The Gaza War

[Edman85]

Words of wisdom from a former president I didn't vote for either time that rang through my head as people were rolling around in the mud here yesterday.

Quote

Perhaps most of all, it means we should choose not to always assume the worst in those with whom we disagree. In an age of constant rancor, trolling and misinformation on social media, at a time when so many politicians and attention seekers see an advantage in shedding heat rather than light, it may be unrealistic to expect respectful dialogue on any issue — much less on an issue with such high stakes and after so much blood has been spilled. But if we care about keeping open the possibility of peace, security and dignity for future generations of Israeli and Palestinian children — as well as for our own children — then it falls upon all of us to at least make the effort to model, in our own words and actions, the kind of world we want them to inherit.

 

[pfife]

11 minutes ago, Biff Mayhem said:

I equate it with "Germans are good at engineering". If saying a race of people is good at something, that's usually a compliment. Someone saying "Jews control the world because they're good with money" is a different rabbit trail.

I understand your distinction but I think there are a lot of people who do not agree with it.

Edited November 3, 2023 by pfife

[mtutiger]

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

I don't think all ethnicities have been targeted for pursuing money the way Jews have in the past, or still are.

I also don't think because someone says someone else is "all about the Benjamins" and the person is Jewish means that they're leveraging that trope - they could be saying that the group/person that happens to be Jewish is pursuing money which is inherent in most (I did say all before) ethnicities and is a fundamental part of the capitalist system in which we all live.

I actually agree with you here and gave her the benefit of the doubt at the time (and still do). And, correct me if I'm wrong, she at least clarified her statement so, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.

My only point is that it caused controversy because it is a real trope that has been used repeatedly throughout history to marginalize Jews - it's literally as established as fried chicken and watermelon is with AAs.

And yeah, if Marjorie Taylor Greene trotted that trope out, I question whether the same standard would be applied on either side of the political spectrum.

5 minutes ago, pfife said:

It's my contention that if one accuses her or anyone of antisemitism, the burden of proof is on the accuser to provide evidence and in this particular situation with this particular statement, IMO there's plenty of reasonable doubt.   This is no different of a standard than we apply to accusations in this forum, and have explicitly stated it several times.

I am not, and have not to date, accused Ilhan Omar of anything. So not sure what you're getting at here.

7 minutes ago, pfife said:

Maybe others do not want to apply the high legal-esque standard in this situation that I have here but to each their own.  They run the risk of falsely accusing someone of antisemitism.   The other side of the coin is that my standard could result in not recognizing antisemitism but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, metaphorically innocent until proven guilty per se.

Great.

[1776]

37 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I mean, the whole "Jews being good with money" thing is about the oldest antisemitic trope in the book, isn't it?

Without question, yes. 

[pfife]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I actually agree with you here and gave her the benefit of the doubt at the time (and still do). And, correct me if I'm wrong, she at least clarified her statement so, as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.

My only point is that it caused controversy because it is a real trope that has been used repeatedly throughout history to marginalize Jews - it's literally as established as fried chicken and watermelon is with AAs.

And yeah, if Marjorie Taylor Greene trotted that trope out, I question whether the same standard would be applied on either side of the political spectrum.

I am not, and have not to date, accused Ilhan Omar of anything. So not sure what you're getting at here.

Great.

I don't recall if Omar clarified now, and I'm not trying to relitigate it, just trying to use it as an example of my argument, similar to as you did with the Soros trope.  

I also wasn't accusing you of calling Omar antisemitic, my apologies for allowing that impression.   I was merely using the example to demonstrate my point.   

[Biff Mayhem]

9 minutes ago, pfife said:

I understand your distinction but I think there are a lot of people who do not agree with it.

I get it. Tone matters for sure to know the intent.

[oblong]

Remember the Reggie White speech?  This thread made me think about it. 

[mtutiger]

Yikes

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Netanyahu's map be displayed at the UN a month or so ago was and is ****ed up. The head of state for a country literally displayed a map that shows Palestine and Palestinians eradicated from it. We need a man like Yitzhak Rabin for a moment like this and instead we're dealing with the IsraelI version of Donald Trump.

[mtutiger]

4 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Netanyahu's map be displayed at the UN a month or so ago was and is ****ed up. The head of state for a country literally displayed a map that shows Palestine and Palestinians eradicated from it. We need a man like Yitzhak Rabin for a moment like this and instead we're dealing with the IsraelI version of Donald Trump.

"Whaddabout Benjamin Netanyahu?" is a pretty terrible defense of the use of the term.

[1776]

8 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Netanyahu's map be displayed at the UN a month or so ago was and is ****ed up. The head of state for a country literally displayed a map that shows Palestine and Palestinians eradicated from it. We need a man like Yitzhak Rabin for a moment like this and instead we're dealing with the IsraelI version of Donald Trump.

Rabin was assassinated 40 years ago today. 

[oblong]

1 hour ago, 1776 said:

Rabin was assassinated 40 years ago today. 

I thought it was mid 90s?  I’m not that old yet.  I distinctly remember getting a newspaper when it happened, might have been during the paper strike and my UAW mom cancelled it so I had to go get it.  The Arab party store guy and another guy there were jokingly asking “did you kill Rabin?”  That stuck with me. 

[1776]

You’’re correct. It was 1995. Thank you for calling that out.

November 4th, 1995.

[Tiger337]

On 11/3/2023 at 11:12 AM, Biff Mayhem said:

I equate it with "Germans are good at engineering". If saying a race of people is good at something, that's usually a compliment. Someone saying "Jews control the world because they're good with money" is a different rabbit trail.

Yeah, I don't think saying someone is good with money because they are Jewish is necessarily hatred.  More often than not, it is probably an ignorant compliment, but saying that they control the world because they are good with money is definitely different.  

[Tiger337]

On 11/3/2023 at 11:21 AM, Edman85 said:

Words of wisdom from a former president I didn't vote for either time that rang through my head as people were rolling around in the mud here yesterday.

 

I didn't know who said that before I read it, but it was pretty obvious right away.  I miss having an intelligent speaker as President.  

[oblong]

 

[mtutiger]

I think the idea of a new Rabin is great, but it's also an example of this being a two-way street. Israel's current government is an impediment to a solution, very few (if any) would argue that at this point.

But that does not negate the idea that current Palestinian leadership (ie. Hamas) is, to put it mildly, not interested in that outcome either. If anything, their entire worldview is opposed to that outcome.

So how exactly is that accomplished? Is a ceasefire supposed to accomplish that? 

It's easy to talk in platitudes, it's a lot harder to deal with reality as it exists.

Edited November 4, 2023 by mtutiger

[1776]

In Alan Dershowitz’s book, Defending Israel, he discusses the Rabin assassination and the time period around which it occurred.

Members of Yigal Amir’s family  personally went to Dershowitz residence a week after the assassination and asked him to represent Amir in his trial for killing Rabin. Dershowitz listened to the members of Amir’s family but decided against taking the case based on the defense the family wanted to pursue. 
Dershowitz was an acquaintance of Rabin and a mutual friend. 
Good book for anyone interested.

[chasfh]

21 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Yeah, I don't think saying someone is good with money because they are Jewish is necessarily hatred.  More often than not, it is probably an ignorant compliment, but saying that they control the world because they are good with money is definitely different.  

I don’t know that it’s even meant as a compliment, ignorant or not. Usually when someone gets called out for making some odious conclusion about an entire class of people like “Jews are good with money” or “black people have natural rhythm”, they’ll protest that it’s meant as a “compliment”. Yeah, right.

The idea that Jews have some built-in racial or genetic trait that nobody else has that naturally makes them good with money is too icky to seriously contemplate. I do think it’s fair to hypothesize that there might be a cultural or educational tendency that gets passed down and taught through generations of families, but when people with certain beliefs refer to Jews being “good with money”, that’s almost certainly not how they mean it.

[Dan Gilmore]

Hey, those space lasers don’t come cheap.

[Tiger337]

32 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don’t know that it’s even meant as a compliment, ignorant or not. Usually when someone gets called out for making some odious conclusion about an entire class of people like “Jews are good with money” or “black people have natural rhythm”, they’ll protest that it’s meant as a “compliment”. Yeah, right.

The idea that Jews have some built-in racial or genetic trait that nobody else has that naturally makes them good with money is too icky to seriously contemplate. I do think it’s fair to hypothesize that there might be a cultural or educational tendency that gets passed down and taught through generations of families, but when people with certain beliefs refer to Jews being “good with money”, that’s almost certainly not how they mean it.

Hateful people don't mean it as a compliment, but I don't think the world is filled with hateful people.  It's filled more with well meaning, but ignorant people.  

[oblong]

Is it a backhanded compliment? I don’t know. Like assuming Indians are doctors?

[1984Echoes]

It's a 2,000 year old antisemitic insult.

Seriously, you guys didn't know this?

I don't want to try to explain it, it just takes too long with too many examples/ variations/ etc...

But they've been known as "moneylenders" (Jesus hates them...), greedy, bankers that Kings were forced to borrow from and then kicked them out of the country so the kings could dismiss all their loans, accused of "controlling the world" through their purse strings.. etc.

This is NOT an innocent statement or insult.

 

It's a pointed antisemitic (anti-Jewish more specifically) trope that has beget expulsions/ pogroms/ hatred/ murder/ etc. 

I'll let the Guardian explain in more detail:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/09/jews-money-antisemitism-judas-shylock-capitalism

Here's King Edward's expulsion of Jews from England in 1290 (not primarily over money but took advantage of...):

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jews-in-england-1290/#:~:text=In 1287%2C in the duchy,community faced the same fate.

Following the Statute of Jewry c. 1275, the situation for England’s Jewish community declined further still. In 1287, in the duchy of Gascony (an area of modern-day France under English rule), King Edward ordered the local Jews to be expelled. All their property was seized by the crown and all outstanding debts owed to Jews were transferred to the king’s name. Shortly later, England’s Jewish community faced the same fate. By the time King Edward returned to England in 1289, he was deeply in debt. The next summer he summoned his knights to introduce a steep tax on his people. To make the tax more bearable Edward essentially offered to expel all Jews in exchange. The heavy tax was passed, and three days later, on 18th July 1290, writs (letters) were issued to the sheriffs of every county outlining that all Jews should leave England by All Saint’s Day (1st November 1290). Jews were allowed to take their possessions with them, but the vast majority had their houses forfeited to the king.  

 

 

Jews were forced into moneylending because they were not allowed to do anything else; and Christians were forbidden from usury (charging interest on moneylending):

https://daily.jstor.org/licoricia-jewish-medieval-women-moneylenders/

 

Constant confiscation of Jewish wealth, and dismissal of Jewish loans, in the Middle Ages:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/banking-and-bankers

[gehringer_2]

44 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Jews were forced into moneylending because they were not allowed to do anything else; and Christians were forbidden from usury (charging interest on moneylending):

 

yes - and the usury thing applied in the Muslim/Ottoman world as well. So there are a lot of historical anticedents to why Jews ended up in what are today considered 'professional' fields. Restrictions on property ownership, insecurity of citizenship, coupled to a generally higher level of education. The Torah demands that children be taught to read the scriptures. In the ignorance of both the Christian and Islamic midieval worlds that became a source of both success, and cultural resentment. In the Islamic Ottoman empire a good part of the civil service were always Christians and Jews.

[Biff Mayhem]

I see all that now. I guess I was naive.

Still, those Germans are precision engineers 😉