Discussion:
Definition of antisemitism.
Add Reply
Richard Chambers
2018-07-31 23:07:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).

NB. I am not a supporter of Corbyn's politics, but I do like to see fair
play and not accuse him of being anti-semitic if he is not.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has produced what it
claims is the internationally accepted definition of anti-semitism,
displayed on webpage
https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf

The definition they offer is:-
"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism
are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

The only problem I have with this definition is that it includes "Rhetorical
. . . . [criticism. presumably] . . . . toward Jewish community institutions
. . . .". A prominent Jewish community institution is the government of
Israel. Without necessarily agreeing with him, I wish to grant Mr Corbyn the
right to freely criticise the government of Israel if he disagrees with any
of its actions. In fact he can, because the IHRA document goes on to give
examples of anti-semitism, and amongst these examples we find:-

1. Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel,
conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to
that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

2. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
[is anti-semitic].

So item 1 allows that it is alright after all for Corbyn to criticise the
government of Israel. Why, then, is he being tarred with the brush of
ant-semitism? Has he done other things that I do not know about?

Item 2 involves a self-contradiction in the IHRA document. It was quite
acceptable in the 1970s and 1980s to draw comparisons between the white
supremacist government of South Africa and that of the Nazis. Item 1 says
that if it was alright for South Africa, a similar criticism of Israel (if
honestly believed) is allowable. But Item 2 says that it is not allowable.

Treating this as an exercise in precise wording in the English language,
definitely not as an exercise in politics on one side or another, how would
you repair the wording of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism?

Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Jerry Friedman
2018-08-01 02:03:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/18 5:07 PM, Richard Chambers wrote:
> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
>
> NB. I am not a supporter of Corbyn's politics, but I do like to see fair
> play and not accuse him of being anti-semitic if he is not.
>
> The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has produced what it
> claims is the internationally accepted definition of anti-semitism,
> displayed on webpage
> https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf
>
> The definition they offer is:-
> "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
> hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism
> are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
> toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
>
> The only problem I have with this definition is that it includes "Rhetorical
> . . . . [criticism. presumably] . . . . toward Jewish community institutions
> . . . .". A prominent Jewish community institution is the government of
> Israel. Without necessarily agreeing with him, I wish to grant Mr Corbyn the
> right to freely criticise the government of Israel if he disagrees with any
> of its actions. In fact he can, because the IHRA document goes on to give
> examples of anti-semitism, and amongst these examples we find:-
>
> 1. Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel,
> conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to
> that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
>
> 2. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
> [is anti-semitic].
>
> So item 1 allows that it is alright after all for Corbyn to criticise the
> government of Israel. Why, then, is he being tarred with the brush of
> ant-semitism? Has he done other things that I do not know about?

Maybe defending this mural? Though the article doesn't give the text of
his defense.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/29/17168320/labour-corbyn-anti-semitism-mural

I'll leave any other possibilities to those who know something about
British politics.

> Item 2 involves a self-contradiction in the IHRA document. It was quite
> acceptable in the 1970s and 1980s to draw comparisons between the white
> supremacist government of South Africa and that of the Nazis. Item 1 says
> that if it was alright for South Africa, a similar criticism of Israel (if
> honestly believed) is allowable. But Item 2 says that it is not allowable.

Probably because it's more likely to be a deliberate attempt to rub salt
into wounds than a criticism.

> Treating this as an exercise in precise wording in the English language,
> definitely not as an exercise in politics on one side or another, how would
> you repair the wording of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism?

The problem is that as the IHRA definition says, anti-semitism (like
other prejudices) is a perception and an emotion (hatred). Thus
defining rhetorical anti-semitism in terms of the content of statements
is problematic. There's probably a continuum between criticizing many
Jews outside Israel for supporting it unconditionally and saying there's
an international Jewish financial conspiracy to keep Israel alive.

What? The solution? I'll have to get back to you on that.

--
Jerry Friedman
Janet
2018-08-01 17:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pjr4de$pq1$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@yahoo.com
says...
>
> On 7/31/18 5:07 PM, Richard Chambers wrote:
> > I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> > memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> > thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> > to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> > verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> >
> > NB. I am not a supporter of Corbyn's politics, but I do like to see fair
> > play and not accuse him of being anti-semitic if he is not.
> >
> > The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has produced what it
> > claims is the internationally accepted definition of anti-semitism,
> > displayed on webpage
> > https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf
> >
> > The definition they offer is:-
> > "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
> > hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism
> > are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
> > toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
> >
> > The only problem I have with this definition is that it includes "Rhetorical
> > . . . . [criticism. presumably] . . . . toward Jewish community institutions
> > . . . .". A prominent Jewish community institution is the government of
> > Israel. Without necessarily agreeing with him, I wish to grant Mr Corbyn the
> > right to freely criticise the government of Israel if he disagrees with any
> > of its actions. In fact he can, because the IHRA document goes on to give
> > examples of anti-semitism, and amongst these examples we find:-
> >
> > 1. Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel,
> > conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to
> > that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
> >
> > 2. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
> > [is anti-semitic].
> >
> > So item 1 allows that it is alright after all for Corbyn to criticise the
> > government of Israel. Why, then, is he being tarred with the brush of
> > ant-semitism? Has he done other things that I do not know about?
>
> Maybe defending this mural? Though the article doesn't give the text of
> his defense.
>
> https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/29/17168320/labour-corbyn-anti-semitism-mural


See

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/there-is-only-one-word-for-
jeremy-corbyn-1.461313

"when Mr Ockerman wrote on Facebook that his mural was to be removed,
a then insignificant Labour MP expressed his support for the piece,
writing in response: ?Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller
destroyed Diego Viera?s mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.?

Mr Corbyn was referring to the removal in 1934 of a work by Mexican
artist Diego Rivera from the Rockefeller Centre in New York."
>
> I'll leave any other possibilities to those who know something about
> British politics.



Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-01 18:35:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 1:07:03 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> In article <pjr4de$pq1$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@yahoo.com
> says...
> >
> > On 7/31/18 5:07 PM, Richard Chambers wrote:
> > > I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> > > memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> > > thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> > > to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> > > verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> > >
> > > NB. I am not a supporter of Corbyn's politics, but I do like to see fair
> > > play and not accuse him of being anti-semitic if he is not.
> > >
> > > The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has produced what it
> > > claims is the internationally accepted definition of anti-semitism,
> > > displayed on webpage
> > > https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf
> > >
> > > The definition they offer is:-
> > > "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
> > > hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism
> > > are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
> > > toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
> > >
> > > The only problem I have with this definition is that it includes "Rhetorical
> > > . . . . [criticism. presumably] . . . . toward Jewish community institutions
> > > . . . .". A prominent Jewish community institution is the government of
> > > Israel. Without necessarily agreeing with him, I wish to grant Mr Corbyn the
> > > right to freely criticise the government of Israel if he disagrees with any
> > > of its actions. In fact he can, because the IHRA document goes on to give
> > > examples of anti-semitism, and amongst these examples we find:-
> > >
> > > 1. Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel,
> > > conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to
> > > that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
> > >
> > > 2. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
> > > [is anti-semitic].
> > >
> > > So item 1 allows that it is alright after all for Corbyn to criticise the
> > > government of Israel. Why, then, is he being tarred with the brush of
> > > ant-semitism? Has he done other things that I do not know about?
> >
> > Maybe defending this mural? Though the article doesn't give the text of
> > his defense.
> >
> > https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/29/17168320/labour-corbyn-anti-semitism-mural
>
>
> See
>
> https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/there-is-only-one-word-for-
> jeremy-corbyn-1.461313
>
> "when Mr Ockerman wrote on Facebook that his mural was to be removed,
> a then insignificant Labour MP expressed his support for the piece,
> writing in response: ?Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller
> destroyed Diego Viera?s mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.?
>
> Mr Corbyn was referring to the removal in 1934 of a work by Mexican
> artist Diego Rivera from the Rockefeller Centre in New York."

Maybe he was a fan of the daytime version of *Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?*,
which was hosted by Meredith Viera.

> > I'll leave any other possibilities to those who know something about
> > British politics.
Don P
2018-08-01 20:29:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/1/2018 1:06 PM, Janet wrote:

> See
> https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/there-is-only-one-word-for-
> jeremy-corbyn-1.461313
>
> "when Mr Ockerman wrote on Facebook that his mural was to be removed,
> a then insignificant Labour MP expressed his support for the piece,
> writing in response: "Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller
> destroyed Diego Viera?s mural because it includes a picture of Lenin."

This article is signed by Jeremy Pollard. The source is the Jewish
Chronicle (London, founded 1841, claiming to be "the world's oldest and
most influential Jewish newspaper.")

Nevertheless two of the five proper names in this paragraph are wrong
(Rockefeller and Diego Rivera.) This hugely reduces the credibility of
the whole article. (Does the Jewish Chronicle really have no editors
aware of those world-famous individuals?)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Janet
2018-08-01 22:50:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pjt59l$80b$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@ncf.ca says...
>
> On 8/1/2018 1:06 PM, Janet wrote:
>
> > See
> > https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/there-is-only-one-word-for-
> > jeremy-corbyn-1.461313
> >
> > "when Mr Ockerman wrote on Facebook that his mural was to be removed,
> > a then insignificant Labour MP expressed his support for the piece,
> > writing in response: "Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller
> > destroyed Diego Viera?s mural because it includes a picture of Lenin."
>
> This article is signed by Jeremy Pollard. The source is the Jewish
> Chronicle (London, founded 1841, claiming to be "the world's oldest and
> most influential Jewish newspaper.")
>
> Nevertheless two of the five proper names in this paragraph are wrong
> (Rockefeller and Diego Rivera.) This hugely reduces the credibility of
> the whole article. (Does the Jewish Chronicle really have no editors
> aware of those world-famous individuals?)

You miss the point.

The errors are Corbyn's, they are quoting his tweet verbatim.

Here it is in another source.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/did-jeremy-corbyn-back-artist-
whose-mural-was-condemned-as-antisemitic-1.62106



Janet.
Jerry Friedman
2018-08-02 00:28:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/1/18 4:50 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article <pjt59l$80b$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@ncf.ca says...
>>
>> On 8/1/2018 1:06 PM, Janet wrote:
>>
>>> See
>>> https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/there-is-only-one-word-for-
>>> jeremy-corbyn-1.461313
>>>
>>> "when Mr Ockerman wrote on Facebook that his mural was to be removed,
>>> a then insignificant Labour MP expressed his support for the piece,
>>> writing in response: "Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller
>>> destroyed Diego Viera?s mural because it includes a picture of Lenin."
>>
>> This article is signed by Jeremy Pollard. The source is the Jewish
>> Chronicle (London, founded 1841, claiming to be "the world's oldest and
>> most influential Jewish newspaper.")
>>
>> Nevertheless two of the five proper names in this paragraph are wrong
>> (Rockefeller and Diego Rivera.) This hugely reduces the credibility of
>> the whole article. (Does the Jewish Chronicle really have no editors
>> aware of those world-famous individuals?)
>
> You miss the point.
>
> The errors are Corbyn's, they are quoting his tweet verbatim.

Sic 'em, Chronicle!

> Here it is in another source.
>
> https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/did-jeremy-corbyn-back-artist-
> whose-mural-was-condemned-as-antisemitic-1.62106

Thanks, it's helpful to see that that was his whole Facebook comment and
that the spelling errors were his.

--
Jerry Friedman
Madhu
2018-09-12 04:24:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
* Jerry Friedman <pjtj6t$6qd$***@news.albasani.net> :
Wrote on Wed, 1 Aug 2018 18:28:11 -0600:

> On 8/1/18 4:50 PM, Janet wrote:
>> In article <pjt59l$80b$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@ncf.ca says...
>>>
>>> On 8/1/2018 1:06 PM, Janet wrote:
>>>
>>>> See
>>>> https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/there-is-only-one-word-for-
>>>> jeremy-corbyn-1.461313
>>>>
>>>> "when Mr Ockerman wrote on Facebook that his mural was to be
>>>> removed, a then insignificant Labour MP expressed his support for
>>>> the piece, writing in response: "Why? You are in good
>>>> company. Rockerfeller destroyed Diego Viera?s mural because it
>>>> includes a picture of Lenin."
>>>
>>> This article is signed by Jeremy Pollard. The source is the Jewish
>>> Chronicle (London, founded 1841, claiming to be "the world's oldest
>>> and most influential Jewish newspaper.")
>>>
>>> Nevertheless two of the five proper names in this paragraph are
>>> wrong (Rockefeller and Diego Rivera.) This hugely reduces the
>>> credibility of the whole article. (Does the Jewish Chronicle really
>>> have no editors aware of those world-famous individuals?)
>>
>> You miss the point.
>> The errors are Corbyn's, they are quoting his tweet verbatim.
>
> Sic 'em, Chronicle!
>
>> Here it is in another source.
>>
>> https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/did-jeremy-corbyn-back-artist-
>> whose-mural-was-condemned-as-antisemitic-1.62106
>
> Thanks, it's helpful to see that that was his whole Facebook comment
> and that the spelling errors were his.

the ongoing saga - they now appear to have published a piece in his
defence.(content behind javascript)
https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/
howard-jacobson-speech-intelligence-squared-1.469525
Janet
2018-09-12 09:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@leonis4.robolove.meer.net>, ***@meer.net
says...
>
> * Jerry Friedman <pjtj6t$6qd$***@news.albasani.net> :
> Wrote on Wed, 1 Aug 2018 18:28:11 -0600:
>
> > On 8/1/18 4:50 PM, Janet wrote:
> >> In article <pjt59l$80b$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@ncf.ca says...
> >>>
> >>> On 8/1/2018 1:06 PM, Janet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> See
> >>>> https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/there-is-only-one-word-for-
> >>>> jeremy-corbyn-1.461313
> >>>>
> >>>> "when Mr Ockerman wrote on Facebook that his mural was to be
> >>>> removed, a then insignificant Labour MP expressed his support for
> >>>> the piece, writing in response: "Why? You are in good
> >>>> company. Rockerfeller destroyed Diego Viera?s mural because it
> >>>> includes a picture of Lenin."
> >>>
> >>> This article is signed by Jeremy Pollard. The source is the Jewish
> >>> Chronicle (London, founded 1841, claiming to be "the world's oldest
> >>> and most influential Jewish newspaper.")
> >>>
> >>> Nevertheless two of the five proper names in this paragraph are
> >>> wrong (Rockefeller and Diego Rivera.) This hugely reduces the
> >>> credibility of the whole article. (Does the Jewish Chronicle really
> >>> have no editors aware of those world-famous individuals?)
> >>
> >> You miss the point.
> >> The errors are Corbyn's, they are quoting his tweet verbatim.
> >
> > Sic 'em, Chronicle!
> >
> >> Here it is in another source.
> >>
> >> https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/did-jeremy-corbyn-back-artist-
> >> whose-mural-was-condemned-as-antisemitic-1.62106
> >
> > Thanks, it's helpful to see that that was his whole Facebook comment
> > and that the spelling errors were his.
>
> the ongoing saga - they now appear to have published a piece in his
> defence.(content behind javascript)

"in his defence "??????? Did you read it? It's an excoriating attack
on Corbyn, whose author is praised by the Jewish Chronicle.

"Read the peerless Howard Jacobson's speech about Jeremy Corbyn and
antisemitism.

This is the renowned author's address to a debate on whether the Labour
leader is 'unfit to be prime minister'


> https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/
> howard-jacobson-speech-intelligence-squared-1.469525

and for anyone who still didn't quite get the message

"Howard Jacobson delivered this on September 6 in favour of the Motion
- "Jeremy Corbyn is Unfit to be Prime Minister" "


Janet.
Madhu
2018-09-12 09:34:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
* Janet <***@news.individual.net> :
Wrote on Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:22:16 +0100:
>> the ongoing saga - they now appear to have published a piece in his
>> defence.(content behind javascript)
>
> "in his defence "??????? Did you read it? It's an excoriating
> attack on Corbyn, whose author is praised by the Jewish Chronicle.

Well, it started off pretty well..

"Something tells me you're expecting me to call Jeremy Corbyn an
antisemite. There's been a bit about it in the press, and
I... well, you know...

"But I'm not going to call him anything. He says he isn't an
antisemite, Hamas says he isn't an antisemite, the white
supremacist David Duke says he isn't an antisemite, and that's
good enough for me.

" Am I being ironical? Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm incapable of
irony."

> "Read the peerless Howard Jacobson's speech about Jeremy Corbyn and
> antisemitism.
>
> This is the renowned author's address to a debate on whether the
> Labour leader is 'unfit to be prime minister'
>
> and for anyone who still didn't quite get the message
> "Howard Jacobson delivered this on September 6 in favour of the
> Motion - "Jeremy Corbyn is Unfit to be Prime Minister" "
LFS
2018-09-12 14:53:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/09/2018 10:34, Madhu wrote:
> * Janet <***@news.individual.net> :
> Wrote on Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:22:16 +0100:
>>> the ongoing saga - they now appear to have published a piece in his
>>> defence.(content behind javascript)
>>
>> "in his defence "??????? Did you read it? It's an excoriating
>> attack on Corbyn, whose author is praised by the Jewish Chronicle.
>
> Well, it started off pretty well..
>
> "Something tells me you're expecting me to call Jeremy Corbyn an
> antisemite. There's been a bit about it in the press, and
> I... well, you know...
>
> "But I'm not going to call him anything. He says he isn't an
> antisemite, Hamas says he isn't an antisemite, the white
> supremacist David Duke says he isn't an antisemite, and that's
> good enough for me.
>
> " Am I being ironical? Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm incapable of
> irony."

To understand that you need to know what Corbyn said about "British
Zionists" not understanding "English" irony.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-zionists-speech-english-irony-reports-parliamentary-standards-antisemitism-a8507196.html

And you probably need to understand English irony too. Not to mention
Jewish irony.

>
>> "Read the peerless Howard Jacobson's speech about Jeremy Corbyn and
>> antisemitism.
>>
>> This is the renowned author's address to a debate on whether the
>> Labour leader is 'unfit to be prime minister'
>>
>> and for anyone who still didn't quite get the message
>> "Howard Jacobson delivered this on September 6 in favour of the
>> Motion - "Jeremy Corbyn is Unfit to be Prime Minister" "


--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Harrison Hill
2018-09-12 15:15:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 15:53:38 UTC+1, LFS wrote:
> On 12/09/2018 10:34, Madhu wrote:
> > * Janet <***@news.individual.net> :
> > Wrote on Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:22:16 +0100:
> >>> the ongoing saga - they now appear to have published a piece in his
> >>> defence.(content behind javascript)
> >>
> >> "in his defence "??????? Did you read it? It's an excoriating
> >> attack on Corbyn, whose author is praised by the Jewish Chronicle.
> >
> > Well, it started off pretty well..
> >
> > "Something tells me you're expecting me to call Jeremy Corbyn an
> > antisemite. There's been a bit about it in the press, and
> > I... well, you know...
> >
> > "But I'm not going to call him anything. He says he isn't an
> > antisemite, Hamas says he isn't an antisemite, the white
> > supremacist David Duke says he isn't an antisemite, and that's
> > good enough for me.
> >
> > " Am I being ironical? Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm incapable of
> > irony."
>
> To understand that you need to know what Corbyn said about "British
> Zionists" not understanding "English" irony.
>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-zionists-speech-english-irony-reports-parliamentary-standards-antisemitism-a8507196.html
>
> And you probably need to understand English irony too. Not to mention
> Jewish irony.

I don't think anybody has the faintest idea about Zionists, Israelis,
Jews, Hebrews, Semites - much less any of the people who associate
themselves with those labels. Nobody has any idea where Israel is- where
its boundaries are. Or where Palestine is. If Palestinian refugees are
in Palestine, in what sense are they refugees?

Maajid Nawaz highlighted the point that Palestinian refugees in Jordan
are into their third-generation! Surely that must qualify them as
Jordanian citizens? Maajid (as a Muslim) is very strong in his defence
of Israel, more-or-less as defined in 1948? by the League of Nations?
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-12 15:39:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:15:13 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:

> Maajid Nawaz highlighted the point that Palestinian refugees in Jordan
> are into their third-generation! Surely that must qualify them as
> Jordanian citizens? Maajid (as a Muslim) is very strong in his defence
> of Israel, more-or-less as defined in 1948? by the League of Nations?

Good grief. 'Arrison's mum must have kept him away from all history classes
and newspapers.
Harrison Hill
2018-09-12 15:50:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 16:39:11 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:15:13 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
>
> > Maajid Nawaz highlighted the point that Palestinian refugees in Jordan
> > are into their third-generation! Surely that must qualify them as
> > Jordanian citizens? Maajid (as a Muslim) is very strong in his defence
> > of Israel, more-or-less as defined in 1948? by the League of Nations?
>
> Good grief. 'Arrison's mum must have kept him away from all history classes
> and newspapers.

Athel assumes that everyone went to to public school and is Church
of England. You (perhaps) assume that everybody has the (pick one of those
labels) view of the world. In exactly the way that your mother explained
it to you.

Since you ask, History in my day was "Economic and Social History", which
started with the Corn Laws. We were very big on Annie Besant and her
Match Girls. Britain's Jewish? Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli didn't
feature in any of that - I'm sure Corbyn would have approved of our
curriculum.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-12 16:02:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:50:39 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 16:39:11 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:15:13 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:

> > > Maajid Nawaz highlighted the point that Palestinian refugees in Jordan
> > > are into their third-generation! Surely that must qualify them as
> > > Jordanian citizens? Maajid (as a Muslim) is very strong in his defence
> > > of Israel, more-or-less as defined in 1948? by the League of Nations?
> > Good grief. 'Arrison's mum must have kept him away from all history classes
> > and newspapers.
>
> Athel assumes that everyone went to to public school and is Church
> of England. You (perhaps) assume that everybody has the (pick one of those
> labels) view of the world. In exactly the way that your mother explained
> it to you.
>
> Since you ask, History in my day was "Economic and Social History", which
> started with the Corn Laws. We were very big on Annie Besant and her
> Match Girls. Britain's Jewish? Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli didn't
> feature in any of that - I'm sure Corbyn would have approved of our
> curriculum.

But not to know when the League of Nations went out of business? to imagine
that Israel has ever been "defined"? that mere residence within a country's
territory makes someone a citizen thereof? In the US being _born_ in the
country does (though Trump wants to change that), but not in many countries
of, say, Europe.
Harrison Hill
2018-09-12 16:58:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 17:02:05 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:50:39 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 16:39:11 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:15:13 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
>
> > > > Maajid Nawaz highlighted the point that Palestinian refugees in Jordan
> > > > are into their third-generation! Surely that must qualify them as
> > > > Jordanian citizens? Maajid (as a Muslim) is very strong in his defence
> > > > of Israel, more-or-less as defined in 1948? by the League of Nations?
> > > Good grief. 'Arrison's mum must have kept him away from all history classes
> > > and newspapers.
> >
> > Athel assumes that everyone went to to public school and is Church
> > of England. You (perhaps) assume that everybody has the (pick one of those
> > labels) view of the world. In exactly the way that your mother explained
> > it to you.
> >
> > Since you ask, History in my day was "Economic and Social History", which
> > started with the Corn Laws. We were very big on Annie Besant and her
> > Match Girls. Britain's Jewish? Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli didn't
> > feature in any of that - I'm sure Corbyn would have approved of our
> > curriculum.
>
> But not to know when the League of Nations went out of business? to imagine
> that Israel has ever been "defined"? that mere residence within a country's
> territory makes someone a citizen thereof? In the US being _born_ in the
> country does (though Trump wants to change that), but not in many countries
> of, say, Europe.

The British Mandate for Palestine (valid 29 September 1923 - 15 May 1948),
also known as the Mandate for Palestine or the Palestine Mandate, was a
"Class A" League of Nations mandate for the territories of Palestine, in
which the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" was
to be established, and Transjordan, a separate Arab Emirate, both of which
were conceded by the Ottoman Empire following World War I.

The draft was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations
on 24 July 1922 and came into effect on 29 September 1923, with the United
Kingdom as the administering mandatory.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)>

This isn't my history, it is your history. If you want to teach it to us,
please do :)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-12 17:24:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:58:07 PM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 17:02:05 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:50:39 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 16:39:11 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:15:13 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
> >
> > > > > Maajid Nawaz highlighted the point that Palestinian refugees in Jordan
> > > > > are into their third-generation! Surely that must qualify them as
> > > > > Jordanian citizens? Maajid (as a Muslim) is very strong in his defence
> > > > > of Israel, more-or-less as defined in 1948? by the League of Nations?
> > > > Good grief. 'Arrison's mum must have kept him away from all history classes
> > > > and newspapers.
> > >
> > > Athel assumes that everyone went to to public school and is Church
> > > of England. You (perhaps) assume that everybody has the (pick one of those
> > > labels) view of the world. In exactly the way that your mother explained
> > > it to you.
> > >
> > > Since you ask, History in my day was "Economic and Social History", which
> > > started with the Corn Laws. We were very big on Annie Besant and her
> > > Match Girls. Britain's Jewish? Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli didn't
> > > feature in any of that - I'm sure Corbyn would have approved of our
> > > curriculum.
> >
> > But not to know when the League of Nations went out of business? to imagine
> > that Israel has ever been "defined"? that mere residence within a country's
> > territory makes someone a citizen thereof? In the US being _born_ in the
> > country does (though Trump wants to change that), but not in many countries
> > of, say, Europe.
>
> The British Mandate for Palestine (valid 29 September 1923 - 15 May 1948),
> also known as the Mandate for Palestine or the Palestine Mandate, was a
> "Class A" League of Nations mandate for the territories of Palestine, in
> which the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" was
> to be established, and Transjordan, a separate Arab Emirate, both of which
> were conceded by the Ottoman Empire following World War I.
>
> The draft was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations
> on 24 July 1922 and came into effect on 29 September 1923, with the United
> Kingdom as the administering mandatory.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)>
>
> This isn't my history, it is your history. If you want to teach it to us,
> please do :)

Such League of Nations "mandates" as were still in operation after the
League wasn't became United Nations "trust territories." Neither Palestine
nor Transjordan did.

International boundaries for Israel have NEVER been established. The borders
are where they were at the truce in 1947-48. They are, as history showed,
indefensible. The Six-Day War let Israel acquire the Golan Heights. It also
acquired the Sinai Peninsula but returned it to Egypt in exchange for
peaceful relations. The West Bank became especially problematic when King
Hussein threw up his hands and said it was no longer part of Jordan.

When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
Paul Wolff
2018-09-12 19:34:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>
>When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
>citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?

That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become British.

The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
--
Paul
Tony Cooper
2018-09-12 21:22:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 20:34:30 +0100, Paul Wolff
<***@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>>
>>When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
>>citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>
>That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become British.
>
>
Would you at least automatically develop a craving for tea?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-12 22:48:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 22:22:34 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 20:34:30 +0100, Paul Wolff
> <***@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >>
> >>When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
> >>citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
> >
> >That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> >finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become British.
> >
> >
> Would you at least automatically develop a craving for tea?
>

No, that's passed down in the genes of the true born.
Peter Moylan
2018-09-13 07:31:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/09/18 08:48, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 22:22:34 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 20:34:30 +0100, Paul Wolff
>> <***@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>>>>
>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
>>>> citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>>>
>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become British.
>>>
>>>
>> Would you at least automatically develop a craving for tea?
>>
>
> No, that's passed down in the genes of the true born.

Or, at a later age, passed down through the jeans.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 00:56:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:

> >When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
> >citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>
> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become British.
>
> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.

And was it granted automatically?

Remember, that was in response to 'Arrison's

"Maajid Nawaz highlighted the point that Palestinian refugees in Jordan
are into their third-generation! Surely that must qualify them as
Jordanian citizens?"

(I don't know who Maajid Nawaz is, but it certainly looks like the "Surely"
comment is HH's and not MN's.)
Paul Wolff
2018-09-13 12:06:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 3:37:38 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>
>> >When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
>> >citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>>
>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become British.
>>
>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>
>And was it granted automatically?

Formalities had to be observed, but I don't know what they were -
presumably proof of qualification for the privilege, and a modest fee.
>
>Remember, that was in response to 'Arrison's
>
>"Maajid Nawaz highlighted the point that Palestinian refugees in Jordan
>are into their third-generation! Surely that must qualify them as
>Jordanian citizens?"
>
>(I don't know who Maajid Nawaz is, but it certainly looks like the "Surely"
>comment is HH's and not MN's.)

--
Paul
Harrison Hill
2018-09-13 12:10:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 20:37:38 UTC+1, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >
> >When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
> >citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>
> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become British.
>
> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.

I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK,
you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"

<https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
CDB
2018-09-13 12:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> Paul Wolff wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:

>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?

>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
>> British.

>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.

> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"

> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>

Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:

'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'

And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
Tony Cooper
2018-09-13 13:21:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>
>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
>>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>
>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
>>> British.
>
>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>
>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
>> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>
>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>
>Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
>
>'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
>shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
>Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>
>And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
>

I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is meshuggeneh.
(Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)

Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds like
a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over a
million sales will return more than a piddling amount. "Behest",
there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
meaning Eric was trying for.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
CDB
2018-09-13 13:28:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 9:21 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:

>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they
>>>>> automatically become citizens (formerly subjects of the
>>>>> Crown)?

>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R,
>>>> and finding before you leave that you have inadvertently
>>>> become British.

>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.

>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
>>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK,
>>> you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to
>>> remain"

>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>

>>
>>>
Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:

>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
>> shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book. Is
>> Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'

>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?

> I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
> anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
> aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is
> meshuggeneh. (Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)

> Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds
> like a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over
> a million sales will return more than a piddling amount.

The number caught my attention too. Ten silver dimes in a shekel?

> "Behest", there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any
> idea what meaning Eric was trying for.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-13 13:40:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 14:28:35 UTC+1, CDB wrote:
> On 9/13/2018 9:21 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Harrison Hill wrote:
> >>> Paul Wolff wrote:
> >>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>
> >>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they
> >>>>> automatically become citizens (formerly subjects of the
> >>>>> Crown)?
>
> >>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R,
> >>>> and finding before you leave that you have inadvertently
> >>>> become British.
>
> >>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>
> >>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
> >>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK,
> >>> you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to
> >>> remain"
>
> >>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>
> >>
> >>>
> Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
> >> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
>
> >> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
> >> shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book. Is
> >> Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>
> >> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
>
> > I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
> > anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
> > aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is
> > meshuggeneh. (Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)
>
> > Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds
> > like a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over
> > a million sales will return more than a piddling amount.
>
> The number caught my attention too. Ten silver dimes in a shekel?

That's a New Shekel. Israel is very keen that you use the 'New' for
reasons explained in my reply to Tony.
CDB
2018-09-13 13:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 9:40 AM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Harrison Hill wrote:
>>>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:

>>>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they
>>>>>>> automatically become citizens (formerly subjects of the
>>>>>>> Crown)?

>>>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R,
>>>>>> and finding before you leave that you have inadvertently
>>>>>> become British.

>>>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.

>>>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
>>>>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK,
>>>>> you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to
>>>>> remain"

>>>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>

>> Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>>>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:

>>>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
>>>> shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book. Is
>>>> Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'

>>>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?

>>> I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
>>> anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
>>> aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is
>>> meshuggeneh. (Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)

>>> Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds
>>> like a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over
>>> a million sales will return more than a piddling amount.

>> The number caught my attention too. Ten silver dimes in a shekel?

> That's a New Shekel. Israel is very keen that you use the 'New' for
> reasons explained in my reply to Tony.

I didn't think the trumplet had real money in mind (if I may attempt
ambiguodity).
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-13 13:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 14:21:47 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> >> Paul Wolff wrote:
> >>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >
> >>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
> >>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
> >
> >>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> >>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
> >>> British.
> >
> >>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
> >
> >> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
> >> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
> >> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
> >
> >> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
> >
> >Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
> >tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
> >
> >'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
> >shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
> >Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
> >
> >And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
> >
>
> I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
> anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
> aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is meshuggeneh.
> (Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)
>
> Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds like
> a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over a
> million sales will return more than a piddling amount. "Behest",
> there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
> meaning Eric was trying for.
>
> --

'Shekel' has a connotation with the coins used by Jews to bribe their
way into positions of advantage and privilege which you are apparently
unaware of. To use 'shekels' at all is definitively anti-semitic. There are
so many alternatives, eg. 'lined his pockets', that one can only conclude
that the speaker is fully aware of the impact of using 'shekels' and
unashamed.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-13 14:30:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 06:38:07 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 13 September 2018 14:21:47 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>> >> Paul Wolff wrote:
>> >>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>> >
>> >>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
>> >>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>> >
>> >>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>> >>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
>> >>> British.
>> >
>> >>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>> >
>> >> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
>> >> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
>> >> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>> >
>> >> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>> >
>> >Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>> >tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
>> >
>> >'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
>> >shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
>> >Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>> >
>> >And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
>> >
>>
>> I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
>> anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
>> aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is meshuggeneh.
>> (Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)
>>
>> Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds like
>> a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over a
>> million sales will return more than a piddling amount. "Behest",
>> there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
>> meaning Eric was trying for.
>>
>> --
>
>'Shekel' has a connotation with the coins used by Jews to bribe their
>way into positions of advantage and privilege which you are apparently
>unaware of. To use 'shekels' at all is definitively anti-semitic. There are
>so many alternatives, eg. 'lined his pockets', that one can only conclude
>that the speaker is fully aware of the impact of using 'shekels' and
>unashamed.

You are correct in that that's a connotation that I was unaware of. In
the US, we call that making a campaign contribution.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-09-13 14:40:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:21:42 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>>
>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
>>>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>>
>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
>>>> British.
>>
>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>>
>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
>>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
>>> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>>
>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>>
>>Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>>tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
>>
>>'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
>>shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
>>Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>>
>>And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
>>
>
>I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
>anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
>aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is meshuggeneh.
>(Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)
>
>Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds like
>a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over a
>million sales will return more than a piddling amount. "Behest",
>there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
>meaning Eric was trying for.

I don't see it as anti-semitic.
There is a phrase "rake in the shekels", in which "shekels" just means
money. See sense 2 below.

OED:

shekel, n.
1.
a. An ancient unit of weight of the Babylonians, and hence of the
Phœnicians, Hebrews, and others, equal to one-sixtieth of a mina
(see mina n. 2(a)).

b. A coin of this weight; esp. the chief silver coin of the
Hebrews.

c. An Israeli unit of currency introduced in February 1980,
equivalent to ten former Israeli pounds; a note of this value.
1980 Times 23 Feb. 1/2 From next week the Israeli pound is to be
replaced by a new currency named after the Biblical shekel... Each
shekel will be purchased with 10 present Israeli pounds.

2. fig. (plural) Coin; money. colloq. Also in phr. "to rake in the
shekels", to make money rapidly or ‘hand over fist’ (from a
venture). Cf. rake n.1 2a (a).
....
1883 F. M. Crawford Dr. Claudius v Though he was so rich, he
never talked about money except in a vague way as ‘lots of
shekels’, or ‘piles of tin’.
1887 ‘S. Cumberland’ Queen's Highway 276 Had I a ‘flush’ with
‘king high’ some one would be sure to rake in the shekels with
‘ace high’.
1915 J. Buchan Thirty-nine Steps i. 18 The capitalists would
rake in the shekels, and make fortunes by buying up wreckage.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-13 14:43:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:40:29 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:21:42 -0400, Tony Cooper
><***@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>>>
>>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
>>>>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>>>
>>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>>>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
>>>>> British.
>>>
>>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>>>
>>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
>>>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
>>>> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>>>
>>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>>>
>>>Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>>>tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
>>>
>>>'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
>>>shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
>>>Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>>>
>>>And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
>>>
>>
>>I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
>>anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
>>aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is meshuggeneh.
>>(Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)
>>
>>Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds like
>>a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over a
>>million sales will return more than a piddling amount. "Behest",
>>there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
>>meaning Eric was trying for.
>
>I don't see it as anti-semitic.
>There is a phrase "rake in the shekels", in which "shekels" just means
>money. See sense 2 below.

Wait a minute. Woodward is Jewish. Why didn't trump use "dollars"?
It would have been more appropriate.

His book has nothing to do with Jews or Israel.

Why defend the coward?



>OED:
>
> shekel, n.
> 1.
> a. An ancient unit of weight of the Babylonians, and hence of the
> Phœnicians, Hebrews, and others, equal to one-sixtieth of a mina
> (see mina n. 2(a)).
>
> b. A coin of this weight; esp. the chief silver coin of the
> Hebrews.
>
> c. An Israeli unit of currency introduced in February 1980,
> equivalent to ten former Israeli pounds; a note of this value.
> 1980 Times 23 Feb. 1/2 From next week the Israeli pound is to be
> replaced by a new currency named after the Biblical shekel... Each
> shekel will be purchased with 10 present Israeli pounds.
>
> 2. fig. (plural) Coin; money. colloq. Also in phr. "to rake in the
> shekels", to make money rapidly or ‘hand over fist’ (from a
> venture). Cf. rake n.1 2a (a).
> ....
> 1883 F. M. Crawford Dr. Claudius v Though he was so rich, he
> never talked about money except in a vague way as ‘lots of
> shekels’, or ‘piles of tin’.
> 1887 ‘S. Cumberland’ Queen's Highway 276 Had I a ‘flush’ with
> ‘king high’ some one would be sure to rake in the shekels with
> ‘ace high’.
> 1915 J. Buchan Thirty-nine Steps i. 18 The capitalists would
> rake in the shekels, and make fortunes by buying up wreckage.
Harrison Hill
2018-09-13 14:54:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 15:40:33 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:21:42 -0400, Tony Cooper
> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> >>> Paul Wolff wrote:
> >>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >>
> >>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
> >>>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
> >>
> >>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> >>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
> >>>> British.
> >>
> >>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
> >>
> >>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
> >>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
> >>> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
> >>
> >>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
> >>
> >>Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
> >>tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
> >>
> >>'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
> >>shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
> >>Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
> >>
> >>And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
> >>
> >
> >I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
> >anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
> >aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is meshuggeneh.
> >(Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)
> >
> >Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds like
> >a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over a
> >million sales will return more than a piddling amount. "Behest",
> >there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
> >meaning Eric was trying for.
>
> I don't see it as anti-semitic.
> There is a phrase "rake in the shekels", in which "shekels" just means
> money. See sense 2 below.
>
> OED:
>
> shekel, n.
> 1.
> a. An ancient unit of weight of the Babylonians, and hence of the
> Phœnicians, Hebrews, and others, equal to one-sixtieth of a mina
> (see mina n. 2(a)).
>
> b. A coin of this weight; esp. the chief silver coin of the
> Hebrews.
>
> c. An Israeli unit of currency introduced in February 1980,
> equivalent to ten former Israeli pounds; a note of this value.
> 1980 Times 23 Feb. 1/2 From next week the Israeli pound is to be
> replaced by a new currency named after the Biblical shekel... Each
> shekel will be purchased with 10 present Israeli pounds.
>
> 2. fig. (plural) Coin; money. colloq. Also in phr. "to rake in the
> shekels", to make money rapidly or ‘hand over fist’ (from a
> venture). Cf. rake n.1 2a (a).
> ....
> 1883 F. M. Crawford Dr. Claudius v Though he was so rich, he
> never talked about money except in a vague way as ‘lots of
> shekels’, or ‘piles of tin’.
> 1887 ‘S. Cumberland’ Queen's Highway 276 Had I a ‘flush’ with
> ‘king high’ some one would be sure to rake in the shekels with
> ‘ace high’.
> 1915 J. Buchan Thirty-nine Steps i. 18 The capitalists would
> rake in the shekels, and make fortunes by buying up wreckage.

Shakespeare's use of it is not anti-Semitic; nor is a shekel a trivial amount:

"Not with fond shekels of the tested gold,
Or stones whose rates are either rich or poor
As fancy values them..."

Measure for Measure.
LFS
2018-09-13 15:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/09/2018 15:40, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:21:42 -0400, Tony Cooper
> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>>>
>>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
>>>>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>>>
>>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>>>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
>>>>> British.
>>>
>>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>>>
>>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
>>>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
>>>> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>>>
>>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>>>
>>> Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
>>>
>>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
>>> shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
>>> Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>>>
>>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
>>>
>>
>> I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
>> anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
>> aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is meshuggeneh.
>> (Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)
>>
>> Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds like
>> a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over a
>> million sales will return more than a piddling amount. "Behest",
>> there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
>> meaning Eric was trying for.
>
> I don't see it as anti-semitic.

Many Jews would.

> There is a phrase "rake in the shekels", in which "shekels" just means
> money. See sense 2 below.
>
> OED:
>
> shekel, n.
> 1.
> a. An ancient unit of weight of the Babylonians, and hence of the
> Phœnicians, Hebrews, and others, equal to one-sixtieth of a mina
> (see mina n. 2(a)).
>
> b. A coin of this weight; esp. the chief silver coin of the
> Hebrews.
>
> c. An Israeli unit of currency introduced in February 1980,
> equivalent to ten former Israeli pounds; a note of this value.
> 1980 Times 23 Feb. 1/2 From next week the Israeli pound is to be
> replaced by a new currency named after the Biblical shekel... Each
> shekel will be purchased with 10 present Israeli pounds.
>
> 2. fig. (plural) Coin; money. colloq. Also in phr. "to rake in the
> shekels", to make money rapidly or ‘hand over fist’ (from a
> venture). Cf. rake n.1 2a (a).
> ....
> 1883 F. M. Crawford Dr. Claudius v Though he was so rich, he
> never talked about money except in a vague way as ‘lots of
> shekels’, or ‘piles of tin’.
> 1887 ‘S. Cumberland’ Queen's Highway 276 Had I a ‘flush’ with
> ‘king high’ some one would be sure to rake in the shekels with
> ‘ace high’.
> 1915 J. Buchan Thirty-nine Steps i. 18 The capitalists would
> rake in the shekels, and make fortunes by buying up wreckage.
>

There is a strong streak of anti-semitism in Buchan's novels.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 20:37:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 10:40:33 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 09:21:42 -0400, Tony Cooper
> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> >>> Paul Wolff wrote:
> >>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:

> >>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
> >>>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
> >>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> >>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
> >>>> British.
> >>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
> >>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
> >>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
> >>> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
> >>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
> >>Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
> >>tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
> >>'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
> >>shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
> >>Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
> >>And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
> >I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
> >anti-Semitic. It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
> >aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is meshuggeneh.
> >(Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)
> >Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds like
> >a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over a
> >million sales will return more than a piddling amount. "Behest",
> >there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
> >meaning Eric was trying for.
>
> I don't see it as anti-semitic.

Of all the possible ways of saying it (someone listed some of them), why
would he choose that particular one?

> There is a phrase "rake in the shekels", in which "shekels" just means
> money. See sense 2 below.

Does it?

> OED:
>
> shekel, n.
> 1.
> a. An ancient unit of weight of the Babylonians, and hence of the
> Phœnicians, Hebrews, and others, equal to one-sixtieth of a mina
> (see mina n. 2(a)).
>
> b. A coin of this weight; esp. the chief silver coin of the
> Hebrews.
>
> c. An Israeli unit of currency introduced in February 1980,
> equivalent to ten former Israeli pounds; a note of this value.
> 1980 Times 23 Feb. 1/2 From next week the Israeli pound is to be
> replaced by a new currency named after the Biblical shekel... Each
> shekel will be purchased with 10 present Israeli pounds.
>
> 2. fig. (plural) Coin; money. colloq. Also in phr. "to rake in the
> shekels", to make money rapidly or ‘hand over fist’ (from a
> venture). Cf. rake n.1 2a (a).
> ....
> 1883 F. M. Crawford Dr. Claudius v Though he was so rich, he
> never talked about money except in a vague way as ‘lots of
> shekels’, or ‘piles of tin’.

Who is "he"?

> 1887 ‘S. Cumberland’ Queen's Highway 276 Had I a ‘flush’ with
> ‘king high’ some one would be sure to rake in the shekels with
> ‘ace high’.
> 1915 J. Buchan Thirty-nine Steps i. 18 The capitalists would
> rake in the shekels, and make fortunes by buying up wreckage.

This last one, at least, is certainly at least dog-whistle antisemitism --
the Jews own the banks and run the world, remember? Just yesterday someone
talking about alt.right noted that "the Rothschilds" supposedly still
control everything.
Richard Yates
2018-09-13 21:35:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:40:29 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:


>OED:
>
> shekel, n.

[snip]

The definition that is relevant to the discussion is from the
alt-right glossary:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right_glossary#Shekel

"Shekel (See the main article on this topic: Evil Jew)

The alt-right uses shekel, a Hebrew word (with Akkadian
etymology[109]) for money (and Israel's current currency), to imply
that something has been funded by the Jews and is thus tainted."
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 21:52:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:35:35 PM UTC-4, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:40:29 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> >OED:
> >
> > shekel, n.
>
> [snip]
>
> The definition that is relevant to the discussion is from the
> alt-right glossary:
>
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right_glossary#Shekel
>
> "Shekel (See the main article on this topic: Evil Jew)
>
> The alt-right uses shekel, a Hebrew word (with Akkadian
> etymology[109]) for money (and Israel's current currency), to imply
> that something has been funded by the Jews and is thus tainted."

Nice catch.
Tak To
2018-09-13 15:03:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 9:21 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>>
>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
>>>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>>
>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
>>>> British.
>>
>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>>
>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
>>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
>>> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>>
>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>>
>> Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
>>
>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
>> shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
>> Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>>
>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
>>
>
> [...] "Behest",
> there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
> meaning Eric was trying for.

+1

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
CDB
2018-09-13 16:11:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/13/2018 11:03 AM, Tak To wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>> CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Harrison Hill wrote:
>>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:

>>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they
>>>>>> automatically become citizens (formerly subjects of the
>>>>>> Crown)?

>>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R,
>>>>> and finding before you leave that you have inadvertently
>>>>> become British.

>>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.

>>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children
>>>> and grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the
>>>> UK, you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to
>>>> remain"

>>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>

Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:

>>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three
>>> extra shekels at the behest of the American people" with his
>>> book. Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'

>>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?

>> [...] "Behest", there, is one of those clangers where we don't have
>> any idea what meaning Eric was trying for.

> +1

It seems to me that he meant "at the expense", or maybe "to the
detriment" of the peeps; the puzzle is how he got from there to
"behest". OTOH, I once heard someone say "dearth" when he meant "plethora".
Richard Yates
2018-09-13 21:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:11:23 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/13/2018 11:03 AM, Tak To wrote:
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Harrison Hill wrote:
>>>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>
>>>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they
>>>>>>> automatically become citizens (formerly subjects of the
>>>>>>> Crown)?
>
>>>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R,
>>>>>> and finding before you leave that you have inadvertently
>>>>>> become British.
>
>>>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>
>>>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children
>>>>> and grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the
>>>>> UK, you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to
>>>>> remain"
>
>>>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>
>Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>>>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
>
>>>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three
>>>> extra shekels at the behest of the American people" with his
>>>> book. Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>
>>>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
>
>>> [...] "Behest", there, is one of those clangers where we don't have
>>> any idea what meaning Eric was trying for.
>
>> +1
>
>It seems to me that he meant "at the expense", or maybe "to the
>detriment" of the peeps; the puzzle is how he got from there to
>"behest". OTOH, I once heard someone say "dearth" when he meant "plethora".

I can never remember immediately which way "dearth" goes. I do know
that its opposite is "plethora", and that one means a bunch. So when I
hear "dearth" without enough contextual cues I mentally access
"plethora" and do the math.

(I can't claim that I would do the necessary steps in reverse if I
ever said the word, though.)
>
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-13 21:44:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 22:42:06 UTC+1, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:11:23 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 9/13/2018 11:03 AM, Tak To wrote:
> >> Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>> CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Harrison Hill wrote:
> >>>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
> >>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >
> >>>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they
> >>>>>>> automatically become citizens (formerly subjects of the
> >>>>>>> Crown)?
> >
> >>>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R,
> >>>>>> and finding before you leave that you have inadvertently
> >>>>>> become British.
> >
> >>>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
> >
> >>>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children
> >>>>> and grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the
> >>>>> UK, you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to
> >>>>> remain"
> >
> >>>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
> >
> >Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
> >>>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
> >
> >>>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three
> >>>> extra shekels at the behest of the American people" with his
> >>>> book. Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
> >
> >>>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
> >
> >>> [...] "Behest", there, is one of those clangers where we don't have
> >>> any idea what meaning Eric was trying for.
> >
> >> +1
> >
> >It seems to me that he meant "at the expense", or maybe "to the
> >detriment" of the peeps; the puzzle is how he got from there to
> >"behest". OTOH, I once heard someone say "dearth" when he meant "plethora".
>
> I can never remember immediately which way "dearth" goes. I do know
> that its opposite is "plethora", and that one means a bunch. So when I
> hear "dearth" without enough contextual cues I mentally access
> "plethora" and do the math.
>
> (I can't claim that I would do the necessary steps in reverse if I
> ever said the word, though.)
> >

'Surfeit' is the one I have trouble with. It always sounds to me like it
should mean its opposite.
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-13 22:10:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:42:06 PM UTC-6, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:11:23 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 9/13/2018 11:03 AM, Tak To wrote:
> >> Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>> CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Harrison Hill wrote:
> >>>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
> >>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >
> >>>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they
> >>>>>>> automatically become citizens (formerly subjects of the
> >>>>>>> Crown)?
> >
> >>>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R,
> >>>>>> and finding before you leave that you have inadvertently
> >>>>>> become British.
> >
> >>>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
> >
> >>>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children
> >>>>> and grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the
> >>>>> UK, you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to
> >>>>> remain"
> >
> >>>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
> >
> >Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
> >>>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
> >
> >>>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three
> >>>> extra shekels at the behest of the American people" with his
> >>>> book. Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
> >
> >>>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
> >
> >>> [...] "Behest", there, is one of those clangers where we don't have
> >>> any idea what meaning Eric was trying for.
> >
> >> +1
> >
> >It seems to me that he meant "at the expense", or maybe "to the
> >detriment" of the peeps; the puzzle is how he got from there to
> >"behest". OTOH, I once heard someone say "dearth" when he meant "plethora".
>
> I can never remember immediately which way "dearth" goes. I do know
> that its opposite is "plethora", and that one means a bunch. So when I
> hear "dearth" without enough contextual cues I mentally access
> "plethora" and do the math.
...

Does it help to know that "dearth" is related to "dear" in the sense
of "precious, expensive"--scarce things are expensive?

--
Jerry Friedman
LFS
2018-09-13 15:30:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/09/2018 14:21, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>>
>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
>>>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>>
>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
>>>> British.
>>
>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>>
>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
>>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
>>> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>>
>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>>
>> Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
>>
>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
>> shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
>> Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>>
>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
>>
>
> I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
> anti-Semitic.

Many Jews would. Especially from this source.

It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
> aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is meshuggeneh.

You've left out the indefinite article. In my BrY, meshuggeneh is the
noun, meshugge the adjective.

> (Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)
>
> Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds like
> a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over a
> million sales will return more than a piddling amount. "Behest",
> there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
> meaning Eric was trying for.
>


--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Tony Cooper
2018-09-13 16:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:30:10 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 13/09/2018 14:21, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
>>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>>>
>>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
>>>>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>>>
>>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
>>>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
>>>>> British.
>>>
>>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>>>
>>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
>>>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
>>>> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>>>
>>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>>>
>>> Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
>>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
>>>
>>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
>>> shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
>>> Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>>>
>>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
>>>
>>
>> I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
>> anti-Semitic.
>
>Many Jews would. Especially from this source.

I would expect that, but I don't think you would expect me to be
sensitive to that. I wouldn't pick up on things you - or other Jews -
might pick up on. The obvious, yes, but not something like this.

I was not aware, until I read today's posts, that Bob Woodward is
Jewish. Never thought about it; never had any reason to think about
it.
>
>It's so nonsensical that I wouldn't think of that
>> aspect. I wouldn't get that far before I decided Eric is meshuggeneh.
>
>You've left out the indefinite article. In my BrY, meshuggeneh is the
>noun, meshugge the adjective.

I learn every day. But it gets harder and harder to remember what I
learned yesterday.

>> (Of course, that's a mishpocheh trait)
>>
>> Unless there's some idiom not known to me, "three shekels" sounds like
>> a piddling amount. I think a book that is expected to have over a
>> million sales will return more than a piddling amount. "Behest",
>> there, is one of those clangers where we don't have any idea what
>> meaning Eric was trying for.
>>
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-13 20:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:30:10 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 13/09/2018 14:21, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> >>>> Paul Wolff wrote:
> >>>>> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >>>
> >>>>>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
> >>>>>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
> >>>
> >>>>> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> >>>>> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
> >>>>> British.
> >>>
> >>>>> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
> >>>
> >>>> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
> >>>> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
> >>>> are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
> >>>
> >>>> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
> >>>
> >>> Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
> >>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
> >>>
> >>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
> >>> shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
> >>> Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
> >>>
> >>> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
> >> anti-Semitic.
> >
> >Many Jews would. Especially from this source.
>
> I would expect that, but I don't think you would expect me to be
> sensitive to that. I wouldn't pick up on things you - or other Jews -
> might pick up on. The obvious, yes, but not something like this.
>
> I was not aware, until I read today's posts, that Bob Woodward is
> Jewish. Never thought about it; never had any reason to think about
> it.

Good. A country isn't free from anti-semitism
until people no longer know and think about
who is Jew and who isn't,

Jan
Cheryl
2018-09-13 20:43:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-13 6:03 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>> I was not aware, until I read today's posts, that Bob Woodward is
>> Jewish. Never thought about it; never had any reason to think about
>> it.
>
> Good. A country isn't free from anti-semitism
> until people no longer know and think about
> who is Jew and who isn't,

So to avoid prejudice, a group must remain invisible so that no one
knows who belongs or doesn't? I don't think a lack of awareness of the
existence of Jews is a necessary precursor to a lack of anti-semitism.

--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 20:44:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 12:04:24 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 16:30:10 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On 13/09/2018 14:21, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:46:51 -0400, CDB <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
> >>> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:
> >>> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
> >>> shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
> >>> Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
> >> I guess I'm not sensitive in that area because I wouldn't see it as
> >> anti-Semitic.
> >Many Jews would. Especially from this source.
>
> I would expect that, but I don't think you would expect me to be
> sensitive to that. I wouldn't pick up on things you - or other Jews -
> might pick up on. The obvious, yes, but not something like this.

Why can you not recognize the same attitude in yourself regarding homophobia?

> I was not aware, until I read today's posts, that Bob Woodward is
> Jewish. Never thought about it; never had any reason to think about
> it.

And you take Damia -- the macadamia nut -- 's word for it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_journalists

lists Bernstein, not Woodward. As I said before, he was the Redford
character, not the Hoffman character.

Or, as the Jerusalem Post put it in the very first hit for <bob woodward
jewish>, "Bob Woodward is not Jewish."

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Eric-Trump-makes-shekels-jibe-at-Bob-Woodward-567090

Unfortunately the screen so quickly became covered with popups that I
didn't even try to read the story.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 15:09:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 8:47:11 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> On 9/13/2018 8:10 AM, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>
> >>> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically
> >>> become citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>
> >> That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> >> finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become
> >> British.
>
> >> The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>
> > I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
> > grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK, you
> > are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>
> > <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>
> Drifting back gently in the direction of antisemitism, Bill Kristol's
> tweet was in my newsfeed this morning:

I like to think of him as Billy Crystal, a total joke.

> 'Eric Trump said this morning that Bob Woodward made "three extra
> shekels at the behest of the American people" with his book.
> Is Eric too stupid to know he's being anti-Semitic?'
>
> And does he have any idea what "behest" means?

A more usual solecism would have been "on behalf of" -- maybe he learned
in junior high not to use that phrase but couldn't quite recall what it
was supposed to be.

Incidentally, Woodward was the Robert Redford one; Bernstein was the Dustin
Hoffman one.

ObAUE: in this week's round of interviews, Woodward seems to have much
greater control of his stammer than he did on previous book tours.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 15:05:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 20:37:38 UTC+1, Paul Wolff wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:

> > >When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
> > >citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
> > That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> > finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become British.
> >
> > The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
>
> I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
> grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK,
> you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>
> <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>

That is quite different from what is written into our Fourteenth Amendment
-- anyone born on US soil is automatically a citizen, regardless of the
circumstances of their parents (to the great discomfit of Trump).
Janet
2018-09-13 16:17:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <932a86b3-9bf8-41e3-9254-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@verizon.net says...
>
> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 20:37:38 UTC+1, Paul Wolff wrote:
> > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>
> > > >When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
> > > >citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
> > > That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> > > finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become British.
> > >
> > > The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
> >
> > I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
> > grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK,
> > you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"

Settled doesn't mean "British citizen"; nor does indefinite leave to
remain. "Leave" means permission, not "right".

Plenty of foreigners (other nationalities) have ILTR in Britain,
but are not British citizens. Obtaining ILTR does not make them (or
their child born in UK) British.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_leave_to_remain#Acquisition_of_
British_citizenship
Janet.
> >
> > <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
>
> That is quite different from what is written into our Fourteenth Amendment
> -- anyone born on US soil is automatically a citizen, regardless of the
> circumstances of their parents (to the great discomfit of Trump).
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 20:55:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 12:17:23 PM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> In article <932a86b3-9bf8-41e3-9254-***@googlegroups.com>,
> ***@verizon.net says...

[nothing that is responded to below other than the initial Socratic question
and the closing comparison. If you are refuting HH (shooting fish in a
barrel, wot), then don't involve other people.]

> > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 8:10:03 AM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 20:37:38 UTC+1, Paul Wolff wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:

> > > > >When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
> > > > >citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
> > > > That could be tricky - imagine coming to the UK for some R&R, and
> > > > finding before you leave that you have inadvertently become British.
> > > > The rule was that you had to apply for naturalisation.
> > > I don't mean the refugees themselves - I mean their children and
> > > grandchildren. If you are born to a couple "settled" in the UK,
> > > you are British - "settled" = having "indefinite leave to remain"
>
> Settled doesn't mean "British citizen"; nor does indefinite leave to
> remain. "Leave" means permission, not "right".
>
> Plenty of foreigners (other nationalities) have ILTR in Britain,
> but are not British citizens. Obtaining ILTR does not make them (or
> their child born in UK) British.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_leave_to_remain#Acquisition_of_
> British_citizenship

> > > <https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-citizenship>
> > That is quite different from what is written into our Fourteenth Amendment
> > -- anyone born on US soil is automatically a citizen, regardless of the
> > circumstances of their parents (to the great discomfit of Trump).
Tak To
2018-09-13 01:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/12/2018 1:24 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
> citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?

They were not former subjects of the Crown. The Palestine
Mandate had its own citizenship and passport.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 02:52:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:42:26 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/12/2018 1:24 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
> > citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>
> They were not former subjects of the Crown. The Palestine
> Mandate had its own citizenship and passport.

What does that have to do with anything at all?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-09-13 10:14:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:52:18 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:42:26 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
>> On 9/12/2018 1:24 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> > When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
>> > citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
>>
>> They were not former subjects of the Crown. The Palestine
>> Mandate had its own citizenship and passport.
>
>What does that have to do with anything at all?

Possibly a misinterpretation of what you wrote. I think your "(formerly
subjects of the Crown)" was taken to refer to the status of the refugees
rather than a comment on the terminology, "citizen" vs. "subject".


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-13 11:36:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 6:14:21 AM UTC-4, PeterWD wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 19:52:18 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:42:26 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> >> On 9/12/2018 1:24 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> >> > When refugees move to the United Kingdom, do they automatically become
> >> > citizens (formerly subjects of the Crown)?
> >>
> >> They were not former subjects of the Crown. The Palestine
> >> Mandate had its own citizenship and passport.
> >
> >What does that have to do with anything at all?
>
> Possibly a misinterpretation of what you wrote. I think your "(formerly
> subjects of the Crown)" was taken to refer to the status of the refugees
> rather than a comment on the terminology, "citizen" vs. "subject".

Which is why people who haven't been paying attention should attend to more
than just the very last sentence of a message.
Janet
2018-09-12 16:38:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <2ca08e5b-a191-4a89-b00a-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@gmail.com says...
>
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 15:53:38 UTC+1, LFS wrote:
> > On 12/09/2018 10:34, Madhu wrote:
> > > * Janet <***@news.individual.net> :
> > > Wrote on Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:22:16 +0100:
> > >>> the ongoing saga - they now appear to have published a piece in his
> > >>> defence.(content behind javascript)
> > >>
> > >> "in his defence "??????? Did you read it? It's an excoriating
> > >> attack on Corbyn, whose author is praised by the Jewish Chronicle.
> > >
> > > Well, it started off pretty well..
> > >
> > > "Something tells me you're expecting me to call Jeremy Corbyn an
> > > antisemite. There's been a bit about it in the press, and
> > > I... well, you know...
> > >
> > > "But I'm not going to call him anything. He says he isn't an
> > > antisemite, Hamas says he isn't an antisemite, the white
> > > supremacist David Duke says he isn't an antisemite, and that's
> > > good enough for me.
> > >
> > > " Am I being ironical? Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm incapable of
> > > irony."
> >
> > To understand that you need to know what Corbyn said about "British
> > Zionists" not understanding "English" irony.
> >
> > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-zionists-speech-english-irony-reports-parliamentary-standards-antisemitism-a8507196.html
> >
> > And you probably need to understand English irony too. Not to mention
> > Jewish irony.
>
> I don't think anybody has the faintest idea about Zionists, Israelis,
> Jews, Hebrews, Semites - much less any of the people who associate
> themselves with those labels. Nobody has any idea where Israel is- where
> its boundaries are. Or where Palestine is.


Laura and the Jewish Chronical may have more of a clue than you and
Jeremy Corbyn.

Janet.
Harrison Hill
2018-09-12 16:50:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 17:38:16 UTC+1, Janet wrote:
> In article <2ca08e5b-a191-4a89-b00a-***@googlegroups.com>,
> ***@gmail.com says...
> >
> > On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 15:53:38 UTC+1, LFS wrote:
> > > On 12/09/2018 10:34, Madhu wrote:
> > > > * Janet <***@news.individual.net> :
> > > > Wrote on Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:22:16 +0100:
> > > >>> the ongoing saga - they now appear to have published a piece in his
> > > >>> defence.(content behind javascript)
> > > >>
> > > >> "in his defence "??????? Did you read it? It's an excoriating
> > > >> attack on Corbyn, whose author is praised by the Jewish Chronicle.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it started off pretty well..
> > > >
> > > > "Something tells me you're expecting me to call Jeremy Corbyn an
> > > > antisemite. There's been a bit about it in the press, and
> > > > I... well, you know...
> > > >
> > > > "But I'm not going to call him anything. He says he isn't an
> > > > antisemite, Hamas says he isn't an antisemite, the white
> > > > supremacist David Duke says he isn't an antisemite, and that's
> > > > good enough for me.
> > > >
> > > > " Am I being ironical? Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm incapable of
> > > > irony."
> > >
> > > To understand that you need to know what Corbyn said about "British
> > > Zionists" not understanding "English" irony.
> > >
> > > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-zionists-speech-english-irony-reports-parliamentary-standards-antisemitism-a8507196.html
> > >
> > > And you probably need to understand English irony too. Not to mention
> > > Jewish irony.
> >
> > I don't think anybody has the faintest idea about Zionists, Israelis,
> > Jews, Hebrews, Semites - much less any of the people who associate
> > themselves with those labels. Nobody has any idea where Israel is- where
> > its boundaries are. Or where Palestine is.
>
>
> Laura and the Jewish Chronical may have more of a clue than you and
> Jeremy Corbyn.

Jewish people know more about Jewish matters than non-Jewish people?
Zionist people know more about Zionist matters than non-Zionist people?
Hebrew people know more about Hebrew matters than non-Hebrew people?

How about Israelis Janet? Whatever happened to the fashion we used to
have of reading what we reply to? Always read the question carefully.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-12 17:13:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 12:50:46 PM UTC-4, Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 17:38:16 UTC+1, Janet wrote:
> > In article <2ca08e5b-a191-4a89-b00a-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > ***@gmail.com says...
> > > On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 15:53:38 UTC+1, LFS wrote:
> > > > On 12/09/2018 10:34, Madhu wrote:
> > > > > * Janet <***@news.individual.net> :
> > > > > Wrote on Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:22:16 +0100:

> > > > >>> the ongoing saga - they now appear to have published a piece in his
> > > > >>> defence.(content behind javascript)
> > > > >> "in his defence "??????? Did you read it? It's an excoriating
> > > > >> attack on Corbyn, whose author is praised by the Jewish Chronicle.
> > > > > Well, it started off pretty well..
> > > > > "Something tells me you're expecting me to call Jeremy Corbyn an
> > > > > antisemite. There's been a bit about it in the press, and
> > > > > I... well, you know...
> > > > > "But I'm not going to call him anything. He says he isn't an
> > > > > antisemite, Hamas says he isn't an antisemite, the white
> > > > > supremacist David Duke says he isn't an antisemite, and that's
> > > > > good enough for me.
> > > > > " Am I being ironical? Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm incapable of
> > > > > irony."
> > > > To understand that you need to know what Corbyn said about "British
> > > > Zionists" not understanding "English" irony.
> > > > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-zionists-speech-english-irony-reports-parliamentary-standards-antisemitism-a8507196.html
> > > > And you probably need to understand English irony too. Not to mention
> > > > Jewish irony.
> > > I don't think anybody has the faintest idea about Zionists, Israelis,
> > > Jews, Hebrews, Semites - much less any of the people who associate
> > > themselves with those labels. Nobody has any idea where Israel is- where
> > > its boundaries are. Or where Palestine is.
> > Laura and the Jewish Chronical may have more of a clue than you and
> > Jeremy Corbyn.
>
> Jewish people know more about Jewish matters than non-Jewish people?

On the whole, yes.

> Zionist people know more about Zionist matters than non-Zionist people?

On the whole, yes (especially when it comes to factual matters).

> Hebrew people know more about Hebrew matters than non-Hebrew people?

I don't know who that refers to, but probably yes.

> How about Israelis Janet? Whatever happened to the fashion we used to
> have of reading what we reply to? Always read the question carefully.

You missed the opportunity to mock her spelling error.
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-12 10:01:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Madhu <***@meer.net> wrote:

> * Jerry Friedman <pjtj6t$6qd$***@news.albasani.net> :
> Wrote on Wed, 1 Aug 2018 18:28:11 -0600:
>
> > On 8/1/18 4:50 PM, Janet wrote:
> >> In article <pjt59l$80b$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@ncf.ca says...
> >>>
> >>> On 8/1/2018 1:06 PM, Janet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> See
> >>>> https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/there-is-only-one-word-for-
> >>>> jeremy-corbyn-1.461313
> >>>>
> >>>> "when Mr Ockerman wrote on Facebook that his mural was to be
> >>>> removed, a then insignificant Labour MP expressed his support for
> >>>> the piece, writing in response: "Why? You are in good
> >>>> company. Rockerfeller destroyed Diego Viera?s mural because it
> >>>> includes a picture of Lenin."
> >>>
> >>> This article is signed by Jeremy Pollard. The source is the Jewish
> >>> Chronicle (London, founded 1841, claiming to be "the world's oldest
> >>> and most influential Jewish newspaper.")
> >>>
> >>> Nevertheless two of the five proper names in this paragraph are
> >>> wrong (Rockefeller and Diego Rivera.) This hugely reduces the
> >>> credibility of the whole article. (Does the Jewish Chronicle really
> >>> have no editors aware of those world-famous individuals?)
> >>
> >> You miss the point.
> >> The errors are Corbyn's, they are quoting his tweet verbatim.
> >
> > Sic 'em, Chronicle!
> >
> >> Here it is in another source.
> >>
> >> https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/did-jeremy-corbyn-back-artist-
> >> whose-mural-was-condemned-as-antisemitic-1.62106
> >
> > Thanks, it's helpful to see that that was his whole Facebook comment
> > and that the spelling errors were his.
>
> the ongoing saga - they now appear to have published a piece in his
> defence.(content behind javascript)
> https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/
> howard-jacobson-speech-intelligence-squared-1.469525

A brilliant analysis:
Corbyn is 'the wrong man at the wrong time espousing the wrong causes'.
Fortunately for Britain Theresa May is
'the wrong woman at the wrong time espousing the wrong causes' too.

Britain needs to reinvent its 'democracy',

Jan
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-12 10:34:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 11:01:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Madhu <***@meer.net> wrote:
>
> > * Jerry Friedman <pjtj6t$6qd$***@news.albasani.net> :
> > Wrote on Wed, 1 Aug 2018 18:28:11 -0600:
> >
> > > On 8/1/18 4:50 PM, Janet wrote:
> > >> In article <pjt59l$80b$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@ncf.ca says...
> > >>>
> > >>> On 8/1/2018 1:06 PM, Janet wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> See
> > >>>> https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/there-is-only-one-word-for-
> > >>>> jeremy-corbyn-1.461313
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "when Mr Ockerman wrote on Facebook that his mural was to be
> > >>>> removed, a then insignificant Labour MP expressed his support for
> > >>>> the piece, writing in response: "Why? You are in good
> > >>>> company. Rockerfeller destroyed Diego Viera?s mural because it
> > >>>> includes a picture of Lenin."
> > >>>
> > >>> This article is signed by Jeremy Pollard. The source is the Jewish
> > >>> Chronicle (London, founded 1841, claiming to be "the world's oldest
> > >>> and most influential Jewish newspaper.")
> > >>>
> > >>> Nevertheless two of the five proper names in this paragraph are
> > >>> wrong (Rockefeller and Diego Rivera.) This hugely reduces the
> > >>> credibility of the whole article. (Does the Jewish Chronicle really
> > >>> have no editors aware of those world-famous individuals?)
> > >>
> > >> You miss the point.
> > >> The errors are Corbyn's, they are quoting his tweet verbatim.
> > >
> > > Sic 'em, Chronicle!
> > >
> > >> Here it is in another source.
> > >>
> > >> https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/did-jeremy-corbyn-back-artist-
> > >> whose-mural-was-condemned-as-antisemitic-1.62106
> > >
> > > Thanks, it's helpful to see that that was his whole Facebook comment
> > > and that the spelling errors were his.
> >
> > the ongoing saga - they now appear to have published a piece in his
> > defence.(content behind javascript)
> > https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/
> > howard-jacobson-speech-intelligence-squared-1.469525
>
> A brilliant analysis:
> Corbyn is 'the wrong man at the wrong time espousing the wrong causes'.
> Fortunately for Britain Theresa May is
> 'the wrong woman at the wrong time espousing the wrong causes' too.
>
> Britain needs to reinvent its 'democracy',
>

Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
as well as good, isn't it?
Tony Cooper
2018-09-12 13:39:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
>Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
>as well as good, isn't it?

Using that perspective, the US is currently the most advanced
democracy in the world!

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-12 15:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:39:35 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
>>as well as good, isn't it?
>
>Using that perspective, the US is currently the most advanced
>democracy in the world!

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-12 18:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Mack A. Damia <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:39:35 -0400, Tony Cooper
> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> ><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
> >>as well as good, isn't it?
> >
> >Using that perspective, the US is currently the most advanced
> >democracy in the world!
>
> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
> they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill

Knew it as:
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
having exhausted all other possibilities" - Winston Churchill

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-12 18:19:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 2:07:34 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Mack A. Damia <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:39:35 -0400, Tony Cooper
> > <***@invalid.com> wrote:
> > >On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > ><***@googlemail.com> wrote:

> > >>The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
> > >>as well as good, isn't it?
> > >Using that perspective, the US is currently the most advanced
> > >democracy in the world!
> > "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
> > they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
>
> Knew it as:
> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
> having exhausted all other possibilities" - Winston Churchill

Something like "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all
the others"?
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-12 19:02:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 20:07:31 +0200, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Mack A. Damia <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:39:35 -0400, Tony Cooper
>> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
>> ><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
>> >>as well as good, isn't it?
>> >
>> >Using that perspective, the US is currently the most advanced
>> >democracy in the world!
>>
>> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
>> they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
>
>Knew it as:
>"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
>having exhausted all other possibilities" - Winston Churchill

Did you Google both versions?
Lewis
2018-09-13 04:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Mack A. Damia <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:39:35 -0400, Tony Cooper
>> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
>> ><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
>> >>as well as good, isn't it?
>> >
>> >Using that perspective, the US is currently the most advanced
>> >democracy in the world!
>>
>> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
>> they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill

> Knew it as:
> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
> having exhausted all other possibilities" - Winston Churchill

Yes, that version sounds more correct that the other.

--
Why is it so damn hot in here, and why are we all in a handbasket?
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-13 08:33:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Lewis <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder:
> > Mack A. Damia <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:39:35 -0400, Tony Cooper
> >> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> >> ><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
> >> >>as well as good, isn't it?
> >> >
> >> >Using that perspective, the US is currently the most advanced
> >> >democracy in the world!
> >>
> >> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
> >> they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
>
> > Knew it as:
> > "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
> > having exhausted all other possibilities" - Winston Churchill
>
> Yes, that version sounds more correct that the other.

It has a more forcing sound to it.
They only do the right thing
because they have no options left to do anything else,

Jan
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-13 14:10:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:33:04 +0200, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Lewis <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder:
>> > Mack A. Damia <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:39:35 -0400, Tony Cooper
>> >> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
>> >> ><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
>> >> >>as well as good, isn't it?
>> >> >
>> >> >Using that perspective, the US is currently the most advanced
>> >> >democracy in the world!
>> >>
>> >> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
>> >> they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
>>
>> > Knew it as:
>> > "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
>> > having exhausted all other possibilities" - Winston Churchill
>>
>> Yes, that version sounds more correct that the other.
>
>It has a more forcing sound to it.
>They only do the right thing
>because they have no options left to do anything else,

Did you Google both versions?

Which one is correct?
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-13 14:36:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:10:56 -0700, Mack A. Damia
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:33:04 +0200, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder) wrote:
>
>>Lewis <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder:
>>> > Mack A. Damia <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:39:35 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>> >> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
>>> >> ><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
>>> >> >>as well as good, isn't it?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Using that perspective, the US is currently the most advanced
>>> >> >democracy in the world!
>>> >>
>>> >> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
>>> >> they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
>>>
>>> > Knew it as:
>>> > "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
>>> > having exhausted all other possibilities" - Winston Churchill
>>>
>>> Yes, that version sounds more correct that the other.
>>
>>It has a more forcing sound to it.
>>They only do the right thing
>>because they have no options left to do anything else,
>
>Did you Google both versions?
>
>Which one is correct?

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
(11,300 hits)

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
having exhausted all other possibilities" - Winston Churchill
(No results found)

Denigrating others can be risky.
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-13 14:11:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 04:59:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <***@de-ster.xs4all.nl> J. J. Lodder <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>> Mack A. Damia <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:39:35 -0400, Tony Cooper
>>> <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:34:04 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
>>> ><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
>>> >>as well as good, isn't it?
>>> >
>>> >Using that perspective, the US is currently the most advanced
>>> >democracy in the world!
>>>
>>> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
>>> they've tried everything else." - Winston Churchill
>
>> Knew it as:
>> "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
>> having exhausted all other possibilities" - Winston Churchill
>
>Yes, that version sounds more correct that the other.

Only in your twisted mind.
Peter Moylan
2018-09-12 15:31:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/09/18 20:34, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 11:01:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> Britain needs to reinvent its 'democracy',
>
> Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
> as well as good, isn't it?

Over the last couple of years, the UK seems to have used up its quota of
bad choices.

Which, I suppose, means that a sensible decision is due any time now.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-12 15:43:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 16:31:10 UTC+1, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 12/09/18 20:34, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 11:01:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >> Britain needs to reinvent its 'democracy',
> >
> > Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
> > as well as good, isn't it?
>
> Over the last couple of years, the UK seems to have used up its quota of
> bad choices.
>
> Which, I suppose, means that a sensible decision is due any time now.
>
> --

Sometimes there's only bad choices and other bad choices to choose
between!
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-12 18:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Moylan <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/09/18 20:34, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 11:01:21 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >> Britain needs to reinvent its 'democracy',
> >
> > Does it? The very essence of democracy is the right to make bad choices
> > as well as good, isn't it?
>
> Over the last couple of years, the UK seems to have used up its quota of
> bad choices.
>
> Which, I suppose, means that a sensible decision is due any time now.

Certainly not.
They need to have Boris Johnson as prime minister first,

Jan
Neill Massello
2018-09-12 20:27:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
J. J. Lodder <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

> Britain needs to reinvent its 'democracy',

To be successful, any form of government must be managed by an elite.
Unfortunately, most of the world's current democracies have for decades
been managed by elites that are either incompetent or are actually
hostile to the people they are governing. That's why they have lost
legitimacy and are now failing.
Adam Funk
2018-09-13 13:15:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-08-01, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> On 7/31/18 5:07 PM, Richard Chambers wrote:

>> So item 1 allows that it is alright after all for Corbyn to criticise the
>> government of Israel. Why, then, is he being tarred with the brush of
>> ant-semitism? Has he done other things that I do not know about?
>
> Maybe defending this mural? Though the article doesn't give the text of
> his defense.
>
> https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/29/17168320/labour-corbyn-anti-semitism-mural

Is it not possible that he thought the men in suits in the mural were
just "businessmen" & not specifically "Jewish businessmen"?


--
Indentation is for enemy skulls, not code!
--- Klingon Programmer's Guide
LFS
2018-09-13 15:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 13/09/2018 14:15, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2018-08-01, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
>> On 7/31/18 5:07 PM, Richard Chambers wrote:
>
>>> So item 1 allows that it is alright after all for Corbyn to criticise the
>>> government of Israel. Why, then, is he being tarred with the brush of
>>> ant-semitism? Has he done other things that I do not know about?
>>
>> Maybe defending this mural? Though the article doesn't give the text of
>> his defense.
>>
>> https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/29/17168320/labour-corbyn-anti-semitism-mural
>
> Is it not possible that he thought the men in suits in the mural were
> just "businessmen" & not specifically "Jewish businessmen"?
>
>

You mean he didn't notice their noses?

Much of the criticism thrown at him could be interpreted differently.
But even before all this blew up he was consistently refusing to meet
with any groups that might be described as mainstream within the Jewish
community. I wouldn't go as far as those who have said he meets with the
"wrong" Jews but it is clear that he only associates with those Jews who
are his committed supporters and are far from representative of the
whole community. At best, I find this puzzling as a political strategy.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Adam Funk
2018-09-13 19:16:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-13, LFS wrote:

> On 13/09/2018 14:15, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2018-08-01, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/31/18 5:07 PM, Richard Chambers wrote:
>>
>>>> So item 1 allows that it is alright after all for Corbyn to criticise the
>>>> government of Israel. Why, then, is he being tarred with the brush of
>>>> ant-semitism? Has he done other things that I do not know about?
>>>
>>> Maybe defending this mural? Though the article doesn't give the text of
>>> his defense.
>>>
>>> https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/29/17168320/labour-corbyn-anti-semitism-mural
>>
>> Is it not possible that he thought the men in suits in the mural were
>> just "businessmen" & not specifically "Jewish businessmen"?
>>
>>
>
> You mean he didn't notice their noses?

I've only ever seen that picture in articles mentioning
anti-semitism. I don't think I would have thought they were supposed
to be Jewish immediately if I hadn't been told.

Big nose stereotyping/joking happens to other ethnic groups (such as
Italian-Americans) too. Has anyone ever done a study to find out if
there are statistically significant differences in nose size?


> Much of the criticism thrown at him could be interpreted differently.
> But even before all this blew up he was consistently refusing to meet
> with any groups that might be described as mainstream within the Jewish
> community. I wouldn't go as far as those who have said he meets with the
> "wrong" Jews but it is clear that he only associates with those Jews who
> are his committed supporters and are far from representative of the
> whole community. At best, I find this puzzling as a political strategy.

Yes.


--
A heretic is someone who shares ALMOST all your beliefs.
Kill him. --- Ivan Stang
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-13 19:57:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 13 September 2018 20:30:06 UTC+1, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2018-09-13, LFS wrote:
>
> > On 13/09/2018 14:15, Adam Funk wrote:
> >> On 2018-08-01, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 7/31/18 5:07 PM, Richard Chambers wrote:
> >>
> >>>> So item 1 allows that it is alright after all for Corbyn to criticise the
> >>>> government of Israel. Why, then, is he being tarred with the brush of
> >>>> ant-semitism? Has he done other things that I do not know about?
> >>>
> >>> Maybe defending this mural? Though the article doesn't give the text of
> >>> his defense.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/29/17168320/labour-corbyn-anti-semitism-mural
> >>
> >> Is it not possible that he thought the men in suits in the mural were
> >> just "businessmen" & not specifically "Jewish businessmen"?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You mean he didn't notice their noses?
>
> I've only ever seen that picture in articles mentioning
> anti-semitism. I don't think I would have thought they were supposed
> to be Jewish immediately if I hadn't been told.
>
> Big nose stereotyping/joking happens to other ethnic groups (such as
> Italian-Americans) too. Has anyone ever done a study to find out if
> there are statistically significant differences in nose size?
>
>

Yes. The Jewish nose is no more prevalent amongst Jews than the
general population (with the same genetic heritage). However it
should be stressed that although in Mediaeval times the Jewish nose
was an abusive stereotype, modern Jewish writers have reclaimed
it largely as a positive marker of positive Jewish attributes. The idea
that you shall know them by their noses is probably upheld to a far
greater extent by Jews themselves at present than by Gentiles be
the latter anti-semitic or not.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-08-01 10:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 1 August 2018 00:07:24 UTC+1, Richard Chambers wrote:
> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
>

No. There is no too far!
Harrison Hill
2018-08-01 17:12:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 1 August 2018 00:07:24 UTC+1, Richard Chambers wrote:
> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
>
> NB. I am not a supporter of Corbyn's politics, but I do like to see fair
> play and not accuse him of being anti-semitic if he is not.
>
> The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has produced what it
> claims is the internationally accepted definition of anti-semitism,
> displayed on webpage
> https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf
>
> The definition they offer is:-
> "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
> hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism
> are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
> toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
>
> The only problem I have with this definition is that it includes "Rhetorical
> . . . . [criticism. presumably] . . . . toward Jewish community institutions
> . . . .". A prominent Jewish community institution is the government of
> Israel. Without necessarily agreeing with him, I wish to grant Mr Corbyn the
> right to freely criticise the government of Israel if he disagrees with any
> of its actions. In fact he can, because the IHRA document goes on to give
> examples of anti-semitism, and amongst these examples we find:-
>
> 1. Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel,
> conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to
> that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
>
> 2. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
> [is anti-semitic].
>
> So item 1 allows that it is alright after all for Corbyn to criticise the
> government of Israel. Why, then, is he being tarred with the brush of
> ant-semitism? Has he done other things that I do not know about?
>
> Item 2 involves a self-contradiction in the IHRA document. It was quite
> acceptable in the 1970s and 1980s to draw comparisons between the white
> supremacist government of South Africa and that of the Nazis. Item 1 says
> that if it was alright for South Africa, a similar criticism of Israel (if
> honestly believed) is allowable. But Item 2 says that it is not allowable.
>
> Treating this as an exercise in precise wording in the English language,
> definitely not as an exercise in politics on one side or another, how would
> you repair the wording of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism?
>
> Richard Chambers Leeds UK.

Ken Livingstone is described by wiki as "the only truly successful
left-wing British politician of modern times".

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone>

He was sacked/resigned from the Labour Party, because of his
belief in free speech:

"A longstanding critic of Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians,
his comments about the relationship between Adolf Hitler and Zionism
resulted in his suspension from the Labour Party in 2016; he then
resigned in 2018".

A proper man. Here he is arguing with his intellectual equals:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAoX5edvifc>
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-08-01 21:28:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 1 August 2018 18:12:37 UTC+1, Harrison Hill wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 August 2018 00:07:24 UTC+1, Richard Chambers wrote:
> > I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> > memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> > thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> > to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> > verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> >
> > NB. I am not a supporter of Corbyn's politics, but I do like to see fair
> > play and not accuse him of being anti-semitic if he is not.
> >
> > The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has produced what it
> > claims is the internationally accepted definition of anti-semitism,
> > displayed on webpage
> > https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf
> >
> > The definition they offer is:-
> > "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
> > hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism
> > are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
> > toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
> >
> > The only problem I have with this definition is that it includes "Rhetorical
> > . . . . [criticism. presumably] . . . . toward Jewish community institutions
> > . . . .". A prominent Jewish community institution is the government of
> > Israel. Without necessarily agreeing with him, I wish to grant Mr Corbyn the
> > right to freely criticise the government of Israel if he disagrees with any
> > of its actions. In fact he can, because the IHRA document goes on to give
> > examples of anti-semitism, and amongst these examples we find:-
> >
> > 1. Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel,
> > conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to
> > that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
> >
> > 2. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
> > [is anti-semitic].
> >
> > So item 1 allows that it is alright after all for Corbyn to criticise the
> > government of Israel. Why, then, is he being tarred with the brush of
> > ant-semitism? Has he done other things that I do not know about?
> >
> > Item 2 involves a self-contradiction in the IHRA document. It was quite
> > acceptable in the 1970s and 1980s to draw comparisons between the white
> > supremacist government of South Africa and that of the Nazis. Item 1 says
> > that if it was alright for South Africa, a similar criticism of Israel (if
> > honestly believed) is allowable. But Item 2 says that it is not allowable.
> >
> > Treating this as an exercise in precise wording in the English language,
> > definitely not as an exercise in politics on one side or another, how would
> > you repair the wording of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism?
> >
> > Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
>
> Ken Livingstone is described by wiki as "the only truly successful
> left-wing British politician of modern times".
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone>

Wikipedia is supposed to be facts not opinions. I shall be sure to
have this erased if possible.
>
> He was sacked/resigned from the Labour Party, because of his
> belief in free speech:

Was he bollocks! He was banished because he insisted on repeating
lies and presenting them as facts to the extent that even the vile
Corbynites could no longer defend him.
>
> "A longstanding critic of Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians,
> his comments about the relationship between Adolf Hitler and Zionism
> resulted in his suspension from the Labour Party in 2016; he then
> resigned in 2018".
>

Resigned, my arse. If you believe that there'a very nice Nigerian
Prince I'd like to introduce you to!

> A proper man. Here he is arguing with his intellectual equals:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAoX5edvifc>
J. J. Lodder
2018-08-01 17:58:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:

> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
[snip]

These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,

Jan
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-02 08:55:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
>> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
>> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
>> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
>> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> [snip]
>
> These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,

Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html


or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw

He said that Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms'
anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of
Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.

Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.


--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-08-02 11:27:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 4:55:25 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> > Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:

> >> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> >> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> >> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> >> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> >> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> > [snip]
> > These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,
>
> Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?
>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
>
> or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw
>
> He said that Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms'
> anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of
> Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.
>
> Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.

At Penn he studied Classical Arabic (usually as the only student in the
class) with the greatest Arabist of the first half of the 20th century,
Giorgio Levi Della Vida, who waited out the War as a refugee at Penn, and
when he went home, with the greatest Arabist of the second half, Franz
Rosenthal, who ended up at Yale; I wish I'd known that when Rosenthal
was still with us, I'd have asked him about it.

He mastered Hebrew by spending summers at a Zionist-ish summer camp for
Philadelphia's Jewish boys, and for several years embraced the idealistic
Zionism that foresaw Jews and Muslims living together peacefully in
Palestine. Things didn't work out that way.
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-08-04 12:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 7:27:16 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 4:55:25 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> > > Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> > >> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> > >> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> > >> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> > >> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> > > [snip]
> > > These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,
> >
> > Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?
> >
> > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
> >
> > or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw
> >
> > He said that Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms'
> > anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of
> > Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.
> >
> > Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.
>
> At Penn he studied Classical Arabic (usually as the only student in the
> class) with the greatest Arabist of the first half of the 20th century,
> Giorgio Levi Della Vida, who waited out the War as a refugee at Penn, and
> when he went home, with the greatest Arabist of the second half, Franz
> Rosenthal, who ended up at Yale; I wish I'd known that when Rosenthal
> was still with us, I'd have asked him about it.
>
> He mastered Hebrew by spending summers at a Zionist-ish summer camp for
> Philadelphia's Jewish boys, and for several years embraced the idealistic
> Zionism that foresaw Jews and Muslims living together peacefully in
> Palestine. Things didn't work out that way.

He was among that supported Jewish emigration to Palestine with the consent and cooperation of the Arabs and among 'Culture Zionists' left wing Jews with a cultural attachment to Palestine and things pan Jewish without political expression.
Paul Wolff
2018-08-04 19:53:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, Yusuf B Gursey <***@gmail.com> posted:
>On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 7:27:16 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 4:55:25 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> > On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>> > > Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > >> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust
>> > >>within living
>> > >> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that
>> > >>the whole
>> > >> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I
>> > >>would like
>> > >> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
>> > >> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
>> > > [snip]
>> > > These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,
>> >
>> > Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
>> >
>> > or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw
>> >
>> > He said that Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms'
>> > anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of
>> > Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.
>> >
>> > Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.
>>
>> At Penn he studied Classical Arabic (usually as the only student in the
>> class) with the greatest Arabist of the first half of the 20th century,
>> Giorgio Levi Della Vida, who waited out the War as a refugee at Penn, and
>> when he went home, with the greatest Arabist of the second half, Franz
>> Rosenthal, who ended up at Yale; I wish I'd known that when Rosenthal
>> was still with us, I'd have asked him about it.
>>
>> He mastered Hebrew by spending summers at a Zionist-ish summer camp for
>> Philadelphia's Jewish boys, and for several years embraced the idealistic
>> Zionism that foresaw Jews and Muslims living together peacefully in
>> Palestine. Things didn't work out that way.
>
>He was among that supported Jewish emigration to Palestine with the
>consent and cooperation of the Arabs and among 'Culture Zionists' left
>wing Jews with a cultural attachment to Palestine and things pan Jewish
>without political expression.

When I imagined "He was among /those/ that...", I was able to understand
that sentence as far as the words "cooperation of the Arabs". After
that, I couldn't tease out any useful meaning to the remaining words. If
Yusuf could try again please, I might become better informed - though
who is meant by "the Arabs" still leaves a lot to be guessed at. I still
think of Arabs as the Semitic people of the Arabian peninsular, and
definitely not the Egyptians or Persians.
--
Paul
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-08-04 22:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 4:04:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, Yusuf B Gursey <***@gmail.com> posted:
> >On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 7:27:16 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 4:55:25 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> > On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> >> > > Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust
> >> > >>within living
> >> > >> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that
> >> > >>the whole
> >> > >> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I
> >> > >>would like
> >> > >> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> >> > >> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> >> > > [snip]
> >> > > These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,
> >> >
> >> > Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
> >> >
> >> > or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw
> >> >
> >> > He said that Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms'
> >> > anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of
> >> > Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.
> >> >
> >> > Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.
> >>
> >> At Penn he studied Classical Arabic (usually as the only student in the
> >> class) with the greatest Arabist of the first half of the 20th century,
> >> Giorgio Levi Della Vida, who waited out the War as a refugee at Penn, and
> >> when he went home, with the greatest Arabist of the second half, Franz
> >> Rosenthal, who ended up at Yale; I wish I'd known that when Rosenthal
> >> was still with us, I'd have asked him about it.
> >>
> >> He mastered Hebrew by spending summers at a Zionist-ish summer camp for
> >> Philadelphia's Jewish boys, and for several years embraced the idealistic
> >> Zionism that foresaw Jews and Muslims living together peacefully in
> >> Palestine. Things didn't work out that way.
> >
> >He was among that supported Jewish emigration to Palestine with the
> >consent and cooperation of the Arabs and among 'Culture Zionists' left
> >wing Jews with a cultural attachment to Palestine and things pan Jewish
> >without political expression.
>
> When I imagined "He was among /those/ that...", I was able to understand
> that sentence as far as the words "cooperation of the Arabs". After
> that, I couldn't tease out any useful meaning to the remaining words. If
> Yusuf could try again please, I might become better informed - though

The Arabs of Palestine.

> who is meant by "the Arabs" still leaves a lot to be guessed at. I still

The current definition of an Arab is an Arabic speaking person who consider themselves Arabs and are accepted as others as such.

> think of Arabs as the Semitic people of the Arabian peninsular, and

Not all Arabs are Arabians (the majority of Arabs are not) not all Arabians are Arabs (most Arabians are Arabs)

Persians don't speak Arabic (except when taught at school), don't consider themselves Arabs and are accepted as such.

All Egyptians speak Arabic and the overwhelming majority consider themselves Arabs, some among Coptic Christians possibly excepted. Nasser spoke Arabic, was from Egypt, certainly considered himself an Arab and was universally accepted as such. Being Arab is not about ancestry or geography or religion, it is about language and identity. An Arab speaks an Arabic dialect and accepts Standard Arabic as the written and formal standard


> definitely not the Egyptians or Persians.
> --
> Paul
Paul Wolff
2018-08-04 23:40:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, Yusuf B Gursey <***@gmail.com> posted:
>On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 4:04:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, Yusuf B Gursey <***@gmail.com> posted:
>> >On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 7:27:16 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >>
[Chomsky]
>> >>
>> >> He mastered Hebrew by spending summers at a Zionist-ish summer camp for
>> >> Philadelphia's Jewish boys, and for several years embraced the idealistic
>> >> Zionism that foresaw Jews and Muslims living together peacefully in
>> >> Palestine. Things didn't work out that way.
>> >
>> >He was among that supported Jewish emigration to Palestine with the
>> >consent and cooperation of the Arabs and among 'Culture Zionists' left
>> >wing Jews with a cultural attachment to Palestine and things pan Jewish
>> >without political expression.
>>
>> When I imagined "He was among /those/ that...", I was able to understand
>> that sentence as far as the words "cooperation of the Arabs". After
>> that, I couldn't tease out any useful meaning to the remaining words. If
>> Yusuf could try again please, I might become better informed - though
>
>The Arabs of Palestine.
>
>> who is meant by "the Arabs" still leaves a lot to be guessed at. I still
>
>The current definition of an Arab is an Arabic speaking person who
>consider themselves Arabs and are accepted as others as such.
>
>> think of Arabs as the Semitic people of the Arabian peninsular, and
>
>Not all Arabs are Arabians (the majority of Arabs are not) not all
>Arabians are Arabs (most Arabians are Arabs)
>
>Persians don't speak Arabic (except when taught at school), don't
>consider themselves Arabs and are accepted as such.
>
>All Egyptians speak Arabic and the overwhelming majority consider
>themselves Arabs, some among Coptic Christians possibly excepted.
>Nasser spoke Arabic, was from Egypt, certainly considered himself an
>Arab and was universally accepted as such. Being Arab is not about
>ancestry or geography or religion, it is about language and identity.
>An Arab speaks an Arabic dialect and accepts Standard Arabic as the
>written and formal standard
>
>> definitely not the Egyptians or Persians.

That's all very well, concerning who should be called an Arab, but I
still don't understand how the words "and among 'Culture Zionists' left
wing Jews with a cultural attachment to Palestine and things pan Jewish
without political expression" fit into the sentence.

--
Paul
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-08-11 18:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 7:41:28 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, Yusuf B Gursey <***@gmail.com> posted:
> >On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 4:04:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, Yusuf B Gursey <***@gmail.com> posted:
> >> >On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 7:27:16 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> >>
> [Chomsky]
> >> >>
> >> >> He mastered Hebrew by spending summers at a Zionist-ish summer camp for
> >> >> Philadelphia's Jewish boys, and for several years embraced the idealistic
> >> >> Zionism that foresaw Jews and Muslims living together peacefully in
> >> >> Palestine. Things didn't work out that way.
> >> >
> >> >He was among that supported Jewish emigration to Palestine with the
> >> >consent and cooperation of the Arabs and among 'Culture Zionists' left
> >> >wing Jews with a cultural attachment to Palestine and things pan Jewish
> >> >without political expression.
> >>
> >> When I imagined "He was among /those/ that...", I was able to understand
> >> that sentence as far as the words "cooperation of the Arabs". After
> >> that, I couldn't tease out any useful meaning to the remaining words. If
> >> Yusuf could try again please, I might become better informed - though
> >
> >The Arabs of Palestine.
> >
> >> who is meant by "the Arabs" still leaves a lot to be guessed at. I still
> >
> >The current definition of an Arab is an Arabic speaking person who
> >consider themselves Arabs and are accepted as others as such.
> >
> >> think of Arabs as the Semitic people of the Arabian peninsular, and
> >
> >Not all Arabs are Arabians (the majority of Arabs are not) not all
> >Arabians are Arabs (most Arabians are Arabs)
> >
> >Persians don't speak Arabic (except when taught at school), don't
> >consider themselves Arabs and are accepted as such.
> >
> >All Egyptians speak Arabic and the overwhelming majority consider
> >themselves Arabs, some among Coptic Christians possibly excepted.
> >Nasser spoke Arabic, was from Egypt, certainly considered himself an
> >Arab and was universally accepted as such. Being Arab is not about
> >ancestry or geography or religion, it is about language and identity.
> >An Arab speaks an Arabic dialect and accepts Standard Arabic as the
> >written and formal standard
> >
> >> definitely not the Egyptians or Persians.
>
> That's all very well, concerning who should be called an Arab, but I
> still don't understand how the words "and among 'Culture Zionists' left
> wing Jews with a cultural attachment to Palestine and things pan Jewish
> without political expression" fit into the sentence.

For example, Chomsky's father wrote a history of the Hebrew language (somewhat exegerating its continuous use). Interest in being Jewish, expressing interest into the land where Judaism originated is not by itself a political act.

>
> --
> Paul
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-08-04 23:30:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 4:04:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018, Yusuf B Gursey <***@gmail.com> posted:
> >On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 7:27:16 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 4:55:25 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> > On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> >> > > Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust
> >> > >>within living
> >> > >> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that
> >> > >>the whole
> >> > >> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I
> >> > >>would like
> >> > >> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> >> > >> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> >> > > [snip]
> >> > > These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,
> >> >
> >> > Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
> >> >
> >> > or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw
> >> >
> >> > He said that Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms'
> >> > anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of
> >> > Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.
> >> >
> >> > Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.
> >>
> >> At Penn he studied Classical Arabic (usually as the only student in the
> >> class) with the greatest Arabist of the first half of the 20th century,
> >> Giorgio Levi Della Vida, who waited out the War as a refugee at Penn, and
> >> when he went home, with the greatest Arabist of the second half, Franz
> >> Rosenthal, who ended up at Yale; I wish I'd known that when Rosenthal
> >> was still with us, I'd have asked him about it.
> >>
> >> He mastered Hebrew by spending summers at a Zionist-ish summer camp for
> >> Philadelphia's Jewish boys, and for several years embraced the idealistic
> >> Zionism that foresaw Jews and Muslims living together peacefully in
> >> Palestine. Things didn't work out that way.
> >
> >He was among that supported Jewish emigration to Palestine with the
> >consent and cooperation of the Arabs and among 'Culture Zionists' left
> >wing Jews with a cultural attachment to Palestine and things pan Jewish
> >without political expression.
>
> When I imagined "He was among /those/ that...", I was able to understand
> that sentence as far as the words "coo peration of the Arabs". After
> that, I couldn't tease out any useful meaning to the remaining words. If
> Yusuf could try again please, I might become better informed - though
> who is meant by "the Arabs" still leaves a lot to be guessed at. I still
> think of Arabs as the Semitic people



Semitic people means speakers of a Semitic language. There are non-Arabic Semitic speakers in the Arabian peninsula speaking Mehri and related languages in Oman, southern Yemen (incl. Soqotri in the island of Soqotra) and pockets in the Gulf.

Previously there were other Semitic languages spoken as well.

Maltese is essentially an Arabic dialect with heavy borrowing from Romance (Standard Italian, Sicilian and also Spanish and French) but they don't use or normally learn Standard Arabic and don't consider themselves Arabs, even strongly deny it. Hence they are not Arabs.

Djibouti, Somalia and the Comoros are Arab League member states but only have very small Arab / Arabic speaking minorities even though Arabic is co-official. Most of the inhabitants of the inhabitants of these countries are not considered Arabs except in some diplomatic circles. Chad has a significant native Arabic speaking minority. The Arabic dialect and creoles is also a lingua franca especially among the majority Muslim population. Standard Arabic is co-official with French and recently there is a move to promote its use. There is also some efforts recently to enter the Arab League. It is however the only country with a significant vernacular Arabic literature (not counting Maltese)

of the Arabian peninsular, and
> definitely not the Egyptians or Persians.
> --
> Paul
J. J. Lodder
2018-08-02 16:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> >> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> >> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> >> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> >> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> > [snip]
> >
> > These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,
>
> Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?
>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-electi
ons-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
>
>
> or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw
>
> He said that Israeli intervention in US elections 'vastly overwhelms'
> anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of
> Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.
>
> Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.

Israel's political self-defence in a nutshell.
Whoever doesn't approve of all that Israel does
is either anti-semitic, or a self-hating Jew.

They have managed to skunk the word,

Jan
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-08-04 12:21:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 4:55:25 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> >> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> >> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> >> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> >> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> > [snip]
> >
> > These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,
>
> Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?
>

Definitely not. Just as opposition to Trump, the Vietnam War and numerous other issues is not being anti-American opposition to Israel is not anti-semitic.

> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
>
>
> or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw
>
> He said that Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms'
> anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of
> Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.
>
> Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.
>
>
> --
> athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-08-04 14:57:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-08-04 12:21:45 +0000, Yusuf B Gursey said:

> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 4:55:25 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>
>>> Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
>>>> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
>>>> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
>>>> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
>>>> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,
>>
>> Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?
>>
>
> Definitely not. Just as opposition to Trump, the Vietnam War and
> numerous other issues is not being anti-American opposition to Israel
> is not anti-semitic.

Well, I agree, but there seem to be plenty of people who don't.
>
>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html>>>
>> or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw
>>
>> He said that Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms'>
>> anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of>
>> Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.
>>
>> Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.
>>
>>
>> --
>> athel


--
athel
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-08-04 12:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 4:55:25 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> >> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> >> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> >> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> >> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> > [snip]
> >
> > These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,
>
> Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?
>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
>
>
> or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw
>
> He said that Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms'
> anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of
> Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.
>

Probably true but still misleading. US supports Israel because it is to its advantage. APAC merely tweaks it.

> Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.
>
>
> --
> athel
Yusuf B Gursey
2018-08-04 12:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 8:33:10 AM UTC-4, Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 4:55:25 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2018-08-01 17:58:09 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> >
> > > Richard Chambers <***@metercare.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> > >> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> > >> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> > >> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> > >> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > These are not issues that can be settled by refining definitions,
> >
> > Would one call Noam Chomsky antisemitic?
> >
> > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/israel-us-elections-intervention-russia-noam-chomsky-donald-trump-a8470481.html
> >
> >
> > or https://tinyurl.com/y8gfclbw
> >
> > He said that Israeli intervention in US elections ‘vastly overwhelms'
> > anything Russia has done. The problem is that Senators and members of
> > Congress are unable to see Israel as just another country.
> >
>
> Probably true but still misleading. US supports Israel because it is to its advantage. APAC merely tweaks it.
>

AIPAC

> > Fanatical Zionists might (and probably do) call him a self-hating Jew.
> >
> >
> > --
> > athel
Witziges Rätsel
2018-08-01 18:17:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/31/2018 7:07 PM, Richard Chambers wrote:
> The definition they offer is:-
> "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
> hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism
> are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
> toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
>
Many, maybe most, Middle-East Muslims are Semitic. Along with Jews and
some others, they're considered descendants of Noah's son, Shem.
"Semitic" is also a family of languages including Hebrew and Arabic.
Jerry Friedman
2018-08-02 00:30:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 8/1/18 12:17 PM, Witziges Rätsel wrote:
> On 7/31/2018 7:07 PM, Richard Chambers wrote:
>> The definition they offer is:-
>> "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
>> hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of
>> antisemitism
>> are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their
>> property,
>> toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
>>
>  Many, maybe most, Middle-East Muslims are Semitic. Along with Jews and
> some others, they're considered descendants of Noah's son, Shem.
> "Semitic" is also a family of languages including Hebrew and Arabic.

Yes, "antisemitic" is one of those words whose etymology could mislead
you about their meaning.

--
Jerry Friedman
b***@gmail.com
2018-09-13 13:08:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 5:30:30 PM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 8/1/18 12:17 PM, Witziges Rätsel wrote:
> > On 7/31/2018 7:07 PM, Richard Chambers wrote:
> >> The definition they offer is:-
> >> "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
> >> hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of
> >> antisemitism
> >> are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their
> >> property,
> >> toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
> >>
> >  Many, maybe most, Middle-East Muslims are Semitic. Along with Jews and
> > some others, they're considered descendants of Noah's son, Shem.
> > "Semitic" is also a family of languages including Hebrew and Arabic.
>
> Yes, "antisemitic" is one of those words whose etymology could mislead
> you about their meaning.
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

Definition of antisemitism ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mmmmmmmmmm?

I'm a Jew and dyslexic and i saw "Delusion(s)" of Antisemitism, which begs definition, but I hope wisely not the issue.

Antisemitism means anti ——> semites or "against" semites.

Now if the Semites you're talking about happen to be NOT of the Judaic persuasion, your antisemitism would mean to be against Semitic people of ANY persuasion, which would mean Bashar and Hafez al-Assad are Anti-Semites (i.e. if you like counting angels on heads of pins and wanna get etymological too).

Now if the Semites you're talking about happen to be ONLY OF the Judaic persuasion, then your antisemitism would mean to be against Semitic people ONLY OF the Judaic persuasion (dem other Semites are okay or maybe not who cares).

So to really simplify and distill things, antisemitism as far as Jews are concerned just means 'Jew hatred' or if you prefer just being 'against Jews'.

Yep, that's what it means, and I'm a word scholar so I should know.
Arindam Banerjee
2018-09-13 02:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 1 August 2018 09:07:24 UTC+10, Richard Chambers wrote:
> I recognise that Jewish people, having suffered the holocaust within living
> memory, are bound to feel insecure with the underlying fear that the whole
> thing could rise up again. I sympathise with their fears. But I would like
> to ask if several British/Jewish MPs have perhaps gone too far in their
> verbal chastisement of Jeremy Corbyn (UK Leader of the Opposition).
>
> NB. I am not a supporter of Corbyn's politics, but I do like to see fair
> play and not accuse him of being anti-semitic if he is not.
>
> The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has produced what it
> claims is the internationally accepted definition of anti-semitism,
> displayed on webpage
> https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf
>
> The definition they offer is:-
> "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as
> hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism
> are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
> toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

So if one - as I - says that e=mcc=hv is total rubbish, then that one must be branded as anti-Semite, as e=mcc=hv relates to Jewish individual and Jewish intellectual property and Jewish community values and for Jewish atheists and their wannabes, the only religion they believe in as
Divine=Einsteinian truth.

Got it! Definitions do make matters clear, if not better.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Loading...