American Jews abandoning Israel

[Pardalis]

But I admit Israel is "frustrating" the Palestinians. Israel actually didn't disappear yet, which is highly frustrating to them.

That's why they need to remind themselves every year of their frustration with the Nakba.

 

[Skeptic]

um.....Italian Americans have roots in Italy....after 2-3 generations.

Most Jewish-Americans MAY have some roots in Israel....after 2,000 years.

slight...difference.

It's not a matter of biology, but of belong to the Jewish nation, which prayed every day "next year in Jerusalem".

 

[Foolmewunz]

pretty much. i wouldn't debate someone who called Jewish people "kikes", so why should I debate anyone who calls non-Jews "goys"?

perhaps I should not.

A little overboard? Do you speak Yiddish? I was always told that there's no other actual word for gentile in Yiddish and that Goy/Goyim is the term. I also grew up hearing the word used in a far from offensive sense. Yes, I know Jews who put a little poison on their tongue when they use it, but I also know gentiles who manage to spit the word "Jew" out of their mouth as though it tastes bitter, but "Jew" isn't an offensive term unless the user makes it so.

When did the sense that "goy" is offensive come about?
(Important: This is not one of those "it's only a word" arguments. I really have not encountered anyone who thinks the term is as offensive as, say, "kike" or "spick" or the infamous n-word.)

 

[Puppycow]

p.s....I hate it when Jews use the word "goy". It is no different than the N word...or "kike".

Anyone who would use the word "Goyim" is not worth debating, or supporting for that matter.

A little overboard? Do you speak Yiddish? I was always told that there's no other actual word for gentile in Yiddish and that Goy/Goyim is the term. I also grew up hearing the word used in a far from offensive sense. Yes, I know Jews who put a little poison on their tongue when they use it, but I also know gentiles who manage to spit the word "Jew" out of their mouth as though it tastes bitter, but "Jew" isn't an offensive term unless the user makes it so.

When did the sense that "goy" is offensive come about?
(Important: This is not one of those "it's only a word" arguments. I really have not encountered anyone who thinks the term is as offensive as, say, "kike" or "spick" or the infamous n-word.)

Seems too PC to me too. I never thought it was a term of abuse.
I've heard people claim that the Japanese word for foreigner (gaijin) is a pejorative. It's not. At least not per se.
"Kike" OTOH is obviously a pejorative.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

In the context of a primary or decently mixed Yiddish environment Goy/Goyim is not offensive. Completely anecdotal, so proper salt taking here, in my experience in a primary English environment using Goy/Goyim is intended to be discriminatory. Just how the N word is a completely innocent term in the proper language context but is usually offensive or an attempt at destroying the offensivenss of the word in English.

I have been jokingly referred to as goy, in the sense that people of my generation use offensive language within their inner circles for each other. I have been disparingly referred to as goy, mostly by my relatives or relatives of my friends who were downright bigotted folk. I have rarely been called goy in a more innocent context, usually by an older people who spoke half in yiddish.

Bigotted words often have a very specific meaning when they are full words rather than derivations of full words. I can call a spade a spade but if I call an american who is black a spade I'd have difficulty arguing it was not out of bigotry, or any random jew a money grubber though I can call people who are greedy money grubbers.

With bigotted slurs, context is everything. I have german heritage and even started taking language classes in high school. If I started referring to Jews as Juden (giving it a y sound) that would sound very bigotted in an English setting. Even though that is the word in German. Even if I often spoke in German with my family members. It does not even matter that my German heritage is ashkenazi.

Also, I personally do not think Americans who are jews identifying Israel as their homeland is an issue, even when they are not of recent israeli heritage. Thinking that does not necessarily mean placing Israel above the US, and even so that is not an unjust stance to take for an American citizen. I am very critical of Israel and think they need a set of focus in their approach to achieve peace and prosperity. I find some of the policies and actions bigotted. I still think it is the most free country in the region and that the surrounding countries would do well to take up what is positive about Israel and abandon their own bigotted policies that are often just as bad or worse. The issue of Israel is important to the US. They are an ally in a region in which we are heavily invested in, financially and militarily. Their actions sometimes reflect upon us and shape our own policies in the region. Americans thinking about the Israeli situation is a positive in my mind, even if many of us having conflicting views and opinions. Hardline supporters of Israel are not traitors to the US and hardline critics are not anti-semites. Or at least not definitely so.

ETA: As for "kike" it is not so obviously a pejorative in the sense you are saying as it still has a valid use and meaning beyond the pejorative. In the context of how it is usually used today by non-Jews, yes. In what it means and the origin of how it came about, not so much. Evidence suggests the terms started out as a term between Jews for one another, primarily from East European immigrants in the US. It is now very rare due to the bigotted ursuption of the word, but some communities still use it in that context. More commonly I see younger generation Jews use it in the same context that black people will use the n-word.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Another difference is that Israel claims to be the homeland of the Jews and directs its policies accordingly. Many Jews identify with Israel for reasons other than ancestry. But again, I don't see why that's a bad thing (the latter... state policy favoring Jews is more iffy). Btw, you can identify with a country and not support all or most of its actions.

Many countries have policies that cultivate a connection to the "homeland".
Turkey still calls up Turks from the Netherlands and Germany for army service. (You can get out of it by sending some money to the Turkish government).
Morocco has a deal with the Dutch concerning which names are allowed for Dutch-Moroccans. This is a thorny issue as the Moroccan policy on naming babies is aimed at repressing certain names associated with Moroccan's Berber population and is thus an instrument of repression.
Dutch-Moroccans are not allowed to cancel their Moroccan nationality, it is simply illegal to do so. They are thus forced to have dual citizenship.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Good point Eddie. The situation of Isreali supposedly for speaking for a specific people anywhere in the world is not unique even today. The issues definitely become thorny and complex. Dual loyalties is not necessarily a problem. Obviously it becomes an issue if the two nations go to war. Fear of dual loyalty led to the US internment of japanese Americans during WWII. It is not uncommon for a country with a national ethnic identity to call upon its ethnic constituents throughout the world when marching to war. A common practice during the heavily nationalistic first half of the 20th century. During the Iraq-Iranian war Saddam thought he could garner support in the ethnically arab area of Iran. This proved false but it is not a unique mindset to Israel.

I worked with someone who was a Dutch-Moroccan (Moroccan-Dutch?) that is a US citizen by way of marriage. He lives in the US yet visits Holland (he considers it his homeland, not Morocco) on a near yearly basis depending on his finances. Multiple citizenship is a thorny and confusing situation in the US. Is it clear by Dutch law if he has then renounced his Dutch and Moroccan citizenship? I suppose I could just ask how his individual situation turned out if I see him again.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Could perhaps include how Israelis feel (wide political spectrum) rather than make yet another disinformation thread Parky, erm, Thunder:

Post poll: Obama still in single digits

Obama had appeared to receive much better numbers in a Dialog poll published last Friday in Haaretz. Both the English and Hebrew editions of Haaretz led with the headline, “Poll: Most Israelis see Obama as fair, friendly toward Israel.”

The English edition elaborated near a picture of Obama that “69% say Obama is fair and friendly.”

The English edition of the newspaper contained no graphics distributing the actual numbers, either online or in print. The newspaper’s Hebrew edition, however, included a graphic indicating that just 18% of respondents considered Obama “friendly” toward Israel, 3 percentage points fewer than the 21% who called the US president “hostile” to the Jewish state. Ten percent did not know, and 51% defined Obama’s approach to Israel using the Hebrew word “inyani,” which can be translated as matter-of-fact or businesslike but not as fair.

The Post reported on Monday that Haaretz’s pollster, Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs, called the way the results of the poll were presented “misleading.”

Haaretz English Edition editor Charlotte Halle responded that “Haaretz published a fair and accurate representation of the survey conducted by Prof. Camil Fuchs at the request of Haaretz. Any attempt to claim otherwise by another newspaper is false.”

So 'misleading', just as this thread's op is misleading. Thunder has this innate ability to obfuscate the situation, as does Haaretz, and polls for that matter to state something that its not. In addition to this, to run with the assumption that Leftists apparently all support the Obama's approach to this very conflict, which is a false premise to begin with. But I don't see this as any different compared to the other threads Thunder has started to pit the left-wing against the right-wing in a slew of disinformation ploys.

Perhaps one can frame the situation more adequately. Perhaps the inclusion of Obama's support by American Jews dropped from 78% in 2008 elections to the 59% now (albeit this is overall support).

Or include a Feb 2010 poll as seen here. Make not of the bipartisan nature of the poll.

There's certainly a need to present more information rather than yet another Haaretz article that acts irresponsibly as a propaganda outlet rather than a balanced media outlet.

 

[bigjelmapro]

In regards to Eddie Dane's post. I highly doubt that there's a strong correlation to the trivial cases of Dutch Moroccans naming their children Dutch names, Dutch Turks filling the ranks in the Turkish army, and that of American Jewish support of solving an ongoing ME conflict.

I don't really want to minimize how this Turkish/Moroccan issues, but are you seriously trying to imply that there's a strong correlation to that of this ME conflict?

 

[DC]

In regards to Eddie Dane's post. I highly doubt that there's a strong correlation to the trivial cases of Dutch Moroccans naming their children Dutch names, Dutch Turks filling the ranks in the Turkish army, and that of American Jewish support of solving an ongoing ME conflict.

I don't really want to minimize how this Turkish/Moroccan issues, but are you seriously trying to imply that there's a strong correlation to that of this ME conflict?

the turks for example still have the kurds "problem"

 

[Skeptic]

There's certainly a need to present more information rather than yet another Haaretz article that acts irresponsibly as a propaganda outlet rather than a balanced media outlet.

But Ha'aretz is, de facto, a propaganda outlet...

 

[DC]

But Ha'aretz is, de facto, a propaganda outlet...

sure it must be, it contradicts your oppinion.

 

[Skeptic]

Look. We all have dual, and triple, and quadruple, loyalties. As citizens, as human beings, as parents or children or uncles or aunts, as soccer fans. Sometimes the loyalties conflict -- say, do I take my family to the beach or to a soccer game of my favorite team, which they will not enjoy as much? Which wins -- loyalty to family or to team?

There is nothing inherently special in having dual loyalty to the Jewish state and to the USA. It depends on what level and to what degree. A Moroccan-born French citizen has dual loyalties. If he puts a Moroccan flag out the window on Morocco's independence day is doing nothing wrong. Neither is, say, lobbying for a French policy that's favorable to Morocco. But spying for Morocco isn't.

So what's the difference? Why are Jews special in any way here? The same is true for them. (Except for the belief that Israel is terribly evil -- the sort of bigotry believed by those who accuse the Jews of "dual loyalty", much like those who accused Italian-Americans of "dual loyalty" were very likely to also think there's a Catholic conspiracy to rule the world.)

 

[Darth Rotor]

... there's a Catholic conspiracy to rule the world.)

Actually, if you replace the term "conspiracy" with "plan" you'd be pretty accurate in terms of the ultimate objective of the Catholic Church. It's desire is to spread Christianity to all nations, with Christianity in the RCC's view being "that which acknowledges the Pope as Christs' vicar on Earth" and all of that.

Not so much a conspiracy as an openly stated objective.

If getting everyone to become a Roman Catholic won't allow the Pope to "rule the world," then we may be quibbling over details: OK, his legates won't write the traffic laws, but the political influence of the universal RCC would sure get close to "ruling," ideologically, if in no other way.

The question is, can the next Charlemagne speak and pray in Chinese?

ETA: for the OP, the "abandonment" of Israel has been a topic of discussion among American Jews for over a generation. I am mildly familiar with the issue, thanks to a couple of schoolmates of mine who returned from Israel in the 1970s, all of the shine rubbed off the Kibbutz system for them.

DR

 

[bigjelmapro]

the turks for example still have the kurds "problem"

Not what he brought up eh?

 

[DC]

Not what he brought up eh?

still a problem, especialy for Kurds i know that have to serv in the Turkish army.

 

[cwalner]

And Catholics never get this either. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous in the most insanely ****ed up way: it's... rediculous.

Not true. One of the criticisms of President Kennedy when he was running was that he would have a dual loyalty to the Vatican.

 

[Thunder]

But Ha'aretz is, de facto, a propaganda outlet...

for whom?

how would you feel if a Neo-Nazi said that the ADL is a de-facto propaganda outlet?

and by the way, I may like Israel, but I do not have dual loyalty. I am only loyal to the country I am a citizen of, and that is the USA.

 

[Scootch]

for whom?

how would you feel if a Neo-Nazi said that the ADL is a de-facto propaganda outlet?

and by the way, I may like Israel, but I do not have dual loyalty. I am only loyal to the country I am a citizen of, and that is the USA.

If a neo nazi said that? Well that would complete upturn my worldview, I would then ask said neo-nazi if there were some literature or a pamplet he could give me to further explain their point of view.
Wow you are right I never thought of it that way before, from the nazi's point of view they are being attacked and persecuted. I may have been completely wrong about the neo-nazi party (to be fair i was always turned off to the neo-nazi party because of the neo part-i am not a matrix fan)

 

[Darth Rotor]

Not true. One of the criticisms of President Kennedy when he was running was that he would have a dual loyalty to the Vatican.

If you wish to thicken this plot, notice that he supported propping up the failing regime in South Viet Nam (his pass down from Ike didn't include Viet Nam being worth the effort). Oddly enough, Diem and others in the SV ladership class tended to be ... wait for it ... Catholic and bourgeoise! Obviously, a papist plot, and Kennedy got caught in the act, which is why Oswald shot him: Oswald was a God Hating Marxist Atheist!

A dyslexic,he had trouble with spelling and writing coherently. Yet Oswald read voraciously and, by age 15, claimed to be a Marxist from his reading on the topic. He wrote in his diary, "I was looking for a key to my environment, and then I discovered socialist literature. I had to dig for my books in the back dusty shelves of libraries". At 16, Oswald wrote to the Socialist Party of America, stating that he was a Marxist who had been studying socialist principles for "well over fifteen months", and asked for information about their youth league.

See, it all fits!

(Ya know, CT crafting is a bit tougher than I thought ... )