Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Just another washed-up Zionist comedian

After my recent TV "debate" with Jewish "comedian" Austen Tayshus (information here), I received this email:

"Mate, I wouldn't discuss appearance if I were you. Resorting to swipes at my appearance is evidence of how bereft you truly are. You are ashamed of who you are, lacking even the basic knowledge of yiddishkeit. You are a coward and a liar and our history is sprinkled with Nebbishes like you. I challenged you once to a debate and you declined because you are gutless. Lets debate publicly with a mediator, so you 'can get a word in edgeways'. Tayshus."

God bless him.

93 Comments:

Blogger Wombat said...

And that's Gutman on a good day.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:16:00 am  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

I have more where that came from. Saving them for a rainy day.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:17:00 am  
Blogger violet said...

It's incredibly cowardly Antony to refuse to debate your opponent but to then post his e-mails on your blog in an attempt to humiliate him. A bit like refusing a challenge to a duel and then creeping in and trying to steal your opponent's sword.

Perhaps you could be a really courageous person (a man even) and debate Austen Tayshus personally -- instead of this cowardly cloak and dagger stuff.

I guess you are too intimidated by him to accept his invitation to a public debate and prefer instead to post his e-mails and delude yourself that this makes you superior. It's pretty pathetic Antony, and amazingly gutless.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:51:00 am  
Blogger violet said...

And one more thing Antony,

Why don't you accept Austen's challenge to a debate?

Why are you so frightened of him?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:54:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Violet,

Calm down. You sound like you're losing it.

The general consensus was that Gutman's abusing calls to AL went wayyy over th eedge and constituted harassment. You seem to think that only women are entitled to make such a charge.

Gutman does not want a debate but to engage in a shouting match. Much like Ibraham does on this forum. Just barrages of insults and abuse o drown out the opponent. I knwo you're hanging out to see AL humiliated, though al that will happen is that Gutman will highjack the event like he does every other.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:49:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

Violet may have a point Anthony. You gain nothing by posting these emails except to make yourself look petty. In the scheme of things he is hardly important. Don't lower yourself to the same level.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:46:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

With due respect, you miss the point.
I intend to publish, like Norman Finkelstein, a large collection of the hate mail I receive. It is important, I believe, to show the public what kind of individuals are fighting in the Zionist corner.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:54:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:02:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

ddamo

I didn't know you were Antony's mouthpiece. And this:

Gutman will highjack the event like he does every other.

-- is just plain irrelevant. Any speaker with credibility can make themselves heard. Antony sat through his SBS interview like a stoned mullet, then he came back to his blog and blamed his fellow guest for his own inability to communicate. Have a look at Sunday or some of the more professional TV shows where a number of people with differeing views commentate together -- it's a far cry from Father Bob and his churchyard natter, where Antony faded out and couldn't hold his own.

A mediator, which has been suggested by Austen, would mediate the event. A debate is something Antony is terrified of -- because he knows he couldn't defend his discriminative views in the public space. He's a coward, plain and simple.

Rhoss, you are right about this:

In the scheme of things he is hardly important A more accurate description of Antony, I couldn't find.

Antony,

I intend to publish, like Norman Finkelstein, a large collection of the hate mail I receive. It is important, I believe, to show the public what kind of individuals are fighting in the Zionist corner.

Like Uncle Finkelstein, you have entirely missed the point. Do you feel like a hero publishing other people's views while you sit through TV interviews without a voice?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:07:00 pm  
Blogger Armagnac Esq. said...

I'm a lefty, not a big fan of Israel, suspicious of Zionism, occasionally accused of anti-semitism but in fact despising such prejudice.

I'm generally located about the same place as you in debates on Israel and the Palestinians.

I don't think it was auspicious for you to go to appearance. I don't think it's relevant that Austen fits the prejudicial small minded stereotypes of the true anti semite, and I think sometimes it's wise to admit that something was not a good thing to say and withdraw it.

It doesn't mean you give ground on substantive topics.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:57:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Violet,

Listen to yourself! You're getting worked up into a goddam frenzy woman. Fog god's sake chill. What's the big deal? You want your beloved hero, Gutman to slay your dragon so you can sleep better at night is that it?

You make absurb accusations about Antony's knowledged or lack of, as you assume, because he wont slug it out with a loud mouthed, obnoxious bully who has no interest in facts or specifics - just hyperbole and insults.

I guess in your world, those are qualities you aspire to.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:14:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

addamo,

You are making me laugh-- why do you think I'm in a "frenzy". How do you know how Austen would present himself in a debate? I imagine he would take it very seriously. He is a celebrity, and Antony -- if he had the courage -- should do it simply for the exposure to his beloved misguided cause.

So, according to you, it's OK to use strong adjectives if you are an anti-Zioist. But if a Zionist uses words such as "irrelevant" or "coward" then s/he is "in a goddam frenzy"

I'll tell you what Antony's game is: he plays the victim, and claims that the world is against him. He is going to publish all his "hate mail" so just everyone can see how persecuted he is. He won't debate Austen or anyone else because he is afraid (he's a victim again). It's that simple. I guess his public speaking is as bad as his writing. The reason his book is not on schedule is probably because Louise Adler has had to hire an army of editors to clean up his manuscript.

Have a good look at the last para addamo and you will see there is only one adjective, and it's a compound one. So, don't come back with accusations of "being hysterical." You're being silly and not addressing the issue here.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:50:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

violet,

I am relieved to hear you're OK. Seriosuly hun, I thought you were ina bit fo a tialspin, and I'm not being sarcsastic.

I'm not sure publishing hate mail is a good thing or not. On the one hand, I see how you could perseive it as victimhood. On the other, I don't believe those who use verbal abuse deserve to hide behind their anonimity.

Amyway, let's agree to disagree, as we always do.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 3:06:00 pm  
Blogger John Faber said...

Tayshus is not a particularly relevant person to debate. Posters on both sides of the fence agreed on that at the time. He was loud, agressive, strayed far from the topic and growled "LOEWEN-SCHTEIN" like a sarcastic paddle pop lion every few comments.

This is not a great debate about who is the most impressive Jew.

Antony should debate somebody who is a scholar, or a right-leaning journalist. Not a comedian.

Just because somebody invites you to a debate, does not mean that your inattendance signifies fear.

jf

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:04:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Thank you JF,

You just articulated what I have been trying to say, but obviously failed to communicate.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:20:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

john faber

Excellent, does this mean that if I find a right-wing Zionist, academic Jew that Antony will agree to debate him???

What do you say to that Antony?

Come on shy boy -- yes or no??

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:30:00 pm  
Blogger John Faber said...

I have no idea whether he will or not.

It's certainly a fair proposition, if all parties agree on the 'terms of engagement' and who the opponent is.

But of course the main problem with the concept of proposing the debate is that, as this is Antony's personal blog not endorsed by any media organisation, who is going to go to the trouble to organise it? I suspect neither Antony nor an adversary would be particularly keen to go to the effort. At this stage it is a personal opinion based site.

I would think that when the book is published, and Antony is more of a public figure would be the ideal time.

But in the end, would a debate achieve anything? Who would adjudicate?

jf

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:39:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

I think it is very telling that the Australian public and media have assessed Antony's shtick and packaged him with a 3rd rate, passed-it, RSL comedy act.

Divine justice. ;)

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:56:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

Organisation is a minor issue that can be easily resolved once Antony agrees.

Antony, Dreamboat boy, this is a public official challenge to you. If I find you a right-wing, Zionist academic Jew will you agree to debate him?

If Austen wasn't to your liking because he had a big Jewish nose, wore sunglasses and talked over the top of you (can't remember what your other issues were with him) then will you debate a serious Zionist academic (I'll request that he has a small non-Jewish nose and wear a suit)

I'm waiting for your reply to this challenge Antony.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:57:00 pm  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

I want to see -

Antony Vs tim blair!

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:57:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

Apropos our recent discussion about AL's alleged Jewishness does anybody else find it odd that AL is demonstrably lacking in chutzpah, self-parody and the comic genius that is so central to Jewish culture? After all even AL defines himself as Jewish "culturally."

Also, it seems odd that Ashkenazi Jews are known for having the highest IQs on teh planet. Perhaps AL lies at the far left tail. ;(

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:01:00 pm  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

Hold the phone!

Antony Vs Rupert Murdoch!!

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:01:00 pm  
Blogger John Faber said...

With those barbed comments it's unlikely he'll respond to you. I've noticed that he almost never replies to these sorts of posts. I think if it's a public, official challenge then you'll need to identify yourself violet, particularly if you're the convenor.

j

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:03:00 pm  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

John,

You'll find that Violet and Neo are the same person.

The nastiest pieces of work are always the anonymous ones. How brave.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:06:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:10:00 pm  
Blogger John Faber said...

David,

I see. Well I guess if they don't really want to 'level the playingfield' as the saying goes, then they're just trying to wind him up. Which is fine, but kind of pointless. I think the concept of the debate is interesting, but as stated, should happen after the book is released.

That way it would have a specific theme, and not encompass any and all topics on the blog, for example.

I have noticed a lot of criticism along the lines of "why don't you ever write about x topic", when clearly he does post on a variety of topics. This is the sort of thing that could really be dispensed with.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:13:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

john faber

I don't think Antony has a problem with my sense of humour. His own comments to me have been just as "barbed" as you call it.

I know a right-wing, academic Zionist Jew who is well known and regularly published who would be willing to debate Antony, now the question is -- is Antony prepared to debate him?

This is a serious challenge.

david heidelberg

You'll find that Violet and Neo are the same person.

That theory was squashed some time ago. People here know I am not neoleftychick. And you sir, are out of line with your allegations. I'm hardly anonymous if l'm attempting to organise a public debate.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:15:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

neoleftychick

I don't consider Antony a Jew. He is an enemy of Israel, that's for sure. I suspect he is quite bright although l haven't seen a lot of evidence of anything here, except that he is not a good writer.

In person, on TV, he appeared very quiet. I suspect he sees himself a victim and identifies more with Palestinians than Jews. He has a "victim" mentality and he acts accordingly.

He thought big bad Austen Tayshus was rude to him... he didn't consider that he, Antony ought to make himself heard or stand up for his beliefs. He let Austen walk all over him and then ran back to his blog and complained. And now he refuses to debate him. Hence my challenge to find him an opponent who might satisfy his criteria.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:24:00 pm  
Blogger John Faber said...

Well you are funny Violet.

But as for the anonymity thing: Antony would need to know who you are before he agreed to it. I mean, you wouldn't come and meet me randomly without wanting to know who I was.

And obviously, the stakes are higher here. If you really want the debate to happen, the 'serious challenge' involves a completely transparent process. That's how I would feel anyhow.

And I'll show for the debate if it happens.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:25:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

But in the end, would a debate achieve anything?

Exactly.
I think it would save everyone some time if Ant just showed his testicles to Violet. It seems as though that's what this is all about.

Seriously though Violet - what do you hope to acheive through this debate? It's not going to change your views. It's not going to change Ant's views. It's not going to change your right wing academic Zionist Jew's views. All it will be is entertaining. Just rent a DVD and get some microwave popcorn instead.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:26:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

john faber

I'm happy to e-mail Antony with my phone number and my identity. The opponent I have organised is already well known and needs no introduction. I don't see the point in posting my personal details here if Dreamboat boy cops out.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:35:00 pm  
Blogger John Faber said...

I'm not saying that you should post it here for all to see. You should send Ant the details and perhaps he'll do it.

So who is the opponent?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:36:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

does criticism of israeli policy make you an enemy of the israeli state?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:48:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

also, since we established antony's lineage pretty overwhelmingly to be jewish, (incidentally in the most disgusting discourse i have personlly witnessed here) how can you say violet that you dont consider him to be jewish

quite honestly i have read the most racist bigotted comments i have ever read on this blog and all, without exception from self proclaimed zionists barking on continuously about anti-semtism and people who hate israel,

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:54:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

smiths

Antony does not have a Jewish soul. It's very difficult living as a Zionist Jew. It means being continually judged and criticised and told you have no right to exist or to have a country of your own. Some Jews like Antony lose their souls and join the ranks of the criticisers. I believe they think this makes them exempt from the mainstream wrath against the Jews. They, somehow believe they are no longer included in the general racism toward Jewish people.

It took me a long time to understand why Jews can be defensive and abrupt. I understood it when I read their history, and I'm not talking of the holocaust, but also of the pogroms in Europe before Hitler came to power, when Jews were burned alive at stakes and in public fires. Jews have always been a persecuted people. And they continue to be persecuted. Within the context of their history it is not so difficult to see why they are defensive. No other race or culture has had to continually justify their right to exist.

Can you imagine how you would feel if this blog existed to discuss whether Australia had the right to exist and many people came and posted comments about how depraved Aussies were? No, because it wouldn't happen. Only Jews have the special priviledge of being despised. And this began long before the current problems in Israel.

As for the comments on this blog, who knows where they come from. Not all Zionists are Jews. And Judaism like any other culture has its fundamentalists and its nutters. I have a great many Zionist friends who are articulate respectable people. I have never met any who behave as you say. But too, many of the comments I see here about Jews make me want to puke. The racism here against Jews is incredible. It's politically correct to hate Jews. It's acceptable to call them names and to call for the destruction of their country. I consider the Jews of Israel to be an endangered people.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:30:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

wrong, wrong, wrong

there is criticism here against israeli govt policy, you dont seem to be able to tell the difference

it is not politically correct to hate jews, it is racist and ignorant and should not be tolerated under any circumstances

no-one here is calling for the destruction of israel, most want a workable solution that respects israeli and palestinian rights to a state

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:47:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

So wait, Jews need to be Zionists to have a soul?!? That's a bit extreme don't you think? There's really no point getting into a 'who's had it worse' argument, but there are plenty of other races and religions who have been persecuted over the years.

You say it's politically correct to hate Jews and criticise Israel. It's easy to say that in the context of a blog where the author is opposed to Zionism. But let's face it, how much criticism of Israel do you see in the mainstream media? If it really is politically correct to hate Jews, surely we would see it everywhere.

I've not seen a single article in the mainstream media criticising Jews, Judaism or Israel. Doesn't that say something? Sure, there are plenty in what one site I visit refers to as the 'upstream' media, but then all views are represented in this upstream media, many of them in the tin foil hat parade. Just because criticism of Israel exists in some form of media, does not mean it is politically correct. The mainstream decides what is politically correct and the mainstream has nothing bad to say about Israel.

Would you dispute the idea that the Jewish lobby has a great deal of pull in Washington? Would you dispute the idea that the US is the most powerful nation in the world? How endangered, really, are the Jews of Israel? A few independent media-types criticising the actions of Israel do not constitute an immediate threat to the existence of the state.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:51:00 pm  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

Violet,

I'm certainly not Antony's spokes person, but I've never seen any evidence to suggest that he questions Israel's existence. Like many, he seems to be a critic of their treatment of the Palestinians, and the immunity that they enjoy in the process.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:53:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

Did l say this...

Jews need to be Zionists to have a soul

or hang on, did l say this...

Antony does not have a Jewish soul

Yep, that's right l said the latter, which is quite different to the former.

Ask an old Jew what a "Jewish soul" means.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:06:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Violet, your exact words were:

It's very difficult living as a Zionist Jew. It means being continually judged and criticised and told you have no right to exist or to have a country of your own. Some Jews like Antony lose their souls and join the ranks of the criticisers.

Can you really tell me this doesn't imply that the Jews who criticise Israel lose their souls?

You said - again using your words - 'some Jews like Antony' who find it too 'difficult' 'living as a Zionist Jew', 'join the ranks of the criticisers' and 'lose their souls'?

Unless you're saying that the losing of their souls is entirely coincidental and completely unrelated to their 'joining the ranks of the criticisers'.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:10:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

david

Antony does not believe Israel has a right to exist as a Zionist state. He wants some multicultural utopian let's all sit around the campfire fantasy. Most Jews believe this would lead to their genocide. It probably would.

Antony also wants the allied armies in Iraq to lose. He longs for their defeat. He is on the side of the insurgents against our soldiers and our country.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:12:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

smiths

no-one here is calling for the destruction of israel, most want a workable solution that respects israeli and palestinian rights to a state

I haven't seen much evidence of this attitude here...but hey...I'm all for it.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:16:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

I'm sorry to hear that Violet. I hope you can consider this as evidence: I personally believe that Jews have as much right to their own state as the Palestinians do.

And though I will enquire as to what a 'Jewish Soul' means, I find the concept that a Jewish Soul is somehow different to an Australian Soul, or an Agnostic Soul, or any other kind of soul for that matter, to be quite racist.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:19:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

it's not about racism stev. It's about understanding and connection.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:32:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:37:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Understanding and connection, sure, but understanding and connection within one particular race/religion. That's racism I'm afraid. If we're ever going to move forward as a species we need to realise that it's not about understanding and connection between Jews, or understanding and connection between Muslims. It's about understanding and connection within humanity. The first step in that process is realising that there is no such thing as a Jewish Soul, there is only a soul - something we all have. Something we all have...in common

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:39:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

smiths

I am not Jewish. In fact I am an athiest. I have had many Jewish friends, acquaintances and colleagues in my life. I would never conisder AL "Jewish."

He is athiest. He does identify with any Jewish holidays or initiations or rituals. He does not identify with Jewish history. He is just another left-wing white athiest European born in Australia. He is really no different than say, Bob Carr.

\I think it is disgusting that a culture je loathes and rejects and advocates to destroy he is now employing in order to make money! Sadly, this is the only area in which he is "Jewish" and that is to fulfill one of the most venal and inhumane steroetypes ever invented; the money-grubbing Jew!

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:21:00 pm  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

Violet,

Your statement - Antony does not believe Israel has a right to exist as a Zionist state. He wants some multicultural utopian let's all sit around the campfire fantasy. Most Jews believe this would lead to their genocide. It probably would.

Highlights what I believe is a deep-seated racist attitude.

Let me explain - I'm an active participant in www.fightdemback.org, an organisation that exposes neo-nazi organisations/people in Australia and New Zealand. I'm extremely familiar with neo-nazi propaganda, which centres on the concept that the 'white race' is being threatened by multiculturalism, which becomes their rationale for excluding all others.

Regardless of what pro-Zionists claim, criticism of Zionism is not anti-Semitism, it's merely criticism of a concept that one race/culture has a right to exist at the exclusion of others'.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:28:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

david heidelber: "You'll find that Violet and Neo are the same person.

The nastiest pieces of work are always the anonymous ones. How brave."

Like the way you pretended to be Mushtaq Omar for ages.
http://blognz.com/mt/mt-tbk.cgi?__mode=view&entry_id=12936

Or like when you pretended to be 2 other commenters on your own blog?
http://waksedsak.blogspot.com/2005/12/travelling_25.html

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:41:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

That first link missed the end bit - here we go again, well worth the wait:
http://evilpundit.com/archives/012936.html

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:45:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

david

It is impossible to understand what your opinions are. You live a syrup of mangled and contradictory labels. Help us all out here by telling us what you mean by:

1. Zionism;

2. Pro-Zionism;

3. Anti-Zionism;

4. Anti-Semitism.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:48:00 pm  
Blogger James Waterton said...

Does Mushtaq Omar belong to any similar organisations?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:52:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

hmm,

david, I guess you can psychoanalyse me all you like but your thesis is dependant upon your own definition of Zionism, which appears a little distorted.

The so-called racist Zionists have offered to share Israel with the Palestinians on four separate occasions. Now, how praytell does that it make them determined to exist at the exclusion of others?

The answer is, it doesn't.

And it appears as Melanie has highlighted that you have one set of rules for yourself and one for everyone else.

This isn't the first time you have accused me of being someone/something I am not. So, perhaps you might find something more useful to do than play games on this blog?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:59:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

stev

Understanding and connection, sure, but understanding and connection within one particular race/religion. That's racism I'm afraid. If we're ever going to move forward as a species we need to realise that it's not about understanding and connection between Jews, or understanding and connection between Muslims. It's about understanding and connection within humanity. The first step in that process is realising that there is no such thing as a Jewish Soul, there is only a soul - something we all have. Something we all have...in common

Where did you learn this?? Honestly it's ideological psycho-academic babble. According to this thesis it's racist to identify with your own culture or religion. Belonging to a religion or culture does not inhibit your ability to belong to humanity.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:10:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

You see David, or whoever you are going to start calling yourself now, it's hard to share with people who quite openly say they want to kill you. The majority of don't want a single Jew on Palestinians soil and they see Palestinians soil as all of Israel. Does this appear racist to you, or is it just Israel that is being racist because they don't want to be killed by Palestinians.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:12:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:15:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Identifying with your culture is one thing Violet. Considering that your soul is any different from the souls of other races, religions or cultures is something else altogether. Belonging to a religion or culture does not make one racist. Considering yourself, and those within your culture or religion, to be different from those in other cultures or religions is dangerous. Perhaps it's not racist. Hell, if we're talking about cultures rather than races, it's definitely not racist - but it's certainly dangerous.

Sure, people in one culture/religion/creed are often different from those in other cultures/religions/creeds. But at the same time, people within those groups are different from each other. We are all different.

And I get that in perceiving the world we see a need to classify things. But when we consider our classification as 'Jewish', 'Australian', 'Gay' - whatever the religion/culture/creed/sexuality may be - when we consider that classification before we consider ourselves as human, it brings us closer to others within that culture, but at the same time it distances us from all other cultures.

That distance breeds a lack of understanding. A lack of understanding breeds fear. Fear breeds hatred. Hatred leads to the dark side...ok...so I'm starting to sound like Yoda here, but it's the truth. People within certain cultures already identify with others in those cultures by default. We should be looking to identify with those in other cultures.

And sure, it may be ideological. Maybe it's an impossible dream. Perhaps I'm naive for even thinking this. But I do think it, and I think it's the only way we're ever going to stop blowing each other up.

By the way, no comment on my clarification of your implication that Jews who criticise Israel lose their souls in doing so?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:28:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

stev, so the Jews are imagining that the Islamist are wanting to kill them? And if you say yes, then I suggest before you start preaching, you should go visit memri.org and watch some footage of sermons. Or maybe follow the case in the courts at the moment in Britain where Abu Hamza's defence for calling for death to all Jews is that it can't be hate speech because it is straight from the Koran. Yes that is his defense.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:59:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

I don't doubt for a second that there are many Muslims who call for the death of all Jews. Nor do I doubt (actually I know for a fact) that there are many Jews that believe the only good Arab is a dead Arab.

So how does that make either view right? Let's not pretend that the Muslim world woke up yesterday and thought "fuck it, let's set out to kill all Jews". This animosity is built on decades of history. And by the same token I don't expect it to change overnight.

But the only way I see forward is through learning to associate, learning to identify with our fellow man before associating with those within our culture. I've thought about it some more and the problem does not come from identifying with those within our cultural group, it comes from identifying with those within our cultural group ahead of identifying with mankind in general. When we see our common ground with those within our cultural group as more important than our common ground with our fellow man, it creates segregation and leads to the Yoda stuff I listed above.

One of the best ideas I heard of regarding the whole Israeli/Palestinian situation was a program that sets up an Israeli child with a Palestinian pen pal and vice versa. Understanding, not segregation, is the only way forward.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:15:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

And I realise that this all sounds idealistic, but idealism is the only way any of this will ever get anywhere near being resolved. If we're not going to be idealistic and hopeful, then what are any of us doing here discussing it? We might as well just throw our hands in the air and say 'Forget it, they'll always hate each other, let's just let them duke it out and the last man standing wins'.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:20:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:43:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

stev

One of the best ideas I heard of regarding the whole Israeli/Palestinian situation was a program that sets up an Israeli child with a Palestinian pen pal and vice versa. Understanding, not segregation, is the only way forward.

Good on you. I applaud your good intentions. But check out this site and you will see what you are up against. I have met Itmar Marcus who runs Palestinian Media Watch. He is a good and honourable man who would share your sentiments. Take a look at the section about "school books".

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:47:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

stev: By far the majority of Israelis have been idealistic as far as aspirations for peace with the Palestinians goes. But when you have a majority of Palestinians not even willing to even consider a compromise - that being accepting Israel's existence - it makes it difficult. But easy for you to talk from where you are.
Tell me, what do you think about Dhimmitude?

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:52:00 pm  
Blogger Melanie said...

stev, violets link was bad but it was to here:
http://www.pmw.org.il/

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:57:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Interesting site Violet, I read the schoolbooks section as you suggested, it's obviously worrying stuff. I have no doubt that we're (we being 'people for peace' - important not to perpetuate an 'us vs them' mentality) up against a large battle. But as I say, we can either keep up the fight, or give up.

Melanie, you're right, it is comparitively easy for me to talk from where I am, but it's the only place I can talk from, so continue to talk I will. Obviously from here I cannot fairly judge numbers, but I think it's dangerous, if not altogether false, to make generalisations about 'most Israelis' being idealistic about peace and 'most Palestinians' being for the destruction of Israel. I would imagine, even on the ground in the West Bank, it is impossible to judge what the mentality is of a 'majority' of people. I think it's more important to concede that there is a great deal of hatred on both sides and that neither side is without guilt.

There is certainly no argument that it is a difficult situation - for those seeking peace on both sides, no matter what the numbers may be.

To be honest, I had not heard the term Dhimmitude before your mentioning it, so I will have to read up a bit before I can give you my opinion.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:06:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...

stev

Another site that might interest you is Dhimmi Watch. You may not like some of the stuff Robert Spencer posts, but down the left hand side of the homepage is a description of what Dhimmitude is.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:22:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

I will definitely read more of both Palestinian Media Watch and Dhimmi Watch. I also intend to read more about Dhimmitude in general, although I think I have enough of an understanding of the concept to comment.

It's an interesting concept. Can't say I agree with it altogether, but then there is much in Islamic culture that I don't personally agree with. Personally I don't agree with any country's government being based around any religion either.

But the fact is Islam exists and it is what it is. And it is also a fact that there are countries under religious rule. I know this has been touched on in several other threads, although Islam would benefit from a change, I don't think any of us have the right to demand that change, just as I don't think Islam has any right to demand we change to suit its world view.

I guess all we can really do is respect the right of any person to believe what they choose to believe. I can appreciate that as far as cultures go, Islam is - from what I understand - less tolerant of other beliefs than most cultures. But again, we can no more demand they change than they can demand change of us (I'm slipping into 'us vs them' language again, but I think it's unavoidable in this particular context).

Islam is no doubt set firm in its ways, but I truly believe if we endeavour to foster a culture of understanding and respect globally, eventually, as new generations grow up in this culture, it will affect their beliefs.

So in short, yes, I disagree with Dhimmitude and with much of the rhetoric of Islam, but I think demanding change of Islam is neither right, nor will it yield any results. I believe the only way forward is for each of us to work towards understanding and respect and eventually that understanding and respect will trickle down to all cultures.

I realise this is all quite abstract, but I really don't see any other way forward. It's either that, or the rule of an iron fist that forces everyone to believe what a certain culture determines is right, and I think we can all agree that is not in anyone's best interest.

(Nice little synchronicity that my word verification for this post is 'jewmr' - when after a long discussion this is the one post that doesn't in any way refer to jews or judaism!)

Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:26:00 am  
Blogger Melanie said...

stev: "To be honest, I had not heard the term Dhimmitude before your mentioning it, so I will have to read up a bit before I can give you my opinion."
Now that is the problem. Please read this:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001535.html

Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:32:00 am  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

Neo,

I thought that you were banned from here? I wouldn't take advice from you if you were the last person on earth after your "wipe out the towelheadsā€¯ comments.

Violet, I apologise if you aren't Neo. Your patronising polemic writing styles are virtually identical.

The peace offerings that you refer to made NO concessions for a Palestinian right of return and you know it. That's the sticking point.

Also, you still didn't address my points about your racist language. Is it really your contention that multiculturalism would lead to the inhalation of the Jewish people? That's quite a claim.

As forever left the link to memri.org and pmw.org, I suggest that you visit here

A group of ex mossad agents runs Memri. I'm sure that they're very objective.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:04:00 am  
Blogger Stev said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:19:00 am  
Blogger Stev said...

Melanie,

True, it is a problem. Any lack of knowledge or understanding is a problem. And perhaps there is a wider lack of understanding of the concept of Dhimmitude among those discussing politics in the region, but I don't know that I'm particularly indicative of that - my knowledge of Middle East politics in general is fairly limited.

But I have to wonder exactly what point you are trying to make with regards to Dhimmitude. Are you saying that Islam is a bad belief structure and should be outlawed or modified to something that is more acceptable to the Western world?

As I have said previously, understanding and tolerance is needed on both sides. Again, as I said, I don't personally agree with a country's politics being governed by religion, but the fact remains that the tenets of Islam do exist and there are countries that are governed by Islam and I don't see this changing any time soon. Unless you want to bomb those countries until they submit and accept Western politics, I don't really see what option we have other than to attempt understanding and tolerance.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting we should outlaw Islam? I can't believe you really think that's an option. Are you suggesting we force Islam to change its tenets - again, even if you do think that's what we should do, surely you don't believe that the beliefs of a people or a cultural group can be changed by force.

Yes, Dhimmitude needs to be understood and there are probably a great many people who need to learn about it and take it into consideration when discussing the politics and attitudes of people in the region, but surely you can't really be saying 'Look, the Israelis, Jews and Zionists understand, respect and tolerate all of Islamic/Arab culture - it's those stupid Arabs, Muslims and anti-Zionists who need a better understanding'? Again, greater understanding, respect and tolerance is needed on both sides.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:21:00 am  
Blogger Melanie said...

David "Your patronising polemic writing styles are virtually identical."
Are you stealing lines now from those that outed you?
And what of your total hypocracy in your accusation in the first place?
David the right of return is a no go. Everyone know it means the end of Israel. Anyone that pushes for it makes their agenda pretty clear.
Memri links to the actual articles and real video footage so what is the argument.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:26:00 am  
Blogger Melanie said...

stev, I agree that understanding and tolerance is needed on both sides. That is exactly my point. There is so much that is missing in trying to fully understand the situation.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:30:00 am  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

David

Read My Lips. There never has been, is not, and never will be a "right" of return to Israel for the "Palestinians." Good lord, even Jordan either killed them or kicked them out. And the rest? Jordan revoked their Jordanian citizenship!! NICE.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:37:00 am  
Blogger Mannie said...

"With due respect, you miss the point.
I intend to publish, like Norman Finkelstein, a large collection of the hate mail I receive. It is important, I believe, to show the public what kind of individuals are fighting in the Zionist corner.
"
I couldn't agree more!
Gutman has shown himself incapable of debate - he knows how to shout and drown out the person who is trying to discuss issues with him.
He is typical of so many on this blog, who think that by abuse, they will win arguments. These tactics are called bullying, and it is very interesting how many on this blog like to bully - shout your opponents down and believe you have answered them.
Those who have all the answers show they are not too keen to go and live in the reality that is Israel today, and Gutman does not seem to be on his way there permanently either.
Is it the compulsory military service or the dark glasses?? or a lot of other things they don't want to be part of?
"A mediator, which has been suggested by Austen, would mediate the event. A debate is something Antony is terrified of -- because he knows he couldn't defend his discriminative views in the public space. He's a coward, plain and simple.

Rhoss, you are right about this:

In the scheme of things he is hardly important A more accurate description of Antony, I couldn't find.
"
Why do these people stay on this blog if they are so bored - in the greater scheme of things they haven't got anything to offer except abuse. Just go away and do your important things like going to Israel and fighting with the IDF.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:42:00 am  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

Melanie,

No body 'outed me' so I don't know what you're talking about. If it's about Mushtaq, I outed myself once I proved my point. Having said that, I regret the whole incident.

I agree that there needs to be dialogue on both sides. Also I'm not advocating a right of return for the Palestinians, merely pointing out why peace talks failed.

And Dhimmitude is a furphy spoken of rarely, and then only by fanatics who should be ignored. If you want hard core zionist opinion of non-jews, have a look at comments made by Chabad-Lubavitch. No there's religious tolerance for you - NOT

memri has been shown to provide false translations, and cherry pick stories. They should be ignored. Even Fox news would provide a more balanced view.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:51:00 am  
Blogger Melanie said...

A fuphy? Sure it's rarely spoken of but that is the problem. Hamas have already stated that they will introduce the Dhimmi tax if they win.
http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=44202&eng=y

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:03:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Violet,

I have a questino for you. Do you think Michelle Malkin is lame for publishing hate mail she receives on her web site? d oyou think she is lame for writing a whole book on the subject?

Do you think bill O'Reilly is lame for bringing up al the hate mail he gets and talkig abotu how extreme and bangerous the left are?

Do you think a woman who is sexually harassed (via e-mail or messages left on her phone) is lame to use this as evidence that she is a victim of sexual harassment?

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:04:00 am  
Blogger Melanie said...

and david, you didn't out yourself. You weren't trying to prove a point unless the point was to prove that you could pretend to be someone else until you got sprung - well then you proved it. You got caught out.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:08:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Mannie said... "Why do these people stay on this blog"

Because exposing the run-of-the-mill antisemites here is so easy. It's like target practice. It hones us for when we go after the real players.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:12:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

If it;'s easy then you must be getting bored. Haven;t you outgrown this blog Ibby?

When do you think you'll be ready to crawl out from under your rock and go after the real players?

Thursday, January 26, 2006 4:36:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

The rock you're hiding under? I stay away from rocks. Too many Palestinians collect them for weapons and it's wrong to pick them off so easily without giving them a fighting chance to commit suicide.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:01:00 am  
Blogger James Waterton said...

You did not "out yourself", David Heidelberg. Is your nickname Goebbels? You came clean once you realised the game was up. Andrea Harris at Tim Blair's outed you with the following comment. You later on admitted your deceit. Follow this link here to find out how Heidelberg destroyed his credibility. There was no act. The man is utterly two faced - as his recent attempts to claim the contrary prove.

Goebbels, don't try to pretend you were on some moral crusade. You were deceitful, pure and simple. You absolutely should regret your actions - your credibility is indelibly and rightfully tarnished due to your dishonest behaviour. You should and will remain a laughing stock. If I were you, I'd disappear from the blogosphere. If I couldn't resist the lure, I'd assume another name. Your copybook is blotted for good and you are a joke. Don't forget that - because no one else will, either.

Your blatant lying and attempts to whitewash your embarrassing history are quite disgusting. You need to take a good hard look at yourself.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 8:40:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Thank you James. And I loved the zeppenwolf comments on the Corrie incident.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:03:00 am  
Blogger violet said...

addamo

I have a questino for you. Do you think Michelle Malkin is lame for publishing hate mail she receives on her web site? d oyou think she is lame for writing a whole book on the subject?

Do you think bill O'Reilly is lame for bringing up al the hate mail he gets and talkig abotu how extreme and bangerous the left are?


Yes, I do and Yes, I do

Now, I'm disappearing from this silly blog. The owner does not contribute to discussion, does not mediate and is a raging self-promoting antisemite who makes outrageous claims in one-off posts and then behaves like a coward when he is asked to stand by his own words. This is not a blog but a self-promotion machine run by an absentee owner who is only interested in using his audience to further his own presence in the public community.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:36:00 am  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Ok bye bye.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 10:50:00 am  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:32:00 pm  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

I've just deleted the above comment as I wrote it in anger, and as a result it was far more abusive and inarticulate than I intended.

All I say to James is that I emailed Andrea and outed myself as Mushtaq because I wanted to be allowed to comment as myself again. Instead of responding, she chose to post on the forum that she 'discovered' my identity. This was a complete fabrication of what had really happened, and a continued sore point for me.

As for the whole Mushtaq saga, I've posted numerous times that I regret the action I took, but there's little I can do about it now. It lasted for a week and finished almost a year ago.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:14:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Sorry to see you go violet, but you have posted one of the best descriptions of our antisemitic host .

Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:11:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Ibrahamav, never fear. Your beloved Violet, like Waterton before her, will return with time. These "I am never coming back" things are just further efforts to grab attention, methinks. We'll see, I spose.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 9:14:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

It is a shame to see her go. I never agreed with her, but she was cool to debate with. Hey Ibby, why not join her?

Friday, January 27, 2006 1:36:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

And leave this place festering in addamo? That would be a sin.

Friday, January 27, 2006 4:50:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

A final comment on Yet Another Debate:

Stev got it right. Addressing himself to Violet:
"Seriously though Violet - what do you hope to acheive through this debate? It's not going to change your views. It's not going to change Ant's views. It's not going to change your right wing academic Zionist Jew's views. All it will be is entertaining."

IF the objective is to increase understanding or knowledge of the cases "for" and "against" Zionism, then a public debate is pretty much a waste of time. A debate - the attempt to persuade an audience via dialectical engagement - would not PERSUADE anyone who would turn up. Persuasion is only ever possible when the conditions for doubt exist. I strongly suspect the only people who turn up to the kind of debate envisioned are people who already have their views on these matters pretty much set in stone. Thus: waste of time.

Even if members of the audience didn't have well-estblished views on the matter, a debate is an ineffective means of gaining information and understanding. That's what books are for.

IF however, the objective is to ENTERTAIN the audience (really the only other possibility), then as long as the participants want to achieve that objective, sure, why not have one. The opponents can yell and scream at each other, wear funny hats, and then decide the winner based on, say, the outcome of a jelly-wrestle. No-one should be so disengenuous however, as to call a mere public spectacle a genuine debate.

Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:41:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home