4 ms·

Its not irrelevant, because the terms white supremacist and neo-nazi have merged. Meanwhile Netanyahu campaigns with Trump, names a town in the Golan after Tru

by gemjam 7y ago

Its not irrelevant, because the terms white supremacist and neo-nazi have merged. Meanwhile Netanyahu campaigns with Trump, names a town in the Golan after Trump... which violates the key characteristic of white supremacy: namely not liking Jews; ergo he is not a white supremacist

eesmith 7y ago
Nonsense. White supremacy is the broader term. It's meaningful to characterize the (early) American Federation of Labor policies as being rooted in white supremacy. It's not meaningful to characterize them as neo-Nazis. Several 19th century state constitutions prohibited black people from moving to them. This should be correctly understood as white supremacy. They did not prevent Jews from moving to them. Hence those terms are distinct and have not merged for any serious discussion of the topic. Again, foreign policy != domestic policy. Black slavers and free abolitionists opposed to each others' domestic policies, but some worked together for the foreign policy of having blacks return to Africa, in the American Colonization Society's colonization of Liberia. Or you can see how a Christian Zionist like Pat Robertson can be both anti-Semitic and support the Jewish state. Last I heard, "There is no budgeting, no planning, no location for a settlement, and there is no binding decision to implement the project" for that settlement, says Zvi Hauser at https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-plans-no-budget-trump-heights-inauguration-slammed-as-a-pr-stunt/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-plans-no-budget-trump-heigh... , who describes it as a publicity stunt. Ergo, what you point out isn't really germane.
- gemjam 7y ago
  We can both cherry-pick history all day long, but back in the real world, the Prime Minister of Israel does not campaign with a white supremacist
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Why not? US domestic policy in the 1950s was explicitly based on white supremacy. Jim Crow laws were actively enforced. Yet the US supported the creation of the State of Israel. "Golda Meir describes Nixon in her autobiography as the best friend Israel ever had in the presidency and does so in life and death terms." says http://www.jewishmag.com/167mag/kissinger-nixon-war-watergate/kissinger-nixon-war-watergate.htm http://www.jewishmag.com/167mag/kissinger-nixon-war-watergat... which goes on to say "But… Nixon, like many anti-Semites, had a deep admiration for Israel and Israelis". Nixon's "Southern strategy", infamously, was designed to appeal to racism against African Americans. So there's no inherent contradiction here.

by gemjam 7y ago

eesmith 7y ago

Nonsense. White supremacy is the broader term. It's meaningful to characterize the (early) American Federation of Labor policies as being rooted in white supremacy. It's not meaningful to characterize them as neo-Nazis. Several 19th century state constitutions prohibited black people from moving to them. This should be correctly understood as white supremacy. They did not prevent Jews from moving to them. Hence those terms are distinct and have not merged for any serious discussion of the topic. Again, foreign policy != domestic policy. Black slavers and free abolitionists opposed to each others' domestic policies, but some worked together for the foreign policy of having blacks return to Africa, in the American Colonization Society's colonization of Liberia. Or you can see how a Christian Zionist like Pat Robertson can be both anti-Semitic and support the Jewish state. Last I heard, "There is no budgeting, no planning, no location for a settlement, and there is no binding decision to implement the project" for that settlement, says Zvi Hauser at https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-plans-no-budget-trump-heights-inauguration-slammed-as-a-pr-stunt/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/no-plans-no-budget-trump-heigh... , who describes it as a publicity stunt. Ergo, what you point out isn't really germane.

gemjam 7y ago
We can both cherry-pick history all day long, but back in the real world, the Prime Minister of Israel does not campaign with a white supremacist
- eesmith 7y ago
  Why not? US domestic policy in the 1950s was explicitly based on white supremacy. Jim Crow laws were actively enforced. Yet the US supported the creation of the State of Israel. "Golda Meir describes Nixon in her autobiography as the best friend Israel ever had in the presidency and does so in life and death terms." says http://www.jewishmag.com/167mag/kissinger-nixon-war-watergate/kissinger-nixon-war-watergate.htm http://www.jewishmag.com/167mag/kissinger-nixon-war-watergat... which goes on to say "But… Nixon, like many anti-Semites, had a deep admiration for Israel and Israelis". Nixon's "Southern strategy", infamously, was designed to appeal to racism against African Americans. So there's no inherent contradiction here.