On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/22/2005 11:59:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And in this instance, again what we're talking about is a judgment
call. I can be so sure of that because there is simply no objective
evidence to support *anyone's* claims here. That strongly suggests
we're dealing in the realm of opinion alone.
I have tried to point out that there is in fact a structure to certain
anti-semitic remarks that are historically verifiable.
No argument there.
I don't believe it requires
judgement to say some remarks are anti-semitic.
That's also true in some cases -- some remarks are clearly -ismic. I
think we're getting into one of those grey areas, though, when we try
to talk about *this* specific issue.
1. Neo-cons would have to be indisputably Jewish, either initially or
now;
2. The label would have to be applied in a way that hinted at a
broader
Jewish conspiracy;
3. The label would have to be applied by someone who might reasonably
be charged with an ism.
Problem is that point (1) seems to be in dispute. Point (2) is not
verifiably attached to Sheehan. And point (3) requires a knowledge of
a
person's motivations that can only come with rigorous checking of
background, declarations of position made historically, and so on.
The point is not whether neo-cons are all jewish it is that
anti-semites
identify them as jews and use the term neocon as a suragate for "jew".
2) Such hints are out there.
3) Pat Bucchanan comes to mind.
Even if this is true, the equation of someone like Cindy Sheehan with a
known bigot is a fairly big leap.
So would you concede that it's your background in Judaic culture which
helps you be more sensitive to oppression in other groups? And would
you further concede the *possibility* that someone in a different
oppressed group might be just as sensitive to Jewish plight? Finally,
would you consider it plausible that what we're actually having here
is
a difference of *judgment* in an issue which, like a "strike zone", is
vaguely defined at the edges, and which therefore disallows the
probability of an objective decision being made?
I would of course concede that Cindy insensitive to the plight of jews.
First, you missed my point; second, what "plight of Jews" do you
believe Ms. Sheehan doesn't appreciate?
That
is the crux of the issue. Her insenstivity to issues of antisemitism
becomes
antisemitism when she makes remarks that are anti-semitic.
I don't believe you or anyone else have managed to prove she's made any
anti-semitic comments at all. Even the quote attributed to her is not
verifiably hers. Also, it seems to me that you're a bit too willing to
apply a suggestion of deliberate wrongdoing to someone who (assuming
the remarks are authentic) didn't provably intend bigotry. The
conclusion is chilling: Ignorance alone of a subtle issue is sufficient
to brand a person with a label of bigotry. That doesn't seem like a
very healthy response.
There is no
judgement about whether the remarks are anti-semitic in my opinion.
I simply disagree. So, I believe, do many others. That doesn't
necessarily mean you're in error here, but it does suggest that an
argument a bit more in-depth than "I say it's anti-semitic, therefore
it is" is called for.
Nick says she is
not explicitly anti-semitic and I accept that but she clearly blames
what
neocons for our tilt (in her opinion) towards Israel and once again I
cannot stress
enough that this line of reasoning is used by explicit anti-semites
…And therefore Ms. Sheehan is an unwitting anti-semitic propagandist.
That's just too easy. It's too monochromatic for my tastes.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
