Simon Wiesenthal Center: Top 10 Anti-Semites, Israel-Haters for 2012

Originally posted by sonnny1

I wonder how many folks really have delved into the subject, and taken the time to actually see where they really stand. The perception might be taken another way, unfortunately.

It seems to me that even just using the word "Zionism" implies anti-zionism and thereby anti-semitism.

There was an institution in the US called American Zionist Council (AZC) formed in 1949. JFK forced the AZC to register as a foreign agent, taking away its legal ability to give contributions to public officials. American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was formed in 1963 and no one has ever attempted to make AIPAC register as a foreign agent.

Tom Dine, its former executive director stated that, although he hoped the day would come when Israeli leaders (and hence the lobby) would be ready for "compromise," he did not think a president could make Israel do anything it didn't want to do given the power of the organization he led and "our friends in Congress."

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by sonnny1

 

There are some that would disagree with you.

Wikipedia disagrees with me

Now my day is ruined

By the way, you may have missed this part of your source that you provided:

This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Please help improve this article by checking for inaccuracies. (help, talk, get involved!) (May 2011)

Come now......

You have NEVER used it as a source????





I still find this relevant.

anti-Zionism is analytically distinct from anti-Semitism, but much apparent criticism of Israel or Zionism is in fact a thinly veiled expression of anti-Semitism.

Say it isn't so?

reply to post by sonnny1


Yes, I have used Wikipedia as a source as long as the information they provide is properly sourced.

I still find this relevant.

anti-Zionism is analytically distinct from anti-Semitism, but much apparent criticism of Israel or Zionism is in fact a thinly veiled expression of anti-Semitism.

Say it isn't so?

I completely disagree and I find it irrelevant.

Again...



People need to learn the difference. Criticsm of Zionism or Israeli atrocities IS NOT thinly veiled Anti-Semitism no matter which way you try and twist it.

Come on Sonny, you know better than to echo this non sense.

reply to post by sonnny1


I think Corruption Exposed has out done you. You lost the exchange, your zionist agenda is clearly transparent and you convince no one.

anti-Zionism is analytically distinct from anti-Semitism, but much apparent criticism of Israel or Zionism is in fact a thinly veiled expression of anti-Semitism.

That external quote is an abuse of genuine and honourable people who are rightfully concerned about the racist zionist ideology that has hijacked the world's peace.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

People need to learn the difference. Criticsm of Zionism or Israeli atrocities IS NOT thinly veiled Anti-Semitism no matter which way you try and twist it.

Well, for the benefit of those who do not have your level of understanding, perhaps you can explain the difference. You could start with your definition of "Zionism," and explain what aspects of it you find objectionable. You can then explain what your understanding of "Anti-Semitism" is, and why you find its most commonly accepted usage to be wrong. You can then apply this understanding to the article you linked to, explaining why you feel the Wiesenthal Center's opinions are wrong. This would be an ideal way o keep this thread on topic. You do want this thread to stay on topic, don't you?

Oops. Never mind.

You don't have to be Jewish to be a zionist. Anyone can be a zionist. I've heard of Christian zionists, I've not heard of Muslim zionists but there could be one somewhere. Anyone of any religion or non believers can be zionist.

Just because someone is Jewish does not mean they are zionist. Many Jews are against zionism.

Anti semitism is purported to be about Jews, though actually is about semites, but the term has been hijacked by zionists.

I hate Israel. I think Simon Wiesenthal, and all the filth just like him (yeah I'm talking about YOU Abe Foxman) are nothing but hate-mongers. Look at institutions like AIPAC, and this Simon Wiesenthal Center... they perpetrate antisemitism. Every day they bring it to the forefront, accusing anyone and everyone of being an anti-Semite. They don't even understand what a Semite is. Yet they continue to make money hand over fist 'defending' the Jews and Israel.

Personally I think this Center, along with AIPAC should have to register as a foreign agency of Israel. But they never will... because it would mean no more free money for them. No more free will to steal US Secrets and hand them over to Israel.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

People need to learn the difference. Criticsm of Zionism or Israeli atrocities IS NOT thinly veiled Anti-Semitism no matter which way you try and twist it.

I beg to differ.

No matter which way ANYONE trys to twist it, there are those whos bigotries are veiled.

Its not black and white, and you know it. There is grey inbetween them.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

People need to learn the difference. Criticsm of Zionism or Israeli atrocities IS NOT thinly veiled Anti-Semitism no matter which way you try and twist it.

I beg to differ.

No matter which way ANYONE trys to twist it, there are those whos bigotries are veiled.

Its not black and white, and you know it. There is grey inbetween them.

Whatever dude.

Interesting you say "twist it" because this is what you are trying to do. You must be sublimating,

When as a zionist you complain about racism, it is like a professional burglar complaining about the competition.

Your claim that critics of the race specific political ideology called zionism are racist is not accepted. It is a none debate you are trying to initiate as if we have to be on the defense.

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie

Interesting you say "twist it" because this is what you are trying to do.

I used CE's word, the word he used was Twist.

If you cant understand that people hide their veiled bigotry , then I dont know what to say.

Its too bad we cant discuss it, without you "fingerpointing".

Peace.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
People need to learn the difference. Criticsm of Zionism or Israeli atrocities IS NOT thinly veiled Anti-Semitism no matter which way you try and twist it.

Exactly. The credibility of Simon Wiesenthal and the Simon Wiesenthal Center has been seriously questioned in this thread.

But I will say another thing: I believe in free speech, not hate speech.

Originally posted by DJW001

Well, for the benefit of those who do not have your level of understanding, perhaps you can explain the difference. You could start with your definition of "Zionism," and explain what aspects of it you find objectionable. You can then explain what your understanding of "Anti-Semitism" is, and why you find its most commonly accepted usage to be wrong. You can then apply this understanding to the article you linked to, explaining why you feel the Wiesenthal Center's opinions are wrong. This would be an ideal way o keep this thread on topic. You do want this thread to stay on topic, don't you?

Let me give it a try.

Zionism/Zionist is not: Jewish (however many jewish people were manipulated to buy into this false concept)

Zionism = a conspiracy by a small minority to motivate masses of people to move to a foreign land in order to create wars. Wars are being used by governments to control the masses. Religious beliefs are used for that purpose.

Anti-Semitism = a racist ideology, similar to white supremacy, that promotes hate. While hate speech is unpleasant, the criteria to be applied is whether it inflicts harm. If harm has occured there is a legal system to receive compensation. If Freedom of Speech is voided, then any criticism of anybody must become illegal, not exclusively that against semites.

Anti-Semitism is not: criticism of actions by jewish people, and of Israel, particularly with regards to policy, especially foreign policy and the policy regarding Palestinians. Freedom of speech is particularly important when it comes to politics and religion.

watch the hands of Joe Biden www.youtube.com...

I believe the act of criticising anything remotely Jewish should be met with the death penalty.

They are special and as they continually state they are hated because of this.


If a person defrauds and happens to be Jewish ...he should not be punished..this is anti semitism.

If Israeli soldiers lined up Arab villagers in 47/48 and shot them dead, they cannot be condemned, because this would make the condemners anti -semites...

No you cannot criticise anyone for anything if they are Jewish, lest you be a bigot, a Nazi,.

And so" the evil hiding behind God does thrive"..

I love all you , who wouldn't even touch me lest , you dine with swine.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

Zionism/Zionist is not: Jewish (however many jewish people were manipulated to buy into this false concept)

Hmmm.... True, Zionism is a philosophy that can be subscribed to by people who are not Jewish, true. But I'm not sure about your use of the word "manipulated" here.

Zionism = a conspiracy by a small minority to motivate masses of people to move to a foreign land in order to create wars. Wars are being used by governments to control the masses. Religious beliefs are used for that purpose.

No, that's not what Zionism actually means; but thank you for providing an insight into what you think it is. Presumably, you believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an authentic document.

Anti-Semitism = a racist ideology, similar to white supremacy, that promotes hate. While hate speech is unpleasant, the criteria to be applied is whether it inflicts harm. If harm has occured there is a legal system to receive compensation. If Freedom of Speech is voided, then any criticism of anybody must become illegal, not exclusively that against semites.

Interesting. Your definition of Anti-Semitism is good, but I find it interesting that you find hate speech objectionable only if it is effective. I agree that Freedom of Speech is important, provided that it comes with a corresponding responsibility. To keep the discussion on topic: the people and organizations that the Wiesenthal Center criticize have every right to make the sort of statements they do, and the Wiesenthal Center has every right to criticize them for what they said.

Anti-Semitism is not: criticism of actions by jewish people, and of Israel, particularly with regards to policy, especially foreign policy and the policy regarding Palestinians. Freedom of speech is particularly important when it comes to politics and religion.

On the other hand, those with an irrational hatred of all things Jewish will naturally be critical of anything and everything that Jews, individually or collectively, do. Therefore, although many people who are not Anti-Semitic can find cause to criticize the State of Israel and its policies, Anti-Semites will always criticize the State of Israel, its policies and its citizens. The very existence of Jews is a Jewish state would be objectionable to an Anti-Semite. Therefore, clearly, not everyone who criticizes Israel in an Anti-Semite, but all Anti-Semites will be critical of Israel.

watch the hands of Joe Biden www.youtube.com...

Oh dear. Seeing secret Illuminati hand signals, are we?

reply to post by DJW001

Previous: Zionism/Zionist is not: Jewish (however many jewish people were manipulated to buy into this false concept)

You: .... True, Zionism is a philosophy that can be subscribed to by people who are not Jewish, true. But I'm not sure about your use of the word "manipulated" here.

Here is why I said "manipulated". Jewish people were discriminated against but they were living with it. Then came a mass movement, not because they all had the same idea at the same time. That only leaves that some people put certain things in motion that caused like a snowball effect.

P: Zionism = a conspiracy by a small minority to motivate masses of people to move to a foreign land in order to create wars. Wars are being used by governments to control the masses. Religious beliefs are used for that purpose.

Y: No, that's not what Zionism actually means; but thank you for providing an insight into what you think it is. Presumably, you believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an authentic document.

What I gave what not the dictionary definition, we can look that up, I gave what it implies, what it is (IMO: a conspiracy). As you noted below, I observe and draw conclusions from the observation, rather than "go with the flow". Just because something is the accepted belief by most people that is not a strong argument for its truth, in my view. If you scream "Fire" in a crowded theater, there is a good chance people will die. As with the mass movement, people are easy to misdirect. (Outside of this discussion, I encourage you to remember that governments use wars to control the masses.)

P: Anti-Semitism = a racist ideology, similar to white supremacy, that promotes hate. While hate speech is unpleasant, the criteria to be applied is whether it inflicts harm. If harm has occured there is a legal system to receive compensation. If Freedom of Speech is voided, then any criticism of anybody must become illegal, not exclusively that against semites.

Y: Interesting. Your definition of Anti-Semitism is good, but I find it interesting that you find hate speech objectionable only if it is effective. I agree that Freedom of Speech is important, provided that it comes with a corresponding responsibility. To keep the discussion on topic: the people and organizations that the Wiesenthal Center criticize have every right to make the sort of statements they do, and the Wiesenthal Center has every right to criticize them for what they said.

I did not say, or did not mean to say, that I don't find it objectionable (distasteful), only that it should not be illegal when it (physically or financially) hurts/damages somebody (IMO). I left the door open for those who feel strongly that it should be illegal - if they are willing to submit themselves to the same standard - but how can you set a standard that is verifyable? We need to be consistent before anything else.

P: Anti-Semitism is not: criticism of actions by jewish people, and of Israel, particularly with regards to policy, especially foreign policy and the policy regarding Palestinians. Freedom of speech is particularly important when it comes to politics and religion.

Y: On the other hand, those with an irrational hatred of all things Jewish will naturally be critical of anything and everything that Jews, individually or collectively, do. Therefore, although many people who are not Anti-Semitic can find cause to criticize the State of Israel and its policies, Anti-Semites will always criticize the State of Israel, its policies and its citizens. The very existence of Jews is a Jewish state would be objectionable to an Anti-Semite. Therefore, clearly, not everyone who criticizes Israel in an Anti-Semite, but all Anti-Semites will be critical of Israel.

... and because not everyone who criticizes Israel is an Anti-Semite you cannot make it illegal. You can respond in kind, but notice that if hate begets hate it is a vicious circle. It is like saying people will always hate the US because the US is the superpower and people hate when somebody is more powerful than they are. Therefore, hate of America should be illegal. No it should not. People should have the right to burn the flag.

P: watch the hands of Joe Biden
Y: Oh dear. Seeing secret Illuminati hand signals, are we?

I see his signal and I hear his voice. You can mark it off as meaningless (even what he says) but I have come to believe that symbols are very powerful. You see many of them in any church. Governments use many of them on their banknotes, architecture, the obelisks, even the layout of the streets in Washington DC. We shake hands because it is a symbol, we would not do it if it had no meaning. Mr Biden's hands are expressing a message just as are his words.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

Here is why I said "manipulated". Jewish people were discriminated against but they were living with it. Then came a mass movement, not because they all had the same idea at the same time. That only leaves that some people put certain things in motion that caused like a snowball effect.

I suggest you read up on the history of Zionism. It was an organized movement that gained momentum in the late Nineteenth Century. Most of the Jews in Central and Eastern Europe who could, tended to migrate to America. Those who wished to "return" to Israel held public conferences to discuss how they could do it and what sort of government and economy Israel should have when they got their nationhood. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed during the First World War, Jews who were convinced that a Jewish homeland in the Levant was the best solution to the "Jewish Problem" began to purchase land in the Palestinian Mandate territories. Prominent Jewish leaders lobbied the British government to make the territory into a Jewish state. All of this was done quite openly.

What I gave what not the dictionary definition, we can look that up, I gave what it implies, what it is (IMO: a conspiracy). As you noted below, I observe and draw conclusions from the observation, rather than "go with the flow". Just because something is the accepted belief by most people that is not a strong argument for its truth, in my view. If you scream "Fire" in a crowded theater, there is a good chance people will die. As with the mass movement, people are easy to misdirect. (Outside of this discussion, I encourage you to remember that governments use wars to control the masses.)

But your observation seems to be biased in favor of things you cannot actually see.

I did not say, or did not mean to say, that I don't find it objectionable (distasteful), only that it should not be illegal when it (physically or financially) hurts/damages somebody (IMO). I left the door open for those who feel strongly that it should be illegal - if they are willing to submit themselves to the same standard - but how can you set a standard that is verifyable? We need to be consistent before anything else.

Fair enough. I have always believed that people with bigoted views should be allowed to talk as much as they like, so that people can see how stupid and shallow they are.

... and because not everyone who criticizes Israel is an Anti-Semite you cannot make it illegal. You can respond in kind, but notice that if hate begets hate it is a vicious circle. It is like saying people will always hate the US because the US is the superpower and people hate when somebody is more powerful than they are. Therefore, hate of America should be illegal. No it should not. People should have the right to burn the flag.

People do have the right to burn the American flag in America, and in every Muslim nation. The problem is, you cannot burn an Iranian flag in Iran, or an Egyptian flag in Egypt. People in these countries need to concern themselves with their own rights, rather than those of people in America or Europe. Rather than rioting because someone made fun of Mohammed here, they need to fight for the right to do it there! I do agree that hate begets hate, which is why hateful speech should be discouraged.

My principle objection to the cartoon that the OP keeps posting is that it is a slogan that provides cover for Anti-Semites. It tells them: If you hate Jews, it is okay to criticize anything and everything about Israel, because "Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism" This is why the OP continues to evade defining what the terms mean. On the one hand, people can indeed criticize Israeli policies with no reference to the religious nature of that state, nor the "ethnicity" of its citizens. On the other hand, an Anti-Semite cannot wash their hands of their prejudice simply by shouting "Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism."

Originally posted by DJW001
Zionism was an organized movement that gained momentum in the late Nineteenth Century. Most of the Jews in Central and Eastern Europe who could, tended to migrate to America... Prominent Jewish leaders lobbied the British government to make the territory into a Jewish state. All of this was done quite openly.

Well, I grant you, you may have more social or cultural insight than I do. But even the people who lived through it may have LESS knowledge of what was really going on because they had been subjected to the propaganda provided by the prominent Jewish leaders. (compare: kids who went through Hitler-Youth may never understand what really happened). And how can I find something to read that is not biased one way or the other? Ironically, my wife's grandparents were from Russia (where they spoke German) and came to the US because of the Bolshevik Revolution. But they were Christians. Perhaps the hopes for a better life were not exclusive to the Jewish people.

Just as the Jewish leaders lobbied the British government back then, AIPAC also lobbies the US government openly. "Lobby" means "to influence legislators or other public officials in favor of a specific cause" or, manipulate. It bears repeating that these governments are influenced or manipulated by foreign interests. IMHO the people are either stupid or misled when they allow this to happen to themselves. So why, in your opinion, did Britain fulfill the wishes of those prominent Jewish leaders? What did Britain get out of it? Do you see a connection to the Bolshevik Revolution, WWI stalemate, and the imminent entry of the US into the war - which all happened the same year as the Balfour declaration?

But your observation seems to be biased in favor of things you cannot actually see.

Give me an example please.

Fair enough. I have always believed that people with bigoted views should be allowed to talk as much as they like, so that people can see how stupid and shallow they are.

Agree

Rather than rioting because someone made fun of Mohammed here, they need to fight for the right to do it there! I do agree that hate begets hate, which is why hateful speech should be discouraged.

Yes it should be discouraged but not illegal or otherwise punishable. As you said, people can see how stupid and shallow they are. Let me make it clear to OP that I find the cartoon offensive. And I was not pointing to Iran or Egypt as an example of what is better. Rather, these riots are another example of how religion is being used to manipulate the masses.

the cartoon... tells them: If you hate Jews, it is okay to criticize anything and everything about Israel, because "Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism"

Forgive me for saying this, but did we not agree that you can burn the flag, and it is okay to criticize anything and everything about the US? Is the cartoon not covered by the same freedom of expression? Do you not put yourself at the same level as the muslims who riot over a Mohammed cartoon? Please help me understand this apparent contradiction.

reply to post by DJW001

This video was posted by somebody else here on ATS, it speaks about wars, orchestrated by governments. People do not want to kill others in foreign countries (for the very most part), it is governments that provoke people into doing that.

The War You Don't See (it is long but it is worth every minute) www.youtube.com...

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

Forgive me for saying this, but did we not agree that you can burn the flag, and it is okay to criticize anything and everything about the US? Is the cartoon not covered by the same freedom of expression? Do you not put yourself at the same level as the muslims who riot over a Mohammed cartoon? Please help me understand this apparent contradiction.

No contradiction. The cartoonist had every right to publish the cartoon, and the OP every right to post it here. I just want the OP to explain what it means to him.