, and there is no doubt that President Barack Obama, if he is reelected, will make Netanyahu pay for his behavior," said the security cabinet member. "It will not pass quietly."
The Obama administration is clearly not to be trusted.
The Obama administration wrecked any potential that there may have been in the peace process and then blamed Israel for the foreseeable outcome of its own failed policies. The Obama administration insists, for all intents and purposes, that it has every right to tell Jewish people where we may, or may not, be allowed to live in our historical capital of Jerusalem. And, furthermore, the Obama administration is at least partly responsible for the rise of radical Islam throughout the Middle East and the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
This man is no friend to Israel, no friend to the Jewish people, and his foreign policies are making the world a more perilous place.
He very much needs to go away.
In Defence of Secularism
geoffff
A very wise man and close colleague in two workplaces more than once counselled me as follows :
If your neighbour reads the bible be sure to keep a loaded gun.
I didn't have to ask him which bible. I knew the answer. He didn't care what bible.
I have never encountered that bracing piece of advice anywhere else and I've just Googled it and it's not there so I reckon it's original.
To be sure my wise man was not a rootin' tootin' fightin' man like our Anglican priest in Sydney but he was for many years a very senior Australian federal public servant. A very senior Australian civil servant indeed.
Confronting I know; but it could explain the high rates of home gun ownership across much of the United States.
Mexico too come to think of it. South America as well. Regional Australia. It most certainly explains it in Israel. I don't have to mention "Palestine" but I will anyway. There; "Palestine". And every other Muslim "homeland" whether a land of the bible or not. Any bible. Any land. It would be enough to make the baby Jesus cry.
I am not an enemy of religion. Any religion. I know and have seen the grandest of the human spirit achieved with the fire of religious belief. Religious belief, any religious belief, is cool with me.
I am however above all a secularist and at that point there is a need to push back even in your own back yard. This is so irrespective of what you are.
The Vice Chancellor of the university where Che Gorilla was a commerce/law student and general bigmouth for much of the seventies was none other than that famous old liberal and great Australian jurist Sir Zelman Cowen. I remember the day in the quadrangle of that beautiful old university among Queensland's finest when Sir Zelman already known as among the finest constitutional lawyers in the English speaking world defined the limits of freedom and therefore of liberalism itself.
I had already read his words. Sir Zelman had used them in an address to the university the year before. No doubt he felt the need to make the point again. They were turbulent times. There were plenty of Commos and other religious cranks around who wanted to blow up the world. Secular liberalism needed defended. .
Your freedom to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose.
Sir Zelman was expert in US constitutional law. Probably he was paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes who in turn was quoting Abraham Lincoln. One of my favourite Americans of all time by the way. They too were turbulent times.
To all of this I offer the Che Gorilla corollary for the twenty first century.
I don't care what religion you are so long as you don't shove it up my face. Better still don't blow it up my face.
Which brings me to Father David Smith who by the way I am no longer angry with. From his name alone he could easily be a cousin. There is even a faint family resemblance.
He is not by the way.
Thanks for asking. Thank God. I say that as a secularist.
I'm not angry with David Smith any more because anger passes quickly as it must. I am just sad is all. I had just read his blog that had been emailed to me by friend Shirlee who had seen the good father in action in person last year in the council chambers during the Marrickville Greens BDS No Jew State outrage.
I will quote Shirlee.
Just the mention of Father Dave sends shivers down my spine. The first time I heard him speak at Marrickville I thought I'd burst a blood vessel and I could not believe I was hearing what he was saying. I could not believe this was coming from a man of G-d
A huh. I hear you Bob wherever you are.
Clergy like Father Dave sometimes like to imagine they are speaking truth to power.
To do that they have to imagine that Israel is the power and the "Palestinians" are the poor weak and defenceless who are the victims of Israel and to do that they have to be blind to what Orwell would have said was in front of their noses.
They are not speaking truth to power at all. They are on the side of power and they want to be on the side of power. Israel is a tiny country and the Jews are a handful of people. Antizionist clerics are on the side of those who want to see the destruction of Israel for the sole reason that it chooses not to be another Muslim state.
The enemies of Israel say this again and again. Are the clerical antizionists deaf? Do they think the Israelis are as well? Do they think the Jews are? Do they think the Christians are too?
Clergy are as entitled to buy into a political issue as much as any other citizens but they must understand that by this stage of the game they are not entitled to any benefits of clergy.and that includes the assumption that they are in good faith.
Some one said this. This is a quote cut and paste to here. Someone capable of saying this is entitled to answer some questions:
At some point Father Dave and the rest will be invited to look in to their own souls. I sure hope they are ready for their own sakes.
cross posted Geoffff's Joint
A very wise man and close colleague in two workplaces more than once counselled me as follows :
If your neighbour reads the bible be sure to keep a loaded gun.
I didn't have to ask him which bible. I knew the answer. He didn't care what bible.
I have never encountered that bracing piece of advice anywhere else and I've just Googled it and it's not there so I reckon it's original.
To be sure my wise man was not a rootin' tootin' fightin' man like our Anglican priest in Sydney but he was for many years a very senior Australian federal public servant. A very senior Australian civil servant indeed.
Confronting I know; but it could explain the high rates of home gun ownership across much of the United States.
Mexico too come to think of it. South America as well. Regional Australia. It most certainly explains it in Israel. I don't have to mention "Palestine" but I will anyway. There; "Palestine". And every other Muslim "homeland" whether a land of the bible or not. Any bible. Any land. It would be enough to make the baby Jesus cry.
I am not an enemy of religion. Any religion. I know and have seen the grandest of the human spirit achieved with the fire of religious belief. Religious belief, any religious belief, is cool with me.
I am however above all a secularist and at that point there is a need to push back even in your own back yard. This is so irrespective of what you are.
The Vice Chancellor of the university where Che Gorilla was a commerce/law student and general bigmouth for much of the seventies was none other than that famous old liberal and great Australian jurist Sir Zelman Cowen. I remember the day in the quadrangle of that beautiful old university among Queensland's finest when Sir Zelman already known as among the finest constitutional lawyers in the English speaking world defined the limits of freedom and therefore of liberalism itself.
I had already read his words. Sir Zelman had used them in an address to the university the year before. No doubt he felt the need to make the point again. They were turbulent times. There were plenty of Commos and other religious cranks around who wanted to blow up the world. Secular liberalism needed defended. .
Your freedom to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose.
Sir Zelman was expert in US constitutional law. Probably he was paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes who in turn was quoting Abraham Lincoln. One of my favourite Americans of all time by the way. They too were turbulent times.
To all of this I offer the Che Gorilla corollary for the twenty first century.
I don't care what religion you are so long as you don't shove it up my face. Better still don't blow it up my face.
Which brings me to Father David Smith who by the way I am no longer angry with. From his name alone he could easily be a cousin. There is even a faint family resemblance.
He is not by the way.
Thanks for asking. Thank God. I say that as a secularist.
I'm not angry with David Smith any more because anger passes quickly as it must. I am just sad is all. I had just read his blog that had been emailed to me by friend Shirlee who had seen the good father in action in person last year in the council chambers during the Marrickville Greens BDS No Jew State outrage.
I will quote Shirlee.
Just the mention of Father Dave sends shivers down my spine. The first time I heard him speak at Marrickville I thought I'd burst a blood vessel and I could not believe I was hearing what he was saying. I could not believe this was coming from a man of G-d
A huh. I hear you Bob wherever you are.
Clergy like Father Dave sometimes like to imagine they are speaking truth to power.
To do that they have to imagine that Israel is the power and the "Palestinians" are the poor weak and defenceless who are the victims of Israel and to do that they have to be blind to what Orwell would have said was in front of their noses.
They are not speaking truth to power at all. They are on the side of power and they want to be on the side of power. Israel is a tiny country and the Jews are a handful of people. Antizionist clerics are on the side of those who want to see the destruction of Israel for the sole reason that it chooses not to be another Muslim state.
The enemies of Israel say this again and again. Are the clerical antizionists deaf? Do they think the Israelis are as well? Do they think the Jews are? Do they think the Christians are too?
Clergy are as entitled to buy into a political issue as much as any other citizens but they must understand that by this stage of the game they are not entitled to any benefits of clergy.and that includes the assumption that they are in good faith.
Some one said this. This is a quote cut and paste to here. Someone capable of saying this is entitled to answer some questions:
Of course Khomenei’s speech needed to be taken in the context of 1979, and I knew the organisers of this rally well enough to know that they are not anti-Semitic people by any stretch of the imagination, and were solely concerned to see justice done for Palestine. Even so, it still wasn’t clear to me whether or not Al Quds day was itself essentially anti-Israel, and I knew that I couldn’t speak of my concern for the suffering of my Palestinian sisters and brothers if that compromised my love for my Jewish sisters and brothers.Excuse me? Compromised your love for your Jewish sisters and brothers? What about your "Palestinian" sisters and brothers? How is continuing this nasty vile war in their interests? How much longer are you prepared to see it go on? Another ten years? Another sixty years?
At some point Father Dave and the rest will be invited to look in to their own souls. I sure hope they are ready for their own sakes.
cross posted Geoffff's Joint
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Alleged US Spy Crucified in Yemen (Update)
Mike L.
So the guy was not just crucified, but he was crucified in the name of Allah.
Yet the progressive politically correct crowd would have us believe that all cultures, and all peoples the world over, are essentially the same and that criticism of another culture, as Romney found out, brings the incessant chanting of "racism! racism!"
Of course, this is yet another double standard that they hold Israel to because Israel's critics are constantly castigating Israeli culture. If some Jewish Israeli kids beat the crap out of an Arab Israeli kid they take it to mean that Israeli (Jewish) culture is racist and demeaned. It is thus fine and dandy to drag Israeli-Jewish culture through the mud, but one must never breath a word about Arab or Muslim cultures because that would be "racist" and "Islamophobic."
This despite the fact that criticizing culture is not the same as criticizing "race." Race, although an outmoded notion, represents something essential, unalterable, and biologically constituted. Cultures on the other hand are malleable and constantly shifting.
And, no, they are not all the same.
They crucified the poor bastard, for G-d's sake.
Update:
I post this with some reluctance, but here is a video of the alleged US spy crucified. If you go to the link above you will see that the image on the Times of Israel website is identical to what we see below.
And, excuse me, I am supposed to believe that American Evangelicals are as much of a problem as genocidal Jihadis? Anyone who believes this just has no sense of proportion... or perhaps just no common sense, period... or just no sense of basic human decency, I think.
Victim was accused of directing US drones targeting terrorists
An Al-Qaeda-affiliated group in Yemen crucified an alleged US spy, and posted a video of the crucifixion on YouTube, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) said on Wednesday...
The victim was crucified on an electric pylon in south Yemen’s Abyan province.
A sign above the man’s head showed the flag of the Al-Qaeda-linked group and text from verse 5:33 of the Koran: “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
So the guy was not just crucified, but he was crucified in the name of Allah.
Yet the progressive politically correct crowd would have us believe that all cultures, and all peoples the world over, are essentially the same and that criticism of another culture, as Romney found out, brings the incessant chanting of "racism! racism!"
Of course, this is yet another double standard that they hold Israel to because Israel's critics are constantly castigating Israeli culture. If some Jewish Israeli kids beat the crap out of an Arab Israeli kid they take it to mean that Israeli (Jewish) culture is racist and demeaned. It is thus fine and dandy to drag Israeli-Jewish culture through the mud, but one must never breath a word about Arab or Muslim cultures because that would be "racist" and "Islamophobic."
This despite the fact that criticizing culture is not the same as criticizing "race." Race, although an outmoded notion, represents something essential, unalterable, and biologically constituted. Cultures on the other hand are malleable and constantly shifting.
And, no, they are not all the same.
They crucified the poor bastard, for G-d's sake.
Update:
I post this with some reluctance, but here is a video of the alleged US spy crucified. If you go to the link above you will see that the image on the Times of Israel website is identical to what we see below.
And, excuse me, I am supposed to believe that American Evangelicals are as much of a problem as genocidal Jihadis? Anyone who believes this just has no sense of proportion... or perhaps just no common sense, period... or just no sense of basic human decency, I think.
Kasher me?
JayinPhiladelphia
This weekend signifies not only the end of the 2012 Philadelphia summer, but also the next step in my life, and my personal evolution.
This weekend signifies not only the end of the 2012 Philadelphia summer, but also the next step in my life, and my personal evolution.
I've never been religious, and really never will be, but I've become somewhat spiritual over the past year. I guess you could say. And therefore, I've decided I'm going to undergo a... conversion process.
~~~~~
I didn't grow up in any religion, really, although I mainly associated ethnically with Irish Catholicism; and I even ended up with a visceral dislike of a certain strain of Evangelical Christianity (those who know me know what that is, and why, and that's all I'll say for now).
But I hold no grudges against anybody.
~~~~~
At the York-Dauphin El on Wednesday afternoon, while waiting for the bus home, an African-American gentleman with only three teeth approached me to inform me that he believes in G-d and Jesus, and that even though I'm white, he sees me as his brother.
I didn't quite know what to say, aside from 'thank you, you too man.' He once again told me that he's my brother, and I thanked him again before things got a little uncomfortable.
I think he wanted me to ask him about Jesus.
I know all about that, and I'm not interested in ever learning any more. All power to him, however. I truly hope he's found peace. I'm searching for that myself.
~~~~~
Underneath the Market-Frankford El in Philadelphia is one of the poorest and most down-trodden places in all of America, and there are at least half a dozen "Christian Rescue Missions" here in my part of Kensington.
I hope they rescue all they can. Watching my neighbors doing the doper dip at bus stops gets tired quickly, after all.
~~~~~
I'm searching for peace, and I hope to find it soon. Perhaps I can even take youze along with me on my journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)