From rah@bash.sh Thu Jan 25 02:09:55 2007 Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] an relevant link about Vista From: Bob Ham To: Wayne Myers Cc: Marc-Olivier Barre In-Reply-To: <20070124202425.45bd2e5b@localhost.localdomain> References: <45AB8DB1.1050307@woh.rr.com> <20070115223056.123ebe08@localhost> <20070116031322.0c33c628@localhost.localdomain> <1169582504.2232.27.camel@orchid.arb.net> <20070123234401.1f02da9f@localhost.localdomain> <1169634084.2232.96.camel@orchid.arb.net> <20070124133230.36b99026@localhost.localdomain> <1169658900.2232.262.camel@orchid.arb.net> <20070124202425.45bd2e5b@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-C6SQuuwLhMDTz1X3Dwoc" Message-Id: <1169690994.2232.376.camel@orchid.arb.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2.1 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:09:55 +0000 X-Evolution-Format: text/plain X-Evolution-Account: 1145234978.20844.16@orchid X-Evolution-Transport: smtp://rah@smtp/;use_ssl=never X-Evolution-Fcc: imap://rah@teasel/INBOX/sent X-Evolution-Source: imap://rah@teasel/ --=-C6SQuuwLhMDTz1X3Dwoc Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 20:24 +0000, Wayne Myers wrote: > Dear Bob, >=20 > > The issue isn't whether there is a potential for discussion, but > whether > > there was a potential for that discussion to take place on the LAD > list. > > And indeed, that is pretty much nonsense. >=20 > This statement would perhaps carry more weight if you were not yourself > the one who actually risked bringing the discussion back to the LAD list > with your OT post of today. I didn't risk anything; take a good look at Leonard Ritter's response. > > > I am spelling it out clearly so that you > > > understand this. > >=20 > > You haven't spelled anything out. How is Anti-Zionism an attack on > the > > Jewish? > Zionism is responsible for the regeneration of the Hebrew language and > the establishment of a secular strand of Jewish culture that simply did > not exist in any viable way beforehand. It is the single most important > movement within Jewish culture in the last hundred and fifty years. The > establishment of a specifically Jewish state was not central to Zionism > in essence, though in practise that is what happened, despite the fact > that not all Zionists were actually in favour of that state. OK, now we're getting into some fact. Good stuff. Ok, so I haven't been so comprehensive in my evaluation as yourself. My understanding was that Zionism *was* the political movement for a Jewish state. I was obviously wrong about this. I apologise if my less-than comprehensive evaluation caused conflict with your academic research. To confirm my understanding previously, I referred to the Wikipedia, a central repository of completely unbiased, factually complete and correct information. Might I suggest that, rather than getting one's knickers in a twist over miscommunication on the LAD list, one's energy might be better spent correcting the Wikipedia articles on Zionism? > Anti-Zionism - being opposed to this cultural movement and the broad > church of political opinions within the Zionist movement, not all of > which actually favoured a specifically Jewish state, therefore, is > essentially a form of anti-semitism. That's the no-brainer. So is there a label to denote the movement for the creation of a Jewish state, ie, the movement of the beginning of the last century that gave rise to Israel? Because if there is, I'm Anti-it. > Your view, given your insistence on opposing Zionism in entirety, which > you have repeated ad nauseum, would appear to be more in line with that > of Hamas, who are genuinely anti-Zionist, and are not merely in favour > of destroying all the Jews but are actively planning to do so. I was under the impression that Hamas gave a major concession in recognising the right of Israel to exist (before they were arrested.) Was I incorrect in this? Regardless, I am against the idea that one group should be forcibly displaced in favour of another group. To forcibly remove Israeli Jews in favour of Palestinian Arabs would be just as bad as the original creation of Israel, IMHO. If you want to know what I think is the solution to the problem, it's for the Israelis to pay attention to the UN resolutions it continually disregards, stop their disproportional military responses and sit down with the Palestinians with the aim of peace. I'm realistic, though, so I don't expect that to happen: "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel...Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." --Rafael Eitan, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, quoted in Yediot Ahronot, April 13, 1983, and The New York Times, April 14, 1983. > Perhaps it is all a safe academic armchair political exercise for you > but it is not so for me, as it involves me and my family personally and > emotionally. >=20 > I don't expect you to understand or respect that, but I say it > nonetheless. Actually, my best friend's parents were on those ships coming out of Lebanon to Cyprus. Israel is not a far away place to me; it's the country next door that walked all over the life of my friend's dad, the guy with a big-ass cigar in his hand, by bombing all around his town in Southern Lebanon. > it > > simply opposes an apartheid state on Palestinians in the occupied > > territories. >=20 > Imposes, not opposes. Just saying. Touche; thinko there. > This whole business started because you said that Israel was an > apartheid state. That was the statement which upset me so much. Now you > have withdrawn that remark. Thank you. > This is why it is important to be clear about what you do and do not > say. By masking your opposition to the injustice in the territories with > language like 'Israel is an apartheid state' you end up causing people > like me, who actually agree with your view on the injustice in the > territories, to get angry and to disagree with you. >=20 > How does that help anything? How does getting uppity about miscommunication help? Perhaps, rather than just calling people ignorant anti-Semites, you should help them understand the issue at hand, given your claimed knowledge. And do that *even* if they *are* ignorant anti-Semites. Perhaps some clear communication with Dominique would have, in fact, done some real good. Similarly with me, rather than simply trying to turn everything I say to look like neo-Nazi propaganda, perhaps you should elucidate on why, exactly, you're offended. Perhaps you should stop being so narrow-minded in how you communicate. > > You could detect all the anti-Semitic undertones you like, but you'd > be > > hallucinating. >=20 > Would I? Thank you for telling me what does and does not offend me. I'm not telling you what offends you. I'm saying that if you're offended by anti-Semitic undertones, then you're being offended by hallucinations. The undertones don't exist. I don't care about your offence to things that I know aren't there; I care that you're accusing me of racism. > Here's a clue. Intent to offend and actual offence are separate domains. Indeed; I don't care whether you take offence to anti-Semitic undertones that you may perceive, because I'm aware of the (lack of) intent. The fact that you've done everything to resist clear communication over why you're offended ("I'm not going to tell you") is a reason for me to revel in the fact that you are. > > I don't oppose Israel unconditionally and uncritically. Nor do I > oppose > > Zionism unconditionally and uncritically. Indeed, I've critically > > evaluated the Zionist view point, the creation of the State of Israel, > > and the continued support by Britain and the US and come to the > > conclusion that it was, and still is, wrong. >=20 > With all due respect, I do not believe you have critically evaluated the > Zionist view point in any useful way. Your measure of usefulness is pretty skewed compared to the rest of us; your particular field of in depth academic study was Zionism. > My view is based on what I think will lead to peace. I cannot tell what > your view is based on if anything. Ignorance? Prejudice? You deny both. > On what then? I don't deny ignorance in comparison to academic studies. > > Based on what the rest of your email, I suggest you should re-evaluate > > your ability to detect anti-Semitism. To be frank, you really do seem > > to have major issues about the subject. I don't dislike Jews. I've > > known Jews, I've gotten drunk with Jews, I've spoken with Jews. The > > fact that they were Jewish was never an issue for me but it seems to > be > > a major issue for you. I don't care if you're Jewish, but you do. > > Moreover, you seem to be overly concerned about how other people feel > > about you being Jewish. >=20 > Go on. Say it. Tell me that some of your best friends are Jewish. So you > can't possibly be antisemitic. Perhaps some of your best friends are > also black. Or gay. Or whatever. So you can't possibly have a single > prejudiced bone in your entire body. This is LOL. As indicated above, one of my best friends is half-Lebanese so if anything, my bias is pretty clearly defined the other way. I note that I've known and spoken with Jews not because I claim to be unbiased, but to point out that of the Jews that I've spoken to about Zionism, you're the only one who's made the claim that I'm either racist or anti-Semitic. I'd also note that you're the only one who's used the term "Zionism" to refer to anything except the movement for the creation of a Jewish state. In fact, you're the only person I've *ever* communicated with that has used the term "Zionism" in a different way. > > My concern is that Marc-Olivier would give you > > the power to moderate the LAD list, and potentially curtail any posts > > you might deem as anti-Semitic. As noted above, that could be a major > > issue given your preoccupation with your own Jewishness and propensity > > to take any criticism as anti-Semitic. > So basically, what you're saying, Bob, is that even though the LAD list > needs more moderators, you don't want me to be one even though I have > volunteered, because you think I'm oversensitive about antisemitism and > you would like to be able to have little offtopic antisemitic remarks > like 'Israel is an apartheid state' dropped in from time to time. I've said precisely why I think you shouldn't be a moderator; please don't put words into my mouth. To clarify, you seem to me to be so eager to seek out anti-Semitism that you now see it where it doesn't exist. You also seem to confuse ignorance with anti-Semitism. In fact, you seem to be pretty confused all-round; with whether issues exist, how to deal with issues that might, and whether it's you that should deal with them. It seems that you're so lost in your own ideas of Zionism, racism and anti-Semitism that you have problems communicating with the rest of us. To be blunt, you seem like a pedantic head-case with a grudge to bear. Having someone like that in any position of control over the flow of information is, to me, not a good idea, regardless of what their particular grudge is about. Now, please allow me to suggest a much more productive outlet: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DZionism&action=3Dedit Kind Regards, Bob Ham --=20 Bob Ham --=-C6SQuuwLhMDTz1X3Dwoc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBFuBFy7whsMRnFexQRAji0AKDSdv724mXk2X5u6UFIdUpbLZG9JwCfWLFi +X9B/Zr/Dtbxp9R5xq5+/zw= =69QU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-C6SQuuwLhMDTz1X3Dwoc--