Is That Legal?

It's stuff like this that makes people who are sincerely in support of Palestinian rights and a seperate country, look like a bunch of anti-semites and racists. While Wood's may express supposed solidarity with palestinians, lets be honest, that he probably loathes Muslims just as much as he does Jews, blacks, and every other minority. It's these disturbing "supporters" that make the rest of us who are not anti-semetic, but support Palestinian causes, look ridiculous.

A spot-on post like this makes it very difficult for me to work up the proper amount of dudgeon over your cultural-defense wrong turn...

Sean,

Any criticism of Israel's "occupation" (I don't accept the term as it's used in this context by most people) that includes the words "brutalize" and "dispossess" without taking proper note of the true sense of UN 242 etc. or the Jordanian occupation of the same territories or the Syrian occupation of Lebanon or the post-establishment dispossession of some 850,000+ ME Jews or the collaboration of the Arab and Muslim regimes with the Nazis is BOUND to make anti-Zionists look exactly like what they are - anti-Semites.

Anti-Zionism (which is NOT equivalent to criticism of Israeli government policies) IS anti-Semitism. Period.

On the other hand, we don't even need Woods' anti-Israel spew to determine that he's a garden-variety Judenhaas practitioner:

"God still desires the salvation of the Jews, but it must be accomplished in the same way that anyone else is saved: through Jesus Christ. . . .

Sorry to get so exigetical, but if you accept that God made a covenant through Abraham with the Jewish people, you can't then suggest that God would break his word. Jews don't need saving, thank you very much. We got enough problems.

"God still desires the salvation of the Jews, but it must be accomplished in the same way that anyone else is saved: through Jesus Christ. . . .

Prof Woods sounds like President Bush. I'm sure he won't like the comparison! , but I'm sure you won't call the Prezz anti-semitic either.

William,

You think you're a better judge of anti-Semitism than the ADL?

Read Kinsley's astoundingly dishonest article again - you should be able to spot the utter absence of any attribution for the damning "quote" he leads with:

"believe that all Jews are bound for hell."

Hell, even when I was (according to him) mischaracterizing Prof. Muller's temporal defense argument, I didn't feel the need to put words in quotations and imply that they were his.

As best I can determine, George W. Bush has never spoken those words in public or private, and I'd like you to point me to a reliable source that does give a context, location and date for this alleged utterance.

If you can't tell the difference between the two, it speaks volumes about your own ability to parse the subtleties of the English language - or any language, for that matter.

Any criticism of Israel's "occupation" (I don't accept the term as it's used in this context by most people) that includes the words "brutalize" and "dispossess" without taking proper note of the true sense of UN 242 etc. or the Jordanian occupation of the same territories or the Syrian occupation of Lebanon or the post-establishment dispossession of some 850,000+ ME Jews or the collaboration of the Arab and Muslim regimes with the Nazis is BOUND to make anti-Zionists look exactly like what they are - anti-Semites.

I am not going to sit and respond to this comment and bring a flame war on to this site, in a post and website that has little to do with the overarching Israeli/Palestinian issue.

That said, you're reply is a broad-stroke generalization, and an insult to those who speak intelligently and thoughtfully for both sides. The irony of course, in your statement, is the existence of Jewish individuals who disagree with your assertion, both in Israel and abroad. Short of calling them "Self hating Jews", you have no leg to stand on. Your insinuation of course, that anyone who disagree with Israel, also by virtue, approves of Syria's occupation of Lebanon, and of many Arab regimes complicity in war crimes of a large nature, is ridiculous on its face. Last time I checked, no one I know of an anti-Zionist persuasion rah-rah's Syria's meddling, or is exactly a big fan of the many despotic and theocratic Arab regimes in the Middle East. Your building up strawmen that don't exist, and labelling others so you can dismiss them unjustifiably.

Sean,

Let's see, 30 or so words telling me you're not going to respond, and 120 or so responding to my criticism of Woods as if I were attributing the sentiments I referenced in the post to you instead of him. Kewl.

And I like the part where you're not going to start a flame war. I can tell you've had a lot of practice at not starting flame wars. Skillfully done!

Gosh, where to start? The "irony" of the existence of a Jews of a certain political stripe? The attribution to me of using straw men after throwing the "Self hating Jews" bait?

Well, let's just take three items from your skillful little screed.

1.
What assertion did I try to make? I think the word you're looking for is "suggestion"; you see, I DO suggest, by juxtaposing injustices paid to Israel and the Jews with the vehement refusal of people like you to acknowledge them, that people like you are hypocritical.

2. "a post...that has little to do with the overarching Israeli/Palestinian issue."

Really? Gosh.

3. Grand finale time here: "... no one I know of an anti-Zionist persuasion rah-rah's Syria's meddling,..."

Breathtaking in both its ignorance of history and triumphal wrongheadedness.

I don't need to make up a justification to dismiss you, Sean. You graciously provided several.

Yes! The ADL is just a hack organization. No different than the NAACP. And here's what Bush said Bush told a Houston Post reporter that--as the reporter paraphrased it--"heaven is open only to those who accept Jesus Christ."

Sorry, but this is just another attempt to smear Dr. Woods.

1) The League of the South is pro-secessionist and 'neo-confederate' but that does not make it pro-slavery. If the southern states seceded today they would not reenslave blacks.

2) There is nothing more inherently noble in and of itself than secession. The argument against slavery is an argument for secession on the individual level or it is no argument against slavery at all.

3) Opposition to welfarism and anti-discrimination laws does not make one a racist. It might simply make one a principled propertarian (something Woods actually claims to be).

4) Woods' comments about salvation and supernatural love do not make him an anti-semite. You are either simply a malicious twit or are grossly ignorant of Christian theology, or, more likely, you are both.

5) Opposition to Israel (a government) does not make one an anti-semite. Opposition to Zionism (a political ideology) does not make one an anti-semite. Only someone who actually believes Jews are Gawd's Chosen Peeple who have the right to do what they want to who they want could make such idiotic claims.

6) Who cares if Woods IS a racist or an anti-semite? This has no bearing on his ideas in general.

And hey, guilt by association cuts both ways:
http://www.mises.org/story/1770

"I, on the other hand, have never excused the Japanese internment, weaved apologias for mass murder, or casually called for nuclear attacks on civilian targets – all of which the mainstream of what laughingly passes for conservatism today does almost as a matter of routine....

"Yet my left-wing critics seem quite happy to get in bed with defenders of all these things in order to join in their condemnations of my book. Taking a casual view of mass murder is thus morally preferable to having a sympathy for the old republic. What more do I need to know about these people?"

I wouldn't be surprised if Woods is anti-semitic. At the very least, his attributing the occupation of the West Bank to "Jews" rather than a particular Israeli party, government, or prime minister generalizes to an extent that, even if unintentional, encourages anti-semitism.

However, the idea that practicioners of Judaism are in the same boat as other non-Christians (the "hellbound" one) is pretty orthodox in most non-liberal Christian demoninations. That would include most evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox folks. Individual Christians, like the President, may not believe this and many would think it rude to say it, but if they did, their own theological traditions would back them up. It's all part of believing that a particular religious belief is the exclusive path to Salvation. It may seem silly, but it's not necessarily aimed at Jewish folks.

Joshua,
You say:

"1) The League of the South is pro-secessionist and 'neo-confederate' but that does not make it pro-slavery. If the southern states seceded today they would not reenslave blacks."

Woods maintains not just the South has a right to secede today; he maintains that the South had the right to (and in fact was right to) secede when it did. Woods defends state against power even to the point of defending a state's power to enact and perpetuate a regime of racial enslavement. That's "pro-slavery" in my book.

"2) There is nothing more inherently noble in and of itself than secession."

Yawn. I'm sorry, were you saying something?

"3) Opposition to welfarism and anti-discrimination laws does not make one a racist. It might simply make one a principled propertarian (something Woods actually claims to be)."

Yes, it might. You're right there. I don't believe that's so in this instance, but I admit that such a position is possible.

"4) Woods' comments about salvation and supernatural love do not make him an anti-semite. You are either simply a malicious twit or are grossly ignorant of Christian theology, or, more likely, you are both."

Somebody who believes he must convert me and that he must love me only because God ordered him to actually doesn't like me very much.

Somebody who publicly calls me a malicious twit isn't being very, uh, Christian.

"5) Opposition to Israel (a government) does not make one an anti-semite. Opposition to Zionism (a political ideology) does not make one an anti-semite. Only someone who actually believes Jews are Gawd's Chosen Peeple who have the right to do what they want to who they want could make such idiotic claims."

One tiny problem here. (Lots, actually, but I'll mention just one.) Dr. Woods was speaking here not of Israel or of Zionism, but of "the Jewish people." Go back and read his words again.

"6) Who cares if Woods IS a racist or an anti-semite? This has no bearing on his ideas in general."

I do, for one.

Based on these comments by Woods alone, I see no anti-semitic opinions. He thinks that those not of his faith will not reach heaven, Jewish or not -- not exactly an uncommon belief. Does having a religion that believes the Jewish faith is at best insufficient mean one hates Jews? I don't think so. And you make it sound as if loving with God's love implies that, by nature, the "lover" hates the "lovee" -- where did that come from?

OK, I'll use small words so even Joshua can understand.

Zionism is the political expression by the Jewish people of their desire and right to have a homeland in Israel. If you oppose Zionism, you oppose the right of Jews to self-determination and self-defense. If you oppose those things, you are an anti-Semite.

Period.

"Bush told a Houston Post reporter that--as the reporter paraphrased it--"heaven is open only to those who accept Jesus Christ."

See, here's the problem, Billy Bob, or Billy Joe, or whatever - I didn't ask you to cite paraphrases. I asked you to provide direct evidence to back up your assertion - that George Bush is an anti-Semite in the same vein as Woods. I asked you to prove that what Michael Kinsley said was true.

You didn't. Instead, what you did do was to try to hide your initial display of intellectual poverty and lack of integrity with a second helping of both.

Now, come on, Billy Sam, Billy Sol, Billy Willy, surely you can do better than that.

I'm an agnostic who does not accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, so I suppose Woods thinks I am really in big trouble in the after life!

Joshua,

"6) Who cares if Woods IS a racist or an anti-semite? This has no bearing on his ideas in general."

How can you say that? Our personal beliefs are exactly what shape our ideas and concepts. And anyone who says "God still desires the salvation of the Jews"...well, you have to question how that belief shapes his political ideology.

That single statement says two things: that he and his know what God truly wants, and that the Jewish people are wrong and flawed in their belief structure. From there it isn't hard to see that Woods has a less-than-positive view towards Jews and the state of Israel.

And then you can see how he had no problem with the institution of the Black Codes in the Unreconstructed South. Just some truly concerned white folk who knew what was best for their less-informed brethern...(gag)

And please don't claim to speak correctly about Christian theology. There are many, many Christians who believe the Jewish people have a special convenant with God and require no "saving".

Your continuing research expedition into the political thought of Tom Woods is interesting. Why am I not surprised by the latest? Anti-black and anti-semitic thought historically have gone hand-in-hand.

Woods' praise for Justin Raimondo speaks to his endorsement of this political worldview, as Raimondo has become best-known for his Israeli art students thesis on the origin of the 9/11 attacks. As the father of one Israeli art student in the US and another prospective one (accepted at a Chicago art school, which must indicate the Mossad's targeting), I'm grateful to Raimondo for keeping track of my kids.

Re Woods, salvationism entails a rhetoric of religious disproofs. There is much of this disputational style in Woods' historical writing, one where 'political orthodoxy' must be defeated in order to salvage the Republic.

Joe Lockard

I don't know of anyone who thinks Jews have a divine right to brutalize Palestinians. Some people think Jews have a divine right to 'Greater Israel,' but they are a small minority, and even they don't believe that they have a divine right to brutalize people. Many Israelis think they have a right to use brutal methods to combat terrorism, but I suspect the majority in most countries think they have the same right. Israelis certainly do not believe they have some absolute, God-given right to brutalize Palestinians or anyone else.

Woods has made a vicious and libelous accusation against Jews in general. If that's not anti-semitism, I don't know what is.

2. "a post...that has little to do with the overarching Israeli/Palestinian issue."

Really? Gosh.

What assertion did I try to make? I think the word you're looking for is "suggestion"; you see, I DO suggest, by juxtaposing injustices paid to Israel and the Jews with the vehement refusal of people like you to acknowledge them, that people like you are hypocritical.

Did I ever say I denied the holocaust? Did I ever suggest that Jews have not been persecuted throughout history? Have also said I support Palestinian or Hamas suicide bombers? No. You're putting words in my mouth, AND constructing straw men. If you can't stop your foaming around the mouth than stop replying.

Now you're just cutting things out, namely that I said this website. And this website does not deal with the Israeli issue on a regular basis, outside of this context of bringing up the anti-semitism of a number of right wing fringe individuals. Most of it has to do with issues of hate, though less so than Neiwerts, and also with how the law relates to that.

Grand finale time here: "... no one I know of an anti-Zionist persuasion rah-rah's Syria's meddling,..."

Breathtaking in both its ignorance of history and triumphal wrongheadedness.

I'll admit a clarification, namely that of anti-Zionists abroad don't rah-rah such things. Clearly there are people like Woods who are idiots. This much I have admitted.

Zionism is the political expression by the Jewish people of their desire and right to have a homeland in Israel. If you oppose Zionism, you oppose the right of Jews to self-determination and self-defense. If you oppose those things, you are an anti-Semite.

Period.

Well what do you know. Other people live there as well. Heck, last time I checked, three major world religions have claims to various spots in Israel, and have members of all three living there. The best solution would be one of self determination for all parties involved, with an overarching agreement/suprastructure ala Spain, where individual states (particuarly Catalonia and the Basque state) keep there relative autonomy, while everyone works together for economic and public planning purposes on a grand scale. But we don't see that do we. No we see a state that represents only one of the three ethnic/religious divisions in the country, and a severly weak represenative body for the bigger of the other two, and see absolutely no one talking to the Christians in the area. That's racism, and thats wrong.

Period, as you so like to end things.

Sean,

The best solution would be one of self determination for all parties involved, with an overarching agreement/suprastructure ala Spain, where individual states (particuarly Catalonia and the Basque state) keep there relative autonomy

That would be great. The problem is that the Catalans and Basques have never expressed the desire to shove the rest of Spain into the sea. They still recognize Spain as an entity. As opposed to the Palestinians and their supporters in regards to Israel.

Until that fundamental problem is overcome, there can't be a solution short of unilateral withdrawal as Sharon has done.

And the last time I checked, there were Arabs and Christians in the Knesset. How many in the Syrian Parliament or even the PA government?

"Woods maintains not just the South has a right to secede today; he maintains that the South had the right to (and in fact was right to) secede when it did. Woods defends state against power even to the point of defending a state's power to enact and perpetuate a regime of racial enslavement. That's "pro-slavery" in my book.”

To my knowledge, Woods does not champion ‘state power’ at all, he simply believes that a state government is always the lesser evil in conflicts with federal power. That restraining Leviathon is more important than things like “social equality”. Maybe he’s wrong, but that’s the angle to engage him on, not whether or not he’s ‘racist’, whatever that even means these days.

"Yawn. I'm sorry, were you saying something?”

Nothing within your sphere of comprehension. It’s obvious you find secession itself to be offensive, regardless of the issue of slavery.

"Yes, it might. You're right there. I don't believe that's so in this instance, but I admit that such a position is possible.”

Yes, instead of simply accepting that Woods’ views might be exactly what he says they are, you insist on engaging in amateur psychoanalysis to pigeonhole him into a category you’re more comfortable with attacking.

"Somebody who believes he must convert me and that he must love me only because God ordered him to actually doesn't like me very much.”

He speaks of a ‘transcendent’ love (agape) that according to Christian theology is only possible through Christ’s intervention into men’s hearts. It remains beyond the inherent ability of human beings no matter whether this love is for Jews or gentiles.

”Somebody who publicly calls me a malicious twit isn't being very, uh, Christian.”

I am not a Christian. However, if you’re going to search people’s religious statements for anti-semitism or anything else, it is good to know what their beliefs actually consist of.

"One tiny problem here. (Lots, actually, but I'll mention just one.) Dr. Woods was speaking here not of Israel or of Zionism, but of "the Jewish people." Go back and read his words again.”

He was speaking of particular Jews who make certain statements or demands that line up with Zionist ideology.

"I do, for one.”

Why? What does it have to do with anything of substance?

David P.

”How can you say that? Our personal beliefs are exactly what shape our ideas and concepts. And anyone who says "God still desires the salvation of the Jews"...well, you have to question how that belief shapes his political ideology.”

I don’t see how it’d shape them in any harmful direction in and of itself.

”That single statement says two things: that he and his know what God truly wants, and that the Jewish people are wrong and flawed in their belief structure.”

He wouldn’t very well have religious beliefs if he didn’t think them correct. Come on.

”From there it isn't hard to see that Woods has a less-than-positive view towards Jews and the state of Israel.”

Woods believes that Jews don’t automatically go to heaven for having a snipped dick. He also believes that like everyone else they can be saved by faith in Christ. I don’t see how this is anti-semitic.

”And then you can see how he had no problem with the institution of the Black Codes in the Unreconstructed South.”

Cite?

”And please don't claim to speak correctly about Christian theology.”

I know more about it than most Christians.

”There are many, many Christians who believe the Jewish people have a special convenant with God and require no "saving".”

That’s true. But Muller is obviously ignorant about the theology of the school of Christians whose views he was attacking.

Dread Pirate,

”OK, I'll use small words so even Joshua can understand.”

That’s very gracious of you.

”Zionism is the political expression by the Jewish people of their desire and right to have a homeland in Israel. If you oppose Zionism, you oppose the right of Jews to self-determination and self-defense.”

Non Sequitur. One can oppose Israel for a number of reasons without opposing the rights of 'Jews' to live their own lives and defend their own property.

”If you oppose those things, you are an anti-Semite.”

Non Sequitur: The Extended Version. One can for instance oppose Zionism as part of a broader rejection of nationalism.

Slate.com also abhors the "history" in TPCGTAM. David Greenberg writes,

For a while now, conservative elites have made common cause, sometimes cynically, with populist anti-intellectuals. Once upon a time, the original neoconservatives—the academics and intellectuals around the journal the Public Interest—rested their critiques of liberalism on penetrating social science scholarship and attacked the left for preferring bleeding-heart sentiment to polemical rigor. But now the Public Interest is defunct, and in the Bush years, conservatism has embraced not only the familiar ridicule of the eggheads but a rejection of the very legitimacy of independent, nonpartisan expert authority. The wisdom of legal professionals, such as those in the American Bar Association, is now denied, and, since George Bush took office, no longer used by the White House in evaluating candidates for federal judgeships. Mainstream journalism, such as that in the major newspapers and network news shows, is deemed liberal, slanted, and unreliable. The faith-based belief in creationism, enjoying renewed support of late, is accorded equal (or greater) weight as the scientific theory of evolution.

Check it out.

Professor Woods did NOT say that he believes he is supposed to love Jews ONLY with a supernatural love.

If you oppose those things, you are an anti-Semite.

Total nonsense. There are branches of Orthodox Judaism that are opposed to Zionism. The fact that someone disagrees with our foreign policy in the Middle East doesn't make them an anti-semite.

You didn't. Instead, what you did do was to try to hide your initial display of intellectual poverty and lack of integrity with a second helping of both.

Look, he said it. Get over it. It was a week long story back in the fall of 1999 after he announced he was running for President. A quick google search turns up dozens of hits

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1298/bush1.asp

Bush clarifies his stand on Jews

You're hysterical. Rather pathetic too. A professional victim.

I am surprised that Dr. Woods's recitation of simple, basic theology should offend anyone but the intentionally ignorant. For almost two thousand years, the elements of God's plan for Salvation History have been clear and strong as the basis of Christendom.

Modern secularists breathe their aroma of Hegelian superiority so naturally that they do not detect the profound Anti-Catholicism that often pervades their prose.

The truth is simply this: Christ died for all men. And all men hwo are saved -- "Jew and Greek" -- are saved through Christ's infinitely worthy sacrifice.

In this of all seasons, stow the hate and thank God for His infinite mercy.

Christopher Manion
Front Royal, VA

Sean:

Sorry, your sentence structure is too disjointed for me to attempt a reply. Maybe you should try using things like subjects, objects or antecedents. Until then, I suggest you work a little harder on your remedial English homework, because I can't have a discussion with someone whose sentences are meaningless.

Joshua:

"One can oppose Israel for a number of reasons without opposing the rights of 'Jews'..."

What is it with you Jew-hating troglodytes? Every time I start bitch-slapping one of you pieces of road kill, you pop right up like a wack-a-mole and hand me more ammunition. It's like you have a rhetorical death-wish. Allow me to elucidate:

Hey. STOOPID. (Yeah, that's you, Joshie.)If one wishes to be taken seriously in a discussion about Jews and Israel, one does not put quotation marks around the the words Jew, Jews, Jewish or Judaism. The word is properly capitalized, and is not subject to questioning by the use of 'scare quotes' by a troglodyte like you as to its legitimacy. Filth like you have no business suggesting that my religion isn't valid, and that's exactly what you did with your unskilled use of punctuation.

Billy Ray, Billie Jean, Silly Billy:

"There are branches of Orthodox Judaism that are opposed to Zionism." Do you know the name of these movements? I do. There is precisely one. Care to tell us the name, Billy Dave? Because I'd LOVE to see you use them as a shining example of principled opposition to the State of Israel. C'mon, Billy Phil, give me an opening.

"The fact that someone disagrees with our foreign policy in the Middle East doesn't make them an anti-Semite."

No, but the fact that you would try to advance that completely irrelevant line of reasoning to respond to a completely different contention points us in a certain direction, now doesn't it?

And, Billiy Liar? You're a dishonest little putz, aren't you? You don't have the character to admit that the Kinsley article you cited lied about Bush. Instead you try to deflect attention to your innate dishonesty with a citation that really doesn't further your case - in fact, it bolsters my contention that Bush is NOT an anti-Semite - instead of responding to me directly.

By the way, Billy Will, Billy Sue, I'm on to you too. "Professional victim?" The ADL and the NAACP are both hack organizations? Boy, those pushy 'Jews' and 'Negroes' really stick in your craw, don't they?

The Israeli art student story is true. Dozens of Israelis were detained for weeks after 9/11 as reported by Carl Cameron of Fox News.

All Raimondo has done is write about what others have reported on the story.

The ADL is a hack organization. Even Bill O'Reilly called it an extremist outfit. I find the comments made by some of the Jewish contributors to this weblog not only in poor taste, but a reflection of how hypocritical they really are! Only Jews are allowed to defend their culture. Everyone else that tries is a racist anti-semitic bigot.

“What is it with you Jew-hating troglodytes?”

I don’t hate Jews. Some of my best lampshades are Jews.

”Hey. STOOPID. (Yeah, that's you, Joshie.)If one wishes to be taken seriously in a discussion about Jews and Israel, one does not put quotation marks around the the words Jew, Jews, Jewish or Judaism. The word is properly capitalized, and is not subject to questioning by the use of 'scare quotes' by a troglodyte like you as to its legitimacy.”

Telling that you avoid any of my actual points and focus on something entirely irrelevant to the substance of what I wrote. This is to be expected of your ilk.

I used ‘scare quotes’ because you were suggesting that the Israeli government embodies all Jews everywhere. I was mockingly following along with your apparent assumption that those Jews not currently bulldozing towelheads for the greater glory of the fatherland are not really Jews.

”Filth like you have no business suggesting that my religion isn't valid, and that's exactly what you did with your unskilled use of punctuation.”

I never suggested Judaism is not valid. But I don’t consider any religion to be valid.

Jews against Zionism

NETUREI KARTA International Jews United Against Zionism

Next that hysterical professional victim will be calling the above organizations anti-semitic.

OK, everybody, that's it. I'm stopping comments on this thread. It's getting out of hand.