Top Menu

When a Jewish Extremist Talks Like a Nazi

shimon gapso

File this away under “What if this were a Muslim…?”  Shimon Gapso, mayor of the Israeli city of Upper Nazareth, has recently published an article for Ha’aretz in which he lays bare his racist and extremist religious ideology.  Gapso implicitly endorses a policy of ethnic cleansing, and defends his statements calling for the “Judaization” of his city.

The article is entitled “If you think I’m a racist, then Israel is a racist state.”  Well, as they say, if the shoe fits… Zionist ideology is, after all, rooted in the belief that the land of Palestine must be Jewish, an ideal that could/can only be fulfilled by replacing the indigenous Arab population with a Jewish one.  Israel is, as Mr. Gapso says, a racist state.

Gapso in the past has supported ethnic cleansing initiatives.  He has opposed the creation of a single Arab school, Muslim cemetery, or mosque in the city.  (I thought only Saudi Arabia had this problem?)

Here is Shimon Gapso’s article with my commentary inserted in between:

If you think I’m a racist, then Israel is a racist state

Upper Nazareth’s mayor answers detractors who say his reelection campaign calling for the mixed city to be ‘Jewish forever’ is racist.

by Shimon Gapso

Over the past few days, many people have been calling me a racist. Sometimes they also call me a Nazi, a bully or even Hitler. One need only look at the comments on Haaretz’s website to put me before a firing squad. What’s my crime? What act of bullying did I commit? I made a clear and unequivocal statement that Upper Nazareth was a Jewish city.

Yes, the comparison to Nazis and Hitler is acceptable here, despite what a distorted view of Godwin’s Law would claim.  Extremist Zionists routinely invoke Nazi and Hitler comparisons to Arab and Muslim leaders, but God forbid anyone say that of a Zionist.

Imagine if a Texan were to say that Texas ought to remain “white forever.”  This would be something only an Aryan racist would say–and nobody would think twice about likening this to the Nazis or Hitler.

One could claim that “white” is a race, while Jewish is not.  This is of course the game that is always played.  When convenient, Jewish is used as a race; when convenient, as a religion.  But, would anyone call it anything other than extremism of the worst sort for someone to claim that Georgia should remain “Christian forever”?

Shimon Gapso continues:

Yes — I’m not afraid to say it out loud, to write it and add my signature, or declare it in front of the cameras: Upper Nazareth is a Jewish city and it’s important that it remains so. If that makes me a racist, then I’m a proud offshoot of a glorious dynasty of “racists” that started with the “Covenant of the Pieces” [that God made with Abraham, recounted in Genesis 15:1–15] and the explicitly racist promise: “To your seed I have given this land” [Genesis 15:38].

When the Jewish people were about to return to their homeland after a long journey from slavery in Egypt, where they were enslaved for racist reasons, the God of Israel told Moses how to act upon conquering the land: he must cleanse the land of its current inhabitants. “But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you allow to remain… as I thought to do to them, so will I do to you” [Numbers 33:55–56].

God gave them an explicit warning. Yes, the racist Joshua conquered the land in a racist manner. More than 3,000 years later, the Jewish people stood bruised and bleeding on the threshold of their land, seeking once again to take possession of it from the wild tribes that had seized the land in its absence. And then, an outbreak of racism flooded the country.

We are constantly reminded by the so-called “Islam experts” (who just happen to almost always be staunch pro-Israeli hawks) that it is only Muslims who take the violent parts of their scripture literally in the modern day and age.  Meanwhile, we are told that Jews and Christians don’t do this.  Pseudo-scholar Robert Spencer writes on p.31 of his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):

When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don’t interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers.  This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretive traditions that have moved away from literalism regarding these passages.

In fact, I have cited studies that have shown that the majority of believers take the Bible to be literally true and the Word of God.  And, here we have an Israeli mayor referring to the bloodiest parts of the Bible in order to justify a policy of ethnic cleansing.  In previous articles, I have documented the Bible’s extensive justifications for ethnic cleansing, and Shimon Gapso is invoking these as a proof for a modern day policy of such.

Gapso is not a lone voice.  In fact, a majority of Israelis believe in a policy of ethnic cleansing.  This is not idle talk.  From its very inception, the state of Israel has engaged in ethnic cleansing.

This is the height of religious extremism.  It is a major problem facing the Jewish community today.  We are told by the pro-Israel “Islam experts” that Muslims have a problem of religious extremism–why aren’t moderate Muslims speaking out?, we are constantly asked.  But, how come we hardly ever hear these people asking why more Jewish people aren’t speaking out against Jewish extremism and supremacism in Israel?

To be clear, there are plenty of prominent Jews who are speaking out against Jewish extremism and supremacism.  The reactions to Gapso’s article are a proof of this.  But, just to set the record straight: the vast majority of Muslims on earth oppose the views of their religious extremists–and condemn terrorism in the name of Islam.  Yet, a very large proportion of the Jewish community seems to support Zionism and, by virtue of this, end up endorsing certain racist religious views in regard to the establishment of a Jewish state in a land that was, up until the turn of the century, inhabited primarily by non-Jews.

The point here is not to demonize the Jewish community.  The truth is that even though far too many Jews are Zionists, it is also a fact that the people who have done the most to stand up to extremist Zionism have in fact been Jews themselves.

The lesson to be learned here, however, is that it is unfair to single out the Muslim faith and community as the only one suffering from a religious extremism problem.

Back to Shimon Gapso’s article (with emphasis added):

The racist Theodor Herzl wrote “Der Judenstaat” (“The Jewish State,” not “The State of All Its Citizens”). Lord Balfour recommended the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people. David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Arlosoroff, Moshe Sharett and other racists established the Jewish Agency, and the racist UN decided to establish a Jewish state — in other words, a state for Jews. The racist Ben-Gurion announced the establishment of the Jewish State in the Land of Israel, and during the War of Independence even made sure to bring in hundreds of thousands of Jews and drive out hundreds of thousands of Arabs who had been living here — all to enable it to be founded with the desired racist character.

How refreshing it is to hear some cold, hard truth about the matter: the Jewish state engaged in the systematic ethnic cleansing of “hundreds of thousands of Arabs.”  This campaign–which continues in a modified form to this very day–was sustained by religious extremism.  What is interesting as well is that this absolutely absurd religious idea–that God gave the Jews the land of Israel–is championed even by many secular Jews.  Such is the endemic problem of this racist and extremist idea.

Gapso continues:

Since then, racially pure kibbutzim without a single Arab member and an army that protects a certain racial strain have been established, as have political parties that proudly bear racist names such as “Habayit Hayehudi” — “the Jewish home.” Even our racist national anthem ignores the existence of the Arab minority — in other words, the people Ben-Gurion did not manage to expel in the 1948 war. If not for all that “racism,” it’s doubtful we could live here, and doubtful that we could live at all.

In these times of hypocrisy and bleeding-heart sanctimoniousness, of the proliferation of flaky types who are disconnected from reality, in the relative security that causes us to forget the dangers we face, we can sit in north Tel Aviv, and cry “racism” to seem enlightened and good-hearted in our own eyes. We can be shocked at a mayor who prefers that his city, which is right next to the largest Arab city in Israel, retain a Jewish majority and not be swallowed up in the Arab area that surrounds it. There will not be a single Jew in the future Palestinian state, but that’s all right. That isn’t racism.

For the record, even Hamas has stated that in their “ideal Islamic state” Christians and Jews would be allowed to live in it.

Gapso gives this disclaimer:

Upper Nazareth is a Jewish city. Fewer than one-fifth of its inhabitants are Arab citizens, and they enjoy full municipal and national rights. Many of them are friends of mine, and I like and respect many of them.

This is of course the necessary disclaimer of “I have black friends, so I can’t possibly be racist against blacks.”

Gapso concludes:

I could wish that Jews were treated the way the Arabs of Upper Nazareth are — not only those Jews who lived in Europe of times past, but also those who live in the Arab countries of today. If that were the case, perhaps we of Upper Nazareth would have no need to be “racists.”

Herein is revealed the fundamental flaw in Zionism–and what makes the comparisons to Nazism reasonable.  It was the Nazi viewpoint that Jews could not live in Europe with non-Jews that led to the Holocaust.  Instead of disagreeing with this baseless argument and calling for racial and religious harmony in Europe, Zionists argued that Jews could not ever hope to live with non-Jews in safety.  According to this defeatist view, Jews must segregate themselves into their own state, and that’s why Shimon Gapso has to Judaize his city (and all of Israel).  The only way Jews can be safe, according to the Bible’s violent verses and bigoted modern day Zionism, is to cleanse the land of Gentiles–whoever (supposedly) worships a different god, speaks a different language, or has a different religious or ethnic background.

Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t buy into the argument that blacks could not live with whites in peace and harmony.  In spite of the horrific violence levied against his people and his own person, Dr. King rejected Marcus Garvey’s “Back-to-Africa” ideology.  Such an ideology–which endorses the idea that a racial or religious group must live only among its own people–is a pernicious one.  It’s dangerous whether it is held by whites, blacks, Jews, Christians, or Muslims.  Instead of believing this segregationist idea, we must all learn to live together.

We must also learn not to unfairly single out one religion over another.  All religious traditions have their extremists.  This includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  He is a fool whoever takes Shimon Gapso’s views and actions as being synonymous with Judaism and the Jewish community overall.  Likewise, so too are those fools who take this or that extremist Muslim’s views and actions as representative of Islam or the Muslim community at large.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.  

Did you like this article?  Make sure to contribute to Danios’s IndieGoGo campaign.  

, , , , , , , ,

  • GuestOfGuests

    Oh, and for the record… The “Judaization of Jerusalem” expression has this “Romanization of Rome” or “Hellenization of Athens” twist to it…

    And yes, that’s really how retarded this sounds to us.

  • Pingback: Being Honest About The Dominant Zionist Narrative | Brave New World()

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    No it’s not “the Zionist part of the NK, what a silly thing to say. To claim a Utopian eschatological religious belief that goes against the fundamental underpinnings of Zionism as Zionist makes no sense and also displays an ignorance of Jewish theology/history. Sorry you are just digging yourself a larger hole and embarrassing yourself further Chameleon. I urge you to do more study on this subject since you proudly proclaim ignorance on it.

    To edify some of what you lack in this regard the logic of the diaspora for centuries was the fact that Jews should bear their exile in humility and submission to the will of God and the gentiles ruling over them, deliverance would only come from the Messiah after which universal peace would reign (i.e. beating swords into plowshares, the lamb lying with the lion, etc.). Zionism was a rebellion against this concept, as was the Haskala (Enlightenment) in general, in no way are the two compatible.

    So now you are backtracking and contradicting what you said regarding my article because you are unable to rise to the challenge of justifying your claims. The fact is you analogized my article on Zionism and Islamophobia as similar to saying “Nazism is not necessarily bad.” This is the conclusion you came to:
    “it was analogous to hearing a message something like this after covering all the nuances of Nazism: “Well, Nazism is not necessarily bad, since it is historically based on nationalistic and socialist ideals, which can often be a good thing. It’s just the Nazi extremists that were the problem.”

    So yes you did say through your analogy that the message of my article was that Zionism is “not necessarily bad.” As for my position on Zionism, it is very clear, and my article made a damning conclusion about all the strands of Zionism, stating they are pervaded with a view of the “other” that believes Muslims, Palestinians, the Oriental Jew are at their most basic ontological roots different (inferior) than Western, Ashkenazi Jewry.

    You ask, With respect to the analogy between Nazism and Zionism, by the way, please tell me what other analogy would be more appropriate.
    Other analogies certainly can be made that are as appropriate or more so. For instance the racist state ideology of Apartheid South Africa.

    Let me make it simple for you with regard to the analogy of Nazism and Zionism. As for why I say it is a disputable analogy based on whether it provides more clarity or precision. Well take one example: the racism Zionism asserts is 1.) a racially based state based on the Israeli historigraphical myth that all Jews in diaspora are only descendants of exiles returning home, 2.) By (most) any means necessary the dominance of one race to secure a “Jewish state” over the concerns of the indigenous population. While there are often expressions on how Jews are superior to gentiles, Zionism does not necessarily hold to the Nazi belief that they are a “Superior race,” in fact as one saw from my article some of the leading ideologues of Zionism held Sephardim and religious Jews in serious contempt, describing them as savages, backwards, uncritical, tainted by the flaws of the Orient, only good to be used as bodies for economic development for a state of Israel.

    A last note, I have not accepted an “irrational definition” of who is a Jew. I have just accepted the self-definition of Jews who define Jewishness as decided by matrilineal descent. I accept that you oppose this despite neither facts, reality or logic being on your side.

    This said I’ll let others judge whose arguments or views make more sense or are backed up by the facts. For me, this is a good place to conclude. I hope you do study a bit more on these topics and discuss them with as much of an informed basis as you generally do when it comes to topics related to the Quran or Islam.

  • Chameleon_X

    “When did I cross this line?”

    And when did I assert you did? I have not debated your opinions here, nor do I desire to, since opinions have no weight. I was merely clarifying how my view on Zionism differs from what I perceive to be your view on Zionism given your negative assessment of my views, with the added suggestion that you follow your opinions to their logical conclusion before you judge mine as “offensive” or “unhelpful”.

    “As for your comments, I checked and I don’t see any that have been deleted. I have never deleted one.”

    I never asserted you deleted any. In fact, I am quite confident that you personally have not. However, I do know for a fact that some have been deleted.

    “How far should we go back to find the “root” cause? How about the Roman occupation, where the Jews were expelled from the land in the first place? How about the centuries of relentless persecution, especially in Europe? Though Zionism predates the Holocaust, I believe without it, there may never have been enough support to establish Israel, so that seems like an important factor too.”

    Previous historical events can never justify racism – period. That would be a flagrant violation of the just war doctrine. Racism is an evil choice worthy of unconditional blame, regardless of historical precedent. It can never ever be justified. Previous historical events are not relevant. Don’t you realize your root cause logic with these examples amounts to asserting “two wrongs can make a right” to justify Zionism? No, they cannot. This is why I firmly believe that the only real solution will have to involve forgiveness of the Israelis once they are shamed into rejecting the racist doctrine of Zionism. The Palestinians cannot justify a racist punishment on the Jews in return, as they ironically could under your logic. Once fundamental change is on the table, I believe everyone should start looking only forward with hope and forgiveness, not back with acrimony and retribution.

    This is the much ignored positive lesson from Nazi history, that rejection of racism by the guilty and forgiveness from others is the only path to reconciliation with those who aspired to a racist state. If we are too uncomfortable making this analogy, then we will never be able to see the solution right in front our eyes. Again, what other state throughout modern history has had the audacious goal of dedicating an entire state to a single race to teach us how to move forward?

    “Palestine was under British Mandate, and Zionism had British support.”

    There are other guilty accomplices, no doubt. However, the British actually tried strongly but unsuccessfully to restrict all this illegal immigration into Israel. That is where the militant Jewish terrorists stepped in against the British with terrorist attacks to forcefully remove those restrictions starting in the mid-1930s. Those same racist terrorists then formed the power structure of the future Israeli military and government that we still see in operation to this day. I don’t recall any “Christian Zionists” signing up for this “reborn” Zionism (per “The 18 Principles of Rebirth”) that actually came into power, but perhaps you could educate me otherwise.

    “What about the warped sense of Western “justice” that says other people should pay with their patrimony for their sins? The supremacist notion they have some God-given right to determine the fate of other people’s land. This is their attitude even today, and it’s hard not to see that also as a “root cause.””

    Same fallacious premise that somehow two wrongs can make a right to exonerate Zionism from some root cause blame. Racism is always wrong, period. This argument also sounds like the kid on the playground who said, “He told me to do it!” or “He told me it was OK!”. Sorry, but those words don’t even sound convincing to the Kindergartener who is saying them in his own defense.

    “They were trying to find a place to live where they felt safe.”

    Again, why did they have to massively overrun, illegally occupy and ethnically cleanse a far off land just to feel “safe”. This argument is nonsensical. They could have just left as my relatives did, and then perhaps returned later without any undue imposition on others. There were much closer and more suitable places to go to feel safe. Read the history. These militant Zionists would not even consider any other location except Palestine for the European Jews. No other option was even permissible, even though it would have likely saved a lot more Jews at less migration cost. The Zionist goal was not to get them out of Germany, but to get them INTO Palestine illegally, with the stated Zionist doctrine to then ethnically cleanse the land of all non-Jews. And that is exactly what they did! Another critical goal, of course, was to get Jewish assets into Palestine via the deal with Hitler in order to fund the Jewish power structure and militant ethnic cleansing, which is also what they did. Hate and ethnic cleansing don’t come cheap. They cost some serious coin.

    “Let’s just agree to disagree on this point.”

    Again, I am perfectly OK with that, since you acknowledge it is nothing more than your opinion, not a claim. I have no interest in challenging mere opinions.

    “I will also add that I’m a bit surprised by your strident tone with me, when I’ve tried very hard to be conciliatory. Even if you firmly believe I’m wrong on some point, please show some patience. I’m not attacking you.”
    My apologies then if I have crossed the line in getting personal as a result of my obvious passion on this topic. That was never my intention.

  • Chameleon_X

    Yes, we all know how delicious your red herring is. Perhaps you can swap some red herring recipes with Garibaldi later!

  • Chameleon_X

    “Can you not make space for anyone who is not in lockstep agreement with you on every point?”

    Of course! You are perfectly free to have your opinion as long as you don’t try to assert it as an objective claim or assert that my argument is somehow incorrect without facts to back you up. That is when you cross the debating line. It is really that simple.

    “Aside from not agreeing with the notion Zionism is equivalent to Nazism, I think it’s counterproductive.”

    Perhaps if you quoted my claim correctly, you would not be so adamantly up in arms. I said it was analogous as a comparison, NOT “equivalent”. Furthermore, I also very specifically clarified where the analogy breaks down after Kristallnacht and explicitly excluded the later Holocaust. My points are quite valid as such. You are welcome to rebut the facts if you like, but I put zero value in your opinion (no matter how often repeated) or even my opinion in making a compelling argument on this claim. Only the facts and the logic flowing from them matter.

    “You’re deeply offending people and potentially turning them against you, and for what?”

    Because I don’t care if what I see as the blaring, ugly truth is offensive to others, and I firmly believe that only the unadulterated truth will set the Palestinians free – now where did I hear that quote before? I am far more concerned about the horror, hate and unjust atrocities that are stirred up from ethnic cleansing — and still continuing to this very day (more illegal settlements just announced right before talks resume!) — than anyone’s irrelevant sensitivities upon hearing the truth.

    “A failure to take a firm moral stand?”

    This was my comment to Garibaldi, not you. He has taken no such firm moral stand that I have ever seen. My only beef with your view, I think, is that you take no moral stand against the modern ideology of Zionism, and how it was spawned in its hideous form under the aegis of Nazism and militant Jewish terrorists. You don’t seem to acknowledge this ideology as the root cause. Without this root cause, your moral stand against the racist state of Israel and all the Jews who support it is implying that a lot of Jews are simply just bad people without any particular explanation why. I reject this bigoted view, in the same way that history proved unequivocally that this was not true of the Germans after they firmly rejected the racist creed of Nazism. In other words, if you follow my logic and your logic to their ultimate conclusion, you will find that yours is far more offensive to the Jewish people because you have nowhere else to really lay the blame.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    No, thank you, because your responses were delicious for me too, though since you have admitted your repeated error, you now probably have at least some idea how truly delicious they were!

    One question if you don’t mind: If I was bumbling over a fact for seven months while repeatedly getting it right, what verb describes what you were doing with that fact for seven months while repeatedly getting it wrong?

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    As JSB showed, it took you 7 months to finally admit this, though you do so begrudgingly and continue to bizarrely claim that it proves some point you are trying to make. This is one example of the stubbornness that too often characterizes some of your posts.

    So you initially mischaracterized or “misunderstood” JSB as stating that he argued that the NK were “anti-Zionist Zionists.” How long do we have to wait until you walk this back now that you realize that he did no such thing? All the pejoratives that you flung on this topic either because you willfully mischaracterized or misunderstood him is no one’s fault except your own.

    You say you are the same type of anti-Zionist as the NK. So you oppose Zionism out of a religious conviction that Jews cannot have a state in the Holy Land until the long awaited Jewish messiah comes to power?

    You say, “And I showed you that what you thought was “incorrect” was actually an
    irrational definition, which you could not effectively rebut.

    This is actually patently false. After I wrote this comment in reply to you: http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/01/gate-of-the-sun-where-islamophobia-meets-ziojuana/#comment-769603582 you made no effort to a.) Correct your mischarachterization (or maybe another misunderstanding) of Rabbi Kertzer’s view on who is a Jew. b.) You first asserted that Rabbi Kertzer agreed with your view that a Jew is only a religious Jew, this was shown to be factually incorrect and you did not correct this. Instead you seem to now be attacking the same person you cited as a evidencing agreement with your claim as forwarding an “irrational definition.”

    You say I am being “dense” for pointing out the inconsistency in your comment regarding “opinions.” People can see the clear contradiction in your unequivocal statement that on the one hand “opinions are cheap and meaningless” and your now cleaning that up and saying it is only “cheap and meaningless” to “others.”

    After first claiming I was attempting to “recharacterize the repugnant historical facts that I presented as nothing more than your comments,” you’ve dropped that false and insupportable claim, once again another “misreading” or “misunderstanding” perhaps.

    Then you proceed to say about my first article in the series on Zionism and Islamophobia: it was analogous to hearing a message something like this after covering all the nuances of Nazism: “Well, Nazism is not necessarily bad, since it is historically based on nationalistic and socialist ideals, which can often be a good thing. It’s just the Nazi extremists that were the problem.”

    I challenge you to justify this by citing anything where I remotely state or imply that Zionism or any of its various strands are “not necessarily bad?” Here is my article: http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/04/zionism-and-islamophobia-initial-encounters-with-islam-and-muslims/
    Right now all we have from you is baseless innuendo and opinion. You state I take no firm stance but clearly my conclusion in that article does, my hunch is you likely haven’t even read the article.

    You say my opinion is “meaningless” because I haven’t presented facts. What facts do I have to bring to those analogizing Zionism with Nazism? My point is that an analogy certainly can be made but that it is “disputable” whether it is helpful which was the point of the discussion. I stated this for two simple reasons relating to the purpose of analogies: 1.) Does it bring more precision and 2.) clarity to a topic.

    You have neither brought facts or presented any solid arguments addressed to me. You’ve also “misread” or “misunderstood” my comment once again it seems: I invoked “Dawood” not to help me out, (where do I say that?) but only to highlight that I wish for the days when there were better informed and more logically consistent commenters on LW threads who didn’t make grandiose sweeping claims without merit and glaring factual errors and constant miscitations and misreadings.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    “What I was arguing initially about the NK was my understanding that JSB was characterizing them nonsensically as “anti-Zionist Zionists” who
    believe in some sort of nostalgic form of Zionism without all the nasty bits. JSB’s characterization was utterly wrong or else my understanding of what JSB said was utterly wrong…. I think you need to reread JSB’s original comments about the NK to see what I mean for yourself.”

    No, it is you who need to reread my original comments, because you are just wrong on my original comments on NK. See here for the first comment in which I ever referenced the group, of which I excerpt the main point but obviously you can review it all: http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/01/richard-silverstein-jewish-foundations-support-islamophobia-at-home-settler-triumphalism-abroad/ (“Anti-Zionists like the Satmar and Neturei Karta believe in what you call ‘racial Judaism,’ or inheritance of Jewish identity.”) This was back when you had your first incorrect definition of Zionism, conflating it with the Jewish view of matrilineal descent. I said absolutely nothing about NK’s views regarding a Jewish state! Strike one.

    Next, your response includes: “1) This is a fringe, local group numbering only 5,000 according the Jewish Virtual Library, as referenced on the “Neturei Karta” Wikipedia page.” So, don’t blame me for your misunderstanding when you looked up NK on Wikipedia and the Jewish Virtual Library. Strike two.

    Then, I linked to the NK Wikipedia page and their own home page, pointing out that Wikipedia says that “Neturei Karta opposes Zionism” and that NK’s own slogan is “Jews United Against Zionism.” I gave you every opportunity to see your error and I linked to the most direct source possible. And still you persisted in your error. Strike three.

    All this was in January, and up until this weekend you thought that NK was Zionist and in fact you said that they were whitewashing Zionism.

    Also, I did not call them “Anti-Zionist Zionists” ever. A Google search of that phrase on LW shows its use only by Stephen G. Parker, Ilisha, and then you quoting Ilisha. Not me. Strike four.

    I am glad that you finally admitted your mistake. Mazel tov. But it took seven months after I linked to NK’s own homepage for you to figure out that “Jews United Against Zionism” is against Zionism. I’m not sure if something finally clicked, if you only figured it out from the photo I linked to, or if my call for Danios to set you straight (and my prior citing of him calling NK anti-Zionist) set you thinking.

    I am happy to agree with you that NK is a fringe group, but you still don’t seem to realize how much play they get. That’s why Danios knew of them! Even putting that aside, it is pointless to debate someone who takes seven months after a link to a group’s website to figure out that a group calling itself “Jews United Against Zionism” is in fact against Zionism. If it takes that long for you to recognize what “against” means, it is not worth my time to clarify your errors on other things that you are misinterpreting.

    I want to be clear that this is not because I think that you are dumb. It’s because you are so blinded by your own views and stubbornness on this issue that it is virtually impossible to get you to recognize the errors you are making, no matter how obvious they are. Maybe that will change, but first you have to use this whole episode to recognize just how resistant you have been to repeated efforts to correct your errors.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    Chameleon, “The Neturei Karta were totally irrelevant to the discussion”

    Still can’t concede that you got the basic fact that the NK are anti-Zionists wrong. It is relevant as it speaks to your ignorance on the subject of Zionism; when people are speaking without knowledge on these topics it does more harm than good.

    What plate do I have to step up to? Quotes from Wikipedia? Are you referring to your questions on the Haavara which are presented as if you want people to do your homework for you? My guess from your comment history on this topic is that your knowledge of the history of Zionism is abysmally minimal, so why should I engage your arguments? Last I engaged you was on the subject of Jews in which you mistakenly cited a source claiming it corroborated your claim that Jews are defined as only those who follow the faith of Judaism. I showed you from the same source that this was incorrect.

    You clearly do put far too much “esteem” in your comments, as seemingly error proof, logically impeccable, when flaws and inconsistencies are pointed out in your arguments you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them.

    You say, “Opinions are cheap and meaningless…” Good, that goes for your claims about “LW mojo” as well, right? Yet you say you “strongly feel” that such an opinion is “true” which is not entirely consistent with your claim that opinions are “cheap and meaningless.”

    In any case I have made a “disingenuous attempt to recharacterize the repugnant historical facts that I presented as nothing more than your comments.'” or so you claim. This is not only false but I haven’t even addressed the Haavara agreement. I will however in the second part to my series on Zionism and Islamophobia.

    In a comment germane to this topic I have noted that analogizing Zionism and Nazism or Hitler is possible but that it is disputable whether or not it is helpful when one considers whether it brings more precision or clarity to the subject matter.

    Chameleon I could care less whether you like my articles or not or who your preferred writer on LW is, I love Danios’ articles as well, we’re obviously on the same team.

    Your comments do at times make me wish for the days when we had more knowledgeable and logically consistent commenters such as Dawood. Don’t misunderstand me you also make excellent comments at times on matters that you have some semblance of knowledge, I have upvoted a few of them in the past but on balance I’m sorry to say you’re no Dawood.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    True…but by future battle I mean something more grave, that goes beyond veiled threats.

  • Laurent Weppe

    You make it sound like the conflict has not already started: veiled threats are already acts of violence.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    Then it portends an inevitable future battle, if liberals and the Left in Israel is up to it?

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    No, Chameleon, you haven’t hit any “hot button.” I’m just not that emotionally invested in your comments.

    We have been and will remain open to criticism, as no one is or should be immune from criticism.

    As for your opinion, of course you are entitled to it, I never said otherwise, we are also entitled to our opinions.

    Secondly read my comment again, I did not say your comments are a waste of time, though I’m sure at times some of them have been, I said writing a detailed critique or “judgment” of your comments would be a waste of my time.

    What I did say was that you esteem your comments far above their actual worth. I think we have one example in just this thread in which JSB highlighted a fact you just got plain wrong about Neturei Karta and were too stubborn to admit, which is unfortunately a pattern.

    Yes your comments are in moderation and will continue to remain so. As we all have our responsibilities apart from the voluntary time we devote to this site, at times any comment in the moderation queue may lag.

    I didn’t know I had the power to “push you into that direction.” You are the one who said you were creating a website, not me. I did not put those words in your mouth or write them out for you.

    As for what you are calling the PDFs you have been working on for the past year or so, we will not be parking them here. Thanks for the consideration.

  • Pingback: When a Jewish Extremist Talks Like a Nazi | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    Chameleon: If you’re down voted that’s because commenters don’t like your comments. How you’ve ascertained through your crystal ball that admins are downvoting you is beyond me, considering Disqus doesn’t track downvotes. It speaks to your own insecurity.

    I address this not only to Chameleon but anyone partaking in this conversation.

    My two cents on the issue of comparing any present racist
    regime/ideology to Nazism and Hitler is that the analogy can certainly be valid. There are parallels between the racism that was espoused by Nazis and Zionists such as Gaspo.

    Ilisha’s contention that it is unhelpful is a considered one especially when one asks: what’s the purpose of an analogy? Analogies in one part should bring more clarity and precision to a topic, it is certainly disputable whether or not analogizing Zionism to Nazism achieves more precision or clarity.

    Considering I am still doing a series on this topic I will have more to say a little later in a further edit to this comment.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    We’re not all in lockstep! Oh noes, looks like I should find a different site.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    Maybe in your opinion we “lost” some of our “mojo” but I and most others would clearly disagree with you.

    Whether you comment here or not is of limited importance; Loonwatch will continue to do what it does, as we have in the past, with or without your comments. I’m not interested in making a detailed judgement of your comments, mostly because it’s a waste of time but you esteem your comments far above their actual worth.

    Also weren’t you working on creating your own site for the past year or so, what happened to that?

    We have allowed you to comment here again for months now, before Danios returned…so there is some ambiguity on your part as to this loss of our ephemeral “mojo.”

  • JD

    Islam gaffe candidate Banister quits Australia election

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23644422

    An Australian election
    candidate who was widely mocked after she mistook Islam for a country in
    a TV interview has withdrawn her candidacy.

    Stephanie Banister, 27, was contesting a seat in Queensland
    for the anti-immigration One Nation Party. She had only been in politics
    for 48 hours.

    Ms Banister also confused the term “haram” (forbidden) with the Koran and suggested Jews worshipped Jesus Christ.

    The interview, which aired early this week, went viral on social media.

    ”I don’t oppose Islam as a country, umm, but I do feel that
    their laws should not be welcome here in Australia,” Ms Banister told
    Seven News reporter Erin Edwards.
    ‘Quite the fool’

    She announced her withdrawal from the election on Saturday.

    “With the way Channel Seven edited my interview, I was left quite the fool,” Ms Banister said in a brief statement.

    “I’d like to apologise to One Nation, to my friends and family, for any embarrassment this has brought to them.”

    One newspaper headline said Ms Banister had managed to put Islam literally on the map.

    The leader of One Nation, Jim Savage, said Ms Banister continued to have the “full support” of the party executive.

    He said she had been under “enormous pressure”, including threats to her and her family.

    Commentators compared Ms Banister to Sarah Palin, the
    gaffe-prone Republican vice-presidential candidate in the 2008 US
    election.

    Even before this interview, Ms Banister was regarded as a
    rank outsider to win her seat, says the BBC’s Jon Donnison, in Sydney.

  • JD

    Sri Lanka Buddhist mob attacks Colombo mosque

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23653213

    A Buddhist mob has
    attacked a mosque in the Grandpass area of the Sri Lankan capital,
    Colombo, leaving at least five people injured.

    Buddhists and Muslims clashed after the attack, and police imposed a curfew in the area.

    Last month, a group of Buddhist monks had protested near the mosque, demanding it be relocated.

    In recent months, hardline Buddhist groups have mounted a campaign against Muslim and Christian targets.

    Several houses were also damaged in Saturday’s clashes. Two of the injured were policemen guarding the mosque.

    A Muslim resident of the area said that a mob threw stones at
    the mosque when worshippers were performing evening prayers, the BBC’s
    Azzam Ameen reports from Colombo.

    The police and special task force commandos were dispatched
    to the area and have been able to bring the situation under control, a
    police spokesman told the BBC.

    Buddhists monks had reportedly protested against the presence
    of the mosque but had agreed to allow Muslims to continue praying there
    until the end of the Islamic fasting month of Ramadan.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    Neturei Karta defines themselves as “Jews Against Zionism.”

    You say, “I couldn’t care less about obscure Jewish groups trying to whitewash this evil cornerstone of Zionist doctrine.”

    First, they are only obscure to you. As I noted above, Danios used them as an example of an anti-Zionist group because he is not ignorant. You are.

    Second, they are not trying to whitewash Zionism. They are against it.

    whitewash: “anything, as deceptive words or actions, used to cover up or gloss over faults, errors, or wrongdoings, or absolve a wrongdoer from blame.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whitewash

    As anyone with any knowledge knows, Neturei Karta publicly protest to highlight what they perceive to be the faults, errors, or wrongdoings of Zionists and try not to absolve them from blame for their actions. Does this look like whitewashing Zionism, glossing over faults, errors or wrongdoings, or absolving anyone from blame??? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_S_tQJX7nTK4/THv8CUuIi0I/AAAAAAAAAxM/GOKwJFmcKQ4/s1600/neturei1.jpg

    It is really embarrassing for you that you did not know who they are. It seems clear that you made a huge mistake in calling Neturei Karta Zionists, but you are too stubborn to admit it.

    Similarly, there are many, many mistakes in the rest of your posts, including this one. But, since you refuse to admit obvious error, your arguments are dismissed as moot as it is clear that you will twist language in a desperate attempt to not admit any error even when it is painfully obvious.

    Put simply, by arguing that Neturei Karta is whitewashing Zionism, you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole, showing that your analyses are worthless.

    This is why one cannot debate you: you refuse to accept facts and instead misinterpret those facts you find. I could dispute those, but it’s pointless if you are impervious to facts that clearly prove you wrong.

    Reply more if you like, but now that I have thoroughly embarrassed you by showing that you won’t even fix your errors, I do not plan to reply further.

    I don’t know if Danios is reading comments, but if you are, could you please weigh in on whether the Neturei Karta are a Zionist group and/or one that is trying to whitewash some cornerstone of Zionist doctrine? Chameleon seems to respect you, so maybe your opinion here would be helpful. Thanks.

  • Just_Stopping_By

    You could more easily debate Zionism with me if you ever gave a definition under which the Neturei Karta (“Jews Against Zionism”) are Zionists, something you claimed. (See here, again, asking you to explain how you can be at such odds with Danios on this fundamental question: what is Zionism? http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/08/when-a-jewish-extremist-talks-like-a-nazi/#comment-994607310).

    Until you stop running from your inability to define the term you are talking about in a way that makes your prior statements sensible, it is impossible to know what you are talking about, and all your arguments are necessarily dismissed as moot.

  • Chameleon_X

    No – “OMG”, you don’t understand a metaphor! The “OPPOSITE SIDE of the same racist coin” with respect to these militant Jewish terrorist Zionists was not “getting the Jews out of Germany”. It was getting them INTO Palestine so that they could “illegally immigrate into, occupy and ultimately ethnically cleanse someone else’s country”, as I repeatedly emphasized. Oh my, it’s like everything I wrote just went in one ear and out the other for you. No wonder it is hopeless to debate with you about Zionism.

    Moreover, even your sarcasm is nonsensical. The illegal Haavara (“transfer”) agreement was executed in August 1933, whereas Kristallnacht happened in November 1938, more than five years later! The Holocaust essentially occurred AFTER that, and the awareness of the Holocaust outside of Germany occurred even well after that. Your attempt to rewrite history by recharacterizing these militant Jewish terrorists as Holocaust saviors is therefore laughably dismissed. The focus of the Haavara agreement was in making a deal to get Jews — and most importantly their ASSETS — INTO Israel for the Zionist cause, not to get them out of Germany! That was another reason for my metaphorical reference to “racist coin”, by the way. If the goal was merely to get out of Germany, Jews could accomplish that much easier by emigrating legally to nearby countries as my relatives did, not by illegally immigrating into, occupying and ethnically cleansing someone else’s country in a far off land, Hitler-style!

  • George Carty

    Indeed, I think while Zionist extremists may be villains on a level with Milosevic, Hitler’s Nazis were on a whole ‘nother level. The Nazi “Generalplan Ost” called for the extermination of at least 50 million Slavs, for example.

  • Laurent Weppe

    Both the commenters and the author of this articles are missing the point of Gapso’s editorial:

    It’s an assertion of strenght and an implicit threat destined to liberal israelis: behind the shallow stylistic chicanery, the brazen display of faked religiosity lies the the untold -but blatently obvious- logical conclusion of Gapso’s statements being:

    If Israel is racist state, then it means that racist bullies like myself are already in control of its institutions (either directly or through submissive lackeys who will obediently help us reach our goals even if they share neither our bloodlust nor our incestuous ideology): therefore if you liberals try to transform the state and turn it into something non-racist, us far-right bullies will use our aforementionned power over the institutions to browbeat you into submission

    Which is why the text was published into Haaretz: Gapso most certainly knows that most of the newspaper’s readership will be disgusted by his claims: his goal is not to convince: his goal is to threaten

Powered by Loon Watchers