Despite their relatively small community in South Africa, and indeed their minority status in a lot of places around the world, the Jews have made a big mark. Hostile to outsiders, lavish in giving advantages to its own kind and filled with a persecution complex (all of which, it may be argued, have at least some rational basis), the Jewish community is a complex animal, as is the religion on which it is based.
(I was born to Jewish parents; however, regular Thought Leader readers will know that I am a firm enemy of all organised religion and religious beliefs, to which this is no exception.)
What makes Judaism complex is that it isn’t one thing: it’s not merely a religion, since many people who would call themselves Jews participate only nominally in the demanding rituals and practices prescribed by the religious texts. It’s not a race, per se, or even an ethnicity, since Jews after the so-called “diaspora” (Jews, I find, are fond of these proprietary historical labels) split off into quite distinct ethnic groups. It’s perhaps a cultural group, though what “culture” really means in this day and age isn’t easy to say.
Perhaps the closest thing one can say is that it’s a group that is linked by common ancestry and the self-defined boundary of the maternal line. The Jews, in what I have always found a supreme act of arrogance, state that a Jew is born with a “Jewish soul”. Try what you like (I offered to donate mine to a friend some years back), that’s what you are in their eyes. They might hate you for “assimilating” (another trendy catchphrase), but once a Jew, always one.
Judaism, I will say, is a religion with a strong scholarly and intellectual tradition. Unlike many strains of Christianity — particularly the abominable evangelical sects that have sprung up all over the place — that are based on the Bible alone, Judaism has countless secondary texts that are studied by the devout in depth and ad nauseam. The Torah — the Jewish scroll that contains the first five books of Genesis in Hebrew — is interpreted in many different ways.
Debate and discussion is deep and complex and engaging. The clever angle that Judaism has taken, however unconsciously, is that it can be an intellectually satisfying pursuit. This means that you will find scientists and philosophers and economists and all kinds of boffins poking around in the “yeshivas” (the religious colleges) marrying their core intellectual knowledge with their religious beliefs.
Let it be said that the underlying religious beliefs are no more inspiring or coherent than those of any other religion and, in many cases, sound more like the writings of JRR Tolkien than ancient spiritual practitioners.
There is still a God, the renowned Yahweh (sometimes called Jehovah), whose acts and attitudes in the Old Testament are a case study in brutality, xenophobia and cruelty. He routinely has entire nations slain, swallows up people into the Earth, drowns, burns, turns into salt and so forth. He is ruthless with even his most ardent disciples. (Example: Moses is denied entry into the “promised land” after countless years of wandering around looking for it with only God as his rather dodgy GPS, because he hits a rock instead of speaking to it.)
Leaving God aside, there are all kinds of bonkers stuff going on within the Jewish belief system. For example, they believe that the “oral law” was given to the people gathered at Mount Sinai by God via Moses and was memorised, word perfect, and then handed down through a gazillion generations until it was finally committed to paper thousands of years later.
Unlike their Christian descendants, the Jews don’t try to pretend that the writers lived concurrently with the key events. They insist that not one word was lost during all these years of broken telephone, and that this process itself proves that God exists because all the people at Sinai experienced this event. The circular logic here seems to trouble no one.
As one typical explanation goes: “Jews say that we have kept the Torah for thousands of years, not because of miracles or any other supernatural phenomena of Jewish history, but because we all stood at Mount Sinai and heard God speak and for generation after generation that very fact was passed down.” Apparently shared delusions are inherently impossible, according to this logic.
Likewise, there is the shady concept of “Amalek”, the shady archetypal enemy of the Jews, who (some argue) are embodied by present-day Arabs. They are told they must take from them a ring of power, and throw it into a volcano … well, not really, but it does get pretty weird.
Jewish mystical books also state that one can fashion a person-shaped pile of mud into a walking monster (called a golem). They contain prophecy like crazy, including (supposedly) a built-in prophecy machine in the Torah, a complex system of numbers that predicts all kinds of stuff (like George Bush and Saddam Hussein, for example). This has been dubbed the “Bible Code” by popular authors.
In fact, they believe the Torah contains, somehow, the entire universe (the “word is God”). It is so magical an item that there is nothing that is not in there if you know how to read it.
As wild as this all sounds, the fact is, most Jews don’t spend a lot of time on this stuff. They have adopted a lighter form of Judaism that primarily involves family events and their particular choice of friends and social circles. Since Jews are honour-bound not to intermarry (this they share with other faiths, but it is particularly strong in this community) they tend to stick together — Jewish socials, Jewish dating sites, even primarily Jewish suburbs.
My most ardent criticism of Judaism has been, ironically, that there seems to be a profound hypocrisy at work. Again, nothing too unique there, but it’s always shocked me that there is a strong pressure to attend, say, synagogue on Friday nights or Saturdays, but that most of the time is spent chatting about business between recitals of Hebrew prayers only vaguely comprehended, if at all. In fact, all religious events seem about as devoid of religious or spiritual content as a night at the movies.
In fact, Jews have packaged Judaism into something that is doable and acceptable in the modern times. Not all — there is a worrying fundamentalist resurgence in Judaism too — but many. That means they have dropped whatever bits of the religion are just too inconvenient to follow, or too embarrassing, or frankly would contravene human rights. No more stoning of men who work on the Sabbath or adulterers, for example.
For all that, there are some primitive rituals and beliefs that have taken a firm hold. Not eating pork, for example, is something adhered to with almost maniacal sincerity. “Because it’s unclean,” comes the explanation, whatever that means. Chickens that are bred in the kind of filth and disease that is beyond compare are famously made into virus-healing soup, no problem.
And then there’s male circumcision: the so-called “bris”. A barbaric act from a different age that is not only tolerated but also actively celebrated with cakes and snacks and cheers of pride. Typically performed in the parents home by a “moyle”, he of the sip of red wine and a trusty pair of snippers (real anaesthetics are apparently not part of God’s plan), it is a frightening event to behold. And the truth be told, everyone knows it. The mother cowers in a corner or in another room, and the women look faint as the child screams its poor lungs out.
Judaism, however, is under threat, certainly in its true form, but even in its loosest one. Many Jews are simply abandoning the religion, intermarrying and moving on. They may retain a cursory link to their “tribe”, but this religion is struggling to reinvent itself for a post-modern age. In a way, it’s too smart for its own good. Unlike reborn Christianity, whose childish and simplistic message can rouse people into a frenzy of irrationality, Judaism tends to be altogether too serene and dull. And many intellectuals use it as a stepping stone toward a more personal spirituality that doesn’t oblige them to tie little wooden boxes to their heads.
Assimilation (intermarrying, basically), I’ve heard it said, is “finishing Hitler’s work”. If that’s not the frightened call of a belief system fading into obscurity, I don’t know what is.
I cheer on its demise, simply because I find its insistence on separateness self-defeating; its notion that Jews are “the chosen” insulting to others and at odds with the kind of integrated world we so desperately need; and the mindless support of the brutality and violence of the state of Israel unconscionable.
And because, despite all the intellectualising, it’s still a belief in a single God, who judges, who listens to our prayers, who punishes the wicked. And that quaint fairytale, dressed up however you like, is an idea whose time has passed.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, April 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Jarred!!! Jesus loves you!!!! (Yip that’s six exclamation marks)
Okay maybe he doesn’t, but the popular perspective is that he does. As science advances so too does religion retreat? You do know of course that if Moses was alive today, went up Table Mountain and came back with Ten Commandments he would be arrested for plagiarism.
Sounds a bit like christianity. But the “chosen” thing bothers me
My Dr Phil inner-voice tells me you’re not a fan of judaism. But who i am i to diagnose, i’m a Xhosa kid who went to a Jewish school which had a 70% ratio of non-jewish kids
So Jew-bashing now too, Jarred? Being born a Jew makes that okay, I suppose? I am not Jewish, nor religious or a Zionist. I have many issues with what is happening in Israel and Palestine. But your article is offensive to me as a human being, being based on sweeping statements that you do not support with a shred of evidence. For example, you mention that Jews are so exclusive they even live in Jewish suburbs… Did it occur to you to mention for the sake of balance that the reason so many Jews live close to each other historically is because of the requirement of the Orthodox to walk to shul?
Regarding the Jews’ belief they are the chosen people - this notion is not isolated to the Jews - either a convenient oversight of yours, or deliberately argumentative. There have been many cultures/races - whatever you want to call them - that have, through the millennia, believed they for God’s (or any other deity) special people.
And I am not even going to start on the enormous body of evidence about the philanthropic activities of Jewish communities, nor the high proportion of Jews in supporting human rights movements.
If you want to make an argument, and be taken seriously, show some balance and use facts, not emotion. This article reads like Nazi propaganda.
If you want something offensive why don’t you look at the utterance of Jewish leaders in israel:
“One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” –Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994
“May the Holy Name visit retribution on the Arab heads, and cause their seed to be lost, and annihilate them.” It is forbidden to have pity on them. We must give them missiles with relish, annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones.” During a sermon preceding the 2001 Passover holiday by the influential Israeli Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: Ha’aretz April 12, 2001
“[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs.” Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, New Statesman, June 25,1982.
“…the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish…with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary.” Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department. From “Israel: an Apartheid State” by Uri Davis, p. 5.
“The blood of the Jewish people is loved by the Lord; it is therefore redder and their life is preferable.” Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, head of the Kever Yossev Yeshiva (school of Talmud) in Nablus. He was later quoted in praise of the infamous machine-gunning to death of 40 Palestinian worshippers by Baruch Goldstein, that it was “a fulfillment of a number of commands of Jewish religious law…Among Goldstein’s good deeds, as enumerated, are…taking revenge on non-Jews, extermination of the non-Jews who are from the seed of Amalek…and the sanctification of the Holy Name.”
“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people… It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.” Golda Meir, in a statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June 1969.
Israeli minister threatens destroying whole of ‘Iranian nation’ if Tehran makes any attack on Israel.
TEL AVIV - An Israeli government minister warned on Monday that Israel would respond to any Iranian attack by destroying that country, public radio reported.
“An Iranian attack against Israel would trigger a tough reaction that would lead to the destruction of the Iranian nation,” National Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer said in remarks of rare virulence.
Israel has not only admitted they will use nulcear weapons as a first strike in case of a catastrophic military outcome in a future clash with it´s enemies, but they also use them as a means of nuclear extortion - blackmail - against the rest of the world to obtain military aid.
Killing millions apparently isn´t something that worries the minds of the Zionist leadership as their ideology teaches them that they are “the chosen people”, the master race - an ideology where the rest of the world are “goyim”, expendable sub-humans, i.e. non-Jews - to which the Jewish bible prophecises complete destruction if they resist the Jewish God´s promise of complete Jewish domination.
Could any white leaders get away with similar racist utterances?
Their Talmud is filled with even more offensive material aimed at the goyim (white people) being animals etc which I can quote you.
And they call whites racist?
I can put together a lot of material as to why civil rights movements to undermine the status quo are over represented by Jews. But you will dismiss it as racist, like you dismiss Jarred. Philantropy is not the reason.
A blog about jews and no mention of the holocaust yet to club people? Unbelievable. But predictably a liberal brings up nazis in an attempt to discredit the messenger.
Rather than lambasting Jarred you should congratulate him on having the courage to speak up.
@Jarred
Well done. I agree with you that Jews are not on a religion. To me they are a people or tribe. They identify themselves as Jews first, whether in america, SA, Israel etc., not with their homeland. Hence you cannot use Christian in the same way you use Jew. Christianity is merely a religion. An afrikaner will call himself an afrikaner as a people. If asked about religion he will say Christian. A jew defines himself as a Jew. I think you made a valid point if I understand you right.
Consulting Engineer on April 16th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
For what it’s worth, and I doubt it’s worth much, you might want to reflect on the glaring errors in your article, inter alia:
1) “memorised, word perfect”
Not actually. In fact, 90% is an argument amount who actually remembers it correctly.
2) “They insist that not one word was lost during all these years of broken telephone”
As above, 90%, or more of the debate is precisely about who got the message right. Considering the elements upon which everyone agrees, it’s a fine step better than your shoddy, biased diatribe
3) “Judaism, however, is under threat, certainly in its true form, but even in its loosest one.”
Actually, its under threat in its “loosest form”, but not under threat in its “true form” (your words). Again, you might want to do a little research before pretending to know everything.
It’s a real shame you’re so quick to shoot down something you clearly know very little about.
I look forward to the next two articles in the series:
- “Let’s talk about the Christians”
and
- “Let’s talk about the Moslems”.
Just because god does not exist does not make Jarred any less of a member of the Jewish race than he doesn’t think he is and doesn’t want to be. As my bobba would say: puh puh, go wash your mouth out …
Jarred, Incredible!! This post could almost entirely be replaced by the focus of the Greek Orthodox religion. Almost everything you’ve said applies to the religion that was forced on to me too.
The Greeks also believe that, if there is a heaven, only Greek Orthodox will end up there. Bah! Bollocks if you ask me. My grandmother actually proclaimed to me in her wisdom that only Greek Orthodox are safe to marry, know and go to heaven. I asked what of the other 5.5 billion folk in the world. Her reply? They are all doomed.
Interesting take on Judiasm and one that I share with you regarding Greek Orthodox beliefs.
@Owen Wow that was the most ignorant, biggoted post I’ve ever read!!
Firstly how did you manage to take Jarred’s post and make it about your negative opinion about SA? Ridiculous man, insanity. And I think that if you had to look at the global stats of Atheism and Religion, you’ll be surprised by the comparitive numbers.
And then to imply that Jews only stay in place if they can earn money and pack up if they can’t? Wow you need to meet some more jewish people. That’s like saying all whites are racist and were part of the Apartheid regime. Ignorance.
I liked this article. It’s blunt and yes, perhaps it’s a case of he can say these things cause he’s a Jew? Who knows.
@ Consulting Engineering…
“Israel has not only admitted they will use nulcear weapons as a first strike in case of a catastrophic military outcome in a future clash with it´s enemies, but they also use them as a means of nuclear extortion - blackmail - against the rest of the world to obtain military aid.”
You have a lot of material there, but you do need to be clear about one thing - Israel is in no need of military aid from the world whatsoever. They are actually regarded as the strongest and most advanced army in the world. And most of the material you highlight as threats to kill millions, are quite clearly threats of defense if harmed.
Forgive my memory, but I was once given some information on charity in judaism, which may be a little rusty in terms of the actual source. But basically from what I remember, charity is given in the following order: Family, Community then Israel.
Perhaps this simple guideline, if you can call it that, is one of the reasons Jews are seen as members of a “club”.
As Michael Naiker once said: “So Rabbi, when can I get my membership card? You know, the one that gets you all the discount an all…”
You could say the same about all organised religions. They all claim to hold the key to Salvation.
However, as a Christian, the Bible tells you that you must only accept Jesus. It also says it does not matter how you pray, as long as you pray.
It does not say you must put your bum in a pew every Sunday, belong to a specific church, donate money etc. You cannot judge a religion by the church and in my mind churches do not have a monopoly on God. I usually have a problem with the church, not the religion.
To my mind then, all believing Christians, whether they attend church or not, are acceptable, from any denomination, including Catholics and Orthodox. Catholics pary differently, using more symbols and include Mary.
If there is only one God (which all religions agree), Jews and Muslims must then be praying to the same one as Christians.
Muslims accept Jesus, but as only a prophet amongst many and below Mohammed (muslims can correct me if i am wrong), hence do not conform to the Bible. There our paths part. But who would I be to claim that because they pray differently and approach God through Mohammed their path to salvation is blocked?
Jews reject Jesus completely. In addition, in the Bible they have been clearly condemned by Jesus when he spoke to the Pharisees if they follow the path they are on, which is why they only accept the first few books of the Bible.
• Do I have to give up bacon for breakfast?
• Please can I be allowed to eat meat and milk at the same meal, I do enjoy my butter.
• And anyway, at 55 I’m too old to have that thing done that they do to little Jewish boys (but that’s possibly why Jews don’t seem to get AIDS).
You know Jarred, the South African Jews are a great people. This miniscule community (they are too mixed to be called a race) has had huge impact on our country’s history, while continuously fighting anti-Semitism. How do I know they had to fight anti-Semitism? Because as a kid, I belonged to a gang would beat the little Jewboys up. Their outstanding contribution to SA is enough for me
I have been a subscriber to Jewish Affairs of the SAJBD for the last 8 years. My interest was sparked by an article that appeared on the Jewish involvement in the Anglo Boer War. About 350 Jews (Boerejode) fought on the Boer side, 3500 on the British side.
The Boere welcomed the Jews as God’s Chosen People.
What struck me in reading the Jewish Affairs is the animosity towards Afrikaners. Next to Germans and Arabs, Afrikaners is about the most disliked people judging from the opinions reflected in the pages.
It might have something to do with many Afrikaner’s sympathy with Germany during the World War. This sympathy must be seen in the light of the Boer’s bloody history with British imperialism. Jews are not the forgiving type.
However, The National Party government was always very supportive of Israel.
The sentiment of the Jews being God’s chosen people runs deep. I as agnostic am not swayed by such sentiment.
What I do find sad is that the Afrikaner modelled itself to a large extent on the Jews, as a people in a hostile environment that wanted to be apart.
Some of the most vehement besmirches of the Afrikaner are Jews like Nadine Gordimer and the Krok brothers. Nadine won a Noble price for her efforts and the Krok brothers a casino licence with their Apartheid Museum, modelled on the lines of a Holocaust museum.
@H: In fact, most literature and religious Jews with whom I have spent a good deal of time in heated debate argue that it has been passed down with “exceptional accuracy”. The “wordperfect” is my, perhaps flippant, paraphrase.
The point is what does this prove, whether 90% accurate or not? That a group of prevailing ideas at some point in history were transmitted along generation after generation, and then written down at some point?
With nothing to compare the end result with, this cannot act as a proof of anything, and most certainly not the existence of God, which I’ve heard it used as.
@Others: The Israeli/Palestinean conflict is a complex issue, on which everyone seems polarised. Whatever the actions of the Palestineans — and we all know that they are far from innocent victims — the Israelis have acted with an appalling disregard for human life. And, in some ways, continue to do so.
@Jared
“Exceptional Accuracy”, it’s only exceptional if you’re comparing it to “normal”?
In any event, flippant or not, the point is that the article (not to mention a number of the comments) are error ridden. Which reflects poorly on the author(s) and calls into question any assertions that may be accurate.
Keeping it brief:
If you’re looking for an “absolute proof” (in the rational scientific western sense in which I assume you use the term) for the existence of God, you’re OBVIOUSLY not going to find one. It’s the same idea as “god” creating a rock that he can’t lift.
On a separate point (and by now flogged to death):
A careful analysis of the tactics of the IDF, Israeli Government Actions and Decisions (not the rhetoric in the press) and decisions by the Israeli Supreme Court will show indisputably that the Israeli Government indeed:
“have acted with an appalling disregard for human life. And, in some ways, continue to do so.”
The only disgrace is that it’s the lives of their own citizens and soldiers that are so cheaply disregarded.
Just like the Jews are entitle to their own opinion, believing that they are the chosen ones for example.
So is Jarred entitled to think it’s a load of nonsense. To each his own.
@consulting engineer - for an engineer you fall way too easily in the Bush world of “you are either for us or against us”. It takes two to tango. You want hate speech quotes? Let’s be fair and go visit both sides. And saying who started it? Well, egg or chicken for you? Too easy to fall into the “they are bad” trap. Go study it a bit deeper without the emotion and see that both sides are just wrong and right. My bit on this at http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/20/my-beef-with-anti-zionism/
@Jarred - no problem with you writing the post. Just two things to help you become a more complete writer… (tongue in cheek people) (1) get all the facts right and not what others told you or what you heard in the kitchen when you were young. (2) Change the name from Jews to Christians and Muslim and you get the same old same old. You think Christains and Muslims don’t think they are the chosen ones? The difference is that Judaism says it upfront instead of hiding behind a mask of either terror or “liberalism”.
By the way - I am not Jewish in case someone thinks I am getting my back up for nothing.
Well said. I think exclusivity leads to a lot nof problems, and in the case of Jews (wanting to marry within their own tribe etc) breeds exclusivity. It’s of course not an isolated case - Christians of various denominations want to marry 9and perpetuate their beliefs) within each cult. Thus the question: does religion perpetuate/encourage/reinforce racism. In many cases if not in most I believe it does. I’m glad there is another human being who believes in inclusivity and has made a point to live by those ideas. Double thumbs up guy.
Jarred,
I wonder whether you will now have the guts to dissect Muslims/Islam? Or perhaps you will be more circumspect with regard to their circumcisions etc etc ??
clearly you also haven’t “spent a lot of time on this stuff”?
It seems to me that you are much like Jesus: born to “Jewish parents” but without a Jewish soul. - And most probably a mamzer too!
I’m not going to discuss the religious stuff, being a non-believer myself, but I must take issue with the statement that Jews are “hostile to outsiders.” I do not believe that this is so. I don’t believe it is helpful to think of any group in terms of “group traits”. Is there even such a thing as a Jew anymore? Am I, an Afrikaans-speaking man, considered to be Dutch because my surname is Dutch? I saw footage of a speech made by a Palistinian psychologist whose name sadly escapes me now in which she took her countrymen to task for their policy of suicide bombings. Some of the points raised by her were very valid ones, though not voiced often enough : Even though the Jews were persecuted to the brink of extinction, they never turned to hatred or revenge. Instead they contributed to society in positive ways through their contributions to science, the arts, literature, etc. They never walked into a German church and killed everyone inside. Through the ages they have been marginalised and stygmatised, from being called baby-eaters, money grabbers or Jesus-killers. They continue to be successful and to contribute positively in every field imagineable. Proportionally, look at how many were Nobel prize winners. And how few are in the prison population or a burden to the state in other ways. Hostile to outsiders? Persecution complex? Speak for yourself, my friend.
Would The M&G publish a similar THOUGHT LEADER blog about Muslims/Islam?
I have to conclude that your paper’s “double standards” (silence re Muslim /Islam/ Iran etc, criticism re Jews/ Judaism/ “Nazi- Israelis” etc) are evidence of an underlying antisemitic editorial policy.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 16th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
My my, look at all the insults Jarred is getting..idiot, nazi… It seems like no one can criticise jews, not even a jew. Wiat until someone calls him anti-semitic.
Jarred, have you even read Norman Finkelstein? I think you will appreciate him for his exposure of scams and hypocrisy.
In his book ‘Beyond Chutzpah’ he scrutinizes the proliferation of distortion masquerading as history. He asks deeply troubling questions here about the periodic reappearance of spurious jewish scholarship and the uncritical acclaim it receives. The most recent addition to this mendacious genre, Finkelstein argues, is Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz’s bestseller, The Case for Israel. He demonstrates that Dershowitz has systematically misrepresented the facts.
Thoroughly researched and tightly argued, Beyond Chutzpah lifts the veil of contrived controversy shrouding the Israel-Palestine conflict.
He also has a book called the Holocaust industry. fascinating. The related articles on his web site are worth a read.
Consulting Engineer on April 16th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Dear Jarred
Whatever and however you feel does not take
away the fact that the Jews were and are a
powerful influence in history and the Middle
East.
Even if you don’t agree with their ‘religion’
there is still a lot that you as a Jew can be
proud off. The Jews with all their shortcomings
still remain a proud and independent nation of
people,diaspora or not and I would
rather have them as next door neighbours instead
of the Iranians or Syrians.
I ma not Jewish and I always thought that perhaps the Jews going on about how they have been persecuted was a bit much. However I am now changing my view on that when I see the amount of virulent anti-Semitism out there. Now Jarred you are allowed not to follow the faith you were born into, but the posts in response to this blog are extremely distressing. To see that people are not ashamed to publish views like this on a blog shows that anti-Semitism is alive and well.
I am saddened
This dispels some of the hateful incitement posted above.
According to “Consulting Engineer”:
“I can put together a lot of material as to why civil rights movements to undermine the status quo are over represented by Jews.”
Jews did strongly supported the civil rights movement in the USA, and many contributed significantly to the struggle against apartheid too. Only a racist bigot could think that this reflects badly on them.
As for the article, it seems to involve some real confusion and ingorance, as other comments have pointed out. “Jarred Cinman” of the subsequent posted comment might also learn how to spell “Palestinian” - not “Palestinean”!
Cinman claims that “Apparently shared delusions are inherently impossible, according to this logic.”
Shared delusions of divine revelation are indeed very unusual, certainly on a *national scale*. How could a subsequent person or group have invented this story and sold it to the entire nation whose ancestors it is about, especially given all those laws you don’t like? If this is not difficult, why didn’t it happen elsewhere? And why was there no dissent about this, something that everyone would’ve known about?
Also check Kenneth Kitchen’s book “On the Reliability of the Old Testament”.
Jarred,
The following extract from your blog has a distinct antisemitic whiff…
“that there is a strong pressure to attend, say, synagogue on Friday nights or Saturdays, but that most of the time is spent chatting about business between recitals of Hebrew prayers only vaguely comprehended, if at all.”
Dear Jarred,
I have total sympathy with you. As others have already mentioned, your argument is interchangable with many other religions. I was born and raised Catholic and the Catholics have just as much of a superiority complex, are just as guilty of thinking of themselves as the “first” (and therefore the best) Christians. They are also, like most organised religions, responsible for numerous atrocities committed in the name of their faith.
Your anger at organised religion is understandable. On a global scale, organised religion has arguably been the most destructive force on earth.
But it’s one thing to be angry at distant wars; it’s the more personal anger that is difficult to deal with. I probably speak only for myself when I say that I am angry at having been taught a whole lot of crap as a kid. My current atheism/agnostism (I still don’t know what I am) is mostly due to the realisation later in life that everything that I was told was true was actually mostly just myth. It is when one learns the reasons for the rituals that one becomes disillusioned: Priests having to remain celibate not in a quest for some kind of spiritual purity but rather to ensure that the property and wealth of the church wasn’t dispersed. The only reason the Jews were forbidden from eating pork was probably because pork that had been out in the desert sun all day could make you really sick. And as you say, look at it now - a belief that is clung to for no reason other than to set those who practice it apart. I think you’re right - the archaic practices and beliefs of these religions are increasingly irrelevant.
Yet despite this, somewhere in the mess of organised religion - all of it - lies a kernel of truth. All the religions reflect some aspect of it. It’s true that religion itself has become distorted, but they were all built around similar truths. And this truth is in there somewhere. This is what we need to find. And it would appear that this is what many people are forsaking the older religions in search of.
I have no problem with atheism, or with your rejection of an entirely outdated system of beliefs, but when someone is as passionately atheist as you it speaks of something unresolved.
No doubt you are familiar with Frank Herbert:
“How often it is that the angry man rages denial of what his inner self is telling him.”
This is the worst intolerance I have ever read on any site linked to the Mail & Guardian. It is irrelevant that the writer claims to be of Jeiwsh origin, and it is irrelvant that there are half-truths in what he writes. The bottom line is that he is expressing deep intolerance of an entire category (he doesn’t even know how to define the category)of human beings. This is hate speech, and the efforts of some to back it up simply justifies hate-speak, racism and intolerance. Cinman is a disgrace to Thought Leader.
Outside looking in on April 17th, 2008 at 11:05 am
@Tony Grant: of course, you are correct about the five books. That was a typo. Despite the free evaluatuions of my intelligence offered by the commentators on this post, I actually have my Standard Five.
To everyone else, I am checking out of this debate. I’ve said my bit. My views are personal, this is a blog, I’ve never claimed to be presenting the authoritative reference piece on Judaism. Everything can be debated, isn’t that wonderful?
If being anti-semitic (another oddly proprietary label) is a sub-set of being anti-religion, then I guess I am that. But the Jews needn’t feel special. I hate all religion equally.
While you may not be concerned with the fate Judaism, in fact cheering on it’s demise and which is your prerogative, I should hope that you are concerned with the fate of Jews.
Jarred,
Massive respect from me and Sasha Baron Cohen for hating all religions equally.
I have noted that you have written about Judaism and Christianity. What will be next on your hit-list?? Hinduism or Buddhism ? Evens money it won’t be Islam!
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Jarred’s comments are underpinned by the superficiality and smug arrogance that are so characteristic of trendy atheism. I am a Jew who grew up in, at best, a partially observant household but who has since become strictly religious. I have done so not because (contrary to the glib assumptions of the anti-religious fundamentalists) I am a pathetic medieval amoeba incapable of rational thought but because the objective truth of Judaism’s claim to authenticity can be proven with an intellectual rigour that might surprise Mr Cinman, were he capable of overcoming his prejudices and engaging with the evidence in a systematic and honest way.
If you hate religion, by all means hate it. However, your blog is littered with petty, small-minded and distasteful generalisation, stereotype and selective evidence. You’re clearly highly intelligent, despite what some comments here suggest. It could be useful to apply your intelligence to understanding the level of bigotry to which you’ve descended.
You are ignorant and hateful–and proud of it. Now that’s chutzpah. Forget “checking out of this debate.” You’ve published this tripe, now you’re stuck with it.
While you may not be concerned with the fate Judaism, in fact cheering on it’s demise and which is your prerogative, I should hope that you are concerned with the fate of Jews.
I don’t think it’s possible to wish for the demise of a religion and not simultaneously wish harm on its adherents.
I am an Anglican and I think antisemitic views are bad enough when held by ignorant right wing skin heads, but it truly shocks me to discover that Jews themselves are capable of hating their own kind. That’s a special type of betrayal.
I’m also amazed that Cinman has decided that he no longer wishes to participate in a debate that he started.
Jarred,
I was wondering if you could backup your claims that our barbaric tribe doesn’t eat pork because a pig is dirty. Wow, no other Jew besides you has noticed that some chickens can be even dirtier.
Next time you visit a synagogue, instead of talking business, maybe read through a bit of Deuteronomy. You will see that to be Kosher a mammal must have split hooves and chew the cud. Nothing about rolling in dirt mister clever.
I think you have a suitable ally in Consulting Engineer. His quote on Begin calling the Palestinians ““two-legged beasts” is a hoax.
It did appear in the New Statesmen, but Begin never said it. Minutes of the session in the Knesset in 1982 confirm that he referred not to Palestinians, but to terrorists targetting children, as two legged beasts.
The rest of engineers quotes probably follow same.
Ja, You are in proud company about wishing the demise of Judaism. Good on ya!
My views are personal, this is a blog, I’ve never claimed to be presenting the authoritative reference piece on Judaism.
I don’t know Ja… And then there’s male circumcision: the so-called “bris”. A barbaric act from a different age that is not only tolerated but also actively celebrated with cakes and snacks and cheers of pride.
Richard Catto,
The type of antisemitism that the M&G loves best is usually spewed forth by Jews. Cinman has descended to this level arguing that Jews ignore their prayers at synagogue to talk business. This is standard 16th century antisemitism, portraying religious Jews as Shylocks.
Of course, Cinman has two renowned Jewish mentors who regularly contribute to the M&G…. Ronnie Kasrils and Zapiro! Both use the “Nazi-Israeli” epithet which is, inherently, a vicious antisemitic slur.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I have read Mr Cinman. My beloved father, may he rest in peace, used to tell me when I spake like Cinman,
`If a fool could hold his tongue , one might consider him a wise man.’ Blaise Pascal reiterated this line from Proverbs in his `Pensee’. I have to ask Reb Cinman what on earth have I done to deserve this?
There are two questions…
(1) Should the M&G have published a THOUGHT LEADER blog that contains the “Jews talking business, instead of praying” line?( I think that the editor should have deleted it because it is blatantly antisemitic.)
(2) Would the M&G publish a blog, in the same vein, which denigrated Muslims and Islam?? (no chance whatsoever!)
If one also takes into account that the use of the “Israeli-Nazi” slur is antisemitic, then it is reasonable to conclude that the M&G is an antisemitic newspaper.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 18th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I have to agree wth Joel - and this applies to all bloggers. If you start a fire in the kitchen, you can’t decide when to leave just because it’s becoming uncomfortably too hot. Your only defense - and this in itself speaks volumes - that ‘it is my opinion’ is a cop out. If someone were to write, for example, that a certain race is prone to child abuse with absolutely no evidence to support this other than ‘personal opinion’, the writer would have to defend his position - or be treated with the appropriate scorn and dismissal if he or she failed.
I am hugely amused, Jarred, that your biggest fan on this blog is a regular contributor whose bitter and biting prejudices are quite staggering, and defended only by his alleged educational qualifications that give him an unjustified and unmerited superiority complex…just like the Nazis had about the Jews. It must be comforting to have him in your camp.
The comments made in several places in response to your blog that it has only been tolerated because you are Jewish are valid. If you had written Muslim every time you wrote Jew, Islam for each Judaism, I suspect it would never have been published, and if it had - ‘because the systems failed’ - all associated would - rightly so - be facing outrage from the Muslim community.
Do not ever confuse free speech with hate speech - the latter incites violence or racist actions towards its target. It would not take much for extremists whose goal is persecution to validate their actions by your second last paragraph.
“I cheer on its demise, simply because I find its insistence on separateness self-defeating; its notion that Jews are “the chosen” insulting to others and at odds with the kind of integrated world we so desperately need; and the mindless support of the brutality and violence of the state of Israel unconscionable.”
And for all the Jews - and it is a significant percentage - who disagree, object to, voted against the policies of the Israeli government towards the Palestinians, this comment is unconscionable and cannot be defended under any circumstances. It portrays all Jews in a singe light, yet the mere fact of your blog indicates that this is not so. Furthermore, anyone who has actually spent any time in Israel will know that moderate Israelis who are also Jewish are horrified by what is happening to the Palestinians, and do not for a second defend the actions of their government. Furthermore, there are a number of civic Israeli and Jewish organisations, intellectuals, academics and others who are actively and ‘mindfully’ working to undo the damage inflicted on Palestinians.
T’s web site is nothing more than apoloogist material. Why not read what the Rabbi’s say about Gentiles yourself.
@Steve
If you want to refer the quotes are hoaxs, prove it. I give references. Can you? You just give your opinion and don’;t like something so dismiss it.
Here are more which anyone can check.
1. “There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.” Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001
2. “The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more”…. Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000
4. “The Palestinians” would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” ” Israeli Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988
5. “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.
6. “How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.
7. “There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed.” Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969
8. “The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.” Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha’aretz, 19 March 1972.
9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
9a. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : “We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return.” Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. “The old will die and the young will forget.”
10. “We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.” Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.
11. “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.” - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI’s cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.
12. “We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel… Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.
13. “We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return” David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar’s Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.
15. “We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.” David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.
16. “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” Israel Koenig, “The Koenig Memorandum”
17. “Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.
18. “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’” Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.
19. Rabin’s description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. “We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters” Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion’s special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From “The Arabs in Israel” by Sabri Jiryas.
20. “There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:…the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish…with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary.” Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency’s Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.
21. “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours… Everything we don’t grab will go to them.” Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
22. “It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.” Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.
Consulting Engineer on April 18th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Simply Amazing.
Check out the TL site and see how many Blogs target Blacks or Whites in a negative manner. Blacks and Whites respond in debate, with different views, a few insults are sometimes slung and we carry on.
Now one blog targets Jews and there are calls for Jarred’s banning, and strong critcism directed at him personally for daring to criticise. Does anyone even bother to prove what he says wrong? They prefer to target him as a person.
Do the Chosen people believe only they are above reproach? Why can’t they behave like anyone else and present arguements in defence, etc.
The topic is ‘Lets Talk about the Jews’, not call anyone who comments on jews nazi or anti-semite.
Consulting Engineer on April 18th, 2008 at 10:54 am
It also strikes me as strange, teh number of non-jews who take up on the wonders of jews. Isnt it strange how throughout history white host populations have made the exact same type of comments about their behaviour, and its detriment to their nation. So many great men and women had some negative things to say about Jews and quotes are well known. We are always told in condemnatory tones how all those great and wise and learned and smart men and women were right about everything EXCEPT the Jews. Isn’t it strange? I guess they maybe of great intellect but all are wrong about Jews.
Consulting Engineer on April 18th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I must say Jarred this comes across as hate speech. The fact that poor old hapless CE seems to have taken such a shine to this blog speaks volumes. He also believes that apartheid was wonderful, Adolf Hitler was a great man and that Afrikaners did not benefit from apartheid. Strange bedfellows indeed. There is a difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
I certainly do not believe that Jarred should be banned by the M&G.
You ask:
“Do the Chosen people believe only they are above reproach? Why can’t they behave like anyone else and present arguements in defence, etc.”
Well, as it will soon be passover, I will attempt to answer your questions..
The following extract from Jarred’s column presents Jews as Shylocks and is antisemitic… “synagogue on Friday nights or Saturdays, but that most of the time is spent chatting about business between recitals of Hebrew prayers only vaguely comprehended, if at all.”
With regard to the “Nazi-Israeli” slur which is used by Zapiro and Kasrils in the M&G, I refer you to the following extract by Alan Dershowitz ( from his book the “The Case for Peace” ):
“Notice that Israel is never compared to Stalin’s Soviet Union, to Mussolini’s Italy, to Franco’s Spain, to Castro’s Cuba, to Pinnochet’s Chile, or even to Hirohito’s Japan. It is always and only compared to Hiter’s Nazi Germany. I have often wondered what could motivate any person of presumed decency to compare Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust. Israel’s goal is to protect it’s civillians from Palestinian terrorism, whereas the Nazi goal was to genocidally destroy every Jewish baby, child, woman and man so as to eliminate the Jewish race. The analogy is obscene and yet it is repeated daily on college campuses, by mainstream European political activists, and even by writers and intellectuals. It’s target audience is the current generation of college students too young to remember the Holocaust and too caught up in the passions of the day to bother to research the history. When alie is repeated often enough, it risks becoming conventional wisdom. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitism, pure and simple. There is no other explanation, especially in the light of the reality that there is no actual similarity between Hitler’s systematic genocide of the Jews and Israel’s efforts to defend itself from genocidal threats against it’s Jewish population”.
It is 100% legitimate, therefore, to label Jews or gentiles as being “antisemitc” when they use the “Israeli/Nazi” analogy.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
@Black listed dictator
Although the post was addressed to you, not all points were about you as I got distracted. I did not mean to imply you wished jarred banned. Others had that sentiment. Why did they not express such feelings when jarred criticises Christians?
If Jarred says Jews discuss business in the synagogue, can anyone prove him wrong? His point cannot be dismissed only because some do not like it.I will not comment since I do not attend synagogues.
I do know that I personally do not discuss business in church, and do not even know what most people in church do for a living. I do not even attend church social gatherings.
I would never have thought of calling Israel a Nazi state and would disgaree with that comparison on several grounds. If I had to compare I would have called them an extreme Apartheid state.
Others seem surprised that I support Jarred. Why the surprise? Do they see everything out of a box? I think people are being very unfair and attacking him rather than debating the points he makes.
The fact is that I agree with the sentiment he expresses, and do not care whether he is a Jew or not. Even if he was a practcising Rabbi I would agree with his sentiment.
In the same way, I have often agreed with some Blacks on other issues, like Sandile. In fact, those I dislike the most are white: the spineless PC white liberal whose defines his views only not offend anyone.
@William
A new ploy to discredit jarred. Call it hate speech. Where does he claim to hate anyone or try to solicit violence?
He expresses the facts as he knows them based on his experience. If anything, his exposure in fact does more to bring people together as he shows that not all jews are clanish and against all non-jews. He in fact shows that not all jews are Zionists.
Consulting Engineer on April 18th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
@Blacklisted Dictator
The M&G anti-semitic??? You must be kidding.
Check out how many jewish TLs they have. Far above the jewish proportion of SA. This is the ONLY blog which can be seen as critical of jews. To me it is not; only crictical of practices of jews and some blatant nonsensical things. One blog, not even expressing dislike of Jews, makes the paper anti-semitic?
They bash whites and blacks far more often. Is the M&G therefore anti-white? Look at blogs like Christi van der Westhuizen’s as prime Afrikaner bashing.
In fact one group far over represented on M&G is the white PC liberal or leftie. These usually favour Jews and love to slam anything supporting whites and highlight things critical of whites.
Or maybe the M&G is anti-christian. Jarred calls them abominable evangelicals. Why does no one criticise Jarred on this statement? I am Christian and take no offence.
I usually like your posts. But in this blog for some reason you are less detached and factual than usual.
Consulting Engineer on April 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Consulting Engineer,
Re Jews “talking business” in synagogue… can I prove him wrong?
It is impossible to give you “the proof” that you require (surveillance cameras recording Jews talking in synagogue?) but I, like many other Jews, consider his jibe to be antisemitic.
I note that you do not contradict my point that the use of the “Israeli-Nazi” analogy is also antisemitic. As a result, perhaps you agree that it is legitimate to label Kasrils and Zapiro as being antisemitic since they use this slur?
Moreover, you seem reluctant or unable to contradict the points made by Alan Dershowitz which I included in my last comment.
Of course you chooose to ignore the point that I, and many others have made, that The M&G would not publish a similar blog entitled :”Let’s talk about the Muslims.” (I would imagine that if they did publish it, the writer might fear for his life.)
(btw, I do not believe that Jarred’s column is hate speech as defined in South Africa)
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I appeal to the Thought Leader owners/administrators not to bow to pressure to remove this blog posting. It is important that Jarred’s views remain on record for all to see. The most effective censure of his racist views would be to leave them up for all the world to witness his bigotry. What an indictment of himself are his own words…
Certainly no pressure from the Blacklisted Dictator to remove Jarred’s posting.
I think, moreover, that its existence also reveals the M&G’s appalling double standards.THOUGHT LEADER would never publish a blog that denigrated Muslims and Islam. Let us be clear about one thing…antisemitism and anti-zionism is promoted in the Mail and Guardian whilst any critique of Islam and Iran is forbidden.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Consulting Engineer,
I have no problem with The M&G posting Jarred’s ” Let’s talk about the Jews”, although I think that his comment about Jews talking business in synagogue is antisemitic. Your inability to comprehend the latter point reveals that you have little or no real understanding of antisemitic attitudes.
My main issue with the Mail and Guardian is they would not allow a similar critique of Moslems. As a result, there is no level playing field, and one has to conclude that thier double standards are symptomatic of antisemtism.
For the record, please show me one THOUGHT LEADER blog or M&G newspaper article that has properly critiqued Islamic fundamentalism.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 18th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
@Blacklasted dictator
I merely ask if other Jews also note the synagogue is a place to conduct business. I dont expect recordings etc. I would not know.
If others correlate israel to nazis I would not agree. But I would not call it anti-semitic. If someone doesnt like the israeli regime and percieves it as nazi, it does not imply he hates jews as a race. Just like disliking the ANC doesnt imply you hate Blacks, and hating the Nats doesnt imply you hate whites. The jews with their persecution comples see every criticism as a slur against all jews so that repugnance of Israeli policy makes you an anti-semite.
Therefore I dont agree with that bit, but i do agree that Israel and nazis are not the same. I would just point out to Kasrils and Zapiro there are fundemental differences. Jews are typically arch capitalists.
You sometimes make anti-ANC posts. Does it make you a racist who hates blacks?
Regarding Dersowitz i havent read him, but I would not agree the nazis were motivated only to commit genocide. Look at their early efforts to support emigration. They were nationalist in thinking, and socialist. I don’t think this historical discussion fits here, but in any case I would not agree ot call Israelis nazis. Perhaps people use that term Nazi to only stick them with a derogatory label. People on TL do that all the time.
Regarding the muslims, true, M&G have not published anything anti-muslim. Perhaps beacuse no TL has wasnt to? I do not think it is any anti-semitic agenda. They are more anti-white right than anything. Maybe you should take this up and write something similar in Reader Blog: why Jews and Christian bashing but not muslims? If they refuse to post it maybe you will have a point. I would be interested to see if teh same vitriol would be directed against you as is against Jarred.
Even if you are jewish, I still like your posts and we often agree. You are one of the better thoughtful posters on here. This time we differ, in emphasis more than principle I think.
I don’t know what you think of the condemnation being heaped upon Jarred. Just or unjust? I believe you dont agree with it but dont say anything, because you are generally balanced. I am suprised you tar the M&G with the anti-semite brush becasue i have never before seen you resort to the name calling level. I guess you really believe that. I often comment on their censorship, but this time I wish you are wrong about that. M&G allows quite a diverse range of views, which is why I post here. Why preach to the choir?
Consulting Engineer,
Re your comment about the high proportion of Jewish THOUGHT LEADER bloggers..
Two of the most prominent names are Steven Friedman and Anton Harber. Both have signed Kasrils’s “NOT IN MY NAME” petition. They have clearly nailed themselves to his anti-zionist mast and are therefor 100% “halaal” with Ferial. Neither of these Jews are opposed to Kasril’s “Israeli-Nazi” slur.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 18th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Consulting Engineer,
You write…
“I would not agree the nazis were motivated only to commit genocide. Look at their early efforts to support emigration. They were nationalist in thinking, and socialist.”
So… perhaps The Nazis committed genocide by accident?
Ce my friend, why don’t you simply put up a list of people you like. That would make it easier for us. We know you don’t like Blacks, and we know you don’t like Jews. You don’t like the English because they put you granny in a camp in the Boer War. You are beginning to sound like another paranoid Afrikaner, who think sthe whole world is against the volk. And you say jews have a persecution complex. Why don’t you pin your colors firmly to the mast. From what I can work out you think apartheid was the most wonderful thing since sliced bread and that the holocuast never happened. Come on don’t keep us in suspense.
@ The pil
Is Consulting Engineer an anti-semite? Well, here are some quotes from his comments and I will leave you to make up your own mind…..
“Killing millions apparently isn´t something that worries the minds of the Zionist leadership as their ideology teaches them that they are “the chosen people”, the master race - an ideology where the rest of the world are “goyim”, expendable sub-humans, i.e. non-Jews - to which the Jewish bible prophecises complete destruction if they resist the Jewish God´s promise of complete Jewish domination.”
“The perfidity of Jews who were some of the masterminds behind the ANC, Black Sash, ECC while also backing the Nats is also a case in point of how they always play all angles for self interest, using the ‘Chosen People’ mindset.”
“And these are the people who control the world media?”
“If Jarred says Jews discuss business in the synagogue, can anyone prove him wrong? His point cannot be dismissed only because some do not like it.I will not comment since I do not attend synagogues.”
“Henry Kissinger, a jew, once said a people who have been persecuted for 2000 years must be doing something wrong.”
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Its so trendy today to be Jewish and anti-semitic ( or anti-Zionist, whichever suits your agenda)
The Jews have withstood much greater threats to their survival than Jarred and CEś ardent wish for their demise; they will survive this too.
Why did I foresee the use of the term, “Anti-semite?’
Check your history, folks: Semite and Semitic people were so labled because of their language, viz Semitic; not because they were, or still are Jews.
The group also includes the Arabs, among many other ethnic groups.
Therefore, please, when one uses the term ,”Antisemitic,” be very careful, for obvious reasons, as explained in my foregoing commentary
We are all descendants of Abram, which makes us all Semitically connected; not so?
Jarred,
The late great Henry Miller wrote in the first chapter of his “Tropic of Cancer”; “nobody hates a Jew more than a Jew”. Now this I believe from having spent some years living in Irael. They argue all the time over there.
The most astonishing thing about this debate though, is that you took it outside the community.
“The yoke of heaven” is a difficult lot; and if a man (or woman) fails to live up to those hundreds of commandments: well Jews are also human.
Us Goyim, we only have the seven laws of Noah to abide by - who are we to discuss these things?
The thing that I’m saying here Jarred, is that this is not a public argument - it’s kind of like arguing with your wife in a busy supermarket - it’s Jewish business - no one elses business.
The world’s perception of Jewdaism is something to argue in public, but your blog has overlapped what is the rest of the world’s business in too many ways.
(Just my opinion)
Chag Sameach
Roland anitsemitism used as describing a hatred has almost excusively been used to define anti-Jew hatred and not other peoples who speak Semitic languages.
With it’s roots found with Moritz Steinshneider’s critique Ernest Renan’s ideas on how ‘Semitic’ races were inferior to ‘Aryan’ ones and similar critiques from where usage spread. In these kind of comparisons Semetic was used to mean Jew.
The idea that it should be applied to other Semitic speaking peoples is a relatively recent phenomena and is not widely accepted.
Please do not pretend to be a teacher of written English; you are not qualified.
As for the rest: Semitic-speaking peoples are as they have always been and continue to be so today. If Jews want to single themselves out to be the sole target, they are the ones with the problem. Collectively it is your problem; please do not make it mine. Frankly, I do not give a damn.
Whether you want to call me antisemite or not (one word as mentioned by Ariel) is of complete irrelevance to me. The PC libbers are fond of using labels. I merely state what i believe and teh facts as I see them and if you want to discuss facts I am game, but wont repsond to insults. This is why I like teh dialogue with BLD. He is clever and responds with reason.
Its amusing as Blacklisted Dictator said above I ‘have little or no real understanding of antisemitic attitudes’.
So which is it? is CE anti-semitic, antisemitic, Nazi, racist, supremacist etc? I will leave such a debate to those whose intellect revolves around labels. Enjoy yourselves.
@Blacklisted Dictator,
I have said several times that I agree with you regarding Israel.I have no problems with Jews that distance themselves from the shenanigans of these Zionists, and would agree with them. The same as I do not condone the UOVS incident. Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, why should I keep quiest if it is conducted by Jews and succumb to the Jewish Inquisition?
Nor would I agree the Israelis are nazis. Since many of you are fond are calling me nazi, i should like the Israelis?
I also do not equate one Jew bashing blog and none on islam as proof of anti-semitism. I am open to this theory if it is proved correct. One blog about jews compared to many against whites and Christians shoudl show the M&G is anti-white in this regard. But I would not say so. They are merely leftie liberal oriented.
You are welcome to write a blog about islam, its impacts on the world the M&G, whatever. If it is factual and correct I will support you. if they block any discussion of muslims then perhaps i will agree with you.
Consulting Engineer on April 20th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Yes, yes, when you are right you are right, hey. Whoopeedoo!
I too can play the game.
Since when has any dictionary been the final word on any subject matter described in so-called English? I have found almost all dictionaries to be prejudiced to varying degrees, you know, not to mention, ambiguous. That is the reality of the English language, ambiguous to a fault.
Alexander the Great found he had to invent a non-ambiguous military language to prevent bad communication and possible deathly consequences _ Koine Greek and, succeeded very well.
I stand by what I wrote. Consider this, if you will. If I was to have a problem with all the Semitic-speaking peoples bar the Jews, could one not then justifiably label me as anti-Semitic even though I did not target Jews at all?
Even the word “Semantics,” is ambiguous, for crying aloud. However, I accuse you of being the semanticists. You cannot deny it, and I am not wrong, am I.
Chaps, I would like to argue with you forever but I have better, more important duties pressing.
Do yourself a favour. Go back to school and learn to write correctly. Your own writing style, if that is what one may call it, is full of errors. Then you may reply to mine, without me being merely amused at your drivel.
@ Con Eng,
You write:
“I have said several times that I agree with you regarding Israel.I have no problems with Jews that distance themselves from the shenanigans of these Zionists, and would agree with them.”
For the record… I have not stated any opinion about Israel on this blog other than repeating that the use of the “Nazi/Isareli” analogy is antisemitc.
You write:
“You are welcome to write a blog about islam, its impacts on the world the M&G, whatever. If it is factual and correct I will support you. if they block any discussion of muslims then perhaps i will agree with you.”
(1) The M&G has not offered me a THOUGHT LEADER blog. The M&G even refuses to publish my brief letters stating that the paper never critiques Ahmadinejad’s repulsive regime. This is the sort of censorship that the editor regularly invokes.
(2) Anybody who wrote an anti Islam/Muslim blog (or comment) in a simialr vein to Jarred’s re “The Jews” would, most probably, receive death threats.
(3) The M&G regularly allows Ronnie Kasrils (Ronno Einstein, Minister of Intelligence) to use the “Nazi/Israeli” analogy on their pages. When readers complain, the editor laughs in thir face! As a result, I believe that The M&G is an antisemitic newspaper.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 20th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Quite frankly Roland if attacking how I write is the best you can do it’s pretty sad. Also I would like to see your English qualification since you keep attacking my usage of it.
While we’re on this: ‘Please do not pretend to be a teacher of written English; you are not qualified,’ are you qualified either Roland?
‘Since when has any dictionary been the final word on any subject matter described in so-called English? I have found almost all dictionaries to be prejudiced to varying degrees, you know, not to mention, ambiguous. That is the reality of the English language, ambiguous to a fault.’ They have not been the final word on so-called English in many areas but they are in spelling. I recommend buying better dictionaries with more than one definition per word if you are having troubles with ambiguity.
‘Alexander the Great found he had to invent a non-ambiguous military language to prevent bad communication and possible deathly consequences _ Koine Greek and, succeeded very well.’ Koine Greek was indeed the common dialect within Alexander’s armies although I would appreciate it if you told me were you read that (which I assure you I can). Furthermore what does that have to do with our argument?
‘I stand by what I wrote. Consider this, if you will. If I was to have a problem with all the Semitic-speaking peoples bar the Jews, could one not then justifiably label me as anti-Semitic even though I did not target Jews at all?’ Well then that would make you a new hyphenated word - an anti-semite, and not an antisemite.
I made my first post on this I was talking about etymology, it’s history of use and this is important - common usage. You have failed to provide an argument that shows that what I said was not the case.
Rather in your argument you have applied a semantic train of thought: Semitic includes a lot of different cultures which implies that antisemitism is against all those cultures and therefore what Ariel said is wrong.
‘Even the word “Semantics,” is ambiguous, for crying aloud. However, I accuse you of being the semanticists. You cannot deny it, and I am not wrong, am I.’ Semantics does have many meanings.
However in the context that it was being used and indeed the way antisemitism is being used in comments here there is no ambiguity.
I deny being a semantacist and yes you are wrong.
Getting back to this ‘Do yourself a favour. Go back to school and learn to write correctly. Your own writing style, if that is what one may call it, is full of errors. Then you may reply to mine, without me being merely amused at your drivel.’ If you can tell me how bad style makes a point less valid and attacking it makes your argument more valid I would appreciate that.
Lastly to show I am not above throwing personal jabs you said ‘Chaps, I would like to argue with you forever but I have better, more important duties pressing.’ It’s bad to lie Roland.
Yes Roland, you are definitely not wrong. Any word can mean anything you want it to mean, friend.
Unfortunately for, you, however, people here seem to have clear-cut understanding of words such as antisemitism but don’t fret- you may invent your own language such as Alexander and impress us all with your creative semantic talents!
Anti-Semitism - (also Antisemitism ) - Jew Hatred. The word antisemitisch was probably first used in 1860 by a Jew, Moritz Steinschneider, in the phrase “antisemitic prejudices” (”antisemitischen Vorurteile”) to criticize the racist ideas of Ernst Renan. “Semitic” is a term that describes a group of languages. The German polemicist Wilhelm Marr coined the German word Antisemitismus in 1879 to give a scientific aura to his ideology of hatred of Jews. Since the term in proper usage does not refer to all “Semites” and there is no Semitic “race,” the term “antisemitism” was suggested by Yehuda Bauer instead. The term Judeophobia, coined originally by Leon Pinsker, is also used to describe hatred of Jews. Arab Jew haters have tried to claim that they are not “anti-Semites” since they themselves are Semites, and some Arabs use the term in that way.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 21st, 2008 at 11:05 am
@Black listed dictator
I was thinking about the reader blog here on TL.
John Bond and few other regulars have put blogs in there. Try that topic you wish to post on Iran. I am sure your opinions will be most interesting.
It would be very interesting. There is a big division in the right wing internationally over Iran. People like David Duke are supporters of Iran, and even some German groups. Others are against the spread of Islam. Generally everyone is against US involvement in Iraq and muslim immigration to europe and america.
If you keep it civil and factual and they don’t publish it, then maybe I will support you and we can do a joint blog about censorship in reader blog. I have my own opinions on censorship. Trying to shut someone up only proves you have something to hide, hence you only convince more people that they are right.
It is why the silencing of any debate on the Holocaust by jewish threats of legal action if questions are asked only fuels further distrust and disbelief. The days of stifling people and parting the Red Sea are over.
The same as stifling racial discussion turns racial discussion into hate filled racism.
I am frequently censored as well, so you are not alone. Many posts I made about jews were deleted, and everything I put on Friedman’s blogs was deleted. I dont even bother reading him anymore. Does this not say M&G is pro-jew? This is what i thought until your interesting point. Maybe M&G is anti CE, he he!
Regarding the death threats, don’t the JDL do the same? Norman Finkelstein gets death threats from jewish groups. If i may ask, in your opinion, why are Jews and muslims so sensitive and take offence so easily? I gave my thoughts on this in my previous post. Look at the way Blacks and Afrikaners get bashed regularly here on TL. But we mount a good defence dont we? Grant even bashed Catholics once and that caused a stir.
Israel is a racist state. If any country passed a law that said it is a white Christian nation, and that only a white Christian, anywhere in the world is automatically eligible to become a citizen, would the UN or jewish ADL not scream racism?
Israel has such a law for Jews. A Russian Jew can become a citizen, but a Palestinian driven out of his own country in 1948 cannot return.
Suppose, whites established a Christian National Fund. This fund would be used to purchase property. Once purchased, the property could never be sold to, rented to or leased to a non-white non-Christian. Would that not be called discrimination? Well, there is such a fund called the Jewish National Fund, which has all of those restrictions on the property it owns.
What if a nation routinely issued building permits to Christian whites while denying them to Jews or other groups, that would be considered racist. And neighborhoods that denied non-Christians an opportunity to buy or rent would likewise be considered racist. All of these forms of discrimination are practiced in Israel.
Consulting Engineer on April 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
@Blacklisted Dictator
An antisemite used to mean someone who didn’t like the Jews (though the Semites comprise a large group of people).
Then it came to mean someone disliked by the Jews.
Now it seems to mean someone who realises their interests are not the same as Jewish/Israeli interests and who does not want their lives directed by Jewish/Israeli interests.
To criticise Israel today makes you an antisemite. That makes me, Ronnie Kasrils and Jarred antisemitic by the going logic.
Im also looking forward to your post on Islam and will start gathering my thoughts!
if not, we will have cause quite a stir with our censorship blog!
Consulting Engineer on April 21st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Just for the record — and honestly this debate has gone into places I find impossible to make a contribution to — I am not a racist or an anti-semite. I have offered some criticism and observations about a group who have chosen to self-define, not just by label but in many other ways (traditions, beliefs etc).
How can it be a “generalisation” to talk about self-defined generalities?
Racism and prejudice are irrational hatreds based on a single (usually irrelevant) characteristic of a group of people. If you hate Jews because they all call themselves Jews, that’s racism. If you hate blacks because of their skin colour.
But if I say “The Christian Scientists have stupid beliefs because they choose not to offer their kids medical care when they need it” that’s neither a generalisation or racist or prejudicial. There is no “pre” about it. I am judging their professed, common beliefs.
It’s all too easy to wriggle out of the way by calling foul on the grounds of race or begging for mercy because of “religious freedom”. Let’s be clear: anyone can believe anything they want, but in a free society, they have to allow others to criticise them for those beliefs.
Right on. You are no racist or antisemite, or nazi as some hinted. The attacks against you were unwarranted, simply because you chose to comment on a few practices of a group of people. Nowhere did you express hatred towards them.
In fact the only hatred was directed at you. Keep pricking their bubble.
Actually compared to some other blogs on TL, this one stayed civil, although I am sure many were upset.
Consulting Engineer on April 21st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
From one JC to another: Ag nee, man, Jarred Cinman! You and your “handlanger”, Meneer Consulting Engineer, can teach us a thing or two about intolerance. You even pretend you don’t know the real meaning of “antisemitic” so you can make those agterstevoor arguments of yours. There’s a lekker English word to describe your arguments: disingenuous.
Groete, J.C.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 23rd, 2008 at 7:46 am
There are far more shenanigans by the Chosen destabalising nations and profiting from misery.
An Israeli general arrested in Sierra Leone for smuggling weapons to the RUF in contravention of a UN arms embargo, who imposed a reign of terror chopping off limbs:
Immediately after September 11, Israeli intelligence began furiously lobbying Washington to convince her that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had perpretrated the attacks. (For this reason, americans are dying in Iraq on behalf of Israel).
Consulting Engineer on April 23rd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Courage…
Think it is very easy to stand up and shout something controversial… hey its so individualistic to be the logical cynic and stand up and spew out what is tantamount to hate speech… thinking all the attention is about the author rather than the issue at hand… and that’s a pig spewing out hate speech… very esteemed in his own eyes…
Real courage is finding the parts of ourselves that we don’t like and coming to terms with them… looking into the abyss and finding comfort with what you see… a real leader will rouse up the courage to conquer his ordeals and listen, understand and find compassion in another and deal the issue with himself and the other so that neither of them are compromised… a real leader will lead… not decimate his fears with hate speech in a forum where the blows back don’t hurt and he’s not bound to reply or align his paradigms and values… crushing your fears with a wicked argument does not prove you are right… and it certainly doesn’t make you a leader…
Free Speech: The Constitutionally guaranteed shield from behind which Liberals may strike out with the swords of misinformation, lies, and hate. The dream of Liberalism is too important to risk in a fair battle of facts, so Liberals must disguise their intentions with every semantic veneer and smokescreen possible to make their cause appear just and benign. Because their goal is so essentially noble that it cannot be threatened by the disgusting character of their leaders, Liberals must simultaneously hide the faults of, and utterly destroy the enemies of, those high placed crusaders of the Faith. Lies, obfuscation, denials of criminal behavior, slander, physical threats, the re-defining of basic grammatical concepts, Politically Corrected language, disinformation, hysterical ravings, revised history, verbal bullying, and the informational pollution known as “Spin” are all pressed into the Liberal’s service under the rubric of “Free Speech.” From behind this shield, every vile and unethical language crime may be perpetrated on behalf of the Leftists’ agenda. Bile and venom and vitriol are not Hate Speech if perpetrated by Liberals. They’re Free Speech. Of course Racists can’t have Free Speech. Theirs is Hate Speech
Hate Speech: Any negative or critical view of Liberalism, their favourite peoples or causes, its goals, its core constituents, or its activities no matter how radical, outlandish or arbitrary. Any display of self-defense against any assault from the myriad of Leftist cause-groups. If Liberals accuse you of Intolerance or racism, anything you say in your defense is Hate Speech. If you claim that Affirmative Action is a mistaken policy, that’s Hate Speech. If you question BEE, that’s Hate Speech. if you question Jews or Israel that is anti-semitic hate speech. Even Christian prayers are Hate Speech aimed at non-Christians. Only Conservative whites have Hate Speech. Hate Speech is a political crime, and it should be punished with jail or death, or censorship.
Consulting Engineer on April 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 am
“hate speech” means any speech liberals, or on this blog jews, don’t like.
Jews are not all responsible for the crimes of the Israeli government (unless they agree with it). Israel’s supporters constantly spin any criticism of Israel’s actions as hate against the Jewish people. Indeed so desperate are Israel’s supporters to dismiss criticism of Israel while being unable to refute the actual facts that they have taken to describing Jewish critics of Israel as “self-hating Jews.” As they did to jarred.
Israel resorts to endless hacker attacks and online smear campaigns against web sites and authors whose only “crime” is to not go along with Israel’s agenda or of refusing to bury embarrassing scandals.
These phrases, “hate speech” and “anti-Semite”, are well-worn devices to shut up a critic of
Israel without having to answer the criticisms.
By screaming “hate speech” or “anti-Semite”, Israel’s supporters hope to shut down the debate without actually examining the issues involved.
They respond to any criticism by screaming, “He hates Jews!”.
In our politically correct society we are taught that it’s bad to hate at all, but I disagree. Hate can be a good thing. There are lots of things I hate and I am not ashamed to admit it. I hate political hypocrisy. I hate thieves. I hate drug dealers. I hate corrupt politicians. I hate child molesters and rapists, especially those hiding their crimes behind the church.
These are hates that are good for the people to have.
I hate those who presume to decide for us what we can and cannot see, hear, or read. When the Israeli lobby coerces the media to cover up stories should we be less outraged at the concealment simply because the censors are Jews?
To NOT speak out about a crime because the perpetrators are Jews is racist. Should we ignore Jewish shenanigans because it makes all of the Jewish people look bad? Then we should ignore white pedophiles because it makes whites look bad.
Arial Sharon openly bragged “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it”. Is this not offensive?
Why should we not feel something less than affection for a group with such ambitions?
We hear the shrill cries of “hate speech” and “anti-Semite” hurled at anyone who dared presume to notice or comment on what Israel has been caught doing. And we are not supposed to be offended at such bias?
If you want to know why Israel is so much in the news it isn’t because of “hate” and it isn’t because of “anti-Semitism”, it’s because of their own activities.
There is a double standard at work. Jews shout “hate speech” at those who focus on the embarrassing truths Israel. They have screamed “hate speech” and “anti-Semite” so much that the phrases have lost their shock value, which means they have lost their value to silence.
Consulting Engineer on April 23rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Jewish intolerance of any criticism goes so far that they even censor jews who make a critical statement, as they did to Ronnie Kasrils. Becuase you don’t agree does not give you right to censor.
The Freedom of Expression Institute issued a media release on 17th November 2006 on the censoring Minister of Ronnie Kasrils by the South African Jewish Report.
The South African Board of Jewish Deputies (SABJD) subsequently accused the FXI of ‘ideological bias’.
The Jewish Report refused to publish a response by Minister Ronnie Kasrils to an article published about him. Is it fair to slander a man and refuse to publish his response? On of our very own TL commenters was one of the ones responsible from the SABJD side.
It appears thre is no right of reply where the jewsih media is concerned. No publication should refuse somebody the right to reply to an article that attacks that person by name.
The Jewish Report makes reference to ‘deeply offensive statements’ made by Kasrils and then refers to his piece as ‘hate speech’. See the pattern? Even a Jew is accused of hate speech if he questions the Zionist view.
I am not a supporter of Kasrils, or any of the ANC, but I abhor such blatant discrimination and unfairness.
Clearly, the jewish media is distorting the meaning of hate speech. Hate speech is not simply hateful speech and it is certainly not offensive speech. The crucial element of incitement to cause harm must be present for any speech to be regarded as hate speech.
Incitement means calling on people to engage in harmful actions; the call to action must be unambiguous. Likening certain policing or military measures of Israel uses to nazis does not meet this objective test of hate speech. Any reasonable person good debate Kasrils and show why Israel and nazis are very different. I for one would debate it and disagree with Meneer Kasrils.
To refer to what I say, or Kasrils, or Jarred as ‘hate speech’ implies that “criticism of Israel or jewish practices implies Israel must be destroyed as an evil entity”.
Where has anyone called for that?
It is tedious to have Jews and liberals increasingly use the “hate speech” exception in our constitution to stifle what they consider to be disagreeable speech. or emabrassing things they cannot defend. It appears Zionism’s repressive ways are extending.
If a government Minister like Kasrils can be treated in such a censorious manner, then what chance is there for normal people to be heard if they voice dissent against the Israeli state or of any Jew?
I find it strange and fascinating that the activities of some Jews can make me a supporter of a communist ANC official, two causes I do not support.
Consulting Engineer on April 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Here are some examples of the Jewish abuse of the Hate Speech clause:
Dr Y Cohen vs SABC: SABC Interview with professor of history on his theory that pro-Israel Jewish right-wingers influenced the USA to wage war on Iraq. Tribunal found that interview and theory not of such inflammatory nature as to exceed the bounds of tolerance. Tribunal also found that there was no incitement to cause harm. Second point of complaint that there was imbalance in the programme because broadcaster failed to air opposing view. Tribunal found on the facts that an invitation was extended to the Jewish Board of Deputies but the Board failed to put forward its view. Offer by broadcaster to present an opposing point of view not accepted by representatives of Jewish viewpoint who set conditions, unacceptable to the broadcaster, for participation in programme. No contravention of Code. The complaint was dismissed.
South African Jewish Board of Deputies vs Radio 786: It was about a broadcast a programme called “Zionism and Israel. Dr Yaqub Zaki, expressed a number of controversial views, including that Jewish people were not gassed in concentration camps during World War 2, but instead died of infectious diseases. Questioning the Holocaust is hate speech?
Consulting Engineer on April 23rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
@Ce
Well I was a member of the ECC and I am poroud of what we did. During WWII my father in law served in the UDF in Egypt. That was a volunteer army and they fought for freedom against the Nazi’s that you seem to love so much. The same Nazis’ who murdered 6 million jews and 10 million Russians. Whe performed medical experiments on twins etc etc. Now I know you will put up all sorts of websites to show how this never happened. This is an example of how you try to rewrite history. Whether or not the state of Israel is abusing this for propaganda is a secondary issue. The Afrikaners used their experiences in teh Boer War as an excuse to justify all the wrongs of apartheid so you are in good company there I would think. YOu my friend can speka up about things you do not like such as AA or BEE, that is what democracy is all about. How much democracy did the Nats who you also seem to love so much allow. They simply murdered their opponents or sent them letter bombs or tried to poison them. Ask ALbie Sachs or Frank Chikane. I would say ask David Webster or Steve Biko or Neil Agget but they are dead murdered by the apartheid security forces. You have thd gall to say Israel is rascist but deny that apartheid was a fould rascist system.
Hate speech is not questioning a policy like AA or questioning teh behaviour of teh state of Isreal, but trying to change the facts of history by denying things like the holocaust or apartheid atrocities is. Because then you are trying to get people now to support those terrible systems. I for one would be happy to see you thrown off these blogs. Because you are trying to make us forget where we come from.
Politically Corrected language, disinformation, hysterical ravings, revised history, verbal bullying, and the informational pollution known as “Spin” are all pressed into the Liberal’s service under the rubric of “Free \
I mena you are a fine one to talk about revised history. Christi’s book has it all. How the Nats stole the 1948 election, how you had to intimidate the judiciary and committ all sorts of shennanigans to get the coloreds off the voters roll. How SANLAM, VOLKSKAS, EVKOM KRYGSKOR etc were fronts for Afrikaans economic devlopement. Now you moan on and on about the ANC doing similar things. I would have a modicum of empathy for you if you could openly acknowledge the past wrongs of the system you are advocating here but with typical self righteousness you carry on moaning. You should be grateful that the ANC is as gracious and forgiving as it is.
Minister of Intelligence R Kasrils Hate speech case:
The SAHRC found that the contents of the articles published in the Mail and Guardian by Ronnie Kasrils, do not amount to hate speech.
Kasrils’ comments were characterised as hate speech by Helen Suzman (the perfidious Black Sash gang again) and the South African Jewish Report.
The issue which the Commission had to conclude was whether Kasrils’ statements and comments were of an extreme nature and whether they advocated and implied that Jews or Israelis are to be despised, detested, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of their religious or national affiliation.
In the Commission’s opinion, the comments made by Kasrils in the articles referred to above do not amount to the advocacy of hatred and it is the Commission’s view that the obvious and true purpose of the articles was to condemn what is perceived as disproportionate, excessive and counter-productive reprisals by the Israeli government. He was participating in a legitimate political debate, the Commission found.
The Commission therefore encourages those who disagree with Kasrils’ comments and his analysis and conclusions to engage in a dialogue of ideas.
Tough break for the SAJBD wasnt it? You have to debate rather than vilify and accuse. Hasnt the lesson been learnt yet? The days of parting the Red Sea and silencing people who oppose with accusations of anti-semitism are over. You must now debate like the rest of us.
In this case i take my hat of to the ANC and former MK protagonists. Viva.
Consulting Engineer on April 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
@ Consulting Engineer,
You write:
“These phrases, “hate speech” and “anti-Semite”, are well-worn devices to shut up a critic of Israel without having to answer the criticisms.”
The legitimacy of such “devices” is, of course, debatable. However, there are “editorial guidelines” with regard to racism that you have breached.
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 24th, 2008 at 8:44 am
well lets just see…
could we re-title this article ?
what would our re-title be… hmmmm… umpteen reasons I like the Jews ??? (doesn’t seem to fit)
ok… lets try… umpteen reasons I hate the Jews (a bit strong)…
ok… lets try… umpteen reasons I hate religion (still a bit strong)…
ok… lets try… umpteen reasons I cant stand the Jews (seems a little more fitting)
or… maybe lets try… I’m not here to discuss why I cant stand the Jews, I’m just publishing… pls don’t try and converse…
or… maybe lets try… umpteen reasons I am offended about Jews (ahhh… a better fit) (some arm chair psychologists might just suggest that… the title should then be… umpteen reasons I am offending Jews)
FWIW: Google suggests a definition of hate speech as –> type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group
What ever happened to a Thought Leader being about Thesis, Antithesis to get to Synthesis ?
PS: it looks like there are too many ppl here looking for OK stickers…
Consulting Engineer, and other verbose posters, your lengthy diatribes are not being read by man nor beast.
Keep it concise, please.
My recommendation to the Thought Leader editor is to remove this blog post and it’s associated comment thread.
Jew bashing is passe. Indeed any posts bashing religion are old hat before they have even been conceived. Religion and a belief in gods or (one) God has been bashed for millennia and yet humankind still has a great desire for the satisfaction that religious belief brings them.
I expect it will continue in this fashion uninterrupted by the passage of time until humankind is extinct. The vast majority of the human race will always be adherents of some form of religion or another.
And there will always be those among us who consider all religion to be ridiculous and worthy of belittling, to little avail.
As far as I am concerned Atheism is just as much a religion as any other kind.
Judaism and Christianity have served humanity greatly by transforming modern society from the brutal existence that humans suffered under when the Ancients worshipped their old gods. We live in a much kinder and gentler society as a direct result of the influence of those two religions.
You are simply wrong about Sanlam and Volkskas. The government had nothing to do with the establishment of those organisations. I speak under correction, but I think they had been founded in the 1930’s already - as an initiative of civil society and precisely because the government didn’t step in to solve the poor white problem. As for Eskom, when my stepfather worked there in the 1980’s the English were overrepresented in the management ranks. The CEO at that stage was an Englishman, Ian McRae and many of my stepfather’s colleagues had actually been recruited from England. I suspect the same obtained at Armscor, as I knew a guy whose father had been recruited from England.
The only thing that changed after the Nats came to power was that Afrikaners had henceforth an equal opportunity at getting employment in government and its agencies. There wasn’t reverse discrimination, such as employment quotas or tender quotas. As I mentioned previously, the first tender to be awarded to an Afrikaner owned civil engineering firm was in the 1960’s.
The most significant proof against your assertions, however, is that the English population were the economically dominant group right up to the end of apartheid, even though they were only half as big as the Afrikaner group. As late as the 1980’s they still controlled 80% of the listed capital on the JSE and enjoyed significantly higher average per capita income right up to the end of apartheid.
@ Cosulting Enginneer,
You write:
“It appears there is no right of reply where the jewsih media is concerned.”
Are you now implying that a “non-Jewish” media might exist? Have you forgotten what you also wrote abot the Jews?? … “And these are the people who control the world media?”
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 24th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Consulting Engineer,
You write:
“There are far more shenanigans by the Chosen destabalising nations and profiting from misery.”
Is this something that you copied from Adolf Hitler’s autobigraphy, “Mein Kampf”?
BLACKLISTED DICTATOR on April 24th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I have a friend, like Jared who would consider himself against religious structure and beliefs. But what many dont seem to udnerstand is that Jarred, like my friend, is still a Jew. Jews dont need to be baptized, naturalized or converted to be Jewish (althought non-Jews can convert).
Jarred’s argument is circular in that he criticizes the social or movie going packaged Jew. I guess, the definition of being Jewish is unique and gets lost in translation. It is not just a religion, or just a culture or just a nation. One could call it a way of life. Some people emphasize certain parts of the identity over other parts, but nevertheless, all aspects of the identity are inextricably linked.
I have, for once, chuckled a bit through a Cinman blog. But in the final instance, I have to agree with Chris, highly intelligent, maybe, but with a lingering small mindedness.
Oy Vey. In all the various writings on Jews and religion that flood the web daily, this has to rank in the lowest possible category through head-slapping obliviousness and pure ignorance. If bringing blogging into disrepute was an olympic sport, Jarred would be heading to Beijing.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Jarred Cinman is software director at Cambrient, South Africa's leading developer of web applications. He co-founded Johannesburg's first professional web development company and was one of the founders of VWV Interactive, for many years the premier creative web business in the country, winning numerous Loeries and various international awards. In 2001, Jarred co-founded Cambrient, which has, in its six-year history, built the leading local content management system and serviced an impressive list of corporate customers. Cambrient Contentsuite is also the engine behind Moneyweb.
Media freedom is one of those topics that its easy to raise a consensus around. For those of us that remember that bad days of apartheid, the conseque...
Whatever the truth of the backward and forward between Judge Richard Goldstone and the Sandton Shul is, the heated words that have made it into the pr...
This week saw the news that the UK government is considering shutting off NHS benefits for homeopathic treatment. Their argument is simple: there is n...
In a world buckling under economic recession, in a country of violence and crime and poverty, how can anyone find the time to care about the treatment...
Loading ...
Phathetic!!
(Report abuse)