Jew School, Lending Aid to the Enemy
I was at some friends for Shabbat and we were discussing different streams of Judaism (I don't like referring to streams as such - Judaism is Judaism) and somehow a site called JewSchool came up. I checked it out and was surprised to find support for the enemy and lack of rational thought.
The first post I noticed was a simple reprint, either by or taken from John Brown, of an article from the UK Guardian (known to be not friendly to Israel, to say the least). I went to John Brown's site, News from Babylon, and realized I would have been very pleased were I a hater of Jews or the United States. Back to the article. Its republication without any commentary lends one to calculate one of two options: 1) JewSchool endoreses or encourages the article's assessment or 2) JewSchool does not endorse with it. It's impossible to know, of course. My concern lay in Jews, or others, coming to JewSchool for information and believing that the article that appears in the Guardian is accurate and symbolic of a larger problem in the Israeli military.
The next article to catch my eye was "Could Olmert be Leading Irael Down the Road of Self-Destruction". This is another John Brown post. Here, JewSchool posts a qualification of terror, when Hezbollah is referred to, in quotes, as a "terrorist organization". I agree that there are legitimate concerns as to whether we will attain our objectives in this war, but the tone taken in this article clearly encourages the perspective that things will be worse because of Israel's actions as-to-date (which have been very restrained). Beginning with a qualification of Hezbollah only discredits the author.
Finally, a post by Mobius, whose site defines himself as an anarchist, displays demagogic behavior with his accusation of hate-mongoring by commenters. Mobius's notion of derech eretz is relative to his own belief of how the world should be. Hating one's enemy, hating those who wish to destroy all Jews alive, is not in conflict with derech eretz. It seems to me that Mobius's notion that all hatred is wrong prohibits him from seeing the attempts to destroy the Jewish State (and Jews) as such. I would also suggest that Mobius's intolerance for those espousing views contrary to his, in a manner counter to his approval, may be in conflict with his own "hate-free zone", though that point is debatable.
JewSchool is Jewish, at least regarding its politics regarding our right to fight for our survival, in name only. It's unfortunate that people may be turning to this site as a source of information. It's even worse that our enemies may gain comfort in its posts.
The first post I noticed was a simple reprint, either by or taken from John Brown, of an article from the UK Guardian (known to be not friendly to Israel, to say the least). I went to John Brown's site, News from Babylon, and realized I would have been very pleased were I a hater of Jews or the United States. Back to the article. Its republication without any commentary lends one to calculate one of two options: 1) JewSchool endoreses or encourages the article's assessment or 2) JewSchool does not endorse with it. It's impossible to know, of course. My concern lay in Jews, or others, coming to JewSchool for information and believing that the article that appears in the Guardian is accurate and symbolic of a larger problem in the Israeli military.
The next article to catch my eye was "Could Olmert be Leading Irael Down the Road of Self-Destruction". This is another John Brown post. Here, JewSchool posts a qualification of terror, when Hezbollah is referred to, in quotes, as a "terrorist organization". I agree that there are legitimate concerns as to whether we will attain our objectives in this war, but the tone taken in this article clearly encourages the perspective that things will be worse because of Israel's actions as-to-date (which have been very restrained). Beginning with a qualification of Hezbollah only discredits the author.
Finally, a post by Mobius, whose site defines himself as an anarchist, displays demagogic behavior with his accusation of hate-mongoring by commenters. Mobius's notion of derech eretz is relative to his own belief of how the world should be. Hating one's enemy, hating those who wish to destroy all Jews alive, is not in conflict with derech eretz. It seems to me that Mobius's notion that all hatred is wrong prohibits him from seeing the attempts to destroy the Jewish State (and Jews) as such. I would also suggest that Mobius's intolerance for those espousing views contrary to his, in a manner counter to his approval, may be in conflict with his own "hate-free zone", though that point is debatable.
JewSchool is Jewish, at least regarding its politics regarding our right to fight for our survival, in name only. It's unfortunate that people may be turning to this site as a source of information. It's even worse that our enemies may gain comfort in its posts.
posted by Mr. S at 11:31 PM
11 Comments:
You don't need to be sorry for how I feel. Nor did I ever claim that open and honest conversation gives aid to the enemy. The views and assertions, especially the qualification of terror, however, DO.
Nice try, though, to make it seem as if I am not one to promote an open and frank exchange of ideas. It's a tactic whose time is running out.
Yes, I am reading into those quotes. There's a reason they're used. If John Brown didn't put thougt into them, well you're using material from someone who is not fully thinking out the significance of what he writes.
Reading into things is not unfounded. It's been going on since mankind began thinking. It assists us in understanding what's going on. I read into things with intellectual honesty, and without undercurrents.
I'm curious as to what the difference between hate-speech and hating one's enemy is. If hate-speech is the proclomation of what one hates and why he hates it, and you simply don't want to hear that, then I accept your censorship - it's your site,as I now see. You actually declared your site
"a hate-free zone", not a hate-speech-free zone. But if you'd like to clarify the difference between the two I'll be happy to read what you have to say.
I am critical of John Brown's writings and suspicious of his motives. There is nothing wrong with that. Yes, your tactic is indeed that, a tactic. But everyone uses tactics in debate. I simply don't appreciate intellectualy dishonest and fascist tactics such as the one you employed and which is so commonly employed by extreme leftists and/or liberals.
I do not believe the entire Arab world is out to kill us, and if you'll look at my site you'll see I encourage the reading of several intellectualy honest sites of Arab journalists and commentators. I do know that many in the Arab world would like to kill us. It's a reality that is preventing any sort of resolution, as you call it. Justice is in right, not in what is today deemed proportionate and fair.
By the way, mobius, any particular reason you're not posting my comments on your open and honest exchange of ideas blog?
I didn't say you were a fascist...i said the tactics you were employing were intellectualy fascist in that they're meant to discredit someone before he has a chance to respond.
Any anti-zionist is against the state of Israel, and thus deserving of suspicion.
Hate: "I cannot lend any credence to Islamic fundamentalism. It is a world ill that must be confronted head-on and eliminated before it eliminates us."
How is this hate?
And....
"Now I see what you're about?" So what am I about???
Yes, I attempted to discredit your site and the message it is carrying. You have had plenty of chance to respond and have done, and I hope, will continue to do so. In fact, I'm taking down the last post.
One can hate an ideology and fight against it without engaging in immature, spiteful behavior.
Sure I can, why not?
I know what a fascist is, thank you.
I have, to date, not called you a fascist. I said you have been using inellectually fascist techniques. That is not an attempt to silence you, rather to get you to be intellectually honest and engage in real debate.
Bush and his sycophants when they say, "You're either with us, or against us." - pretty demagogic of you, Mobius.
It's not your dissent that I labeled as support. I already explained that in my post.
Your writing style completely changed and improved since your last comments. Nice work.
Shmuel- I don't know what you guys are talking about anymore. The two of you are bringing up philosophy and shit and forgetting what the arguement was about. I agree that the jewschool blog is a bit weird and I am suspicious of their motives. I don't trust anyone that can't hate. Shit, some of our best decisions come from hate. Hate is very useful and should be spread on with an even amount of love. Keep rockin shmuel, and throwing smokebombs, and maybe, just maybe you will convince the Jewschool crue to exit the cave.
Thanks, eugene. Where are you from?
Did he sell out? Or does he believe it? Not that it makes a difference in the end.
Yes men? Mobius really does appear to believe himself intellectually superior to those of us who disagree with him.
Mobius Dude. Give it up. You are obviously out of your league. You've been jewschooled.
Post a Comment
<< Home