Insightful geopolitical analysis here:
“Of course, we say it’s our land, the Torah says it, but they (Palestinians & Arabs) don’t believe in the Torah. So that’s the reason there is not peace.” – Senator Chuck Schumer’s speech at AIPAC. pic.twitter.com/g2q38YGuwN
— Sacha Saeen (@_Saeen_) March 7, 2018
Sen. Chuck Schumer should join the ranks of U.S. senators who don’t represent their constituents, but rather the largest employer or lobby in their state. Henry Jackson, whose name is immortalized in that neocon bastion of pro-Israel hasbara, the Henry Jackson Society, was the “Senator from Boeing.” Schumer should henceforth be known as the “Senator from Aipac.” The only problem: there are so many other senators and Congress members who deserve this honorific.
The reason I single him out is the awful speech he delivered at Aipac’s national conference yesterday. Some of his most memorable words:
“The fact of the matter is that too many Palestinians and too many Arabs do not want any Jewish state in the Middle East,” Schumer told the audience gathered for AIPAC’s annual conference in Washington, D.C. “Of course, we say it’s our land, the Torah says it, but they don’t believe in the Torah. So that’s the reason there is not peace. They invent other reasons, but they do not believe in a Jewish state and that is why we, in America, must stand strong with Israel through thick and thin.”
Of course Palestinians don’t want a “Jewish” state. Any more than Israelis want an ISIS state or al Qaeda state or Taliban state or Islamist caliphate. Because a Jewish state is a state based on settlerism, hate and intolerance. It’s a state based on Jewish supremacy. It’s a theocratic state in which even its Jewish citizens are compelled to adhere to religious traditions in birth, death, marriage and divorce, whether they want to or not. It is a state devoted to pagan idolatry worshiping land, ruins and relics over human beings and moral values. It’s a state which forecloses full, equal rights for LGBT individuals.
Notice Schumer’s use of “our,” as if there is no distinction between himself and Israel. There’s that dual loyalty monster rearing its ugly head. The Biblical land of Israel is no more “my” land than it is the Dalai Lama’s land. Treating the ancient land of Israel as the same as contemporary fact is a delusion and a fairy tale. The modern State of Israel is not the Davidic kingdom. It is a modern national-political construct. Introducing religion into the equation poisons the well. If we Jews can claim Biblical boundaries for the modern state of Israel then what’s stopping Muslims or Islamists from claiming similar boundaries based on their historical traditions and sacred texts? What’s stopping Erdogan, who claims the mantle of the Ottoman caliph, to reclaim the boundaries of the Ottoman empire? Remember, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
The gravest injury in his speech however is the insane claim that the reason Palestinians refuse to accept a Jewish state is that they don’t believe in Torah. Who the hell says Palestinians must believe in Torah? And further, who says Palestinians could not accept an Israeli state (not a Jewish one), despite the fact that they don’t believe in Torah? All that would be required is for Israel to return to 1967 borders, share Jerusalem as a two-state capital and acknowledge the right of refugees to return. That, many (not all) Palestinians could accept. Not that this is likely or practicable, which makes the entire argument superfluous.
Again, invoking the Torah only confirms that Schumer is a Jewish supremacist. No different than your garden variety Christian supremacist who slaughtered Jews on the way to the Crusades; or who tortured Jews on the rack in medieval Spain. They too claimed Jews were evil because they refused to accept Jesus as their savior. This is hateful rhetoric whether coming from Torquemada or Chuck Schumer. It has no place in any modern political argument, no matter how acrimonious.
Finally, what’s especially shameful about this is that Schumer is so desperate, in the age of Trump, to prove his pro-Israel bona fides, that he stoops to shameless Zio-pandering. Does the Democratic Party really need to debase itself to this extent? I know Bernie Sanders would never do this. That is a model the Democratic Party should adopt instead of this bowing and scraping before Aipac’s pro-Israel ayatollahs.
By the way, we shouldn’t be surprised at Schumer’s pro-Israel racism. A few years ago he was scheduled to speak at a New York Israel Independence Day event sponsored by Kahanists and settlers. He only backed out when progressive blogs and media pointed out who he was to be rubbing shoulders with. Then, he developed a spine and conscience and dropped out. Clearly, he has no real value system, Jewish or otherwise. He has a nose for votes and bucks. That’s about all.
‘…Does the Democratic Party really need to debase itself to this extent? I know Bernie Sanders would never do this…’
And that’s why Bernie Sanders will never be President.
I’m beginning to think this can only end when we take on Hitler in the mindless evil sweepstakes and invade Iran as Israel wills.
It’ll be disastrous, and a horrific national crime, inflicting misery on tens of millions — but the reaction should see the end of our support for Israel.
All problems get solved in the end. It’s just a question of how, and at what expense. The Iran plan does have the sole virtue of bringing this whole ghastly travesty to an end in a decade or so. Short, if not exactly sweet.
What Schumer says is actually a violation of the Torah. Jews are not supposed to worship idols or false gods, and that is exactly what one is doing by worshiping Israel. Schumer calls himself the “shomer yisrael(meaning protector of Israel).” He said that’s what Schumer means. Well I say that if that’s the case, he should resign his Senate seat and renounce his American citizenship and move to Israel and get elected to their Knesset. Schumer is certainly not representing the interests of the American people, and that means Jews and non-Jews.
“What Schumer says is actually a violation of the Torah………”
What an ignorant interpretation of the Torah{unless you are from Neturei Qarta}or you do not know Hebrew and have no access to sources.
Jews are not worshipping Israel they are living there and those who are out side Israel identify with Israel as the God given home{according to the Torah} of the Jews.
A month or so back I cited the scripture in the Torah which says [shortened but accurate ]” not because of your righteous have you been given the land……… but because of the evilness of the Gentiles.”
RS denied that I knew what I was talking about and I sent him the source but it seems he had Elizabeth verify what I had cited for him.
BTW there is an explicit ‘sura’ in the Quran saying “Allah gave the land of Israel to the Jews.”
@ marty:
Not at all. In fact, what Walter wrote is quite apt. Israeli settlers and their far-right disciples certainly do worship Israel: the land, the blood, the relics, the ruins. And that is for normative Judaism a form of idolatry.
You have violated a major comment rule. Once you state something you don’t get to repeat it. You made an argument earlier. That’s it. You’re done. You don’t get to dredge it up again. Read the comment rules carefully and respect them. Your continued participation here is dependent on it.
Oh please! Really. You’ve become an imam now? You’re spent years learning the Quran in a madrassa somewhere? What you’ve just done is a cheap conjuring trick. Knock it off. You don’t get to make claims about Islam or the Quran. You know as much about it as you know about Quantum physics or neuro surgery.
[Comment deleted: you have violated the comment rules after a warning and are now moderated.]
Trash Trash Thread Trash & Ban IP | Trash Thread & Ban IP
BTW I do read Arabic and it is a “פסוק” in the Quran FYI!
@ marty: even the devil can quote Scripture bud. You’re not quite of that caliber. But picking one partial quote from an entire holy work, likely taken out of context, is not convincing.
Trash Trash Thread Trash & Ban IP | Trash Thread & Ban IP
Power user
[Comment deleted]
Yeah, right. And the next Sura says: “And after that they became Muslims”, which would most likely be historically correct. Do you have any other, more serious, claims to real estate?
‘Yeah, right. And the next Sura says: “And after that they became Muslims”, which would most likely be historically correct. Do you have any other, more serious, claims to real estate?’
Like telling people two and two make four, isn’t it?
I dunno why it keeps getting to me that they insist it makes five.
Richard, I can respectfully agree or disagree with the substance of the post, and I know that you try to keep the discourse here civil, but I want to call you out on your use of “zio-pandering”. I presume that you mean “trying to appeal to Zionists”, correct me if I am wrong.
However the various forms of Zio-xxxxx, are frequently code, in common use, for “Jew-xxxxx” in various forums and are used as thinly veiled antisemitic or racist slurs. “The Zio-xxxxx control the banks, the media, the world Zio conspiracy bla bla bla”, etc. I know that you do not mean it that way, but “Zio-xxxxx” is not used in respectable media anywhere. Kind of parallel to the derogatory term “Islamo-facist”. You must know by know that use of that kind of language attracts the nasty folks from the slimy corners of the internet.
Whether or not you mean it that way IMHO is irrelevant. I cannot tell you what to write but I think you should have more sensitivity to the language you are using and its effect on readers, especially what comes up on Google searches.
@ Yehuda:
Utter nonsense. “Jew” and “Zio” or “Zionist” are quite separate terms. And if there is some anti-Semitic nutcase who can’t tell the difference (that includes Bibi Netanyahu apparently) then I’m supposed to curtail my speech on their account??? No thank you.
Schumer is pandering to a base form Zionism. For such sliminess I reserve the term “Zio.” It is clear to me what it means. It is clear to you as you revealed. It is clear to every other reader here.
Now, your problem is that you don’t like your Zio-ox gored. You don’t like such terms because they slaughter the golden cows of Zionism.
This entire blog serves as evidence that when I attack Zionism as practiced by Aipac, Bibi, Schumer et al I am attacking a very specific set of attitudes & ideas. I know a number of righteous progressive Jews who consider themselves Zionist (albeit quite to the left) who don’t recognize this classical racist Zionism as having any affinity for theirs. I’m with them.
Thank you Richard. It makes no sense for Zionists who unconditionally support Israel including the settlements, to charge people with being anti-semitic when they themselves say they are Zionists. I don’t get it.
‘Thank you Richard. It makes no sense for Zionists who unconditionally support Israel including the settlements, to charge people with being anti-semitic when they themselves say they are Zionists. I don’t get it.’
Accusing people of being antisemitic even if they do frankly oppose Zionism makes no sense either.
To choose a polite simile, it’s like claiming I’m anti-Russian if I object to Stalinism. I may or may not in fact be bigoted against Russians (or Georgians). However, surely I can oppose Stalinism without it being inferred that I am.
You also attack Judaism or the way you look at it, Orthodoxy.
Bringing Amalak or the 7 nations as if it is relevant to Orthodoxy only and Judaism as a whole is nonsense.
@Ariel Koren: Consider this as a final warning before banning. And mark my words carefully: if you ever accuse me of attacking Judaism or even Orthodox Judaism, you are done here.
I NEVER attack Judaism. I am not only a Jew, but a knowledgeable one. You make the typical mistake of conflating the current intolerant, rigid monopolistic version of Orthodoxy which passes for normative these days, with Judaism as a whole.
Further, I don’t even attack Orthodox Judaism as a whole, because there are pockets of rational, intelligent, tolerant Orthodoxy. They are small, but the fact they exist gives hope for the possibility that Orthodoxy as a whole may return to what it once was as few decades ago.
To claim, as you do, that the tradition of Amalek is no longer relevant to Orthodox Judaism is ridiculous. Rabbis, generals, settlers and others refer to it regularly and approvingly in justifying hate of Muslims or any other supposed enemy of Israel. You know it and I know it.
“To claim, as you do, that the tradition of Amalek is no longer relevant to Orthodox Judaism is ridiculous. Rabbis, generals, settlers and others refer to it regularly and approvingly in justifying hate of Muslims or any other supposed enemy of Israel. You know it and I know it..”
I think it is used as a polemic for want of expression. The חתם סופר claimed circa 200 yrs ago that he knew who or what nation was Amaleq but to do something would endanger the Jews.
About 1000 yrs. ago the בעלי תוספות in Tractate Avodah Zara folio 1:2 claims that Ashkenaz was Amaleq but whether he was referring to Germany or somewhere else is unknown. But nobody did anything.
I would like to point out the incident in the WB a few years ago where two young Arabs went into a house killed the parents and 4? children and returned to slit the throats of a 3 month baby and a 3 year old boy. I would see this as an act of the concept of Amaleq.
Also a few years ago in Har Nof two Arabs went into a בית מדרש and beheaded to people aside from killing others until a Druze soldier killed them and another Druze died in the ‘battle’.
I only brought this up because the beheadings were never made public knowledge as far as I know but maybe with your connections you knew this.
If you are referring “rabbis’ and the book דרך המלך involving Yizchak Ginsberg et al I am in total agreement with you that they are crazy. BTW mostly comprised of Americans and Chabad.
I know Ginsberg from the ’70’s and he is brilliant but something went wrong.דברי חכמים נשמעים בנחת—-
@ marty: “Amalek” as a modern concept is Islamophobic and racist. Any Palestinian who murders Israelis, no matter how gruesomely (and let’s remember that Israelis murder Palestinians quite gruesomely as well. but no mention of that by you, curiously), does so as an individual, or at most as a representative of a militant faction. Palestinians as a people or nation don’t engage in mass murder against Israelis. Though Israelis as a nation do engage in mass murder against Palestinians.
And if Israel did recognize Palestine as a nation it would be much easier to hold the entire Palestinian nation responsible for such acts. And the Palestinian state would have far more capacity to police its people and prevent such acts were they planned or attempted. That presumes of course that Israel compromises in giving such a state the powers necessary to do so.
‘Richard, I can respectfully agree or disagree with the substance of the post, and I know that you try to keep the discourse here civil, but I want to call you out on your use of “zio-pandering”. I presume that you mean “trying to appeal to Zionists”, correct me if I am wrong…’
See my post elsewhere about how defenders of Israel can resort to any form of abuse they please, but those who would criticize her need to carefully abide by Queensbury rules.
Pre-1948, didn’t the term ‘Israel’ usually refer to the community of believers rather than a piece of land?
So wouldn’t ‘shomer yisrael’ etc generally describe those protecting the community — wherever it was — rather than its title to Palestine in particular? I have the impression Philo et al most certainly saw themselves as part of ‘Israel’ even if they couldn’t be bothered to move on over to Palestine.
The point is that all this may be an act of intellectual miscegenation born of ignorance. People are taking traditional and scriptural injunctions that I would think were intended primarily to refer to the community of believers and applying them to a modern nation state that didn’t even exist conceptually when the references were set down. Talmudic injunctions and such regarding ‘Israel’ may simply be irrelevant to the state that currently exists in Palestine and that chose to adopt ‘Israel’ as its name.
Others have got to be better informed about all this than me, so I’d be curious to hear any illuminating responses.
Eretz Yisroel, Colin.
Eretz Yisroel.
‘Eretz Yisroel, Colin.’
The earliest usage I can find for this term is 1924.
Surely it’s older than that? It’d hardly be a conclusive argument, but I’d be curious to know just how far back it goes.
@Colin
The term first appears in the Holy Torah, which means, that this term is ancient.
@ Doctor John: No Jew calls the Torah the “holy Torah.” “Holy book” (sefer kodesh) maybe. But not “holy Torah.” I have my doubts about you, buddy.
You are totally wrong concerning ‘holy Torah’—Holy book’. the phrase התורה הקדושה is used literally thousands of times days in every sector of religious learning.
Very eye opening from your side since you have only an academic background.
No wonder your lack of knowledge in the Holy Torah.
@ yisrael: I’m not talking about Hebrew. I’m talking about English. No one uses the term “holy Torah” in English.
Colin. Aren’t Jews required to live in Eretz Yisroel?
https://www.ou.org/torah/parsha/rabbi-fox-on-parsha/parshat_shelach_3/
Colin. There is Bnei Yisroel, the community of Israel, and there is Eretz Yisroel, the Land of Israel.
‘Colin. Aren’t Jews required to live in Eretz Yisroel?’
If so, then it’s a remarkable fact that at least until the end of the nineteenth century, they generally couldn’t be bothered. For any Jew living in the Ottoman Empire, for example, Palestine was perfectly accessible — yet few made the move.
Even today, it’s very observable that the rate of emigration from countries where Jews are comfortably situated to Israel is almost laughably small. How many American, British, French, Canadian Jews make aliyah? The numbers are tiny. Even in the aftermath of the Holocaust, Zionists had to ferociously manipulate the system in order to essentially compel Jews to go to Palestine. It couldn’t be a choice between going to, say, Australia, and going to Palestine. It had to be a choice between staying in the DP camp and going to Palestine.
If someone has theorized that Jews are obliged to live in Palestine, then (a) the discovery is very recent, and (b) not many Jews take it seriously.
@Colin
“If someone has theorized that Jews are obliged to live in Palestine,then..the discovery is very recent,”
I’m not sure I know what you mean. The link I provided show that the requirement that Jews live in Eretz Yisroel is very old. The Ramban, cited in the link, died in 1270.
Thousands of messianic Jews made Aliyah to Eretz Yisroel before the advent of political Zionism.
If these religious Zionists had received a sustained welcome from the Ottomans, their numbers would have swelled. Also, consider how many Jews living in Eretz Yisroel had been killed during the Crusades or had been forced to convert.
Many more thousands of Jews were prepared to follow the false Messiah, Shabtai Zvi, and make Aliyah in the 16th century.
Yes Colin, the number of Jews in the Diaspora making Aliyah is small, but the number of Jews living in the Diaspora who intermarry and assimilate is very big.
Lastly, I know of many Holocaust survivors who did migrate to America, Canada, etc.
As far as I know, most DP’s did not go to Israel. Recall that the British Mandate stopped many survivors from making Aliyah.
So messianic Jews had a tendency to move to Israel, but Orthodox Jews usually didn’t do that.
@ Doctor John: Please don’t quote Orthodox Judaism at us as if we’re required to live by these standards. We’re not. Jews are not required to live anywhere. If you want to be an Orthodox Jew, be one. But don’t have the chutzpah to act as if we have to join you because we don’t and won’t.
‘…BTW there is an explicit ‘sura’ in the Quran saying “Allah gave the land of Israel to the Jews.” ‘
The difficulty with that is that IN CONTEXT, it’s clear that Mohammed is referring to his followers as ‘the Jews.’ You see, Islam was a cleaned up version of Judaism and Christianity, purged of all the confusions and corruptions that had crept in over the years. Allah came to Mohammed and said, ‘this is what I ACTUALLY said…’
…but why bother? If you’re going to quote the Quran, read it first. It’s quite clear — and no, when God gave Palestine to ‘the Jews,’ he didn’t mean the Zionists.
Again the paucity of your knowledge of Judaism. Zion has always been a synonym for Jerusalem obviously implying the land of Israel. So your statement is irrelative. Jews have always lived in Israel/Zion and the Zionist movement, being made up of Jews, adopted this name for obvious reasons.
” and no, when God gave Palestine to ‘the Jews,’ he didn’t mean the Zionists.”
God did not give Palestine to the Jews, he gave ‘the land of Israel”.
Palestine was a tribe and area on the southern coastal side of Israel.
Have you ever heard of the story of David and Goliat?
Israel was never called Palestine at the time when the Jews inhabited the land. I believe it was first mentioned by Herodotus and then Josephus. The Romans adopted the name Palestine and from then on it was referred by the Gentiles as Palestine.
” when God gave Palestine to ‘the Jews,’ he didn’t mean the Zionists.”
So you know how God thinks? Basically all Zionists are Jews but not all Jews are Zionists so there is no way to affirm your statement.
@ marty:
False. THere are Christian evangelical End Times Zionists, Hindu Zionists (Hinduvta) and thanks to the ‘hasbara recruitment center’ there are even Muslim Zionists. Not many, admittedly.
‘BTW I do read Arabic and it is a “פסוק” in the Quran FYI!’
Hypothetically speaking that may be true. However, let’s be charitable and assume you haven’t read the Quran.
If you have, and yet you make the claims about it that you do, the implications aren’t flattering. Would you prefer being considered dishonest or being thought to have nil reading comprehension?
This is one of those posts where I wind up being abusive. However, I really am just stating facts. No, Mohammed didn’t reserve Palestine for those who DIDN’T accept him.
Is it a coincidence that every Zionist argument turns out to be a lie right to the root? Oh shit: there I go again.
“No, Mohammed didn’t reserve Palestine for those who DIDN’T accept him.
No, it was promised by God to the Jews and he is stating that.
Seems pretty obvious that Mohammed is referring to the OT {whether he agrees or not}.
The amount of material that is plagiarised in the Quran is enormous and mistakes abound.
One example: Maryam/Miriam is the ‘so-called’ Virgin Mary but in the Quran it is stated the Maryam/Miriam is the sister of Moses! A bit of a chronological problem of 1500 year hiatus!
“If you have, and yet you make the claims about it that you do, the implications aren’t flattering. Would you prefer being considered dishonest or being thought to have nil reading comprehension?”
Your statement makes no sense what so ever. What implications?
BTY the word Palestine does not occur in the Quran but Israel does.
As far as the purported conversion mentioned above it was obviously coercion–either die or convert.
You must be familiar with the Hadith that Mohammed beheaded 600-800 heads in one day. Something to be proud of.
Islam is a proselyting religion like Christianity both claiming there is no salvation except through their specific belief system “Ecclesiam nulla salus”. Whereas Judaism is not proselyting and anyone who is righteous or whatever word you want to use can go to heaven{I really don’t like that word but here it serves it purpose}
@ marty:
HOrse manure. Chuck Schumer is an atheist. I’ve never seen a single picture of him in a synagogue. So in referring to God giving Jews the land of Israel he’s simply pandering to the beliefs of his listeners. Making him a hypocrite.
When did you get your degree in literary analysis & history. Virtually every great book and certainly every religious tome refers to, or appropriates beliefs of other religions. Sometimes they acknowledge the connection, sometimes they merely appropriate it without acknowledgement. This is neither plagiarism nor “mistaken.” Once a religion appropriates such beliefs, whether its gotten the original source wrong or right, it becomes right by virtue of being adopted in the new religious source. In other words, there is no such thing as wrong or right in these matters.
Human beings appropriate ideas and beliefs of those who precede them. It’s how knowledge is developed and how progress is made.
How many non-Jewish tribesmen were murdered in one day during the Israelite wars of conquest. Somehow you neglect or forget these bits of mayhem, as if Mohammed is the only historical figure who ever engaged in genocide. Your presumption of being an expert in the Quran or Islam is vastly overstated.
Not so fast, buddy. Judaism was a proselytizing religion as well in the Davidic period. It proselytized when it could, and stopped when doing so became a danger to it due to sensitivities of colonial masters. Not only do you not understand much about Islam, your references to Judaism are highly selective and self-interested.
RS-interesting anything with real content you generally banish except for your allies and now the ardent anti-semite Colin Wright whose mistakes abound esp concerning Judaism and you don’t even correct them.
I guess you are what would be called today a ‘toxic-leftist anti-semite’.
@ marty: For repeated comment rule violations, you are now banned.
Marty says: ‘…RS-interesting anything with real content you generally banish except for your allies and now the ardent anti-semite Colin Wright whose mistakes abound esp concerning Judaism and you don’t even correct them…’
! I’ll have to leave the appropriate response to your imagination.
Thanks for illustrating my point about the universal permit Zionists appear to grant themselves to abuse anyone in any fashion they please, though.
It’d be a lot easier to concede that Israel might somehow be a defensible proposition if those who took up her cause weren’t so uniformly contemptible. I can honestly say that I can only recall encountering one ardent partisan of Israel who deserved respect in any form. Shmuel Rosner, I don’t agree with — but he does seem to practice a certain form of intellectual integrity. Him aside, I’m drawing a perfect blank.
‘@ marty: For repeated comment rule violations, you are now banned.’
That’s a pity. I’d be mildly curious to hear how Marty decided that I was an ‘ardent’ anti-semite, much less an anti-semite at all.
I mean, it’s possible that I am. I could be all kinds of things — me aside, who knows? However, what information was presented to Marty that led him to this conclusion?
@ Colin Wright: I have a cardinal rule: call someone an anti-Semite (or Nazi) without offering any credible proof & your outa here. I hate these smear labels anyway. They’re good for show, to score cheap points, but not much else.
[Comment deleted, commenter moderated– you are way off topic plus you’ve repeated the violation of the earlier commenter I banned. Your next violation brings banning.]
I’ve never seen any evidence that Mel Gibson is anti-semitic at all.
About all he did was drunkenly rant at a cop. If you’ve ever dealt with drunken, ranting Australians, you know that they pick out whatever their target’s point of apparent vulnerability is, and go after it.
So the cop was Jewish, and Mel Gibson fastened on that. If the cop had been fat, he’d have given him a hard time about being fat.
You can find in that whatever you please about Australians, Mel Gibson’s attitude towards cops, or anything else — but it’s evidence of anti-semitism like the fact that I don’t like sake demonstrates that I hate Japanese.Interesting. I went to ‘The Ugly Truth,’ and the post doesn’t exist.’
Leaving Mel Gibson aside as beside the point, I think that this suggests I may be a Mel Gibson fan. It’s hardly evidence that I am anti-semitic.
Note, incidentally, I am happy to discuss the question of whether I am or am not anti-semitic. I’m not about to allow fear of the slur to cow me into silence. However, it really won’t do to forge posts in my name and then offer them as evidence — or was this all about getting me to ‘admit’ that I once went to the ‘Ugly Truth’? I’ll admit it; I go all over the place. Happy to offer my opinion, too. If I recall aright, ‘the Ugly Truth’ IS anti-semitic, and often repellantly so, so I don’t go there much. It’d be something like the Jerusalem Post. Occasionally of interest, but really pretty awful.
I also think that at this point, it’s reasonable to ask Doctor John how he came up with this post. On the face of it, he forged it in an attempt to slander me.
@ Colin Wright: Totally disagree. In fact, I lived in LA at the time & read the police report which went into great detail about what Gibson said to the police officer. It was vile. It was anti-Semitic. It was unforgivable. The fact that the ADL gave him a Get Out of Jail Free card, excusing his anti-Semitism was disgusting. And the fact that he’s been able to rejuvenate his career, equally disgusting.
Perhaps the worst aspect of this is that he was scheduled to produce the film version of a Dutch Holocaust victim’s diary (her name was Hilesum, if I recall). He might actually have done a fine job on this project. But because he was such an idiot, he never did the project. So now we have a friggin’ anti-Semite given a new lease on life by the anti-Semitism enablers at the ADL.
As I said, Mel Gibson himself is beside the point. The point is that’s my actual post — not the creation dude threw up. It could be taken as evidence that I’m a Mel Gibson fan, but is hardly evidence of anti-semitism. Rightly or wrongly, surely I’m entitled to defend Mel Gibson.
I retract my claim that Colin Wright is anti-Semitic. I erroneously mistook another ‘Ugly Truth’ comment for Colin’s ‘Ugly Truth’ comment, which Colin’s comment only refers to Mel Gibson.
Mea Culpa
Just to keep the record clear, ‘The Ugly Truth’ is an avowed, and unapologetic, anti-Semitic site. About that, there can be no doubt.
Dr. John: Be careful about your language. I have no.idea what sort of site Ugly Truth is. But “avowed” means a credible source has labeled it as such. I’m not sure this is the case. Before you do so, I’d like you to be sure someone credible has affirmed what you claim.
Trash Trash Thread Trash & Ban IP | Trash Thread & Ban IP
Power user
[comment deleted: how does linking to Ugly Truth offer credible independent evidence that it is anti-Semitic? I asked you to find a credible source who said it was. At any rate, do not publish another comment in this thread. Move on.]
Doctor John’s retraction certainly covers it all — and without bothering to go examine the matter in anxious detail, I’d say his characterization of ‘the Ugly Truth’ accords with my impression of the site.
Oh dear. One of my posts got mangled, and Richard deleted ‘Doctor John’s’ original.
All this is going on far too long, but this makes the above completely obscure.
‘Doctor John’ posted a forgery. I responded by posting what I actually did post at the link he gave. That’s my post beginning ‘I’ve never seen any evidence…’
Put a quote mark at the start of that, read Doctor John’s deleted post as a forgery, and all this may start to make some sense.