All Comments (32)

jargonistic thermotically allwork monazite pyrrodiazole porcelainlike strabometry hairif
Internet Map Wizard
http://www.topix.com/city/durham-ny

The above note seems to be mainstream thought now, which is sad.

Well, Cal Thomas is ridiculous.

As an American I don't care anymore about Israel then I do about any other country and see no reason to be obligated to support Israeli actions or aspirations....countries can all survive and thrive, or not, according to their own actions.

But as an American I heartily object to my country supporting and my tax money going to help maintain what I and the majority of the world regards as an illegal occupation and slow motion genocide of a group of people. To me that is not an American value or anything America should be supporting.

As for anti-semitism?..stick that worn out slur where the sun don't shine...part of being American is calling a spade a spade....and the slurers are going to have to have something besides slurs to keep me from from calling out what I see as wrong in our own uneven support of Israel and in Israel's actions and intentions in Palestine.

Call employs circular reasoning. He says the motivation of the speaker counts, and then defines motivation by content. Criticizing Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands is defined as anti-semitic, so anyone doing so is per se anti-semitic. "But if critics believe Israel is an illegitimate occupier of someone else’s land, then that criticism is anything but constructive and is often based in a hatred of Jews." Cal assumes the conclusion, and then argues back to his conclusion. This is typical conservative "logic."

Sorry, Cal, but questioning even the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state is not anti-semitic. I have every right to ask who consulted the Palestinians when Britain partitioned Palestine. I have every right to ask why we should recognize a state founded on terror and ethnic cleansing. I have every right to question the validity of a state founded on the superior racial right of one group over all others. Cal, if you don't like it, too bad. I'm and American, and I don't answer to you, Israel, or anyone else for my opinions.

Jihadist

Now I understand. I had forgotten some of your earlier posts where you mentioned being from south Asia, and now it makes sense. My ancestors are Jews from eastern Europe, so I have, or more correctly, HAD an emotional attachment to Israel. The cluster bombs in Lebanon recently were the last straw for me.

Israel perpetrates Apartheid, as well as U.S. Citizens with dual loyalties. I speak now of those known as neo-cons and their neo-liberal precursors. Those who profess to have a great love of God, as Jewish people do, must walk the walk as well as they talk the talk. Much is expected of them, and corrections are horrible.

BA'AL,

You - Jihadist, your first sentence is interesting. Why did you "never think you would say" that a Jew might have a good reason to want to have a state of their own?

Me - I had never realised the extent of the treatment of Jews in Europe and the Shoah until recently. It surprised me that it was also part of formal Catholic Church policy before, hence the Inquisition and churches collaborating with Nazis.

Actually, this is the first time I am saying it out. Jews, having been through what they have, including being restricted in the Pale of Russia etc. have valid reasons to be nervous. There may be another country, another people who may persecute Jews, so there is always Israel, the refuge. An Israeli I met at an airport lounge told me after living in Israel for some nine years, he decided to move back to the States. He said that the US is the real Promised Land. What do you think Ba'al?

You - As for the other part of your comment, I feel perfectly justified in commenting on Israel's external and internal policies. First, it is the topic of this forum (!!!) and second a bunch of yours and my tax dollars are going to support a state that is behaving in a way that could only be described as dissapointing. You are right that neither side is acting in their own best interests.

Me - Actually, my tax money is going to the Palestinians for infrastructure and social services while yours goes to Israel. Either way, our tax money has been going into the sands of Israel (you) and Palestine (me). Our tax money is in fact, subsidising both sides in their perpetual conflict with one another.

Your tax money makes it possible for Israel to blast Palestines schools, infrastructure, clinics.My tax money is used to rebuild them. Your tax money blast them again and the cycle continue.

What have we done? What are we doing? We are feeding them in this. No wonder both sides refused to yield, compromise, accomodate.

OH JESUS PLEEZE CAL WITH YOUR HOMOPHOBIC BACKGROUND PLEEZE DONT JUDGE OTHERS. YOU ARE PROOF CAL THAT NOT ALL CLOWNS WORK FOR THE CIRCUS!! GET A LIFE!!

Jihadist

The term anti-Semite is most commonly used to refer to people who hate Jews. Many people identify with Jews as an ethnic group, even if they are not religious. This includes nearly all of the many Israeli people that I know. Obviously, Arabs speak a closely related semitic language and have origins in the same part of the world, but for whatever reason the term is not used to describe them. I didn't invent the term or its usage. The president of Iran, who is neither Arab or Jew, denies the occurence of the holocaust. He is rabidly anti-Semitic. Truth is, he is largely anti-Arab as well (since the majority of Arabs are Sunni).

Jihadist, your first sentence is interesting. Why did you "never think you would say" that a Jew might have a good reason to want to have a state of their own?

As for the other part of your comment, I feel perfectly justified in commenting on Israel's external and internal policies. First, it is the topic of this forum (!!!) and second a bunch of yours and my tax dollars are going to support a state that is behaving in a way that could only be described as dissapointing. You are right that neither side is acting in their own best interests.

Ba'al

I never thought I'd say this, but if I had had the experience of Jews under Nazi Germany, I will make sure there is a country of last resort as insurance.

But as to how Israel was created, and how it now behaves internally, and with its neighbours, that is a whole discussion best left to Palestinians and Israelis. Both sides are not listening to anyone outside.

And Ba'al, I used to be confused when Arabs critisised Israel or Jews, allegations of anti-Semiticism is hurled at them. I had thought that both are Semitic races. Allegations of anti-Semiticism coming from a Caucasian looking fellow who said he is a Jew confuses me more. Not to mention someone saying he is half Jewish as I have never heard of anyone saying he is half Hindu or half Buddhist:)

Some of my relatives died at Auschwitz. But in my opinion, Israel must be a completely secular state to be legitimate. If that nation's claims to territory are based on 2,600 year old scriptures of dubious authorship, how can anyone take that seriously? Especially since the territorial claim in the most extreme form adopted by certain far-right Israeli politicians and rabbis would include parts of Lebanon (i.e. lands said to have been occupied by the most northern tribes of Israel). My position is not anti-Semitism. It is an endorsement of sanity. Of course, as an atheist, I could hardly be described as a good Jew, but that has nothing to do with my criticism of the Israeli government.

Israel, like any other country, can elect incompetent and even evil rulers. When these governments follow policies that are unproductive for everybody concerned -- including themselves -- it is legitimate for anyone to criticize and it is not anti-Semitic. (Of course some who criticize, like the current President of Iran, are anti-Semitic). I used to have a sentimental attachment to Israel, but I have lost it.

By analogy, I would hasten to add that apologists for the current morally bankrupt and dangerously incompetent American administration could be fairly described as working against our own nation's best interests. Of course, I am referring to people like Cal Thomas.

on the Mike K / Greg thing

The innability to decipher another's motivations by no means makes them an arbitrary factor.

Really, the reason that critizism of Israel is regarded as anti-Jew is because it is a Jewish state.

The same goes for the majority of the middle east.

You know, I've had days where I've been called a "Jew lover" in one forum, for refuting the holocaust deniers, to being called an anti-semite (as Cal does here) for criticizing the Israeli state's occupation policies.

You really can't win...

Phaedrus: I think that the Black Hills should be returned to the Lakota - immediately, unconditionally and totally. I believe the same thing about all lands stolen by Israel in its 1967 preemptive war. I would hate to think I was unclear. Let me know

TO PHAEDRUS,

I don't know anything specifically about the Fort Laramie treaty. I don't live in the area. Sorry.

A group of people can maintain a national/ethnic/religious/social identity, even though they do not live on one piece of land. As Cal Thomas says, "For nearly 2,000 years before the modern state’s creation by the U.N. in 1948, Jews were still a nation, though they did not have a state." As a group, the Jews have done better than any other group I know of in maintaining that identity over many generations, which takes a feat of strong willpower. I admire them for that.

However, I don't admire the way they took over the area of Israel and how they have treated the poor local peoples who live with/near them. And I don't like the way Bush seems to be biased toward them now. They're not perfect, yet he seems to treat them like they can do no wrong.

Nobody is perfect all the time, even if overall they are good people. I know firsthand that good intentions don't create good actions.

As to whether the state of Israel is the rightful heir to the Hebrew nation, I remember reading a Jewish novel called "The Chosen" about 2 Jewish boys in the 1940's, one conservative and one liberal. The conservative boy's father refused to sanction the creation of the state of Israel as the prophesied homeland of the Jews. He believed that the conditions as described in prophesies had not been met, such as the condition of universal peace and conversion of all peoples to the idea of worshiping one god. I recommend the novel as a good one for anyone not Jewish to read if they want to read an entertaining book while getting some insight into Jewish life and beliefs. There's also a movie based on it.

As for Native Americans, I feel so sorry for how they were treated. I have one Native ancestor, and I know almost nothing about her because my father's family had no pride in their Native American heritage. I only found out when I researched his line.

All of us go back to groups of people who've been scattered, or who don't exist any more. The people who are labeled "Jewish" today are a mixture of different races/cultures/nationalities. I dislike the idea of forcibly evicting people from the land they live on just because someone else used to live there. That doesn't solve the problem.

Spot on Cal.

Most of the people in this forum probably fall into your anti-semitic crowd.

To J Rhinehart:

What should be done, if anything, about the US's breaking of the Fort Laramie treaty that ceded the rights to the Black Hills to the Lakota? Should the U.N also involve itself in this still very much alive dispute?

I am not trying to be disrespectful by the way. Your post brought this question to mind, and I am not sure what I think about it yet.

I don't like the people who put the same comment on all the websites here, but I'm going to put one here I just put on another. (Please forgive me people if you've read this already.)

If every descendant of every ethnic group that has ever been pushed off their land in the past were to demand the land be returned to them, where would we all be? I live on land that used to belong to Native Americans. Should I move? And where?

I think the UN should be in charge of Palestine/Judah/Israel. The area has too many people claiming it to be at peace. And every group has a legitimate claim based on prior historical occupation.

------------
"Education has to do with the maintenance of a community though the generations." --Walter Brueggmann

Why is Cal Thomas asked to write for this feature? He clearly has nothing of substance to offer on the subject.

Not that it was a very interesting question anyway.

Is this the best Newsweek can do?

Mike K says:

"The key to analyzing any criticism is an analysis of the mertis of the critique itself."

Greg replies:

"The motive of someone who is critical of something does play a part."

In thinking through this, it seems to me that:

Mike is correct "if" one can be certain that all relevant facts are known, this "relevancy" determined by the particular conclusion in question. For instance: Newton's laws of motion would have equal validity or lack thereof, independent of his motivations for espousing them.

Given the complexity of most social situations, one can never be certain that all relevant facts are known, and can be relied upon as "factual" at all. Thus, the importance of questioning the motives for given assertions etc. Of course, there are some who think that this "questioning of motives" is all that is imortant in taking a particular position. This seems especially common in an age of identity-politics, gender-based literature, etc etc.

And as for Cal, after havng read some of his other posts, I am inclined to REALLY question him as a truth-source.

I would argue that Cal Thomas made it as a professional writer because he was able to construct essays and editorials that (1) knew the correct use of "your" and "you're", and (2) were a little deeper than "your a boob, PT Barnum was right." Perhaps if CWS turned off the Jerry Springer show for a week and read a book, we could engage in a conversation not reserved just for 4th graders.

Thank Cal. I wondered what happened to "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." So they've gone to Israel. A little truth will go a long way, I always say.

You're not pulling for rapture are you? The Jews have come home. There's wars and rumors of wars. All that's missing is the great anti Christ.

Greg, I'm not suggesting that all criticism is equally valid, only that all criticisms should be judged by the same standards. They should be judged strictly and only on the merits (or lack thereof) of the argument or criticism.

To consider the motivation of the critic is to commit an ad hominem logical fallacy.

Mike,

So you would consider criticism from someone out to do you harm as valid as someone who has nothing to gain? That makes no sense at all. Why is all criticism equally valid, or am I misreading your post? You have to consider the motivation behind a critic, because it colors their thinking.

Cal, your a boob. How you have made it as a professional writer is beyond me.

PT Barnum was right.

This topic is unbelievably stupid and shallow. The answer to both questions is YES, and any intelligent person would know that in ten seconds. There won't be many posts because there's nothing to be said on this topic.

Greg, you asked: "If Japan is critical of the US and Iran is critical of the US, whose comments garner more suspicion? Japan or Iran?"

I would scrutinize each of their criticisms equally. By considering perceived motivation, I would allow my potentially incorrect assumption to muddy the waters of the argument.

I would have to disagree with you on that Mike. The motive of someone who is critical of something does play a part. If someone wants to do you harm and it's common knowledge that they want to harm you, then any criticism from that person logically falls under suspicion, since they have an ulterior motive. Same goes for any nation. If Japan is critical of the US and Iran is critical of the US, whose comments garner more suspicion? Japan or Iran?

"The key to analyzing criticism of Israel is the motivation of the critic."

I completely disagre with that statement. The key to analyzing any criticism is an analysis of the mertis of the critique itself. Any criticism or position should be judged only on its own merits. The motivation of the critic is unimportant compared to how logical, reasonable and well-constructed the criticism is.

I have to agree with the poster above. In one paragraph Thomas says: "if critics believe Israel is an illegitimate occupier of someone else’s land, then that criticism is anything but constructive and is often based in a hatred of Jews.", then in the next he says: "Some Jews do not regard modern Israel as descended from the unique theocracy God established in the Hebrew Scriptures." Since part of the Zionist justification for the establishment of Israel is precisely that theocracy established in Hebrew Scriptures, wouldn't it follow that a modern Israel that was not established on that basis is indeed an illegitimate occupier of someone else’s land? (Don't forget, the beginning of Zionist agitation predates the Hitler and the Holocaust by some 50 to 75 years.) It's OK for "some Jews" to say this, but non-Jews are anti-Semites if they do?

Wow Cal,

You,just..said......nothing.

Do you actually get paid to write this filler?

Congrats!