• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Semitism is on the rise, stoked under progressive values

Status
Not open for further replies.
lwf said:
Certainly not every populist or nationalist is antisemitic. It just seems to find an easy and stereotypical foothold in those groups. Globalists can certainly be antisemitic as well, but in my experience it seems a little bit less prevalent in that group in modern-day America.



I don't mean to use the word populism as an insult. In the sense of democratically empowering ordinary citizens, I might also describe myself as a populist. But if one's brand of populism is more focused on bringing down a shadowy 'elite' that are concentrating power away from ordinary people, and when Jews in general are considered to be part of this 'elite,' obviously we start to see antisemitism.
Click to expand...

Yes, Jews can be found among the elites in the US. And even in Europe, though as there are fewer Jews proportionally less. The Jew haters' "Jews rule the world" trope is of course demonstrably untrue.
 
Evilroddy said:
Chagos:

I guess you didn't read the article I linked to in post #120, ..........~
Click to expand...
You guessed wrong.

What you then let follow outlines the validity of my interpretations more than it does yours.
 
Apocalypse said:
1. I'm an Israeli, of course I'll be hanging around threads relating to Israel. Back in my first 3 or 4 years here though I was mostly all around the forum, I just don't like discussing American politics as it bores me and this forum is mainly about that being an American forum.

2. You only think I'm calling everyone an antisemite because you're one of those I called such. Most of the rest are in this thread. (Naturally as I said, these threads attract them). It's only natural that antisemites will be obsessed about discussing Jews-related subjects and as such I will have more interactions with them here, as you said yourself these are my kind of threads. The truth is I don't call anyone antisemitic unless they give me a reason to. Notice that this thread is not about Israel, and still there are clearly a lot of antisemitism thrown around in here by PeteEU and TAAC and Evilroddy and the rest, downplaying antisemitism and making expressions that aren't about Israel but are about Jews.

3. You don't base your claims from the same reason that you never base them. They're based entirely on ignorance and you're incapable of understanding that what you're saying hasn't much to do with reality. You're incapable of understanding that Zionism is not the concept you thought it is. Ask yourself why you never base your views. Ask yourself why you cannot just pull the term Zionism out of a mainstream source of information and show that you are right here. Why you never want to bother to do so, not just now, never.

4. Again, read about the concept of people and nations. Jews have an historical connection to the land. This historical connection is the basis, not race and not religion, such terms should not be applied to the definition of the Jewish historical claim to the land. You hear "Jewish" and think it has to do with religion. You then say ok no religion, then race. You're wrong in both cases. It's historical. The Japanese people are connected to their homeland in Japan in the same way that the Jewish people are to their historical land in Israel. Denying the claim only for one people and one people alone in this planet is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

If Israel had nothing to do with race or religion, rather history, then you wouldn't care about keeping an ethnic and religious Jewish majority in Israel. Israel wouldn't be giving free citizenship to everyone with a Jewish grandmother, they'd be giving it to everyone who has ancestral history in the area. It wouldn't be trying to subjugate and take land from Palestinians, who also have a long history on the land. This conflict is 100% about race and religion. Both you and the Palestinians absolutely despise each other because of your racial and religious differences, and neither of you accept the right of the other to exist.

I fundamentally support the right of Israel to CO-exist, so by your very narrow definition of zionism, I'm a zionist. How can I be a zionist and an anti-semite? How is telling you to coexist with your neighbors make me a racist? If you want to peddle the idea that zionism means absolutely nothing more than "believes Israel has aright to exist", with no other conditions or terms, then you should prove that, because that is absolutely NOT the historical definition. Show me the evidence.

As an American I simply fundamentally oppose the concept of ethno-religious states. It's a completely foreign concept I'm not on board with, just as I oppose it in Saudi Arabia. Coexist and stop obsessing about race and religion.
 
german hick said:
cause I´m German, I must be Nazi, you know. Seems you did not read much of my posts. And the ones you think of are not about Jews but Israel - I´m a fan of secularisation.

and I´m 47 since 10 days - yes, thats old, but not that old as you think
Click to expand...

He is a you know what.... hence all Germans are nazis and anyone that dare complain about the holy land or anyone of Jewish faith are anti-Semites. It has been his MO since the start on these boards.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If Israel had nothing to do with race or religion, rather history, then you wouldn't care about keeping an ethnic and religious Jewish majority in Israel. Israel wouldn't be giving free citizenship to everyone with a Jewish grandmother, they'd be giving it to everyone who has ancestral history in the area. It wouldn't be trying to subjugate and take land from Palestinians, who also have a long history on the land. This conflict is 100% about race and religion. Both you and the Palestinians absolutely despise each other because of your racial and religious differences, and neither of you accept the right of the other to exist.

I fundamentally support the right of Israel to CO-exist, so by your very narrow definition of zionism, I'm a zionist. How can I be a zionist and an anti-semite? How is telling you to coexist with your neighbors make me a racist? If you want to peddle the idea that zionism means absolutely nothing more than "believes Israel has aright to exist", with no other conditions or terms, then you should prove that, because that is absolutely NOT the historical definition. Show me the evidence.

As an American I simply fundamentally oppose the concept of ethno-religious states. It's a completely foreign concept I'm not on board with, just as I oppose it in Saudi Arabia. Coexist and stop obsessing about race and religion.
Click to expand...

It isn't an ethnic or religious majority. It is a national majority. Notice that you need to use "OR" because you no longer can refer to it as "religious" or as "ethnic" like you used to do.
This conflict is not about race and religion, it's about territorial dispute.

You should first support Israel's right to exist before you say you support its right to co-exist next to others.
All nations have a right to exist and no one should single out Israel as a special nation that doesn't deserve to exist.
I support Iran's right to exist even though I don't agree at all with its government's aspirations to destroy the state of Israel. It isn't hard.

Israel isn't an ethno-religious state. It's the national home of the Jewish people just like Japan is for the Japanese. It is however a liberal democracy where all its citizens have the same rights, Jews and non-Jews alike.
 
PeteEU said:
He is a you know what.... hence all Germans are nazis and anyone that dare complain about the holy land or anyone of Jewish faith are anti-Semites. It has been his MO since the start on these boards.
Click to expand...

You've been claiming for 13 years now that Jews in Europe are crying wolf over attacks against them. You're in no position to take part in this discussion to begin with.
 
Apocalypse said:
You've been claiming for 13 years now that Jews in Europe are crying wolf over attacks against them. You're in no position to take part in this discussion to begin with.
Click to expand...

And how many physical attacks have there been? You must know, since you are the one pushing the narrative that Jews are under constant attack in Europe. So how many physical attacks have there been?
 
washunut said:
~ Israel, it only is home to approximately half the world's Jews. Thus to hope for the destruction of Israel is not really an anti-semitic statement, there will still be some in the world.
Click to expand...

Did you really mean to write that?

I've not surfed this thread since my last post on it and I think having read your comment I made a huge mistake coming back.
 
Chagos said:
You guessed wrong.
Click to expand...

Great. Then we have a common frame of reference to work from.

What you then let follow outlines the validity of my interpretations more than it does yours.
Click to expand...

How so? Your argument as I understand it is that Zionism is and only is a desire by persons to have a Jewish homeland/state in the Holy Land and that anything short of that is not Zionism and anything beyond that is not relevant to the ideology of Zionism. Then you argue that anti-Zionism must be the exact opposite of your absolute definition of Zionism and thus must be a wholesale rejection of the ideology that Jews must have a homeland/state in the Holy Land. Thus anti-Zionism can only say there must not be a Jewish homeland/state in the Holy Land. If such a homeland/state already exists then anti-Zionists must call for and work toward its destruction. Have I correctly described your position above? If not please clarify and if so then we can recommence the debate.

Thank you in advance if you should wish to cooperate with me here and clarify my understanding of exactly what you are saying/thinking on this topic.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
truthatallcost said:
I've over 18,000 posts, and ten times as many threads as you. Good luck in your quest. I have higher standards than the paid journos at the Houston Chronicle.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, now I've heard everything. Can probably count the number of your threads closed in the thousands and the number of failed threads you created even higher.
 
Evilroddy said:
Great. Then we have a common frame of reference to work from.



How so? Your argument as I understand it is that Zionism is and only is a desire by persons to have a Jewish homeland/state in the Holy Land and that anything short of that is not Zionism and anything beyond that is not relevant to the ideology of Zionism. Then you argue that anti-Zionism must be the exact opposite of your absolute definition of Zionism and thus must be a wholesale rejection of the ideology that Jews must have a homeland/state in the Holy Land. Thus anti-Zionism can only say there must not be a Jewish homeland/state in the Holy Land. If such a homeland/state already exists then anti-Zionists must call for and work toward its destruction. Have I correctly described your position above? If not please clarify and if so then we can recommence the debate.

Thank you in advance if you should wish to cooperate with me here and clarify my understanding of exactly what you are saying/thinking on this topic.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...
I refer in this context to my post #141, which, for simplicity's sake I'll repeat once again.

I've said what I wanted to on the matter and I won't argue further over definitions and interpretations on what requires neither.
Click to expand...
If you wish to continue dancing around the bloc on this in ever-increasing circles, I fear I am not the suitable dance partner. Basically because I'm able to leave a matter once I've had my say on it and possess no interest in the desires of others to argue for the sake of arguing.

So have, by my time zone, a nice evening.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Hahaha, now I've heard everything. Can probably count the number of your threads closed in the thousands and the number of failed threads you created even higher.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was going to say exactly the same thing and make a comparison with the number of my threads or posts that have been trashed. But then thought better of it in view of not wanting to go along this childish road of penis size comparisons.:mrgreen::lamo

Nevertheless, the argument "I post far more than others, therefore I'm much better" may not be the dumbest argument of the week, but it's high up there.
 
german hick said:
as he always does - been there, done that...

quite comfortable to call someone immidiateley a racist and jew hater, if he does not have your own political point of view...
Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:
If you disagree with Apocalypse about the best type of salad dressing he'll call you a raging anti-semite. I don't think there's a more radical self-victimizer and hyperbolist on this forum.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I cannot agree this. I've had huge disagreements with Apocalypse - usually when an idiot ex-poster used to post here and we clarified our differences without ever getting into my being called an anti-semite. For me, I would be about as passionate in defence of my homeland if others were knowingly holding it to double standards or suggesting its destruction.

I've surfed through enough of this toxic thread to page 14 and not going any further - but I have to say this, put yourselves into his shoes and place to understand why he does and should defend the right of his country to exist. No other citizens of another country have to justify their country's existence and he shouldn't have to.
I'm tired and probably not making much sense - certainly doesn't sound like I am. G'night.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I'm sorry, I cannot agree this. I've had huge disagreements with Apocalypse - usually when an idiot ex-poster used to post here and we clarified our differences without ever getting into my being called an anti-semite. For me, I would be about as passionate in defence of my homeland if others were knowingly holding it to double standards or suggesting its destruction.

I've surfed through enough of this toxic thread to page 14 and not going any further - but I have to say this, put yourselves into his shoes and place to understand why he does and should defend the right of his country to exist. No other citizens of another country have to justify their country's existence and he shouldn't have to.
I'm tired and probably not making much sense - certainly doesn't sound like I am. G'night.
Click to expand...
This is one of the more sensible posts of late (possibly the most sensible one) that this thread has been graced with.
 
Chagos said:
I refer in this context to my post #141, which, for simplicity's sake I'll repeat once again.

If you wish to continue dancing around the bloc on this in ever-increasing circles, I fear I am not the suitable dance partner. Basically because I'm able to leave a matter once I've had my say on it and possess no interest in the desires of others to argue for the sake of arguing.

So have, by my time zone, a nice evening.
Click to expand...

Chagos:

Fair enough. I will not call upon you again unless you directly respond to my posts from here on in this thread. However I will continue to post here if I see a reason to.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
DaveFagan said:
Attacks on Damascus. If it's OK for Israel to attack Damascus, it's OK for Syria to attack Tel Aviv.\/
Click to expand...

Assad probably isn't in very good position to attack Tel Aviv. I don't think the Russians would help them on that score. Iran will help (through their proxy Hezbollah), but Israel hits back pretty hard. We will see.
 
Praxas said:
And are they the exception or the rule? That’s like saying Catholics are for gay marriage and I show 4 examples.
Click to expand...

The rule.

American Muslims' political and social views

Partisanship and ideology: U.S. Muslims are a strongly Democratic constituency

Fully two-thirds of U.S. Muslims identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party (66%). Far fewer say they are Republican or lean Republican (13%), while one-in-five say they prefer another party or are political independents and do not lean toward either major party. Muslim Americans’ partisan composition is little changed over the last decade, and they remain much more strongly Democratic than the public as a whole.
Click to expand...

PF_2017.06.26_muslimamericans-04new-00.png
 
Praxas said:
Favoring the dem party does not mean they are for gay marriage. You are quite ignorant if you think so.

So please show us where the majority of Muslims favor gay marriage.
Click to expand...

You said:

Show us where Muslims are identifying as liberals.
Click to expand...
 
Praxas said:
Favoring Dems is not the same as identifying as liberal.
Click to expand...

Right, because the religious conservatives you want to think they are tend to favor the Democrats, especially by a 2-to-1 margin.

Why are you so intent on proving that Muslims aren't liberals, anyway?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom