...your entire argument is based on the members of SJP either hating Jews or hating themselves as Jews. Such a woefully simplistic and intellectually bankrupt argument will forever place you on the margins of legitimate public debate on this issue and make you an embarrassment in the eyes of history when world opinion comes around, just as it did with South Africa divestment.
Wow...where to begin. Yep, my argument is that the members of the SJP operate from a position of ignorance and Judeophobia. One need only read their posted history of the Israeli "occupation" of Palestine, which they refer to as the Palestinian homeland.
The SJP considers all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan to be Palestine, despite the establishment of Israel by the international community. They use the same language as Hamas and other anti-Jewish propagandists, in describing the "occupation." My personal favorite line is when the SJP contends that Israel intended to expand its territory in the conflict that followed their declaration of Independence. Funny how they would manage to do that without an air force, little in the way of tanks, and in the face of invasion by multiple nations with superior fire power. Such rewriting of history is typically reserved to the pages of Arab textbooks printed by UNRWA, but the SJP embraces the same bullshit. Sure they say Jews and Arabs should be able to live side by side, but where exactly do the Jews get to live under a Hamas regime? According to Hamas doctrine the Jews have a right to be dead. Advocating the end of the rights of Jews is Judeophobic, period. They claim to condemn all violence, but do not call for any boycott or divestment from parties that do business with Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, neither of which recognize Israel's right to exist, and use violent, illegal action against Israeli civilians. That is Judeophobic, and hypocritical. To say otherwise is in and of itself bigoted. Of course these idiots would have to boycott Israel again as it funds a great deal of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people with its own tax dollars. Whoops!
Anonymous goes on to say my argument is "intellectually bankrupt." I love that. Here's a wake up slap anonymous. Defending racism, which you have, is intellectually bankrupt. Pointing it out and standing against it is not.
And because I am intellectually bankrupt I will be placed at the "margins of legitimate public debate"...FOREVER!!! Ooooh...I'm all a tremble. So far Anonymous, standing against racism and standing up for universal human rights has been a stance appreciated not only by the readers of this blog, but by members of the public at large with whom I have engaged in debate, lecture, and discourse. I have had my horizons expanded, and expanded the view of others. Most people appreciate my candor.
But my personal favorite part is when Anonymous tells me that I will be made an "embarrassment in the eyes of history..." when world opinion changes. First, world opinion has largely been against Israel for years, as has the UN. Since world opinion has largely stood in condemnation of Israel, the change in world opinion could only be more in favor of Israel, which makes sense as it stands on the front lines against radical Islam, stands up for its right to exist, and advocates the dismantling of terror kleptocracies that hold Palestininans hostage to terrorist guns and poverty as a means to legitimate their illegal violations of Israeli human rights and sovereignty, as well as their violations of international law. The American and world media is still largely against Israel. We can keep waiting for world opinion to change and recognize that Israel has a right to exist, and that Jews are entitled to the same human rights as Arabs and anyone else. That will be a refreshing change. I could talk about Israeli violations of human rights, but that was not the subject, and there is no need to discuss the issue, when the topic was the ignorance of pimple faced stoners at Pampshire College.
Quite frankly I don't expect to be remembered by history, but thank you anonymous for thinking so highly of me, and this blog, to think that historians would make any effort to judge me in any way, whether it be positive or negative. As for being an embarrassment, I hope that I am an embarrassment in the eyes of history. Humanity should be embarrassed for its conduct toward Jews, Arabs, blacks, Tibetans, women, gays, children, indigenous people, animals, the environment...and I will continue to stick my finger in the eye of people like you anonymous, and all other bigots who say, "Peace be with you" but are really saying, "Go to hell."
Since Anonymous obviously didn't read my entire post, or Dershowitz's article, I will once again print Tom Friedman's quote used in said article and post.
"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vial. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanctions - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic and not saying so is dishonest."
This is what the SJP has done. Their stance is Judeophobic. If the shoe fits, fucking wear it.
Posts
.jpg)
4 comments:
I suspect that a big part of what's going on here, certainly with the SJP and likely with your anonymous commentator, is an adolescent mentality of trying to feel daring by shocking the grownups. Some people stay adolescent longer than others.
Then again, they may simply be unaware that most Middle Eastern governments have far worse human rights records than Israel, or they may be vaguely aware of it but reflexively dismiss it on the grounds that Third Worlders can't be held to the same standards or that they were under European colonialism generations ago and that everything bad about those countries forever and ever into the future is thus the colonialists' fault.
I should know -- I had the same mind-set decades ago when I was, as Wilde put it, young enough to know everything.
Shtuey,
If Mexico started firing rockets into Texas, 90% of Americans would be in favor of completely leveling our south of the border neighbor. However, the Hampshire college folk would be arguing that we deserved it.
Infidel, the sad truth is that what's going on at Hampshire is the same thing that's going on at private colleges across the country. When I was affiliated with the 5 colleges around Amherst, Hampshire was making the transition from being a place where an intellectual student body on a shared quest to expand its horizons, to a place where rich kids went to be cool.
The Board of Trustees, in its quest to make the school profitable, began heavily, and almost exclusively recruiting from wealthy private and boarding schools to load the student body with as many kids who didn't require financial aid as possible; whether they had anything resembling intelligence or not. The same is true at Duke where for President Keohane was quoted as asking, "Is it me, or does the Freshman class get dumber and dumber every year?"
Yes Nan, it does.
That being the case, it is no wonder that critical thinking is virtually non-existent, and why the college youth so easily fell for Pampers. Tell a moron what they want to hear and the moron will believe you. Weep for the future. The Pampers generation is Generation Stupid.
Mawm, that leftist attitude drove a few people I know out of San Francisco and back to New York after 9/11. They couldn't deal with idiots saying we deserved to have 3000 plus people incinerated. People are idiots.
Post a Comment