Top Menu

New Yorkers Counter Terry Jones Hate Message by Singing the Beatles’ “All You Need is Love”

TerryJones_Beatles

When Terry Jones tried to exploit the tragedy of 9/11 to bash Islam and Muslims, New Yorkers countered by singing the Beatles song “All You Need is Love.” (h/t: AliyaPlatif)

Proud of New Yorkers!:

This made me want to share the original Beatles song in its entirety:

, , , , , , , , , ,

  • Chameleon_X

    Sarah,

    Here is yet another example of Zionism=Racism right off the news ticker today, which directly addresses the ironic absurdity in your argument:

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/indian-jews-lost-tribe-move-israel-18053968

    The only reason these ethnic Indians qualify to immigrate to Israel as “Jews” is because of their Zionist tribal blood line — a disgusting appeal to a blatantly racist and provably absurd criterion to qualify as a Jew (i.e., it is provably absurd because this racist criterion is ironically ridiculous per genetic science):

    “The Bnei Menashe say they are descended from Jews banished from ancient Israel to India in the eighth century B.C. An Israeli chief rabbi recognized them as a lost tribe in 2005.”

    Note how their genetic link was the unambiguous primary qualifier. This community had even become animists and Christians in the past, but that is nothing that a mass “conversion” to Judaism couldn’t fix to shuttle them over to Palestinian land.

    Finally, note the ultimate oppressive political purpose behind all of this, which some Jews are highlighting, but even they do so based on an objection to the racist genetic link being true!:

    “Avraham Poraz, a former interior minister, said they were not linked to the Jewish people. He also charged that Israeli settlers were using them to strengthen Israel’s claims to the West Bank.”

    Race has no place in ANY ideology, period. That is my unflinching, undiluted claim above all my other claims on this topic. That is why the political ideology of Zionism is wrong and why it has no place whatsoever as a part of Judaism or in the definition of who is a “Jew”, especially when Jewish doctrine does not support it and when Zionism is a provable, patent fraud based on genetic and historical data.

    Race + Ideology = Racism.

    It is that simple, and it is always wrong. Racism oppresses. Racism persecutes. And racism kills.

    When your HP pro-Zionist wolf pack is ready to engage in a debate on this issue, please tell them to step up to the plate. Otherwise, they can just keep embarrassing themselves by blowing their groupthink gaskets amongst themselves on HP because they are too afraid to engage in a real debate about Zionism. Similarly, if you think even one pro-Zionist argument they are making on HP is worthy of merit against my claim, I challenge you to raise it here, now.

  • Chameleon_X

    JSB,

    I just gave you another thumbs up. I too hope that we can one day have a civil discussion on areas where we disagree.

    I understand that you and Ilisha were having a civil discussion, but both of you were basically ignoring the elephant in the room, or at least dancing around it. I agreed with just about all of the points you two were bringing up, but they weren’t really addressing the heart of the controversy: i.e., whether there is any rationally supported argument for race (in the genetic or tribal blood line sense) to define who should be considered a Jew. Zionism says that there is such an argument, but this argument is not supported by Judaism in my view, except by some vulgarized interpretation of the doctrine — in the same way that a terrorist might argue that unjust violence is OK simply because the Quran recognizes the perfectly ethical necessity for violence under circumstances of justice.

    When someone argues that their ideology is inextricably linked to a race, gene pool or tribal blood line, this is by any definition of the word, “racism”. No race can be considered part of any “ideal” within the framework of an ideology. For example, the Law of Return is a racist Zionist policy, since no individual can logically “return” to a place from where he never left. Only a fictional gene pool can logically “return”.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an affiliation to a family or tribe, nor is there anything wrong in feeling proud about who your family or tribe is. However, there is something very wrong about hitching that tribal identity — and especially that pride — to an ideology such as Judaism, which should be completely independent of any family or tribal identity.

    What is also wrong is that this tribal-ideological connection between Zionism and Judaism is a total lie debunked by both 1) modern genetic science (DNA variation is much higher across religious Jewish groups than it is vs. many non-Jewish groups) and 2) Jewish history (a large proportion of Jews descend from converts outside of the Zionist tribal blood line).

    There seem to be several people who disagree with me, but no one, not even you, is willing to debate me, at least for today. When you are willing to have that debate, let me know. In the mean time, I will continue to advocate for the eradication of Zionist racism from Judaism, since racism has no business being associated with Judaism. In short, my firm, unflinching position is that race has no place in ANY ideology, period, especially where it demonstrably does not belong. My position is not in any way peculiar to Zionism.

    If I stated my position in any way that could have been less alienating, then I apologize for the deficiency in my communication. This is a very controversial topic that just about everyone feels very passionately about, so I am not sure if it can ever be a completely civil conversation. But we have to keep trying.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    Chameleon: Since you have said some kind words here, let me change my mind and re-enter the discussion.

    You say, “we could have very lengthy and civil discussions on what we agree about…” Of course, but the question is whether we can have civil discussions on what we disagree about. As you said in in another post, you will make certain points “even if we have to be obnoxious to do so.”

    I guess that’s the issue here. My first post was to try to sway CJaaron. I included one small argument to help him feel that I was on his side, pointing out that you were indeed capable (though I did not use that word) of linguistically distinguishing between ethnic and religious Jews because you had indeed made such a distinction. It was, to me, a minor point, noting that someone who had done something obviously had to be capable of doing it. I am sorry if I did not get your full meaning. Even now, it may appear that you wish to exclude purely ethnic Jews from the fold, but I really can’t tell because the discussion went so awry.

    I also agree with Ilisha that you may have been alienating her (to use her word) and perhaps others away, when you are clearly capable (in every sense) of making rational and convincing arguments; I have seen you do it before. But, sometimes it seems as if you go overboard, arguing, for example that I am shutting down debate on this issue when all I said was that I no longer want to debate with you. In fact, even before you had said that, I was discussing the issue in other comments here with Ilisha, and I certainly did nothing to prevent anyone else from engaging in the discussion.

    I would hope that one day we can have a civil discussion on areas where we disagree. But, if you are alienating even people who should generally be on your side, then no matter what the strength of the logic in your analyses, much of which I do disagree with, I’m not sure that it’s the right strategy. Ilisha says that you and she are “coming at this from a similar vantage point.” That may be true, but so far, I think she and I have had a more productive conversation because we have kept it civil. I have had several debates on LW where I changed my views to be the same or closer to Ilisha’s to a large degree because the discussion was civil and it was much easier to see her logic and decide whether to accept or reject it without having to be distracted by an uncivil tone. For example, in a discussion of the Geneva plan with me, she made some excellent points and I reevaluated and changed my views precisely because of what she said and because she was encouraging me to consider her views and not engage in personal (or obnoxious) attacks.

    I also bear you no grudge. But I disagree with you on your views about historical and current Judaism, and I’ll leave it at that.

  • Chameleon_X

    “I think you’d find more common ground with him than you realize.”

    I have no doubt that JSB and I have a whole lot of common ground, and we could have very lengthy and civil discussions on what we agree about. In fact, I estimate that at least 95% of the time I agree with just about everything he says, and I give him thumbs up all the time and will continue to do so. I hold no grudge against him. He makes very persuasive arguments, and he is a valued contributor on LW.

    But all of this is really an ad hominem line of discussion (in the positive sense, rather than the usual negative sense) that is not relevant to the topic of debate. We strongly disagree on this topic, and that is absolutely fine. There is no need for handwringing because we cannot come to an amicable agreement. What I won’t tolerate, and what makes me so impassioned here, is being told that a topic is none of my business to debate as a non-Jew when the consequences of remaining silent in the face of bigotry and hate (i.e., Zionism, not JSB) are so high to us all. I also wholly reject the notion that I should concede a debate when no one is even willing to debate me on my claim.

  • Chameleon_X

    “They aren’t hawkish Zionists, and there is a difference.”

    Yes, and David Duke is not hawkish in his racism either, as I have discussed extensively on another thread about white supremacism. That is the difference between racial separatism and racial supremacism. I would probably agree that even most Zionists find Jewish racial supremacism objectionable or even repugnant, but that does not change the fact that racial separatism leads to race-motivated atrocities just the same. Yes, this racism is not “hawkish”, as you say. But it is openly justified, and it is forced on others to accept via a massive propaganda campaign. Silence is the greatest conspirator in all atrocities, and I refuse to be silent. Euphemistic racist terms like “eternal homeland”, “Promised Land”, “the Chosen People” etc. are used instead to justify what can never be justified.

    People can try to neuter the term Zionism with such nonsensical terms like “Post-Zionism”, but that does not change its racist roots. If people truly object to these roots of Zionism or they have truly moved beyond Zionism as the word “Post-Zionism” implies, then they should denounce Zionism and use another word entirely. Would it make sense, for example, to call oneself a “post-racist” if that person rejected racism? Why would you want your identity to be even associated with the word “racist” anymore, even indirectly, if you have truly moved beyond it?

    “Are you trying to make peace with your opponents or vanquish them?”

    Neither. I have no power to vanquish any ideology or people; and even if I did, I would never want to use it. The world as a whole needs to wake up to make this choice for themselves. As I have said many, many times, there is only one solution to the I/P problem: Israel must grow up and become a democracy with its first ever Consitution to recognize all minorities as equal citizens with non-negotiable basic human rights, and it must discard its racist, Zionist foundations as being wholly incompatible with democracy.

    My Jihad here is simple. It is the same Jihad I have in pouncing on anyone who dares to use the term “Islamist”, “Islamism”, “Jihad”, etc. in the context of unjust violence. My Jihad is to forcefully challenge anyone and everyone who perpetuates or endorses bigotry and hate, especially those who try to infest such vile notions into honorable words and beliefs like “Islam”, “Jihad”, and “Judaism”.

    Zionism has no place whatsoever in Judaism, and I am still waiting on a single person to step up to the plate to debate me that it does. How can I concede anything when no one will even debate me on my claim?

  • Chameleon_X

    Sir David,
    I agree, red hair and all! No specific difference should ever be considered superior or inferior. In fact, what we should value, according to both science and religion, is DIVERSITY in general — i.e., ALL differences. Diversity of all humanity – in fact, diversity of every kind on the entire planet — is what supports our growth, evolution, and stability in every possible sense.

  • Chameleon_X

    “Do you ever concede a point?”

    Not when the facts and logic are in my favor — absolutely not. However, do I ever concede a point? To answer that question, one has to look no further than my comments above, in this very thread: “I will even concede that point”.

  • Chameleon_X

    “I’m hardly an apologist for Zionism.”

    Of course you aren’t. In fact I know with certainty that you are totally against it. But if we are only interested in focusing on similarities rather than the root cause of differences, we will never stop the atrocities, oppression and persecution that such bigotry and hate causes. In fact, by trying to avoid the elephant in the room, we will eventually end up contradicting ourselves, as you just did. In other words, when you tell Jews who believe that their religion is inextricably affiliated with race that being “Jew” doesn’t have to relate to race at all, then you are indeed telling them how to define their community — you simply cannot escape this logic.

    I have done the same flip-flopping in the past myself, all in an effort to be polite, so I am not immune to this controversial dilemma. It is simply a product of how we have been rendered linguistically incapable of discussing this topic. I have just decided to stop with this politically correct nonsense and to step out of this propaganda quagmire by insisting that we focus only on the facts and logic, no matter how offensive this may seem.

    As I have highlighted before, you blame the suffering of the Palestinians on occupation, which as a proximate cause is clearly true. But until you can identify the ROI on a very costly occupation from the Israeli government’s point of view – i.e., WHY occupation continues when it is so obvious that it is counterproductive in every worldly sense – you have failed to identify the root cause, which is the political ideology of Zionism. If we can’t talk about this amongst ourselves, then how can we talk plainly and forcefully to Israelis and Jews about this, which I agree is absolutely necessary?

  • Chameleon_X

    You are absolutely right, except for your premise being in support of your argument. Although your premise that “Jews aren’t a race” in a any definitive sense is provably and absolutely correct according to genetic science, traditional Zionists still perpetuate this fantasy that Jews are a definitive race. Are you going to make the argument that this is not a Zionist claim?

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    What I found interesting in the review was the assumption that to be genetically different must be viewed as either superior or inferior , why not just accept people as people.
    I am of course being red haired a magnet for the opposite sex

    Sir David

  • SarahAB

    If Jews aren’t a race, and if Jews with recent MENA origins are closer to Palestinians than to European Jews – then I don’t see how Zionism can be racist! More seriously – Ilisha’s pragmatic goals seem more important than DNA.

  • Chameleon_X

    “I certainly don’t have the audacity to tell Jews I can define their community better than they can.”

    Thankfully, you had the good sense to contradict this statement entirely with your last statement: “One can certainly be a Jew or an Israeli (or both) and not have any “Jewish genes.””

    I couldn’t agree more with this last statement. If Zionist Jews want to argue that “Jew” should be defined according to race, then we have every right to tell them that they are absolutely wrong and to demand proof for their racist argument, even if we have to be obnoxious to do so. I am sorry, but “Members Only” privileges do not apply to perpetuating bigotry, since such vile hate impacts us all.

  • Chameleon_X

    “[W]hy doesn’t Israel force all potential immigrants to submit to a DNA test to prove they have the “Jewish gene”?”

    Excellent question, Ilisha, and now you are peeling back the layers of this outright lie called Zionism. It was already tried, and it failed. A lot of Zionist money has in fact been thrown at this very issue, to “prove” who is a Jew genetically. It was an entire industry of scientific nonsense, and now it is nothing more than absurd pseudoscience (“Cohen gene” notwithstanding, per your other link). Zionism is a patent fraud, since it is only based on the assertion of a gene pool, not an actual gene pool that has any scientific significance. In fact, I would argue that there really is no such thing as a definitively racial Jew at all, since genetic science firmly destroys this racist bigotry being slapped onto Judaism. I can virtually guarantee that the native Israeli Jews share substantially more DNA with Palestinian Arabs than with Jews who immigrated back to Israel after many generations in Europe or elsewhere. There is no such “Jewish” gene pool, and that is the whole point!

    Zionism has merely duped Jews into believing that there is such a gene pool, and that they should have some absurd affiliation to it. But Zionists counter by saying it is not just the percentage of DNA that matters, it is being a descendant of the tribal blood line that matters, which may or may not be reflected in DNA tests. Again, more pseudoscience bullshit. The historical fact is that most Jews throughout history actually converted to Judaism from blood lines that were distinctly unrelated to the Isaac/Israel blood line, but the Jews would rather tell a phony return from exodus story: i.e., the Jews were expelled en masse from their “Promised Land” (which historians have no evidence for, by the way), and now they are returning as some supposedly intact racial gene pool thousands of years later! Are you serious? These idiots have no comprehension of genetics to make such embarrassing claims. No gene pool can possibly remain intact that long, and the vast number of Jewish conversions (unrelated to intermarriage) already destroyed the notion of a “racial Jew” a long time ago.

    Incidentally, with respect to JSB’s attempt at appeasement that “Israel” actually implies “struggle with God” misses the whole point. The country of Israel was named after a Jewish tribal blood line. Israel is Jacob, the son of Isaac, per Genesis 32:28-29. Moreover, Jihad arguably has the OPPOSITE meaning to struggle with/against God. Jihad means struggle in the cause of God, whether against your own self (the “greater Jihad”) or against others who oppress and persecute, but NEVER against or with God.

    I am sorry, but I will not support hateful and bigoted lies just to play nice, nor will I even tolerate appeasement. We can all talk rainbows and sunshine about how many parallels there are between Islam and Judaism, which I already agree with 100%. But the elephant in the room is that Judaism has been hijacked by a racist political ideology called Zionism, which has no factual or logical support for its irrational existence, let alone in conjunction with the noble religion of Judaism. Genetic science is just one more nail in its coffin.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    Ilisha: You read the Forward article (actually a book review), but I read the underlying book! 😉

    “I certainly don’t have the audacity to tell Jews I can define their community better than they can, but it seems to me the Jewish identity has cultural, religious, and ethnic elements.” I think that description is right.

    As I noted elsewhere, until a few hundred years ago, Jews would not have made any real distinctions among those elements. Unlike some religions, we also have a pretty broad latitude for those who do not accept most doctrinal elements of Judaism, thereby allowing for Jewish atheists for example to be part of the community. Think of it like a family: there are members who may not agree with each other on important matters that some even view as the cornerstone of the family such as the family business or even politics, but we’re still family. There are some things that may get one cut off from the family, but it takes a lot.

    If you look up “ethnic jews” and “religious jews” in the same Google search term, you will see over 10,000 estimated hits, because this is a popular topic of discussion, as there is some fuzziness and confusion over the boundaries of the Jewish people. Given how close Judaism and Islam have been at various points, even both using the word ummah to refer to their people, this could even be potentially relevant for a topic that is a minor twist on one brought up on another thread: does the term Islamophobia cover discrimination against those who identify as culturally Muslim but don’t practice Islam? It’s an interesting question, and I’m always open to calm debate on such topics.

  • Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance

    Ilisha
    Have you heard of the Cohen gene?

    Sir David

  • Chameleon_X

    JSB,

    Oh, yes, the final, desperate ad hominem attack. It is always the last refuge of someone who has absolutely nothing intelligent left to say. Thank you for just proving my point that we are all rendered linguistically incapable of making any distinctions among Jews. This discussion is hereby declared off limits by JSB. We are not allowed to even debate it.

    You can’t bring yourself to discuss it because you don’t want to look like a total fool trying to defend the racist cancer of Zionism. Any ideology that believes that a tribal blood line — a certain gene pool — makes them chosen for salvation in the eyes of God is an odious and hateful ideology. It is this ideology that has slaughtered thousands of Muslims, and left tens of thousands homeless, and that is why I will NEVER back down. There are no “chosen people”, JSB. God does not choose an entire population of people to be above others according to DNA. God only chooses individuals based on their faith and the deeds that follow from that faith. This is what Judaism teaches too, contrary to the propaganda that it does not.

    You state that you know so much about Judaism to dispute my claims, but you refuse to debate me. Now isn’t that funny? I fully acknowledge that you know much more about Judaism than I do, but I know enough to know that you are too embarrassed to debate me. You are too humiliated by the cancer that has taken over your people to distance yourself from it. Zionism is a disgusting, revolting, undemocratic ideology that has no business whatsoever being associated with the noble religion of Judaism. And the fact that you refuse to denounce this ideology makes you anti-Judaism as far as I am concerned. You are attributing to Judaism what has no business even being associated with Judaism.

    As for the irrelevant ancillary arguments about how many Jews accept Jewish converts, I really don’t even care about that nonsense. I have many Jewish friends as well, and I have heard many stories to counter yours, including how Israel categorically does not consider Jewish converts equal to genetic Jews for citizenship or even visa purposes. If it makes you feel better, I will even concede that point, since what the exact percentage is is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue, which you refuse to discuss.

    Also, with respect to your irrelevant Yiddish and Hebrew distinctions, these are perfunctory because they don’t address my claim at all about how the whole world is told to view the Jewish identity and how the Jews themselves view their identity in terms of an affiliation to a genetic blood line. There is a mountain of evidence to support the importance of this tribal blood line affiliation for Jews, so throwing out some perfunctory words and claiming “members only” knowledge privileges does not change what is obvious to the entire world.

    My claim stands, and you therefore concede by refusing to debate me: Contrary to its own doctrine, Judaism has become inextricably joined with the racist ideology of Zionism, so much so that 1) the word “Jew” has become wrongfully and irrationally synonymous with a tribal genetic blood line; 2) we are rendered linguistically incapable of making a distinction between racial Jews and religious Jews because such distinctions are declared off limits, as you just demonstrated; and 3) telling Jews that the doctrine of Judaism rejects the racist ideology of Zionism and challenging Jews to denounce this hate as not being a part of Judaism is considered obnoxious and is also not permitted.

    I will never be embarrassed to drag hate and bigotry through the coals, even when it is wrongly infesting someone else’s religion, because that hate and bigotry affects us all. It oppresses. It persecutes. And it kills. Since JSB does not have the balls to stand up to this hate, who amongst all of you does? Who will debate me if they refuse to denounce this hate and bigotry called Zionism?

Powered by Loon Watchers