Dabljuh wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:53:59 -0700
Christopher Larberg <christopherlarberg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
To a degree the guy does have a point. Wikipedia
has a huge jewish/zionist bias on a large number
of articles.
(Newsflash: There's biased articles in/on Wikipedia?)
But the guy is ultimately wrong. Of course it's not
that Wales & Sanger are secret zionist overlords.
Wales, like many americans and many liberals, just
has a rather common pro-israel/pro-judaism bias.
Personally, I really don't see that jews on Wikipedia
need a sort of protection that other religions/folks
don't receive.
To the extent that such biases may exist systemically, that observation
does not imply that the actions are systematic, nor does it warrant the
imputation of motives. The relationship between American society and
its internal Jewish communities has always been a mixed bag anyway.
Let's not forget the [[MS Saint Louis]] incident from 1939; the
underlying attitude to that event did not disappear in a sudden stroke
of altruism on the part of the American government. In the years that
followed until the creation of the State of Israel the tiger did not
change his stripes.
I find it grossly deceptive when serious criticisms of Israel, such as
its breach of the Geneva Convention by using cluster bombs against
civilian populations in Lebanon, become twisted by both sides into
fraudulent claims of anti-semitism. It would come as no surprise to
find that many Jews, as well as goyim are thoroughly disgusted by the
actions of the Israeli government. It would be a great help to the
cause of truth if you desisted in your conflation of the two concepts.
Ec