http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128242
The article discusses the fact that Obama suckered Jews into voting for him. Notice that he wants to chit chat with the Iranian president. I bet he'll talk to him before he talks to the Jews.
I never disputed that secular, modern and otherwise whipped Jews were suckered into voting against their own people.
>I never disputed that secular, modern and otherwise whipped Jews were suckered into voting against their own people.
ReplyDeleteWell, one could argue that if 80% of Jews voted for Obama, perhaps it is the 20% who voted against him that voted against their people. Of course, the whole argument is absurd. Voting for Obama is not a yes/no proposition on the future of the Jewish people.
Interesting that you characterize Jews who don't think like you as being "secular, modern or otherwise whipped". Let me guess, everyone to the right of you is a fanatic, and everyone to the left is a goy?
Or maybe most of the Jews that voted for him don't care that much about Israel and their fellow Jews. Maybe these are not important issues to them. Maybe they didn't think about the fact that he would go into Israel, the LAND and boss around the people of our land.
ReplyDeleteMostly the Orthodox Jews are more concerned about whether or not a politician is "good for the Jews" and they should be.... Hitler was "bad for the Jews." We need to care what a politician thinks of us, you see?
>Or maybe most of the Jews that voted for him don't care that much about Israel and their fellow Jews. Maybe these are not important issues to them. Maybe they didn't think about the fact that he would go into Israel, the LAND and boss around the people of our land.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think you're wrong. I think he was pretty explicit about what he wanted to do; that he wanted to restart the peace process and enact a settlement freeze. If you run the statistics, I think you'd find that a lot of these Jewish voters (most, I'd bet) care very much about Israel and their fellow Jews. If you look at the United States Congress, which is a pretty "pro-Israel" body, especially in the last 10 years, I think you'll find that the majority of Jewish congressman are Jewish. In fact, this year, there is only one Jewish Republican, Eric Cantor. AIPAC gives money to all these Jewish Democrats and they have always been considered pretty pro-Israel. Most Jews have voted Democratic since Roosevelt, and I don't think you'd say they didn't care about their fellow Jews.
And, in this case, I would say that Jews who voted for Obama made the right choice, vis a vis their Jewish brethren in Israel. They took action to preserve the Jewish State. George Bush did not bring us any closer to peace. Israel still does not have a recognizable border, and still possesses a large and growing unhappy minority, denied the basic rights of citizenship and does not seem to be any closer to solving any of these problems. Obama and the Democratic Party have the beginnings of a plan that would bring peace to the Middle East by creating a separate, sovereign Palestinian state. This would give Israel, final, internationally recognized borders, solve the minority problem, and pave the way to making peace with the other Arab countries.
George Bush and most of the Republican Party have also endorsed the two-state solution, because it is the obvious solution. I'm not sure what your solution is, but I'd venture you have none, besides ethnic cleansing, which for a whole bunch of reasons, is not really a good idea. What's pretty clear is that the status quo is not a solution, and is indeed making things worse. So, it seems to me, that the Jews who voted for Obama have taken the step towards giving Israel security, normality, and peace. Until you can really say that you have a better, viable solution than that, I fail to see how you can pronounce them as foolish, or selfish, when they are doing more to help Israel than you.
>Mostly the Orthodox Jews are more concerned about whether or not a politician is "good for the Jews" and they should be.... Hitler was "bad for the Jews." We need to care what a politician thinks of us, you see?
ReplyDeleteI think when you compare President Obama to Adolf Hitler you trivialize the Holocaust. It shows either a lack of knowledge about the Holocaust, or a lack of seriousness as to what it was, and what evil it actually represented. Either way, it's kind of insulting.
Or, I can be dan l'kaf zchus that you might just not be aware of who the President is, which might be possible, seeing as I believe you think he is a Muslim.
Apparently, you are not aware of what Obama REALLY wants. He really wants to screw the Jews over badly.
ReplyDeleteAs for Israel's solution, that's for Israel to decide. This is what I'm talking about the US sticks their nose into any other country's goings on. Except, of course in the holocost when the Jews needed the US and they were not permitted to come here.
>Apparently, you are not aware of what Obama REALLY wants. He really wants to screw the Jews over badly.
ReplyDeleteBut why would you think that? Nothing in any publicized statements that he has made support your interpretation. I suppose it's possible that he harbors a secret hatred of Israel and the Jewish people, but you need more proof than the fact his middle name is Hussein. Otherwise, you're just a paranoid nut.
>As for Israel's solution, that's for Israel to decide. This is what I'm talking about the US sticks their nose into any other country's goings on.
Well, two points. Firstly, do you believe that the United States should never involve itself in another country's business? What about Iran's nuclear program? Or the genocide in Darfur? I imagine you would agree that where America's interests (or gross humanitarian concerns) are at stake, it is appropriate for the United States to maintain a degree of involvement, giving adequate respect to other countries' sovereignty. As I've said before, it's pretty clear that what goes on in Israel is the United States' concern. Now, that doesn't mean that the United States can force Israel to take any specific action, but they can certainly use any of a variety of diplomatic tactics to bring pressure to bear on the Israeli government. Israel is especially vulnerable to pressure from the United States because it relies pretty heavily on American support. You can't ask that the United States help facilitate the peace process and bring its military and economic might to your support, but then deny them any input. What Barack Obama is doing, is articulating America's position vis a vis the settlements. If Israel wants America's support and help, it should adopt a line close to America's. Of course, Israel is free to do as it wishes. The US is not going to invade Israel over the issue. But it's ludicrous to expect the United States to keep supporting Israel in an issue with which it emphatically disagrees. This is not "sticking his nose" in Israel's business, or forcing Israel to do something it doesn't want to do. It's telling Israel the score.
A second, and related point, is that Israel receives $3 billion in military aid from the United States. I think I found an adequate proof this time - is the Jerusalem Post, okay? (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1248277866890)
This most assuredly does entitle the United States to make its feelings known. If you don't want American's nosing into your business, don't accept their cash.
>Except, of course in the holocost when the Jews needed the US and they were not permitted to come here.
Don't blame Roosevelt's sins on Obama.
You're a moron and Obama would have done the same as Roosevelt. You are blind, blind to how he feels about Israel and the Jews. To me, his anti-semitism is obvious.
ReplyDelete>You are blind, blind to how he feels about Israel and the Jews. To me, his anti-semitism is obvious.
ReplyDeleteGot to do better than that. Is it something that he said? Did? Does he have the mark of the beast on his forehead? What tipped you off? What makes it so blindingly obvious to you?
"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided" [1]
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212041478725&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"He said that if a peace deal delivered a "terror base next door" to Israel than it would be worthless, and insisted that Hamas, the militant group that controlled Gaza, had to recognise Israel before he was ready to make concessions" [2]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5346415/Netanyahu-stands-firm-against-demands-from-Obama.html
And why Academic(s) including Universities ban students from citing from Wikipedia, let alone using Wikipedia as a credible let alone reliable 'source':
"With the move, Middlebury, in Vermont, jumped into a growing debate within journalism, the law and academia over what respect, if any, to give Wikipedia articles, written by hundreds of volunteers and subject to mistakes and sometimes deliberate falsehoods" [3]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/education/21wikipedia.html
"The brutal fact is that a work of reference which depends mainly on volunteer amateurs, whose good faith, ability and expertise are unknown, and whose contributions are largely unchecked, cannot be other than unreliable" [4]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/28/marcel-berlins-wikipedia-comment
"Students and professors alike should recognize that Wikipedia is only a recreational tool, not a trustworthy academic journal" [5]
http://media.www.redandblack.com/media/storage/paper871/news/2007/02/20/Opinions/Wikipedia.Nifty.But.Unreliable-2729189.shtml
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI think you're confusing two issues with regards to Wikipedia.
Firstly, Wikipedia is a great resource. It is a free, online and very comprehensive encyclopedia. Everyone uses it. In reality, in the average person's day to day life, Wikipedia is more than sufficiently trustworthy. If you want to know the capital of Kenya, you can use Wikipedia. If you want to know what people eat for breakfast in Russia, Wikipedia will tell you that too, and you can believe it. If you want to know the date of the Mexican-American War, Wikipedia's got that covered too.
The question is, though, given the wide accessiblity of Wikipedia, and the ability of anyone (even anonymous non-experts) to edit entries - how trustworthy is it? Could it be used as a citation for a scholarly work or a history paper? There are two camps in this issue. One side believes that although Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, there are also strong institutional safeguards in place that prevent vandalism and the entry of false information. The other side believes that Wikipedia is inherently too unreliable for about all the reasons you'd expect, and therefore cannot be used as an authority in a scholarly work.
However, this says nothing about whether your regular average Joe can trust Wikipedia. Especially if the information is sourced to reputable publications. Numerous surveys have been conducted and, while the results have been mixed, Wikipedia has not been shown to be less reliable than more traditional, scholarly encyclopedias.
There is currently a debate in academic circles about whether to ban Wikipedia in academic papers. Bringing op-eds from proponents of such a ban, or newspaper clippings that describe such bans does not make it a fact that Wikipedia is unreliable or should be considered unreliable. Just that various people think that it is so. Which I don't dispute.
With regards to the debate, here, at this blog, I have already outlined my opinion on the matter. I brought a source from Wikipedia. In this instance, Wikipedia linked it to a reputable publication, but let's say that it didn't. If you decide that you do not trust Wikipedia under any circumstances, or even with regards to this specific subject, you may object to my proof (even though in this case I think your mistrust is misplced), and I will be happy to provide another citation. However, it's silly to say that I am an unserious debater who cannot be trusted to have an argument with someone simply because I linked to Wikipedia. Many people do trust Wikipedia. Far more than trust Arutz Sheva or JPost or whatever. It is ridiculous to dismiss an entire twenty-something post argument on the grounds that I once cited Wikipedia. If you think I am wrong about something, argue your case. But saying "Ah hah! One thing he said he cited from Wikipedia! It must be that the two-state solution is wrong!" or some other such nonsense is pretty stupid.
Are you the anonymous I argued with before about this? It does get confusing - could you please adopt a handle?
Do you study at a University may I ask? (Off topic of course).
ReplyDeleteAnd I prefer to remain 'Anonymous' on my own accord. Yes, the Anonymous you were arguing with before just so happens to be the same person.
What I am saying that in the circles I move in and whom I am acquainted with - not one of those individuals would dare go anywhere near Wikipedia....For anything.
So moving on...
Let's say rhetorically speaking that you require information on a Nation - go to their Government website. You'll find an abundance of information provided. You want information on quotes from literary authors.. you might use this particular website (example) - www.think.exist.com
You need a document with statistics on commodities and the futures stock exchange would you use Wikipedia to find out this information? most certainly not.
You seem to be able to navigate your way around a net portal. So instead of taking the short cut and using 'Wikipedia'. May I suggest you find something else.
Then I may take you seriously. You have the capability to argue, but yet you seem to think that I am confusing two issues at hand.
Let's break down the context on this blog entry and the main reason we disagree - The main arguement there is:
1. You feel Wikipedia is a 'reliable' source to reference information from. I say 'No' it is indeed not so.
2. That the Author of this blog mentioned the idea that she feels her Government has indeed overstepped its line when it comes to International Foreign Policy regarding the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. By including an article provided from a paper which you disaprove of to then argue (with wikipedia) sources naturally and to then insert you're Government does indeed have the right to force at hand, what a nation should and must do (on the grounds of the $3 Billion Israel receives from the US).
You then went on to insert statistics on the percentage of Jews whom voted for the then President elect and then continued to go on about why you believe a Two State Solution is the only viable way to solve the current issue.
Correct?
>Do you study at a University may I ask?
ReplyDeleteYes, I am in graduate school. And don't worry, I have never used Wikipedia in a citation.
>Let's say rhetorically speaking that you require information on a Nation - go to their Government website. You'll find an abundance of information provided.
Seriously? You trust the dictatorial governments of North Korea or Zimbabwe over Wikipedia? Wikipedia may be inadvertently wrong about some things, but it doesn't employ Propaganda Ministries.
>You need a document with statistics on commodities and the futures stock exchange would you use Wikipedia to find out this information? most certainly not.
Yeah, but I wouldn't check any encyclopedia for that information, just as I wouldn't ask Wikipedia what I was eating for dinner. While Wikipedia is a remarkably current and quick-to-update encyclopedia, it's not omniscient. It's just an encyclopedia, albeit a remarkably comprehensive one. Wikipedia has strengths and weaknesses.
I think we're still confusing the issue here. I have never argued that Wikipedia is a reference work that may be trusted implicitly. It is best used to research information that is easy to come by pretty quickly in another forum, say the GDP of Poland, or the capital of New Zealand. This is information that a malicious or erroneous Wikipedia editor would have trouble altering because it is information that is widely known, easily available and hard to lie about. If someone changes the capital of New Zealand to Pooptown, or asserts that the Mexican-American war was fought from 1923-1935, it's not going to last. These things will be changed back remarkably quickly. Go on, try and edit an article for the worse. See how long you're vandalism remains. Similarly, information on world politics and current events, such as how much American military aid Israel receives annually, is widely circulated information. If you did not trust Wikipedia, you could easily discover it elsewhere, as it is a widely reported figure in the media. (Unless, of course, you don't trust the media, in which case, it will be difficult for you to know anything.) In this sense, Wikipedia is best employed as one-stop shop, or as an aggregator of information.
I would not trust Wikipedia to tell me something very obscure, like whether John Cusack had a moustache in 1972, or something esoteric or overly technical. Most mistakes that surveys find on Wikipedia will be of this last category. I am unaware of anyone looking at a Wikipedia page on North Korea and saying that they messed up the name of its capital. A mistake they are likely to find, would be more along the lines of "that's not a perfect definition of positivism."
You and your coterie of friends seem to have an absolute distrust of Wikipedia. I don't. I wouldn't cite it in a paper, but there are instances when I find it to be perfectly suitable for my own personal purposes. It hasn't led me astray yet. Of course, my interlocutors do not have to trust it like I do, in which case I am happy to bring another citation. I think we can agree, though, that op-eds are less reliable than Wikipedia?
>1. You feel Wikipedia is a 'reliable' source to reference information from.
ReplyDeleteNot quite. If I want to prove that I did not make something up, or that I did not simply pull figures out of a hat, I will use Wikipedia. When I want to know something that is easily available elsewhere, I will use Wikipedia. When I want to find a source of something I know, I will often check Wikipedia and see the source to which it links. It is not, in and of itself, however, a "proof". In short, I trust it in informal settings.
>By including an article provided from a paper which you disaprove of to then argue (with wikipedia) sources naturally and to then insert you're Government does indeed have the right to force at hand, what a nation should and must do (on the grounds of the $3 Billion Israel receives from the US).
I don't understand this last paragraph.
But briefly, to summarize the action thus far:
Michal thinks that Barack Obama and his meddling State Department have no business telling Israel what America's diplomatic position on the territories is. Apparently, we should all just keep quiet and smile encouragingly at whatever Israel wants to do.
Her argument seems to rely on the following points:
1) The United States has no business telling other countries what they should do.
2) The United States's opinion in these matters is racist (thanks, in no small part, to that anti-Semitic Muslim of a President).
3) The Obama Administration and the American media's opinion in these matters is merely that of smug goyim and need not be taken seriously.
To which I responded that
1) The United States is not violating Israeli sovereignty here, simply by saying that its continued support is contingent on Israel hewing closely to America's line. You can't demand my support, and then deny me input. Secondly, it is very much America's business what Israel does. Third, I doubt very much that Michal actually believes that America should not involve itself in the affairs of other nations, say Iran or North Korea.
2) I argued that the Administration's position was not racist, and was actually pretty sound. For details see there ad locum.
3) Here's where the American Jews come up. I argued that this was not some gentile conspiracy, but one that actually has significant support in the Jewish community. Michal originally thought, in fact, that since I supported Obama, I was a gentile. Nothing could be further from the truth!
I do believe that the two-state solution is the best solution proposed. Surely better than the status quo "do nothing" approach. I am prepared to be dissuaded.
And that is the story thus far.