Dabljuh wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:53:59 -0700 Christopher Larberg christopherlarberg@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