Which One of These Anti-Semitic Cartoons Is Not Like the Others

Media • January 2013 • Views: 3,236

It’s a trick question. They’re all similar. The large one on the right was published in the Sunday Times of London on Jan. 27, 2013, a day designated as Holocaust Remembrance Day. The cartoonist is Gerald Scarfe.

Recent Pages by aigle (Aigle):
More on the Textbook Study Double Standards on Soccer Racism C-SPAN Watch CAMERA Op-Ed: 'Will we listen to the new Coptic Pope?' PressPectiva Notices 'Two Headlines, one reporter'

Jump to bottom

187 comments

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 28, 2013 9:49:12am

I wouldn’t downding aigle except that it never stays around to participate in the conversation.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 28, 2013 9:51:19am

I have also noticed that CAMERA links a lot to Gatestone Institute.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 28, 2013 9:52:30am

CAMERA just retweeted Gatestone Institute (nope, totally not embedding it)

RadicalModerate Mon, Jan 28, 2013 11:26:05am

While I find Scarfe’s depiction disturbing to say the least, I don’t think that it crosses the line of being anti-Semitic. It is a political cartoon depicting Benjamin Netanyahu and refers to his policy regarding Palestinians. The other cartoons shown are specifically anti-Semitic propaganda, as they depict extremely racist caricatures.

It should also be noted that Scarfe has apologized for the timing of the editorial cartoon, stating that he did not know that it was to be run on Remembrance Day, but was penned in reaction to Netanyahu’s recent re-election as Prime Minister. Scarfe also is refusing permission for further reproduction of the cartoon.

Scarfe “regrets timing” of Sunday Times Netanyahu cartoon

In a statement, the paper said it was a typically robust cartoon by Mr Scarfe, and directed readers to a Sunday Times magazine feature published in the same edition exposing “the Holocaust-denying tours of concentration camps organised by David Irving”.

“The Sunday Times firmly believes that it is not antisemitic,” said a spokesman. “It is aimed squarely at Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people. It appeared on Sunday because Mr Netanyahu won the Israeli election last week.”

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 12:31:52pm

re: #4 RadicalModerate

I don’t think that it crosses the line of being anti-Semitic.

Wow. Just Wow.

A few questions:

1. Do you think that Benjamin Netanyahu really looks like that? Or does the character seem to exaggerate certain features?

2. Does any actual policy of Benjamin Netanyahu actually use the blood of Palestinians in anyway?

3. Are you aware of the history of using the imagery of Jewish victims blood in Antisemitic cartoons?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 12:36:48pm

re: #2 Vicious Babushka

I have also noticed that CAMERA links a lot to Gatestone Institute.

You really worry me. You are really gunning for CAMERA. Joining up with people who are not just anti Israel, but clearly antisemitic.

It might work, and you will get CAMERA banned and banished.

Teaming up with them will not save you when they aim for the next level of Zionist.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 1:44:23pm

re: #6 Buck

How is Alouette ‘joining up’ with anyone, please?

RadicalModerate Mon, Jan 28, 2013 2:15:57pm

re: #5 Buck

Wow. Just Wow.

A few questions:

1. Do you think that Benjamin Netanyahu really looks like that? Or does the character seem to exaggerate certain features?

It’s a caricature. Personal features are going to be exaggerated. That being said, the image does not, in my opinion scream out “JOO~!” in the way that the others did. For example, there is no depiction of a Star of David, and his clothing isn’t in traditional orthodox garb, both of which are almost always present in anti-Semitic propoganda.

2. Does any actual policy of Benjamin Netanyahu actually use the blood of Palestinians in anyway?

Arguably - at least from the standpoint of Jerusalem residents. Specifically his stance on settlements, as well as turning a blind eye to the actions of Haredi extremists.

3. Are you aware of the history of using the imagery of Jewish victims blood in Antisemitic cartoons?

Yes, I’m well aware of those. That being said, I still contend that the cartoon was directed specifically toward Netanyahu, and not Jewish people.

But don’t take my word for it - you might also want to read this article in Haaretz:

Four reasons why U.K. cartoon of Netanyahu isn’t anti-Semitic in any way

rosiee Mon, Jan 28, 2013 2:23:33pm

re: #8 RadicalModerate

It’s an old school blood libel image that unfairly chastises Israelis while whitewashing and absolving Palestinians of all blame.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 3:35:54pm

re: #7 Obdicut

How is Alouette ‘joining up’ with anyone, please?

Ganging up on Camera. I think I was clear.

You are really gunning for CAMERA. Joining up with people who are not just anti Israel, but clearly antisemitic.

Varek Raith Mon, Jan 28, 2013 3:36:36pm

re: #6 Buck

You really worry me. You are really gunning for CAMERA. Joining up with people who are not just anti Israel, but clearly antisemitic.

It might work, and you will get CAMERA banned and banished.

Teaming up with them will not save you when they aim for the next level of Zionist.

No.
See, it is CAMERA who is joining up with fascists and bigots.
See, Gatestone. Many leaders/founders in the anti jihad movement are also neo-nazis. Why do you ignore this?

Israel does not need friends like this.

Varek Raith Mon, Jan 28, 2013 3:39:06pm

re: #10 Buck

Ganging up on Camera. I think I was clear.

Camera approvingly links to an organization who considers Fjordman a ‘Distinguished Scholar’.
Do you think it wise to associate with the likes of such a group?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 3:40:23pm

re: #11 Varek Raith

Why do you ignore this?

Find me ONE statement where CAMERA is pro fascists or even pro bigot.

CAMERA is the ANTI Bigot. They fight against ACTUAL fascists (as opposed to imaginary ones).

As if you are going to create original material showing the bias in the media against Israel.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 3:43:31pm

re: #12 Varek Raith

Camera approvingly links to an organization who considers Fjordman a ‘Distinguished Scholar’.
Do you think it wise to associate with the likes of such a group?

I think that the game of connect the dots is a great game, but falls flat when the obvious double standard is applied.

No one is perfect, and when someone links to an article they are agreeing with that article. Not everything that has ever been published by that site EVER.

Find me ONE statement where CAMERA is pro fascists or even pro bigot.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 3:51:27pm

re: #10 Buck

Ganging up on Camera. I think I was clear.

So because ALouette objects to CAMERA not actually sticking around LGF to engage with people, but instead just drops links and leaves, you accuse her of “Joining up with people who are not just anti Israel, but clearly antisemitic.”

You are accusing Alouette of joining up with antisemites.

Fucking think about your goddamn self for a second, would you?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 3:53:34pm

re: #8 RadicalModerate

It’s a caricature. Personal features are going to be exaggerated. That being said, the image does not, in my opinion scream out “JOO~!” in the way that the others did. For example, there is no depiction of a Star of David, and his clothing isn’t in traditional orthodox garb, both of which are almost always present in anti-Semitic propoganda.

We disagree. A Star of David and traditional orthodox garb do not need to be present for something to be considered anti-Semitic. That would be a nice out. Basically allowing the artist to show anything they want, just as long as they don’t show a Star of David or traditional orthodox garb.

Look at the facial features. They don’t look ANYTHING like Benjamin Netanyahu. You might even think they were recycling an old Sharon cartoon.

Hint: Look at the nose of the Benjamin Netanyahu face and the other cartoons at the Camera link.

Arguably - at least from the standpoint of Jerusalem residents. Specifically his stance on settlements, as well as turning a blind eye to the actions of Haredi extremists.

Well, that is really my limit. Arguably? Benjamin Netanyahu is using the blood of Palestinians?

Yes, I’m well aware of those. That being said, I still contend that the cartoon was directed specifically toward Netanyahu, and not Jewish people.

You can look at a Jew depicted with a sharp weapon, using the blood of non-Jews and not see anti-semitsm, specifically blood liable.

I do take your word for it.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 3:56:44pm

re: #15 Obdicut

because ALouette objects to CAMERA not actually sticking around LGF to engage with people, but instead just drops links and leaves,

No, that is not what I said.

You see, I quoted from her post very specifically. The use of the quote, and then making my comment below it, was to link the two.

Her comment (which I quote specifically) and what I wrote below it. Nothing to do with CAMERA not actually sticking around LGF.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:01:24pm

re: #17 Buck

No, that is not what I said.

You see, I quoted from her post very specifically. The use of the quote, and then making my comment below it, was to link the two.

Her comment (which I quotes specifically) and what I wrote below it. Nothing to do with CAMERA not actually sticking around LGF.

Okay, she also said:

I wouldn’t downding aigle except that it never stays around to participate in the conversation.

But how the fuck does it make sense that she’s joining up with antisemites by criticizing Camera for linking to the Gatestone institute?

You don’t think it’s bad to link the Gatestone Institute, the Geert-Wilders loving bunch who are opposed not just to radical Islam but Islam itself?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:07:50pm

re: #18 Obdicut

Okay, she also said

Yes, she did. Which has nothing to do with what I said.

You don’t think it’s bad to link the Gatestone Institute

We have had this discussion, where I point out that people link to sites that I contend are also racist or worse.

You have already made excuses for them and shown your double standard on this subject. I see no reason to repeat it.

I don’t think that CAMERA has shown itself to be any of the things that it is being accused of. I support CAMERA.

I don’t play the (again double standard) connect the dots game that you do.

AND I agree that if Charles does not want links to any site, that is his choice. BUT the links to sites that have links to sites that had a writer who said something racist at one time is a tricky thing to keep track of.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:10:22pm

re: #19 Buck

You have already made excuses for them and shown your double standard on this subject. I see no reason to repeat it.

Instead of asserting this, back it up. Refer to the conversation. I literally have no clue what the fuck you’re talking about.

I don’t think that CAMERA has shown itself to be any of the things that it is being accused of. I support CAMERA.

Alouette accused them of linking to the Gatestone Institute and being ‘bffs’ with them on Twitter. Do you think that’s not true?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:13:32pm

re: #20 Obdicut

Instead of asserting this, back it up. Refer to the conversation. I literally have no clue what the fuck you’re talking about.

I point out that Alternet has published both truther and antisemitism.

You make excuses for that site.

Remember it now?

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:19:02pm

re: #21 Buck

I point out that Alternet has published both truther and antisemitism.

You make excuses for that site.

Remember it now?

Oh right, I remember you never getting back to me after I explained how Alternet published a shitload of anti-truther stuff, and one ‘truther’ article they invited the person to write with a clear editors note that as part of their commitment to public press, they felt they had to include this because they’d done so much anti-truther stuff.

If you want, you can try to explain now why you called them a truther site when they published a lot of anti-truther stuff. Care to?

I haven’t seen any outright antisemitism on Alternet, either, nothing approaching the anti-Islam attitude of Gatestone Institute by a long shot.

Now, again, you are accusing Aloutte, an orthodox Jewish grandmother, of joining up with antisemites for truthfully pointing out that CAMERA links to Gatestonte Institute.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:28:59pm

re: #22 Obdicut

Oh right, I remember you never getting back to me after I explained how Alternet published a shitload of anti-truther stuff, and one ‘truther’ article they invited the person to write with a clear editors note that as part of their commitment to public press, they felt they had to include this because they’d done so much anti-truther stuff.

Ya, that is the double standard coming through loud and clear.

If you want, you can try to explain now why you called them a truther site when they published a lot of anti-truther stuff. Care to?

Because the standard is not showing both points of view, it is associating and publishing a writer who is abhorrent.

I haven’t seen any outright antisemitism on Alternet, either, nothing approaching the anti-Islam attitude of Gatestone Institute by a long shot.

And there is the excuse making. At one time publishing Robert Fisk was enough.

Now, again, you are accusing Aloutte, an orthodox Jewish grandmother, of joining up with antisemites for truthfully pointing out that CAMERA links to Gatestonte Institute.

AND again you put words in my mouth.

Posting #2 and #3, I said she is gunning for CAMERA. Joining up with people who are not just anti Israel, but clearly antisemitic.

That she might succeed and get CAMERA banned. AND I gave my opinion that teaming up with them on this will not protect her when they change their aim to the next level of Zionist.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:34:16pm

re: #23 Buck

Ya, that is the double standard coming through loud and clear.

How? Alternet publishes a ton of anti-truther stuff. Does Gatestone Institute publish a ton of stuff defending Muslims that I’m missing or something?

Posting #2 and #3, I said she is gunning for CAMERA. Joining up with people who are not just anti Israel, but clearly antisemitic.

Yes, you did. You are accusing her of joining up with people who are antisemetic, because of her criticisms of CAMERA. Correct?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:35:38pm

re: #24 Obdicut

Yes, you did. You are accusing her of joining up with people who are antisemetic, because of her criticisms of CAMERA. Correct?

Incorrect.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:36:07pm

re: #25 Buck

Incorrect.

Okay, then why are you accusing her of joining up with people who are antisemitic?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:37:15pm

re: #24 Obdicut

How? Alternet publishes a ton of anti-truther stuff. Does Gatestone Institute publish a ton of stuff defending Muslims that I’m missing or something?

Yes, you are missing something. Gatestone publishes the work of Muslims.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:40:39pm

re: #26 Obdicut

Okay, then why are you accusing her of joining up with people who are antisemitic?

Answered in my #17

You are either not reading my responses, OR treating all of us to another one of your famous asking inane questions, responding with more questions, slowly trying to change the subject.

I am betting on the former.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:42:59pm

re: #27 Buck

Yes, you are missing something. Gatestone publishes the work of Muslims.

How does that answer my question? In looking at their articles, fellows, columnists— which include, I see now, Robert Spencer— they have an overwhelming anti-Islam bias.

Alternet, as I established, as an anti-truther bias.

But you are comfortable with Gatestone’s anti-Muslim rhetoric, yet you call Alternet a truther site even though it publishes far more anti-truther articles.

This isn’t logical.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:45:01pm

re: #28 Buck

In your #17 you, said:

You see, I quoted from her post very specifically. The use of the quote, and then making my comment below it, was to link the two.

Her comment (which I quotes specifically) and what I wrote below it. Nothing to do with CAMERA not actually sticking around LGF.

Again, what she said:

I have also noticed that CAMERA links a lot to Gatestone Institute.

to which you said:

You really worry me. You are really gunning for CAMERA. Joining up with people who are not just anti Israel, but clearly antisemitic.

It might work, and you will get CAMERA banned and banished.

Teaming up with them will not save you when they aim for the next level of Zionist.

So how are you not accusing her of joining up with antisemites for truthfully saying that CAMERA links a lot to Gatestone institute?

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:49:30pm

re: #29 Obdicut

I would love to know a list of these Muslims as well.

Let’s not forget, Likud spews anti-Muslim bile. For example, this from one of the most prominent members, Tzipi Hotovely, in 2011.

In July 2011, Hotovely met with Glenn Beck. She told him that “this [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict isn’t territorial…This is a religious battle led by Islam. We can’t ignore this basic truth.”

I am quite sure Buck agrees with her. Come on Buck, we know you how you really think about Muslims. You cozy up to Kahanists. You have never once said a positive thing about Muslims. Ever. So, come right out and admit.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:52:19pm

re: #31 ProBosniaLiberal

Don’t you fucking start too. Accusing him of sympathizing with a terrorist is beyond the pale. Shut the fuck up.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:55:00pm

re: #30 Obdicut

So how are you not accusing her of joining up with antisemites for truthfully saying that CAMERA links a lot to Gatestone institute?

I think I was very clear….

Gunning for CAMERA to get them banned and banished.

Literally she is telling a truth. BUT the result of pointing that out is to join up with people I find to antisemites and that they will turn on her just as quick.

How does that answer my question?

What was your question?

Does Gatestone Institute publish a ton of stuff defending Muslims that I’m missing or something?

Oh yes, and my answer was, Yes, you are missing something. Gatestone publishes the work of Muslims.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:55:10pm

re: #32 Obdicut

Removed. However, he throws out similar accusations to just about anybody.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:55:19pm

re: #27 Buck

Like I said to Ludwig JUST KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF.

Shmuck.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:55:54pm

re: #33 Buck

What, a few token Muslims? They just use it as a fig leaf.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:56:44pm

re: #36 ProBosniaLiberal

What, a few token Muslims? They just use it as a fig leaf.

And there is the double standard.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:57:27pm

aigle should be banned from LGF because:

1. It spams and scrams.
2. It is a spambot of CAMERA which was formerly a good site, but now is BFFs with scum like Gatestone Institute.

Buck is a shmuck.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 4:58:51pm

re: #37 Buck

No, conservative organizations do this all the time. They put a token person onstage to show “Hey, we’re not bigots/racists/sexist!”

And it is still bullcrap. A few fig leaves do not change an organization. I learned not to fall for those tricks.

CuriousLurker Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:00:26pm

re: #38 Vicious Babushka

I’m still waiting for him to name the anti-Semites you’re supposedly joining up with. He’s obviously referring to people here.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:00:29pm

re: #39 ProBosniaLiberal

No, conservative organizations do this all the time. They put a token person onstage to show “Hey, we’re not bigots/racists/sexist!”

And it is still bullcrap. A few fig leaves do not change an organization. I learned not to fall for those tricks.

Coming from the person who doesn’t find this cartoon antisemetic.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:02:55pm

re: #41 Buck

Haven’t seen it. Because I refuse to go to CAMERA’s site. I have my issues with them.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:05:25pm

And yes, I was wrong in accusing Buck of being a Terrorist Sympathizer. I have removed that part of the post.

However, I still think he has the same thoughts on Islam as Geller or Spencer.

I am just trying to get him to admit it.

Aligarr Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:13:08pm

re: #4 RadicalModerate

Surely you jest ! Or you are hopelessly naive . The caricature is familiar and goes back to the Nazi propaganda cartoons .Many arab/muslim publications carry the same today . As for Scarfe regretting anything ? That’s pure horseshit , unaware of the time , more horseshit .

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:18:07pm

re: #41 Buck

And actually seeing the cartoon of Netanyahu and the wall, no I don’t think it is anti-semitic. I don’t see any of the symbols of Judaism on the exaggerated caricature of Netanyahu. Not to mention he is a truly reprehensible Human Being. Examples (all are quotes by him):

“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”

or:

But then the question came up of just who would define what Defined Military Sites were. I received a letter – to my and to Arafat, at the same time – which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron Agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: “I’m not signing.” Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to my and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron Agreement. Or rather, ratify it, it had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo Accord.

and finally:

Rallies, organized partially by Likud, became increasingly extreme in tone. Likud leader (and future Prime Minister) Benjamin Netanyahu accused Rabin’s government of being “removed from Jewish tradition … and Jewish values.”

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:18:13pm

re: #33 Buck

I think I was very clear….

Gunning for CAMERA to get them banned and banished.

Yes, let’s be clear. To you, wanting to have CAMERA banned from LGF for its associations with the Gatestone Institute is joining up with antisemites. That’s what you’re accusing her of. And I assume what you’re accusing anyone else who agrees with that. Nobody can think that it should be banned and not be joining with antisemites by doing so.

CuriousLurker Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:18:24pm

WHO are the anti-Semites who are going to come after VB “when they aim for the next level of Zionist”, Buck?

Stop with chickenshit innuendo and either NAME THEM and show your proof or drop the sleazy, underhanded attempts at libeling people you disagree with.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:35:08pm

re: #46 Obdicut

To you, wanting to have CAMERA banned from LGF for its associations with the Gatestone Institute is joining up with antisemites.

No, that is not what I said. I agree that the difference is only reversing what you say, but there is a difference.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:37:24pm

re: #48 Buck

No, that is not what I said. I agree that the difference is only reversing what you say, but there is a difference.

What is the difference, Buck?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:37:39pm

re: #47 CuriousLurker

I am not talking about you, but I have no problem naming War on Music.

CuriousLurker Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:39:44pm

re: #50 Buck

I am not talking about you, but I have no problem naming War on Music.

Who else? You said antisemites, plural.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:40:59pm

re: #49 Obdicut

What is the difference, Buck?

Asked and answered. Multiple times.

This is where I start ignoring the inane questions where you are trying to put words in my mouth and you start with “when are you going to answer my question?”

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:42:54pm

re: #51 CuriousLurker

Who else? You said antisemites, plural.

Why? So you can excuse them and debate me with “well I don’t consider that to be antisemitic”?

What a waste of both of our time.

What do you think about the cartoon? Agree with RadicalModerate?

CuriousLurker Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:48:05pm

re: #53 Buck

Why? So you can excuse them and debate me with “well I don’t consider that to be antisemitic”?

What a waste of both of are time.

What do you think about the cartoon? Agree with RadicalModerate?

Since when have you ever known me to enjoy debating anything with you? What I want is for you to stop with the libel by innuendo.

If after 3 years of seeing my comments here you need to ask what I think of something like that cartoon, then you’re either an idiot or just trying to change the subject. I think it’s the latter, now answer the question: WHO ELSE?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:52:30pm

re: #43 ProBosniaLiberal

And yes, I was wrong in accusing Buck of being a Terrorist Sympathizer. I have removed that part of the post.

However, I still think he has the same thoughts on Islam as Geller or Spencer.

I am just trying to get him to admit it.

I apologize for getting you and RadicalModerate confused in the heat of answering multiple people at a time. I don’t know how you feel about the cartoon.

You are completely wrong if you think I am racist or hate Islam, or Muslims.

I am the one who FIGHTS to show that everyone is equal in Israel. I am the one who points out that there is NO separation between ethnic groups in Israel. I am the one who fights to get Pro Israel Muslim writers taken seriously (instead of calling them tokens, which is racist).

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:59:13pm

re: #54 CuriousLurker

Since when have you ever known me to enjoy debating anything with you? What I want is for you to stop with the libel by innuendo.

If after 3 years of seeing my comments here you need to ask what I think of something like that cartoon, then you’re either an idiot or just trying to change the subject. I think it’s the latter, now answer the question: WHO ELSE?

Actually I think it is on subject. Here I have a person who is bending the facts to excuse this cartoon as not antisemitic.

So, my point is that no matter who I name, it is just my opinion.

I think that ANYONE who thinks that any land in Israel should restricted from Jews, because it is “Arab land” is antisemitic.
I think that anyone who wants to reward the terrorists HAMAS or the holocaust denying Fatah unilaterally with land that is Israel, is an antisemite.

I think that anyone who says that the Jews are illegal ANYWHERE in Israel is an antisemite.

I think anyone who refers to Israel as Apartheid is an antisemite.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:00:57pm

re: #52 Buck

Asked and answered. Multiple times.

No, it hasn’t been. You said it’s just reversing what I said. How is it different? You’re not making a lick of sense. You quoted Alouette criticizing CAMERA for linking to Gatestone, and accused her of joining up with antisemites. That’s what happened. That’s where you’re at. It’s a ridiculous position to be in.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:05:02pm

re: #57 Obdicut

I didn’t accuse her of anything. When gunning for CAMERA, she is joining a fight that antisemites are fighting.

My opinion is that she should think about that association and not worry about CAMERA tweeting a link to Gatestone.

Charles retweeted a tweet from Toure. Toure is a truther. That doesn’t make Charles a truther.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:06:16pm

re: #58 Buck

Obdicut, translate this word salad for me. Either I had a stroke, or he contradicted himself a few times in there.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:08:45pm

re: #58 Buck

I didn’t accuse her of anything. When gunning for CAMERA, she is joining a fight that antisemites are fighting.

However you want to phrase it. You’re claiming she’s joining with antisemites. That’s the position you’re taking. You’re saying that anyone who thinks that CAMERA should be banned is joining with antisemites. You allow for no reasonable criticism of CAMERA, for example, that it links to the Gatestone Institute which hosts a lot of vile anti-Muslim propaganda, like that of Robert Spencer.

In addition, you call Alternet a truther site despite having far more anti-truther articles than truther ones, and you defend Gatestone Institute as not being anti-Islam by virtue of having Muslim commentators.

It’s a hat trick.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:12:02pm

re: #58 Buck

Charles retweeted a tweet from Toure. Toure is a truther. That doesn’t make Charles a truther.

Toure’s main raison d’etre is not being a truther, though. Gatestone Institute exists primarily as a forum for anti-Islam propaganda.

Vicious Babushka Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:13:41pm

re: #7 Obdicut

How is Alouette ‘joining up’ with anyone, please?

I think I should join up with CuriousLurker. We can open a boutique.

Red Falcons of America Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:13:42pm

re: #56 Buck

Shulamit Aloni, who served as Minister for Education under Yitzhak Rabin, has warned of apartheid policies. So has Yossi Sarid, Michael Ben-Yair (attorney-general of Israel from 1993 to 1996), Israeli political scientist Meron Benvenisti, Israeli journalist, Amira Hass andAmi Ayalon, a former Israeli admiral.

The debate on the soul and future of Israel is far more open about the nature of social relationship between those under occupation and those with ethnic pillage that comes with being a member of the ethno-theocratic democracy.

You know why they have such an open debate in Israel as opposed to the debate that is happening in the United States? The debate isn’t shut down by banshee wails of “antisemitism!” as soon as someone takes a hard look at Israeli society.

CuriousLurker Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:13:43pm

re: #56 Buck

Actually I think it is on subject. Here I have a person who is bending the facts to excuse this cartoon as not antisemitic.

So, my point is that no matter who I name, it is just my opinion.

I think that ANYONE who thinks that any land in Israel should restricted from Jews, because it is “Arab land” is antisemitic.
I think that anyone who wants to reward the terrorists HAMAS or the holocaust denying Fatah unilaterally with land that is Israel, is an antisemite.

I think that anyone who says that the Jews are illegal ANYWHERE in Israel is an antisemite.

I see, so you have an enormously broad definition of antisemitism. It must cover millions, or more likely billions of people, which is why it works so well for you. I’m not even going to try discussing the finer points with you because I know from experience that it’ll be an exercise in futility, so I’ll just stop here and post the ADL’s definition, which is quite a bit narrower than yours:

The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.

Works for me.

CuriousLurker Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:15:47pm

re: #62 Vicious Babushka

I think I should join up with CuriousLurker. We can open a boutique.

LOL, yeah, we can call it “Frum Hijabis” or something like that.

Thanks for making me laugh before leaving for the night. {{{VB}}}

I’m outta here.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:17:35pm

re: #60 Obdicut

you call Alternet a truther site

Again I correct you. I called Alternet a truther/antisemitic site.

You get to create the levels. And you get to create the Gatestones main raison d’etre.

However we are talking about CAMERA, so the proper comparison would be that CAMERAs main raison d’etre is not being a fascist or a racist.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:18:19pm

re: #66 Buck

Again I correct you. I called Alternet a truther/antisemitic site.

Yeah. Can we just deal with this for a second?

Why, when Alternet publishes far more anti-truther stuff than truther, do you call them a truther site?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:18:34pm

re: #64 CuriousLurker

or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them.

And there you go. Covers each and every one of my examples perfectly.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:22:09pm

re: #67 Obdicut

Yeah. Can we just deal with this for a second?

Why, when Alternet publishes far more anti-truther stuff than truther, do you call them a truther site?

That they published ANY truther authors. It is really your belief that you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

We are going around in circles. I already pointed out TWICE that Gatestone also published articles written by Muslims.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:28:58pm

re: #67 Obdicut

Who are theseMuslims he is referring to?

Is there a list?

I get a sneaky feeling the Muslims on the Gatestone Institute are not even close to reputable.

Until Buck can actually say something nice about Muslims and a significant non-Gatestone Muslim, I will assume he is an Islamophobe.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:30:19pm

re: #70 ProBosniaLiberal

Who are theseMuslims he is referring to?

Is there a list?

I get a sneaky feeling the Muslims on the Gatestone Institute are not even close to reputable.

Until Buck can actually say something nice about Muslims and a significant non-Gatestone Muslim, I will assume he is an Islamophobe.

Yes there is a list, but I can’t link to it.

AND OF COURSE you will think that about them. They prove they are not reputable by writing for Gatestone.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:36:11pm

re: #70 ProBosniaLiberal

Is Irshad Manji a good enough muslim for you? I personally think your rating muslim people as significant and reputable is racist, but that is your problem, not mine.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:44:04pm

re: #72 Buck

I consider King Abdullah II in Jordan and King Mohammad VI, along with Sultan Qaboos to be very good for example. And Irshad Manji hangs out with Geller and Spencer. That should say volumes.

Unless you are going to defend Geller too, which I wouldn’t be surprised by.

Obdicut Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:44:44pm

re: #69 Buck

That they published ANY truther authors. It is really your belief that you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

No, it’s not, because if you publish a ton of anti-truther stuff, you’re mostly fighting against the idea of trutherism, not promoting it. The one article they included that was truther they put an editor’s note on.

Double standards are certainly apparent here, but they’re not on my side. To you, Gatestone Institute is fine even though they have Robert Spencer, but because Alternet had one truther article, even among a host of anti-truther articles, you call them a Truther site.

Destro Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:50:38pm

re: #4 RadicalModerate

I thought that was Putin in the cartoon and not Netanyahu at first glance.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 6:55:33pm

re: #75 Destro

Eh, Netanyahu is mini-Putin. They probably like each other.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:05:55pm

re: #73 ProBosniaLiberal

King Abdullah II in Jordan
King Mohammad VI,
Sultan Qaboos

All very nice men. I would prefer they were more democratic, but I don’t know them well enough to have anything bad to say about them.

goddamnedfrank Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:07:47pm

re: #66 Buck

Again I correct you. I called Alternet a truther/antisemitic site.

re: #27 Buck

Yes, you are missing something. Gatestone publishes the work of Muslims.

Yeah, and Alternet publishes the work of Jews. So how is Alternet an anti semitic site again? This entire line of reasoning seems incredibly spurious. If the presence of muslim writers on Gatestone constitutes an affirmative defense against the charge that they have an overwhelming anti-islamic bias, then ipso facto the publishing of jewish writers on Alternet means it cannot be an antisemitic site.

Maybe a writer’s ethnicity isn’t the issue, but the content of their writing. Maybe a site’s bias can be interpreted in light of the presence or absence of any accompanying editor’s notes.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:20:32pm

re: #77 Buck

Well, 2 of them have the Muslim Brotherhood to deal with, and the third has explained why that is an issue.

If either Abdulhamid II had failed in his little coup thingy in the 1870’s, or the British not been buffoons at the outset of WWI, the Ottoman Empire would still be here.

And I guarantee that would have made for a better world.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:22:29pm

re: #74 Obdicut

To you, Gatestone Institute is fine even though they have Robert Spencer, but because Alternet had one truther article, even among a host of anti-truther articles, you call them a Truther site.

You like to ignore the fact that I called Alternet an antisemitic site as well.

(I actually pointed out more than one truther article, but you ignore that as well)

I also DID NOT SAY THAT “Gatestone Institute is fine”.

However YOU say that Gatestone Institute are opposed to Islam itself, and yet a significant number of articles are written by Muslim men and women who are accomplished, educated and professional.

Khaled Abu Toameh is a great example.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab Muslim, is a veteran award-winning journalist who has been covering Palestinian affairs for nearly three decades.
He studied at Hebrew University and began his career as a reporter by working for a PLO-affiliated newspaper in Jerusalem.
Abu Toameh currently works for the international media, serving as the ‘eyes and ears’ of foreign journalists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Abu Toameh’s articles have appeared in numerous newspapers around the world, including The Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report and The Sunday Times of London.
Since 2002 he has been writing on Palestinian affairs for The Jerusalem Post.
Abu Toameh has also been working as a producer and consultant for NBC News since 1989.

A significant resume. I think he knows an anti Islam site when he sees it. I mean he seems to have a real background, education and history on that subject. And he has written almost 200 articles on that site. You think it is fair to judge him negatively , not on his writing, or his knowledge, go ahead.

BUT THIS ISN’T REALLY ABOUT THAT IS IT?

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:25:11pm

re: #78 goddamnedfrank

Yeah, and Alternet publishes the work of Jews. So how is Alternet an anti semitic site again?

It is actually me who is saying that it is wrong to judge a site that way. That is how we are judging other sites that people can’t link to sites that link to them.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:32:18pm

re: #73 ProBosniaLiberal

And you judge Irshad Manji as one of the bad guys?

I don’t know who you are, or what you have accomplished in your life BUT I am sure it is not even…..

Actually, not worth it. Nevermind.

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:36:54pm

re: #82 Buck

Maybe because she cozies up to those who would persecute us?

That inspires no confidence at all.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:37:29pm

re: #73 ProBosniaLiberal

I consider King Abdullah II in Jordan and King Mohammad VI, along with Sultan Qaboos to be very good for example.

All men? Any women?

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:45:32pm

re: #84 Buck

Certainly.

Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina. She has done a great job of reversing the damage her predecessor created, and has finally started Prosecution for the Bengali Genocide and associated crimes. In addition, she has made Bangladesh the most stable nation in the Indian Subcontinent.

Unfortunately with the Islamic Dark Age, things have gone backwards. So there are too few like her.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:50:27pm

re: #85 ProBosniaLiberal

Unfortunately with the Islamic Dark Age, things have gone backwards.

What do you mean by that? What is the Islamic Dark Age?

ProBosniaLiberal Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:52:11pm

re: #86 Buck

The time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Combined with the rise of the Saudi State.

Since that time, 90 years ago, we have regressed 1500 years.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:55:40pm

re: #87 ProBosniaLiberal

Regressed? What do you think has regressed? The religion? I mean the term “Islamic Dark age” is very broad.

As in the same as the Christian Dark Ages?

Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:58:35pm

re: #23 Buck

Buck, why the Hell do you keep trying to justify CAMERA’s bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior on other websites? It’s really unseemly and rather dishonest.

Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 28, 2013 7:59:58pm

re: #79 ProBosniaLiberal

Well, 2 of them have the Muslim Brotherhood to deal with, and the third has explained why that is an issue.

If either Abdulhamid II had failed in his little coup thingy in the 1870’s, or the British not been buffoons at the outset of WWI, the Ottoman Empire would still be here.

And I guarantee that would have made for a better world.

The British were not being buffoons, it was the Turks who made the decision to get into bed with Germany.

Buck Mon, Jan 28, 2013 8:00:47pm

re: #89 Dark_Falcon

Buck, why the Hell do you keep trying to justify CAMERA’s bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior on other websites? It’s really unseemly and rather dishonest.

That is not what I am doing at all.

That seems to be an expression you have on speed dial.

I am saying that CAMERA isn’t doing bad behavior.

Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 28, 2013 8:07:24pm

re: #91 Buck

That is not what I am doing at all.

That seems to be an expression you have on speed dial.

I am saying that CAMERA isn’t doing bad behavior.

How is linking to the Gatestone Institute not bad behavior?

Gus Mon, Jan 28, 2013 10:08:27pm

A quick review of Gerald Scafe’s work shows that this is his typical artistic style. This is not new, and it is absurd to compare it to a “Nazi style” of cartoon imagery. As far as the red nose is concerned, he has even drawn himself in a similar manner to his representation of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Perhaps it was insensitive to publish this cartoon on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Perhaps it could be construed as being anti-Israel (depending on you point of view, including many Israelis themselves. But to label this as being antisemitic is quite a stretch.

I find it odd that many of the same people who cry freedom of the west and many of those who support “draw Mohammad day” would find this objectionable. In a free society, you will be offended, and there is no guarantee that you will not be offended.

In the end this is his drawing style. It can be seen as insensitive given the day it was published and it can be seen as being anti-Israel. It is not done in a “Nazi style” nor is it anti-Semitic. Netanyahu may be the PM of Israel, however, he is not the spiritual or religious leader of the Jewish people.

Aligarr Tue, Jan 29, 2013 3:28:50am

re: #93 Gus

Yea keep on believing that . You ask if it was done on “mohamed day ” ? I doubt Mr.Scarfe would even do it on Mohamaed day . Poor argument there .
” It can be seen as insensitive ” ? You bet , it is .” It can be seen as anti-Israel ” ? That’s because it is . And whether or not Netanyahu is a spiritual leader or religious leader of the Jewish people is irrelevant , a red herring of sorts incorporated for your excuse for this drawing and its artist .That’s right , in a free society you will be offended , also in a free society you can be outted as to your intention and thus criticized . In this case as a BIGOT

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 3:39:50am

re: #93 Gus

I originally was reminded of classic anti-semitic cartoons, but after seeing the rest of his work, I have to agree. I think all such cartoons are in bad taste at best, but I no longer think it’s antisemitic.

Vicious Babushka Tue, Jan 29, 2013 4:23:56am

Here is CAMERA’s Twitter timeline.

You can see they reTweet Gatestone.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 5:01:06am

re: #96 Vicious Babushka

Including Raymond Ibrahim, who is one of the shitbirds who spreads the taqiyya nonsense.

Here’s the Jane’s Intelligence report on Ibrahim’s crap:

[Link: articles.janes.com…]

I’ve never really understood this concept that Muslims lie in some different and special way than non-Muslims.

RadicalModerate Tue, Jan 29, 2013 5:29:58am

re: #16 Buck

I notice that you failed to address the Haaretz article that backed my post upthread, in fact it was the only thing you excluded when quoting me.

I wonder why that is?

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 6:28:17am

re: #92 Dark_Falcon

How is linking to the Gatestone Institute not bad behavior?

Answered in my #14

100

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 6:38:00am

re: #98 RadicalModerate

Do you really? Why do you wonder that? Do you think that by linking to something on the internet (that I have made a point of disagreeing with) I would just change my mind?

Look, I said clearly that we disagree on this subject.

I am of course surprised that you and others do not see the depiction of a Jewish leader using blood for mortar as reminiscent of the blood libel imagery.

However it seem that there are degrees of anti semitism that you are willing to excuse. It seems that there is a scale, and this, by missing some elements you think are key, doesn’t reach high enough on that scale.

I, of course, think that is bullshit. But you are entitled to your own opinion, and I am glad to know yours, Obdicuts and the others that expressed them.

101

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 6:45:38am

re: #100 Buck

Seriously, look at the other guy’s cartoons. This is how he draws everyone. Calling this a blood libel is a gigantic stretch. I didn’t think so at first, it certainly seemed to me like an antisemitic cartoon, but then I actually looked at the rest of what the guy has done.

This is a Gatestone article that was retweeted by Camera.

[Link: www.gatestoneinstitute.org…]

It accuses the persecution of Christians as being rooted in “Sharia”— which is followed, in one form or another, by all Muslims.

How is that not a bigoted position?

102

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:12:03am

re: #101 Obdicut

Seriously, look at the other guy’s cartoons. This is how he draws everyone. Calling this a blood libel is a gigantic stretch. I didn’t think so at first, it certainly seemed to me like an antisemitic cartoon, but then I actually looked at the rest of what the guy has done.

Of course there is a difference when you put a large hanging nose on a Jewish leader than when you make any nose red.

AND of course to ignore that he put a sharp blood dripping weapon in the Jewish leaders hand and shows him using the blood of Palestinian women and children would be to ignore the entire history of Blood liable.

So in this case you knowingly subtract from the story that which doesn’t fit your view.

This is a Gatestone article that was retweeted by Camera.

[Link: www.gatestoneinstitute.org…]

It accuses the persecution of Christians as being rooted in “Sharia”— which is followed, in one form or another, by all Muslims.

How is that not a bigoted position?

And here you add to the story to make it fit your view.

Maybe you can quote from the article that says “which is followed, in one form or another, by all Muslims.”

The article actually is reporting on Christian persecution in Muslim and Arabs countries. He is reporting hundreds of cases (this is a long running series). It is his conclusion that strict adherence to Sharia is a root cause.

ProBosniaLiberal seems to have an opinion on this as well, although he didn’t flush it out completely.

Allowing for a more full role of Islamic women has been set back by what they call “the Islamic Dark Age”. Where “things have gone backwards”.

Is that strict adherence to what has been a perverted version of Sharia? They don’t say.

The series is written by someone who’s family is Egyptian Catholic Coptic. He is writing a series that details the persecution of Christians in Muslim and Arab countries.

Sure we could ignore that persecution. That might be the way you want to go. That actually might seem to some to be prejudiced AGAINST Christians in Muslim and Arab countries.

Disagree with something that he writes. Fine, but ban his writing?

I question that idea.

In this thread alone, War on Music #63 displays the exact same (by your standard) sort of bigoted position.

103

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:20:19am

re: #102 Buck

Wait, now you’re even objecting to the Gatestone Institute being banned at LGF?

104

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:25:54am

re: #103 Obdicut

Wait, now you’re even objecting to the Gatestone Institute being banned at LGF?

NO. I know that is what you have been trying to make me say.

NO. I have said dozens of times that Charles can ban anyone and anything he wants. His house, his rules.

NO, I really don’t care about the Gatestone Institute, and I don’t think they give a shit about being banned from here.

I am defending CAMERA.

105

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:29:50am

re: #104 Buck

But you just said:

Disagree with something that he writes. Fine, but ban his writing?

I question that idea.

When we’re talking about an article from the Gatestone Institute.

So how are you not objecting to the Gatestone Institute being banned at LGF?

106

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:33:31am

re: #105 Obdicut

But you just said:

When we’re talking about an article from the Gatestone Institute.

So how are you not objecting to the Gatestone Institute being banned at LGF?

No, that is not the question that you asked and not the answer I gave.

You asked (very clearly) when pointing to a specific article, written by a specific author with a specific position:

How is that not a bigoted position?

I answered that question. You can disagree with my answer. You can disagree with my opinion, but don’t change what I said.

107

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:35:26am

re: #106 Buck

Dude, what you said is this:

Disagree with something that he writes. Fine, but ban his writing?

Why were you talking about banning his writing?

108

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:37:01am

re: #107 Obdicut

Dude, what you said is this:

Why were you talking about banning his writing?

Clearly because you pointed to it and asked how it was not bigoted.

And don’t call me Dude.

109

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:39:10am

It is really sad for me that you think that article is bigoted, but that the cartoon is not.

I mean that. I am saddened by that revelation.

110

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:42:25am

re: #108 Buck

Clearly because you pointed to it and asked how it was not bigoted.

And don’t call me Dude.

How is that ‘clear’? I didn’t talk about banning his writing.

You make very little sense in your argument in this thread.

111

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:42:56am

re: #109 Buck

It is really sad for me that you think that article is bigoted, but that the cartoon is not.

I mean that. I am saddened by that revelation.

I don’t consider you a sincere person, Buck, or a rational one, so don’t bother sharing what you feel with me.

112

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:51:31am

re: #110 Obdicut

How is that ‘clear’? I didn’t talk about banning his writing.

You make very little sense in your argument in this thread.

Nonsense, that is exactly what you are talking about.

We are discussing in multiple posts that I think people are trying to get CAMERA banned because they link to, or retweet articles from Gatestone.

You link specifically to the article that CAMERA retweeted.

You ask (very clearly) when pointing to the article (that you point out) CAMERA retweeted:

How is that not a bigoted position?

I am clearly talking about CAMERA. I have said that multiple times. I am talking about their right to retweet an article that they don’t find bigoted.

113

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 7:54:09am

re: #110 Obdicut

You make very little sense in your argument in this thread.

Basically, I am not saying what you want me to say.

No problem there.

114

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:00:12am

re: #112 Buck

I am clearly talking about CAMERA. I have said that multiple times. I am talking about their right to retweet an article that they don’t find bigoted.

I don’t get it. Why do you think Gatestone is worse than CAMERA, then?

115

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:05:23am

Here’s a few Scarfe cartoons that clearly show this is his style, and not antisemitic caraciture.

[Link: t0.gstatic.com…]

Big floppy ears and blood imagery.

Image: gerald_scarfe.jpg

Huge nose.

Image: Mrs+Thatcher+-+Gerald+Scarfe+cartoon.jpg

Big ears, huge nose, and blood imagery.

Image: voc_$_reces_1_car_economic_summit.jpg

Floppy ears, big noses. This is how he draws people.

116

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:08:28am

re: #114 Obdicut

I don’t get it. Why do you think Gatestone is worse than CAMERA, then?

You just keep putting words in my mouth. I get it. You expect that people will be lazy and not actually check to see if I actually said it. To believe you and just assume that is what I said.

I think that is lazy, but it is par for the course for you, as I have pointed out multiple times in this thread.

117

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:09:58am

re: #116 Buck

You just keep putting words in my mouth. I get it. You expect that people will be lazy and not actually check to see if I actually said it. To believe you and just assume that is what I said.

I think that is lazy, but it is par for the course for you, as I have pointed out multiple times in this thread.

I’m sorry if I put words in your mouth. Maybe if you directly answered questions instead of claiming you’d already answered them, it’d help. If you have answered them, just restate the answer clearly.

Do you think Gatestone Institute is worse than CAMERA?

118

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:11:10am

re: #115 Obdicut

Sigh.

Of course there is a difference when you put a large hanging nose on a Jewish leader than when you make any nose red.

THOSE things in combination make this clearly a cartoon that is a depiction of a Jewish leader using blood for mortar as reminiscent of the blood libel imagery.

119

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:16:36am

re: #118 Buck

Of course there is a difference when you put a large hanging nose on a Jewish leader than when you make any nose red.

There’s a difference in that, like you, it reminded me of antisemitic caricature. That doesn’t make it antisemitic.

AND of course to ignore that he put a sharp blood dripping weapon in the Jewish leaders hand and shows him using the blood of Palestinian women and children would be to ignore the entire history of Blood liable.

The blood libel is an accusation that Jews use the blood of Christians in secret religious ceremonies.

This cartoonist has used blood imagery multiple times. It is not unusual for him to do.

I disagree with the cartoon in terms of taste, what ‘argument’ it has is piss-poor, but how is it not clear that the cartoon is alleging that Bibi is fine with large amounts of Palestinian deaths and spilled blood in protecting Israel?

What you’re saying is amounting to the idea that showing Bibi + blood = blood libel, even though the same cartoonist has showed other leaders metaphorically covered in blood.

You’ll notice that Scarfe’s portrayals of Obama could be said to be calling on racist caricature as well— except it’s obvious that this is just his drawing style.

[Link: jeffreyhill.typepad.com…]

120

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:18:09am

re: #117 Obdicut

I’m sorry if I put words in your mouth. Maybe if you directly answered questions instead of claiming you’d already answered them, it’d help. If you have answered them, just restate the answer clearly.

Do you think Gatestone Institute is worse than CAMERA?

I don’t understand your use of the term “worse”. It is very general, and really means nothing in this context.

Claiming that I already answered them? In most cases I link to when I answered them IN THE SAME THREAD.

#104

I really don’t care about the Gatestone Institute, and I don’t think they give a shit about being banned from here.

#13

Find me ONE statement where CAMERA is pro fascists or even pro bigot.

Seriously? You have spent hours trying to words in my mouth.

Give it up. I am not defending Gatestone, or Fjordman or Neo Nazis, or fascists or any strawman you might want to associate with CAMERA.

121

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:22:18am

re: #120 Buck

I don’t understand your use of the term “worse”. It is very general, and really means nothing in this context.

Okay. You say that you are not arguing about whether or not Gatestone Institute is banned here, but you are objecting to the idea of CAMERA being banned. So I am asking you if that is because you think that Gatestone Institute is worse in some way than CAMERA.

Find me ONE statement where CAMERA is pro fascists or even pro bigot.

I linked an article where, to any reasonable reader, the clear inference is that Sharia itself, inherently— by a ‘strict observation’— mandates oppression of Christians. That’s bigoted, the same as would be saying that ‘strict’ observation of Judaism subjugates those of other religions.

122

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:24:18am

re: #119 Obdicut

Sigh.

The blood libel is an accusation that Jews use the blood of Christians in secret religious ceremonies.

And, in your opinion is that is the only way to apply the term. Strictly Jews using the blood of Christians in secret religious ceremonies. That is it?

Well, if so, then we disagree on that.

This cartoonist has used blood imagery multiple times. It is not unusual for him to do.

Show Bush as a chimp, not racist. Show Obama as a chimp, racist. Get it now?

123

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:27:51am

re: #122 Buck

And, in your opinion is that is the only way to apply the term. Strictly Jews using the blood of Christians in secret religious ceremonies. That is it?

No, but the farther you get from that, the less likely it is to be an example of bood libel. Since this cartoonist often portrays political leaders as bloody, it’s a huge leap to assume he’s referencing the blood libel rather than doing his usual thing— just as it’s a huge leap to think that portraying Bibi the same way he did Margaret Thatcher and Sarkozy is antisemetic.

Show Bush as a chimp, not racist. Show Obama as a chimp, racist. Get it now?

But we’re not talking about that. The features on Bibi are not massively exaggerated, they’re just like on his other pictures. If there was some dude who portrayed all world leaders as chimps and did one of Obama too, it’d be, like this, unfortunate because a lot of people seeing it out of context would jump to the wrong conclusion, but obviously it wouldn’t really be racist.

124

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:34:41am

re: #121 Obdicut

I really don’t want to get into the discussion of the persecution of Christians in Arab and Muslim countries. I mean, you can read the authors evidence and decide for yourself.

You switch from “inference” to “saying”.

The difference is that the “inference” is your opinion. “any reasonable reader” again, your opinion.

The author does not actually say what you say he says. By your own admission he infers it.

BUT you also say it must be clearly said that “Judaism subjugates those of other religions”.

Well, anyone saying that Israel is Apartheid is inferring that Judaism subjugates those of other religions. I mean to “any reasonable reader”.

I mean they cannot show even one true example of actual Apartheid policy (which would be illegal in Israel), but only infer that they detect an Apartheid-like policy.

You have no problem (it seems) with the “inference” in this cartoon. You need it to be clearly stated. It must be very specific. Otherwise it is not bigoted.

125

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:39:20am

re: #124 Buck

I really don’t want to get into the discussion of the persecution of Christians in Arab and Muslim countries. I mean, you can read the authors evidence and decide for yourself.

I did read it. It is really, really, really clearly alleging that Islam causes the persecution of Christians.

Now, Christians persecuted Jews for hundreds of years, and are still doing it. But I wouldn’t ever say that Christianity caused the persecution of Jews, would you?

BUT you also say it must be clearly said that “Judaism subjugates those of other religions”.

No I don’t. I’m not sure why you’re claiming I must be clearly said that Judaism subjugates those of other religions, since I never said that. I said that it would be bigoted to say that.

Can you explain why you’re claiming I said that?

126

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:40:36am

re: #123 Obdicut

I cannot find anything in this post that I agree with. I disagree with every point and every word.

127

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:42:25am

re: #126 Buck

I cannot find anything in this post that I agree with. I disagree with every point and every word.

But can you form any sort of coherent argument as to why anything in it is wrong?

128

Gus Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:43:30am

OK folks. Here’s the rules…

If you disagree with Buck or Camera in that this cartoon is anti-Semitic, that means you’re anti-Semitic as well. It’s just that simple.

129

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:45:19am

re: #125 Obdicut

I did read it. It is really, really, really clearly alleging that Islam causes the persecution of Christians.

Now, Christians persecuted Jews for hundreds of years, and are still doing it. But I wouldn’t ever say that Christianity caused the persecution of Jews, would you?

Ah, ya…..under the same circumstances outlined, of course I would.

No I don’t. I’m not sure why you’re claiming I must be clearly said that Judaism subjugates those of other religions, since I never said that. I said that it would be bigoted to say that.

Can you explain why you’re claiming I said that?

That is not what I am saying at all.

I linked an article where, to any reasonable reader, the clear inference is that Sharia itself, inherently— by a ‘strict observation’— mandates oppression of Christians. That’s bigoted, the same as would be saying that ‘strict’ observation of Judaism subjugates those of other religions.

In the first part of your comparison you use the word “inference”, in the second part of your comparison you use the term “saying”.

This makes your comparison between the two examples invalid (in my opinion).

130

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:50:42am

re: #127 Obdicut

Just like I am not saying that defending the strict observation of the form of Shiara Law, as written in law and practiced in the oppressive Muslim and Islamic countries is bigoted.

I think it is the wrong thing to do, but I can disagree reasonably on this subject.

131

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:51:43am

re: #128 Gus

OK folks. Here’s the rules…

If you disagree with Buck or Camera that this isn’t anti-Semitic, that means your anti-Semitic as well. It’s just that simple.

Nonsense. I have been clear multiple times that I simply disagree.

132

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:52:33am

re: #127 Obdicut

But can you form any sort of coherent argument as to why anything in it is wrong?

Yes, and I have multiple times.

133

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:52:52am

re: #129 Buck

Ah, ya…..under the same circumstances outlined, of course I would.

I’m sorry, what do you mean by ‘the same circumstances outlined’?

And again, you said:

BUT you also say it must be clearly said that “Judaism subjugates those of other religions”.

You are claiming, in that sentence, that I say it must be clearly said that Judaism subjugates those of other religions.

Did you just fuck up when you wrote that, and say something you didn’t mean when you claimed I said that?

134

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:53:47am

re: #132 Buck

Yes, and I have multiple times.

Then just go ahead and copy and paste what you’ve said or something. Because I don’t see anything you’ve said that isn’t just a paraphrase of “Because it resembles antisemitic cartoons, it is an antisemitic cartoon”.

135

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:54:20am

re: #130 Buck

Just like I am not saying that defending the strict observation of the form of Shiara Law, as written in law and practiced in the oppressive Muslim and Islamic countries is bigoted.

I think it is the wrong thing to do, but I can disagree reasonably on this subject.

Who is defending the strict observation of the form of Sharia law etc.?

136

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 8:59:07am

re: #133 Obdicut

“it must be clearly said” = “the same as would be saying” “inference is”

The use of the word “inference” in the first part of your comparison, and “saying” in the second part.

Not an equal comparison. Not the same comparison. An inaccurate comparison.

137

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:01:03am

re: #135 Obdicut

Who is defending the strict observation of the form of Sharia law etc.?

Oh, no one.

But that is what this author is talking about. Not, as you stated, that “which is followed, in one form or another, by all Muslims.”

138

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:06:01am

re: #136 Buck

You are so bad at writing and expressing yourself it’s hard to tell when you’re fucking up because you’re writing badly and when you’re fucking up logically.

I kind of get what you’re saying— you’re claiming that because I used ‘inference’, and that the author of the article never directly claims that Islam itself is the problem, the author isn’t clearly saying that Islam is the root of the persecution of Christians. However, something can be an inference and clearly said at the same time. But sure, I get now that you once again think there’s a double standard at work.

Let me rephrase it:

I linked an article where, to any reasonable reader, the clear inference is that Sharia itself, inherently— by a ‘strict observation’— mandates oppression of Christians. That’s bigoted, the same as would be implying that ‘strict’ observation of Judaism subjugates those of other religions.

The article is bigoted, as it was retweeted from Gatestone Institute by CAMERA.

139

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:09:06am

re: #137 Buck

Oh, no one.

But that is what this author is talking about.

Here is the final paragraph:

Because these accounts of persecution span different ethnicities, languages, and locales—from Morocco in the West, to India in the East, and throughout the West wherever there are Muslims—it should be clear that one thing alone binds them: Islam—whether the strict application of Islamic Sharia law, or the supremacist culture born of it.

According to the author of the piece, what one thing alone binds these accounts of persecution?

140

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:10:15am

re: #134 Obdicut

Then just go ahead and copy and paste what you’ve said or something. Because I don’t see anything you’ve said that isn’t just a paraphrase of “Because it resembles antisemitic cartoons, it is an antisemitic cartoon”.

A Star of David and traditional orthodox garb do not need to be present for something to be considered anti-Semitic. That would be a nice out. Basically allowing the artist to show anything they want, just as long as they don’t show a Star of David or traditional orthodox garb.

Look at the facial features. They don’t look ANYTHING like Benjamin Netanyahu. You might even think they were recycling an old Sharon cartoon.

I am of course surprised that you and others do not see the depiction of a Jewish leader using blood for mortar as reminiscent of the blood libel imagery.

AND BY THE WAY:

Saying that something looks just like something else is a perfectly good argument that it is like that other thing.

141

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:13:42am

re: #139 Obdicut

According to the author of the piece, what one thing alone binds these accounts of persecution?

The strict application of what the tyrant,dictator and Mullahs interpret Islamic Sharia law. What do you think binds these accounts of persecution? The Christians?

142

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:13:52am

re: #140 Buck

AND BY THE WAY:

Saying that something looks just like something else is a perfectly good argument that it is like that other thing.

So saying that the picture of Bibi looks like all the other pictures this guy draws of other world leaders is a perfectly good argument that the picture is just this guy’s art style, correct?

143

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:15:39am

re: #141 Buck

The strict application of what the tyrant,dictator and Mullahs interpret Islamic Sharia law.

Where did you get those other words from? The author said the one thing that binds them is Islam, whether the strict interpretation of Islamic law or supremacist culture born from Islamic law. Right?

What do you think binds these accounts of persecution? The Christians?

I don’t think anything ‘binds’ them, necessarily. Persecution of Christians by other groups exists too, so it’s obviously not something exclusive to Islam.

144

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:17:18am

I don’t think the persecution of Jews by Christians is bound by Christianity, either.

145

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:17:39am

re: #142 Obdicut

So saying that the picture of Bibi looks like all the other pictures this guy draws of other world leaders is a perfectly good argument that the picture is just this guy’s art style, correct?

#118

Really? You want to say that you are reading what I am writing and still wanting to go in circles?

Repeated for those who don’t want to read the whole thread:

Of course there is a difference when you put a large hanging nose on a Jewish leader than when you make any nose red.

AND of course to ignore that he put a sharp blood dripping weapon in the Jewish leaders hand and shows him using the blood of Palestinian women and children would be to ignore the entire history of Blood liable.

THOSE things in combination make this clearly a cartoon that is a depiction of a Jewish leader using blood for mortar as reminiscent of the blood libel imagery.

146

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:23:11am

re: #145 Buck

Buck, what you have there is an assertion. You say that of course it’s different, but you don’t explain why it’s ‘of course’ different. To me, it’s pretty obvious that this guy draws in that style all the time, and so while it is unfortunate that this looks like antisemitic cartoons, it just looks like them. It looks a lot more like this guy’s normal drawing— especially since he uses blood and world leaders a lot. You apparently agree with this line of logic, since you said if two things look like each other, it’s a good argument for them being like each other.

Can you address that actual argument, rather than just reasserting that it’s obvious’ that it’s the blood libel imagery? An argument would involve in some way showing what I said is insufficient or wrong.

147

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:24:01am

re: #144 Obdicut

I don’t think the persecution of Jews by Christians is bound by Christianity, either.

You would not say that the hundreds of years where leaders in Christianity repeated the slander that the “Jews Killed Christ”, something a Pope has apologized for, resulted in Jews being persecuted?

Anyway, it is a false example. There is no ongoing persecution of Jews in Christian states that is anywhere like what is going on to Christians in Muslim and Arabs countries.

148

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:26:07am

re: #146 Obdicut

Buck, what you have there is an assertion. You say that of course it’s different, but you don’t explain why it’s ‘of course’ different. To me, it’s pretty obvious that this guy draws in that style all the time, and so while it is unfortunate that this looks like antisemitic cartoons, it just looks like them. It looks a lot more like this guy’s normal drawing— especially since he uses blood and world leaders a lot. You apparently agree with this line of logic, since you said if two things look like each other, it’s a good argument for them being like each other.

Can you address that actual argument, rather than just reasserting that it’s obvious’ that it’s the blood libel imagery? An argument would involve in some way showing what I said is insufficient or wrong.

All I got is a sharp blood dripping weapon in the Jewish leaders hand and shows him using the blood of Palestinian women and children.

It is enough for me, but clearly not enough for you.

I am not the only one in the world to see this.

149

CuriousLurker Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:49:47am

I have to say that Buck is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I’ve ever had the misfortune to come across.

His (personal) definition of antisemitism is so broad that it could easily include billions of people. He will blindly defend Israel and any person or organization that he deems pro-Israel no matter what the cost, up to and including the destruction of his own personal integrity on the matter.

CAMERA is a pro-Israel advocacy group, therefore Buck will defend them even though they use such sources as the Gatestone Institute, which publishes extremely biased articles by people who are known for their virulent anti-Muslim hatred & bigotry, such as Geert Wilders, Fjordman, Bat Ye’or, etc.

He uses the excuse that there are Muslims who write for Gatestone, as if their willingness to be associated with the above mentioned anti-Muslim bigots doesn’t reflect poorly on their integrity as “impartial” journalists. In some cases, such as with M. Zuhdi Jasser, those Muslims are known to be in league with people & organizations on the far-right who are actively engaged in activities designed to harm fellow Muslims through fear mongering campaigns that are eerily reminiscent of those used against Jews in the past.

Of course, if the same excuse was applied to Jews who associate with antisemites, Buck would never in a million years accept it, and rightfully so, which makes his double standard all the more immoral & loathsome.

In the past I’ve tried to find something to like about Buck—maybe he’s a wonderful father, a loyal friend…maybe one day he’ll talk to one of us as if he actually considers that person to be an intelligent human being whose opinions are valid—but, alas, in 3 years I’ve never seen it happen, and I’m now convinced it never will. He’ll continue to treat anyone who disagrees with him not as a sentient person of value, but rather as a faceless, ill-intentioned opponent to be defeated using smears, innuendo, confusion, or any number of the other tricks he pulls out of his bag, until the person walks away in exhaustion or irritated disgust.

Nothing Buck has ever said has made me see Israel in a more positive light. NOTHING. EVER. I distrust him 150%. It is others who have helped me learn by being open, kind, respectful and answering my questions honestly & thoroughly. Those people have my thanks & mutual respect.

I guess I’m done with this thread now. *sigh*

150

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:50:16am

re: #147 Buck

You would not say that the hundreds of years where leaders in Christianity repeated the slander that the “Jews Killed Christ”, something a Pope has apologized for, resulted in Jews being persecuted?
.

Of course I would. That’s something those leaders in Christianity did. It wasn’t because of Christianity.

Anyway, it is a false example. There is no ongoing persecution of Jews in Christian states that is anywhere like what is going on to Christians in Muslim and Arabs countries.

No, but there also hasn’t been a massacre of millions of Jews by Muslims, unlike by Christians, in the past century.

151

Vicious Babushka Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:51:22am

Buck has a real bad case of I MUST GET IN THE LAST WORD AT ALL TIMES. Therefore, to engage him is folly. It’s letting the troll win.

152

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:51:40am

re: #148 Buck

All I got is a sharp blood dripping weapon in the Jewish leaders hand and shows him using the blood of Palestinian women and children.

It is enough for me, but clearly not enough for you.

I am not the only one in the world to see this.

Yes, I do see that you don’t have an argument, just an assertion. I also see you can’t deal with your own argument— you’ve said that when something looks like something else, that’s a good argument for it being like that other thing. This picture looks more like Scarfe’s other drawings than it does a Jewish caricature.

153

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 9:52:41am

re: #151 Vicious Babushka

Buck has a real bad case of I MUST GET IN THE LAST WORD AT ALL TIMES. Therefore, to engage him is folly. It’s letting the troll win.

I think it elucidates some topics reasonably well to have him dance around them for awhile.

The funniest was when Sergey and I were trying to tell him his favorite archaeologist was like 50 years out of date, and he just couldn’t deal with the idea of the field of archaeology progressing.

154

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 10:14:12am

re: #149 CuriousLurker

Of course, if the same excuse was applied to Jews who associate with antisemites, Buck would never in a million years accept it, and rightfully so, which makes his double standard all the more immoral & loathsome.

This is not true, but actually reversed.

In the past I’ve tried to find something to like about Buck—maybe he’s a wonderful father, a loyal friend…maybe one day he’ll talk to one of us as if he actually considers that person to be an intelligent human being whose opinions are valid—but, alas, in 3 years I’ve never seen it happen, and I’m now convinced it never will.

You have never tried to get to know me, and you have hidden yourself from me.

You don’t really know my views and from very early on have told me that you don’t want to.

155

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 10:16:21am

re: #153 Obdicut

The funniest was when Sergey and I were trying to tell him his favorite archaeologist was like 50 years out of date

Again a lie, putting words in my mouth. It was not my favorite archaeologist. It was one of many that I listed. You wanted to invalidate the entire argument based on the fact that you could find some who disagreed with him. You wanted to make everything he did invalid, and I (very reasonably) argued that was not true.

156

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 10:32:13am

re: #155 Buck

Again a lie, putting words in my mouth. It was not my favorite archaeologist. It was one of many that I listed. You wanted to invalidate the entire argument based on the fact that you could find some who disagreed with him. You wanted to make everything he did invalid, and I (very reasonably) argued that was not true.

Nope. The other people you listed weren’t archaeologists, they were christian ministry types. The one archaeologist you mentioned is indeed very out of date, and his timeline has been overturned. Claiming that I wanted to make everything he did invalid is a very silly lie, since I said that his greatest achievement was as a teacher, and that he inspired an entire generation of biblical archaeologists who did amazing work in the Middle East. Their work also happened to invalidate his timeline and his other major theories.

It is not unusual for an archaeologists entire work to be overturned. It doesn’t mean that they were bad, or wrong, or did anything incorrectly, just that new information has come to light. This is scientific progress. In his particular case I do think his evangelical Christianity led him to hopeful conclusions, but that’s a side point because the heart and soul of field archaelogy— scrupulus, detailed, accurate records of what he found and where he found it— he did excellently and he instilled that same engine of excellence into his students.

157

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 10:35:27am

re: #152 Obdicut

Yes, I do see that you don’t have an argument, just an assertion. I also see you can’t deal with your own argument— you’ve said that when something looks like something else, that’s a good argument for it being like that other thing. This picture looks more like Scarfe’s other drawings than it does a Jewish caricature.

No, my argument is that when you add an exaggerated long nose to a Jewish leader AND place a sharp blood dripping weapon in the Jewish leaders hand AND show him using the blood of Palestinian women and children AND consider the long and well documented history of using the imagery of using Jewish victims blood in Antisemitic cartoons you have a strong combination of FACTS that lead me to believe that this is another example of an Antisemitic cartoon.

Each FACT on it’s own might be an assertion. However all together, knowing the history, I am making an argument.

One you disagree with.

158

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 10:38:29am

re: #156 Obdicut

Nope. The other people you listed weren’t archaeologists

I do not think that is true. However if you really want to bring up past debates and re-debate them I am ready and willing.

It seems idiotic, but you make the rules.

159

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 10:38:41am

re: #157 Buck

No, my argument is that when you add an exaggerated long nose to a Jewish leader AND place a sharp blood dripping weapon in the Jewish leaders hand AND show him using the blood of Palestinian women and children AND consider the long and well documented history of using the imagery of using Jewish victims blood in Antisemitic cartoons you have a strong combination of FACTS that lead me to believe that this is another example of an Antisemitic cartoon.

That’s not an argument, Buck. I know you think it is, but it’s an assertion. What you’re not dealing with is the greater similarity between this cartoon and the same cartoonists other cartoons, than between this cartoon and other antisemitic pictures.

That’s the fact you’re ignoring. In order to make a coherent argument, you have to deal with the fact that this guy portrayed other people with much longer noses than he gave Bibi, other people with much bigger ears, etc. Look at the way he portrayed Sarkozy, above.

Until you deal with the fact that this is the cartoonist’s style, you aren’t actually making an argument that relates to this cartoon.

160

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 10:40:38am

re: #158 Buck

I do not think that is true. However if you really want to bring up past debates and re-debate them I am ready and willing.

It seems idiotic, but you make the rules.

Well, you did cite another archaeologist, but unfortunately he conceded Albright’s timeline was inaccurate, so it wasn’t the best example.

Why do you say I make the rules, Buck?

161

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 10:58:25am

re: #160 Obdicut

Well, you did cite another archaeologist, but unfortunately he conceded Albright’s timeline was inaccurate, so it wasn’t the best example.

Why do you say I make the rules, Buck?

So, you did lie. Not only did I not say that any were my favorite, but I did name more than one.

Again. Just keep putting words in my mouth and hope everyone believes you.

So one example would be William F. Albright.
Reading multiple books like Archaeology and Bible History, Joseph Free and Howard Vos.

William Foxwell Albright (May 24, 1891 – September 19, 1971) was an American archaeologist.

The late Joseph P. Free was chairman of the department of archaeology at Wheaton College, and later, professor of archaeology and history at Bemidji State

Howard F. Vos is currently Emeritus Professor of History and Archaeology at The King’s College in New York. He has traveled extensively in the Bible lands and excavated many sites in Israel.

AND even that is not everything on the subject, just a small list.

This was a discussion on accepting Abraham as a historical entity. You wanted me to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt for you in a thread. I really didn’t think that was necessary. I am allowed to believe it and you don’t have to.

162

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 11:13:14am

re: #159 Obdicut

What you’re not dealing with is the greater similarity between this cartoon and the same cartoonists other cartoons, than between this cartoon and other antisemitic pictures.

Actually I did deal with exactly that.

I said “Show Bush as a chimp, not racist. Show Obama as a chimp, racist.”

163

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 11:13:29am

re: #161 Buck

So, you did lie. Not only did I not say that any were my favorite, but I did name more than one.

I apologize, you did reference two other academics, both of whom are also retired and out of date, and who were even more fervent Evangelical Christians than Albright was— they set out with the explicit goal of establishing the historicity of the bible, not a neutral approach. I apologize for that. What I was thinking of was the biographical history that you referenced which you claimed said that many of his conclusions were still standing, but, alas, said the opposite.

This was a discussion on accepting Abraham as a historical entity. You wanted me to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt for you in a thread. I really didn’t think that was necessary. I am allowed to believe it and you don’t have to.

No, that’s a very dishonest portrayal of my position, unsurprisingly. I asked you why you believed in the historicity of Abraham, and you said it was because of the chronology established by the description of towns in the Torah. I didn’t ask you to prove anything beyond a shadow of the doubt. The neutral position is not to assume Abraham existed, because we don’t assume every figure mentioned in ancient histories actually existed. Your entire basis for Abraham turned out to be the now-outdated archaeological evidence of the description of certain towns— which, even if the descriptions of towns were correct, wouldn’t prove the historicity of Abraham.

164

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 11:15:52am

re: #162 Buck

Actually I did deal with exactly that.

I said “Show Bush as a chimp, not racist. Show Obama as a chimp, racist.”

But you didn’t deal with the fact that most cartoonists don’t portray all world leaders as chimps. If you do it only rarely as a caricature, then it’s not your normal style. If an artist always portrayed world leaders as chimps, only a fool would assume his portrayal of Obama as a chimp was racist. If the same guy just did Bush and Obama as chimps, it’s really questionable. But if he’d done almost everyone he ever did like that, then obviously it was just his style.

So sorry, you did provide an argument but again, it was incomplete because it didn’t fit the facts.

165

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 11:20:05am

re: #163 Obdicut

No, that’s a very dishonest portrayal of my position, unsurprisingly. I asked you why you believed in the historicity of Abraham, and you said it was because of the chronology established by the description of towns in the Torah.

When ever you tell me what I said, you just make shit up.

That was NOT really what I said. My argument was not so simple and had a lot more to it. You got stuck on chronology, I didn’t.

166

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 11:22:36am

re: #164 Obdicut

But you didn’t deal with the fact that most cartoonists don’t portray all world leaders as chimps. If you do it only rarely as a caricature, then it’s not your normal style. If an artist always portrayed world leaders as chimps, only a fool would assume his portrayal of Obama as a chimp was racist. If the same guy just did Bush and Obama as chimps, it’s really questionable. But if he’d done almost everyone he ever did like that, then obviously it was just his style.

So sorry, you did provide an argument but again, it was incomplete because it didn’t fit the facts.

It is not incomplete, it is just different than yours.

If an artist always portrayed world leaders as chimps, only a fool would assume his portrayal of Obama as a chimp was racist.

In this case the artist would have to ALWAYS make his faces with long droopy noses AND use the blood of children.

Not often, BUT to use your word… ALWAYS.

167

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 11:54:08am

re: #165 Buck

That was NOT really what I said. My argument was not so simple and had a lot more to it..

No, it really didn’t. You never provided any more evidence even though I asked you to. As far as I recall you never cited any other reason to believe in the historicity of Abraham.

168

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 11:55:51am

re: #166 Buck

It is not incomplete, it is just different than yours.

In this case the artist would have to ALWAYS make his faces with long droopy noses AND use the blood of children.

Not often, BUT to use your word… ALWAYS.

Why not ‘often’ but always? I don’t get it. It doesn’t really change much if the guy does it really often or does it always. He always draws in caricature, so there’s an always, if you really need one.

169

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 12:08:20pm

re: #167 Obdicut

You never provided any more evidence

Exactly, I didn’t prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Exactly what I said you wanted.

No amount of “evidence” would satisfy you.

Why not ‘often’ but always? I don’t get it.

Because that is the way you couched the chimp comparison. You used the word always.

This artist HAS NEVER made his faces with long droopy noses AND using the blood of children. Not always or often. This combination he reserved for holocaust memorial day. This combination he reserved for a Jewish leader. This combination he put together special.

In my opinion. Yours is different.

Enjoy.

170

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 12:09:54pm

re: #169 Buck

Exactly, I didn’t prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Exactly what I said you wanted.

Er, no, Buck. The only evidence you gave was the stuff about the correct descriptions of towns, and that was thrown heavily into doubt because you were citing an archaelogist whose chronology has been disproved.

Asking you to cite more than that is not asking you to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is really bizarre that you think it is.

171

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 12:11:46pm

re: #169 Buck

This artist HAS NEVER made his faces with long droopy noses AND using the blood of children. .

Except for when he drew Margaret Thatcher biting the head off someone, of course. Also, it’s clearly not just children that he’s using the blood of.

Like you, when I first saw it, I thought it was antisemitic. Then I looked at his other drawings, saw that that was just how he drew, and adjusted my position.

Maybe one day you’ll have a look at something and actually come away with an opinion changed, too.

172

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 12:12:24pm

re: #167 Obdicut

As far as I recall you never cited any other reason to believe in the historicity of Abraham.

Well, your recollection has failed you.

The truth is I didn’t provide ENOUGH.

When I mention the title of a book, and in that book is more than a chapter on the subject, then all of those reasons should be included.

I said, a few times that I didn’t think it was possible to satisfy you. AND I didn’t feel it was necessary to.

The only evidence you gave was the stuff about the correct descriptions of towns

False. That was one point only.

173

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 12:27:55pm

re: #172 Buck

Well, your recollection has failed you.

The truth is I didn’t provide ENOUGH.

When I mention the title of a book, and in that book is more than a chapter on the subject, then all of those reasons should be included.

That book was written by evangelical Christians, using outdated archaeological research, and they expressly set out to prove the historicity of a bible. It’s not a serious academic work, and the basis for it has been discredited.

There really aren’t any modern non-zealous academics who think there is anything remotely approaching proof of the historicity of Abraham.

174

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 12:39:10pm

re: #173 Obdicut

That book was written by evangelical Christians, using outdated archaeological research, and they expressly set out to prove the historicity of a bible. It’s not a serious academic work, and the basis for it has been discredited.

There really aren’t any modern non-zealous academics who think there is anything remotely approaching proof of the historicity of Abraham.

Yes yes yes,
I didn’t provide ENOUGH.

Got it, that is what I said.

The people who I mention in my #161 disagree, but you know better.

It doesn’t matter what they did, or what their education or position was. They were evangelical Christians! That means they were idiots. No one respects them. Nothing they said or did is worthy.

Got it. We did this already.

Nevermind that this is something that can’t actually be proved (one way or the other) or that IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE.

You don’t want absolute proof, just enough to convince you and everyone else.

175

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 12:53:51pm

re: #174 Buck

Got it, that is what I said.

No, you claimed I wanted you to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You offered basically no valid evidence; out of date archaelogical research and polemical books by creationist evangelical Christians.

It doesn’t matter what they did, or what their education or position was. They were evangelical Christians! That means they were idiots. No one respects them. Nothing they said or did is worthy.

No, it means that since they explicitly set out to prove the hsitoricity, rather than starting from a neutral position, they need to be viewed acknowledging that. In the case of Albright, it showed in that while he did great archaeological work, most of his theories— which were to prove the historicity of the bible— were disproved.

Nevermind that this is something that can’t actually be proved (one way or the other) or that IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE.

There isn’t any particular reason to believe in the historicity of Abraham. It doesn’t matter that it can’t be firmly disproved, either, because the contention that he existed is the one making the case, not the one that he didn’t. The assumption is that myths are myths, not that they’re real.

I have no idea what you (all-caps, bro?) mean by ‘it doesn’t have to be’. There isn’t any scientific reason to believe in the historicity of Abraham. There are religious ones.

176

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 1:02:03pm

re: #175 Obdicut

I have no idea what you (all-caps, bro?) mean by ‘it doesn’t have to be’.

I mean that anything more than point/counter point should be enough. I mean really…..

There isn’t any scientific reason to believe in the historicity of Abraham. There are religious ones.

Yes, that is your position. Mine is different.

177

Obdicut Tue, Jan 29, 2013 1:09:48pm

re: #176 Buck

Yes, that is your position. Mine is different.

It’s not just my position, Buck, it’s the consensus of the academic field. You believe in an out-of-date theory about the chronology of the patriarchs that has been disproved.

178

CuriousLurker Tue, Jan 29, 2013 1:13:57pm

re: #154 Buck

You have never tried to get to know me, and you have hidden yourself from me.

You don’t really know my views and from very early on have told me that you don’t want to.

That’s because I watched LGF before I joined and I realized very early on that you have two basic modes: aggressive/attacker and defensive/victim. No middle ground. No shades of gray. No reaching out to anyone for a casual give & take. Not even so much as a “Hi, long time no see. How have you been?” or “Congratulations!” or “I’m sorry for your loss.” These small civilities are the foundations that communities, understanding, and sometimes even friendships are built on. Every discussion with you becomes a marathon battle of wills

Maybe you’re not here for any of the above, and that’s fine, but in that case you shouldn’t expect to be treated as a valued member of the community if you’re not willing to extend the same to others. You just look like a troll.

The only occasions I ever saw you behave in a way I could even remotely relate to was when your father was sick. The first was a long time ago, when I was still new here. You had mentioned it at night, so I made a point of braving the “morning wingnut wave”—when Mandy was still here, no less—to let the conservatives know that maybe it would be a good thing for them to ask Hoops to put your dad on his prayer list. That’s what people do when they’re part of a community and give a damn about each other, Buck.

I don’t know what ever happened with your dad, but the second occasion was when you came back at a later date and said he was very ill. Pretty much everyone offered prayers, good thoughts, and compassion, regardless of their personal feelings about you or how you’d treated them in the past. I don’t know whatever happened with your dad as I don’t recall seeing you say anything else about him, but if you lost him, then I’m sorry for that.

If you don’t want people to recoil and “hide” themselves from you, then try dialing back aggressive confrontation & assumptions and actually talking to people, instead of at them. Or don’t, and just tell me that I’ve got you all wrong and shouldn’t believe my lying eyes. It’s up to you.

179

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 1:33:54pm

re: #178 CuriousLurker

I have been here a long time. Probably started around late 2001/ beginning of 2002.

Yes, most of the people who I considered part of my community are gone.

I have had an open mind about everyone here. I only feel attacked by two people.

You want to paint me as an outsider? Fine. A troll… well that would depend on your definition I suppose.

BUT all of that is YOU judging me.

I can’t just be someone who has a different opinion, I must be a troll.

You like to tell me (without really knowing) what I think of you. Other than that you are hostile to me, you always get it wrong.

You ask me questions, but refuse to answer my questions.

I am a real person. My picture is in my profile, my phone number and address are one click away. I am an open book.

I am not a cartoon. The things you assume about me are wrong.

IN THIS THREAD alone, I have shown that Obdicut put words in my mouth and misrepresented my views more than half a dozen times.
That isn’t an accident. It can’t be.

Yes, I am attacked and bullied. At one time by LVQ, today by Obdicut who keeps saying that nothing I say is relevant. No matter what, it is his position that I have no position. Over and over.
That isn’t an accident. It can’t be.

You can find out anything you want to about me. I am not hiding behind an anonymous profile.

You want to know something about me? Just ask. Whenever I have asked you almost anything, you have shut me down in a rude way.

That is a fact. You admit to pre judging me, even before you joined.

180

CuriousLurker Tue, Jan 29, 2013 1:36:52pm

re: #179 Buck

Yeah, I figured it would be hopeless. Thanks for confirming that.

181

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 1:39:56pm

Oh, and my Dad died on February 11th 2011. I posted that news as well. It was six months after I posted that he was sick.

I was with him everyday for the last six months of his life, as he slowly succumbed to brain cancer. I was with him in his final moment.

182

Shvaughn Tue, Jan 29, 2013 1:40:37pm

re: #19 Buck

I don’t play the (again double standard) connect the dots game that you do.

If you don’t play the connect-the-dots game at all, then why are you accusing her of “joining up” with unspecified someones?

183

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 1:59:06pm

re: #180 CuriousLurker

Right… that is you deciding what I did was not good enough. My response was clearly not what you would accept so you call me hopeless.

184

Buck Tue, Jan 29, 2013 2:00:41pm

re: #182 Shvaughn

If you don’t play the connect-the-dots game at all, then why are you accusing her of “joining up” with unspecified someones?

You know what? That was 100 years ago. It has been beaten to death. You do not understand what I meant by either term.

185

CuriousLurker Tue, Jan 29, 2013 2:12:54pm

re: #183 Buck

Right… that is you deciding what I did was not good enough. My response was clearly not what you would accept so you call me hopeless.

Thanks for providing another example of why I (usually) won’t talk to you. I said, verbatim, “Yeah, I figured it would be hopeless.”

The word “it” is used to represent:

Inanimate objects
A person or animal whose gender is unknown
A group (such as a jury)
A concept or abstract idea
An action or activity

[Link: dictionary.reference.com…]

Since we’re both native speakers of English, we both understood that “it” couldn’t possibly be a reference to you because you are none of the things above, therefore I was not saying that you are hopeless. You’re flat out lying in a effort to make yourself into a victim of mean old CL.

Goodbye, Buck. We won’t be chatting again. Have a nice life.

186

Aligarr Thu, Jan 31, 2013 11:28:05am

Man !! Is the inquisition over ? GOOD ! The cartoon was anti-semitic and anti-Israel .
All the above blather is wasted band-width .

187

Aligarr Thu, Jan 31, 2013 11:44:51am

BTW , I have no problem with Camera . There’s a difference between recognizing anti-semitism , criticizing the palestinians , being pro-Israel / and the islamophobia of Geller , Spencer and other assorted bigoted groups .
It seems everyone’s overdoing the ” I’m not one of them ” routine .

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!