Tim Blair's blog is notorious because commenters are banned merely for disagreeing with him. However, in this post, Blair accuses Antony Loewenstein of cowardice because Loewenstein would not debate with an abusive phone caller. Blair refuses to accept Loewenstein's stated reason ("He wants to shout and rant") because:
That's from someone who describes Australian Jews as "usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic. Australian Jews, generally speaking, are incapable of hearing the true reality of their beloved homeland and its barbaric actions."
Did Loewenstein really describe Australian Jews like that? Well, no. Blair has badly misrepresented Loewenstein with an out-of-context quote. Here's what Loewenstein wrote, in context:
As a Jew who doesn't believe in the concept of a Jewish state - a fundamentally undemocratic and colonialist idea from a bygone era - reception to such ideas within the Jewish community is usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic. Australian Jews, generally speaking, are incapable of hearing the true reality of their beloved homeland and its barbaric actions.
Loewenstein did not describe Australian Jews as "usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic". That was his description of the Jewish community's reaction to the suggestion that having a Jewish state was not a good idea. This is enormously different from the opinion that Blair attributed to him.
Update: Instead of correcting his post and apologizing to Loewenstein, Blair has added an update where he attempts to justify his doctored quote with this bit of chop logic from JF Beck:
Loewenstein states that the Jewish community's reception for his ideas is "usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic". He is attributing these characteristics to those within the Jewish community. Thus, he is describing Jews in general as "usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic". He qualifies this statement with the following sentence wherein he specifies "Australian Jews". It's simple, really.
Let's see: Australians will usually get angry and violent if you punch them in the face. Thus, by Beck Logic™ I am describing Australians in general as "angry and violent". I don't think so. This one isn't even persuasive enough to make the list of common logic fallacies.
I've always thought that it's a useful indicator of the sincerity of accusations of anti-Semitism from the political right that they re regularly thrown by Gentiles in the direction of Jews. This looks like another example; did Tim Blair really think his readers were going to believe that someone called Anthony Loewenstein was a raving anti-Semite?
>did Tim Blair really think his readers were going to believe that someone called Anthony Loewenstein was a raving anti-Semite?
He did and they did. They called Loewenstein a "self-hating Jew"
I agree, Tim.
Antony, isn't a self hating Jew. He just dislikes Jews who have a soft spot for the Jewish homeland.
Anyone who thinks that Antony's comments:
"As a Jew who doesn't believe in the concept of a Jewish state - a fundamentally undemocratic and colonialist idea from a bygone era".
are reasonable has to be a two faced hypocrite.
We need to get the semantics right here! Damn it!
Err, Joe, could you put that in English?
Actually, most of us feel old Flavius Antonius is more of a Jew willing to shaft his own race for brief personal comfort than a self-hating Jew, either ignorant of or wilfully disregarding the fact that the steady anti-semitic bile poured out of the madrassas and Muslim media is directed at "Jews", not "Zionists." Perhaps it is a rationalization on his part that lets him convince himself that he is somehow safe from the hatred if he just says the right things... or hell, maybe he really does despise his own DNA.
And a "...colonialist idea from a bygone era"? How many centuries have Jews been saying "Next year in Jerusalem"? Since, oh, the Diaspora? Perhaps someone can tell Flavius Antonius what and when that was...
Richard,
Can I count myself out of your "us"?
Maybe Anthony shares my view that we have a moral duty to condemn and criticise anti-democratic behaviour and numan rights abuses ESPECIALLY when they are condudcted by the state of Israel claiming to be acting on our behalf and in our interests.
It is quite possible to condemn both Meyer Kahane and Osama Bin Ladin, indeed what I find strange is the ability of many to condemn the latter and tacictly or explictly condone the actions of the former and his successors.
Well, as a self-hating Jew, or at least auto-disappointing Jew, from far from Australia, I'd say that one can have any of a variety of feelings about the State of Israel without being necessarily antiSemitic. For instance, one can legitimately feel that the notion of a Jewish national homeland is obsolete; so long as one also feels that such a national homeland is equally obsolete for the Palestinians, the French, the British, Native Americans, et al. What makes such a notion antiSemitic, or more generally racist, is applying it specifically to one particular nation.
Ian — The "us" I was referring to was Blair posters.
As for Kahane/bin Laden: oh, please. Are you seriously comparing the JDL to Al Qaeda? And did the JDL at its strongest EVER have a tithe of the apologists and justifiers Al Qaeda found in the self-appointed best and brightest of the West?
Oh a semantics game.
"He did and they did. They called Loewenstein a "self-hating Jew"--DearLambert.
"Thay" as in "all" Just who is misrepresenting who, Dear Lambert. Read the thread again.
Why don't you link to the threads that instigated the banning to give context. Is it because you Dear Lambert, ban, delete and block referrals exposing the irony in the title of your post.
Zoot:
That's easy.
Antony is both a Jew who hates the Jewish state.
People like Antony and Tim Lambert seem to forget there are 1 mill Arabs living in the Jewish state who have the right to vote and maintain all the rights citizenship has to offer.
"did Tim Blair really think his readers were going to believe that someone called Anthony Loewenstein was a raving anti-Semite"?
At first no. After reading what he has said, one comes away he simply hates Jews.
Tim, Antony, the Adelaide Istitute will be calling you soon offering their support.
I was banned for producing a parody of an Andrea Harris comment, which apparently put the blog-dominatrix's nose out of joint. I have always found Tim Blair to be a helpful and humourous fellow, although inclined to comment freely in areas in which he has no special expertise (pot meet kettle).
As another Jew turned atheist who is repelled by Israel's racist policies, let me add my voice to those who support Lowenstein. My long experience is that Jewish supporters of Israel, especially those outside Israel, are the most vicious, racist and generally unpleasant people I'd ever have the chance to avoid. And they are proving it again in this comment section.
A fair point, but does it make that much difference? When we see it in context, it looks like Loewenstein is describing Australian jews in this manner simply because they disagree with him.
And IMO Loewenstein himself is guilty of miscontextualisation, misleading statements, inflated claims, and basic dishonesty; that's something far worse than what Blair is guilty of.
Oh,no, Zionists just threatened Melbourne! No, wait a minute...
Mr. Lambert, your understanding of semantics is as firm as your grasp of statistics. Which is to say, very poor.
*[Comment deleted. No personal attacks, please. Tim]*
"No personal attacks, please."--Dear Lambert.
LOL!
Tim;
What part of what I wrote, do you consider to be a personal attack?
Why don't you let the readers decide rather than elminating the post?
Tim:
"I agree with Ian. I think we should leave Joe C be. Putting him in the intellectual boxing ring is like putting Mohammad Ali, in his present state, in a boxing ring with Mike Tyson".
This post by Mr. Intellect pose no issues with your.... policy.
Jeesh, this policy of yours has more left turns than the Berkley campus.
Joe, calling another commenter a "cretin" is a personal attack. Please don't do it. And don't complain if I miss some of them or give you less leeway than other commenters. You have a history of making such attacks, so I will be stricter with you.
joe c.
Use Simplistic or un-nuanced. That's more acceptable in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Lambert.
Ok, Tim
So leave the cretin part out re-instate the rest and let everyone else judge.
Oh, do you mind showing where I have personally abused others on this website as I am quite surprised you came up with that one.
Loewenstein's trying to milk maximum publicity for himself from Danby's letter yet he refuses the offer of a public debate with Tayshus. What's he afraid of?
>Ian — The "us" I was referring to was Blair posters.
Tell me, Richard, are you Jewish?
Because, to be perfectly blunt, I think it is very difficult for any non-Jew to understand the complexities of the relationship between non-Israeli Jews and the state of israel.
>That's easy. Antony is both a Jew who hates the Jewish state. People like Antony and Tim Lambert seem to forget there are 1 mill Arabs living in the Jewish state who have the right to vote and maintain all the rights citizenship has to offer.
Except the right to access the billions of dollars in their tax money and US adi given to specifically Jewish projects; the right (de facto not de jure) to ever aspire to the Judiciary; the senior ranks of the military or the ministry; the right to family re-union with family members living outside Israel...
I'll believe arab Israelis have the same rights as Jewish Israelis as soon as one of them is elected President or Prime Minister.
Additionally, I don't think you have any idea of the significance of the term "self-hating Jew" - it's pretty muxh the worst insult a Jew can direct at another Jew.
For a gentile to toss it around is even more offensive.
>Oh,no, Zionists just threatened Melbourne! No, wait a minute
Yes, that's absurd:
[King David Hotel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing)
[Deir Yassin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre)
[Qibya](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre)
[Bernadotte](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte#Assassinated_in_Jerusalem…)
[Irgun](http://www.iridis.com/Irgun)
Yep, Jewish terrorists have been on a planet-wide rampage for years.
Ian Gould
If your going to make comparisons. What about the US money going to Egypt/Jordan and rights given to Jews in Arab countrys.
So Mr Beck, what's an acceptable level of terrorism?
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380986&sw=fi…
>According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?
>"About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg."
>According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?
>"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.
>"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.
how many women is it acceptable to pack-rape and murder?
How many unarmed civilians can be stood up agaisnt a wall and shot before it becomes a crime?
Does it matter if the victims are only arabs?
One of the things which you and most of the other gentile supporters of the extreme right of Israeli politics (who are far short of having majority support inside Israel) will never understand is that Jews like myself and Loewestein and, I believe, every poster on this thread who's identified themsekves as Jews) are repelled and disgusted by the crimes committed in israel's name at its foundation and subsequently because WE ARE TOLD REPEATEDLY THAT THOSE CRIMES WERE COMMITTED IN OUR NAME AND FOR OUR BENEFIT AND THAT WE SHOULD APPLAUD AND VENERATE THEIR PERPETRATORS.
Your argument here is every bit as contemptible as defnding hitler on the groudns he killed fewer people than Stalin. The scale differs, the essential principle doesn;t.
>If your going to make comparisons. What about the US money going to Egypt/Jordan and rights given to Jews in Arab countrys.
So if Russia treats the Chechens worse than China treats the Tibetans, China's treatment of the Tibetans is justified?
Joe C claimed that arab Israelis had the same rights as Jewish Israelis, I merely pointed out that that is not true.
How does the mistreatment of Jews in arab countries justify discrimination against Israeli arabs whose families have lived in Israel since the foundation of the state, who have never had any involvement with extrmeeism and, in many cases, are veterans of the israeli army?
Ian:
"Joe C claimed that arab Israelis had the same rights as Jewish Israelis, I merely pointed out that that is not true".
They have the right to vote and have representation in the Israeli parliament. Your comment that an Arab will not become Prime Minister is probably right, but that's because the majority of Jews will not vote for an Arab at this point in time.
Tell me , Ian, is there any country in the Mid East where Arabs enjoy the same rights as those which live in Israel. Even one?
Tell me, Ian, is there any country in the Mid-East where a Jew could live without fear or having to pay dimmi?
So keep supporting Loewenstein's "universalist" self image. That really worked for the Jews for 2,000 years didn't it.
Also, please show some accuracy in your postings. A right wing government is in control in Israel. It has been for some time, actually since the appeasement minded Labor party messed up by attempting to negotiate with a terrorist dirtbag.
Jf
You can't disemvowel your own comment. That's not allowed under current policy. It means Tim will have to "emvowel it" and then disemvowel it, in a continuous circle. Forever.
This is gunna send the guy nuts.
Perhaps Mr Lambert could tell me how my recently removed post violated his comments "policy".
Tim L,
Before you go into IP addressc hecking mode I wear God JF. Beck is not me. Or rather I am not JF Beck. I've been taking anti-sock puppet meds for my condition and it seem to be working.
richard mcenroe:"Actually, most of us feel..."
Judging by his history of slavish devotion, this guy feels whatever Tim Blair tells him to feel.
Get off your knees, mate.
Mr Lambert,
Loewenstein states that the Jewish community's reception for his ideas is "usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic". He is attributing these characteristics to those within the Jewish community. Thus, he is describing Jews in general as "usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic". He qualifies this statement with the following sentence wherein he specifies "Australian Jews". It's simple, really.
As Loewenstein is describing what he no doubt thinks is an enduring characteristic of Australia's Jewish community, he clearly views Australia's Jews as "usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic".
What was your quarrel with Blair's post again?
jc, jfb, rm, gazza - any of you guys want to engage with Blair's misrepresentation of Lowenstein? I though that was the subject of the post.
jfb - you're prescient. Thank you.
Mr Lambert,
So that I don't inadvertently violate your comments policy in future, please elaborate on the indiscretion that prompted you to remove my earlier post.
zoot,
And your opinion is...
Zoot:
Yea, Zoot, you always seem to be lurking around in the background without much of an opinion other than slagging off at non-campus left views. Usually in small syls.
Just what is your opinion?
>So keep supporting Loewenstein's "universalist" self image. That really worked for the Jews for 2,000 years didn't it.
Nearly as well as gentiles lecturing us on how to conduct our own affairs.
>Also, please show some accuracy in your postings. A right wing government is in control in Israel. A right wing government is in control in Israel.
For byour part, please try not to expose your limited knowledge of Jewish and Israeli affairs.
1. The Likud did not acheive a majority in its own right.
2. The Likud formed a government, in the first isntance, by forming an alliance with the shas Party. The price of Shas' support was an agreement to prevent its leader going to prison on corruption charges. Hardly a high-minded principled base for a coalition. Shas has made coalitions with both Labour and the Likud in the past and is much more interested in securing the interests of its Sephardic support base than it is in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
3. Opinion polls in Israel have consistently shown majority support for the Taba peace proposals - proposals which involve Israel making concessions signficantly greater than has ever publicly Likud envisaged.
"For byour part, please try not to expose your limited knowledge of Jewish and Israeli affairs".
I never mentioned Likud, you did. I said right wing Government. There is a difference.
"Nearly as well as gentiles lecturing us on how to conduct our own affairs".
That's an outrageous comment.
joe c wrote, People like Antony and Tim Lambert seem to forget there are 1 mill Arabs living in the Jewish state who have the right to vote and maintain all the rights citizenship has to offer.
Not really true, historically. It was (IIRC) very difficult for Israel Arabs to get land, because a lot of the land was controlled by the Jewish Agency. IMHO this made them second-class citizens.
This might be changing in recent years due to Israeli Supreme Court rulings.
z wrote,
IIRC many European states have a blood-based right-of-return similar to Israel's, and I find it racist. My impression is that e.g. a third-generation "German" living in Latin America could migrate to Germany and, by virtue of his blood, get citizenship; whereas there are third generation Turkish Gastarbeiten living in Germany who are not citizens.
This is one thing my country--the US--does well. You're a citizen if (a) you're born here, and IIRC (b) at least one of your parents is American. None of this blood stuff ((b) is blood-based, of course, but the directness of the familial tie makes it pretty reasonable).
Gary wrote,
Aside from the "two wrongs make a right" implication of this comment, the per capita amount of (US) aid going to Egypt is a tiny fraction of that going to Israel. Not to mention that Egypt is a far poorer country than Israel. (Though the aid to Egypt, of course, probably does little to help the poor there, and is best viewed as a payoff for keeping Egypt in the US's orbit.)
J F Beck wrote,
Not in the sense of "retail terrorism directed at first-world nations."
But Israel has been transporting her own civilians into the Occupied Territories, which is a grave violation of the Geneva Convention. Clearly, Israel is committed to a slow but sure process of ethnic cleansing there.
Are other countries worse? Of course. The difference for me, as an American, is that it's largely being done on my dime (US aid to Israel is a substantial fraction of its GDP).
>IIRC many European states have a blood-based right-of-return similar to Israel's, and I find it racist. My impression is that e.g. a third-generation "German" living in Latin America could migrate to Germany and, by virtue of his blood, get citizenship; whereas there are third generation Turkish Gastarbeiten living in Germany who are not citizens.
I'm fairly certain that Germany was the only European country to base its immigration and citizenship laws on ethnicity and those laws were dropped a couple of years ago under pressure frm the EU.
Some other countries, such as Britain and Italy, have an immigration category for people with ancestors from there but its only one part of their immigration policy.
>I never mentioned Likud, you did. I said right wing Government. There is a difference.
Not really - Likud is the only mainstream right-wing party in Israel. I already pointed out that Shas has no real fixed political ideology. The same applies to the National Religious Party and the other minor religious parties.
Support them in the endless fights over the Chief Rabbi's office and promise them more money for their yeshivas and they'll happily support Labour over Likud.
>"Nearly as well as gentiles lecturing us on how to conduct our own affairs".
>That's an outrageous comment.
Really, why?
The whole reason this thread exists is because a bunch of gentiles decided to attack a Jew for expressing a view about Israel they disagreed with.
>Not really true, historically. It was (IIRC) very difficult for Israel Arabs to get land, because a lot of the land was controlled by the Jewish Agency. IMHO this made them second-class citizens.
There's also the ongoing attempt by the Jersalem government to force arabs out of East Jerusalem by denying them permits to build or repair their homes and deemoslihing thousands of homes for allegedly being built illegally.
There's a LOT of illegal building in Jerusalem, by Jews as well as Arabs, but in the most recent year for which I saw statistics, only around 5 Jewish-owned buildings and several thousand Arab-owned buildings were demolished.
There's also the bizarre farce of the Israeli arabs who applied for homes in the West Bank settlements - theoretically open to all Israeli citizens. Of several hundred applicants not a single one was approved.
The final applicant, who had demonstrated he met all the criteria, was eventually banned by the IDF on unspecified "national security" grounds despite having served in the IDF himself.
There's a new idea gaining ground amongst the settlers in the West Bank - and even inside Israel.
Rather than the two-state solution which has been pursued since at least the 1970's, the idea is for a single loosely federated state on the Swiss model - generally referred to as Canaan, the name of modern Israel and Palestine duuring the time of Abraham, who is regarded as the father of both the Jews and the Arabs.
The attraction to the settlers is that they would be allowed to stay put.
Now I happen to think this proposal has a lot of merit - for starters it'd probably improve the position of the Arab Israelis and might also satisfy the conflicting views of the religious and secular Jews (if the hassids want to ban cars driving on a Saturday let them but only in their own communities).
Shared political and legal institutions might also be the Palestinians' best hope of avoiding the corruption and dictatorship common in most of the arab world. So they'd run their own affairs locally but national elections; the High Court etc would be run by joint institutions not suject to the PA.
Of course, such a solution would mean abandoning the concept of Israel as a Jewish state.
But I'm sure Joe C.; JF Beck etc would turn on a dime and accept that cost in a second if it became official Likud policy and was endorsed by the US.
Ian Gould wrote,
I'd be willing to believe that the EU would be against that kind of thing, and my impression was formed awhile ago.
I'd tend to believe, though, that Germany wasn't the only country doing that, but I don't have any evidence in hand to support that contention.
But the question is: does it comprise an unconditional "right of return"?
"My long experience is that Jewish supporters of Israel, especially those outside Israel, are the most vicious, racist and generally unpleasant people I'd ever have the chance to avoid."
You must lead a very sheltered life. I'd much rather stand next to the Israeli Independence Day parade in New York waving a Palestinian flag than stand next to the St. Patrick's Day parade waving a British flag.
Z
Good point
I am frightened stiff these days getting on a plane, hoping there are no Jewish terrorists looking to take it over and smack it into a building.
Ian:
Re your point: about Loewenstein being Jewish/ criticising Israel etc.
Ian, lots of non- Jews have a moral interest in seeing Jews are dealt the right cards and the past is never repeated again. The reason is simple, even some your of "hated right wingers" want to see a real minority, which has had to deal with dreadful past is left alone and not hounded by thugs.
I find it an affront that Israel continues to fight for its very existence. I find it shocking, quite frankly, that anti-Semitism has begun to rear its ugly again head in Europe. I therefore believe it is imperative that Jews continue to have a sanctuary that they can call the homeland if they ever feel the desire or the need to go there.
I therefore give Israel and Jews a far wider berth than I would give anyone else when it comes to issues relating to this simply because of history.
Your buddy, Loewenstein, is perfectly free to criticise Israeli policies etc, because that is what normalcy is all about. However, he isn't just doing that is he? He, like his European friends is talking about the very legitimacy of the country. Mr Universalist does not read too much history does he? Quite frankly neither do you or both of you would not be taking this silly "universalist" view approach? And yes, don't even try to squirm out of that. You have made it quite clear that you support Loewenstein's views.
Why is it that Loewenstein would call into question the legitimacy of Israel, but not of Australia or the US for that matter? After all both places were stolen, right? So why Israel?
>I find it shocking, quite frankly, that anti-Semitism has begun to rear its ugly again head in Europe.
Well Joe if you were a Jew you wouldn't find it shocking in the least - but then if you were a Jew you'd know from personal experience it never went away and is quite prevalent in Australia and the US too.
The question for the Jews, all the Jews and everywhere, is how to deal with that anti-semitism.
You're quite entitled to your opinion - but don;t expect me to pay that much attention to it when, for example, you've never been physically attacked out of the blue by a drunk because you "look Jewish" or, on the other hand, have never talked to an 18-year-old back from his first deployment with the IDF describing how he accidentally shot a Palestinian woman and watched her die in front of her kids.
For Jews such as myself and Loewenstein - assimilated, non-religious etc - it'd be quite easy to "pass", to turn our back on our heritage and our people.
We choose not to and expose outselves to anti-semitism by choice - and then we get abused and lectured by ignorant right-wingers only to happy to fight the Arabs to the last jew.
Ian
<"Nearly as well as gentiles lecturing us on how
to conduct our own affairs".
That's an outrageous comment.
Really, why?
The whole reason this thread exists is because a bunch of gentiles decided to attack a Jew for expressing a view about Israel they disagreed with.>
Are you suffering from temporary delusion. Go back and read what you buddy, A.L had to say. He wasn't critcising Israel. He's disputing its very existence! Do you just argue for a the sake of it, or is it just knee jerking against deaded right wingers. Get a sense of perspective.
Criticism taken to the point where the nation's very existence is questioned ought to get AL a box seat at the next Adelaide Institute meet. I am sure they will have two additional tickets that you and T Lambert may want to use. Don't invite me, though.
Dsquared:
I don't know, ask him.
Loew. comments about Israel deserve scorn from all quarters. Anyway L isn't Jewish as I think he told us somewhere he is a non-believer. So why is so special that he doesn't deserve scorn.
"then we get abused and lectured by ignorant right-wingers only to happy to fight the Arabs to the last jew".
Ian, in my book its real simple. I find it an outrageous cultural trait in a group of people that would send out a crazed idiot to blow himself up in a pizza parlour full of jewish kids. I find it abhorrent that a woman needing burns surgery goes to an Israeli hospital under pretense and tries to blow the place up.
I don't want to live on the same side of the galaxy with a group of people that dance in the streets as the WTC came down. Several of my good friends died in that attack, people I had known, gone out with and shared a beer for a decade. So please don't hang a guilt trip on me because I do know what I am talking about especially about human loss and suffering.
Which gets me back to the point. The coalition is not fighting to the last Jew standing as you put it. Our own kids lives are on the line, not Israeli kids. And it wasn't an Israeli world trade centre that came down 4 years ago either. So keep your high handed preaching and sermonizing to yourself. Some of us know what it is like to have friends die in an acts of violence.
Joe, I haven't expressed any opinion on Israel at all, so I find it strange that you would assume that I agree with Loewenstein's opinions on the matter.
My post was about Blair's quote doctoring to try to smear Loewenstein as an anti-Semite.
"My post was about Blair's quote doctoring to try to smear Loewenstein as an anti-Semite."--Dear Lambert
"Anti-Israel activist and failed online cadet Antony Loewenstein takes a phone call:"--Tim Blair.
The last part of your update is so odd Dear Lambert, are you drunk?
Let's see: Australians will usually get angry and violent if you punch them in the face. Thus, by Beck Logic™ I am describing Australians in general as "angry and violent".
That's what your logic says, Lambert. Your conclusion is dead wrong, however. Logic is but the correct way to reach the wrong conclusion, a concept that both yourself and Loewenstein reject.
Hey, while you guys were arguing, England took the Ashes. Serves you right (sorry Tim L.) when Tim Bs killer Bs show up here it is no fun, and I'm not gonna register over there to taunt them. Perhaps you can all unite against me and my taunting? Perhaps not. Go back to your argument. I'll go back to my Ashes.
Tim:
I know you know you made a mistake with this one. My advice is don't let your obvious intense dislike of Blair cloud your judgement in the future. It's one of the seven deadly sins and payback is a real bitch to execute well.
Z:
"I'd much rather stand next to the Israeli Independence Day parade in New York waving a Palestinian flag than stand next to the St. Patrick's Day parade waving a British flag".
I missed the barbecues in 5th Ave this year (in June). Did you stay in town or hightail it out of there? I presume you live in the apple.
joe c wrote,
You might be interested to know there are pretty credible news reports of Israelis dancing as the WTC came down.
JF and Joe - for your edification, my opinion is that PJ O'Blair has misquoted Loewenstein and that Ian Gould is doing a sterling job in answering your petty pointscoring arguments.
When you've finished solving the problems of the middle east, perhaps you'd like to start on a cure for cancer.
Liberal:
I really like your property tax suggestions.
However I am starting to get a little concerned when you use Raimondo as your source. Dude! you gotta be able to do better than that!
Mr Lambert,
Blair did not "doctor" Loewenstein's quote. To doctor requires that substantive change be made to what Loewenstein wrote. You can claim the quote was truncated but you cannot truthfully claim it to be doctored.
Your punch in the face analogy is ludicrous. A punch in the face is a transitory event. Any anger and violence produced by such a punch might be either transitory or enduring. It is perfectly reasonable to describe a person, or persons, enduringly angry and violent as the result of a punch in the face, as angry and violent.
Loewenstein's position on Israel is established and unlikely to change. The Australian Jewish community's reception for Loewenstein's position on Israel is also unlikely to change. Thus, Australian Jews who disagree with Loewenstein's position will continue to be "usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic". (Bigotry and racism are, by the way, enduring characteristics.)
Please point out the error in my thinking. It would also be helpful if you pointed out which of your commenting rules I violated in my earlier response to Ian Gould. You know, the comment you removed. Be brave.
Zoot,
I'll start work on cancer after it finishes the job it's doing on your brain. (As far as I'm aware I haven't made any comments on the Middle East.)
joe c wrote,
Thanks. I do appreciate your taking time to understand them, and of course am quite happy that you like them.
But that's a classic ad hominem fallacy. You don't have to listen to Raimondo. There's the large PDF Raimondo linked to. There are also links, in either that Raimondo piece or others, to news reports about the suspicious activities Raimondo refers to (both the "Israeli art students affair" and the Israelis with the van watching the twin towers fall on 9-11 with glee); AFAIK no one has ever shown these reports to be false or misleading.
Blair is definitely distorting this particular quotation, although the distortion is very minor when compared with his usual practices.
> Your punch in the face analogy is ludicrous. A punch in the face is a transitory event.
If X makes a remark and Y gets angry, X may assert that Y's response is bigoted without passing the negative judgment on Y as a whole. I think there are very few people who are never bigoted.
However, this is a fussy point.
>It would also be helpful if you pointed out which of your commenting rules I violated
My guess would be the rule which states that you can't make personal attacks on other commenters. I would base that guess on the rudeness you have already demonstrated.
"I missed the barbecues in 5th Ave this year (in June). Did you stay in town or hightail it out of there? I presume you live in the apple."
Well, Connecticut anyway.
To paraphrase comic Greg Giraldo, "Just why are these Jews so touchy, anyway?"
In response to my request that Mr Lambert tell me why my response to Ian Gould was removed, Andrew wrote:
My guess would be the rule which states that you can't make personal attacks on other commenters. I would base that guess on the rudeness you have already demonstrated.
Why should we have to guess? If I violated one of Mr Lambert's rules, he should expose my transgression for all to see. This points to the obvious question: why does he refuse to elaborate?
Oh well, at least in this thread he hasn't called me a troll - yet. Now that would be rude, wouldn't it? He might have to ban himself.
Tim:
You at least responded to my questions why you deleted my posts. Why can't you respond to JF Beck?
Joe, Beck made the same personal attack that you did. I haven't answered his question because he already knew the answer. He's just trying to get attention -- please ignore him.
Mr Lambert,
Why not publish my personal attack? After all, it was only four consonants. Afraid everyone will laugh at you?
beck, do you really believe that saying "quincy's reception to my opinion on a particular topic is usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic" is the same thing as saying "quincy is usually vitriolic, bigoted, racist and downright pathetic"?
snuh,
Loewenstein's beliefs and the Jewish community's reaction - based on what they believe - are more than opinions. Nice try, though.
JF Beck,
Who exactly appointed you as the arbitrer of the who is and isn't part of the "Jewish community"?
Do you actually know any members of that community?
If so, ask them whether they or any of their family actually read AJN.
Mr Gould,
I just assumed that to be part of the Jewish community one had to be Jewish. Any other distracting observations?
Yes - and you obviously also chose to exclude from the Jewish community those of us such as myself who dare to disagree with your views on the Israel-Palestine question.
This is not a dispute between Loewenstein and "the Jewish community", it's a dispute within the Jewish community.