This is terribly wrong and a typical example of how Jews are not allowed to contribute to the terms of debate – the sort of subtle, systemic oppression that always goes along with the more obvious. Instead, I insist that it is high time people paid more attention to those who complain of antisemitism instead of immediately dismissing them.

David Shraub put it very concisely when he said:

Anti-semitism is not only implicated when someone says “Israel is the Jewish vanguard of world domination”, anymore than racism only occurs when someone says “all those n***ers should go back to Africa.” Anti-semitism, to borrow from Taunya Lovell Banks, is often restricted only to “rabid hate and/or violence.” But anyone who has seriously looked into anti-subordination studies knows that the mechanics which keep certain people in power and others down are rarely that simple.

Avi, first you define antisemitism, following Klein, then claim his writing doesn’t meet that definition of antisemitism. You ignored what I said about why I had a problem with the discussion of Jewish neocons. Ironically, you accuse me of being an incareful reader. Klein spoke of Jewish neoconservatism in exactly the same way others have talked about Jewish Communism or Jewish Capitalism. It reminds me very much of the story of Harvard’s President who put a quota on the number of Jews who would be allowed as students on the grounds that Jews cheat. When it was pointed out to him that other students cheat as well, he said “Don’t change the subject. I was talking about Jews.” This talk about Jewish neocons is very, very much the same spirit of singly focusing on how Jews act.

When I brought that up, instead of responding to what I said, you tried to undermine the very idea that antisemitism should be taken seriously except when you think it’s antisemitism. You claimed a sort of power over me to decide what even can be discussed.

The reason I say she is your poster girl is because you continually keep saying people in the community say she is right.

which is not what being “my poster girl” is, obviously, so it’s a highly inaccurate characterisation.

Your constant shifting leads to little constructive discussion, quite possibly this is your aim.

what you seem to think is “constant shifting” is simply a nuanced and complex viewpoint. you just don’t like it because it doesn’t fit into the simple goodies/baddies left/right way you seem to see the world.

The practically is that either peace is made or this just continues in ever vicious circles. So either we all speak up or let them tear lumps out of each other.

fine, but generalisations and vague, emotional language are not going to help.

Look being frank you’ve provided very little evidence of this supposed link you have with the community and most of your information is glibbed from your own views.

it would be quite hard for me to do that without revealing a lot of personal information, which i’d rather not do online.

You won’t even put into writing your views on the peace formula which I’ve done quite clearly.

i thought i just did. it looks more or less like what you’ve just said – in the same way that israel has arab citizens, palestine must have jewish citizens; both sides must grant equality. ultimately, the nation-state is a transitional thing in religious terms imo.

Apart from the twinning of mosques and synagogues you’ve said practically nothing about improving community relations and just rip lumps of people that try and improve this.

i’ve already said that i’m not going to write out an entire change programme on the internet; i don’t even work in the community professionally. although a lot of what i do is informal, i’m not going to claim influence that i don’t have. what i do have is a personal and social network which gives me access to nearly all the religious sectors of the community and some fairly influential educational and communal institutions. my ear is to the ground in ways and places that david aaronovitch’s (and melanie phillips’) aren’t.

i appreciate you seem to be trying to be conciliatory so i thank you for that courtesy.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Israel has a free press but the same newspaper highlights an IDF Unit and their despicable war crimes and the fact that nothing – i repeat nothing has been done to bring them to trial.

Again you highlight Arabs rightly but also look at why Israel has failed to bring to justice someone whom Gideon Levy says has been accused of the vilest crimes possible.

Your example simply illustrates the fact that you are ignoring things on one side but not the other.

Hamas are a bunch of idiots, Hezbullah are a bunch of idiots. Muslims are displaying increasing bigotry. Ho do we change this? We need to start building bridges.

Not sit there and say oh look what they do they are really bad and ignore the growing issue and also what we do.

Again this simply highlights that you are finger pointing and not really coming through with practical solutions. The ground is yours now and I am now saying anymore.

Start building bridges here or carry on as you have. Let the people see where you go.

I am also bored of your misrepresentations of what I say and your failure to even precisely say what your positions are.

Your constant shifting leads to little constructive discussion, quite possibly this is your aim. You turn up like a bull in a china shop on each i/p or j/m discussion and derail any attempt to understand both sides.

The reason I say she is your poster girl is because you continually keep saying people in the community say she is right. A small number do but you keep pushing this.

“you fail to appreciate that there is some real hatred on the muslim/arab side that it seems to me is quite simply not shared on the israeli side, in terms of accepting the existence of the other”
If I didn’t realise this then why the hell do I keep emphasing the need to build community relations? Sorry but for someone who speaks of generalisations, you’re doing just that.

“i just don’t think you understand the practicalities involved”
The practically is that either peace is made or this just continues in ever vicious circles. So either we all speak up or let them tear lumps out of each other.

“with little evidence that you have any idea about what goes on in the different parts of the community apart from, apparently, what you can get from the JC”
Look being frank you’ve provided very little evidence of this supposed link you have with the community and most of your information is glibbed from your own views. You won’t even put into writing your views on the peace formula which I’ve done quite clearly.

Apart from the twinning of mosques and synagogues you’ve said practically nothing about improving community relations and just rip lumps of people that try and improve this.

Derailing discussions on these topics isn’t a way of improving relations and sadly thats all you seem to want to do.

“you just come across as a rather hysterical keyboard warrior”
I’ll tell you what I shall refrainb from saying anything on Israel and Palestine and Jewish-Muslim relations here on PP for the future and lets see what your contribution will be. Will it be more of the same old approach which strangely Marvin is also taking or will it be a refreshing change of positive ideas.

I can’t say fairer than that. I’ll leave the ground clear for you so try and do something positive rather than saying you know the community and do a bit of interfaith work.

Thats a fair way forward.

the ironic thing is that i actually agree with you more or less on the shape of the solution. i just don’t think you understand the practicalities involved and you fail to appreciate that there is some real hatred on the muslim/arab side that it seems to me is quite simply not shared on the israeli side, in terms of accepting the existence of the other and not wanting them all killed, although both sides seem to be quite justifiably driven by fear to a large extent. i am not trying to clam moral ascendancy here – this is simply the result of the fact that israel has a free press and muslim/arab societies don’t. if you don’t believe me, perhaps a palestinian who knows the inside of hamas might be more convincing:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1007097.html

see ya.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Yes and his point was that they didn’t speak out enough to change the course driven by a small minority.

The same is happening here because a small vocal minority are driving through their position by implying it is the position of the majority and if anyone gets in their way then certain nasty labelling is used to minimise debate.

Do most American Jews want peace in the middle east – YES.

So then why is it that politicians rarely listen to them and listen to right wing organisations? Because that small minority has taken the leading positions.

It is high time the quick use of anti-semitism stoppped and people realised there is a bleedin problem there and one emerging here namely that a small number of people are driving through their agenda and making the community appear to support it.

Whether you like it or not simply due to her exposure many people see Melanie Phillips as the voice of the Jewish Community and she is driving through her agenda. It isn’t my agenda or most people’s agenda but that is what comes across.

That is what happened in the USA. So the choice is either:

a) stand up to this approach of right and left.
b) ignore it and when people complain say they are anti-semitic.

That is what the JEWISH Writers – who are leading writers said.

“Were the Jewish neocons in control and did they make the fatal decisions? No. Are all Jews neoconservatives or are all neoconservatives Jews? Please! Are the Jews or Israel to blame for the Bush Middle East debacle? Get outta here.”

They didn’t reduce anything and the nonsense of calling peopel anti-semitic and questioning if they are Jewish is a standard nonsense that people then use.

Freakin read what was said and who said it. They are both Jewish writers and reduced nothing. They simply said something that peope don’t want to hear.

Again for you he said clearly:
“Were the Jewish neocons in control and did they make the fatal decisions? No. Are all Jews neoconservatives or are all neoconservatives Jews? Please! Are the Jews or Israel to blame for the Bush Middle East debacle? Get outta here.”

But you jumped in and responded in the way he said people would. Tragic, simply tragic.

Actually, I have a real problem with labeling this a “Jewish neoconservative narrative.” In general, it probably unfairly reduces a certain position to a “Jewish” view. But it probably also ignores that there are certain issues on which Jews are relatively united. Jews in America were and are largely against the Iraq War, but are in favor of other certain “Jewish policies.”

There surely are a disproportionate number of Jewish neocons, but there are also a disproportionate number of Jewish socialists. To take either stance or any number of other stances as “Jewish” feeds into classicaly antisemitic scapegoating.

Until you get to something like “most Jews believe Israel ought to exist as a Jewish state,” where people tend to deny that this is a “Jewish” viewpoint. Here, most Jews agree, but suddenly anti-Zionists become squeamish about labeling such a view as “Jewish.”

The overall effect is to appoint gentiles as spokespersons for Jewish interest, capable of deciding “legitimate” Jewish interests. That’s plain racist.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1007105.html

In response to your nonsense about the neocons read these articles about the subject and how debate and criticism are smeared by use of antisemitism slurs:

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_27833.shtml

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-levy/on-joe-klein-and-the-jewi_b_115999.html

As you really hate what I say then this segment of commentary makes significant reading:

“The Klein thesis shared by a great many commentators and analysts (this writer included) goes something like this: Bush administration policies in the Middle East have had disastrous consequences for the US; Israel too is in a less secure and worse place as a result of these policies; ultimate responsibility for all this lies with the president himself and his hawkish and close group of senior aides–principal among them Veep Cheney; the neoconservatives played an important role in providing an ideological framing for these policies; within that neoconservative world there operates a prominent and tight-knit group of Jewish neocons who are ideologically driven in part by an old school Likudist view of Israeli interests.

Were the Jewish neocons in control and did they make the fatal decisions? No. Are all Jews neoconservatives or are all neoconservatives Jews? Please! Are the Jews or Israel to blame for the Bush Middle East debacle? Get outta here.

Something did happen though — there was a failure within the mainstream, Jewish and non-Jewish, to identify the existence of a particular Jewish neoconservative narrative and then to challenge that narrative as being fundamentally flawed in its reading of both American and Israeli interests. One of the causes of that vacuum was the abuse and cheapening of the term anti-Semitism as it was hurled at many who went after Podhoretz, Perle, Feith, and co. They tried, and sadly rather successfully, built a wall of untouchability. Klein is taking his shofar or trumpet to that wall, as many have done before, but Joe is particularly MSM, and therefore important.

Too many Jewish communal leaders and institutions made the mistake of not standing up and speaking out more against the right-wing excesses of a small minority of their co-religionists. Some even embraced and feted the neocons — a mistake AIPAC particularly excelled in and something I get the impression that AIPAC is at least partially trying to walk itself back from.”

He sums it up prety well and it is a shame that people hide behind and use whataboutery to stifle this discussion.

As he rightly said:
“Too many Jewish communal leaders and institutions made the mistake of not standing up and speaking out more against the right-wing excesses of a small minority of their co-religionists.”

Sums up what I said about Mel.

The same is occurring here and the voices issuing warning like myself are being drowned out. Read again what he said and what this thread is saying. The warnings are there for the UK Jewish Community not to go down the same road but will they be heeded?????

Your definition of blinkered is anyone who dartes to disagree with you on Israel can’t possibly be Jewish.

“you now appear to be implying that jews are some kind of stalking-horse for a right-wing agenda; and that is barmy. i reckon you should substantiate that or withdraw it.”
Get lost. You just misrepresent anythign that I say to suit you own agenda. Your here to simply pump your agenda and thats fine but for you to cast such accusations when you know that wasn’t meant is lame.

Did I say all Jews – I said some right wing Jews and you deviate that to Jews are a stalking horse. Where the feck do you get off misrepresenting what I said.

“i’m talking to a wide range of people just on this site, many of whom really don’t agree with me – rather like yourself. so that doesn’t really make sense.”
Then equally your comment that I only talk to people who agree with me doesn’t make sense does it. You want to dish out such comments but not take them.

“it wasn’t what you said. you said – and i quote: “this is sheer nonsense because David had a number of wives, Jacob had wives and concubines. So we can’t say it was just Soloman – though Soloman has a much larger number.” i have refuted this by showing you from the traditional sources how it can’t refer to david and can only refer to solomon. as for jacob, he married sisters – and you’re definitely not allowed to do that in Torah law, but the tradition explains that as having been done before the Torah was actually given at sinai.”
Bloody hell – you refuted what? Look at the bleedin context of the discussion taking place and what I said. It was the same as you said but in less detail. So we said the same thing to answer the same question. I don’t even know why you are making such an issue of this.

“i never said you did. i was disapproving of other people who did.”
Then kindly say it to them and make yourself clear in whom you are talking to.

“it seems you were just making general unsupported accusations as usual.”
I’d say that is your speciality.

“it is your tone, which continually implies that israel has some kind of aggressive genocidal intent. as for “threatening its neighbours”, i hardly think that given the attitude of iran and its proxies, you can characterise the israelis as looking to *start* anything. it was not israel that started the 2006 lebanon campaign and it was not israel that started threatening to wipe iran off the map.”

Oh bollocks. I’m sick of your nonsense, try reading what leading Jewish commentators say and you’ll see you position is simply nonsensical. I never said they were genocidal and you’re overblowing things to make people see you in a better light. If you bothered to get your head out of the sand you’ll see that everyone is threatening everyone else in that neighbourhood.

I suppose your poster boy Mofaz said he was going to Iran for a tea party huh? Israel has been making noises about Iran for a long time.

The bloody problem is everyone feels threatened by everyone else. That needs to stop including Israel.

You can’t see that but most people can. Sabre rattling USA style does no good in that region.

Look at Israel and Syria, when they got down to quietly talking instead of sabre rattling they are making progress on an issue that peopl4e said would never be resolved.

The Iranian President is a prat and you know I’ve said that. He wouldn’t dare attack Israel he is just saying things to get popularity and as has been highlighted even the clergy in Iran are fed up with him. So he said what he said – do you seriously believe that Iran is a match for the IDF? Hell no it isn’t even close.

Iran couldn’t defeat Saddam’s Iraq and can only conduct low level wars. By making peace with Syria Israel will neuralise much of the direct threat. Making peace with Lebanon will push it back into Iran alone forcing Iran to consider peace.

“hur, hur, hur. QED – this is exactly what i’m talking about.”
So come on Genius I asked you for your position on making peace for Israel so tell me your position.

My position is give back the land to 67 borders, if the settlers want to stay let them stay under joint citizenship. As regards borders and airspace joint control for 10 years with Israel paying a fee for controlling Palestinian and Syrian airspace and borders. The money to be used to build civilian infrastructure in both countries (Palestine and Syria) thereby giving people jobs and dignity reducing extremism.

Jerusalem to be shared. Water resources to be shared. Gaza and the West Bank to be linked.

Arab countries agree to diplomatic relations with Israel fully.

After 10 years the deal on border control and airspace to be reviewed and can be renewed for a further 10 years. If Israel feels secure then it can reduce the level or withdraw completely. Thus securing the wider area for Israel going forward.

There now tell me your position.

“but that isn’t what you *said*. you said: “the Chief Rabbi said learning from the experiences of exile and not accepting that the actions of Israel are contrary to Judaism” – you did *not* limit it to the occupation. i’m afraid i simply do not believe that you don’t intend to imply what you seem to be implying.”

You really are on a pathetic mission here aren’t you? The Chief Rabbi said “It is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long run with our deepest ideals.”

He didn’t say it was in regards to the occupation but everyone understood what he was talking about. So stop your nonsense please. Your goign to end up like your onup poster girl Mel by just taking everything the wrong way.

Ok I’ve clearly said what I see as a just peace. All I ask is that you:

a) criticise the areas you disagree with in what I say regarding a just peace.
b) tell us what you view as a just peace. In your own words your ideas.

Lets see your opinion clearly please

I’d say the same about you. You actively avoid engaging the issues and simply have a blinkered view of what is going on.

what-evaaaah. your definition of “blinkered” appears to mean “doesn’t agree with me”.

A Jewish Agenda is currently being pushed by the right and neocons. It doesn’t mean it has community approval now does it. I mean for feck sake that is why I took care to say it was an agenda and not a community thing.

i didn’t deliberately misunderstand it. that was what you seemed to be saying and, frankly, that is what your phrasing implies. and even going on what you say you mean, that is frankly suspicious – you now appear to be implying that jews are some kind of stalking-horse for a right-wing agenda; and that is barmy. i reckon you should substantiate that or withdraw it.

Unlike you I actually talk to a wide range of people.

i’m talking to a wide range of people just on this site, many of whom really don’t agree with me – rather like yourself. so that doesn’t really make sense.

If you boethered to grasp the comment instead of flying off on one you’d know that I bleedin well said that multipel wives and concubines were permitted at the time but that Soloman may ahve had too many. I already said that so why bloody go down a route that I’ve already clarified.

it wasn’t what you said. you said – and i quote: “this is sheer nonsense because David had a number of wives, Jacob had wives and concubines. So we can’t say it was just Soloman – though Soloman has a much larger number.” i have refuted this by showing you from the traditional sources how it can’t refer to david and can only refer to solomon. as for jacob, he married sisters – and you’re definitely not allowed to do that in Torah law, but the tradition explains that as having been done before the Torah was actually given at sinai.

Right first of all I never made that statement [that muhammad was a paedophile]

i never said you did. i was disapproving of other people who did.

however, you did go on at length about how young people were allowed to marry in other cultures (“I supplied the context that people married girls when they reached puberty and indeed gave some reasons why this goes on today.”) and then cited “old testament prophets” in support. i’m not aware of too many cases in the old testament where people married young by modern standards, as opposed to the question of muhammad and a’ishah, although i did supply information about how sexual maturity is evaluated within jewish law. i was asking if you meant something specific, but it seems you were just making general unsupported accusations as usual.

As better people that I have pointed out her views are to crush the Palestinians utterly into defeat. This involves precisely what the IDF going in with loud speakers and telling of the Palestinains or does it involve worse than that? It is you that can’t see the nature of what she is saying because you are blinded by her prose.

see, this is that whole thing again where i say i think that one of her views may have some merit and then you choose another of her views which i do NOT support and claim that i do support it. this is what i mean by driving and jeremy clarkson. i have always said that there are a lot of views that she holds that i utterly disagree with and this is yet another example. i really don’t see why you feel the need to try and misrepresent my views in such an extreme fashion.

Your claim was that you would oppose them to your last. If you know them then I invite you to do so. I know his wife is a Rabbi and held in higher regard than he is amongst those that know.

you don’t read too well, do you? i said i would oppose the views, not the people. i am in fact rather fond of them as people – but i reserve my right to disagree with them.

Ok show me where I have criticised Israel for something other than the occupation or threatening its neighbours? Either put up or shut up.

it is your tone, which continually implies that israel has some kind of aggressive genocidal intent. as for “threatening its neighbours”, i hardly think that given the attitude of iran and its proxies, you can characterise the israelis as looking to *start* anything. it was not israel that started the 2006 lebanon campaign and it was not israel that started threatening to wipe iran off the map.

I abhore the stuopidity of both sides in thinking they can win. They are both losing and I am not afraiud to say so and won’t be silenced by you.

i am not trying to silence you. this is one of the few points on which we agree.

I am not blinkered in my view. I’ve said what they need to do.

hur, hur, hur. QED – this is exactly what i’m talking about.

You and I both know that he was referring to the occupation and so was I.

but that isn’t what you *said*. you said: “the Chief Rabbi said learning from the experiences of exile and not accepting that the actions of Israel are contrary to Judaism” – you did *not* limit it to the occupation. i’m afraid i simply do not believe that you don’t intend to imply what you seem to be implying. if you don’t, why can’t you just write in a more precise fashion and then we wouldn’t end up wasting each other’s time arguing at cross-purposes?

b’shalom

bananabrain

Incidents involving Jewish students or academics and at colleges rose 88%, from 26 to 49.

MMM, I wonder, attacks in college, ACADEMICS? Must be that cerebral BNP lot eh!!

FFS. Get real.

/Must be Islamophobia!

I’d say the same about you. You actively avoid engaging the issues and simply have a blinkered view of what is going on.

“then whose thing is it? who are you on about? if it is “the jewish agenda”, surely that must refer to the community, mustn’t it?”

A Jewish Agenda is currently being pushed by the right and neocons. It doesn’t mean it has community approval now does it. I mean for feck sake that is why I took care to say it was an agenda and not a community thing.

Jews do feel that the right wing view aided by the neocons is gaining too much hold which is why people are speaking out.

“unlike you, i don’t spend my entire time with people who agree with me.”
Getting really nasty now. Unlike you I actually talk to a wide range of people. Many of whom don’t agree with my views. So stick that up your pipe.

“is that a sufficient explanation or do you really want more?”

If you boethered to grasp the comment instead of flying off on one you’d know that I bleedin well said that multipel wives and concubines were permitted at the time but that Soloman may ahve had too many. I already said that so why bloody go down a route that I’ve already clarified.

The point was to answer what the poster enquired about that in the old testament multiple wives and concubines were pernmitted and then ata later date this was dropped. Sheesh.

“my only niggle is that i’m not aware of the traditional explanation for why muhammad was allowed more than four wives as mandated for the rest of the muslims. as for old testament prophets, i’m not aware of any accusations of paedophilia aimed at them, although as you’re such a great bible scholar, perhaps you might enlighten me?”

Right first of all I never made that statement and if you bothered to discard your outright hatred for my comments you would bleedin well know that. I actually replied to the comment giving the context of what was permitted in historical times. Your accusations that I said anyting about paedophilia is in fact nothign but a disgusting slur.

If you bothered to look at the thread then you’d see the comment was originally made by someone else and I supplied the context that people married girls when they reached puberty and indeed gave some reasons why this goes on today. To say that I made such slurs simply brings you into disrepute.

The comment you refer to and have falsely accused me of was made in comment #45 which wasn’t made by me. It was in reply to a comment made in #15 and #37 again neither of which I made.

I have explained like you the context of thinking in medieval times to explain the notion of such marriages. I went further to explain why it may go on today.

At no point did I say what you claim I said and would appreciate a retraction from you for your nonsense.

“she is neither inciting murder nor carrying it out and for you to suggest that her views are equivalent to, say, those of abu hamza is quite simply hysterically unbalanced.”
As better people that I have pointed out her views are to crush the Palestinians utterly into defeat. This involves precisely what the IDF going in with loud speakers and telling of the Palestinains or does it involve worse than that? It is you that can’t see the nature of what she is saying because you are blinded by her prose.

She is inciting Israel to harsher and hasher reprisals.

“i do know the rabbi concerned – and his wife, who is also a rabbi. i have a lot of time for them both, but i utterly disagree with this point of view. i know why he holds it, but it’s tactical. i believe he is sacrificing an immense moral principle for short-term gain.”

Your claim was that you would oppose them to your last. If you know them then I invite you to do so. I know his wife is a Rabbi and held in higher regard than he is amongst those that know.

“not at all. you come across as if you can’t – just can’t wait to find an excuse to get stuck into israel. that i find both unpleasant and unbecoming.”

Ok show me where I have criticised Israel for something other than the occupation or threatening its neighbours? Either put up or shut up. I haven’t criticised Israel for other than its conduct to a people that it needs to help and live with. I find nothing wrong with saying when they go overboard that they have done so. Equally I have criticised the Palestinians when they go overboard with suicide bombing. I abhore the stuopidity of both sides in thinking they can win. They are both losing and I am not afraiud to say so and won’t be silenced by you.

“there is nothing odd about that. i just disagree with you about what a “just society” looks like and how we get to that. this is what annoys me – you cannot understand how there could possibly be any other interpretation of “justice” or any other way of addressing the situation than yours. and that, sir, makes you an extremely blinkered individual.”
I am not blinkered in my view. I’ve said what they need to do. You tell me then what you think is a just society?

You just attack those that disagree with you then say I am blinkered, brilliant.

“but, again, you’re totally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what he is saying – he is not saying that “THE ACTIONS OF ISRAEL” (by which you appear to mean ALL) are contrary to judaism, but that SOME of the actions of israel cannot be reconciled with jewish law – which is perfectly possible, because israel is not run according to jewish law.”

You and I both know that he was referring to the occupation and so was I. So don’t shift ground and say all actions when you bleedin well know the context. For feck sake you are avoiding the issue.

“you appear to think you are entitled to sit as judge and jury and that you have the only valid opinion and i am saying that it’s simply not as simple as that.”
You also seem to think that you are judge and jury which is why you derail all discussion on the subject.

Your approach is precisely why many Jews are now feeling the need to speak out against what is going on.

By continually shifting ground and hiding behind security those that stifle the chances of peace are afraid of losing ground and hence attack and question those that push for peace. Even Olmert said most of the issues are resolved or resolvable which scares the hell out of the people who have been pushing for a crushing solution.

The answer to Q2 is Yemen

So when countless commentators say that political islam needs to be kept out of politics and we shouldn’t allow Muslims to feel like victims that isn’t going down this road that you want exclusively reserved?

those are two different points. what is it with you that you have to reinterpret what i say in light of what you think someone else has said in order to avoid engaging with what i actually did say? i detest political islam, but it will be in politics whether i like it or not. as for muslims feeling victimised, it is not just one issue. some feel victimised unjustly and some feel victimised justly. unfortunately, those who scream “persecution” and “iminent genocide” are ruining it for the rest, who have in many cases reasonable complaints which they would like to raise through the existing political process. but not all complaints are reasonable and not all persecution is real – just like not all criticism of jews or israel is “anti-semitic”. i am against sweeping statements like those you seem to favour, don’t ask me why.

I didn’t say [the jewish agenda] was a community thing

then whose thing is it? who are you on about? if it is “the jewish agenda”, surely that must refer to the community, mustn’t it?

the fact that you do a bit of interfaith work now and then doesn’t give you the low down on the community.

i think the fact that i am active in it and am pretty well plugged into the discourse at various different levels of religious communities, the informal and formal educational and cultural institutions, to say nothing of the journalist side of things, gives me the low-down. interfaith doesn’t do that at all – intrafaith does. unlike you, i don’t spend my entire time with people who agree with me.

Aside from your poster girl read the works of Dave A in The Times and various people in the USA.

SHE’S NOT MY FECKING POSTER GIRL. do i accuse you of having a poster of tony klug on your bedroom ceiling? sheesh. as for dave aronovitch, i’m not convinced he knows anything about the community. and i’ve never claimed to be in the know about the US community.

So are you denying that Jewish commentators write articles saying that Muslims should be allowed to play the sympathy card and that care needs to be taken when discussing Islam and politics?

no.

Look this is sheer nonsense because David had a number of wives, Jacob had wives and concubines. So we can’t say it was just Soloman – though Soloman has a much larger number.

“you shall set a king over you, one whom HaShem, your G!D, chooses; from among your brothers, you shall set a king over yourself; you shall not appoint a foreigner over yourself, one who is not your brother. Only, he may not acquire many horses for himself, so that he will not bring the people back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, for the Lord said to you, “You shall not return that way any more. And he shall not take many wives for himself, and his heart must not turn away, and he shall not acquire much silver and gold for himself.” (deuteronomy 17:15-17)

note the emphasis. now what do we mean by “many”? according to rashi:

only what he needs for his chariots, “so that he will not cause the people to return to Egypt” [to purchase the horses], because horses come from there, as it is said of Solomon (I Kings 10: 29), “And a chariot that went up and left Egypt sold for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for one hundred fifty.” – [San. 21b]

this then refers to solomon. and how do we know it doesn’t refer to david? rashi again:

[this means] eighteen, for we find that David had six wives, and it was told to him [by Nathan the prophet] (II Sam. 12:8):“and if this is too little, I would add for you like them and like them” [totaling eighteen]. — [San. 21a and Sifrei]

more to the point:

When Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to HaShem his G!D, as the heart of David his father had been. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians and after Milcom the detestable idol of the Ammonites. Solomon did what was evil in the sight of HaShem, and did not follow HaShem fully, as David his father had done.

is that a sufficient explanation or do you really want more?

The point the writer made was that the criticism often is aimed at Mohammed and there are similar tales amongst the prophets in the old testament.

the criticism aimed at muhammad i find prurient and unpleasant in the extreme – and, clearly, there are perfectly satisfactory traditional explanations which prove to the satisfaction of most that a’ishah wasn’t 9. muslims are intelligent enough to realise this would be a problem – the issue would occur if you had a group of muslims who maintained that consummating a marriage with a 9-year old was OK; i’m not aware of such. my only niggle is that i’m not aware of the traditional explanation for why muhammad was allowed more than four wives as mandated for the rest of the muslims. as for old testament prophets, i’m not aware of any accusations of paedophilia aimed at them, although as you’re such a great bible scholar, perhaps you might enlighten me?

Equally I restate that given the number of prophets who had wives and concubines then this was accepted practise in this period for whatever reason amongst the tribes of the Middle East. To claim after the fact it wasn’t allowed when others did it as well and the tibes of Israel are also from this concept just shows that it was accepted practise.

both multiple wives and concubines are permitted by the Torah providing you can afford it, although this is no longer permitted nowadays for practical reasons. am i not saying this right?

More whataboutery – look if you looked at what I was saying instead of being selective in my comments you’d know full well what I said was that if the Jewish community is rightly – RIGHTLY – asking Muslims to look at unfair portrayals of Jews within that community then the reciprocal thing to do is to distance from extreme comments of Eurabia, Londonistan etc from within the Jewish community. Unless of course you deny there is even a problem?

i personally feel it incumbent upon me to dissasociate myself from the extreme stances in eurabia and londonistan and have done so, here, on numerous occasions, which you seem to have avoided noticing. i cannot say that it is incumbent upon the entire community because they are not entirely convinced that these stances are without merit. nor do i disassociate myself entirely from absolutely everything mel phillips says, because even she is right about some things sometimes (although i don’t know enough about bat yeor to say the same). i reserve my right to a nuanced view. i think the issue that i have is that you seem to think that mel p’s more extreme *views* are equivalent to the actual *actions* carried out by actual terrorists in this country. she is neither inciting murder nor carrying it out and for you to suggest that her views are equivalent to, say, those of abu hamza is quite simply hysterically unbalanced.

Yes well you should have started a few years ago when this debate started. It is already accepted and if you know the community as you say then you’d know the Rabbi’s that you can oppose it to your last with eh?

i do know the rabbi concerned – and his wife, who is also a rabbi. i have a lot of time for them both, but i utterly disagree with this point of view. i know why he holds it, but it’s tactical. i believe he is sacrificing an immense moral principle for short-term gain.

No it isn’t. After the destruction of the 2nd Temple the Rabbi’s took a decision not to enforce the law but it doesn’t mean it: a) isn’t in there. b) wasn’t previously practised as part of divine law.

the law to exterminate the amalekites is also in there but that too was not completely carried out; the law in many cases describes the ideal situation, not the actual events. as for the whole “wasn’t previously practised”, there were presumably cases in which it was practiced, but you can hardly argue that your understanding of it is correct. look here for a start – r. michael lerner isn’t even traditional, but he is well-informed on the traditional understanding:

http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/Death%20Penalty

I’ve already highlighted what you’ve claimed and said. You’ve admitted that you feel you have to behave like Dershowitz do you deny that?

you’re ignoring the context of that statement. i’ve said that sometimes i feel like i have to take positions that are similar to him when both of us face unreasonable, hysterical, categorical criticism of israel and its policies. however, i find that both ironic and irritating, considering how little he and i agree on. you cannot possibly construe that as my holding the same opinions as him. that would be like saying that anyone who drives a car agrees with jeremy clarkson.

Now to dig yourself out you apply a nasty misrepresentation of what I say.

not at all. you come across as if you can’t – just can’t wait to find an excuse to get stuck into israel. that i find both unpleasant and unbecoming.

I see so when I want to see justice for the Palestinians then you complain but then have the nerve to say that Judaism is interested in creating a just society but attack those that want to see that. Bloody genius!

there is nothing odd about that. i just disagree with you about what a “just society” looks like and how we get to that. this is what annoys me – you cannot understand how there could possibly be any other interpretation of “justice” or any other way of addressing the situation than yours. and that, sir, makes you an extremely blinkered individual.

Creating a just society involves as the Chief Rabbi said learning from the experiences of exile and not accepting that the actions of Israel are contrary to Judaism and that doesn’t mean that silence is imposed on this but that people speak out.

but, again, you’re totally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what he is saying – he is not saying that “THE ACTIONS OF ISRAEL” (by which you appear to mean ALL) are contrary to judaism, but that SOME of the actions of israel cannot be reconciled with jewish law – which is perfectly possible, because israel is not run according to jewish law.

What you fail to see is that the diaspora needs to provide the checks and balances that allow Israel to adhere to the values of humanity and Judaism. I would remind you that you’ve agreed with me on this point in the past.

and i still agree with you on the POINT – but not upon what those checks and balances are, or how they should be applied. you appear to think you are entitled to sit as judge and jury and that you have the only valid opinion and i am saying that it’s simply not as simple as that.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Our quest for justice for all and fairness for all and equality for all is paramount. A harder to challenge is to stand up for those values and not merely to pay lip service to them.

Couldn’t agree more!