The real enemy of the Jews - Why does Borat ignore the left?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Cyclotron

I understand your reason for accepting it; it just seems like a bizarre premise - "those who oppose the existence of this state are anti-semites." I would expect such an argument to be heavily supported by, well, something quite substantial, and to make this argument in all seriousness is to me worthy of note by itself.

It would involve numerous assumptions which few here share. Its not worth the time. Im not going down that path.

course not. I shouldn't have to point out to you that a negative doesn't prove a positive. Obviously people who are strongly anti-Semitic are unlikely to be pro-Israel.

Its not just that people who are antisemitic are not pro-Israel. Its that many of them know its unacceptable to antisemitic, but much more acceptable to be anti-Israel.



"Cohen is not arguing (from this) that Jews should be more worried about people who sing along with his faux-Kazakh anti-semitic songs than violent anti-semites. He is arguing that anti-semitism exists in a hidden form that needs to be exposed, because it is that which is hidden, not just that which is obvious and well-known, that leads to such disasters as the Holocaust."


And I think Krauthammer would share that. He would argue that people who use what are essentially antisemitic rhetorical tropes, etc are MUCH more likely to be hidden antisemites than some guys in a bar singing along for fun to a song theyd never have come up with on their own, expressing a phenomenon which is not an important part of American life.

" I don't see the great need to point out the anti-Semitism of people who are already clearly anti-Semites; that is clearly redundancy, and probably wouldn't make for very good comedy either. I don't need Borat to tell me that a bunch of Iranian cartoons depicting Jews as parasites or murderers is probably anti-Semitic, or to point out the significance of that anti-Semitism. It is hatred and bigotry that is concealed from view which he targets."

Yup. No need for Borat to go visit Ahmadinajed in Iran. More useful would be for him to visit Ahmadinaged apologists in the West. And Hamas apologists. And see what he can provoke THEM into saying, using all his comedic skills. It would be more challenging that dealing with drunks in a bar, but far more insightful.


"If they were found in a bar in early 20th century Germany, I don't see why they cannot be found in a similar place in Arizona. "

Oy vey. Thats Krauts point. Like he said, no western country has been kinder to the Jews, more welcoming, more philosemitic even. We cant call folks who you, know fire kassams at Israeli towns during a ceasefire, who blow up in pizza parlors, antisemites, we cant dare equate someone in the UK who goes on about "neocons" and includes on the list only Jews, but we can compare the USA to Weimar Germany as far as antisemitism is concerned. See thats just crazy. and its just that craziness that bugs Kraut.

As for anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, I suppose I should bow out here; I simply can't conceive of the logic by which you would positively link the two and only grudgingly admit that maybe, just maybe one could believe in one without the other. I just can't wrap my head around that, which makes me a poor candidate to continue such a discussion.

I dont necessarily hold that view. I do know people who do, and have serious arguements. I find it very uncomfortable to make the case for something i dont quite beleive in, esp when right now its about the least PC thing one could assert.

[Spiffor]

LOTM: could you provide a link to such arguments please?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM: could you provide a link to such arguments please?

Nope. Non.

Im not getting dragged there.

I see I shouldnt have even mentioned the "if", cause now y'all are focusing on that, and missing the main arguement.



Ever read a novelist named Alan Drury. He was convinced that most New York liberals wouldnt give a black the time of day if it wasnt for their guilty consciences. He also believed that apartheid South Africa deserved to be viewed with more sympathy. He also made it clear that he himself was no racists, he believed in equal rights and all that. Though he had no little sympathy for conservative white southerners, at least the better educated sort (IE the ones who wanted to slow down civil rights changes, and opposed civil rights laws, but didnt throw stones at school buses).

Now most American Blacks at the time were more "worried" about folks like Mr Drury, than they were about the "hidden" racism of New York liberals(even those who thought Drury may have been right about them). and I would suggest they were right.

Even though one COULD be opposed to one man one vote in South Africa for reasons other than racism. And even though hidden racism on the Upper West Side COULD create problems. They had to face what their actual problems in this world were, and who was supporting them, and who wasnt.

Borat, then, would have been looking for racism on the Upper West Side. And ignoring it among the Allen Drurys.

[Ramo]

Saying that Ahmedinejad isn't going to nuke Israel or that negotiating with (rather than trying to undermine) Hamas is the best prospect for peace is somehow ethically equivalent to supporting Apartheid in South Africa?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
Saying that Ahmedinejad isn't going to nuke Israel or that negotiating with (rather than trying to undermine) Hamas is the best prospect for peace is somehow ethically equivalent to supporting Apartheid in South Africa?

No, I said being virulently opposed to the existence of the state of Israel is practically equivalent, for most Jews, to what supportive of the old regime in South Africa was for most blacks.


Minimizing the importance of Ahmadinajed, and deciding that negotiating with , and providing financial support to, and generally painting as moderate a Hamas that refused to recognize Israel or renounce terror is OK (even when negotiating with Bin Laden, say, is off limits) is NOT the equivalent of supporting apartheid. It is however, a greater concern than bar patrons singing in Arizona.

Im sorry these threads are getting so complex, that some folks are confusing my responses to one person with my responses to another.

[lord of the mark]

hitch on Borat (nothing about the Jews)

http://www.slate.com/id/2153578/

[Jon Miller]

I had some similiar thoughts.. I still find some things about his show/movie funny.. in an absurdist way (not in a "I am shocked by what I am hearing way").

If you look for old videos "The Hunting of the Jew" is the most blatant anti-semiticism I have ever heard in America. (can be found on you tube)

JM

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It would involve numerous assumptions which few here share. Its not worth the time. Im not going down that path.

Works for me.

Its not just that people who are antisemitic are not pro-Israel. Its that many of them know its unacceptable to antisemitic, but much more acceptable to be anti-Israel.

But even in this example, the anti-zionism is simply a further expression of anti-semitism; you have yet to demonstrate that anti-zionism means anti-semitism in every, or even most instances. A person might hate Mexicans and thus be a proponent of stricter border controls; this does not mean that everyone or most people who advocate stricter border controls hates Mexicans, and anyone who claimed that would be a fool. I don't believe this scenario is any different.

And I think Krauthammer would share that. He would argue that people who use what are essentially antisemitic rhetorical tropes, etc are MUCH more likely to be hidden antisemites

This makes no sense. People that use obvious antisemitic rhetorical tropes are, by definition, not hidden antisemites. They are very much overt antisemites.

Yup. No need for Borat to go visit Ahmadinajed in Iran. More useful would be for him to visit Ahmadinaged apologists in the West. And Hamas apologists. And see what he can provoke THEM into saying, using all his comedic skills. It would be more challenging that dealing with drunks in a bar, but far more insightful.

Ahmadinajed apologists, however, may support him for a variety of reasons. Anti-semitism is simply one of his more unfortunate rhetorical flourishes; one could well support him and be critical of those words. The same goes for Hamas. Krauthammer operates on the assumption that these people are hidden anti-semites, and I don't believe that to be true. Some may be, but they are probably no more likely to be than the average Arizona barfly.

We cant call folks who you, know fire kassams at Israeli towns during a ceasefire, who blow up in pizza parlors, antisemites,

We can't? Krauthammer certainly doesn't seem to say that.

but we can compare the USA to Weimar Germany as far as antisemitism is concerned. See thats just crazy. and its just that craziness that bugs Kraut.

I don't see what's so crazy about asserting that humans are humans, and that hidden racism can be dangerous anywhere. Of course, there is probably more such racism in other countries, and in that respect, perhaps Borat singles us out unfairly - but his point still stands. His argument is not that Americans are secretive racists, he is simply using a few select Americans as an example of such racism generally, and I don't see what's so terrible about that.

[Sandman]

we cant dare equate someone in the UK who goes on about "neocons" and includes on the list only Jews

Hardly unexpected. The average Brit is completely oblivious to who's Jewish in America.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Nope. Non.

Im not getting dragged there.

I see I shouldnt have even mentioned the "if", cause now y'all are focusing on that, and missing the main arguement.

The second you replied to my post, you were in the arguement, and given that this thread is about the Krauthammer piece, of which this beliefe that anti-zionism equals anti-semitism is a critical and central part of Krauthammers very arguement against Borat, what is the pint of arguing in support of Krauthammer is not willing to discuss one of his basic tenants?

As for how opposing a Jewish state, defined as a state created specifically for the benefit of a single ethnic group, in this case Jews, can be done without being anti-Jew is easy. One can simply oppose the very notion of states being around to protect specific ehtnic groups as opposed to all citizens regardless of ehtnicity. In short, one could take offense at the notion of Nationalism, be it Jewish (Zionism) or not.

Ever read a novelist named Alan Drury. He was convinced that most New York liberals wouldnt give a black the time of day if it wasnt for their guilty consciences. He also believed that apartheid South Africa deserved to be viewed with more sympathy. He also made it clear that he himself was no racists, he believed in equal rights and all that. Though he had no little sympathy for conservative white southerners, at least the better educated sort (IE the ones who wanted to slow down civil rights changes, and opposed civil rights laws, but didnt throw stones at school buses).

Now most American Blacks at the time were more "worried" about folks like Mr Drury, than they were about the "hidden" racism of New York liberals(even those who thought Drury may have been right about them). and I would suggest they were right.

Even though one COULD be opposed to one man one vote in South Africa for reasons other than racism. And even though hidden racism on the Upper West Side COULD create problems. They had to face what their actual problems in this world were, and who was supporting them, and who wasnt.

Borat, then, would have been looking for racism on the Upper West Side. And ignoring it among the Allen Drurys.

Yes, but given that you already stated that Blacks worried about the racism of Drurys, why should Borat go against him and not try to expose the hidden racism in the Upper West Side? And even if the people in the Upper West Side were trully racists (if one accepts that arguement), their actions were more beneficial to blacks than those of Drurys.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Look, it's the fricking thrad title. I think this is the right thread to discuse it in.

Oerdin, you have to know that my thread titles are trolls. I admitted as much long ago.

During the thread, I said I was limiting my remarks to the far left, e.g., commies and the like. I said that most of the moderate left in the US (such as yourself) supported Israel and are far from being anti-Semitic.

Just for the record, in case you actually want to discuss this matter seriously like LOTM seems to.