UKC

OK, someone help me out.

Is being jewish, being part of a race or part of a religion?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:




Both surely?

In reply to Gone for good:


OK, so I'm being a bit daft here then, so is being Christian and Islamic also being part of a race.....

....and dont call me Shirley.......

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

It's a race, but it's also a religion. You can be of the Jewish race and be an aethiest. I don't know if you can be non-Jewish and join the religion.
I've always understood anti-Semitism to be an attack on someone's race (ie. Something they have no choice in), not their religion.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


Surely the question is: "Is being Israeli, being part of a race or part of a religion?"

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Jew (jo&#862
n.
1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

In reply to Hooo:

My Grandfather was Jewish and my Grandmother had to become Jewish in order to marry.

In reply to Gone for good:





So none of these really suggest anything about a real race or species. You are either a. follow a religion b. belong to a people descended from a group of peoples whom followed a religion or c. lived somewhere where the predominant culture followed Judaism???

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I suppose it comes down to definition of race which is described as this.

Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits.

Still both Shirley ☺

In reply to Gone for good:


My Granda was Catholic and gave it up to marry my Gran.

In reply to Gone for good:
OK, so I guess you get where Im coming from.

The 'anti-semites' as has been stated many and numerous times in the media over the last 24 hours are criticising Isreali policy and arent saying 'you stinky Jews'.

Thing is and as a passionate atheist, we are locked in a cage. If we criticise Jews because of their religious views - I criticise all religions - then I would be called anti-semitic. If I criticise Isrealis, people conflate this with me criticising Jews and label me anti-semitic.

I feel disapprovingly strongly about organised religion of any kind and if I express my disapproval of Isreali foreign policy then it would seem that I am being anti-semitic.

Is this not a cake and eat it scenario making criticism of either politically incorrect?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Line of duty is taking up my attention.
I have a response and will get back to you shortly.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

The additional complication of course is that Semitic peoples also include for example Palastinian Arabs.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:


I don't get this either - why couldn't straight-talking, breath-of-fresh-air JC have just pointed out the difference between anti-Israel and anti-semitic and refused to punish the MP?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

By whom exactly? If you want to say its silly to not eat cheeseburgers because a line in a 3000 year old text says don't boil the flesh of the kid goat in its mother's milk, I don't think anyone is going to call you antisemitic, even if they still intend to keep a kosher kitchen despite our devastating critique of calling the tradition "silly"!

If you want to go on about Jews controlling the world media, then that is antisemitic.

In reply to humptydumpty:


Because unfortunately now for Shah who seems to have thought about these things a lot more in the last couple of years, her original social media post didn't make that difference.

Personally I thought her apology was completely genuine, but the Tories weren't going to be magnanimous about it when they thought they could set Labour off against itself again (which of course happened).

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

If only it wasn't either/both, but sadly it is.

So, it makes it hard to criticise Judiasm without being accused of racism. Jews (sorry, observant Jews, I have nothing against Jewish atheists), just like Muslims and Christians, are full of shit. They believe complete nonsense and are obsessed with weird, ancient rituals that have no sensible place in the modern world. The lot of them need to grow up and stop believing in stuff that's ridiculous and destructive, so that the human race can make some progress on the pressing problems we face.

Then you've got Zionism, which is a toxic, racist, political ideology which is justified by Jewish scripture. Rather like the way Islamism is a toxic political ideology justified by Islamic scripture. Of course, not all observant Jews, let alone all Jewish people are Zionists. I won't go further and draw any parallels between the 'Islamic State' and Israel because they're completely different - except that they both reject the idea of a secular state and as such seek to divide up land and power according to religious groupings. I.e. to drag humanity backwards, away from the enlightenment.

God I wish the worlds religions would all go f*ck themselves.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

being Jewish is an ethnicity, Judaism is the religion.

In reply to TobyA:


I expect the tories to suspend David Cameron for bringing the party into disrepute (prior to him being an MP) by campaigning to have Nelson Mandela executed.

In reply to humptydumpty:


Neither. It is being a citizen of Israel (Plenty of Arab muslims are Israeli citizens).

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Jon, you really need to try and see that Zionism is very much a product of the enlightenment, just like all nationalisms. Don't romanticize the enlightenment as a turning point in history that led inexorably to exactly what you (and probably me as well) find to be acceptable 21st century politics.

We are a religious species, for virtually all of human history, people everywhere have believed in supernatural forces. And even now, as a percentage we are the super-freaks not believing. In this week with the Hillsborough verdict, there's been a lot of talk of using language to "other" groups. I think the term "Zionism" is often used to do that (oddly sometimes "Islamism" is used in the same way). It pushes together diverse views under one label which we then told its ok to hate. Obviously Jews remain very sensitive to that sense of being othered.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
The way I see it, anti semitism is bad. However accusing people of anti semitism just for criticizing the way someone or a group or people behave in a particular situation (Israel for example) is just like playing the race card.

As for your initial question I'm not sure if it is exactly a race. The reason I say that is because as I understand it being Jewish only passes through the maternal line. I don't think this is the case for other races. So via my Grandparents I'm 1/4 Scottish but I'm not 1/4 Jewish. It doesn't make sense.

In reply to Robert Durran:


And Christian Palestinians who are Israeli citizens as well (my "Israeli Arab" friend really doesn't like that title, she is Palestinian and proud of it, but is a citizen of Israel).

When I went to Israel one of the first things that struck me was how for the want of a better term, how "ethnically" mixed the Jewish Israeli population is, leaving aside the Israeli Arab population. There are black Jews (Ethiopian mainly), very brown Jews (Yemenis), all the people from North African backgrounds, then of course from all over Europe - including people who are ginger with freckles!

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:




But isn't being anti semitic more to do with racist towards the race rather than the religion?


I think it is. If I was to say I am against the political state of Israel (I have no problems with Israeli people ) does that make me anti semetic?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/news/item/statement-on-labours-problem-wi...

FYI.

D

In reply to Robert Durran:

Errrrrr. There's definitely a strong element of Jewish identity to Israeli nationality. Let's not pretend it's culturally neutral. Sure there are Arabs of all religious persuasions living there and a few other minorities but its definately a Jewish state. Try emigrating there without being Jewish.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

Never heard of these people, but I like the way they sound.

jcm

In reply to TobyA:
Hmmm. I'm sure you have a much deeper understanding of Zionism than I, but I struggle to entertain the idea that Zionism is anything other than common-or-garden racism, backed up (as it usually is) by some old crap cherry-picked from a holy book. I'm not terribly open-minded towards the idea that I should be any kinder towards Zionists, but the tone of your post sounds like you're making some kind of apology or excuse for their vile, racist beliefs.

Just because it seems to be part of human nature to believe complete rubbish doesn't help justify the toxic ideologies, like Islamism and Zionism, that use that that tendency to try to meet political goals (usually getting power and land for a certain tribal group). If it really can't be 'educated away', the tendency towards supernatural belief needs to be neutralised so that it is harmless. It has no place in politics.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Late 19th century nationalisms were all much of muchness - the Jews were arguably more clear an ethnic/cultural/ethno-cultural/whatever unit than "the Germans" or "the Italians" were, it was just unfortunate to them that, as a diaspora "nation", their claim to a bit of land somewhere wasn't quite as up to date as, say, the people who started calling themselves Finns (or Italians or Germans etc etc) around the same time.

Bombing the hell out of a crowded city like Gaza might be vile, and there is definitely plenty of racism in Israel - but I'm not sure if the central claim of Zionism (we are a nation and as a result we deserve this land) is really anymore vile and racist than the central claims of Scottish nationalism, or Irish nationalism or Palestinian nationalism, or Indian nationalism, or Zimbabwean nationalism etc. etc. Soon enough we just end up with the unsolveable argument of who gets what bit of geography and why.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Oh FFS I'm so sick of this shite. Anyone who says anything disagreeing with anything Israel does gets labelled as anti semiitic. Playing the race card to the nth degree every time. Grow up.

In reply to TobyA:

In a fantasy world, in which the Zionist goal was to live peacefully as a nation within a recognised set of borders, then what you say makes sense. But in the real world where the zionism you equate with every other nationalism is imposing its nation upon the land that others regard as their home, we see a very clear distinction.

It's a good try, but no, zionism is not just nationalism. It's a racist ideology that asserts that the ethnic in-group have a god-given right to the land that other, inferior people are living on.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:






Don't worry, it doesn't matter. If you criticise someone who isn't a white middle class hetrosexual male the "ist" crowd will always criticise you for it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I agree, and it's not much use quoting 19th century stuff, languages evolve and change. I believe Zionism has become the word for the far right Jewish "community" who believe Israel belongs to them and them alone.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Well, historically speaking, you are mainly wrong because most of the early Zionists, including Herzl if I remember correctly, were secular. The Kibbutzim movement was led by Socialist-Zionists who were secular, etc. etc. Of course it gets more complicated in modern times with both secular and orthodox parties in Israel picking up the Zionist banner.

As to your point: the assertion of most national claims is based on the suppression of other groups, which of course are seen as inferior - ask a Basque or Breton; a Corsican, a Chechen or even a Cornishman; a Sioux or Saami; a Kashmiri, a Tatar or Baluch; some group is always getting shafted. Why did Lithuania and Azerbaijan gets their "national freedom" in 89-90 but Chechnya and Dagestan not? Do certain "peoples" deserve a state more than others? Have Estonia and Latvia been "vile and racist" for denying citizenship to ethnic Russians born in the territory of those countries?

Like I say, you'll get no argument from me that actions of the government of Israel have been for the last 16 years often appalling, both in the wanton land grabs via the illegal settlements, and in the willingness to use often crushing violence to punish their enemies - real and perceived. But I also understand why so many Jews are made very nervous by the singling out of Zionism and some uniquely malevolent force and using dehumanising language about it.

In reply to Cobra_Head:


True enough, but surely then that lends credence to people who are saying nowadays Zionist is used by many people to mean "Jew"? So when the new NUS lady talked about Zionist controlled media, what she was really saying was...

In reply to aln:
In law no one has to give up their religion to marry.

If you want to 'marry' into a faith that is different .

Edit( in this country)

In reply to TobyA:


It's not the claim to the land that's the issue really is it? The problem is the action based on (a) belief that the land ought to be theirs (so not the same as Scots) and (b - the important one) the people currently living there are less than them (them being defined by Jewishness, not by living in Scotland) and don't deserve to have it, so can be rightly driven off.

In reply to TobyA:


I'm not going to look more deeply into these claims that Zionism was in the past a benign, secular movement - that's certainly not what it is now, and I don't see the relevance.


You've ignored the point. The Zionist movement in Israel is colonising the land of its neighbours, stealing their resources and undermining their rights. Elsewhere with this is happening or has happened, it is also vile and racist. Where it is not happening, it is not compatible. You appear to be attempting to dilute the toxicity of zionism by drawing parallels to a much broader set of cases that aren't similar because they don't involve expanding borders over others' land, stealing their resources and oppressing those outside the ethnic ingroup.


If Jews feel uncomfortable about it, then they should be clear that they believe Israel must immediately get back within its borders and compensate the Palestians for the resources that have been stolen. Until that position is clear, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

In reply to TobyA:

Oh for crying out loud how is that comparable? How many bombs are going off here?
Do people come on this site just to prove they're stupid?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Really need to go to sleep, but Zionism is about whether Israel has any right to exist at all, not just about whether it should expand in the occupied territories. Being anti Zionist is to say no Israel can exist, at least not in the middle east.

In reply to Hooo:


Didn't Jonathan Miller say that he didn't really feel like a Jew, he was only Jew-ish?

In reply to TobyA:


Well, that's more of a definition than I got in answer to my question on the other thread. And not what I thought it meant.

In reply to Jon Stewart:
you sound pretty angry at israel and at Jews in general in your posts as in 'If Jews feel uncomfortable about it, then they should be clear that they believe Israel must immediately get back within its borders and compensate the Palestians for the resources that have been stolen. Until that position is clear, I have no sympathy whatsoever.'

as in any military/political conflict between two peoples , i believe negotiation between willing leaders can push the way forward. (will doesnt seem to exist there at the moment)
you do not sound like that is what you think. any jew that doesn't think like you , then you 'have no sympathy whatsoever' .
do you have similar sentiments to scots that think differently than you about seperation ?

also all this what is a jew debate is pointless. not every question has a yes/no answer, some things are a bit of everything. see TobyA post on the racial mixture of Jews.
your idea about Zionism is completely off. Some people are extreme Zionists, true, but you think all of them are such. again, i blame you for black and white thinking.
for many people , in paricular israel, Zionism is the right of Jewish israelis to continue to have their country in the same place. Not in expanding borders, not by harming others and so on, and not by thinking they are a superior race like you are suggesting (nazi comparisons again).
doesnt sound so extreme put like that i guess ?

In reply to TobyA:


I don't think the Jews control the world media. But I'm not sure why it's necessarily anti-semitic if someone does? On it's own it's just a bit conspirasy nuts. of course, most people that believe this will be anti-semites, i just don't see that it's anti semitic per se.

In reply to TobyA:

language meaning depends on what it's intended and understood to mean. anti-zionist (these days?) usually means anti-israeli government generally, wanting israel to retract it's borders and generally being nicer to palestinians. but not getting rid of the whole of israel.

for example, the bbc and others place"questionning the right of israel to exist" in the anti-semitic box, when discussing the difference between the two

In reply to TobyA:

I think Zionist has come to be very distinct from Jew. I think most people now understand Zionist to be an expansionist, who a all for illegal settlements and expulsion of the Palestinians.

If you look at Haaretz , a Jewish newspaper, they don't seem to have any issue with Zionists and what it means.

In reply to krikoman:

- see my reply to Jon Stewart. your assumption that for 'most people' it means what you say is dependent on the kind of people you hang out with. I havent done a complete survey on what the word means to people, im sure you havent either.

In reply to fastfinger:

To clarify a few things:

1. My understanding of Zionism is that it is more than a belief in Israel's right to exist, it is a belief that that particular land "belongs" to the Jews, for religious reasons. I believe that Israel has the right to exist, because it is a state that *does* exist now. And that's the same as any other states right. I believe that the idea of a Jewish state is wrong, because i believe strongly in secular (and race-blind) governance. These are reasons i am anti-Zionist.

2. If, as you say, Zionism includes the belief that Israel has the right to exist for the same reasons i do, then my understanding is wrong and i myself am a Zionist. In that case, Just as it is a subset of Jews rather than Jews in general whom I'm angry with, its a subset of Zionists - the religious ones (who use scripture to justify their racism - i *really* hate it when people do that).

3. The comment "if Jews are uncomfortable..." was in direct response to a remark by toby, and was not a broad swipe at jews as you imply. I am deeply irritated by what looks like a classic attempt to accuse me of anti-Semitism, even when I've explicitly stated precisely whose politics i disagree with and why. And it isn't Jews in general (with respect to the comment in question, it is Jews who complain about anti-Zionist sentiment while not clarifying their opposition to the Zionist policies of Israelis, particularly the occupation of the west bank: that is not a swipe at jews in general, can we agree on that?).

In reply to Jon Stewart:


--- well, as i said that is one interpretation of the word Zionism. i am also against organized religion (not religion in general as a private pursuit), but when you say 'Jewish state is wrong' the problem with that is as mentioned in this thread Israeli Jews also are a group of people defined politically/economically/demographically not necessarily just by religion, and as such , like any other group in the world, they have a right of self determination (something especially popular in Europe these days.. Catalonia , Scotland, etc.. ). In Israel the need to maintain self determination is also strengthened by security concerns given the explosive nature of the region.


--- the thing is many anti Zionists define their view by saying Israel does not have a right to exist, so basically an anti - anti Zionist = Zionist would be defined in this context simply as having the view that Israel has a right to exist.


--I did not attempt to accuse you of anti Semitism , just pointed out that remark and wondered if you felt so strongly about other conflicts.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I think the trouble is the terms being used here have come to mean different things to different people, just as for example communism came to mean different things to different people. I mean lets face it, communism at it's heart is a well intentioned, well meaning philisophy which was then subverted by men who used it for their own purposes. Zionism at its heart is about the right to a homeland for the jewish people. As a jew (either if you are from Jewish ethnicity or are a practicing Jew) you can choose whether or not to agree with this. This absolutely means you can be a jew and not agree with what the Israeli government. It also means you can be a zionist and not agree with what the israeli government are doing.

But to some Zionism has come to mean cementing that homeland using force which is pretty inexcusable I would say. But it is an emotive subject. What Naz Shah posted (or what I've seen of it) was firstly anti-israeli but also anti-zionist, which does not necessarily equate to Anti Semitic (sure some one will correct me). The poster above saying that claiming the worlds press is controlled by jews is not antisemitic is incorrect. Its a prejudiced view not based in any way shape or form on reality and presupposes that that even if it were true, its a bad thing by virtue of the fact that it's jews controlling it. Yes some press is, just as some is controlled by Muslims, Christians, Bhuddists etc. The thing is it's the simple fact that you feel you can say that the press is controlled by Jews and that that doesn't feel wrong, THAT's the antisemitic bit. It would be like saying "The worlds press is controlled by whites..." which is clearly bollocks but using it to justify the next bit of your sentence. It's the old "jews have big noses and big ears and they steal our money" commonal garden racism that is creeping back in.

It seems to me (maybe I'm totally off mark here) that there is a growing view that jews all have to believe the same thing or have the same ideas, much like Muslims are all equated as being the same as each other. Islamaphobia is just as real as antisemitism, its the lumping of a group of people together and justifying your own prejudices based on those irrational fears. It would be much more clear cut to say that you are anti ISIS or anti terrorist, because by saying that you are not insulting the billions of muslims who don't believe what ISIS believe.

As for Red Ken, well what he said was in a way factually correct, although worded like a total car crash and really after this long in politics he should know better. All it's done is given the tories a shoe with which to kick Labour even harder...

In reply to fastfinger:


Quite and it's also misleading to have a race and a religion both being called Jewish.

The confusion between all these terms is really what's at the heart of the matter.

You couldn't have a atheist-Christian. It's all nonsense and plays into their hands.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

So you couldn't be from a Christian ethnicity but have become an athiest? The reality is that Jews historically as far back as you look have been shoved from pillar to post and subjugated by others. As a result they have kept themselves to themselves much like many Pakistanis do in this country. We are seeing history repeat itself. You may be able to just push that idea under the carpet, but not everyone is going to share the same view as you. They may not be able or want to forget what has happened to them as a group. History runs deep, I mean we've held a grudge against the french since William invaded...

In reply to beardy mike:
There is no such thing as a Christian ethnicity.

There are ethnicities that are mainly Christian. You could be Christian white European. You can be a Jewish white European. You can be a Christian Jew. But you can't be an atheist Christian and you can't be a Jewish Christian.

In reply to TobyA:


This nervousness might be a response to media propagation of the inflammatory rhetoric of pro israeli Jews, used to ratchet up the need for "antisemitism" laws and instill paranoia in the Jewish populace.

If you have the time, here's a quality documentary on the subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FDxQgTDsf0&feature=youtu.be

In reply to DancingOnRock:


-- isn't there a group of Jews for Christ or something that completely mix Judaism and Christianity ? not sure what you mean, but when believing in all kind of flying spaghetti Jews that in reality was probably just an enthusiastic hippy Jew lad from Nazareth anything is possible..

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

To further NickB's comment, from a dictionary;

Semite - a member of the group of peoples who speak a Semitic language, including the Jews and Arabs as well as the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, and Phoenicians.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



And here we have the real nub of my question and it makes my own personal perspective very difficult. I cant abide religions, in all its forms and I may, at times, want to criticise it but with Jews, because of this unclear distinction I may get labelled racist or anti-semitic. I am neither but I should be allowed to criticise religion in all its forms without fear of having those charges. As it happens, I find Islam the worse of all the religions and that can also get me labelled as racist when Islam isnt a race nor is Judaism.

I may well criticise the actions of Isreal but this seems to have become sensitive for public figures, as they too are labelled as racist or anti-semitic by extension.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I personally am very critical of the foreign policy and approach of the Israeli Government. This is not anti-Semitic; it is opposition to a specific Government's policies.

This is just like I am not anti-American, but I certainly did strongly oppose the policies of the Bush Government, and if there is a Trump one I will almost certainly oppose those, too.

In reply to Dauphin:
That (the link) seems an enlightened and sensible take on the situation.

In reply to Gone for good:


Do you not mean 'had to convert to Judaism'?

In reply to Andy Say:

Now you're just arguing semitics.

In reply to Gone for good:


And shirley that is part of the DNA interpretation that is now possible? I'm not so sure that race IS simply a 'social construct' in those terms; more a matter of ancestry and bloodlines (within which there can be a wide divergence in 'physical characteristics').

In reply to TobyA:


Bloody hell! I didn't know. I feel sick! That's the last cheeseburger I EVER eat.

In reply to fred99:

Bloody Assyrians. Hate every last bastard of them.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
Nah. You are wrong.

http://jewsforjesus.org.uk/

Depends upon the many strands of cultural identity, ethnic, religion and class on which you want to claim ownership of.

There's even Jewish Muslims.

http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2015/02/27/former-rabbis-second-wives-and-cha...

I was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness by parents with former generations of Irish Catholic and Methodists. I'm prouder of my union leader great grand parents, atheists and communist forebears and reject nationalisms and spiritual servitude of all flavours.

D

In reply to fastfinger:


In which case they're Jewish-Christian White Europeans. Or Jewish-Christian Jews.

They're not Jewish-Christian Christians.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I think we are dealing with a variety of issues. It is in the interests of various groups to try to merge them and confuse them.

1. Anti-semitism. A racist attitude towards all Jews. Slightly confused in that the Jews are simply one semitic branch of a group that includes most of the Arab groupings in the region (as pointed out above).

2. Anti-Zionism. If we accept 'Zionism' as a belief in the validity of the establishment of a 'Jewish state' in a section of what 'was' Palestine then logically 'anti-Zionism' is a belief in the destruction of that state. I'm not sure that is particularly widespread amongst those who might be called 'anti-Zionist' who would more likely fall into my category 4.

3. Anti-Judaism. An opposition to the religion practised by many Jews. I'm not sure if that is a 'real category' however as most opposition seems to be simply from 'anti-religionists'. And isn't it strange how so many of the basic tenets of Judaism are shared with Islam.....

4. Anti-Israeli'ism'. Another complicated one! I'd go for 'an objection to the actions of the state of Israel' rather than a 'hatred of all citizens of Israel' but it is easy to see why such opposition is conveniently labelled as something else.

Bored now.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Agreed. Just wolves in the fold.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
It's the nature of the minority status of diasporas that people identify as ethnic anything. There's plenty of Christian and other minority religions in the middle east where people would describe themselves as ethnically Christian. Indeed this happens in Israel.

D

In reply to Dauphin:



They may well if they are trying to distance themselves from the Jews. Doesn't make them not Jews though.

There is no such race as Christian.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

No such race as Jewish either. When you delve into the nitty gritty of any self identity, it all starts to fall apart, genetically especially.

D

In reply to Andy Say:







I'm anti my mother's sister. Please add that one to your list.

In reply to Dauphin:




Holy frigg!!

Im done with this planet, Im off to mars.

In reply to Andy Say:

and as well as those, there are anti-semitic zionists. Then there's anti-anti-semitic, pro- opportunists like J. Mann MP (he of the Ken Livingstone harangue ).

For me, the following blog encapsulates the whole mess rather nicely

http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/john-mann-mp-zionist-scumbag-and.html

In reply to llechwedd:


But if Ken Livingstone is not anti-semitic but rather anti-Israeli, as he may argue, then surely John Mann cannot be anti-anti-semitic for attacking him but rather simply be pro-opportunist. Unless of course he is a closet anti-anti-Israeli and using anti-anti-semitism as a smoke screen. Or have I got that wrong?

In reply to Willi Crater:


Only if:
A) she can be proven by DNA to be a Jew
B) she practices Judaism or
C) she lives in Haifa

Otherwise that is simply 'thoughtcrime'.

In reply to Dauphin:

--- that depends how you define a race. how many common genes are enough ?
it is the old fuzzy logic trap. (how many stones are called a heap? )

In reply to fastfinger:

No. There's nothing fuzzy about it.

In reply to fastfinger:


'Cairn' is the word you are looking for.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

just saying that without relating to the issue .. pointless post. stick to dancing

In reply to Andy Say:

She became Jewish. Learnt Hebrew and practiced the faith. So yes, she converted to Judaism and became Jewish.

In reply to Dauphin:



No kidding.

I no longer have the references to hand but a few years ago I did a bit of digging on the Israeli government website and I was left with the impression that the matters of race and religion that we pathetic Brits are all scared to discuss in polite company are the bread and butter of how the Israeli state defines itself.

In reply to Gone for good:


So could I become African?

In reply to Jim Fraser:



Well, yes, I guess by now I shouldn't be surprised that some people can be so sensitive to anti-semitism and yet so blind to racism. I don't regard being a little less blind to it as pathetic at all.

In reply to Andy Say:

We're all African dude.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

-- yeah, and the Thailand state is defined with Buddhism , Malaysia with Islam, etc.. for countless countries, so what is your point exactly ?

In reply to Big Ger:

youtube.com/watch?v=pmoW9V43o4w&

In reply to fastfinger:

What we don't want to discuss is how race is defined. Some people argue that there is no such thing.

In the mean time the Isralies firmly believe that race is real and definable.

There is no Thai or Malaysian race.

This is important because if there is no such thing as race then you cannot have racial discrimination which we know happens.

Race is simply grouping people with features that are obviously the same due to their DNA. Saying there's no such thing as race and that it's purely a social construct is like saying there's no such thing as a family.

Race is effectively a huge group of people from the same 'family' that has grown over millennia.

.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Rascism is a social construct. As is the prosecution of rascists.

D

In reply to fastfinger:


Oh, Jim's just being anti-British, I don't think he is being anti-britonish, he might be anti-United Kingdomish, he may even be anti-teadrinkinggeneralymildandtolerantbunchoffolkgenerallyquitehappytobimblealongthankyouverymuchish - but I get confused by definitions.

In reply to Dauphin:

Yes. Of course it is. It's something that has no place in a civilised society.

In reply to Dr.S at work:
Most definitions are pretty well understood.

Zionism apparently isn't, even by the Zionists.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I'm not so sure about given the frequent misunderstandings seen here and elsewhere!

i think it's closer to reality to suggest that most people know what they mean by a definition, rather than what the actual meaning of the definition is.

In reply to Andy Say:


You could become South African. You could have African children.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

--- fair enough .


--- complete rubbish. Israel believes there is a Jewish people. that is not the same as saying Jewish race. (like whites , Chinese Han or whatever)

--- Racial discrimination happens for social reasons , people that look differently or act differently can be picked on, nothing to do with whether race exists or not. (is there a gay race? yet they are picked on like gypsies , blacks etc)


>

--- after saying you do not want to define race , you now contradict yourself..

In reply to fastfinger:

When I say 'we' I mean as a society. It's an uncomfortable thing to discuss.

So when the Isralies talk about a promised land for the Jewish people, they're talking about a race not a religion.

There is a definition of race, it's not a scientific one, nor is it a legal one. That's where the problem lies.

Gay people are not a race and persecuting people for their sexual orientation is not racial discrimination.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Thank you Dr.S for that definition that I would never have managed to spell by myself.

Ranting about anti-semitism buys bimbling tea drinkers unquestionable membership of liberal middle-class society. (Let's not pretend socialism still exists in the UK, although I can't completely rule out its future reconstruction.)

I want peace for all of the semitic peoples of arabia and the levant. Israel, by its existence and by its behaviour is an obstruction to that peace.

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/7F0AF2BD897689B785256C330061D2...

Anything between where we are now and UN R181 is a step in the right direction. Just having Israel stop knocking the sh1t out of ordinary people and stealing their property would make a huge difference.

Anybody who imagines that supporting human rights in the middle east is anti-semitism really needs to get down to their doctor and get a pill for it.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I wish I could give triple 'likes'

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Oh, I copied and pasted from the OED.


True enough.

Do you advocate the end of the state of Israel as a realistic part of resolving the regions ills? It seems difficult at best for the foreseeable future.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


--- what complete rubbish blaming israels existense for all the problems of the middle east (and maybe the world in your view? ). maybe israel is also responsible for the 1400 year shia-sunni war which the latest round is being displayed in the most brutal imaginable way in Syria ?
how about the regimes in Saudia Arabia , Iran and the rest ? are those also Israels creation. Oh , and Israel brought down the Lybia regime to the chaos we see now ? and Iraq of course , thats Israel's doing...
clearly you have absolutely no understanding of anything in the middle east.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

-- you seem very sure what Israel says about Jews, then quote what you say, back it up. Where is the Israeli government quote of Jews being defined as a race and not a people ? where do they refer to themselves as anything different of the way the Welsh , Scots, Irish , etc.. refer to themselves ?

the fact that there is a Jewish religion practice by some Jews is not special in any way, some Japanese people practice Shinto, some Chinese practice Taoism, so ? do you think the governments in Japan and China do not support religious institutions related to those religions ? you seem to have a need to single out israel as racist or fascist yet you provide no evidence whatsoever.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

No.

Some very significant but hugely difficult movement on Israel's part could make future peace a lot easier. Arab lives have to have the same value as Jewish lives.

Israel gives the appearance of relative stability and security. I don't think that should be taken for granted. The destruction of Israel as we currently know it is not beyond the bounds of possibility. For one thing, it just takes the USA to take its eye off the ball and concentrate on its own problems and things can get difficult. With wahabis in the south, revolutionary shia in the north, collapsing oil prices, IS in the middle and the old colonial power (Turkey) flexing its muscles, who knows what's next.

Steady diplomacy and a good grasp of history will be required if western influence is to be helpful over the next couple of decades.

What I am certain of is that the British cannot make a useful contribution so long as the entire political establishment is halfway up their own 4r5es over this pretentious witch-hunt that is going on at the moment.

In reply to fastfinger:





Middle East fundamentals
- Existence of the state of Israel
- Treatment by Israel of the native people of Palestine
- The incompetent arrival of the nation state and lines on maps
- The absence of Kurdistan
- Ruling of shia people by sunni or wahabi despots
- A disfunctional Iranian constitution that is an over-reaction to the previous despotic regime propped up by the west
- A century of sucking up to the Wahabi despots on the peninsula so that we can get their oil

New layers of dysfunction are laid down every few years and range from French mismanagement of Syria to the rise of IS.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Worth repeating.

Anybody who imagines that supporting human rights in the middle east is anti-semitism really needs to get down to their doctor and get a pill for it.

In reply to fastfinger:


I am fairly certain neither the Japanese or Chinese have the law to return related to those religions.

In reply to fastfinger:


I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Judaism is a faith practiced by all races of people. These people call themselves Jewish.

Jews are also race of people. These people may or may not practice Judaism. Hence they may or may not be of Jewish faith.

Some Isralies (not all) believe that the Jewish people should be returned to the promised land.

No where have I accused anyone of racism. I'm just trying to explain to you the difference between those people who are Jewish by race and those people who are Jewish by faith.

The whole confusion is that these are two different groups of people, with some overlap.

Hitler, practiced eugenics. He didn't persecute the Jews because of their faith. He persecuted them due to their race. As far as I know he didn't give them an option to convert to Christianity in the camps. He also persecuted disabled people, gypsies, afro-caribeans.

The discussion is about Israel not about China, Japan, Thailand, etc.

In reply to fastfinger:

Eideth Stein

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein

In reply to Jim Fraser:



Or as noted Holocaust survivor Hajo Meyer put it

"Formerly, and anti-semite was somebody who hated Jews because they were Jews and had a Jewish soul. But nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by Jews".

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hajo_Meyer

In reply to llechwedd:

So to test your theory, why don t you wear your Kippa, and wander around a heavily populated arab/Muslim district for a few hours, and report back how many 'Jews' you meet hating you?

In reply to KevinD:

--- im fairly certain any chines or Japanese born abroad to those parents gets a Chinese or Japanese passport with no problems

In reply to DancingOnRock:


--- a race defined by yourself , but not the state of Israel.

-- again, you seem to agree with Hitler that the Jews are a race, a belief which is based on Eugenics , a pseudo science motivated by colonial racism , originated at UCL incredibly among others.. (due to the well known mathematician Pearson a well documented anti semite)

--- saying parallels should not be made just strengthens your apparent will to single out Israel and Jews as something 'else'.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

-- and what about her ? what is the point of the link ? im not a mind reader . yet...

In reply to llechwedd:

-- some people definitely use that term for their own needs. but there is no denying that in the EU (and the UK), anti Israel is mixed with anti Jew by some people. and some politicians attempt to appeal to Muslim voters by being such.

In reply to fastfinger:




You are completely bonkers mate.

I don't 'seem' to do anything.

Read a dictionary.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

-- calling people bonkers, or your mate, doesn't make you sound more convincing.
I called out your mistakes, or rather views, you didn't reply to the point, so im ending the discussion. you can have the last word (or swear word.)

In reply to fastfinger:


ermm yes. Now how about the right to citizenship with regards to just the religion? Which was the comparison you were drawing.

Didnt it end up in court recently about who counts as a Jew? Think it was about a disagreement about whether someone qualified for a Jewish school.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


There's quite a lot in what you say that I can agree with but if you start saying that the very existence of Israel is part of the problem I think you are heading for an unnegotiable impasse.

Certainly the behaviour of successive Israeli governments and the tacit support of successive US governments (with the notable exception of the current administration) is a significant part of the problem but questioning the right of Israel to exist rapidly puts you in the same category as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as far as many people are concerned. It's unhelpful to suggest and would be utterly impractical as a solution (I don't think you are really suggesting that). On the other hand, clarifying exactly where the borders of the state of Israel should be and agreeing how that decision will be enforced by international mandate are perfectly reasonable subjects for discussion.

In reply to fastfinger:

Eh? What on earth has the belief that different races exist (Jewish or otherwise) got to do with eugenics. And why is eugenics a pseudo science - it seems to me that it is perfectly scientific (after all we do it with crops and dogs all the time); its just that most people question whether it is a sensible thing to do with humans in many or most circumstances, and almost universally are against it when the characteristics being selected for are merely the superficial racial ones.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

The matter of its existence and the how it came about has to be part of the picture if you want to gain a realistic knowledge of what is going on. How can you understand the anger of the Palestinians, and mediate, if you ignore that someone stole their country and WE LET THEM?

It's interesting how many of those cut-throats from the 1940s became Likud politicians. Eventually, after 30 years, Likud became a dominant force. No more pink fluffy kibbutzniks. For those guys, a kibbutz wasn't a place to grow oranges but a place to bury your explosive stash.

In some ways, that is normal. Look at Fianna Fail. I think that's where comparison with Ireland ends though.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I thought being Jewish was inherited from your mum, whether you liked it or not, so I assume it's on the mitochondrial genome somewhere.

More seriously, I think the 'problem' with eugenics, apart from the rather obvious moral objections to its misapplication to political policy, was that it was a hopelessly simplistic attempt to correlate arbitrary ideals of fitness to a version of scientific genetics that wasn't even it its infancy at the time. Even now, trying to tie multifactorial factors involved in complex developmental, intellectual and behavioural traits to specific genetic variants is usually written off as simplistic and premature at best and some would say is misconceived and undesirable even in principle.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


There's a difference between understanding the rather questionable way in which the state was established and seriously suggesting that any kind of a solution might include abolishing it.

In reply to fastfinger:


This is absolute rubbish. You should withdraw this comment.

Anyone who is of Jewish heritage but does not practice Judaism, and considers themselves Jewish, is Jewish in what sense if not racially? The concept of race may be slippery, I agree, but what other concept have we got to describe one's family heritage as applies here?

And just to clarify again, this has got absolutely nothing to do with eugenics and Hitler. For crying out loud.

In reply to dek:


Input worthy of a Israeli grant?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/students-offered-grants...

I may be wrong, but I thought this discussion began because of the recent 'anti-semitism' story in the western media, Trying to conflate your scenario where 'arab/Muslim' people show hatred towards Jews, with the abuse, in the west, of the term 'anti-semitic', is just playing the victim card.

You are fully aware that it is not my 'theory', but the observation of Hajo Meyer, a Holocaust survivor, about the misappropriation of victimhood. Presumably you think he didn't know what he was talking about with this 'theory'.
How easily you dismiss someone, whose vile treatment at the hands of the Nazis was utilised by Israel to justify their desire create a cruel apartheid state. But then Israel used the same tactic up until his recent death.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Culture?

I'm guess I'm culturally Christian, even though I was brought up in a household where there was so little discussion of god that we weren't even atheist. I'm not a member of the Christian faith, I'm certainly not racially Christian, so how else do I describe my background?

Not that I need to explain my background and perhaps the apparent need to do so that some people have is part of the problem.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Doesn't really work. My dad considers himself Jewish because he was brought up in a (practising) Jewish family. He's an atheist, and doesn't do anything that could be considered "culturally Jewish". He isn't part of a Jewish community, eats very little Jewish food, etc, etc. What makes him Jewish is his "Jewish blood". What's that if it ain't race?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

If he was brought up in a Jewish family and still thinks of himself as in some way Jewish despite being unobservant in any religious sense, then it can only be some sort of cultural habit, can't it? That in itself isn't racial, any more than I'm racially atheist.

It may or may not be in some way racial too, if he's genetically Ashkenazi or Sephardi.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I don't understand the argument. Why is not obviously racial, if it's about who your parents, grandparents etc were, which I think is the case for many non-observant Jews. Why deny this?

In reply to fastfinger:


I'm not sure what you're 'calling me out' on. I haven't made any mistakes or expressed any views.

I even gave you an example of someone who was killed because her race not her religion.

Whether you believe race exsists or not is a moot point. Everyone else does.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

But if your father had been adopted as a baby into a practising Jewish family, would he feel any different?

If he'd been adopted by a Chinese family, would he feel racially Chinese, rather than culturally Cantonese or whatever?

I realise that I'm getting into deep water here, but it seems to me that race is inextricably linked with identifiable phenotypic (and therefore genetic) markers. I do realise that Jewishness is traditionally inherited through the maternal line but that's a religious and cultural construct - I was joking about the mitochondrial Jewish gene!

In reply to Dave Garnett:
It's an interesting question, but I think your eagerness to relegate race to some technical matter of genetics is misguided. Race - racial heritage - is a part of identity. If my Dad was adopted into a Chinese family, and now went around telling everyone he was "Chinese", people would look puzzled and ask what the hell he was on about. Then he could explain "well I kind of feel Chinese because of my upbringing, even though I've left all of that behind". The response might be, "oh I see. But you're not actually Chinese are you".

In reply to Dave Garnett:


The suggestion was that a solution lay somewhere between where we are now and UN R181. I pointed to the existence of Israel as an obstruction to peace: which it will always be for many.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


To be honest, I think the problem lies in two radical groups rather than "The Isralies" and "The Palestines".

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Yes - just a shame that those two extremist groups are in government!

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I don't see how a definition of race without some genetic basis makes sense. I don't see what's wrong with your dad saying he feels a bit culturally Jewish or is of Jewish extraction or whatever. It's complicated, the way you feel about your identity. My mum was Welsh and I spent a lot of time in Wales as a kid, so part of me feels a little bit Welsh. It's not a racial identity though, it's cultural, especially the appreciation of male voice choirs.

Admittedly, I have no permanent physical evidence of being a bit Welsh, since they don't circumcise...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


But aren't we now talking about ethnicity? The adoption of the cultural 'clutter' that surrounds a 'race'?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I agree it has genetic basis, it's about your bloodline, who your mum and dad were, and their parents... I just don't think it's necessary to make a technical definition and then say "Jews can't be a race because their DNA is too varied".


That's not what he says, he says "I'm Jewish".


But if both your mum and and dad were Welsh and you grew up in Wales, you'd probably say "I'm Welsh" rather than "part of me feels a little bit Welsh". An element of identifying as Welsh or Jewish is cultural, another element is racial.

In reply to Andy Say:

Are there separate, broadly accepted definitions of race and ethnicity. To me they sound like the same thing, e.g. "ethnically Chinese" or "ethnically Jewish" - which sounds a bit more pleasant somehow that "racially Chinese" etc, but it saying the same thing?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Whole section on Wikipedia. Looks like it depends on the ethnic in question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

In reply to Robert Durran:

--- i think you don't know a lot about the subject or its place in the holocaust if your calling it 'science' . measuring peoples skulls and classifying them as races based on superficial phenotype is a pseudo science

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Welshness isn't an exact comparison because it's both cultural and national. I'm not Welsh because I wasn't born in Wales.

I get uncomfortable when people start talkimg about bloodlines in any context other than horses or dogs. How far does the effect last? Do you feel Jewish?

In reply to fastfinger:


You are confusing Phrenology with Eugenics. Although eugenics isnt really as science but rather social philosophy which can use scientific methods but may not.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

-- if you want to have a discussion here, do not tell people what to comment . reasonable ?

--- in that case they are Jewish in some social sense probably, they have a few Jewish friends and maybe go to the passover meal once a year. how about a cultural heritage ? did you know that over 1000 years ago a whole viking like people converted to Judaism ? were they at the time nothing more than Jews in religious and cultural sense ?


-- i was not the one who mentioned Hitler and classifying Jews as a race, it was the rather rude guy dancing with something who suggested biological classification.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


--- what is 'Jewish blood' ? is that a measurable scientific term ?
do you know (or anyone else) how many intermarriages Jews have had in the past 2000 years for any specific Jew (or Welsh or Scot or English) i can point out in the street?

In reply to fastfinger:


Not all comments are reasonable. Saying that there is such a thing as Jewish race is perfectly reasonable for all the reasons discussed above; it isn't reasonable to respond "you agree with Hitler" and that this view is "based on eugenics". Sorry, I think it's really out of order, which is why I think you should withdraw the remark. I can't force you to, but I think you should.


It's hard to define isn't it. I agree that there are many important social and cultural elements to identity, but there is also the matter of the race that your parents and grandparents belonged to (or felt they belonged to). Races don't have hard boundaries, but they group together people in recognisable ways that people self-identify with, and which are used by those who wish to discriminate. Ignoring the reality of race is just silly.

In reply to fastfinger:


No, hence the use of inverted commas.


What does it matter? If someone is born of Jewish parents and grandparents, why is wrong for them to identify as ethnically or racially Jewish, even if they don't engage in Jewish culture or religion? A race doesn't have to exhibit genetic homogeneity to exist; in the sense I'm using it here, it means the racial group to which your recent ancestors belong. We define it in different ways in different contexts, often simply by the colour of skin, where there is no question of genetics.

I do kind of sympathise with the idea that it would be nice if we made no distinctions of race, ever. But something being a nice idea, and actually being part of the world are not the same thing. And someone who recognises race in any given context is not advocating a view "based on eugenics" - I think that's a very unpleasant slur and nothing more.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I don't feel Jewish, but as a kid I often said I was 'half Jewish'. I guess going to my grandparents place and experiencing that whole mad world had an effect on my identity (culturally); but I quantified it (racially).

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm Brian and so is my wife.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I've been thinking about this and we talked about it down the pub.

I tend to assume my audience has some intelligence (risky I know) also, that they aren't complete arseholes (even riskier). So if I say, "Israeli's are bombing Gaza again", I assume people know I'm not blaming the whole of Israel or ALL Jews. I of course mean the Israeli government, obviously what I've said isnt (sic) strictly correct but missing the apostrophe out of isn't isn't strictly correct either, but everyone knows what I mean (this won't stop some grammar Nazi (pun intended) telling me I'm an dickhead!

Obviously, I'm not a politician and there are people who don't understand the difference between what I'm actually intending say and what they think I'm saying, but on the whole most people understand the difference between what's been said and what some people (mostly the people who accuse other of being anti-Semitic) would have me believe I've said.

Basically, I think I'm saying intention is a big part of racism, while I agree people can be racist without intention, it's the intent that is the major issue.

It seems to me there is a particular floor of eggshells one must walk across when discussing Israel / Jewishness / Zionism that isn't there when talking about other issues. I'd have no trouble talking about the Russian's in Chechnya for instance and doubt I'd be labelled a racist for it, at least.

I think on the whole people know themselves what they are, they may say some stupid shit, but we can all be guilty of that, at some time or other. People can label me what they like I know I'm not anti-Semitic or racist, I happen to think Ken isn't either but that doesn't make what he said OK.

In reply to fastfinger:

> -- again, you seem to agree with Hitler that the Jews are a race

you've just done the same thing wot red ken done. which is kind of funny

In reply to krikoman:


Metaphor rather than pun Id have thought

In reply to Andy Say:

You for got to mention my apostrophe


Or lack of

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.681525


Does this mean Bibi is an anti-Semite?

In reply to krikoman:



You will have come across goysplaining by now, yes?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

--- thats exactly the point, you are using race in some sense which is based on your understanding, while the word in general has various interpretations, some of which are problematic. it would be far withing consensus and easier to identify Jewish people as having a cultural heritage or ancestry whether they are religious or not.
from Wikipedia :
"Race, as a social construct, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics.[1][2][3][4][5][6] First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, by the 17th century race began to refer to physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits. The term was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense,[7] starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[8][9]"

you see the problem ? Jews share no physical characteristics that identifies them, if you visited Israel for instance that would be quite apparent.
you can agree i think that it is a problematic word , certainly on forums.

In reply to Donald82:

-- how have i done 'wot' red ken 'done' ?
duh ?

In reply to krikoman:


I don't think Livingstone is a racist either but he is a bit of a narcissist and he must have known how incendiary his comments would be. Implying there was some sort of equivalence between Jewish aspirations for a homeland and Hitler's proposed forced relocation and racial cleansing can only be deliberately provocative. I was reminded of Enoch Powell's habit of allowing his comments and classical allusions to be misinterpreted and then refusing to explain, to the point where they did amount to deliberate provocation.

In reply to fastfinger:



Big noses?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
What makes him Jewish is his "Jewish blood". What's that if it ain't race?

I wonder how accurate a blood test to determine a person's religion might be?

Edit link added
http://forward.com/articles/134758/family-roots/

Excerpt added
“genes do not define the Jews,” according to Edward Reichman, an Orthodox rabbi and physician at Yeshiva University in New York,

In reply to Gone for good:

-- yes except that of course, and the big other parts. (only talking of myself)

In reply to fastfinger:

You're invoking hitler to support your argument in quite a nasty way.

In reply to Donald82:

--- if you look at the thread I was not the one bringing up Hitler. someone else did, and justified Jews being a race because Hitler defined them as such.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I was watching BBC breakfast yesterday morning, Newswatch I think, and this topic was obviously being covered, specifically the hounding and phone-in-face action of the press for KL.

There was a commentator discussing the matter; I think he was Jewish and part of a group campaigning for anti-semitism or something.

I was half asleep at the time so didnt take it all in however towards the end he was quite specific that it is the Jews' right to be offended by anything they choose.

This takes matters to a worrying level. If a religious group decides that it is the final arbiter and judge on what should be offensive or not then this is surely the thin edge of the wedge and should alarm all those who regards free speech as a cornerstone to an enlightened western democracy.

The muslim types would have a field-day on this; they get offended by everything.

In reply to fastfinger:


Another couple of elected Labour Jew haters, outed today!....its getting quite crowded in the 'Bunker'
youtube.com/watch?v=Pjes8_uWjUQ&

In reply to dek:

Brilliant!!!!

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:




Bizarre, isn't it, that pro israeli British Jews, like the Board of Deputies of British Jews, campaign to have Boycott against Israeli apartheid redefined as anti-semitism. So. in that sense- because Boycott wasn't formerly antisemitism- they are campaigning for more anti-semitism.
Of course, they would then like to have this 'antisemitism' suppressed.


Agreed.

In reply to llechwedd:

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/5/1/nobody-bothered-to-check-who-creat...

D

In reply to Dauphin:

Class link!

My thanks for that as nowhere could I find out exactly what crime Naz Shah had committed.

In reply to Andy Say:

--- gilad atzmon and norman finkelstein are both jews but they also seem to hate israel, i assume they don't hate jews...
i wonder how much the expat thing affects peoples opinions, met quite a few brits abroad that don't like the UK on various levels.
in any case i don't think anyone assumed she photoshopped it herself, and also can't see why that in itself is anti semitic , more like very anti israeli.

In reply to Dauphin:

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/ed-miliband-a-shameless-zionist-in-our-mids...

-- apparently lib dem apologized for his racist rantings, the guy hates israelis with all his heart apparently.
not only that , he wants to 'ethnically cleanse' british politics from 'zionists' (whatever that means...)
i find it hard to believe his hatred is motivated only by his concerns for the well being of Palestinians. (when does true concern generate such hatred anyway ?? )

actually after reading a few things he said, Gilad Atzmon does hate Jews , he says so himself in those words (' i am a self hating jew').
Some of his sayings are appalling , including stuff about the holocaust.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:






OK, so I got a dislike. Im not an overly sensitive type but I am genuinely curious as to which part warranted a dislike on this. Would Mr/Mrs Disliker care to reveal him/herself and explain what they disagreed with.

In reply to fastfinger:


Prof Finkelstein or G. Atmon ? G. Atmon describes himself as a self hating Jew because his Jewish critics level that trope at him.

D

In reply to fastfinger:

they explained why they thought there's a jewish race as different from practising jews, and gave an example of hitler persecuting the 'race' rather than the relgion to help explain the point.

you then started with the, "so you agree with hitler and eugenics stuff."

regardless of the difference between a "race" and a "people", this is a prime example of reasonable discussion being denounced as anti-semitism.

In reply to fastfinger:


Maybe they are just Jews with a conscience, I'm assuming you agree that such a thing can exist.

In reply to Dauphin:

Numerous facebook friends had linked the original Vox Political post that Atzmon quotes. Did nobody else find it so ridiculous as to be actually offensive? For those who felt a bit TLDR about it, basically it says, the bloke who first posted the meme that Naz Shah posted is Jewish, therefore it's all ok. So next time you hear a black guy spouting some racist rubbish, its OK to repeat because, you know, he's black so that makes it unracist by magic!

Are you a regular Atzmon reader?

In reply to TobyA:

Nah. I read 'the wondering who?' by Atmon a few years ago. Its an interesting perspective as is Finkelsteins. I can understand why they both believe and act in the way they do about Zionism and understand their many detractors. Don't think your analogy re Black Rascists works here at all, they are not uncle toms or anti-Semitic capitultors. Im not sure what im supposed to feel offended about? Islamic Pakistani M.P. tweets one of Finkelstein's many rants against Israel clearly to gain favour with the anti-Semitic Islamic element in her followers. Everyone loses their shit, right before a local election. No theatre involved at all. Labout party turf war between zionists and islamic types. I haven't got a dog in the fight., but I've been interested in the wider subject since its taken so much t.v. news time since I was a kid. As the famous Jewish saying goes, two Jews, three opinions.

D

In reply to Dauphin:

-- i would say G.Atzmon rather than Finkelstein

In reply to Cobra_Head:

-- meaning Jews that have other opinions have no conscience ?

In reply to Donald82:

--- rather this is a prime example of someone accusing a Jew of using the Anti Semitism card when no such thing happened.
if you actually read the thread on 22:16 sat , DancingonRock replied :
'Hitler, practiced eugenics. He didn't persecute the Jews because of their faith. He persecuted them due to their race. '

so as you can see he explains why Hitler when after the Jews, and justifies them being a race because Hitler thought so.
Saying I brought up Hitler as a way to use anti Semitism claims is ridiculous , or maybe something else..

In reply to fastfinger:

I didn't "justify them as a race because Hitler thought so" anymore than I "agree with Hitler then" You might as well say the OED and many geneticists agree with Hitler.

It's an example. One of many. There are even studies in genetics that link certain sects of Jews back to 4 women 4,000 years ago.

You're still bonkers mate.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


He hasn't been given the chance to explain though has he, it's all about what's wrong with the Labour party.

And what if he comes on and say, "I was only agreeing with what Netty had said last October"?

In reply to fastfinger:


You were suggesting that the Jews that speak out against Israel are "Bad" Jews, look at Miko Peled and read "The Generals Son"

The question Krikoman asked was do you agree the Jews with a conscience exist, or are they "bad" Jews with something wrong with them?

I don't understand how you couldn't realise what was said, unless you didn't want to,of course.

In reply to fastfinger:




I don't know of Atzmon but could it not be the actions of the Isreali government that he hates, and by such actions a whole group of people are tarnished.

youtube.com/watch?v=C0CulhsQkTA&

In reply to fastfinger:


I read the post in full.

He's simply differentiating between two groups - a. people that practice Judaism and b. these people plus on practicing Jews - and then gives the hitler example to demonstrate this difference between the two groups. He does not make the argument "this is true because hitler said so".

Now, you could have reiterated your point about the difference between a "race" and a "people" and, pehaps, noted that hitler tried to define them as a race to try to justify his abhorrent ideology. You then might have had an interestng discussion about the difference between a race and a people. (Personally, I guess you might get all three? - religeon, people and race. Interesting ven diagram)

But you didn't. You played the anti semite card.


And there you go again!

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

It would appear that I now live in an anti-semitic county.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36186477

Selected highlights:
'In 2014, Gwynedd council passed a motion which called for a trade embargo with Israel, condemning the "attacks by the Israeli state on the territory of the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip".
It also said: "It must be made clear that the proposal condemned the Israeli state and not the Jewish religion."'

'a solicitor representing Jewish Human Rights Watch, Robert Festenstein, said: "We would like to see the motions quashed. I don't understand why they would pass it in the first place.
"I mean, they wouldn't pass a motion saying something derogatory about women, so why would they do that about Jews?'

Of course this could simply be a BBC journalist seeing a bandwagon to jump on.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Don't take it personally. There is a consistent use of the dislike button in this thread to indicate 'don't say things I don't want to hear'.

In reply to Donald82:

-- well that's how I understood it, as in he was using Hitler's understanding as justification.


--- there was a somewhat interesting discussion that you did not participate in.


--- now you are just lying, where did I call anyone an anti Semite ?



--- again you are making things up. 'something else' = your having a bad day or whatever, not that your a nazi .

-- you seem to like interpreting other peoples words to suit your own purposes. isn't that exactly what you and others are saying people are doing to Labor members ? wouldn't it be better to ask first what people mean instead of making empty accusations ?

In reply to krikoman:

--- i don't know what a 'bad' Jew is. being against this or that government of this or that country doesn't make anyone bad i think. Loyalty is a grey area, but criticizing in a civil way isn't disloyal in my understanding.


--- Krikoman is referring to Krikoman in the third sense ? hmmm....
in any case its not the first time someone doesn't understand what someone else meant on a forum...

In reply to DancingOnRock:

--- i won't go down to your level, you are really boring.

In reply to krikoman:

--- im sure Atzmon hates the Israeli government like you say, but he hates Israelis and Jews in general. after reading quite a bit about him and what his ex Jewish and Israeli friends say, i'm pretty sure he has personal problems that project into his blogs.

In reply to Andy Say:


Whoever 'disliked' that post: I like your style

In reply to Andy Say:






There are a plethora of 'Human rights'/ 'Anti-semitism' groups in the UK funded by Israel ( 'not for profit' companies - now aint that benign?) to keep the lid on the unpleasant truths about the way that country operates. JHRW is just one of them . Internationally, such pro israeli groups have a budget of millions of dollars/pounds.
JHRW was formed specifically by Israel to target the growing success of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. In 2016 alone, 26 million dollars have been earmarked for cyberattack and sabotage of groups including BDS. The game has changed- Israel is attempting to crush the peaceful protest of millions of BDS supporters, exercising consumer choice: Unwilling to inject common humanity into its' Policies, IsraelCorp will use some of the 11 million dollars the US gives it every day, engaging in eye wateringly expensive law suits to compel people to fund apartheid. Spreading the net to catch all dissent and label it as 'antisemitism' will help with Judgement in Israel's favour. Sounds familiar? TTIP?

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/cry-antisemitism-israeli-conference-ta...

If you read the JHRW material there's the same old stale conflation of legitimate questioning/action directed to Israel and antisemtism. Fearmongering which purposely builds tension among UK jews. The remarkable charity 'War on Want' is being similarly targetted by JHRW, and is accused of being in league with terrorists because it recognises the legitimacy of Boycott. Gwynedd may well ultimately be silenced- but that has more to do with the depth of pocket of JHRW than morality. A domino effect is likely where the media connives in peddling the 'anti-semitism' tactic. As has been pointed out by another contributor up-post , this is very worrying for freedom of speech in the UK.
'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

In reply to DancingOnRock:

But there are studies that suggest that all Europeans belong to one of 7 mitochondrial haplotypes derived from 7 clan mothers over the last 10,000-40,00 years, so I'm not sure what that would prove. See Bryan Sykes' book '7 Daughters of Eve'.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

It would suggest that there is a European race.

That's pretty much one aspect of how race is defined isn't it? Common ancestors.

The human race is a race where we all share the same ancestors going back hundreds of thousands of years. Over the years it's divided and merged and divided again many times.

People are uncomfortable with the idea that different races have different features, advantages and disadvantages. I don't know why, it's unhealthy.

I don't see any problem with defining different races as long as you're not using it to disadvantage and persecute people purely on race.

Or worse - complain that you're being persecuted because of your race when you aren't and you know everyone will shy away from confrontation for fear of being labelled a racist.

.

In reply to fastfinger:


And I think you're either deliberately misinterpreting my words.

Or you're completely bonkers.

In reply to llechwedd:

All of what you've said, plus it's a little scary when you look at the number of Conservative MPs who are members of Conservative Friends of Israel, I've asked our MP a Conservative if she's a member and if so what she and they get out of it.

She didn't reply.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for being friends with most people, but it would be nice to know each others expectations.

In reply to fastfinger:


Slip of the cut and paste I'm afraid. But you did seem to but putting words into their mouth or even accusing them of something they didn't say. Surprising considering the topic of the thread.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


I'm afraid I haven't, does it mean that you're allowed to spout a load of shite and get away with it if you're a prime minister but not a British MP?

Or does it mean that only non-Jews can be anti-Semitic.

Or perhaps that you can take whatever people say and be outraged about it but you don't have to abide by those same rules if they don't suit you?

I suspect the later as Israel (by which I mean the Israeli government) seems to do what it wants then expects the rest of the world to accept any shit explanation Israel (by which I mean the Israeli government) chooses to give for those actions.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I'm not sure it does really, although I don't disagree with your general point that racial characteristics are genetically inherited (uncontroversial I'd have thought). I don't have a problem with it, I'm just not sure that it helps in this case.

People seem to self-identify as Jewish for all sorts of reasons: religious, cultural, nationalist, familial; but race /ethnicity seems to me the least relevant. My view of race/ethnicity (the second simply being a more politically sensitive synonym for the first) is that it's pretty much an expression of an individual's predominant phenotype and genetic background.

Obviously individuals have mixed genetic backgrounds and so various degrees of ethnicities, but it's just a biological fact about them. Pretty much anything else can be influenced by chance and choice. You can renounce your religion, you can abandon your culture, you can adopt a new nationality, you can even deny your family, but you can't change your race(s).

It's also generally the least interesting thing about a person and rarely of much significance except for predicting the risk of various genetic conditions.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I agree. However the OP asked whether being Jewish was a race or a religion.

The answer is both. In fact it's even more complex than that, it's not just both.

However, regardless of what anyone believes to the contrary, one definition is that it is a race.

Hence racial discrimination.

You can't racially discriminate someone for thier religious beliefs.

In reply to fastfinger:


I'd say that's a wilful and nasty misunderstanding


clear implication of 'you agree with hitler'


again, pretty clear implication.


you're misrepresenting what people say. even after they've very clearly clarified it.

FWIW I think I agree with everything this guy says - https://colinrtalbot.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/the-lefts-problem-with-anti-s...

In reply to DancingOnRock:

--- i think your're pretty immature to continuously trying to insult someone you don't know.

In reply to Donald82:


"> --- now you are just lying, where did I call anyone an anti Semite ?

clear implication of 'you agree with hitler'


again, pretty clear implication."


--- your logic of implication is nothing I can argue with as it is completely illogical. if you want to be called an anti semite and say 'told you so' then please find someone else.


FWIW I think I agree with everything this guy says - https://colinrtalbot.wordpress.com/2016/05/01/the-lefts-problem-with-anti-s...

-- good for you, im not here to argue politics or convince you of anything.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

C'mon, children. Can we get back to discussing the nature of 'Jewishness' and what constitutes anti-semitism on this thread?

In reply to Dave Garnett:



It's an aside to the main point being discussed here, but it's worth noting that while many characteristics that we'd associate with race are inherited genetically, the general scientific consensus seems to be that there's generally no biological basis for creating and naming distinct racial or ethnic groupings - that that's essentially an attempt to retrofit modern genetics on to a pre-scientific view of race (that was largely constructed by European empire builders to justify doing nasty things to brown people), and is generally unhelpful. The general view these days seems to be that the only really practical way of talking about race is as a cultural thing.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Sure, it's complicated (and mostly unimportant) but I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. I think I'd stick with my definition of predominant phenotype and associated genetic background but it's certainly not precise. It's a continuum and we're all mongrels to some extent.

In reply to fastfinger:

The suggestion of anti semitism is clear and obvious. If you'd responded to people pointng this out by saying "sh!t, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that" I'd take you at your word. But you didn't. You're a nasty piece of work.

In reply to Donald82:

-- nasty piece of work ?? its true we dont know each other, but i dare to say you are a very angry guy that has decided to have a go at me.
by defintion you are trolling.

and by the way, if someone wants an apology for a misunderstanding the way to get one isn't by being aggressive and resorting to name calling.

In reply to llechwedd:

-- Zionism and anti Semitism are apparently quite confusing terms, as mentioned on ukc. I find apartheid to be equally confusing, as being a term borrowed from the south African regime and transferred to Israel. words have meanings , they mean different things to different people. Apartheid restricted blacks in all kind of ways that as far as I know arabs who are citizens of Israel are not so restricted. Palestinians are restricted in the West bank from moving around freely. Gaza is under a partial blockade, which is equally enforced by Egypt.
So aren't citizens of Israel who are Arab parallel to blacks in south Africa which were citizens there?
it is a bit confusing and probably unjust both to Israelis and Palestinians to use the same word I think, since it does not describe the situation correctly.

In reply to fastfinger:


Your definition of trolling differs to mine.

In reply to captain paranoia:


No wonder people are so easily offended.

Take a word, any word from the dictionary will do. Take 'bonkers' as an example of a harmless word. Make up your own definition. Hey presto instant offence.

No wonder some people are angry and offended all the time.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I think that one might have gone. Nowadays it seems that any on-line insult is deemed trolling as opposed to 'fishing'. 'Awful'. Once something that inspired awe and respect. Now? Anything I don't like.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

By the way. Have we decided that being 'Jewish' is racial/ethnic (i.e determined by parentage and / or acceptance of cultural norms) and religion is following Judaism and that the two things are not necessarily connected.

As an interested aside I wonder how many goy converts to Judaism there are?

In reply to Andy Say:

I've just been chatting to my mates Moses and Boaz who wandered off muttering, 'Who the f*ck knows or even cares?'

In reply to Andy Say:



Brian Epstein maybe? or was he born Jewish?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

GOY! Not gay. Pillock

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Seriously, if outing people who are well-known to be Jewish or whatever is your calling, can I suggest that you sate your peculiar tastes by focusing on, say, Helen Wood's client list?

In reply to Andy Say:

yes..it was a joke

In reply to Andy Say:

Another of your charming attributes, I see.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Did I just "out" Brian Epstein? shit..does he have an injunction out? Fck......MODS..DELETE!!

Thx for the clue on the "well known family man" though

In reply to Andy Say:


I think even the ignorant version of the meaning of trolling doesn't really cover this instance...

In reply to fastfinger:

you're deiberately twisting people's word to make out they're anti semites. that's pretty c*ntish behavior, so you can expect to be called a c*nt when you do it

In reply to DancingOnRock:

But people with mental health issues are offended by the term 'bonkers'.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Find me a reference please.

In reply to L'Eeyore:
From the Guardian....
The Sun's infamous headline "BONKERS BRUNO LOCKED UP" is described by Nightingale as a "milestone moment" owing to the overwhelming public outcry over its decision to put alliteration before consideration when reporting boxer Frank Bruno's mental health problems.

There's one.

In reply to L'Eeyore:
And another...
However the word is not without controversy. "Although 'bonkers' can be seen as a jovial term, it can be offensive when directed at someone in mental distress," says Alison Kerry at the mental health charity Mind. "And using it flippantly makes it look like it's OK to be routinely derogatory towards vulnerable people in our society. Widespread use of stigmatising terms only adds to our misunderstandings around mental health."

I may use terms like 'bonkers' and 'nutters' but clearly some object.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Are they/we really offended by the word or by the way it is used?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/feb/28/mind-your-l...

The above link looks like a really positive step to me, but I think there needs to be recognition that the Sun's headlines were 13 years ago, I'd like to think (or at least hope) peoples attitudes have changed over those 13 years.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Some people will always find an objection to anything. I don't mind being called bonkers or a nutter by anyone who is sympathetic to the life I currently find my self in. I also recognise that I'm over sensitive to criticism (correctly perceived or not) - but I'd never set out to vilify someone for saying what they thought.

In reply to fastfinger:


I've not heard of any Egyptian killings of Palestinians in Gaza or their fishing boats, yet I've heard quite a few about Israel.

So equally enforced might not be the correct word to use.

In reply to fastfinger:




'...as far as I know...' Talk about deluded. What planet are you on?

It aint earth that's for sure...

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Informative

http://normanfinkelstein.com/2016/05/03/finkelstein-breaks-his-silence-tell...

In reply to llechwedd:

-- yeah, i read the papers like anyone else. do you always believe 100% whats in them ?
so anyone that doesn't think like you is 'on another planet' ?

In reply to Donald82:

-- I didn't call anyone anti semite here, i replied to someone who mentioned Hitler and understood it in some way, after that instead of asking for clarification and sorting it out i got a barrage of attacks.

but your swearing rant above is enough to get you banned i think.

In reply to L'Eeyore:


--- saying i 'set out to villify someone' is saying what i meant to do without really asking. so from a guy that said that Hitler murdered Jews for their race not for their religion, I understood that as an argument to classify Jews as a race, the guy meant something else, and you conclude 'i set out to villify someone' ?
i hope you don't work in the legal system...

In reply to krikoman:

--- enforced as in not letting banned things from getting in.
but since you want me 'to f*ck off' then further exchange between us is pointless i guess.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

-- nudge nudge ?

In reply to fastfinger:

Please don't email me.

As above, you deliberately twisted people's words to suggest anti semitism. I know you did it and you know you did it.

That's a really horrible thing to do. When you do horrible things people may give you abuse.

In reply to fastfinger:


Fortunately, you don't get to make that decision, but it's an interesting response.

In reply to fastfinger:


Apartheid is about, amongst other things, having different rules for different people much like this http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-israel-to-hold-palestinian-journalist-4-m...

How many Israeli's are incarcerated without trial?

In reply to fastfinger:


Or keep the Gaza ghetto just as it is?


I didn't tell you to f*ck off, I've enjoyed watching you tie yourself in knots actually, so much crap from so little knowledge.

In reply to Donald82:

look, i mailed you to inquire about the nature of your cyberbullying and swearing thats all.
its not 'a horrible thing to do' to accuse someone of antisemitism if its justified.
if its unjustified it can be horrible if its on purpose and false.
if there was no accusation at all AS IN THIS CASE then the horrible thing is what you are doing which is making false accusations about me based on 'what you think i meant and was implied'.

In reply to krikoman:

if you are ending with a '?' i understand you don't want me to f*ck off ?
let's keep it civilized ,yeah ?

I suppose only Palestinians are held without trial. why do you think i'm against human rights or think its ok holding people without a trial ?
you may find parallels between what was in south africa and Israel but its still a mistake.
look, a dolphiin has fins and swims in the ocean but calling it a fish would be more misleading than informative if i was to explain its evolutionary history to someone.

In reply to fastfinger:


Probably because you have spent many posts defending Israel and Israel does that.

Why don't you come clean? Where are you and what nationality are you? What is motivating you to post?

In reply to fastfinger:


You'll need to do more than read the papers sold in the UK if you want a realistic appraisal of what's going on on the ground. It's much the same in the US. Not sure why -maybe there's some link?

For example Ayelet Sheked ( that disgusting excuse for a human -I'm certain you've heard of her) said this about 'Anti-semitism'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/04/israeli-minist...

Here she is, in the Israeli government, showing her other side, showing her humanity in 'the only democracy blah, blah,blah'.)
http://www.azquotes.com/author/58401-Ayelet_Shaked

In reply to krikoman:

your post on the Ken thread :

You really should get a grip on the facts and what people have said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to you and that rude guy donald and dancingonrocks :

1. if you want to say that a minor misunderstanding between me and dancingonrocks proves that perceived antisemitic claims in the UK are false you are not only making a logical fallacy but also demonstrating that the reason you made these false claims about my posts was exactly for that reason. to counter the anti semitic claims about the labor party in some weird way.

2. for the millionth and LAST time , i did not make an anti semitic accusation in any thread, that is only your intepretation. I do not know dancingonrocks personally and would not accuse him based on what he said , which is that Hitler murdered the Jews because he thought of them as a race, not a religion (in more or less those words) . I understood it as a justification to classify Jews as a race (because Hitler thought so), that's it. you can say i have somewhat poor understanding, or should have better found out what he meant before replying, but I can say the same about you guys for making it sound i blamed him for being anti semitic.

3. since i'm back on that topic, i will comment that mentioning Hitler in the context of classifying Jews as a race or not is problematic.
Hitler did not think of Jews as a Human race. He thought of Jews as sub human , as he thought of Slavic peoples , Gypsies, Homosexuals. That is how he got Germans to sign on to the genocide. (which is remembered today, Holocaust memorial day.)

4. It was an interesting discussion regarding race and classification as long as it was kept to a scientific debate. as written on Wikipedia, race in human classification is an ill defined term but is usually meant to include biological features. Jews in this context would , i think, poorly fit this definition. at least much less than Australian natives, American natives, Chinese Han, etc... (because of the ethnic diversity and inter marriages of Jews over millenia).

5. Its easy to replace most occurrence of 'human race' with 'cultural bound people' and therefore avoiding controversies.

my only suggestion to you , and myself, for these kind of debates on UKC is that people better find out what is meant before responding, as its easy to misinterpret posts.

In reply to MG:

so if someone isn't anti israel hes 'defending the government' ?
how the hell is it your business who i am or where i live? is that a threat ?

In reply to fastfinger:


I didn't say that.


Because I think you are either being paid or strongly supported to present the Israeli point of view. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, if you are open about it.

In reply to MG:

fine, well im not being paid and i dont support everything Israel does.
many people replied to some of the posts i submitted, and lot of them quite aggressively , so i replied. obviously a mistake ,eh ?
and yes, im a climber, and yes ive onsighted E3. happy ?

In reply to fastfinger:

Only E3, you are an embarrassment to our nation.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


and not just for the climbing.

In reply to llechwedd:



Yes but she never said anything anti-Semitic, therefore what's the problem?

It's sickening that none of the shit she writes / spouts isn't given a fraction of the time Ken's had. While i'm not one for "what about" arguments, people in glass houses and all that.

They should get her, the Israeli defence minister and Ken and Finklestein too on TV to debate racism / anti-Semitism.

In reply to krikoman:

One for Press TV or RT, perhaps.

In reply to fastfinger:


I can't read that as a threat. I'd say it is a request. An attempt to understand the 'why' of your posted opinions. It can be quite hard to understand where people are 'coming from' without any idea of where they 'come from' in terms of age, background, interests etc. And that can cause misunderstanding. Its difficult to make allowances / be empathetic with someone who has no profile on UKC. You could be an Israeli schoolboy with time on his hands; you could be a female schoolteacher in a Jewish school in London; you could be an anti-semite trying to whip up scorn for those who cry 'anti-semitism'.

In reply to fastfinger:
I think the problem started when you 'accused' me of agreeing with Hitler. I don't take offence to that. Other posters did. I took it as a typical Internet attack and didn't rise to it. You may have meant something else.

Regardless of whether classifying race biologically is useful or valid or not, people do use race as a classification. If we didn't then there would be no such thing as racial discrimination. Then you're onto a slippery slope.

Hitler was trying to create a master race so all other races would have been eventually included in his eugenics program. That's pretty much why the rest of the world got involved. At the time both Britain and the US were proposing eugenics programs of their own, even if a lot milder.

The Jews do have biological markers, they are a very small group of people. Less than 14million of 7billion. I put that as 0.002% of the worlds population and less than 4000 years old as a group. So I suspect as races go they're probably as pure as you'll get. Maybe the Moiri people or red Indians are purer? Academic really.

Just because scientists believe there is no biological merit in defining race, it doesn't mean that there is no social benefit or even disadvantages to defining it.

In reply to Donald82:

dror used to do that. Remember dror?

In reply to Mike Highbury:


My thanks. I always say that a little humour goes a long way to reducing tension on threads like this.

To recap:
Moi - As an interested aside I wonder how many goy converts to Judaism there are?
Thingy (Bjartur i Sumarhus) - Brian Epstein maybe? or was he born Jewish?
Moi - GOY! Not gay. Pillock
Thingy - Did I just "out" Brian Epstein? shit..does he have an injunction out? Fck......MODS..DELETE!!

My thanks, by the way, to Bjartur for playing the perfect straight man in our double act

And your contribution to the humour was.....

'You - I've just been chatting to my mates Moses and Boaz who wandered off muttering, 'Who the f*ck knows or even cares?''.

In reply to fastfinger:

You might want to re-punctuate or rephrase that just a bit, you know?

Just saying........

In reply to Andy Say:

That required a working knowledge of the Bible which, if you had one, would have given you an understanding of female conversion to Judaism in the time before Josiah.

But do carry on with your public meltdown. I'm not enjoying it but, doubtless, others are.