Weiner Sells Israel to Progressives: Not An Occupier, Settlements Not in Palestinian Territory

[oberliner]

Anthony Weiner is trying hard to make Israel palatable to progressives.

The outspoken congressman has long been one of that country's most ardent defenders in Congress. He has steadfastly pleaded its case through a series of damaging p.r. incidents—most recently, last year's deadly incident aboard the Mavi Marmara flotilla—and has frequently criticized President Obama for not being a staunch enough supporter of Israel's interests.

But, for a man who has carefully cultivated an image as a liberal's liberal, it's a posture that often puts him at odds with the progressive base he has so studiously courted.

On Thursday night, Weiner tried to win over a skeptical crowd at the New School, arguing that Israel remains a beacon of democracy in an undemocratic region, and that its strict security measures and ongoing settlements do not make it an occupying force.

http://www.observer.com/2011/politics/weiner-tries-israel-progressives-not-occupier-settlements-not-palestinian-territory

[ananda]

1. This is a real blind spot for him.

nt

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

2. Yeah, Israel is a beacon of peace, love and compassion

for their fellow man, always putting up what is most moral and noble about humans. Steadfastly defending all persons rights, such as the right to freely travel and visit each other, or make a living in the area you find yourself relocated, I mean, living in.

[oberliner]

5. That seems pretty over the top

I don't think any country in the world fits that halcyon description.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

6. Oh, I lived in one like that 65 years ago, called USA,

but I was a child then and thought like a child.

[cali]

32. you must be white if that's the USA you live in 65 years ago.

[shaayecanaan]

7. Some are closer than others (nt)

[oberliner]

10. Which are the ones that come closest?

Can you identify a few examples?

[shaayecanaan]

11. I think most here would tend to regard the Scandinavian countries

as being models worthy of emulation.

What do you think?

[shira]

16. I'm not sure the Jews of Sweden would agree...

Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/7278532/Jews-leave-Swedish-city-after-sharp-rise-in-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html

It's pretty bad for Jews in other Nordic countries too...
http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Humanitarian-Mask-Nordic-Countries/dp/9652180661

It's hard to argue nations refusing to protect their minorities are 'enlightened'.

Try again?

[azurnoir]

17. Odd we haven't heard much of the mass aliya of those fleeing Nordic countries in the 13 months since

the article you linked to was published, perhaps Manfred Gerstenfeld the chairman of the board of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and author of the linked book has been too busy writing of what must surely tens of thousands of Jews fleeing Scandinavian persecution

[shira]

19. Do you doubt how bad it is in Norway and Sweden for Jews?

You know, you were just claiming last week that because the Arab world didn't have revolutions prior to the last month, things must have been going pretty well for the people in those countries.

Are you sure you want to proceed with this?

[azurnoir]

20. you want to post the comment? or will it be an amorphous link

to one of your own threads

[shira]

22. Here it is for you...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x344183#344398

So unless the citizens of Egypt and Libya petition the UN, then all must be good there?

Same for the Jews of Sweden and Norway?

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

24. you are comparing the situation for Jews in Sweden to that of Libya?!?

well then why has there not been a mass aliyah or is it being kept secret?

[LeftishBrit]

27. Jews in Sweden and Norway?

If you said 'Jews in Poland or Ukraine', you might have a point! But antisemitism is no worse in Sweden than in America.

Here's a link to a 2007 survey from the ADL about attitudes in America:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/5159_12.htm

15% of Americans surveyed were consistently antisemitic. A larger number endorsed specific antisemitic stereotypes. 31% believed that Jews are more loyal to Israel than America. 27% believed tjat Jews were responsible for the death of Christ. 15% believed that Jews
had "Too much power in the U.S." and 20% that they had "Too much power in the business world".

A comparable survey was carried out in Sweden in 2006.

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2006/sweden.htm

Only 5% were consistently antisemitic, though another 36% were prepared to accept *some* antisemitic stereotypes (apparently similar to America).

Fifteen percent of all respondents agreed completely or partly with the statement: “The Jews have too much influence in the world today" - though this had been as high as 27% in another survey.

9% thought that there could be no peace in the world as long as Israel exists, and 14% that actions by Israel are what causes hatred of Jews. Although this was not tested in the American survey, I would guess that it would be similar.

Extreme anti-Jewish sentiment (not wanting Jews to live next door or vote in elections or thinking that there are 'too many Jews' in Sweden) characterized 2% of Swedes; by comparison, 8 to 11% had similar attitudes to Muslims.

So although the questions were not identical, the proportions of antisemitism do seem to be similar.

There has not been a recent survey of antisemitism in Norway. One is just beginning now:

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/01/27/state-set-to-survey-anti-semitism/

However, I have Jewish friends there, and they do not find any severe problem there, though as in many countries there are occasional antisemitic incidents. My friends have close contacts with America, so could leave Norway without difficulty if they chose to; they have not expressed any desire to do so.

Certainly you can't BEGIN to compare the situation for Jews in Norway or Sweden with that of just about anyone in Egypt or Libya.

[shira]

30. Where did I compare antisemitism in the Nordic nations to Libya or Egypt?

One example I did bring up was that of the Jews who are leaving Malmo Sweden. The government refuses to protect them. I'm not sure that's happening in America or Britain.

[LeftishBrit]

28. Yes, I do; because I know Jews in Norway!

And because there are surveys of antisemitic attitudes and incidents in different countries. It's a problem everywhere, but Sweden is *not* exceptionally bad. Try living in Poland if you're Jewish; even Spain is considerably worse than the Scandinavian countries.

Just from the point of view of being a secular Jew, I would rather live in Norway or Sweden than in America, because the levels of specific antisemitism appear to be similar, while the general prejudices against any non-Christians seem to be higher in America.

[shira]

31. How do you think you'd fare as an orthodox Jew in Norway or Sweden, as opposed to America?

Former EU-commissioner Frits Bolkestein said there was no future for practicing orthodox Jews in the Netherlands.

I've never heard any such thing WRT orthodox Jews in America.

[azurnoir]

34. Frits Bolkestein? former leader of the ultraright VVD party? wasn't Geert Wilders his protege ?

but that is an interesting quote

[oberliner]

35. The VVD is an ultraright party? Isn't it the party of the current Dutch Prime Minister?

Is the current Netherlands government ultra-right wing?

The VVD party holds the majority of seats in their parliament and is the party that received the most votes in the last election.

Are a plurality of the Dutch people ultra-right wing?

[azurnoir]

36. it is presumptively called 'center right' and yes Geert Wilders was a member

in fact he was then leader Frits Bolkestein assistant, as to the democratically elected party in the Netherlands the peoples vote speaks for itself

[oberliner]

37. It is the single most popular political party in the Netherlands today

There are ultra right-wing parties in the Netherlands, such as the actual party that Geert Wilders belongs too, namely the PVV.

Maybe you had your parties confused?

The VVD is the party of the PM and the highest number of parliamentarians in the Netherlands.

If it is ultra right-wing then that term truly has no meaning.

[azurnoir]

38. No I did not have my "parties" confused Wilders was Bolkestein's

assistant as head of the VVD party Frits Bolkestein is at present no longer head and Wilders has also left the party perhaps you should recheck your history of the Netherlands, no where did I state this was in the present

[LeftishBrit]

39. The VVD (Party for Freedom and Democracy) itself is right-wing but not ultra-right

It is pro-free-market and generally right-wing on economic issues. On social issues, it is relatively liberal. Probably not unlike moderate Republicans or the more conservative 'Blue Dog' Dems in the USA.

There is a separate 'Party for Freedom' which split from the VVD a few years ago. That is Wilders' party and is definitely ultra-right. It is very anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim , as well as also being very pro-free market economics.

ETA: Bolkestein was a VVD politician. He is a somewhat dodgy character in general, who has been involved in some financial scandals. He made some antisemitic remarks, after he had retired from active politics. This, by the way, is the Netherlands, which differs in some important ways from Norway and Sweden. It is currently much more economically conservative, and also has suffered from significant recent xenophobia toward both Jews and Muslims. Incidentally, this also refutes the idea that antisemitism is specifically associated with the Left. Bolkestein is centre-right; the highest-ranking British politician noted for antisemitic remarks is Jenny Tonge, who belongs to a centrist party.

[azurnoir]

40. thank you pointing that out as I already had however the actual 'debate' concerned

Frits Bolkestein who was cited by 'another poster'

[LeftishBrit]

41. Though in fact the Netherlands are not the most xenophobic / antisemitic country...

http://www.antisemitism.org.il/article/18075/europe-%E2%80%93-study-antisemitism-islamophobia-down

A recent study suggests that the Netherlands is similar to the UK (and USA) in level of antisemitism, while Poland and Hungary are very much worse (surprise surprise...) and Spain and Italy are among the worst in Western Europe. Sweden was not included but the results for the UK and the Netherlands are similar here to those for Sweden in another survey.

The UK is relatively good with regard to antisemitism and specific Islamophobia, but bad from the point of view of a more general anti-immigrant bigotry. The same is probably true of the Netherlands, and possibly Sweden. I would gather that the USA is similar to the UK and Netherlands for antisemitism, better in some states but much worse in others with regard to anti-immigrant bigotry, worse for anti-Muslim sentiment, and very much worse for anti-secularist sentiment

[shira]

42. But moreso than America or the UK for orthodox Jews, right? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

43. As I am neither Orthodox nor have I spent much time in the Netherlands...

I cannot answer this with certainty. The surveys don't indicate this, but generally don't make a distinction between Orthodox and secular/Reform Jews. Though in all these places, it probably depends *where* you live. (In places with large Orthodox populations, you would get more social support, but may possibly be more likely to have your area targeted by antisemites.)

For that matter, I would certainly not be keen to be *any* sort of non-Christian in parts of the American Bible Belt.

[shira]

46. Attacks vs. orthodox Jews are more common in the Netherlands than in America or the UK.

Anyway, the point to bringing up Nordic antisemitism is to show that the Nordic countries are no more 'enlightened' than any other western nations.

There's plenty more criticism of the Netherlands here...
http://badnewsfromthenetherlands.blogspot.com/

About that...
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/anglo-file/beating-press-bias-at-its-own-game-1.226765

[shira]

47. Would you like to really compare/contrast the Scandinavian countries with Israel?

You really think the Scandinavian countries are far more enlightened than Israel?

:eyes:

Here are some blogs showing Israel compares rather favorably to them...
http://badnewsfromsweden.blogspot.com/
http://badnewsfrom-finland.blogspot.com/
http://www.israelwhat.com/

Remember, the news articles cited in those blogs are just criticism...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Yes, I would.

None of them has anywhere near as much bigotry or racism as Israel does - you've been rattling on and on about antisemism in there even after Leftishbrit has pointed out that the actual surveys show there's no more than in the USA; I presume you wouldn't deny that there is not just more but *massively*, *incomparably* more anti-arab bigotry in Israel than there is anti-semitism in Scandinavia?

In which other Western nations do nearly 50% of the population think Arabs should be stripped of the vote?




Plus, none of them is illegally occupying any of their neighbours...

[shira]

53. Good. Do you agree it doesn't get much better than any of the Scandinavian countries?

That way, we're comparing Israel to what's considered the West's finest?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. In terms of what?

My understanding is that in terms of economic organisation - taxation, the provision of services, etc - and also in terms of gay rights, women's rights etc, the Scandinavian countries are about as good as it gets.

In terms of xenophobia, racism and bigotry, they - and most of the rest of the West - are massively better than Israel, but possibly not as good as some other countries - my understanding is that some of them have non-trivial problems with Islamophobia, noteably. I may be wrong about that, though.

[shira]

55. I'm assuming you want to compare xenophobia, racism, and bigotry b/w Israel/Scandinavia - right?

If so, ready?

[aquart]

3. Progressives. I'm a liberal and I'm just fine with it.

The idea that Israel is an occupying force in its own country? Pfui. Lotta ways to deal with people you don't like. What most here never notice is how desperately Israel tries not to kill people who are trying to kill them. In 60 years have some of them given up and gone over to the dark side? WOULDN'T YOU?

We had a collective national nervous breakdown over ONE successful terror strike. We're so freaked we're building shrines to worship it. Israel has that fun every damn day. National PTSD anyone? They don't want murderers for neighbors and neither would you. The Palestinians have done a magnificent job in making sure no one can tell which of them is a killer and which isn't.

Does it suck? Big time.

BTW, have the Palestinians been celebrating their happy liberation now that Mubarak the Collaborator isn't there to back up Israel and the United States?

Or do the Egyptians also not want murderers for neighbors? Is it possible that the Palestinian way of killing you if you do something they don't like is inconsistent with the Egyptian peaceful revolution?

IS IT?

[shaayecanaan]

8. Interesting statements...

"The idea that Israel is an occupying force in its own country?"

So your position is that the West Bank is part of Israel?

[Larkspur]

4. I like Weiner, but strongly disagree with him over his rabid support of Israel

He's no different than the 19th century white Americans who justified killing Native Americans because they were in the way of white settlers.

[houstonintc]

9. White settlers were here that long ago?

I had no idea there had been white settlers here since time immemorial.

[shaayecanaan]

12. Would it make any difference if they had?

If Leif Ericsson's Icelandic settlers had managed to hold onto their foothold in Canada for the last 1000 years, would that have justified in any way the theft of the rest of the North American continent 700 years later?

[houstonintc]

13. Not what I am discussing...

Jews and Judaism have been in that geographic area since before Islam or the Arab expansion into the Middle East. If we are going by "There first" arguments then Jews are Indians in this situation as they have been in that area the whole dam time.

The only difference is the Jews went from being the minority under the rule of Arabs to the rulers of the land. I suppose Jews ruling something is offensive to some people but fact is they have been their since time immemorial. In fact it is the Arabic speaking Palestinians who might best represent "invaders" as Arabic speakers are truly native only to the Arabian peninsula.

[shaayecanaan]

14. Jews were "not there first" at all...

even according to the Bible, Jews were preceded in the area by the Philistines, Canaanites, Assyrians and so forth. Many of the descendants of these people remain in the region today. Its not as though history began in the 13th century BC.

The Levant, including Israel, is part of the Arabian peninsula, which by commonly held definition extends from Egypt to Iran. The people who live in the Arabian peninsula are called Arabs. The ancient Hebrews were Arabs. The ancient Hebrews arose out of the general Arab population and to the extent that their descendants are still around today (and who are predominanly Muslim today, the whole region having largely converted by the 10th century AD), they may be accurately referred to as Arabs.

Accordingly, saying that "the Arabs expanded into the middle East" is an inherently absurd statement. The Arabs, by definition, are the native peoples of the Arabian peninsula.

[pelsar]

15. nothing more than fairy tales...with agendas

Jews were preceded in the area by the Philistines, Canaanites, Assyrians and so forth. Many of the descendants of these people remain in the region today

sure maybe a couple...but that hardly makes the Palestinians descendants from them.....or perhaps it does, nobody knows since there are no records of the movements of the tribes back then.
-----

the whole concept of I was here first, therefore i have more rights than somebody else, is nothing more than a PC cover for racism/nationalism (pick your preference-depending upon the details).

[shaayecanaan]

21. "I was here first" was in fact the argument of the preceding poster...

I was making the point that that contention was false.

The concept of self-determination for indigenous peoples is generally based on the fact that they were there first. I think it is quite bizarre to regard that as racism.

I am aware that you think that indigenous people do not have any rights to their own territory unless their cultures conform with Western standards of cultural refinement, bodily hygiene, and so forth - in which alternative they may freely be expelled by the first enlightened invader to cross their path.

Im not sure if it was a joke - but if it wasnt, it was obviously quite a disturbing and crudely fascist statement.

[pelsar]

26. my contention is that "first rights'..is hypocritical....

the classic case of giving special rights is contingent that they adhere to your western democratic value structure- the basic framework of your "enlightened culture"

or maybe i'm wrong, perhaps you have no problem with honor killings, cannibalism, killing the first born if its a girl, force marriages at age 12, as long as its done by indigenous people, burning the wife of a deceased husband?


well do you?

[shaayecanaan]

29. Sort of how like the Romans justified the Sack of Jerusalem by saying that circumcision was barbaric

Personally, I think that that is the basest form of hypocrisy. I might not have agreed with Mayan human sacrifice, but that doesn't mean I wanted 90% of them to die at the hands of the Spaniards.

[pelsar]

33. same concept...your forcing them to live by your rules....

I'm assuming (feel free to correct me) that wouldnt agree to have some of the N. american indian tribes continue their practice of cannibalism, attacking other tribes and taking their women forcibly, infanticide , driving buffalo off cliffs as a way to get a few for their dinner etc.

the question is why wont you?...that is their culture and they were in N.America before the white man arrived....

or (you can admit it) that you believe your culture is more 'advanced" than theirs and therefor you feel perfectly justified in forcing it upon them because your stronger.

or maybe i'm wrong and you feel that they should have the right to continue with infanticide?

[shaayecanaan]

44. more so forcing them to die by your rules...

and as far as Im concerned, the Indians can drive buffalo off cliffs all that they like. I'm not necessarily against infanticide either. In Africa (I lived in West Africa for a couple of years when I was younger) any baby that was born disabled was generally done away with, as most people there simply don't have the luxury of being able to devote their lives to the full time care of one child. I thought that was a reasonable approach.

As for forcing my culture on anyone, I'm Lebanese. I can't say we've forced our culture on anyone so far, and to be honest I don't think many people would be keen on adopting Lebanese culture anyway.

[pelsar]

51. I tip my hat to you...for your consistency...

and as far as Im concerned, the Indians can drive buffalo off cliffs all that they like. I'm not necessarily against infanticide either

i can't say its very often that i come across a "progressive" that keeps to a single standard an applies it across the board. (generally my impression of the progressive views are that they are steeped in double and triple standards depending upon subjective circumstances).

as far Lebanon goes..i had to smile, i dont think the Lebanese culture model is exactly one that we would like to export, lets call it a work in progress.
_____

Just a thought:
maybe its because your Lebanese that you can be so forthright in your views..part of the middle east culture?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

58. LOL...you made laugh....

where as i was born in the US and lived there for more than 20 years...i simply cannot deal with americans in terms of business. I prefer israelis (and the little work i did with Palestinians) with their lack of sentimentality and PC bullshit.

One of my favorite things on TV is when israelis interview Palestinians during various events with the westbank (sports, holidays etc)...its so clear how easy they all get along....toss in an american and the whole interview all of sudden gets full of BS

[houstonintc]

23. True that, except for one thing...

The Ancient Hebrews were not Arabs as Arab is a vary specific lingo-ethnic group.

Arabic as a language was confined to a specific region of the Middle East, What we call Iraq, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Lebenon, Turkey and Israel had no dominance of the Arabic language or culture. In fact in Babylon, ancient Sumerian was still spoken as the language of science and mathematics.

Very different cultures reigned and lived and different languages were spoken. Arabic was centered in what we now call Saudi Arabia and the area of Petra as one of it's outposts.

Hebrews were not Arabs.

However you are correct that the Jews according to their own story also took it. So I think we can not a history across the globe of land not really have a "owner".

Face is the Jews were there before Islam, Arabic and what we would call Arabic culture.

[shaayecanaan]

25. An Arab is an Arab...

I am a Maronite, my father is Syrian and his mother tongue was not Arabic but Syro-Aramaic. Indeed the liturgical language of the Maronite church is Syriac/Aramaic. The language of Assyrians is Syriac also. However, I am still an Arab, in the sense that I originate from the greater Arabian peninsula. Kurds are Arabs. Bedouins are Arabs. Yazidis and Mendaeans are Arabs and Assyrians are Arabs.

For the same reason, Hebrews were Arabs.

People who come from Africa are Africans. People who come from Asia are Asians. People who come from the Arabian peninsula are Arabs. The use of the word Arab is far older than the language that we know today as Arabic.

Arab Jews (Mitzrahi Jews) and Arab Muslims are ethnically one and the same, and DNA studies confirm that there is essentially nothing to distinguish them. For political reasons, Mitzrahi do not refer to themselves as Arabs and instead say "middle-eastern" when describing themselves, but that is only politics.

Imagined ethnic origins are simply that. Irish people call themselves Celtic, English people identify as Anglo-Saxons, French as Gauls and Germans as Teutons. DNA studies have confirmed that this is more or less a complete falsehood, and that Europeans today are simply the collective descendants of the melting pot melange that was forged as the result of the last two thousand years of war and conquest.

So it is in the middle East. The Hebrews, Assyrians, Sea Peoples, Phoenicians, are long gone and their descendants today exist only in the collective entity that we call Arabs.

Other Jews are of course not Arabs but are ethnically European or African as the case may be.

[houstonintc]

45. Arab is specific....

Mizrahi Jews are ethnically related to other Jews more so then non-Jews, DNA tests have even been done on just the subject. Ethnically a Jew is a Jew, as Jewishness is both a bloodline, a culture and a religion.

Arab is something specific. Arabic speaker specifically as obviously Middle Eastern peoples were not a homogeneous ethnos. European's are of many ethnicities because they are of different languages primarily and thus very different cultures in some cases.

Arab culture and language only came to rule the "middle east" after the rise of Islam and the Arab tribes going out and conquering. Israel, Lebenon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco.... these are not the sole patrimony of Arabs.

[shaayecanaan]

48. Mizrahi Jews are ethnically far closer to Arabs than to European Jews

and most reputable genetic studies consistently affirm that fact:-

For example:-

Cold Spring Harbor, New York--As fighting continues in the Middle East, a new genetic study shows that many Arabs and Jews are closely related. More than 70% of Jewish men and half of the Arab men whose DNA was studied inherited their Y chromosomes from the same paternal ancestors who lived in the region within the last few thousand years.

The results match historical accounts that Moslem Arabs are descended from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel and the Sinai. They were descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times. And in a recent study of 1371 men from around the world, geneticist Michael Hammer from the University of Arizona in Tucson found that the Y chromosome in Middle Eastern Arabs was almost indistinguishable from that of Jews.

Intrigued by the genetic similarities between the two populations, geneticist Ariella Oppenheim of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, who collaborated on the earlier study, focused on Arab and Jewish men. Her team examined the Y chromosomes of 119 Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews and 143 Israeli and Palestinian Arabs. Many of the Jewish subjects were descended from ancestors who presumably originated in the Levant but dispersed throughout Europe before returning to Israel in the past few generations; most of the Arab subjects could trace their ancestry to men who had lived in the region for centuries or longer. The Y chromosomes of many of the men had key segments of DNA that were so similar that they clustered into just one of three groups known as haplogroups. Other short segments of DNA called microsatellites were similar enough to reveal that the men must have had common ancestors within the past several thousand years. The study, reported here at a Human Origins and Disease conference, will appear in an upcoming issue of Nature Genetics.

http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/00_10now/001030a.html

Sorry to bust your bubble, but I'm afraid the human inclination to make whoopee with the neighbours is universal.

[houstonintc]

49. It is likely, however

It could be as simple as the Jews who staid in the Middle East were never exposed to genomes outside of the Middle Eastern founders.

Arabs and Jews on some ethnic level are ultimately similar in general. Both in language, culture and even religion and beliefs. However I think great effort first is made to split Jews up and try to redefine Jewishness to declare only certain Jews are this and other Jews are that.

However the two are sill not the same "Ethnos" as ultimately Jewishness is it's own ethnic identity and nationality. Akin to being "an Arab" being "a Jew" is likewise in that same region.

I think your issue is to assume all peoples in the region were always "Arab" which is not true as I consider Arabness to be more then a skin pigment and bloodlines. But also including a culture and a language.

Technically many Spanish people today have Jewish ancestry from long ago but they would no longer be considered Jews.

My fact still stands, Jews had lived in Israel as far back as most seem to care to recall, At some point even being the dominate culture there before being deposed by other cultures. Be it Roman, Greek, or Arab, the fact that they had always been there makes the "Settlers and Native Amerindian" comparison foolish as I think we both recognize the foolishness in that.

[shaayecanaan]

50. Judaism has been around for about 3000 years (since the 13th century BC)

Christianity has been around for about 2000 years, and there are many parts of Israel/Palestine which are holier to the Christians than to the Jews (eg Bethlehem, Nazareth, Gehenna).

And of course Christians have had a permanent presence in Israel for a very long time - the longest surviving religious order in the world is the Patriarch of Jerusalem (older even that the Papacy) which goes back right to the beginning of the common era.

Ultimately, if you want to justify Zionism by saying that Jews have been in the area a long time and have a connection to Israel, you also justify the Crusades, since the Christian crusaders had both those things as well.

"However the two are sill not the same "Ethnos" as ultimately Jewishness is it's own ethnic identity and nationality."

Yes, but that identity is a chimera and nothing more. Jews are no more the literal descendants of Moses than Italian people are the descendants of Romulus.

To clarify: Judaism is a religion. Arab is an ethnicity. A White European Jew and a Black Ethiopian Jew share the same religion but not the same ethnicity.

[houstonintc]

57. I didn't justify a thing...

Jews first off all are a bit different then Christianity in that Jewishness is as much an ethnicity as it is a religion. Christianity is not an ethnic group in it of itself. Poles, Germans, Irish, Russians, many of them are considered Christian but not part of any one nation. Jews on the other hand would fall into that category.

A Ashkenazim Jew and a south Africa dwelling Lemba Jew show signs of having the same genetic material within them and the same ancestry. In fact that is how they confirmed the Jewishness of the Lemba is testing their "Priests" against the Ashkenazim Priests. Yes a Cohen from the Shtetl and a Cohen from South Africa can look incredibly different and in fact show signs of common origin. They are in fact more or less the same ethnicity.

For western secular types this is hard to grasp since we bifurcate religion and ethnicity.

Also I am not justifying Zionism at all or even talking about Zionism. I am correcting inaccuracies.

[shaayecanaan]

59. You're only talking about Western Christianity...

Eastern Christianity is very much a family affair. Most Eastern churches cater to specific communities and make no endeavours to recruit people outside them.

For example, the Armenian church does not seek people that are non-Armenian. The Coptic church in Egypt consists only of Copts. The Assyrians have their own Assyrian church, and the Maronites.

For that reason, it is quite easy for Armenians and Assyrians to operate their churches in Iran, because the clerics know that these churches will make no attempt to proselytise. Western churches on the other hand are forbidden.

And of course, every other religion bifurcates ethnic and religious identity - the Hindus, Druze, etc.

What you are describing is not so much particular to Christianity as it is to Western culture. Westerners, being the inheritors of Rome, believe that their culture is as good for everyone else as it is to them. That extends from Christianity to democracy to Coca Cola. Were the Westerners Jewish instead of Christian they would have promoted that religion just as relentlessly.

[houstonintc]

63. Cool cool,

Eastern Christianity does parcel it out into ethnicity specific versions of a larger faith. However one should point out that in each case a different faith was largely placed on the original ethnicity, with minor alterations to give it a slightly different flavor.

Islam and Western Christianity are a bit more what we are familiar with in that these faiths are not based on bloodlines or kinship ties in the slightest. And arguably, Eastern Christianity isn't either since it likewise converted many peoples who were not part of any of the ethnicities involved. Considered the Turkic speaking people of Siberia converted to Russian Orthodox Christianity? While they no longer prosylatize, most did in the past, and even Roman Catholicism has largely ceased active convert seeking.

Also, no, some "religions" split ethnicity from religion, Amerindians tribes however do not necessarily do this. Their religion, or at least the original one's, are specific to the tribe in question. And unlike Judaism they do not accept new members to the best of my knowledge.

No, however they would not have promoted Judaism as Judaism has no great call to convert new people to Judaism and even tradition that existed before Christianity placed heavy barriers on bringing in new members to "the tribe".

Judaism is by it's nature not a "western" religion in the same sense that Christianity or Islam is. Even during the French revolution it was told that the Jews, in order to be given rights, had to renounce their identity as Israelites and adopt a French identity in order for them to be considered part of France and privy to rights. Judaism is a religion and a nationality, one that spans the globe in a fairly vibrant diaspora community. And fancy that most of these groups are linked by a common founder population thus making them very much an epitome of a "family" of sorts.

But back to the original point, Josephus and the Romans establishes that they have been there for 2000+ years. Ruins and archaeological findings show this as well. Considering their cultural texts, holy books and all their stories talk about this land, it's cities, and other cultures note that they hailed from their and affirm their connection to that location....

I'd say it's an utter travesty to compare Jews to say Christopher Columbus who found a random undiscovered land and decided to take it. This is a very different situation.

[shaayecanaan]

64. You're assuming that the Judaism of today is the same as it was in classical times...

At the time of Christ, the two most numerous religions in the world were Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Both those religions today are relatively small endogamous sects, but be assured it wasn't the case back in the day.

At its height, Judaism was the religion of 10% of the Roman Empire, one-half of the horn of Africa and one-third of the middle East. You don't get numbers that large without very enthusiastic conversion efforts.

Perhaps one shortcoming of Jewish proselytisation was that they tended to concentrate on the rulers and aristocrats of other nations - most notably when the Khazars were converted to Judaism in the ninth century. The Christians on the other hand tended to target the peasantry first, and then turn the King around once they had enough of his subjects in tow.

[houstonintc]

65. Considering the Mishna and it's historic roots...

Considering the rules regulating conversion and the age and adherence of the Mishna, Gamara (SP?) and the whole of the Talmud, I'd say only a King can reasonably convert to Judaism.

It is known that in Ethiopa a community was founded and gained a substantial number of outside converts. Simple history and genetics shows that to be true.

As for the Khazars, Khazaria had a significant community already within it by the time the King converted. Genetics has even shown when he did and his lineage entered the gene pool along with others of the aristocracy.

Fact is that Judaism is far more then a "religion" in the sense that Islam and Christianity is... in that it is a faith, ethnicity, and nationality all wrapped into one confusing package. It is just very hard for a modern Westerner to grasp considering even in the 1700's Jewishness seemed archaic and confusing.

[shaayecanaan]

67. Simply wrong...

"It is known that in Ethiopa a community was founded and gained a substantial number of outside converts. Simple history and genetics shows that to be true."

Strange isnt it, that White Jews who have done this research have resisted any notion that they might be the sons of converts, whereas they have been only too ready to reach that same conclusion in the case of (black) Ethiopian Jews. You'd almost be prepared to believe that they have some kind of agenda...

"Fact is that Judaism is far more then a "religion" in the sense that Islam and Christianity is... in that it is a faith, ethnicity, and nationality all wrapped into one confusing package."

No, its not. Its a religion.

There may well be nationalist sentiments intertwined in that religion, but that makes it no less a religion. Nationalism and religion go hand in hand everywhere, just look at Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, etc.

What you need to realise is that that sense of nationalism is dependent on the religion, and not the other way around.

The only Jewish community that has any real future is the orthodox population, the people who actually practise their religion. Their rate of intermarriage is very low, less than 15%.

For secular Jews, the intermarriage rate is very high, up around 75%. After all, they are ethnically white. They do not speak any special language, their cuisine and culture are much the same as everyone else. The only thing that distinguished them from other Americans is their religion, and they now no longer practise it.

[shira]

68. So why do you think almost all secular Jews are strong Zionists? n/t

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shaayecanaan]

71. Actually, in terms of skin colour Im closer to white than Black...

Im probably somewhere between butter and caramel, perhaps one or two shades sub-Obama. Ive nothing against white people, anyway.

"Fact is the evidence of various theories like the Khazar theory that some claim the entire Ashkenbazim came to us from some Turkic tribe is considered false for lack of evidence."

Of course its false. Virtually any theory that says "people X came from place Y" is false.

An interesting mental exercise for you. You probably already know the riddle of whether it is cheaper to pay $10,000 for the thirty horseshoe nails required to shoe a horse, or 1c for the first nail, 2c for the second nail, 4c for the third and so on. Even though the initial cost of the first nail is low, it ramps up very quickly when the cost doubles each time.

Your family tree is much the same. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents and so forth. Eventually, within twenty generations or so, your family tree becomes larger than the amount of people that actually populated the Earth at the given time.

This is explained to some extent by some people appearing in your family tree more than once. But to a large extent, it is explained by your descendants coming from a much wider range of places than you might otherwise imagine.

"Genetics, linguistics and their own history says otherwise."

Well, the proof is in the pudding. Orthodox Jews say that the only way to preserve a community is through religious observance, and given the intermarriage rates they would seem to be correct. Even non-Orthodox Jews admit that unless a child attends day school or shul, he is unlikely to feel part of a community to the extent that he will actually bother to remain a part of it.

"I think many Black Americans and Liberals have an agenda and it's antisemitism."

Feel free to make that your signature if you like.

[houstonintc]

74. Didn't care what pigment you had...

Im probably somewhere between butter and caramel, perhaps one or two shades sub-Obama. Ive nothing against white people, anyway.

The "White Jew" comment tells otherwise. However your pigmentation has no baring on this. You said something idiotic.

Of course its false. Virtually any theory that says "people X came from place Y" is false.

Not really, we can definitively say that Irish people are largely Celtic and Viking in descent, based on history, legend, tradition, language and of course that fun filled DNA.

An interesting mental exercise for you. You probably already know the riddle of whether it is cheaper to pay $10,000 for the thirty horseshoe nails required to shoe a horse, or 1c for the first nail, 2c for the second nail, 4c for the third and so on. Even though the initial cost of the first nail is low, it ramps up very quickly when the cost doubles each time.

Your family tree is much the same. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents and so forth. Eventually, within twenty generations or so, your family tree becomes larger than the amount of people that actually populated the Earth at the given time.

This is explained to some extent by some people appearing in your family tree more than once. But to a large extent, it is explained by your descendants coming from a much wider range of places than you might otherwise imagine.

Actually it's explained by inbreeding and endogamy. If a population is substantially isolated for whatever reason then in fact close kinship breeding happens. Come to think of it that is how most closely knit ethnicities form is kinship and for lack of a better term, inbreeding.

In fact that is one of the reasons Jewish genetic research is so thorough is because amongst the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox communities the population remains largely endogamous. Because of this we can actually state that the Priestly clan of the Lemba of South Africa is linked in ancestry with say a Ashkenazim or Sephardim Cohen. Curiously enough one can use this same thing on other groups and find out where the founder populations came from and who they were.

Well, the proof is in the pudding. Orthodox Jews say that the only way to preserve a community is through religious observance, and given the intermarriage rates they would seem to be correct. Even non-Orthodox Jews admit that unless a child attends day school or shul, he is unlikely to feel part of a community to the extent that he will actually bother to remain a part of it.

Irrelevant point. If someone stop speaking french, leaves france and changes their name to Alfred Johnson and starts speaking English or German they likewise would loose their "frenchness".

Your point is meaningless... As the culture is the religion. Your struggle is your assumptions that all cultures are secular, and that ethnicity and religion are never tied together that thickly.

Feel free to make that your signature if you like.


Didn't the Southern Poverty Law center cover it?

[shaayecanaan]

77. further

"we can definitively say that Irish people are largely Celtic and Viking in descent"

In the third century BC the entire European continent (including most of present day Spain) was regarded as "Celtic". Saying that the Irish people are Celtic in origin is no more meaningful than saying that they came from somewhere in Europe.

"Irrelevant point. If someone stop speaking french, leaves france and changes their name to Alfred Johnson and starts speaking English or German they likewise would loose their "frenchness".

Indeed. For the most part, a community requires either a common language or religion to bind them together.

[houstonintc]

81. Confusion over what culture is...

Indeed. For the most part, a community requires either a common language or religion to bind them together.

Some have this notion of culture and ethnicity or nationality being divorced from religious affiliation. That in order for a group to be of a single ethnic, national, or what have you group they must share many things in common but religion does not count. Since nearly the entirety of Jewish culture is derived from Torah, Talmud or the Tanakh in general this presents a quandary for many modern thinkers who find this concept anachronistic to how we currently perceive it.

In the third century BC the entire European continent (including most of present day Spain) was regarded as "Celtic". Saying that the Irish people are Celtic in origin is no more meaningful than saying that they came from somewhere in Europe.

Irrelevant to the point, it is a part of Irishness and part of their origins.

[shaayecanaan]

86. Very rarely is nationality divorced from religious affiliation

In the former Yugoslavia, for example, your nationality is determined by your religion - if you're Orthodox you're a Serb, if you're Catholic you're a Croat, if your Muslim you're a Bosnian.

Ashkenazi Jews have been an island in a sea of Western Christianity for the best part of two thousand years. It is understandable that in the context of that experience that they would regard Western Christianity as "normal" and their own conception of religion as unique.

Indeed, the contrary is the case. Judaism is not unique in intertwining religion and ethnicity - virtually every other religion, from Shinto to Hinduism, does this. Rather, Western Christianity is unique in transcending ethnicity.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. 'I think many Black Americans and Liberals have an agenda and it's antisemitism.'

Apart from being incredibly racist, a comment like that makes me wonder about the absolute glee some people take in attacking LWers.

All in all, a very nasty post full of personal attacks and sheer ugliness...

[houstonintc]

75. I

It isn't racist unless of course pointing out that a contingent in the African American population holds to a degree of Antisemitism... Or is the nation of islam and of course the black Hebrew cult not real?

Or the ADL study along with the SPLC study that found that it is a troubling factor of the Black community?

Or how about Barack Obama's own words when he condemned it?

Also feel free to bury your head in sand.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. You said MANY black Americans were antisemitic....

I quoted exactly what you said. How is that not a racist comment?

I'm not the one burying my head in the sand, and I'm not sure what that strange comment was supposed to mean. I strongly objected to what was in the post, the mods must have agreed, as they zapped it. I suggest you learn from that and move on...

[houstonintc]

82. Let's see

Many means a significant portion I suppose....

Considering an ADL study found that roughly 40% of that community hold onto some sort of Antisemitic views, I'd say it's an apt statement. Unless of course we are only allowed to make such statements about communities whose members have a much lighter skin pigmentation.

If pointing that out is prejudice and citing a study is prejudice then I wear that badge with pride since prejudice clearly has lost all meaning.

[Violet_Crumble]

83. If you still fail to see that what you said was racist, take it up with the mods...

Considering the ADL is full of shit and condones bigotry against other groups while jumping on any tiny thing and claiming it's bigotry against Jews, it's not pride you should be wearing that badge with....

[shira]

85. The ADL is full of shit and condones bigotry? Tell me Violet, is there an organization committed...

...to fighting antisemitism that you find credible, and if so what is it?

[Violet_Crumble]

88. The ADL condones bigotry against American Muslims. Why deny something so obvious?

Are you interested in knowing about it, or are you just going to blindly deny it?

Also, why did you ask a question, and then run over to another thread and act as though I'd answered it by saying no? That's incredibly dishonest, imo. Because you've done that before I even saw the question, I'm going to ask you what yr purpose is in asking me that particular question. I think it's only fair you explain why yr asking something like that, especially as it's got absolutely nothing to do with what I'd actually posted. As usual, I'm patient and I'll wait for you to pay me the courtesy of firstly apologising for claiming I'd said something I hadn't, and secondly, explain to me why you've asked me that question...

[shira]

89. So name a credible Jewish org. dedicated to fighting antisemitism, please.

Also, please prove that the ADL condones bigotry against American Muslims. If you're thinking about the ADL and the Ground Zero Mosque there's this to help you out:
http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Civil_Rights/20100831-op-ed+JW.htm

BTW, just saw this. I would have replied sooner had I seen it...

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Reply to Shira's false claim about my post...

The false accusation was made in another thread but was talking about the post of mine above, so I'm moving the reply here where it belongs:

'But it's difficult taking anything you say about bigotry seriously, considering you can't think of one credible Jewish organization dedicated to fighting antisemitism that you find to be reliable...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Imagine someone here having a hard time finding one Muslim organization dedicated to fighting anti-Muslim bigotry that they find credible.'

Seeing as how what I said in the above post wasn't anything of the sort, that puts a swift end to that. Learn to read the posts yr linking to before doing that again because it's starting to come across like yr linking to things and deliberately misrepresenting what is said in the link...

[shira]

90. So you think the ADL sucks. I'm still waiting for you to name one Jewish org. you find credible...

....WRT combating antisemitism.

Just one.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. And another reply to another false claim made about this subject in another thread...

Rather than fall into the trap of changing the subject away from what's being discussed in that other thread, I'll put what you said here so people can see for themselves:

Here's what you said in the other thread: 'I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that very little passes for antisemitic bigotry in your view. I asked you earlier to name one credible organization dedicated to fighting antisemitism that you find credible. I'm still waiting for that one...'

But anyone reading what happened in the thread it was in can see you actually falsely accused me of not thinking of one credible Jewish organisation dedicated to fighting antisemitism that I find to be reliable. An accusation isn't a question, and there's no way of confusing the two. fwiw, the original 'question' that you flung in completely out of context to what was being discussed (unless you actually think that anyone who objects to the way the ADL condones bigotry against Muslims when it came to Park 51 is antisemitic) has a very simple answer. As I'm don't know off the top of my head of Jewish groups who fight antisemitism (and when it comes to fighting bigotry, I couldn't give a shit whether a group is Jewish or not), I haven't got a list or the knowledge to give any sort of answer, apart from that unless they've been shown to condone bigotry in some form or other, or are unreliable in what information gets put out, then I would think they were credible.

[oberliner]

92. How did the ADL condonde bigotry against Muslims when it came to Park 51?

From the initial ADL statement:

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong.

[shira]

93. So prove the ADL condones anti-Muslim bigotry please.

If it's related to the ground zero mosque, again I urge you and any other lurkers to see what the ADL position is on that...
http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Civil_Rights/20100831-op-ed+JW.htm

I suspect you don't trust any organization dedicated to fighting antisemitism due to their being too "pro-Israel" for your tastes.

Thus, you don't believe it's worthy to criticize OTT hyper-criticism and demonization of Israel. The New Antisemitism doesn't count as bigotry or antisemitism at all in your view.

I welcome you to prove me wrong.

======

FWIW, I find it amusing that you appear to think the ADL is more bigoted than the PA, given the PA's atrocious record here for all to see...
http://www.palwatch.org/

You once admitted Hamas was highly antisemitic. Can you at least admit the same WRT the PA? Is the PA ridiculously antisemitic in your view, Yes or No?

[houstonintc]

76. Didn't say anything racist at all.

Barack Obama has even condemned that element in the Black Community that has embraced Antisemitism....

Or are we to pretend that SPLC and ADL findings are fake for the sake of not pointing out prejudices amongst the black community?

Likewise on the left, antisemitism does exist, much as it does on the right.

Personally I think the politics of the left is better, but I don't like that element.

[shaayecanaan]

78. Do you feel that there is any antipathy towards Blacks on the other side of the aisle? nt

nt

[houstonintc]

79. Most likely is,

Considering the virulence of the tea party folk, even though largely Obama has barely done a thing all that different then Bush.

Lets face it, the Birther thing likely would not have even become an issue at all if Obama was no of African appearances.

[shira]

60. Shaay - a recent article for you

http://blogs.jpost.com/content/why-do-we-need-jewish-state-anyway

But why should happy American Jews who have never visited Israel, and will never live in Israel, care about a Jewish state, what’s in it for them? To answer that question we must define what Judaism is, noting the central assumption shaping the previous paragraphs – Jews are a people.

Judaism is not just a religion. Years ago my teacher Dr. Steve Copeland compared Judaism to an Oreo cookie – just as the Oreo requires both cream and cookie parts to be an Oreo; Judaism entails intertwined, overlapping, religious and national parts. Is Passover a holiday of religious redemption or national liberation? “Yes.” Is the Western Wall a holy religious site or a national historical site? Again, “yes.”

[shaayecanaan]

61. A case in point - this is exactly the kind of sentimental tosh

that Americans eat for breakfast and that would make an Israeli vomit:-

"Years ago my teacher Dr. Steve Copeland compared Judaism to an Oreo cookie – just as the Oreo requires both cream and cookie parts to be an Oreo; Judaism entails intertwined, overlapping, religious and national parts."

It is exactly this kind of inexecrable fridge-magnet garbage that represents the absolutely worst drek of American culture. The cliche, the lazy metaphors, the maudlin sentimentality and the smug self-assurance - it is all there.

Exactly why you thought that I would find this in any way impressive or persuasive is beyond me.

[shira]

62. I cited it for you b/c you're wrong. Judaism is not just a religion. n/t

[provis99]

66. virtually everything in your post is wrong.

Syrians are not descended from Arabs; they are descended from Syrians. Arab settlers in Syria were a virtually insignificant minority, as they were in the Maghreb, Egypt, Iraq, and other supposedly "Arab" places. Genetic studies have confirmed this. Kurds are definitely not Arabs; they are Indo-Europeans, and genetically similar to Persians.Assyrians are not Arab either.

Kurdish genetics and Indo-Europeans
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288566/?tool=pmcentrez

Y-DNA haplogroups by populations of Near East and North Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_populations_of_Near_East_and_North_Africa

Genetics have also determined that the Irish are indeed overwhelmingly Celtic, the English are overwhelming descended from Anglo-Saxon German immigrants, the French are descended from the Gauls, and the Germans from Scandinavian Teutonic immigrants.

Irish dna approaches nearly 100% haplogroup R1:
http://www.roperld.com/YBiallelicHaplogroups.htm

differences between Polish and German DNA
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w75j6048545350g5/

English and Welsh are Races Apart
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2076470.stm

Lebanese are genetically distinctive from their neighbors in Turkey and Syria; in fact, there is a large degree of coherence between modern Lebanese and areas of Phoenician settlement in the Mediterranean, indicating both are descended from the ancient Phoenicians. Palestinians are indeed largely descended from Philistines and Canaanites.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/?tool=pmcentrez

Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mitzrahi jews are more closely related to each other than to Arabs.
http://sephardic.fiu.edu/journal/March%202009/Lavender_March.pdf

European Jews are not ethnically European; they are typically descended from Semite immigrants on the male side, and Europeans on the female side.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/?tool=pmcentrez

[shaayecanaan]

70. Bollocks...

"European Jews are not ethnically European; they are typically descended from Semite immigrants on the male side, and Europeans on the female side."

No. What that means is that the researchers were able to hang their hats on something that they could find in the y-chromosome DNA, but could find nothing at all to support their point of view in mitochondrial DNA.

A male inherits his y-chromosome from his father's father's father's father's (etc) side. Likewise humans inherit their mitochondrial DNA from their mother of their mother of their mother (etc).

The most obvious fallacy of this type of research is that it ignores 95%+ of the genetic heritage of any given human, since it only scrutinises two branches of anyone's family tree.

The second fallacy is the assumption that someone's genetic descendants consist of their y-chromosome patriarch, on the father's side, and their mDNA matriarch. The implicit assumption is that the community was founded when the y-chromosome patriarch met the mDNA matriarch. Of course this is extremely unlikely, as the two come from the most distant branches of one's family tree. There is really no basis for this assumption whatsoever.

Recently, a more sophisticated form of analysis has been developed that looks at commonly found mutations in the autosomal DNA (ie, the 95% of human DNA that is not y-chromosome DNA or mDNA). Generally speaking, these results paint a far more nuanced portrait of human origins than the analyses that look only at portions of the genome in isolation:-

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n11/abs/ejhg201087a.html

[azurnoir]

73. actually the bolded part of your post

just set off my I-RON-E meter

[provis99]

84. you are making an ecological fallacy.

It is true that most of an individual's DNA is unknown, but by sampling a large group, we get a picture of the group's DNA structure. You cannot take your 95%+ figure for individuals and apply it to the group.

[azurnoir]

18. Tony is very good at blowing much 'liberal wind'

we see video upon video of nearly his every liberal gust upstairs, especially his recent storms concerning the near calamity of the new republican Congress repealing healthcare reform well except once one looked beneath the surface it turned out to be well acted kabuki by participants on both sides, but nothing concerning this particular speaking engagement