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.

Powered by Loon Watchers