Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lebanon war worsened anti-Semitism

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
FernBell Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 07:56 AM
Original message
Lebanon war worsened anti-Semitism
Edited on Mon Nov-13-06 07:57 AM by FernBell
Leaders of the Jewish diaspora meeting in Paris warned today that Israel's military offensive in Lebanon earlier this year had helped create a worsening climate of anti-Semitism in Europe and elsewhere.

Delegates at the executive council of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) also heard president Edgar Bronfman describe Iran's nuclear program as "the worst danger we have faced since the Holocaust".

.......

Among several speakers warning of a growth in anti-Semitism, Dina Porat of the Tel Aviv Centre for Anti-Semitism and Racism Studies said that since "the start of the summer of 2006 there has been a change of atmosphere. Anti-Semitism has entered moderate opinion".

Ilam Moss of the European Jewish Congress said that "anti-Semitic views spread in Europe this summer. It helps define a climate which is by definition more serious than attacks on Jews in the street".



http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/lebanon-war-worsened-antisemitism/2006/11/13/1163266444198.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Boston Critic Donating Member (606 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. Are we allowed to say that?
I've been told by people making the worst sorts of antisemitic comments that they are "merely anti-Israel."

Aren't we supposed to pretend that everyone in the world makes this distinction?

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Gee, who could have predicted this? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntiRaymi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. It isn't antisemitism.
"Antisemitism" has developed into a code word, used for describing the realization that there are 2 sides to the coin in these conflicts. The two sides are:

(a) Lebanese & Palestinian victims,
(b) Israel's national security requirements.

Acknowledging (a) compromises (b), since it is well recognized that impressions matter, and the court of world opinion is the decider in these issues.
Since this conundrum lacks a clear and satisfactory resolution for Israel, the mechanism is to then attack any and all references to (a) as being antisemitic.
But this results in another conundrum: (a) Happens, and it is splashed all over the media, the internet, as well as human rights organizations the world over - which results in Israel's state aparattus painting itself into an increasingly desperate ideological corner.
But that is good, since Human Rights trumps national security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Is killing a Jew because she is a Jew anti-Semitism in your book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntiRaymi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Sure, but criticizing Israel isn't the same as killing jews.
Edited on Mon Nov-13-06 04:57 PM by IntiRaymi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Didn't say it was.
But killing or harming or attacking Jews because of Israel isn't "criticizing" Israel, it is anti-Semitism!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntiRaymi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Sure.
But that reduces the concept of antisemitism to the same level of 'antiamericanism', whence american tourists are targeted for being, well, american.

Antisemitism is far more than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Please explain.
Why is antisemitism "far more than antiAmericanism"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. That doesn't make sense.
Anti-Semitism is attacking Jews, no matter his/her nationality, but because of his/her religion. Attacking Jews as a method of protest of Israeli policies or actions is anti-Semitism because the attack is against the person's religion. What you described is no different than what happened in Turkey a month ago when Israeli tourists were thrown out of a store. That was not anti-Semitism, that was anti-Israeli. While I may no agree with it, that "protest" was more "on the money," then say they attack in Seattle, where the attacker killed a Jewish woman and injured several others because he hated Israel and blamed Israel for all the ills of the world....that was anti-Semitism!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntiRaymi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. To the extent that you dentify with Israel
Yes, it does.
There are parties here, that have genuine grievances with Israel and its supporters. You cannot dismiss those grievances in such an offhanded manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Let me congratulate you on a post that deals with ideas . .
. and not just propoganda. These are the kinds of posts that make me think about your position and help me understand it better.

That said, I have a problem going from the beginning to the end of your post and seeing a logical progression (could be my fault).

I understand your description of a) and b). Then you say, "Since this conundrum lacks a clear and satisfactory resolution for Israel, the mechanism is to then attack any and all references to (a) as being antisemitic."

Do you really believe that is true? My sense is that there are some Israel defenders who make anti-semitism their cause celebre - but I don't think that is true of the GOI - nor is it true of any of us Israel defenders here at I/P. When anti-semitism comes up it is usually in some context. Certainly, no-one here has characterized any and all references to Lebanese & Palestinian victims by the anti-Israel side as being anti-semitic.

The more commonly used term here is the awkward anti-Israeli which seems to be carefully inserted into most posts so as not to loosely use the more value charged anti-semite.

But, even if it is overused in some sense, how does that result in . .

(a) Happens, and it is splashed all over the media, the internet, as well as human rights organizations the world over - which results in Israel's state aparattus painting itself into an increasingly desperate ideological corner.

. . as you state? Are you asserting that Israel claims "anti-semitism" too frequently - and therefore that is painting Israel in a desperate ideological corner?

What is that ideological corner? I'm having trouble seeing it.

It seems to me that Israel has long ago given up any ideological appeals to world opinion and has simply accepted the fact that no-one really gives a damn about Israel unless they have something to gain politically by claiming to support her.

I'm sure Israel appreciates whatever words her supporters in our government offer occasionally - but Israel understands that as a government and as a people we would gladly sell her out if the winds of political opportunity were to blow from another direction.

Why else do you think Israel attacked the Liberty? She knew her survival was in her own hands and was not about to allow a US intelligence gathering ship into the area - based on some trust that the US gov would not find that intel useful in trade to some other actor in the conflict who we might have desired some friendlier terms with.

We could have asked Israel's permission to enter the zone and offered to share our intel with her, possibly with an Israeli intel officer on board. That we didn't is all Israel had to know about our intentions.

It seems to me that most references to anti-semitism are based on the obviously racist and bigoted remarks made by almost all Arab regimes in the ME. I see comments about the alarming, almost casual acceptance of those in England, France and even in the US. But no-one is trying to justify Israel's defensive military actions by claiming that those who attack Israel are driven by anti-semitism. It's just noting an alarming trend in the world. Stepping back I'd say that such emerging anti-semetic emotions are an inevitable result of peak-oil and major world powers getting into line to curry favor with those who own the spigots.

There are trillions of dollars at stake here. Do you think any nation would place the lives of a few million Jews above that much money in their priorities. Certainly not for some nebulous liberal ideological sentiments.

I doubt that Israel really gives a damn whether Arabs are obsessed with killing Jews because they are anti-semetic or because they're hoping for those 72 virgins. Israel's response will be do what it has to do to protect its citizens lives and its borders. And I'm sure Israel understands the real-politik of oil lust - and is fully prepared to do it on her own.

I think you were proposing a different view than this. I am not offering this post as a rebuttal as much as an invitation for you to expand your premise and explain it better for me if you want to. Thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrPrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Well thanks for clearing that up...
but I must quibble...

but I don't think that is true of the GOI - nor is it true of any of us Israel defenders here at I/P.

Really? Oddly enough you posted in this thread 'flamebait' and then when the MOD corrected you;

you then wrote:

"Thanks for clearing that up.

Think I'll watch this thread for a while and learn more. It's confusing."

But this reply clearly shows someone with a little depth in the subject matter.

Anyhow --

It seems to me that Israel has long ago given up any ideological appeals to world opinion

Odd thing to say since the posted story is precisely what the WJC is doing -- making an ideological appeal.

Why else do you think Israel attacked the Liberty? She knew her survival was in her own hands and was not about to allow a US intelligence gathering ship into the area - based on some trust that the US gov would not find that intel useful in trade to some other actor in the conflict who we might have desired some friendlier terms with.
Officially it was a mistake. Your claiming NOW it was done deliberately? So when did Israel stop viewing the US as a threat to it's survival?

It seems to me that most references to anti-semitism are based on the obviously racist and bigoted remarks made by almost all Arab regimes in the ME. I see comments about the alarming, almost casual acceptance of those in England, France and even in the US. But no-one is trying to justify Israel's defensive military actions by claiming that those who attack Israel are driven by anti-semitism. It's just noting an alarming trend in the world. Stepping back I'd say that such emerging anti-semetic emotions are an inevitable result of peak-oil and major world powers getting into line to curry favor with those who own the spigots.

Really? no-one?

Funny the previous two lines have you doing just that..and that last line would make it seem to think that Israel is above all that 'curry' favouring. Has Israel found a solution to the dino juice dilemma. I'll be honest -- I have read the usual crank shit about Jews running everything from the banks to the media to the diamond trade to government itself...disgusting stuff. But the oil industry? New one to me...I usually find that it's the 'haggis' that have that fifth column sewn up. But who knows, maybe the Renses, Jones and the Pajama Media boys and girls of the internet can adjust their 'narrative' to accommodate the Jews sometime, huh?.

There are trillions of dollars at stake here. Do you think any nation would place the lives of a few million Jews above that much money in their priorities. Certainly not for some nebulous liberal ideological sentiments.

When trillions are at stake, the lives of a few million never stand in the way. Love the inclusion of the word 'liberal' -- as opposed to what other 'ideological sentiment'? Nazism? Dominionism? Despotism? Whabbism? So many OTHER 'dangerous' ideologies, but your worried about whether the 'liberal' can save the Jew? Right... Can't imagine which other ideology is going to pay lip service to free speech, rule of law, equal rights, etc.

But your right -- people can be motivated SOLELY by gain and wealth.

I understand your description of a) and b).....I am not offering this post as a rebuttal as much as an invitation for you to expand your premise and explain it better for me if you want to. Thanks

It was clear to me and it was UNDERSTOOD by you -- you mumbled some dumb shit way off topic and then you state confidently that need a better explanation?

Wow...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I have adopted a policy of only responding to posts . .
. . that exhibit a minimum level of honesty and intelligence. That's why I responded to intiRaymi's. But sorry, this doesn't make the cut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntiRaymi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Oh, the irony!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fonde Ombre Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
10. Here the "controversial" David Mamet opinion...
Many Jews are upset with Mel Gibson because they believe in something called "the public relations war."

Israel, these co-religionists think, is endangered because the Arabs, sworn to the annihilation of the Jewish State, are, somehow, putting a better spin on their case.

Israel is a sovereign nation, founded by United Nations Charter in 1948.
Since then, she has been both chronically and acutely under attack. Sine 1948 Israel has staved off those invaders dedicated to killing the Jews, and each time, after each war, Israel has given back to those invaders, the land acquired in Israel's defense.

Israel wants peace, the Arabs want Israel gone (in 2000 Arafat on the eve of ending a territorial dispute which would have given him 98% of the land he desired, withdrew and went to war). Yet most of the Western Press, European and American, pictures Israel as, somehow the aggressor, and the Israelis as somehow inhuman, and delighting in blood.

There is no "cycle of violence." Israel wants peace behind the 1949 armistice borders, with some relatively minor variation. There is no indictable "disparity of force." Israeli civilians are being bombed. Hezbollah knows where the Israeli military bases are, but chooses to bomb civilians. Hezbollah murderers put their armaments exclusively in the midst of civilians. The Israeli aim is not to invade Lebanon (they left Lebanon) but to force Hezbollah to stop killing the Jews.

That the Western press characterizes the Israeli actions consistently as immoral is anti-Semitism. What state does not have the right to defend itself - it is the central tenant of statehood.

The Jews are not the victims of bad p.r. They are the victims of anti-Semitism.

Europe has always been devoted to the destruction of the Jews. At times, again, it is acute, it is always chronic. The Inquisition, the Russian Pogroms, the mass-murders of Jews by Crusaders "going to save Jerusalem," and the Shoah are only the more notable examples of a civilization happy to designate a different group the helpless-stateless "other," and rape, steal, and murder them at will.

The supposed "cause" of this hatred changes, "Jews spread the plague, they kill Christian babies, they are money-grubbing, greasy, unpatriotic, as a state they are psychotic murders, they are capitalist banker, they are the Communists" in short, Jews are inhuman.

THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, is a spurious 19th Century libel of the Jewish people. It purports to reveal that the Jews kill Christian children for their blood, which they used for ceremonial purposes. (The document is widely disseminated today in the Arab world.) A modern, Western person might read the PROTOCOLS with wonder at the naiveté of anyone who would credit it; but the current Western bias against Israel is The Blood Libel, it is, quite simply, the PROTOCOLS, shifting shape.

No, we are told, it is not that Jews, somehow, need Christian blood for their nefarious ceremonies, they need Arab blood, and, for some reason, delight in murder. And much of the Liberal West, thrilled to have a Victim to worship, nods along.

To ask "must there not be a cause for this anti-Semitism?" is an outrage, similar to asking the rape victim "how short a skirt were you wearing?" The question cannot be posited without at least the implication of the victim "having, somehow, at least in part, 'brought it on yourselves.'"

The question cannot be asked of Jews, any more than a European American could ask an African American "why did your people stay in slavery so long...?" But one might ask the question of a non-Jew. And here is one answer:

Twelve hundred years of European anti-Semitism, murder, rape, and theft, may be laid in large part, at the foot of the Gospel of John. ("He would not go about in the Temple, because the Jews sought to kill him," JOHN 7:1 "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires," JOHN 8:44, etc New Oxford Annotated Bible.)

Now, any and every religion has some portion of its foundation text which is morally and ethically repugnant. (C.F. Jewish Morning prayers, where the man "thanks God that he was not created a woman," (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) "the rebellious child must be taken outside the camp and stoned to death.")

The gospels did not cause anti-Semitism, but they licensed it, to Christian Europe.

Beginning with Pope Benedict VI in "Nostra Aetate" published in 1965, down through Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the issue of Christian anti-Semitism has been addressed, and enlightened Christians around the world, many, people of good faith, having done so independently, are now facing and redressing the issue of anti-Semitism and the Gospels, in an organized manner.

But those things learned in childhood, before we recognize that we are learning them, persist. This is the operative notion of psychoanalysis - that in order to forget we must remember.

I was raised in a time of separate washrooms and water fountains for African Americans. White Americans of my age and experience had and have to confront those racial prejudices imbibed as a matter-of-course, before we knew we were imbibing them. Mel Gibson was raised as a Catholic, and studied the Gospels. Indeed, he made a film of them (I haven't seen the film).
It is not impossible that Mr. Gibson, at a time of great stress, reverted to a catch-all solution learned as a child - that he, in effect, "regressed."

What was the catch-all solution? "Jews are bad."

This might seem to be a rather tenuous connection, "I was stopped for drunk driving - therefore the Jews are bad." But consider: this is exactly how the Western World acted in the 1930's - the Jews are Bad, "they are bringing the world to the brink of war." Germany is going to imprison, deport, kill, in short, relieve you, Europe, of them.

Q. What is the cause of unrest in 1930's Europe? A. The Jews.

Absurd, one might say, how did "The Jews" cause Hitler to kidnap Europe? But see the same mechanism today. Israel (read "the Jews") we are told, has somehow so inflamed the Arabs, that they (Israel/the Jews) will bring the world to the brink of destruction. Arab Jihadists bomb the West and the West blames "the Jews."

But Israel's Jews are no more the cause of Arab Fundamentalist rage than they were the cause of European Fascism. We, as always, are the miner's canary, singled out as, and the first victims of national or global unrest.

What happened to Mr. Gibson is the same thing that happened to the West faced with the specter of Jihadist killers: he became frightened. He regressed, and started speaking the absurd.

Mel Gibson was pulled over for drunk driving, and, perhaps, because he was frightened - as you or I might be in the same situation - he said something regrettable. Then he apologized. Good for him.

Originally published in The Chicago Tribune.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sparked a lot of hate posts at the Huffington Post last August.
People didn't get that Mamet wasn't trying to paint a multifariously shaded portrait of The Way It Is.
It's like a Michael Moore movie, I guess, Mamet's polemical style is: something you either get the main thrust of, and agree with the spirit of, or you don't.

...I agree with Mamet, personally.
Ironically, The Randi Rhodes show Message Boards didn't get my sense of irony and satire when they Administrators saw fit to have me Banned from the Forum altogether, for a joke about Dianne Feinstein, and her certain pro-gay-abortion cabal.
Hope DU Administrators have a better sense of humor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
breakaleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. What a load of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Makes good sense to me.
Edited on Mon Nov-13-06 10:12 PM by msmcghee
Thanks for posting that - and welcome to DU.

In case anyone misunderstands, in my other post in this thread (#7) - I certainly wasn't denying the reality of antisemitism that enters into this wide-ranging conflict on all levels.

I was refuting the idea that Israel is particularly concerned that that antisemitism is the underlying motivation of those attacking her - which I certainly believe is true. And I was refuting the idea that Israel is unduly motivated to strike out at that antisemitism - rather than simply defend her borders and people - which seemed to be the premise of the post I was replying to.

I did say, "Stepping back I'd say that such emerging anti-semetic emotions are an inevitable result of peak-oil and major world powers getting into line to curry favor with those who own the spigots."

I can see where that sentence missed the mark a bit. I should have said, "Stepping back I'd say that such emerging anti-semetic emotions - in places where they have been frowned on for many decades - are an inevitable result of peak-oil and major world powers getting into line to curry favor with those who own the spigots.

I have no doubt that Israelis and Jews worldwide have an acute appreciation of the rising antisemitism in the world, not just in the ME, that contributes to the need to defend Israel militarily.

I'm neither Israeli nor Jewish so I can not speak for them. I am only expressing my opinion of what's going on. Mr. Mamet is Jewish and he does a damned good job describing this complex topic IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-13-06 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I had to read that 3 times.
It is a defense of Mel Gibson's lapse.
A most curious one, but I agree too.
But he is too subtle to expect wide understanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fonde Ombre Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Yes, subtlety is what keeps his films off the Hit Parade
If you asked me what the best American political film of the last thirty years was, I would unhesitatingly reply *Spartan*...
Sadly, even a smart critic like Jonathan Rosenbaum, compared *Spartan* to a Schwarzenegger vehicle.
I too, am not Jewish, and in fact listen very carefully to all the critiques of the State of Israel that I've heard on Democracy Now and other programs.
I can't stand the Israel-right-or-wrong clique in this country, who don't want to hear any dissent of their narrow points of view. Yet I am equally horrified at the supposed Defenders of Palestine who called Israel's military actions a "genocide".
Noam Chomsky's definition of Genocide is good enough for me, thank you very much.
There has not by any sane definition been a Genocide in that region of the world, and anyone who says otherwise --needs to either pick up a dictionary or shut the hell up.

It is very depressing that the Left in this country, are sounding more and more like Old School Alex Jones (before he wanted to be popular).
Can't they stand back and perceive how manipulated their reactions are, by the Murdoch-led Roveian Machination-Media.

Just the same, although their IS NOT a secret SHADOW CABAL in control of the US Government, I don't accept the censorship of the dumb-asses who want to put that opinion out there.
When a normally spot-on guy like Mike Malloy talks about Zionism, as if that was a philosophy that anyone powerful in Washington believes in, it makes me cringe.
Yeah, Paul Wolfowitz is a Zionist. Right: exactly as George W. talks to God.

I enjoyed your posting of Michael Bakunin, bemildred.
That is one of the watershed political thinker's I devoured in my Teenage Anarchist Days. Really brought back fond memories!
Today, I'm an irrecoverable 26 year old cynic. Idealism is dead to the Grown-Up world!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. It is a pleasure to meet you.
Edited on Tue Nov-14-06 08:49 AM by bemildred
I have been a cynic since around the age of 14, a long while ago now, at one time I was quite proud of it, but I am not depressed about it now. It resolves into a taste for critical thinking, which serves you well in the world.

Most people lived hedged about with taboos and fears, things that one may not discuss with any candor, ideas that are too dangerous to explore, memes that will take over your mind and turn you into an outcast. Bakunin and anarchism is one such case.

Most people (here) think that "Marx was wrong" and "Capitalism is the only workable way to do things" and "Communism is doomed to fail", without really having any understanding of what those words mean, or who Marx was and what he did, or how those ideas really relate to each other in the historical sense, it is all a matter of faith, of unquestioning adherence, like religion.

It is almost the defining quality of this dispute, and others like it, that one is not allowed to consider all sides of the question without being abused by one side or another. It is simply too important to allow anyone to think about it.

It is indeed the manipulation that one needs to watch out for, people who try to scare you or make you angry are not your friends. That is a criticism of Marx that I find more convincing, the bloviating that he indulges in when trying to arouse "the masses", the rabid attacks on his peers and haggling over control of the revolution, and all that.

-- B
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Critical thinking?
That's just another word that people use to describe the clever justifications they have conjured for their preconceived emotional beliefs. It's been my experience that real "critical thinkers" seldom use the term. They illustrate it in practice.

War and conflict itself is highly emotional and triggers evolutionary responses associated with adrenaline - which shuts down the "thinking" process. That's one reason why military training consists of instilling habits and trained responses that can serve to guide behavior in battle. That's also why the beliefs that support one side or the other in a conflict are almost always based in strong emotion, not reason.

Only when one has forced themselves to give reason itself - a high enough emotional commitment in their mind - can they actually reach "reasonable" conclusions opposite those beliefs. It's not easy to do and few have completely mastered that skill.

I'm not claiming that I'm so good at that myself, but objectively discussing the reasoning behind one's conclusions is a first step toward the resolution of conflict - if that is one's purpose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fonde Ombre Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Reasons are subjective
I think it was Jean Renoir who said, that 'the terrifying thing in this world, is that everyone has their reasons'.
He was speaking in juxtaposistion to war in general, or the Third Reich in particular.

It doesn't matter what it is anymore...maybe you don't like the way your neighbor plays load music, so instead of meeting them to find out WHY they do that (whatever it is you disapprove of) , you call the police to have the dispute "settled".

This leads to, among other ills in society (all rooting from class disparities, gender inequalities, etc.) to an alienation from your fellows.
There are all sorts of blocks in the modern world, to keep people from understanding each other. Including what I'm doing right now. I could be typing this in a cafe, on the beach, wherever --technology keeps real human interaction at a Safe Distance, so as not to get too close to any concept that isn't preconceived.

It was in David Mamet's *Spartan* in fact, that someone says 'adrenaline is the greatest drug'.
Most reviews saw this, and other lines in the film, as cow-towing to a base macho instinct, and making politics into a cartoonish affair. This is, however, how politics and the military mindset should be treated!
Not to make a joke of how military actions are conducted, but the overall effect is illusory "reality". At one point, the W.H. Macy character repeats a line - "It's World War Three Out There"- as a catch-all justification for any-means-necessary action.

This is what the Neo-Conservatives apparently believe.. that all is forgiven, if they can conquer the mythological Whatsit. Power is adrenaline without rest, for these kind of people. No time to reflect on moral relatives and revisions.

Anarchism and Socialism are considered outdated ideas by the official Left (progressives, whatever they call themselves now), exemplified by such magazines as The Nation and Mother Jones. Why discuss such old matters, when they are "proven failures".
You can't get the Left, or anyone else, to agree that there are fresh and untried political philosophies --when they believe already, that they are living in a Free Market Capitalist Democracy. Which is so full of lies there is no way to properly dis-spell the misbegotten notion of.

It is neither a Free Market, we live for, nor Democracy, in any true sense.
There is more freedom, in general, than in any other comparably-sized country.
Yet the Capitalism that is preached, has never coalesced with the one practiced, (any more so than the Communism that was preached in Russia or
China, had to do with Marx and Lenin).

What this has to do with Israel-Palastine, I don't know right now!
Forgive me my indulgence , and lets continue this on a more appropriate Thread, in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Yes, you have a stream-of-consciousness style.
That can be hard to read unless one puts in the effort. It can also be a very effective medium if both sides do that. I'm willing when you are. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fonde Ombre Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Whoops, sorry about that!
What's important, is not that we describe how A links to B (anyone can do that), but how C relates to X: the forgotten routes that are the soul of communication.
I'm not claiming my blather represented that.
God forbid if we all spoke Stream-of-consciously all the time, if that is what it was.
Maybe if I had numbered paragraphs, what I was getting at would have been clearer.
___________________________________________________________________________________
1.Next Topic, post, will be on a different tack.
------------------
2.There is no time in cyberspace to feel your scream.
------------------
3.msmcghee, does m=Michael + s=Stanley.
Just a stab.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-14-06 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Don't apologize. It's fine.
I usually try to be sure that no-one can possibly misunderstand my posts. So they come out pedantic or preachy - when that isn't my intention. I like reading your posts more than mine.

But, when you have a dozen detractors looking for any error - being pedantic keeps you safer. Having those detractors also makes me question and think through my beliefs more carefully since I know they will be challenged.

That's the advantage of forums like this. The disadvantage is that it can be really difficult to explain complex ideas in this limited format. But, it gets easier the more posts you make.

Cheers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-15-06 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. thats conditional.....
Edited on Wed Nov-15-06 04:59 AM by pelsar
Having those detractors also makes me question and think through my beliefs more carefully since I know they will be challenged.

the above....is only if one has the integrety to answer to the challanges...alas, all to many here, wont/cant "own up" to their posts. They write something that cant/wont stand up to basic logic and when challanged avoid answering
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC