Oooooh....you're going to get into trouble for this one. You anti-Semite, you.

And yes, I'm kidding. But,unfortunately, charges of anti-Semitism seem to be getting tossed around
almost as much as charges of racism anymore. Any criticism of Israel, intimation that maybe Palestinian children shouldn't all be murdered, or
even mention of the existence of a Jewish political lobby in the US seems to spark these charges. The recent firestorm over Rep. Moran's idiotic comments or the flap over Gary Hart a while back come to mind.

OK Scott, you're getting it on this one! I'm not going to call you an anti-semite, since I've been reading this blog for a while, and know better.

Now then... The issue I take with the parallels you draw to other Gibson films. Unlike the English in both prior films, the Jews in this one actually had very little power to oppress people like, say Christ. Hence, try to come up with something more relevant, and you'll stay out of my logic penalty box. 2 minutes for improper use of metaphors.

As for JJ...

The reason palestinian children are being killed is because some people are asking them to blow themselves up to kill as many jews as possible or those same humanitarians hide among them to make sure that there is as much collateral damage as possible when their time is up. Now, all-powerful pro-Israeli lobby aside (by the way, where do I sign up?), I don't detect any disgust from your post with the actions of the humanitarians who are responsible for the plight of those very same palestinian children.

Hence.. 5 minutes for illogical analysis of the Israeli-Arab wars and other such events.

Actually I was always under the impression that the Jewish judges, or the Sanhedrin, forced Pilate to crucify Jesus. Pilate, the governor of Judea told them he washed his hands of the whole thing and Christs blood was on the hands of the Jews.
But then unfortunately, I am not as versed in the Bible as I should be...

LPB,

I hold the Palestinian leadership primarily responsible for their suffering. Terrorism is an unacceptable means of achieving political ends; I don't care how poor and outgunned you are. That said, The Likudniks are barbarians, especially the nutcase Sharon. Whereas US forces make every effort to avoid collateral damage, the Israeli regime does not. Indeed, they intentionally target the families of terrorists--including women and children--as a means of counter-terrorism. They are also rather indiscriminant in their use of force. Plus, Sharon is having the worst of both worlds with his current policies. On the one hand, he has made a fiasco of PR by being some heavy handed. On the other, he has gone tit-for-tat rather than simply moving in and re-occupying the territory held by the Palestinian Authority, arresting or killing Arafat, and forcing negotiations from a position of strength.

Come on JJ, I know you know better. You are ignoring intent. Yes, Israelis kill some innocent Palestinians in the course of a raid, and that is a tragedy. However, the intent was to kill terrorists. The intent of the Palestinians is to kill innocent Israelis. And worse, they use children to do the killings. And yes, sometimes the charge of anti-Semitism is bandied about too loosely. However, that does not invalidate the all too frequent anti-Semitic statements that are being made such as the one by Representative Moran (Moron?). I loved his explanation where he tried to distance himself from his own remarks! "I've got to stop saying things I don't believe". It could be that he is possessed. Maybe he can have a public exorcism to rid himself of evil spirits.

New York Times Magazine article on Mel Gibson, his loony religious beliefs and his even loonier father.

Best bit: Holocaust didn't happen, Al Qaeda didn't hit WTC (it was done by remote control) with the implication it was done by you know who, Second Vatican Council was Masonic plot backed by Jews, in 1958 there was a threat to atom-bomb the Vatican if a John XXIII wasn't elected.

So if there's a stink of anti-semitism floating around here, it's probably not coming from Scrappleface.

JJ,
I understand your point, but you and many others make the same mistake. That mistake is that you always condem Israel for those deeds which is ok, but you all never, I mean NEVER say anything when these palestinians blow up a bus full of school kids or other innocents. Be fair and open-minded, both sides are doing it. I can safely say that Israel doesn't go out of its way to kill women and children, they are unforunate casualties and an asymetrical war.

That congressman from Virginia needs to be reprimanded in some form for his comments, they were anti-semitic. If he had said that the NAACP had the power to sway the war, but are promoting it, there would have been hell to pay from the minority population. But since it was said about the Jews, that makes it ok, right?

I think Mel needs to lock up his father and keep him away from the press, what a loon!

I'm reminded of a memorable scene in James Michener's novel The Source. One of the protagonists comes into the tent/barracks of one of the local Israelis on an archaelogical dig and is greeted by a huge poster of Jesus with the caption "we did so kill him".This was soon after VaticanII, and the message was: after 2000 years of crusades, progroms and massacres YOU'RE FORGIVING US?
you wouldn't get it, it's a Jew thing.

LPB ñ Usually I agree with you (and I like your site), but according to the scriptures, it was Jews who were insistent upon his crucifixion that brought Jesus to Pilate. Even on the Sabbath, during which it was customary for the Romans to release a prisoner, it was a crowd of Jews who chose Barabus to be released, even after Pilateís objection that Jesusí crime was not punishable by crucifixion. As far as I know, there has been no Vatican Council that attempted to change this portrayal. So I think this Rabbiís demands are unreasonable, Comparison stands. 2 Minutes in the box.

By the way, I don't think anyone asked Charleton Heston to change the script of The Ten Commandments to include other religious points of view.

Pooke, which scriptures are you referring to? there are no traditional Jewish sources that tell this story(obviously after the time of the Old Testament)but no mention in the Talmud or Midrash either, which do occasionally refer to Jesus.Furthermore the reference earlier to the Sanhedrin sentencing Jesus is doubtful as the death penalty was extremely rare in the Sanhedrin and held to an almost absurd level of proof including that the defendant be warned PRIOR to his offense by two witnesses that he was going to commit a capitol offense and then being seen commiting the offense by two witnesses( I think they have to the same two). Lastly crucifixion is not even remotely accepted as a means of capital punishment by Torah law.
BTW charlton Heston couldn't have made the decision, Cecil B. DeMille, the director could've, but nobody messed with him ;).
However if you're set on blaming the Jews,as I mentioned in my previous post, that's ok with me. I figure our accounts more'n paid up, in fact......

Scott

after this post I firmly believe you must like to poke a stick into a cage of ferrets and watch the reaction.

All:

The "Barabas" choice was after a custom for release of a prisoner during Passover.

The John Gospel is the leading candidate for an anti-Jewish slant. As such, this Gospel is different in tone from the other three "Synoptic" Gospels, which are mutually supportive in narrations.

Remember too: The New Testament gospels were written quite a few years after events. The earliest was Mark (ca. 60 AD), the latest John (ca 100AD). Jesus was crucified ca. 30AD, so a fair amount of time (30 years-Mark & 70 years - John) had ellapsed between the event and the written account.

BTW, only Luke claims to have interviewed sources in making his compilation.

Just a few things to think on...

Ack!

Somebody from The Onion hacked Scrappleface and posted under Scott's name!

It's the only explanation ...

--

Hello? Jesus was a Jew ... the disciples were Jews ... Christianity was founded by Jews, and its early adherents were all converted Jews ... even if one argues that certain Jews can be fingered for 'killing Christ', it doesn't follow that all Jews would be collectively responsible ...

Did 'the Caucasians' kill Martin Luther King? Or maybe it was 'the Christians'? Maybe we should put something in the history books about how 'the thespians' collectively killed Lincoln. Or maybe it was 'the second generation European immigrants'?

ANYWAY, even going with the idea that all the Jews got together and voted on the matter, isn't Christianty based on Jesus being sent to earth to die for mankind's sins? Isn't the cruxifiction central to the notion of Christ's suffering for mankind's sake? People could just as easily argue 'the Jews' were doing God's work.

Bubba:

I wouldn't use the Bible as a historical document of the events around that time. Current Bible scholarship places the actual compilation of the "New Testament" around 400 AD by people in Rome who were about as rabidly anti-semitic as, say, current Arab regimes.

I would rely even less on Hollywood's version.

Doug, Iím referring to a movie being made by Mel Gibson that is based on his faith, not missing historical accounts in the Talmud or Midrash. That being said, I should have said in my post that I donít think that it should come across as ìblaming the Jewsî. According to the Gospel, Christís crucifixion was Godís will.

For Gibson to do this movie (thatís what weíre talking about) from his perspective based on the New Testament, it would be silly for him to change the story to letís say, Pontious Pilate fed Christ to the Lions. It goes against the story. You wouldnít rewrite The Ten Commandments (the movie) and say Moses was never a slave because it would offend Egyptians. If you are going to do a serious movie based on religious stories, you do it from that religious perspective.

Pooke:

Ack, you actually read my site... crud, now I'll have to keep updating it on a regular basis. In any case, I'll point to my answer to Bubba... You can't rely on the Bible (New or Old testament) for serious historical fact. I've had to give this matter considerable thought, being raised an Atheist in the former USSR and picking up religion later on in life.

There are other historical sources about those times, though they are rather scarce, thanks to the Islamic conquests after 600AD, and specifically the fundamentalist conquests of Iberian Caliphate after 1300AD. In any case, what we actually know about JC is that he did indeed exist. As to who he was, what he was, where he was born, where he lived, how he lived, how he died, and who's to blame for his death... That's all a matter of speculation, no matter how you cut it :)

LPB

Doug & LPB, I'll take my 10 mins for the Stupid comment about Heston. Ugh, the fever. But as I said, it's a movie. As far as history goes, you are right that it's based on speculation/faith.

Richard, Justin, and Campbell:

Have you read my comments?! Of course I condemn the Palestinian terrorists for killing busloads of kids. Indeed, I've done it just in the comments above, let alone on my site.

And while the Palestinian terrorists solely target civilians--which is what defines them as terrorists, after all--the Israeli regime does not take any particular care not to kill civilians. It's not collateral damage when you bulldoze people's houses or use artillery on civilian population centers. They are intentionally using terrorism themselves as a tool to counter terrorism--and it isn't working. And asymmetric war doesn't permit states to target civilians; that's still a war crime.

And Scott picked up that my calling him anti-Semitic was a joke before anyone else posted a coment. Maybe I should use those little emoti-cons. . . .

Scott,

And, see, I told you. . . :)

Oh, just read Michael Kinsley's piece on this episode.

Oh, just read Michael Kinsley's piece on this episode.

Far be it from me to discuss religious dogma. However, consider the following. Jesus Christ was Jewish. So it is illogical to collectively blame the Jews, without also condemning your own G-d. More importantly, your theology tells you that Jesus died for your sins. In other words, you could not be saved if he was not killed. Therefore, by condemning the Jews (or anyone else) for that act, you are in essence, trying to undo the very fabric of your religion. That also makes no sense. In other words, it was necessary that Jesus die so that there could be a means by which mankind could be absolved from its own evil.

Blaming any race/religion collectively for the actions of a few--or even a large majority, for that matter--is illogical.

I might posit that Jesus was actually a Christian, however. (I think he converted.)

Imagine if the Jews outside Pilate's palace had called for Jesus to be released, and he was given to them?

"Er . . . I appreciate the gesture, but actually, if I don't get on that cross, there will be no redemptive sacrifice and mankind will never be cleansed of sin . . . it's kind of important . . ."

"Nonsense, Jesus! Dude, they were getting ready to kill you!"

"No, really . . . if someone could just nail me up there . . . it's sort of pre-ordained and everything . . ."

"Yeesh, talk about ungrateful!"

James,

I did not accuse you of condoning terrorism. What I did not understand is why you equated the Israeli response with the terrorist acts of the Palestinians. There is a difference. However, the discussion now seems to be going down hill.

the Israeli regime does not take any particular care not to kill civilians. It's not collateral damage when you bulldoze people's houses or use artillery on civilian population centers.

These charges are patently false. If the Israelis did not care about civilian casualties then, given the strength of the Israeli military, you would have had tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths, which is not the case. Remember the charge was made that there was a massacre in Jenin (no, not by you) which was proved to be untrue. No, the Israelis do not use artillery on civilian population centers. Again, if they did, then there would be hundreds or thousands of deaths each time an attack occurred, which is not the case. Yes, the Israelis bulldoze houses, but that is AFTER the people are removed.

There is no reason that you or anyone else has to agree with the policies of the Sharon government. There may be better ways of responding to the Palestinians. However, over the years, those more peaceful ways were tried and they failed. If Arafat had accepted Ehud Barak's offer for a Palestinian homeland, Sharon would not have been elected, all of this wouldn't be happening now. No, I do not have a solution to the problem, but I know the Palestinians are their own worst enemy.

You want some anti-Semitism, I'll give you some: Pat Buchanan's latest.

Richard,
I agree. The palistinians rejected an offer that gave them almost everything they wanted. It was rejected because the fundalmentalist attitude of their leaders only want the complete anialation of the Jews and their complete removal from Israel. There is no real negotiating with them.

By bulldozing housed etc does only piss off more of the population and tends to give support to the terrorists. The Israelis are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they have to retaliate, but retaliation causes a retalitory act... who wins? (I'm thinking now of the movie War Games...)

It was ordained that the Jews would kill Christ who was prophesized to come. For that role they were to be cast down and afflicted for many generations. We can see that has happened throughout history, but they are to rise to power again and be given the chance to see that the Christ that was crucified was indeed the one who was prophesized to come. Then comes armegeddon etc (see revelations). So I guess this war should stop because it might bring to pass the end of the world...time for mass panic and candlelight vigils and last minute repentance...
toodles

Richard,

It was Justin who said, "That mistake is that you always condem Israel for those deeds which is ok, but you all never, I mean NEVER say anything when these palestinians blow up a bus full of school kids or other innocents. Be fair and open-minded, both sides are doing it." I was answering all of your arguments in one post.

I agree that Arafat should have taken the deal he had from Barak, although I'm not sure it would have solved the problem. The Palestinians are indeed their own worst enemy--or, at least their leadership is. But the Israelis haven't helped their cause by heavy handed treatment of a weaker population and by the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories. There actions aren't on the same scope by any means as that of Hamas and the PLO, but they're not helpful.

And, OK, it wasn't artillery,it was a one-ton bomb. I know there have been many instances of mortar attacks in recent years, too.

IMO, this one crossed the line. If your punch line had said something like the Jews were collectively responsible for the tribulations of Germany in the 1920s, I think more people would see the point.

Hey, sometimes you come up with an unfunny joke. Deal with it and move on.

Wow. I go to lunch and miss a huge discussion. Does anyone have any info on that wall Israel was starting to build. It was to be about 15 feet high and completely separate Israel from the occupied lands. I think the U.S. needs to put about $1 billion toward this project to get it completed asap. Compared to the price this new war will cost, it's a pretty cheap solution.

It obvious that the two groups will never get along. The best hope is to send each party "to their room" so they will stop pissing each other off.

Oh please.

The deal Barak offered was an awful one which would have given the Palestinians a patchwork micro-state with Israel taking control of most of the West Bank's water resources.

Wow! Are some people ever determined to not get a joke! The appropriate response is laughter. Maybe a little bit of awe for genius writing.

Let me see if I can get the track of the discussion straight... we can't accept the New Testament account of the crucifixion because the contributors were not reliable, they wrote many years after the event, and they were biased because their leader had been killed by the Jews... oh, crap, can't go there.

On the other hand, we can trust the Jewish understanding of the event because they had accurate historical records, their faith would not have permitted punishment by crucifixion (even if it was done by their Roman overlords), their history does not mention Jesus so he must not have existed, and therefore could not have been killed at all, and the entire Christian faith is based on a lie and a false messiah.
No bias there, huh?

Religion commonly works outside of history guys, get over it. If "Christianity" can put up with being blamed for everything from buttered toast to the Holocaust to the A-bomb, then it can certainly be said on a religious basis in the tradition of one religion that the "Jews" killed "Jesus" (the founder of a Jewish apostacy). Besides, the RC church is hardly representative of Christianity in general.

Occupied lands!

There is no such thing as Palestine, not because the Israelis have somehow stolen its territory, but simply because there is no such thing as a Palestinian. Anti-Semitic Arab nations exiled their own nationals to the deserts, *creating* a refugee crisis in order to have something to blame on Israel. To protect itself from the "Palestinians'" terrorist incursions, Israel proceeded to build a military presence in the *Israeli* lands that "Palestinian" refugees squatted on. It is spectacularly impressive that the surrounding Arab nations have managed to spread the lie that the Israelis somehow ocuppied "Palestinian" land.

-JS

OK,
What was the topic again....
I have to agree with the Ferret comment...
Good posting all, very civil.

Noone has brought this up. The final scene from the Life of Brian. Surely that was an accurate historical account but the names were changed to protect the innocent.
Also, I really think that PLO should adopt the tactics of the Gallilean Suicide Brigade.
PS. Bulldozing houses actually works - the Arab culture of loyalty to family/clan means that most Islamikazis are doing it partially for those nubile 72 black-eyed virgins as well as improving the lot of their family (those Saudi & Iraqi donations really help). If they know that their families would be fined, houses destroyed or exiled (stupidly barred by the Israeli Supreme Court) then they are less inclined to 'blow up'.
The problem with making fun of Jews is that you need to be Jewish to do it.

I was always under the impression that Jesus was brought to Roman officials by Jewish religious leaders, but is was a mixed crowd that called for His crucifixion. I find the lineage of Jesus far more interesting and important than whoever was to "blame" for his death.

I still thought the original piece was funny though.

The Sanhedrin was able to render judgment and inflict certain punishments, but that did not include execution, for which Roman authority was required.
In the New Testament, "the Jews" most often refers to the leaders or elders of the Jews, including the Sanhedrin. They were the ones who stirred up public hysteria against Jesus to support their request for Jesus' execution.
Most Jews (and there was a large group of members of the tribe of Benjamin in Judea as well) were not really involved at all, and almost every adherent of Christianity was a Jew.
The actual execution was done according to Roman law and custom rather than according to Jewish or Mosaic law. (Pontius Pilate, by the way, was not known as the most upright and noble of Roman leaders.)
The trial by the Sanhedrin was illegal for a number of reasons, including the fact that part of it was conducted late at night.
So, anyway, Jesus was crucified by the Romans, at the request of the Jewish leadership, who recruited some support from the common people. Pontius Pilate, who admitted himself that Jesus was not guilty of a crime, let alone a crime worthy of death, could have stopped it but didn't.

Jesus, Mary & Joseph,

Jesus was a Jew, but after a thorough review the Vatican has just determined that Jesus was also Irish for the following reasons.

1. No visible means of support;
2. Twelve drinking buddies; and
3. His mother thought he was God (this by the way was the clincher).

I take umbrage with the language(s) proposed for Gibson's film. As Jesus was Irish, all the Jews should be speaking in Gaelic and I just saw an old (over 500 years old) play and all the Romans spoke Elizabethan English.

Scott, you hit the nail on the head. It's just as preposterous to accuse Jews (or Italians) of being Christkillers as it is to accuse the British of supporting absolute monarchy.

The next time I see a "Christkiller" accusation, I'll attribute it to an attempt to undermine Anglosphere solidarity.

Mr. Choudhury..

Land and water rights were not the main sticking point. If Israel gave back 100% of the land and complete independence, the Palestinians still would not accept it. Why? The biggest sticking point isn't land. It's the right of return to Israel proper for Palestinian refugees. There are one million Arabs living in Israel who are citizens and have the right to vote. There are Arab members of the Knesset. Israel and the Palestinians all know that if Israel lets the refugees return, there will no longer be a Jewish majority in Israel. If Arafat ever gave in on this point, he'd be shot as soon as he returned home. The Palestinians refuse to give in on this point, no matter how much land is ever offered. So yes...in a very real sense, the Palestinians seek the destruction of the state of Israel as we know it...some through violent means and others by returning all the refugees..

There are lots of Arab countries in the region. The Jews get to have a country also. Just one. That's all they want.

Okay kids, here's the solution. Next week we pick a big chunk of Iraq and rename it "Palestine" - the first existance of a nation with that name in history. Then the poor folks of the region can all move right on in and turn it into paradise, just like Israel. Come on Abdul, Moamar, there's plenty for everyone! Stake your claim to a good spot early on! We can even give 'em some of the oil wells if Saddam doesn't blow 'em up! Problem solved. Now on to Korea...

Groups Line Up to Protest Mel Gibson Project

Leaders from black, gay, and women's groups have announced plans to protest the opening of the latest Mel Gibson movie. Al Sharpton is leading a group protesting the use of a caucasian to portray Jesus, who they say was black. Gay groups are protesting the omission of Jesus sexual liasons in the final hours of his life. NOW is protesting that the voice of God is presented as male. NOW spokeswymyn also expressed concern over Gibson's next project, which covers the hours leading up to Eve tempting Adam with an apple.

I absolutely concur greyhawk. All these Arab nations talking about support to a free palestinian state but none willing to offer land, resource, or money to create one. Saudi has alot of land-give some up.

The deal that the "Palestinians" rejected gave the everythign they asked for EXCEPT a divided Jerusalem.
They turned it down because their real aims had nothing to do with their demands. They just made those so unreasonable (from their point of view) that they never thought Isreal would agree.
Their stated aim (published on the PLO web-site) is the destruction of Isreal. Period, the end.

Yes, I put "Palestinians" in quotation marks. Why?
BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PALESTINIAN AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN.
The closest there ever was were the Phillistines. These other folks are Lebanese, Egyptian, and mostly Jordanian.
After the UN (yes, the UN. Not the Zionist controlled U.S.) created Isreal, the home countries of all these folks said "Hell, no!" to letting their own people into their own countries 'cause that would mean those nasty Hebrews would win.
THey used those folks as a reason to launch invasions of Isreal. Isreal won them, and (as the winner ca do in a territorial war [refer to our acquisition of Texas and a few other choice bits]) they decided to keep the Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. Syria, Egypt, and Jordan said they weren't playing for keeps and that Isreal has to give them back. Isreal naturally says: bite me.
(Yes, I know it starts with Britain grabbing the trans-Jordan area from Jordan in the '20s, and a lot of other pre-WWII stuff, but its a thumb-nail sketch of what happened.)
The word "Palestine" has always (in the past couple of thousand years or so) meant that region on the Eastern end of the Med, usually parts of two or three countries. There is, was, and hopefully won't be a country called Palestine.

Now I guess the liberals are going to call me a pro-Zionist racist or some other name instead of arguing rationally.

Dream clean, Ashcroft is watching. ;-)

Like I've said, toss the palistinians out and into the arab states and let the Israelis live in peace for once. The UN did create them and they were there well before arabs/muslims even existed so that's it. First come first serve, sionara/arivaderche/adios/ problem solved. Of course the arab neighbors are always welcome to attack Israel again, but I think they learned their lesson by having the butts handed to them so many times...

logicpenaltybox:

Its time for the Israeli tail to quit wagging the American dog. Anti-Semitic???

"Sometimes bandied about too loosely..." Good grief. And every time something bad happens to a black person, its racial discrimination too. Rep. Moran was expressing the opinion of many. Its just too bad he doesn't have the guts to stick by his statement.

Israel has been an albatross around America's neck for too long. The Cold War is over, We don't need it as a client state to buffer Communist infiltration in the Middle East anymore. Furthermore, our blind adherence to Sharon and his strong-arm tactics are poisoning Arab-American relations. Its time to cut the cord, baby! But that will never happen as long as Jewish influence on Wall Street and the American media drive the American political machine. Just ask Messr's Wolfowitz and Fleischer.

Statehood for Palestine, now.

shalom

yaksun

Well, I guess we ended this discussion on a high note. In case you wanted to see what a real anti-Semite sounds like, I give you Yaksun:

Jewish influence on Wall Street and the American media drive the American political machine

Now you know why Jews seem to be so sensitive. There are always people like Yaksun out there just waiting to spew hatred.

By the way Yaksun, just what do you mean by the statement:

Furthermore, our blind adherence to Sharon and his strong-arm tactics are poisoning Arab-American relations.

Just what is that suppose to mean? Are you trying to tell us something? Please elaborate. We would really like to know.

TO James Joyner

Blaming any race/religion collectively for the actions of a few-or even a large majority-
- is not more illogical then being collectively proud of the actions of a few.
One must not be prideful with any excellence that is not one's own. (Epictetus)

Frenchman

Frenchman
Pride? You want to discuss pride? Ahhh - I understand, you read a book about pride and you're trying to understand it! How you must listen with envy to "Proud to be an American", knowing deep in your heart, that no Frenchman could ever produce a work of art so simple, true, and pure! That resonates so deep! I pray for you, Frenchie, that some day your nation achieves something to be proud of. This war you've brought on in Iraq certainly does not fit the bill!

Good Morning Richard.

Hey, c'mon. Is that all you've got in the way of a tirade. How disappointing.

You forgot to quote me on "Jewish tail" and "albatross around the neck", which I feel are just as "inflammatory"

Richard, boobie, I did not say Jews suck. I did not say I hate Jews (I don't). I didn't even blame Jews for crucifying Jesus - which I think is pretty broad-minded of me. What I did say is that Jews wield a political influence in America out of all proportion to their percentage of the population. Deny that the percentage of Jews in the media (movies, tv, news, etc) field is greater than their share of the total population. Deny the same about Jewish influence on Wall Street - and prove me wrong. You can't.

And you know what, that's okay too. It means for one thing that Jews are to be admired for taking up learned professions and mastering them. However, if my newspaper ot network is owned by a Jew, I, that's going to influence how reporters and editors handle certain stories. And if my spokesmen are both Jewish, it undoubtably reflects my personal feelings as President for which side I favor in the Israeli/Palestine dispute, etc. BTW, how many people in the front lines of the Bushie Oiligarchy are Arab-Americans or Muslims? I'm waiting...

Deny if you will that every time Israel bulldozes over a house with a woman or child inside that another extremist nut vows to martyr him/herself for Islam. (Draw your own conclusions about how well that tit-for-tat exchange is making positive progress anywhere). I am neither Jewish nor Arab. To some extent, if both sides killed each other all off in the name of religion or whatever, it wouldn't bother me - except and to the extent that US gets drawn into it by association. I do not want my country to turn into a big Jerusalem with daily suicide bombings and retaliation without end.

Sort out your own problems, Israel. Leave my country out of it. Why don't you follow the one poster's idea above and build the world's tallest wall. Reach it right up to the face of Yaweh and Allah.

And to the commentator who said to the effect, "There's no such thing as a Palestinian." I ask, now who's denying the other's right to exist?

"All Israel wants is one country." How modest. How reasonable. Of course, it wants exclusive rights for Jews and for the center of it to be located on the holiest place on earth of two other major religions, but hey, that's not asking much.

Every time I watch another Israeli tank run over a helpless woman or kid, or see a Jewish soldier shoot some rock-throwing teenager, it recalls to mind the descriptions I've read of Kristallnacht. Yes, its different. The Jews in the late '30s were not suicide bombing Nazi headquarters. And yes, what the Palestinians do is equally repugnant if not more so. But is that the best you can say? They're as bad as we are! So let's go get 'em.

If Anwar Sadat, bless him, had been content to just let the killing continue on both sides, Egypt would not be the regional respected power it is today. At some point, when everybody's dead, who will be around to enjoy the big crater in the ground where Jesus was born? Isn't there a better way?

Get US troops out of Saudi Arabia. Give the Palestinians a country the same as the Jews got. Build the world's highest wall and ignore each other forever.

Anti-Semitic? Your knee jerk reaction makes me puke.

Shalom.

Yaksun

They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry.

False.

The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.

Wow, yakky, you had me going there for a minute. I Thought you were a grown-up right till I read your "puke" reference. Ick! Yukky! Anyhow, the fact remains, Palestine does not exist. Your wishing that it did does not change that fact, any more then Arabs blowing up Israeli kids in their school busses will change it. Still, I think there should be a Palestine and have reposted my previous coments to that effect right here, so you won't have to wear out your finger on the mouse wheel.
And we charge, your comment was weird yesterday and today. Note that I've identified my repeat below as such. Get help man. If mom took your ridlin then please, call a hotline or something...

Okay kids, here's the solution. Next week we pick a big chunk of Iraq and rename it "Palestine" - the first existance of a nation with that name in history. Then the poor folks of the region can all move right on in and turn it into paradise, just like Israel. Come on Abdul, Moamar, there's plenty for everyone! Stake your claim to a good spot early on! We can even give 'em some of the oil wells if Saddam doesn't blow 'em up! Problem solved. Now on to Korea...

To Greyhawk,

Dear Greyhawk,

Saying "WE won WW2" is being collectively proud of the actions of a few. It is illogical.

Frenchman

Frank
Since I didn't say it, I will not address it. That would be illogical. How's the weather on Elba?

Greyhawk:

Okay, guilty as charged for saying " want to puke". Please substitute " feel rumbly in my tumbly" instead.

I was trying to illustrate (and thanks much, Richard, for immediately proving me right) that it has become impossible to say anything against Jewish political interests, let alone Jews themselves without being called Anti-semitic. If anything, my feelings are anti-israel, not anti-Jew.

Its not anti-semitism to criticize a policy which places America at Israel's beck and call to the detriment of all other interests, thank you very much. (Kind of like France probably feels at times about the US.) BTW, I'm still waiting for Richard or anyone to prove me wrong (Goldman Sachs) about (MGM) the disproportionate (Michael Ovitz) influence Jews have (Larry Zweig-King) over media, money (Lehmann Bros.) and (Wolfowitz/Fleischer)politics in America compared to thier actual percentage of the population. I don't criticize Jews for taking up and becoming successful at these things. Its admirable in the extreme. But their's is not the only viewpoint that matters...

Yes, I realize Palestine doesn't exist yet, but someday it will. The sooner the better.

mazel tov

yaksun

And see Michael Kinsley try to deny it in yesterday's (3/13/03) "Slate" column at www.msnbc.com.

yaksun

yaky,
what is the reason Jews are disproprtionately represented in media,politics(and for that matter science,medicine literature and law)? could it actually be that they have earned it? are you really proposing that this predominately protestant country somehow intentionally gave the Jews some special treatment?BTW how many "palestinian" or for that matter Arab nobel prize winners are there?now how many Jewish ones? must be those swedes are secretly run by the zionists. That's why they gave the prize to theat glorious murderer of children Arabfat.
P.S. y7ou mentioned earlier that Israelis bulldoze houses with women and children in them, I defy you to show one confirmed report of this, fake arab funerals like they held in jenin don't count.There have been several instances where grown men tried to stay in their houses and shoot it out with the army and those horrible Israelis had the nerve to shoot back! can you imagine?

Poor yaksun. You were hoping that your anti-Semitic tirade would get me upset, and I disappointed you. Do you really think (actually I know you incapable of thought) that you are worth getting upset over? You are a total loser that tries to make up for your inadequacies by slandering another group of people. Your jealousy of the success of Jews has turned your little mind to hatred. If you would spend a 10th of the time that you do spewing hatred in trying to better yourself, maybe you would be able to advance beyond your minimum wage job. You see there is even hope for someone like you. And don't worry I won't report you to your Jewish boss. I would not want you to get fired and go on welfare again.

As I was saying in my last post, yaksun is the classical example of an anti-Semite. He hates anyone who is more successful that himself (which is almost everyone) and therefore strikes out at the easiest target, the Jews, because he sees them as being too successful. "we charge", on the other hand, makes use of the dual loyalty canard to attack Jews. Not surprisingly, he is such a coward that he won't even post his email address.

I would hope that these examples of hatred would give one pause before casually making a statement about the actions and loyalties of any group, but particularly the Jews. Unfortunately, throughout history there have been too many societies that have used such sentiments to slaughter Jews.

Two words:
Barbara Streisand! There's a powerful influential Jew leading us off to war. Now for the conspiracy theory: Joe Lieberman is actually calling the shots!
C'mon, guys, you miss the easy stuff. The jewish representation in the party of the left far exceeds that of the party of the right! Course, lots of Dems are "in favor of the war" for now, but really, argue for UFO space alien influence while you're at it.

And guys, do a little searching at CNN.com and check where GI Joe is staging. Almost every Arab neighbor Saddam has! Those jews are powerful!

Ooooooooooooh, Richard. Thou woundeth me to my very core! Much better.

Hatred? Spew?? Attack??? Tirade????

I hate the Yankees and Mets, and bin laden, but not equally.

I spew when I'm sick.

Once, methinks, I stepped on a tack.

When I get a flat, I could use some tire-aid.

Thanks for calling me "classic", though. I knew my ruggedly handsome good looks would finally get noticed. :-)

I should point out, however, that the real "easiest target" for the boiling internal rage which is fuelled by my sheer inadequacy would be my cat, Mango. But who could hurt such a sweetie?

You are wrong in assertng that my sentiments or statements were casually-made. They are quite heart-felt, in fact. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't mean it, or didn't think about it, or am uninformed, or biased, or whatever other argument you may pull from your list to reply. However, it only took about four minutes to write my post. I don't think another 24 seconds of introspection is gonna make much difference career-wise, but thanks for the tip.

Hatred? Really? It occurs to me that of the two of us (and I do love being a couple with you), you are the only one who has stooped to making personal attacks. Why, I even wished you "good morning". And did it ever hurt my feelings when you said I am "incapable of thought". Rest assured that when I made my first post, I thought with certainty that someone just like you would come to my rescue and prove my point about the dangers of criticizing anything remotely related to Judaism - and I was right!!!! I'm so pleased, I think I may even be able to get over your hurtful remarks.

There. I'm all better.

"A total loser." TOTAL? You say it with such disdain, like it was a negative. Do you realize how much effort and time it takes to have NO redeeming qualities whatsoever? Well, why do anything halfway, huh?

Now, give us a kiss and let's make up.

Doug: "could it be that they have earned it?" I thought that's what I said. "Its admirable in the extreme." And I admire them in the extreme, as I do anyone who achieves greatness, like my friend, Richard. Do I want the US to be a lap dog for Israel? No. Do I think Israel is pushing US into war with Iraq? No. Do I think the Arab perception of US unequivocal support for Sharon and his hard-line policies is hurting American/Arab-Muslim relations? Absolutely. Do I think the interests of US and Israel always coincide? Even the Israelis don't, or they wouldn't be sending agents over to spy on US (its a fact).

Lighten up. I haven't killed, excuse me, "slaughtered" a Jew all day.

(Just wait till Scott posts something on Northern Ireland.....)

And don't be mean to Frenchman, Greyhawk. We're practically engaged.

zai-jian

yaksun

Was I mean? I did not mean to be;) The Frenchman is too easy Yaki, as you well know. He and his cousin's make this site fun. (Shill? Fair game!) If I were Scott I'd spend my days America bashing here under various French names. The Frenchman, however, is not Scott. Scott has wit and uses it. I'm thinking about letting my kids post under my name for the next round with one of the Gauls. You, yaki, since you have calmed from your initial posts, (which you admit were bait;>) have proven to be thoughtful. Please don't hurt your future victims too much. Now I need to find an angry Russian ex-communist to chat.

Greyhawk:

Aw, shucks. I think I wet myself. ;-)

ps I luv the sideways caret, that's a new one on me.....

yakkie

Grey H:

ps My kid did just that on the "Weasel" forum recently. He'd seen how much fun I've been having. (Its a pretty good way for getting them hooked on politics and such.) And he did it on his own! Imagine my surprise at reading a post under my name which was not mine!!

y

John 10:17-18

To Greyhawk,

Dear Greyhawk,

Saying "WE won WW2" is being collectively proud of the actions of a few. It is illogical.

Frenchman

Posted by: Frenchman on March 14, 2003 11:48 AM
Frank
Since I didn't say it, I will not address it. That would be illogical. How's the weather on Elba?

Posted by: Greyhawk on March 14, 2003 12:39 PM

By saying "WE won the war" all and all along this forum, you are taking pride for something that is not your own.

"Barabas" translates as "Son of the Father," which is what Christians claim Jesus to be. A bit of irony, no? It makes me wonder whether the gospels might not be usefully considered a metaphorical text, regardless of their historical veracity, the metaphor being that the Son of God (the universal aspect of man) must always suffer the evils of men, both individual (Pilate, who gives in) and collective (the Sanhedrin, who demand the penalty).

But that is a side issue. Mel Gibson is being asked to change his portrayal, which will potentially be viewed by a large number of people, because it may show Jews in a light that perpetuates the belief that they were (are?) collectively responsible for what is either a murder or the fullfillment of God's will or both. Without having seen the portrayal, I can't judge its effect or intention; however, it seems that Gibson demonstrates both piety, in being willing to make his movie about Jesus in a climate that is unfriendly to Christianity, and good-will, in considering how it might offend Jews.

Bubba,

You know the ( New Testament)Bible more than you think. The accuracy of dates of when various books were written is difficult to ascertain. We can make a fairly educated guess. That being said many well read Doctors of ancient Languages fall all over the timeline. A lot of people claim dates based on copies - not original extant texts. Most date setters have ulterior motives based on their philosophy.Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc,..ad nauseum.

Original texts,by the way are very hard to come by. We have at best little bits and pieces. They were either hidden or destroyed. There are many various opinions as to the dating of the particular New Testament books and also to the Old Testament books.

I prefer to think that the books were written just before they were finished. I think I can claim without fallacy that would be accurate. Every body else is clutching at papyrus...

Doug,
Respectfully, I think the message from the New Testament is that we all share in the the death on the cross.From what I've read - the point being made was that he gave up his own life because we were all guilty of sin. Kind of like Abraham supplying the lamb. But God supplied it for us. I don't think the Jews are included in the guilt or cause of his death, anymore or any less than any body else.Gentile,Jew,Muslim, Atheist,etc, ad nauseum... Heck even the French....

In regard to the debate about Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus, I am just finishing a book on the subject, "Revolution in Judaea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance", by Hyam Maccoby. I highly reccommend it. The book is out of print but I obtained a copy at the public library. The premise of the book is that Jesus was Jew who wanted, relying on God's help, to throw the Romans out of Judaea and establish God's kingdom of peace and justice on earth. The concept of God sending a messiah to establish the reign of peace and justice on earth is mainstream Jewish thought and predates Jesus. Jesus felt that he was that promised Jewish Messiah. So Jesus' claim was not blasphemous. One could believe that Jesus was or was not the promised messiah, but the claim, itself, was not blasphemous. The Romans, however, who were in charge, didn't want to be overthrown and so executed Jesus for sedition. The book brings may proofs for this basis premise. For example, why did the Jewish population hail the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem (the Triumphal Entry) and then just a week later condemn him to die? It just doesn't make sense. In addition, there historically was no such thing as letting a prisoner out for Passover. The concept does not appear in any other source except for in the Gospels. What Maccoby argues, quite convincingly in my opinion, is that the Gospel writers and editors tried to pin on the Jews something that the Romans did. This makes sense because Christianity was trying to establish itself in a Roman ruled world. It would have been very dangerous to accuse the Romans of killing their God. I realize that Maccoby's is just one opinion, but the many facts that he lays out about the politics and motivations of the time are quite convincing.

The Jews were enslaved by the Romans. Suggesting, or in Mel Gibson's place PORTRAYING, the Jews as "demanding" the death of Jesus is akin to suggesting that the Shias in Southern Iraq "demanded" Saddam Hussein to gas the Kurds in the North.

You are quite simply an anti-semite and no amount of back-slapping from your bigoted buddies changes that.

The Romans killed Jesus. Period.

Scott Ott's "clever" comments regarding Mel Gibson changing anything in "The Passion"
and how he will therefore change "The Patriot"
and "Braveheart" underlines the accusatory
hypocrisy of anyone wishing to condemn an entire people based on a ROMAN MYTH four thousand years old. So, therefore "I" am responsible for the death of a man there is ABSOLUTELY NO REAL PROOF OF EVER EXISTING IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Mr.Ott you are unleashing forces you have no idea of!

-Ask yourself how many innocent people have been murdered in the name of someone who would send all of you to hell for judging where only God has the right to charge?!

TO HELL WITH YOU, SCOTT OTT.

ouch.

and how many egyptians are murdered every year when charlton heston's "ten commmandments" airs on network TV?

its madness, i tell you.

http://www.all-encompassingly.com/archives/000305.php