Saturday, October 6, 2012

I'm Probably Being Unreasonable ... (Updated)


... but I really do not understand why Richard has chosen to make an issue of it. I was  happy to see the back of the ban if indeed we have seen the back but please do not say it never was. Even less please do not say it to be a lie.

Antizionism is the new antisemitism

This look like a ban to you?

Definition of ban

verb (bansbanningbanned)

[with object]
  • officially or legally prohibit (something):parking is banned around the harbour in summer
  • officially prevent (someone) from doing something:her son was banned for life from the Centre


  • 1an official or legal prohibition:a proposed ban on cigarette advertisinga three-year driving ban
  • an official exclusion of a person from an organization, country, or activity:ban on dangerous jet-ski riders
  • historical a sentence of outlawry:the Presbyterians were under the ban of the law
  • 2 archaic a curse:the land might be smitten by the ban which once fell upon the Canaanites

It sure does to me. Especialy the bit about the curse on the land.

This look like a lie?

geoffff 10.03.12 at 7:52 pm
So do all Israelis question the state’s policies and actions at one time or another Richard. You know this. There is no no one who has ever suggested this is antisemitism. Pre emptively or not. That is however incessantly denied.
If you do not challenge Israel’s legitimacy or right to exist then may I suggest you make that very clear especially when you link to those who most certainly do and in fact have made a career of it . If you link it you own it. Otherwise repudiate it.
Like you would any other racist site and let me be clear about this. Perhaps even as late as 1947 antizionism could not necessarily be construed as antisemitism but by 2012 it most certainly is and increasingly many of us can see this and are saying so. That way lies terrible war.
If the word “Zionism” means anything at all in 2012 then antizionism is just another form of antisemitism.
There can be no escaping this.
Are you having difficulty making these basic moral distinctions ? Like Stephen Sizer?
Richard 10.03.12 at 8:40 pm
Avraham: please note that, following the lead of the linked article’s author, I wrote “Jewishness”, not “Judaism”. That rather renders your 2nd paragraph redundant.
geofffffff: “If the word “Zionism” means anything at all in 2012 then antizionism is just another form of antisemitism” is just plain silliness. You’ve made your last comment on this thread.
Avraham Reiss 10.03.12 at 9:02 pm
If you were quoting “Butler” (never heard of him), ““If Zionism continues to control the meaning of Jewishness…” then what I have written here points out how he misunderstands both Judaism and Zionism. Zionism has never “control(led) the meaning of Jewishness”; there are non-Zionist Jews, and even anti-Zionist Jews. Being one of either does not negate their “Jewishness”, although it does bteray their Judaic ignorance, which is rampant amongst assimilated, irreligious Jews.
Avraham Reiss 10.03.12 at 9:09 pm
regarding your above comment to Geoff concerning Zionism vis anti-Semitism, an emminent Jewish British Lawyer, Anthony Julius (he was the late Princess Diana’s lawyer), published a year or two ago an 800 page book entitled “Trials of the Diaspora”, the history of anti-Semitism in England. I’ve mentioned it before here.
He determines there that anti-Israeli thought/behaviour is the new anti-Semitism. That means that anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism, in Julius’s opinion - and that Geoff got it right.
You aren’t an anti-Semite, and are not involved in anti-Semitism in your neck of the woods, so the misunderstanding is a blessed one!
geoffff 10.03.12 at 11:04 pm
[comment deleted: You aren't listening. I did tell you that you'd made your last comment in this thread. I'm probably being unreasonable, but whatever you post here seems to arrive on at lat 3 other sites as well so I dare say you'll live. ~Richard]


Antizionism is the new antisemitism is no longer banned at the blog of this Christian minister.


It's just off topic is all.

geoffff 10.06.12 at 12:43 am
No because I never implied that <snip>…</snip>
[Richard adds: I beg to differ, but we can leave it at that. I've done you the favour of removing the rest of the comment. I'm sure you didn't mean to take the thread off-topic.]

No comments:

Post a Comment