Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique · May 18, 2010

Flying Dutchman wrote:Yes, I consider NK anti-semitic. Notice they are not considered part of the jewish community anymore, mainly because of this.

I thought it would be easy enough to verify this 'fact' - that Neturei Karta, anti-Zionist Jews, are 'not considered part of the jewish community anymore' - because they are anti-Semites.

However, my Googling skills must be waning.

I'm sure there is some basis to this claim.. FD, can you give me a clue where I can find this evidence. What are these guys now? I presume you agree they consider themselves Jews - but which Rabbis have said they are no longer Jews?

(Perhaps it is somewhere on the wiki page - but I couldn't immediately find the reference -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta

On their own web sites - they are pretty clear that they are Jews:
eg http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/ju ... ionism.cfm

But given they have members in Jerusalem - are they considered non-Jews by the Israeli state? Really?

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · May 18, 2010

shafique wrote:I thought it would be easy enough to verify this 'fact' - that Neturei Karta, anti-Zionist Jews, are 'not considered part of the jewish community anymore' - because they are anti-Semites.

Word games from Shafique again. Neturei Karta, the holocaust deniers, are 'not considered part of the jewish community anymore' . Implying that they are not considered part of the Jewish community anymore because of their anti-Zionism is false.

shafique wrote:However, my Googling skills must be waning.

LOL

shafique wrote:I'm sure there is some basis to this claim.. FD, can you give me a clue where I can find this evidence.

Cherem

shafique wrote:Perhaps it is somewhere on the wiki page - but I couldn't immediately find the reference -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta

Yes, it is.

shafique · May 18, 2010

Ok - I'm always up for a challenge.

Let me go into Sherlock Holmes mode and see whether I can decrypt the post above. If anyone else can help me on my quest to discover who says these Orthodox Jews are no longer Jews, I'd appreciate the help.

Edit - I didn't know that NK denied the holocaust.. :shock:

, so I've learnt something else today.. but if I am decrypting FD correctly, those that deny the holocaust are expelled from the Jewish community? (But what religion do they follow.. isn't it still Judaism??)

First stop wiki..

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · May 18, 2010

shafique wrote:Let me go into Sherlock Holmes mode and see whether I can decrypt the post above. If anyone else can help me on my quest to discover who says these Orthodox Jews are no longer Jews, I'd appreciate the help.

Now now, donot change my words, I said they are not considered part of the jewish community anymore (thats what cherem means: the strongest form of ex-communicating).

So, you would have to check whether they are cheremed! Which they are.

shafique · May 18, 2010

Ok, so wiki gives me this tit-bit of information concerning NK and the Holocaust:

In December 2006, members of Neturei Karta, including Yisroel Dovid Weiss, attended the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, a controversial conference being held in Tehran, Iran that attracted a number of high-profile Holocaust-deniers.[32]

Weiss's speech, as presented in the audio recording of the conference, contained the following statement about the Holocaust:

Now maybe I can say that at the discussion of the holocaust, I may be the representative, the voice of the people who died in the holocaust because my grandparents died there. They were killed in Auschwitz. My parents were from Hungary. My father escaped and his parents remained. He wasn’t able to get them out of Hungary and they died in Auschwitz as were other relatives and all the communities that they knew. So to say that they didn’t die, to me you can not say that. I am the living remnant of the people who died in the holocaust and I am here, I believe sent by God, to humbly say, simply to speak to the people here and say, 'you should know that the Jewish people died, and do not try to say that it did not happen. They did die.' There are people throughout the Jewish communities, still alive in their seventies and eighties and every one of them will tell you their stories. [color=#000080]It is something which you cannot refute, but that being said, it doesn’t mean that the holocaust is a tool to use to oppress other people." [/color]

FD - that doesn't read to me like a denial of the Holocaust - 'something you cannot refute'.

He's just saying you shouldn't use it to oppress other people.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · May 18, 2010

[quote="Flying Dutchman''] Now now, donot change my words, I said they are not considered part of the jewish community anymore (thats what cherem means: the strongest form of ex-communicating).

So, you would have to check whether they are cheremed! Which they are. [/quote]

Ok, thanks - this helps.

Let me look up who has Cheremed them and what that means for those who have been Cheremed. (New word for me).

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · May 18, 2010

Ok, that wasn't too painful.

The NK participants who went to the Iranian conference on the Holocaust were indeed subject to a Cherem. They are still Jews, but not allowed to mix with other Jews, attend synagogue etc.

A Ynet article of the time details the outrage the participation caused and why the Cherem was issued by Israel's chief Rabbi.

The same article gives the explanation of one of those affected:

Israel Hirsch, a member of Neturei Karta living in the Meah Shaarim neighborhood of Jerusalem, who attended the conference explained, "The haredim who attended the conference for investigating the Holocaust in Iran share a common platform with Ahmadinejad when it comes to the so-called myth the Zionist movement created around the Holocaust.

"They wanted to make it clear in Tehran that Zionism uses the Holocaust as an excuse for the existence of the Zionist state in the Land of Israel," he said.

Hirsch continued, "Because the UN agreed to establish a state because of the Holocaust, the Iranians are claiming something very logical. They aren't saying that there wasn't a Holocaust, but who perpetrated the Holocaust? The Nazis, the Germans. So they should at least pay compensation to the Jewish nation and establish a Jewish state within Germany and not within the land of Israel, which belongs to the Palestinians."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 82,00.html

'myth' refers to something the 'Zionist movement' created around the Holocaust. Not the Holocaust itself.

But hey, at least I know that the ones who went to Tehran have been chastised for going there and speaking their minds.

But are they really anti-Semites for holding the view quoted above? Seems a bit harsh to label these Jews anti-semites FD? Did the Rabbis issuing the Cherem use the term 'anti-Semite'?

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · May 18, 2010

shafique wrote:FD - that doesn't read to me like a denial of the Holocaust - 'something you cannot refute'.

They have a Berrin variant of Holocaust denial.

This is how they advertise with posters in ther neighborhood:

"It is known to everyone that the hand of the Zionists was in the murder of millions of Jews in the days of holocaust and rage, both by provoking the fury of the despotic Germans, and by interfering with all manner of rescues."

Or as Yisrael Hirsch of Neturei Karta puts it:

"The Holocaust happened because of the Zionists. They wanted it."

shafique · May 18, 2010

But what Weiss said at the conference is quite clear (and moving):

Now maybe I can say that at the discussion of the holocaust, I may be the representative, the voice of the people who died in the holocaust because my grandparents died there. They were killed in Auschwitz. My parents were from Hungary. My father escaped and his parents remained. He wasn’t able to get them out of Hungary and they died in Auschwitz as were other relatives and all the communities that they knew. So to say that they didn’t die, to me you can not say that. I am the living remnant of the people who died in the holocaust and I am here, I believe sent by God, to humbly say, simply to speak to the people here and say, 'you should know that the Jewish people died, and do not try to say that it did not happen. They did die.' There are people throughout the Jewish communities, still alive in their seventies and eighties and every one of them will tell you their stories.

It is something which you cannot refute, but that being said, it doesn’t mean that the holocaust is a tool to use to oppress other people.

He's stating that the Holocaust did happen (his grandparents died there).

He even seems to be appealing to the deniers in the audience:

'you should know that the Jewish people died, and do not try to say that it did not happen. They did die.'

Based on what he said, I would not call this guy a Holocaust denier. If you believed Weiss was sincere in what he wrote above, would he still be a Holocaust denier in your eyes? Would he still be an anti-semite?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · May 18, 2010

Ok, I found the quote where Hirsh said Zionism caused the Holocaust. He says this is also something Satmar Rebbe said.

Actually, let me quote him:

Yisrael Hirsch of Neturei Karta and a resident of the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Mea Shearim in Jerusalem told Ynet that "the Zionists cynically abuse the Holocaust for their own purposes."

'Zionism caused the Holocaust'
He said that, "According to Jewish tradition, and this was also stated by the Satmar Rebbe, it is Zionism that caused the Holocaust.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 27,00.html

This intrigued me - first I went and found out who/what Satmar Rebbe was (turns out he was a Rabbi who was also anti-Zionist).

So, what's behind the 'Zionism caused the Holocaust' comment.

Well, it's actually along the lines that the calamity took place amongst the more secular communities of Jews (and leaving the communities in Palestine etc largely unscathed) - therefore it was God's punishment meted out on the Jews who'd embraced Zionism (with Zionism being a political/racial movement rather than one based on religion).

Kooky - but it's a reflection of the fact these guys believe God is behind the big events. I guess, therefore, no different from the Priests and Imams who say the Icelandic volcano was God's way of punishing decadent Europeans.

Now - no one would call the Priests as 'Volcano deniers', therefore this belief that the Holocaust was God's punishment on Zionists can't really be called 'Holocaust denial' - or am I missing something? I know it is distasteful to attribute the killings carried out by Nazis as a punishment from God, but if that is what someone believes, do we have the right to say they are wrong (and how could we prove it either way?)

Anyway - I don't think there's a 'right' answer here - each has to make up their minds whether we agree with their viewpoints and whether we would call this view point 'Holocaust Denial' or 'Holocaust as God's punishment'.

I found this explanation of the concept quite useful in understanding the argument 'Holocaust was caused by Zionism' - (note he's actually arguing against the concept, and says that 'common sense' tells you the argument is wrong.. he seems to be in favour of Zionism):

Zionism Caused the Holocaust – And I can Prove It!

Settle down. Settle down.

It’s been a long held belief in certain wackier Haredi circles, among Satmar and of course our pals in the Neturei Karta that the Holocaust was a Divine Punishment for Zionism. Books, so holy that they create an instant interdimensional vortex into the pit of hell, have been written on this topic. But let me just offer the ultimate proof that will summarize everything and establish once and for all that the Holocaust was a punishment for Zionism.

Ready? Good.

The Holocaust wiped out millions of Jews across Europe that didn’t move to Israel but didn’t harm any Jews living in Israel. Clearly the Holocaust was a punishment against Zionism.
In fact God hated Zionism so very much, that he wiped out the Jewish communities of Europe while leaving the Jewish communities of Israel intact. Then in war after war he saved Israel from complete destruction through unsubtle miracles.

Clearly the one thing we’ve established with complete certainty is that God hates Zionism.

Now the usual Anti-Zionist argument is that Germany was the homeland of secularization and Zionism which is why the Holocaust emerged from there. There’s only one problem with that argument, history.
Nazism might have come from Germany but it had its worst impacts in Holland and Poland. The highest death rates for Jews weren’t in Germany, where many of the secular and Zionist Jews saw what was coming and got out. No they were highest in Eastern Europe and in Holland. What’s the religious pattern there? You got it, there isn’t one. Except that the advance of Germany toward the East combined with Russia’s advance toward the West trapped the most religious Jewish communities between the hammer and the anvil.

While Hitler managed to overrun Europe and Eastern Europe and even parts of Russia, Hitler’s forces never managed to reach Israel, where the Zionists were. While the Anti-Zionists might want to claim that this was to protect the sanctity of Eretz Yisroel, this protection hadn’t prevented the Romans, the Arabs and the Crusaders from overrunning the place multiple times.

Then by the time Hitler and Stalin were done, Europe was all but uninhabitable for Jews. The only real choices were America or Israel. Thanks to assimilation and intermarriage, American Jews are busy wiping themselves out and today Israel holds the largest Jewish community in the world. Sure it’s one that Iran could wipe out with a Nuke, but after 9/11, you could say the same thing about New York City.

So what are we back to? Right, I hate to second ole Hagee here, but if the Holocaust had any divine message, it was “Move your @sses to the Holy Land.” Of course not being an feather like ole Hagee or certain Gedolim whose books can transport you interdimensionally to hell, I’m not going to be presumptuous enough to claim that’s what the Holocaust was about.

But if you actually have a working brain, you can see that the events of the Holocaust very blatantly spared Israel while wiping out all the Heilige Velts Vun Toiyre across Eastern Europe and Russia.

Satmar is named after Satu Mare, a town in Romania that is all but empty of Jews while Satmar themselves live in America and Israel. Israel is named after the Zionist Medine founded by the Zionists and run by the Zionists. And the Zionists, dey is living in Israel, yo, nein? It’s not too hard to figure out which group is more relevant these days and which one is trying to dress like 18th century Eastern European peasants while living in Brooklyn and claiming that this somehow affirms their views.

Nobody on this plane of existence can answer the question of why the Holocaust happened, religiously speaking. But the arrogance and presumptuousness of people whose entire communities were destroyed by the Holocaust, precisely because they didn’t move to Israel, claiming that this proves them right, while proving the people who did move to Israel wrong is Twilight Zone level crazy.

Now I’m sure that sooner or later one of them will stop by here and post something about the atonement of the righteous or the Torah communities being punished because they failed to prevent Zionism or protest against it loudly enough, and I’ll laugh in their faces and tell them that they’re using convoluted reasoning to try and defend a ridiculous belief that is contrary to what actually happened.

I’ll also ask them how in 1948 a country with no real army managed to beat the armies of the biggest Arab nations while in 1943 the Jews of Europe were hunted animals running from every leaf. For people who love to reel off the recitation of curses we just finished reading in Parshas Behukotai, they might want to study some of the blessings.

A handful chasing enemy armies? Done.
Vast harvests and yields of fruit and grain? Done.
A great increase in population and childbirth? Done.

I’m not an RTG man myself, but the evidence on hand shows a much more credible argument for Reishis Tzmichat Geulateinu than it does for “Zionism caused the Holocaust.” Because it didn’t and common sense alone can prove it.

After the Holocaust the descendants of the very same people cursing Zionists and Zionism had to take refuge in the land of the Zionist medina because their own lands and homes where they were so eager to live in service to the gentile were gone. Today they live in Israel and curse the Zionist instead.

http://samuraimohel.wordpress.com/2008/ ... -prove-it/

Food for thought.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · May 18, 2010

Ok, the subject is proving more interesting than I imagine.

The 'Zionists caused the Holocaust' topic is given from the 'pro' lobby here and they summarise their views as:

Zionist responsibility for the Holocaust is threefold.

1. The Holocaust was a punishment for disrespecting The Three Oaths (see Talmud, Tractate Kesubos p. 111a).
2. Zionist leaders openly withheld support, both financially and otherwise, to save their fellow brothers and sisters from a cruel death.
3. The leaders of the Zionist movement cooperated with Hitler and his cohorts on many occasions and in many ways.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antis ... ermann.cfm

I'll be honest, the third reason (and they give examples) was an eye-opener and along with reason number 2 certainly strikes me as 'tin hat brigade' conspiracy theory territory.

That said, worth reading to get their take on the issue.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · May 18, 2010

Dude really, why are you so obsessed with my opinions?

I donot like to go into circular discussions and have stated my clear opinion several times. But I will repeat.

Yes, I still consider NK anti-semitic. I also notice Weiss likes to play with numbers. You must like that.
Since they consider the holocaust as something caused by Zionists (like Berrin) and also teach that in their children books (that blood of jewish children is sacrified by Zionists during WW II by causing the holocaust and placing jewish children in the trains), I consider them still holocaust deniers. Also their other remarks during the conference:

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3226600,00.html

When asked to refer to the Iranian denial of the holocaust, the rabbis replied that they are not bothered by it, to say the least.

Rabbi Aharon Cohen said during a press conference in Iran, arranged by the Neturei Karta delegation, that the ‘Zionists are involved in almost every crime around the globe but unfortunately claim that they represent the Jewish people.’

shafique · May 18, 2010

Flying Dutchman wrote:Dude really, why are you so obsessed with my opinions?

I guess you are the one with opinions that I don't immediately understand and require clarifications of (I could have just made assumptions and called you names etc, but I'd rather find out what's behind words written and ensure I've not misunderstood it - just me, I guess).

Flying Dutchman wrote:I donot like to go into circular discussions and have stated my clear opinion several times. But I will repeat.

I appreciate you humouring me. I'm repeating questions only for clarity in this thread (yes I will use the technique to bait people who refuse to answer questions - but not when I'm looking for info, as I am here).

Flying Dutchman wrote:Yes, I still consider NK anti-semitic.

Thanks. I just wanted to confirm.

Flying Dutchman wrote: I also notice Weiss likes to play with numbers. You must like that.

? His grandparents died at Auschwitz - he doesn't deny the Holocaust. I haven't read anything yet (or quoted him) stating anything about numbers. Why are you always so quick to cast slurs and link what you assume are my views to others? You may wish to review whether I'm the one with a personality issue/obsession.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Since they consider the holocaust as something caused by Zionists (like Berrin) and also teach that in their children books (that blood of jewish children is sacrified by Zionists during WW II by causing the holocaust and placing jewish children in the trains), I consider them still holocaust deniers.

Fascinating.

So Jews who state categorically that the Holocaust did take place, and whose relatives died in the Holocaust - are labelled 'Holocaust Deniers' IF they blame what the Nazis did on actions of Zionists.

Ok - you're entitled to define the label 'Holocaust Denier' in this way I guess - but it does seem a bit weird.

It's a bit like me defining extremist Wahabists as Islamophobes for agreeing with event horizon's interpretation of some Quranic verses and disagreeing with the majority of Muslim scholars. (But that's an aside)

Flying Dutchman wrote:Also their other remarks during the conference:
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3226600,00.html

When asked to refer to the Iranian denial of the holocaust, the rabbis replied that they are not bothered by it, to say the least.

Rabbi Aharon Cohen said during a press conference in Iran, arranged by the Neturei Karta delegation, that the ‘Zionists are involved in almost every crime around the globe but unfortunately claim that they represent the Jewish people.’

So, the crime is to listen to other people's point of view and to have a pathological hatred of Zionists (people they view as not being religious enough?)

And for these crimes you label them 'anti-Semitic'?

Ok - you've clarified your point of view. Thanks.

For my part, I would not consider myself as a Holocaust denier or an Anti-Semite - but that is because I don't deny the Holocaust took place and don't hate Jews, but I understand that you have different definitions of 'Holocaust denial' and 'anti-Semite' which are designed to include people with my views of Israel's tactics in Palestine.

Thanks again for sharing - it has been enlightening.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · May 18, 2010

FD - sorry one question I forgot to follow up on.

I couldn't see any reference to Rabbis etc calling NK 'anti-Semites' - do you have a reference where this was done. I'm sure there must be ardent zionists who do call them that, but did the Rabbis that expelled those who went to Tehran label these guys (or others in NK) as anti-Semites?

(I'd like to look up the reasons they give for giving them this label)

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · May 18, 2010

shafique wrote: I'm repeating questions only for clarity in this thread (yes I will use the technique to bait people who refuse to answer questions

LOL.

shafique wrote:For my part, I would not consider myself as a Holocaust denier or an Anti-Semite - but that is because I don't deny the Holocaust took place and don't hate Jews, but I understand that you have different definitions of 'Holocaust denial' and 'anti-Semite' which are designed to include people with my views of Israel's tactics in Palestine.

You donot consider a nazi salute anti-semitic, donot consider holocaust denial anti-semitc and donot consider the Elders of Zion anti-semitic.

I have stated close to a dozen times what I consider anti-semitic, still you insist it to be something different: your statement is wrong. Pathetic tactics really. But hey nothing else can be expected from someone siding with people giving nazi saltues, deny the holocaust etc etc.

Since you have a problem understanding and are obsessed with me I will repeat again the th time what I consider signs of anti-semitism:

-Out of all proportion singling out Israel especially compared to any other party in the Middle East.
-Comparing Israel to the Nazi's
-Exaggerating the influence of the Jewish state on world affairs, like controlling the media and the financial markets
-Denying, minimizing, or trivializing the Holocaust.

Three strikes and you are out!

-- Tue May 18, 2010 9:27 pm --

shafique wrote:I couldn't see any reference to Rabbis etc calling NK 'anti-Semites' - do you have a reference where this was done.

Didn't look it up. It is solely my own personal opinion. Based on their holocaust denial.

shafique · May 18, 2010

Flying Dutchman wrote:You donot consider a nazi salute anti-semitic, donot consider holocaust denial anti-semitc and donot consider the Elders of Zion anti-semitic.

You keep trying to bait me. I didn't agree with you about Hezbollah, I don't consider what you label 'Holocaust Denial' to be anti-semitic and I'm still amused that you're trying to spin what I wrote about the Protocols (I wonder what you would spin I if I had said I thought it was true!)

Anyway, Did I pass your test - and not get angry?

I didn't ask you any question in my second to last post - it was quite long.

The question I asked in my last post was whether you have any reference to Rabbis etc calling NK anti-Semitic. I understand your view and your 'new and improved' definition for Anti-Semitism - I just wanted to read whether NK had similarly been branded anti-Semites by Rabbis and whether for the same reasons.

I'm with you that these guys are Judaic equivalent of extremists Wahabis who think the Saudi Gov is too lax, but hey - I was just asking for a reference for others calling them anti-Semite.

If you haven't got a reference - no sweat, just take a chill-pill and say so. (I'm not going to blame you for not having one)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · May 18, 2010

Ok, I've seen you edit saying you don't have any references for other Rabbis calling them anti-Semite.

Thanks for that clarification - I'll try and see if I can dig out others who give their reasons for calling them anti-Semites as you do (and I'll check if they do it for the same reasons).

I'm just fascinated that Ultra-religious Jews will be called anti-Semite.

Thanks for your answers. No more questions for now.

Flying Dutchman · May 19, 2010

shafique wrote:
Flying Dutchman wrote:You donot consider a nazi salute anti-semitic, donot consider holocaust denial anti-semitc and donot consider the Elders of Zion anti-semitic.

You keep trying to bait me. I didn't agree with you about Hezbollah, I don't consider what you label 'Holocaust Denial' to be anti-semitic and I'm still amused that you're trying to spin what I wrote about the Protocols (I wonder what you would spin I if I had said I thought it was true!)

-In another thread you didnot consider the nazi salute of Hezbollah anti-semitic. So thats a check.

-My definition of holocasut denial also includes saying that the holocasut was caused by jews/zionists. You donot find that anti-semitic. Check.

-About the Elders of ZIon, you never disputed that you donot consider it anti-semitic, altough you had plenty of opportunities.

shafique · May 19, 2010

Ok, let's clear this up.

No 3.

Protocols is clearly beloved of anti-Semites and an anti-semitic piece of work (duh!?) - and I've always maintained that I don't agree with the conspiracy theorists that say it is a genuine document.

No. 1
Hezbollah isn't anti-Semitic because they don't hate Judaism, just fight against Israeli agression (and have won their military engagements/objectives in previous encounters). Ergo, photos of their salute show that those who give the salute aren't necessarily anti-Semitic - your theory has therefore been disproven by empirical evidence.

No 2.
Saying that the Holocaust occured, was carried out by the Nazis but was contributed to by secular Nazis is an interesting point of view, but no I don't agree with you that this is tantamount to 'denial' of the Holocaust.

At the end of the day, you have re-defined 'Holocaust Denial' and 'anti-Semitism' to include people who criticise Israel (the state) or Zionism (the secular philosophy) but don't deny that the Holocaust happened when Nazis killed Jews and they DON'T hate Jews, but hate Zionism.

Ergo - what you label 'anti-Semitism' I'd label anti-Zionism (and reserve anti-Semite for those who share Hitler's view of the Jews).

Now that we've established you have different definitions, we can now be clearer what you mean when you throw labels around. It shows we shouldn't assume you have the same definitions as the rest of us.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · May 19, 2010

shafique wrote: Protocols is clearly beloved of anti-Semites and an anti-semitic piece of work (duh!?) - and I've always maintained that I don't agree with the conspiracy theorists that say it is a genuine document.

Thanks for clarifying, I wonder then how people or organizations portraying the Elders of Zion as historical truth arenot anti-semitic.

A quote from the convenant of Hamas for exmplae:

Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

shafique wrote:No. 1
Hezbollah isn't anti-Semitic because they don't hate Judaism, just fight against Israeli agression (and have won their military engagements/objectives in previous encounters). Ergo, photos of their salute show that those who give the salute aren't necessarily anti-Semitic - your theory has therefore been disproven by empirical evidence.

Yes, like I said, you donot consider a nazi salute anti-semitic.

shafique wrote:No 2.
Saying that the Holocaust occured, was carried out by the Nazis but was contributed to by secular Nazis is an interesting point of view, but no I don't agree with you that this is tantamount to 'denial' of the Holocaust.

I am sorry, no idea what you are saying here.

shafique wrote:At the end of the day, you have re-defined 'Holocaust Denial' and 'anti-Semitism' to include people who criticise Israel (the state) or Zionism (the secular philosophy) but don't deny that the Holocaust happened when Nazis killed Jews and they DON'T hate Jews, but hate Zionism.

No, I donot include who critize Israel and Zionism as holocaust deniers.

shafique · May 19, 2010

Flying Dutchman wrote:
shafique wrote: Protocols is clearly beloved of anti-Semites and an anti-semitic piece of work (duh!?) - and I've always maintained that I don't agree with the conspiracy theorists that say it is a genuine document.

Thanks for clarifying,

You're welcome.

Flying Dutchman wrote:A quote from the convenant of Hamas for exmplae:

Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

Well, they'll have to back up their views with concrete examples of what particular actions match what is written in the fictional Protocols.

I don't think it works both ways - when Israel carries out crimes/actions that bear some resemblance to what is in the Protocols, it does not make the actions 'fictional' because it is predicted in the Protocols. I'd also ask who the 'they' is in this quote - if it is 'Zionists', then the label 'anti-Zionist' applies definitely.

Flying Dutchman wrote:[
shafique wrote:No. 1
Hezbollah isn't anti-Semitic because they don't hate Judaism, just fight against Israeli agression (and have won their military engagements/objectives in previous encounters). Ergo, photos of their salute show that those who give the salute aren't necessarily anti-Semitic - your theory has therefore been disproven by empirical evidence.

Yes, like I said, you donot consider a nazi salute anti-semitic.

Well, when someone who is not anti-Semitic gives a roman salute - I say it refutes your argument that all who give the salute are anti-Semitic. You've expressed a belief that can be tested, I've tested it and I've rejected it based on the findings.

Simple principle - if a belief can be tested empirically, then we should test it. If experiment shows the belief is wrong - reject the belief.

I've no issue with people expressing their beliefs - and you have a cherished belief that Hezbollah is anti-Semitic, I have just checked out the evidence and reached a different conclusion.

Flying Dutchman wrote:[
shafique wrote:No 2.
Saying that the Holocaust occured, was carried out by the Nazis but was contributed to by secular Nazis is an interesting point of view, but no I don't agree with you that this is tantamount to 'denial' of the Holocaust.

I am sorry, no idea what you are saying here.

You called Weiss a 'Holocaust Denier' - yet he is a relgious Jew whose grandparents were killed in Auschwitz and who says clearly that the Nazis did indeed commit the Holocaust. Yet, just because he attributes some blame for the Nazi actions on Zionists - he now becomes magically transformed into a 'denier'.

I don't agree with this definition.

The natural conclusion is that I also don't agree that someone who has this belief is an anti-Semite - he doesn't deny that Jews were killed by Nazis and he's clearly a Jew himself. I don't therefore agree with you that he is an anti-Semite BECAUSE he thinks Zionists aided the Nazis. (He may well be a religous nutter, but I wouldn't call him a jew-hating jew)

Flying Dutchman wrote:[
shafique wrote:At the end of the day, you have re-defined 'Holocaust Denial' and 'anti-Semitism' to include people who criticise Israel (the state) or Zionism (the secular philosophy) but don't deny that the Holocaust happened when Nazis killed Jews and they DON'T hate Jews, but hate Zionism.

No, I donot include who critize Israel and Zionism as holocaust deniers.

[/quote]

You have made a very good impression of a person who does. In fact, your defintions seem to have been designed specifically to include those who criticise Israel and yet aren't anti-Judaism.

But, I'd rather not label you - I'll let your explanations of your beliefs stand for themselves.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · May 19, 2010

shafique wrote:Protocols is clearly beloved of anti-Semites and an anti-semitic piece of work (duh!?).

But when it used in fighting the jewish homeland it is not antisemitic anymore, but anti-Zionist.

shafique wrote: if it is 'Zionists', then the label 'anti-Zionist' applies definitely.

Thanks for clarifying!Enlighting.

shafique · May 19, 2010

You're quite welcome. Always good to hear how others think.

I disagree that fighting Israeli aggression is equivalent to being anti-Semitic - but I would agree that those who use the Protocols as an excuse to 'drive Jews into the sea' are indeed anti-Semitic. I just draw a distinction between those guys like Hamas and Hezbollah's - both of whose official explanations clarify that they are not anti-Semitic, just anti-illegal Israeli actions.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · May 19, 2010

Your quote below got me thinking.

Flying Dutchman wrote:
shafique wrote:Protocols is clearly beloved of anti-Semites and an anti-semitic piece of work (duh!?).

But when it used in fighting the jewish homeland it is not antisemitic anymore, but anti-Zionist.

I presume you mean 'Israel' when you said 'the jewish homeland' - that is what I understood it to mean.

If we apply it the other way round - if someone, say a Palestinian, says it is the 'jahood' or 'jew' who is killing us - can it be taken to mean 'Israeli'?

Would it therefore also not apply that opposing the 'jew' in this context means opposing the occupying force and not opposing the religion of Judaism? I.e. isn't that an argument for people being supporters of nationalists rather than anti-semites?

Just asking.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · May 19, 2010

Fascinating questions.

Get a soap box go to hide park and deliver the following speech:

We shall fight the jews to the end, we shall fight the jews on the seas and oceans, we shall fight the jews with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall fight the jews on the beaches, we shall fight the jews on the landing grounds, we shall fight the jews in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight the jews in the hills.

Let me know what happened.

shafique · May 19, 2010

Actually, there are guys who say that every Sunday at Speakers Corner, there even anti-Zionist jews there most weeks as well.

But, leaving that aside, are you avoiding the question:
If we apply it the other way round - if someone, say a Palestinian, says it is the 'jahood' or 'jew' who is killing us - can it be taken to mean 'Israeli'?

Would it therefore also not apply that opposing the 'jew' in this context means opposing the occupying force and not opposing the religion of Judaism? I.e. isn't that an argument for people being supporters of nationalists rather than anti-semites?

??

Flying Dutchman · May 19, 2010

shafique wrote:Actually, there are guys who say that:

"We shall fight the jews to the end, we shall fight the jews on the seas and oceans, we shall fight the jews with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall fight the jews on the beaches, we shall fight the jews on the landing grounds, we shall fight the jews in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight the jews in the hills."

shafique wrote:every Sunday at Speakers Corner

Really, I knew the UK was in trouble. But his I didnot expect.

shafique wrote: are you avoiding the question

You want my opinion again? Just say so.

My opinion is that saying "fighting jews" is not the same as "fighting Israeli's". You obviously don't.

shafique · May 19, 2010

Yes, I do want your answer - that is why I asked the question (and it was because you called 'Israel' by a different name).

Ok - so it is ok for you to use a euphemism for Israel, but others can't. Hmm.

(Note I didn't use the word 'fight' - but I note that you did. Do you really think when Muslims say the word Jew they are filled with hatred?? The example I gave was actually paraphrasing what the little girl said in the video Memri translated - the example was 'the jews are killing us' - and therefore asked if she (like you) could be referring to Israel.

But I guess, what is ok for you is not ok for Palestinians. I just wanted to check, rather than jump to conclusions.

Thanks again.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman · May 19, 2010

So according to you the word jew is an euphanism for the word israeli? You are clueless.

shafique · May 19, 2010

shafique wrote:Your quote below got me thinking.

Flying Dutchman wrote:
shafique wrote:Protocols is clearly beloved of anti-Semites and an anti-semitic piece of work (duh!?).

But when it used in fighting the jewish homeland it is not antisemitic anymore, but anti-Zionist.

I presume you mean 'Israel' when you said 'the jewish homeland' - that is what I understood it to mean.

If we apply it the other way round - if someone, say a Palestinian, says it is the 'jahood' or 'jew' who is killing us - can it be taken to mean 'Israeli'?

Would it therefore also not apply that opposing the 'jew' in this context means opposing the occupying force and not opposing the religion of Judaism? I.e. isn't that an argument for people being supporters of nationalists rather than anti-semites?

Just asking.

I apologise if the question I asked as a result of your words above caused you offence. As I stated above, I was thinking of the girl in the video who said 'the Jews are killing us' which Memri mistranslated as 'we will anhiliate the jews'.

If in this instance the girl was using the word 'jew' as you did in the quote - the context of what she said (the jews are killing us) would take on a new meaning.

You've made it clear that you don't concede this is the case - thanks for sharing your view. I do think that in some contexts 'jew' is used for 'Israeli' - it depends on the context though.

Cheers,
Shafique

Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Neturei Karta - Not Jews Any More?

Go To

Dubai Discussions

Dubai Expat Forums

Dubai Business

Dubai Tech Discussions

Dubai Classifieds