Sunday, August 06, 2006

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.

17 Comments:

Blogger Mobius said...

I guess you've missed posts like "Taking one for the team", "Somebody Set Up Us The Bomb", "Civilian Casualties as Propaganda Warfare", "Did the IDF really cause the deaths in Qana?", "Vichy You Were Here", "How Not To Petition Your Government For A Redress of Grievances", and the countless others which are supportive of Israel and extremely critical towards Israel's opponents. Jewschool represents a range of views -- mostly on the Left end of things, but a range nonetheless. I'm sorry that you feel that having frank, open and honest conversations about what's going on in Israel gives "comfort to the enemy."

4:12 AM  
Blogger Mr. S said...

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.

4:17 AM  
Blogger Mobius said...

You're doing a lot of reading into a single set of quotation marks, presuming the hell out of the intention behind them. I doubt John Brown himself gave it that much thought, though I'll be sure to ask him about it.

This unfounded "reading into things" is reflected again in your classification of my post. I asked people to stop making crass and racist generalizations about Jews and Arabs. You claim that I advanced the notion that it is improper to "hate your enemy." I did no such thing. I asked people to refrain from hate speech, which is something else all together.

That you now accuse me of employing "tactics" against you further exemplifies a pathology of paranoia consistent with your willfull misrepresentation of my remarks, your suspicious reading of John Brown's remarks, and the undercurrent to all of your complaints, which is that the entire Arab world is out to kill us. It is this narrow and foolish Right-wing interpretation of world events that is currently preventing a speedy and just resolution to the current conflict.

4:38 AM  
Blogger Mr. S said...

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.

4:54 AM  
Blogger Mr. S said...

By the way, mobius, any particular reason you're not posting my comments on your open and honest exchange of ideas blog?

4:58 AM  
Blogger Mobius said...

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.

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."

Hate speech: "Fuck those Arab Nazi fucks! And fuck you, you Arab loving piece of shit!"


I am critical of John Brown's writings and suspicious of his motives. There is nothing wrong with that.

I am critical of John Brown's writings as well. Though he is my friend going on a number years, I do not agree with most of what he says. John is a secular Jewish anti-Zionist. I am a religious quasi-Zionist who lives in Israel. That said, his voice is one of the alternative Jewish voices that I think ought to be heard and engaged in a Jewish venue.


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.

Ah, I see. Now I'm intellectually dishonest and a fascist. Welp, takes one to know one I guess. And now that I know what you're about... Peace.

5:05 AM  
Blogger Mr. S said...

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?

5:15 AM  
Blogger Mr. S said...

And....

"Now I see what you're about?" So what am I about???

5:19 AM  
Blogger Mobius said...

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.

In this very post, you attempted to discredit me and my entire website without giving me an opportunity to respond prior to waging your allegations. Then, after responding to your faulty proposition that reposting articles that are critical of Israel was a defacto endorsement of the views expressed in such articles, and that "our enemies may gain comfort" from such posts, you branded me a fascist -- a political epiteth that is, more often than not, intended to silence one's opponents.

Apparently you have no understanding of what Fascism is. Fascism is a political and economic system which developed in direct opposition to Leftism and liberalism. The Fascists in both Italy and Germany were staunchly anti-Communist and anti-Socialist (yet for some reason you associate Fascism with "liberals" and "the extreme Left"). Perhaps what you meant to say is that my alleged tactics were totalitarian or dictatorial (as some Leftist regimes have been), though to say even that is thoroughly fallacious.

By calling me a fascist, you are being intellectually dishonest -- standing the very definition of fascism on its head -- because you yourself have employed (by your definition) a fascist tactic: One intended to stifle dissent by labelling dissent as defacto support for "the enemy." By equating critical discussion of Israeli military strategy with support for Israel's enemies, you employ a tactic no different from Bush and his sycophants when they say, "You're either with us, or against us."

The options, sir, are not so slim. One can be with you on some points, and against you on others. One can also be against both parties, and not choose one side over another. Such matters are hardly ever black and white.

That said, in your attempt to stifle dissent by placing those who dissent in the same camp as your enemies, it is you who bears more in common with Fascism than I, whereas one element of Fascism includes the "forcible suppression of opposition." I made no such attempt to forcibly silence you. I merely pointed to your attempt to silence me, by smearing my name and that of my website.


Any anti-zionist is against the state of Israel, and thus deserving of suspicion.

Have you ever heard of The Bund, sir?


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?


One can hate an ideology and fight against it without engaging in immature, spiteful behavior. In fact, to allow one's self to become so consumed with their hatred can render them wholly ineffective in combatting that which they hate.

"We who hate must be wary lest we, like [Baruch] Goldstein, become like those we are taught to despise." -- Meir Soloveichik

8:55 AM  
Blogger Mr. S said...

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.

9:08 AM  
Anonymous Eugene Randall said...

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.

4:45 PM  
Blogger Mr. S said...

Thanks, eugene. Where are you from?

10:14 PM  
Blogger TM (Jewlicious) said...

Shmuel, don't worry too much about Mobius's claims. Jewlicious exists as a Jewschool antidote. We're critical, but not out to destroy. Not too long ago, Mobius went to a very popular public website in an attempt to get their readers to vote for Jewschool in the Jewish blog awards. Yes, it was very important for him to win. In order to win their approval, he posted on there about Israel and its "war crimes." That says it all to me.

10:57 PM  
Blogger Mr. S said...

Did he sell out? Or does he believe it? Not that it makes a difference in the end.

11:05 PM  
Blogger Mobius said...

tm -- you guys are about as critical as a chorus of yes men. all i did was point to the evidence of that fact.

1:48 AM  
Blogger Mr. S said...

Yes men? Mobius really does appear to believe himself intellectually superior to those of us who disagree with him.

6:36 AM  
Anonymous Eugene Randall said...

Mobius Dude. Give it up. You are obviously out of your league. You've been jewschooled.

4:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home