The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

Winkie wanky woo
Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#1

Post by Dick Strawkins » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:24 am

OK, since this topic seems to be derailing the main thread, I've set up a dedicated thread for the subject so that it doesn't continue to distract the rest of us.
Fire away. :popcorn:

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4675
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#2

Post by another lurker » Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:53 am

No one showed up for the gun control debate thread either.

I think that people like to argue in the main forum - that way, it *will* be read.

Try arguing over here, and chances are, no one will see!

It's all about the audience!

Hemisphere
.
.
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:49 pm
Location: UK

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#3

Post by Hemisphere » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:06 am

another lurker wrote:No one showed up for the gun control debate thread either.

I think that people like to argue in the main forum - that way, it *will* be read.

Try arguing over here, and chances are, no one will see!

It's all about the audience!
If that is indeed the case then I will win the argument WLC style.

Creating the state of Israel was a bad idea. Palestine is treated unfairly.







Any objections?


Nope?


Victory.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4961
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

One Secular State - It's Fair To Everyone

#4

Post by Scented Nectar » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:11 am

[continuing from the other thread...]
Git wrote:
Scented Nectar wrote: The only realistic good solution is one state. One secular state with neither the jews nor the muslims in charge. All theocracy out of there. THAT'S the only possible solution that would be good for everyone.
Tell you what, why don't you try it first for a period of decades with India and Pakistan - One secular state with neither the hindus nor the muslims in charge. Or try it with Croatia and Serbia with neither the Croats or the Serbs in charge. If they both work out, then you can get back to Israel.
That would be great if those examples also went secular. I'm not saying getting there is easy, took us a while in the 'west', but once you've tasted the freedoms and protections of secular law, it's hard to go back to theocratic barbarism.

Just because something would be difficult to implement, that doesn't mean the result would not be a good one.

I don't know about other people, but secularism is a cause I feel quite strong about. You certainly can't convince me that having separate areas controlled by different religions is a good thing. Secularism is better, even for the people who are of the religion formerly favoured in their area/country.

BTW, I am 'racially' ashkenazi jewish on all sides. I've never believed in any god, and argued with the adults when I was a very young mouthy kid ("oh yeah? well if god made everything, who made god, eh?" "you're lying!"). I was taught to be jewish, and I have always rejected it all. I do not participate in any jewish practices. Some members of my family are horrified that I don't buy into the whole "jews deserve-cuz-hitler/are-owed/god-gave-them their own country" bullshit. Time to end ALL theocracies, and yes, that includes Israel.

sKepptiksowat
.
.
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#5

Post by sKepptiksowat » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:33 am

:popcorn:

Remick
.
.
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:47 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#6

Post by Remick » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:45 am

Honestly, it only really matters if Git shows up and continues to be ridiculous.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4675
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#7

Post by another lurker » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:58 am

Remick wrote:Honestly, it only really matters if Git shows up and continues to be ridiculous.
Or somebody could fill in, while we wait.

YOU'RE ALL HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#8

Post by Git » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:19 am

By all means SN, I'd agree that theocracies are bad, but Israel is no more of a theocracy than the United Kingdom is. In fact, I'd say that the UK is actually worse, what with the foothold that the CoE has in the governing process.

And the problem with the "one-state solution" is that the vast majority of its proponents are merely putting it forward as a means to dismantle the only Jewish-majority country on the planet. Ask if they want to treat Croatia and Serbia the same, or India and Pakistan the same, or any other non-Jewish majority country and they come up with all sorts of excuses as to why it must only be Israel that must be dismantled.

I am relieved that you're not in this category.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#9

Post by Git » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:32 am

A couple of additional links and articles. Firstly, I'm going to reproduce the standard EUMC definition of what is and what isn't anti-semitism:

http://www.european-forum-on-antisemiti ... m/english/
Working definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
The CST in Britain is the body that provides security for synagogues. Every year it produces a report monitoring anti-semitism. Here are the last few examples:

http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Antisemit ... 202010.pdf
http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Antisemit ... %20WEB.pdf

with more available here:

http://www.thecst.org.uk/index.cfm?content=7&Menu=6

As I've tried to make clear, nowadays so-called anti-Zionism, especially on the liberal left, is usually a thin veneer for straightforward anti-semitism. Alas many "anti-Zionists" really don't like that pointed out to them, as has been seen on the main thread.

And finally, first a sobering read from a Jew who has just fled the United Kingdom due to the current undercurrent of anti-Semitism prevalent in public discourse:

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2013/01/ ... london.php

And noting that the leader of the opposition, here in the UK, has just met with a bunch of hate speakers and Hamas supporters:

http://hurryupharry.org/2013/01/29/labo ... xtremists/

And finally a quotation from the Marxist professor Norm Geras:

http://www.fathomjournal.org/policy-pol ... isemitism/
It is a moral scandal that some few decades after the unmeasurable catastrophe that overtook the Jewish people in Europe, these anti-Semitic themes and ruses are once again respectable; respectable not just down there with the thugs but pervasively also within polite society, and within the perimeters of a self-flattering liberal and left opinion. It is a bleak lesson to all but those unwilling to see. The message of ‘never again’ has already proved to have been too sanguine. Genocides still occur. We now know, as well, that should a new calamity ever befall the Jewish people, there will be, again, not only the direct architects and executants but also those who collaborate, who collude, who look away and find the words to go with doing so. Some of these, dismayingly, shamefully, will be of the left.

This is not a hopeful conclusion, but it is a necessary one. The best of hope in politics must always be allied to a truthful realism. We need to know what we are up against.
The whole article is frightening and sobering reading.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#10

Post by Git » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:38 am

Actually, the whole Geras article is worth repeating:
Israel has been made an alibi for a new climate of antisemitism on the left.

In Marx’s essay On the Jewish Question, written in 1844, there are two contrasting sets of themes vis-à-vis the Jews. In Part II of the essay Marx deploys some well-known negative stereotypes, according to which: the mundane basis of Judaism is self-interest, egoism, or, as Marx also calls it, ‘an anti-social element’; the worldly religion of the Jew is huckstering; and the Jew’s jealous god – ‘in face of which no other god may exist’ – is money. The emancipation of the Jews is said by him to be equivalent to the emancipation of mankind from Judaism. Part I, on the other hand, presents a version of secular democracy in which the Jews, like any religious or other particularistic grouping, may retain their religion and their separate identity consistently with the state itself rising above such particularisms, and rendering these politically irrelevant.

Though Marx himself regards this – political emancipation – as an incomplete form of emancipation, he nonetheless articulates a genuine type of moral universalism: different faiths, ethnicities, peoples, have a right to assert their specific identities and shared beliefs within the free secular order of the democratic state. The distinctions between such groups just cease to have a political bearing. Marx does not extend this argument beyond the single state to the global arena (that not being part of the discursive context), but the correlate at international level of what he argues in Part I of On the Jewish Question is today embodied in the notion of a right of nations to self-determination, as affirmed in Article 1.2 of the United Nations Charter.

The contrasting themes of Marx’s essay may be taken as emblematic of the state of affairs obtaining today between Jews and the left. It is not difficult to understand the long affinity there has been between them. Common traditions of opposition to injustice, the commitment within liberal and socialist thought to ideals of equality (whether this is equality under the law or equality in substantive economic terms), opposition to racist and other similar types of prejudice – these things have long served to attract Jews to organisations and movements of the left, and they still do.

Israel as alibi

At the same time, that affinity has now been compromised by the existence of a new climate of antisemitic opinion within the left. This climate of opinion affects a section of the left only, and not the whole of it. But it is a substantial section. Its convenient alibi is the state of Israel – by which I mean that Israel is standardly invoked to deflect the charge that there is anything of antisemitism at work. Israel, so the story goes, is a delinquent state and, for many of those who regard it so, a non-legitimate one – colonialist, imperialist, vehicle of oppression and what have you. Similarly, diaspora Jews who defend Israel within their home countries are not seen as the conduit of Jewish interests and/or opinion in the normal way of any other democratic articulation; they are treated, rather, as a dubious force – the notorious ‘Jewish lobby’ – as if their organised existence were somehow improper.

These themes pitch those who sponsor them out of a genuine, and into a spurious, type of universalism: one where the Jews are special amongst other groups in being obliged to settle for forms of political freedom in which their identity may not be asserted collectively; Jews must be satisfied, instead, merely with the rights available to them as individuals. I call this a spurious universalism because people’s rights to live as they will (subject to the usual constraint of not harming others) is an incomplete right – a truncated and impaired right – if it does not include the freedom to associate with others of their own kind.

To repeat: Israel has been made an alibi for a new climate of antisemitism on the left.

But could it not be, perhaps, that there is no such climate? Could it not be that Israel’s critics are just what they say they are, no more and no less: critics of the policies of successive Israeli governments, just in the same way as there are critics of the governments of every country? Well, it could be. There has been enough to criticise, goodness knows – from the long occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to the policy of permitting Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. It not only could be, it even in many cases is, since there are both critics and criticisms of Israel which are not antisemitic – such as the two criticisms I just made. Yet, if it both could be and is, it also in many cases is not. Much of the animus directed at Israel today is of a plainly antisemitic character. It relies (just as Marx did in Part II of On the Jewish Question) on anti-Jewish stereotypes. This can be shown with near mathematical precision; I endeavour to show it in the rest of what I have to say.

Antisemitism as epiphenomenal

A first form of the Israel alibi for contemporary antisemitism is the impulse to treat such of the antisemitism as there is acknowledged (by whomever) to be – in Europe, in the Arab world – as a pure epiphenomenon of the Israel-Palestine conflict. One instance of this was the statement by film director Ken Loach in March 2009 that if there was a rise of antisemitism in Europe this was not surprising: ‘it is perfectly understandable’ (my emphasis), he was reported as saying, ‘because Israel feeds feelings of antisemitism’. The key word here is ‘understandable’. This might just mean ‘capable of being understood’; but since more or less everything is capable of being understood, it would be pointless to use the word in that sense about the specific phenomenon of a rise in antisemitism in Europe. ‘Understandable’ also means something along the lines of ‘excusable’ or, at any rate, not an issue to get excited about. To see plainly the way in which Israel acts as an exonerating alibi in this case, one need only imagine Loach, or anyone else on the left, delivering themselves of the opinion that a growth of hostility towards, say, black people, or towards immigrants from South Asia, or from Mexico, was understandable.

Another instance of this first form of the Israel alibi is provided by a thesis of Gilbert Achcar’s concerning Holocaust-denial in the Arab world. Achcar is a professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London and a longtime leftist; he is editor of a volume of essays on The Legacy of Ernest Mandel. Holocaust-denial – as I shall merely assert and not argue here – is a prominent trope of contemporary antisemitism; it is indeed continuous with a practice of the Nazi period itself, when camp guards and the like would mock their Jewish victims by telling them that not only were they doomed to die, but also all knowledge of what had happened to them would be erased. They would be forgotten; the world would never know. Achcar accepts that Western Holocaust-denial is an expression of antisemitism. Much Arab Holocaust-denial, on the other hand, he puts down to such factors as impatience in the Arab world with Western favouritism towards Israel, a suspicion that the Holocaust has been ‘amplified’ for pro-Zionist purposes, and exasperation with the cruelty of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.

Whether or not these explanations are valid, a racist belief does not cease to be one on account of its having context-specific causes. No one on the left would dream of suggesting that a belief that black people were lazy, feckless or simple-minded, was less racist for being held by a certain group of white people on account of motives which eased their way towards that belief. But the Israel alibi is currently exceptional in its legitimating power in this respect.
No antisemitism without deliberate intent

A second form of the Israel alibi for antisemitism is the plea that antisemitism should not be ascribed to anyone without evidence of active hatred of Jews on their part; without, that is to say, some clear sign of anti-Semitic intent. A well-known case of this second form arose with Caryl Churchill’s play ‘Seven Jewish Children’, following upon Israel’s invasion of Gaza in 2008-9. This play puts into Jewish mouths the view that Palestinians are ‘animals’ and that ‘they want their children killed to make people sorry for them’; but that there is no need to feel sorry for them; that we – the Jews – are the chosen people and that it is our safety and our children that matter; in sum, that ‘I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out’. I will not insist here on how this echoes the blood libel; it is enough that Churchill ascribes to the Jews, seeing themselves as chosen, murderous racist attitudes bordering on the genocidal. On the face of it, one would think, this is a clear candidate for anti-Semitic discourse.

Churchill, however, disavowed that charge when it came from critics. She did so on the grounds of what one might call an innocent mind. No antisemitism had been intended by her. On the one hand, the blood libel analogy had not been part of her thinking when she wrote the play; on the other hand, those speaking the offending lines in it were not meant to be Jews in general, merely individual Israelis. Churchill is evidently innocent here of any memory of the figure of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, long thought of, despite his being only one character, as putting Jews in a bad light. She is innocent, too, of her own generalising tendencies in naming her play ‘Seven Jewish Children’ and then linking the broad themes of the Jews as victims of genocide and as putative perpetrators of it in their turn.

Contemplate, briefly, the idea of a sociology of racism in which racism was held to be a matter exclusively of mental attitudes, of what some given person or group of persons had in their minds and, most particularly, of hatreds explicitly formulated; but not also of a language that embodies negative stereotypes, or of unconscious prejudicial assumptions, or of discriminatory practices, and so forth. For no other kind of racism would such a narrowly-conceived sociology be taken seriously even for a moment.

A much more recent instance of the same thing is Günter Grass’s poem ‘What Must Be Said’. It imputed to Israel, on the basis of absolutely nothing in the way of evidence, a genocidal ambition against the Iranian people. Grass has been defended in his turn on the grounds that he is not personally an anti-Semite – as if this might settle the question of whether or not his poem contained anti-Semitic tropes.

Programmatic rhetoric

Grass’s poem may serve, also, to introduce a third form of what I am calling alibi antisemitism. For the poem contains a reference to the ‘loudmouth’ president of Iran – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – at once Holocaust-denier and lead spokesman for removing Israel from the page of history. Like others for whom this is a central goal, the loudmouth president sometimes has benefit of the consideration that such talk is mere rhetoric, and so not to be treated as
in earnest.

And you do not have to go far to find either journalists or activists of the left similarly playing down anti-Semitic elements within the programmatic objectives of Hamas and Hezbollah: not just their commitment to getting rid of Israel; also openly Jew-hating statements, as for example in the Hamas Charter. This latter document cites ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ as authoritative and as establishing a Zionist ambition to dominate the world. It has Jews hiding behind rocks and trees against the threat (which it celebrates) that Jews will in due course be killed.

Leftists and liberals of a would-be pragmatist turn of mind can appear remarkably untroubled by this sort of thing. Either the offending contents of the Hamas Charter are consigned by them to a receding past, or they are said not to represent the thinking of a moderate section of Hamas willing to contemplate a long-term (though not unlimited) truce with Israel. It is never explained by such pragmatists why, if the anti-Jewish components of the document are a thing of the past, no longer relevant, of merely rhetorical status, they have not been, or cannot now be, amended away.

I shall leave aside here the question of whether or not there are sound tactical reasons for Israel to consider negotiating with Hamas; it is not germane to my present concern. However, and as before, one should try to imagine a person of the left able to adopt so casual and indulgent an attitude to other openly racist discourses, able to treat them as merely rhetorical racism – while continuing to be held in respect within the left or liberal political milieu to which he or she belongs. It doesn’t happen. Only Israel provides a pretext in that milieu for the mere-rhetoric plea. By some convenient metonymy, people saying ‘Jews’ may be taken really to mean ‘Israel’. And Israel today is fair game for being hated

A climate of complicity

The fourth and final alibi phenomenon I shall deal with is more oblique. It consists neither of the direct expression of anti-Semitic themes nor of attempts to explain these away, but rather of turning a blind eye. It is relevant to the case here, all the same, since prejudice makes its way more successfully when there is a certain tolerance of it by others, not actively hostile themselves but indulgent towards those who are.

I will take as my example of this the Guardian newspaper today. This once great paper of British liberalism now provides space on its opinion pages for the spokesmen of Hamas, the contents of its programmatic charter notwithstanding; provides space on its letters page for philosophers justifying the murder of Jews; and provides space on its website for people who deploy well-known anti-Semitic themes even while professing that they have nothing whatever against Jews. The Guardian is, as you would expect, on record as being vigorously opposed to racism: as, for example, when it referred in a leader of November 2011 to ‘a message that is not heard often enough… that racism is never acceptable, wherever it takes place’.

Instructive, in the light of that, is to examine how the paper reacted editorially to the Toulouse killings. On March 20 of this year, before the identity of the killer was known and when it was assumed he was from the French far right, the Guardian echoed the sentiment I have just quoted from its November leader, saying that ‘the [French] republic will come together in the face of such an assault on its minorities’. While cautioning against speculation about the killer’s motives, it nonetheless allowed itself to allude to Sarkozy’s lurch to the right, his claims of ‘there being too many immigrants in France’, and other such expressions of xenophobia. This may be seen as an instance of treating racism as unacceptable ‘wherever it takes place’. Two days later, once it was known that the killer was Mohammed Merah, an Islamist jihadi who had said he wanted to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children, a second Guardian editorial endorsed Sarkozy in ‘condemn[ing] any attempt to denigrate the French Muslim community by associating it with the mad crimes of a terrorist’; and then added precisely nothing about the kind of ideas which might have been influential in Merah’s willingness – not as a Muslim but as an Islamist and jihadi – to slaughter three Jewish children. ‘Mad crimes of a terrorist’ was all, and not so much as a breath about antisemitism. But the killing of Jewish children, even if to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children, is antisemitism of the most unadulterated kind. Those children were guilty of nothing and were killed by Merah because they were Jewish.

A liberal newspaper, committed to racism’s never being acceptable anywhere, can find the words to name the poison that is rightwing anti-immigrant xenophobia, but not the word for hatred of Jews. Incomprehensible – but for that familiar alibi, Israel as cause.

Conclusion

It is a moral scandal that some few decades after the unmeasurable catastrophe that overtook the Jewish people in Europe, these anti-Semitic themes and ruses are once again respectable; respectable not just down there with the thugs but pervasively also within polite society, and within the perimeters of a self-flattering liberal and left opinion. It is a bleak lesson to all but those unwilling to see. The message of ‘never again’ has already proved to have been too sanguine. Genocides still occur. We now know, as well, that should a new calamity ever befall the Jewish people, there will be, again, not only the direct architects and executants but also those who collaborate, who collude, who look away and find the words to go with doing so. Some of these, dismayingly, shamefully, will be of the left.

This is not a hopeful conclusion, but it is a necessary one. The best of hope in politics must always be allied to a truthful realism. We need to know what we are up against.

This is the text of a presentation by Norman Geras to the YIVO Conference on Jews and the Left held in May 2012 in New York City.

Norman Geras is Professor Emeritus in Politics at the University of Manchester. His books include: Crimes against Humanity: Birth of a Concept (2011), The Contract of Mutual Indifference (1998), Solidarity in the Conversation of Humankind (1995), and Marx and Human Nature (1983). He now lives in Cambridge. His blog, normblog, is at http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/

katamari Damassi
BPEx3
BPEx3
Posts: 5349
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#11

Post by katamari Damassi » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:52 am

Git wrote:By all means SN, I'd agree that theocracies are bad, but Israel is no more of a theocracy than the United Kingdom is. In fact, I'd say that the UK is actually worse, what with the foothold that the CoE has in the governing process.

And the problem with the "one-state solution" is that the vast majority of its proponents are merely putting it forward as a means to dismantle the only Jewish-majority country on the planet. Ask if they want to treat Croatia and Serbia the same, or India and Pakistan the same, or any other non-Jewish majority country and they come up with all sorts of excuses as to why it must only be Israel that must be dismantled.

I am relieved that you're not in this category.
The problem is that they have declared themselves a Jewish state. That is antithetical to a secular democracy. It forces them to keep the occupied territories as a quasi reservation to maintain the demographic necessary to sustain a "Jewish state". It requires them to scour the world looking for "Jews"(Ethiopia and India?)to emigrate there, again to keep it majority Jewish. It's a corner that they've painted themselves into.
The existence of the state is something Palestinians have to accept, but the right of return cannot be allowed in a one state solution because Israel would have to choose to be either a Jewish or an ostensibly democratic state, still the Palestinians are entitled to some kind of recompense for the land and livlihoods that they've lost. It seems that a 2 state solution is the only realistically viable one at the present time.
On another note, it is in Israel's best interest to find some kind of accord with the Palestinians and their neighbors. There will come a time when the US is no longer inclined to, or capable of backing them up militarily, and Israel is vastly out numbered by neighbors that will eventually develop nukes.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4675
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#12

Post by another lurker » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:57 am

katamari Damassi wrote:
Git wrote:By all means SN, I'd agree that theocracies are bad, but Israel is no more of a theocracy than the United Kingdom is. In fact, I'd say that the UK is actually worse, what with the foothold that the CoE has in the governing process.

And the problem with the "one-state solution" is that the vast majority of its proponents are merely putting it forward as a means to dismantle the only Jewish-majority country on the planet. Ask if they want to treat Croatia and Serbia the same, or India and Pakistan the same, or any other non-Jewish majority country and they come up with all sorts of excuses as to why it must only be Israel that must be dismantled.

I am relieved that you're not in this category.
The problem is that they have declared themselves a Jewish state. That is antithetical to a secular democracy. It forces them to keep the occupied territories as a quasi reservation to maintain the demographic necessary to sustain a "Jewish state". It requires them to scour the world looking for "Jews"(Ethiopia and India?)to emigrate there, again to keep it majority Jewish. It's a corner that they've painted themselves into.
The existence of the state is something Palestinians have to accept, but the right of return cannot be allowed in a one state solution because Israel would have to choose to be either a Jewish or an ostensibly democratic state, still the Palestinians are entitled to some kind of recompense for the land and livlihoods that they've lost. It seems that a 2 state solution is the only realistically viable one at the present time.
On another note, it is in Israel's best interest to find some kind of accord with the Palestinians and their neighbors. There will come a time when the US is no longer inclined to, or capable of backing them up militarily, and Israel is vastly out numbered by neighbors that will eventually develop nukes.

But of course, and I pasted the links yesterday, some of the folks in government are RACIST, and do not want black Israeli babies to be born. So they have been injecting Ethiopian Jews with depro-provera. This has resulted in a 50pct drop in the Ethiopian birthrate.

Meanwhile, the government is making it almost impossible for WHITE Israeli women to get an abortion...

AllanW
.
.
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:14 am

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#13

Post by AllanW » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:02 pm

So you’re quite happy calling one persons viewpoint ‘frightening and sobering reading’ but can’t bring yourself to recognise or balance your fear of antisemitism in the UK by placing weight on the main findings of the grass roots body tasked with the security of mosques, a body one would expect to have daily and intimate knowledge of the issue, when they place in priority position as the first comment of the Executive Summary of their annual report;

‘Explicit antisemitism is rare in British public life and within mainstream political and media discourse.’

While in that same summary they go on to say;

‘There was little overt anti-Semitism within mainstream 2010 General Election campaigning or in relation to economic troubles. This was a welcome and important indicator of the marginal nature of overt antisemitism today.’

Are you quite sure you have a full and balanced view of the problem?

AllanW
.
.
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:14 am

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#14

Post by AllanW » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:06 pm

Bwahahahahaha!

For 'mosques' read 'synagogues' of course.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4961
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#15

Post by Scented Nectar » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:15 pm

Git wrote:By all means SN, I'd agree that theocracies are bad, but Israel is no more of a theocracy than the United Kingdom is. In fact, I'd say that the UK is actually worse, what with the foothold that the CoE has in the governing process.

And the problem with the "one-state solution" is that the vast majority of its proponents are merely putting it forward as a means to dismantle the only Jewish-majority country on the planet. Ask if they want to treat Croatia and Serbia the same, or India and Pakistan the same, or any other non-Jewish majority country and they come up with all sorts of excuses as to why it must only be Israel that must be dismantled.

I am relieved that you're not in this category.
Who said only Israel's theocracy should be dismantled? I think they all should be replaced with secular law. Israel gives extra legal favours to jews only. The "right of return" allows any jew to immigrate to Israel, but no other religions. The orthodox priests are given a special status whereby they never have to work or do mandatory military participation. They get paid to stay home as long as they "study" religious books. Many neighbourhoods are ruled unofficially and officially by orthodox jewish law in a sharia like way. I have a cousin who lives that life in a very orthodox kibbutz. She wouldn't let her sister come and visit because she wasn't covered up enough. Her skirt showed too much ankle or something. She also turned away a long term friend of the family who she grew up with. Why? He wasn't jewish. No xtians allowed to visit the kibbutz.

If Israel's laws became fully secular, that would not threaten any of the jews who are all happy happy joy joy about their majority population status. Why would their numbers change? No one will force them to leave or even to socialize with non-jews (although they will have to begin to tolerate them, boo hoo).

Who cares if any particular religion doesn't have their own country. I think the Vatican should be secular too. Boot out the catholic theocracy running it. They'll do just fine without having to own an entire country so that they can force their religion on all residents plus anything goes. Everyone can still practice what they want in a secular country, and no one will stop them from opening as many temples to any god they want. The whole point of secularism is that it protects everyone, INCLUDING religious people (provided they are not trying to take away anyone else's religious freedom).

What on earth's so wrong with a modern secular state? The jews will still be in the majority population-wise, so what's the fear? The only one I can see is the fear of losing theocratic control of the country. They want to still have their caste-like system of orthodox rabbis, ordinary jewish folk, and then down at the bottom, xtians then muslims. If secular no one would lose their right to be religious, but only the extra perks they unfairly get by law.

Git Mobile

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#16

Post by Git Mobile » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:18 pm

katamari Damassi wrote:
Git wrote:By all means SN, I'd agree that theocracies are bad, but Israel is no more of a theocracy than the United Kingdom is. In fact, I'd say that the UK is actually worse, what with the foothold that the CoE has in the governing process.

And the problem with the "one-state solution" is that the vast majority of its proponents are merely putting it forward as a means to dismantle the only Jewish-majority country on the planet. Ask if they want to treat Croatia and Serbia the same, or India and Pakistan the same, or any other non-Jewish majority country and they come up with all sorts of excuses as to why it must only be Israel that must be dismantled.

I am relieved that you're not in this category.
The problem is that they have declared themselves a Jewish state. That is antithetical to a secular democracy.
The Irish constitution specifically states that it is a state for the Irish people. The Japanese constitution makes it clear that it is for the Japanese people. There are dozens of other examples of other states explicity declaring that they are for a national group of people. Democracies a lot of them.

Why is this suddenly a problem when it comes to Israel?
katamari Damassi wrote: It forces them to keep the occupied territories as a quasi reservation to maintain the demographic necessary to sustain a "Jewish state". It requires them to scour the world looking for "Jews"(Ethiopia and India?)to emigrate there, again to keep it majority Jewish. It's a corner that they've painted themselves into.
Judea and Samaria are only "occupied" because time and time again, the Arabs have refused to even negotiate a final status agreement. The so-called "green line" is merely the 1949 Armistice Borders. The Arabs have made it quite clear that if Israel leaves those, it will be seen as a first step towards the destruction of Israel.
katamari Damassi wrote: On another note, it is in Israel's best interest to find some kind of accord with the Palestinians and their neighbors. There will come a time when the US is no longer inclined to, or capable of backing them up militarily, and Israel is vastly out numbered by neighbors that will eventually develop nukes.
I would agree. But the problem is how can you find accord with the likes of Hamas? Or Fatah (who pump out the most poisonous vile rubbish in private)

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4961
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#17

Post by Scented Nectar » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:19 pm

"Priests" should be "rabbis"

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4961
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#18

Post by Scented Nectar » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:29 pm

Git Mobile wrote:The Irish constitution specifically states that it is a state for the Irish people. The Japanese constitution makes it clear that it is for the Japanese people. There are dozens of other examples of other states explicity declaring that they are for a national group of people. Democracies a lot of them.

Why is this suddenly a problem when it comes to Israel?
Ireland is for Irish people, no matter what their religious beliefs. It's simply saying that it's for the people who are living there (ALL of them presumably).
Japan is for the Japanese people, no matter what their religious beliefs. It's simply saying that it's for the people who are living there (ALL of them presumably).
Israel, however is only for the people WHO ARE JEWISH, not for all Israeli people. It's simply saying that it's only for Israelis IF they are the CORRECT RELIGION.

Git Mobile

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#19

Post by Git Mobile » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:39 pm

Jewish ethnicity, Nectar.

Yet all its citizens are treated equally and are equal under the law.

Remick
.
.
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:47 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#20

Post by Remick » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:44 pm

I Have to agree with Git on the "State for the Jewish people" issue. I don't see how it is much/any different from several others.

Though git, I do have a question as to why you put occupied in ""s?

katamari Damassi
BPEx3
BPEx3
Posts: 5349
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#21

Post by katamari Damassi » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:12 pm

Remick wrote:I Have to agree with Git on the "State for the Jewish people" issue. I don't see how it is much/any different from several others.

Though git, I do have a question as to why you put occupied in ""s?
The differences and problems are that Ireland and Japan were mostly culturally homogenous at the time of their establishment as nations, and I cannot go to a catholic or shinto priest to convert and then be eligible for aliyah to either of those nations as I could Israel if I went to an orthodox rabbi.

Git Mobile

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#22

Post by Git Mobile » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:34 pm

Remick wrote:I Have to agree with Git on the "State for the Jewish people" issue. I don't see how it is much/any different from several others.

Though git, I do have a question as to why you put occupied in ""s?
Because, and if you actually read the UN Resolutions concerned, their fate is to be agreed between Israel and the Arabs as part of final status talks leading to a " “a just and lasting peace.” (talks which haven't taken place because the Arabs keep turning them down). People keep mentioning UNR242, but it doesn't actually say what many people think it does - it merely refers to "territories", not even specifying them. To call them "occupied" is making a value judgement which I don't share.

http://www.defensibleborders.org/rosenne.htm

Also, it is noticeable that it wasn't a Chapter 7 resolution, but merely a Chapter 6 resolution, which deal with "pacific resolution of disputes."

Will there have to be an agreement? Yes. Will it involve land swaps? Probably. I'd prefer it if it were between Israel and Jordan (as indeed the original authors of 242 intended). But whatever happens, the so-called Green Lines are not borders, they are merely armistice lines awaiting negotiation.

Git Mobile

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#23

Post by Git Mobile » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:41 pm

katamari Damassi wrote:
Remick wrote:I Have to agree with Git on the "State for the Jewish people" issue. I don't see how it is much/any different from several others.

Though git, I do have a question as to why you put occupied in ""s?
The differences and problems are that Ireland and Japan were mostly culturally homogenous at the time of their establishment as nations, and I cannot go to a catholic or shinto priest to convert and then be eligible for aliyah to either of those nations as I could Israel if I went to an orthodox rabbi.
Judaism the ethnicity is matrilineal, and its actually incredibly bloody hard to "convert" to Judaism the religion. Indeed, under UK Law, specifically the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Public Order Act 1986, Jews, like Sikhs are considered an ethnic group of "common heritage", a ruling that was recently confirmed by the UK Supreme Court. They remain Jewish by lineage not whether or not they follow the religion.

Scented Nectar
.
.
Posts: 4961
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:45 am
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#24

Post by Scented Nectar » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:37 pm

Git Mobile wrote:Jewish ethnicity, Nectar.

Yet all its citizens are treated equally and are equal under the law.
Which ethnicity? There are more than one. At least three that I can think of. Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Ethiopian. It's about religion, not ethnicity or race.

Do the muslim people living in Israel get treated equally to the jewish ones? If they happen to already be living in an area being newly "settled", they don't have to move out so that jews only can move in? Do any muslim imams and xtian pastors get to apply for the religious study welfare so as not to have to ever work, or is that only the jewish rabbis?

Look, it may be quite a little bit more modern and better than the other theocratic countries that are nearby it (the islamic ones), but it is still a theocracy. I think the entire middle east should be rid of their theocracies, even the milder ones.

BTW, no matter how inbred or purebred my ancestry (is that what you mean by ethnicity? there are more than one jewish racial groups), if I tell them I don't believe in or practice judaism, I would be refused the law of return. The same if I admitted being bisexual, no gays allowed. Of course I could pretend maybe, and lie my way in saying I've newly come to believe again in the religion of my parents, etc, but it really does boil down to religion, not ethnicity, when it comes to the law of 'return' and other laws too. They are somewhat lenient towards non practicing jews who already live there though, as long as they live in a non-orthodox neighbourhood that is.

Remick
.
.
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:47 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#25

Post by Remick » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:45 pm

Git Mobile wrote:
Remick wrote:I Have to agree with Git on the "State for the Jewish people" issue. I don't see how it is much/any different from several others.

Though git, I do have a question as to why you put occupied in ""s?
Because, and if you actually read the UN Resolutions concerned, their fate is to be agreed between Israel and the Arabs as part of final status talks leading to a " “a just and lasting peace.” (talks which haven't taken place because the Arabs keep turning them down). People keep mentioning UNR242, but it doesn't actually say what many people think it does - it merely refers to "territories", not even specifying them. To call them "occupied" is making a value judgement which I don't share.

http://www.defensibleborders.org/rosenne.htm

Also, it is noticeable that it wasn't a Chapter 7 resolution, but merely a Chapter 6 resolution, which deal with "pacific resolution of disputes."

Will there have to be an agreement? Yes. Will it involve land swaps? Probably. I'd prefer it if it were between Israel and Jordan (as indeed the original authors of 242 intended). But whatever happens, the so-called Green Lines are not borders, they are merely armistice lines awaiting negotiation.
Yeah.. its totally normal for people to cross an armistice line and build settlements...

Git Mobile

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#26

Post by Git Mobile » Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:27 pm

Incidentally, the whole "Israel sterilised black people" thing is almost certainly untrue:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.uk/2013 ... on-on.html
o the best of my knowledge, this claim is 100% false.

Neither myself nor my staff have ever told any women in our program that they should take Depo-Provera for any reason. 100% of Depo-Provera shots are purely voluntary, and may be discontinued (or changed to another method) at any time.

In fact, we don't have JDC workers from Israel come and tell women
these things.,

Rick Hodes, MD, MACP
Medical Director, AJJDC-Ethiopia

Remick
.
.
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:47 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#27

Post by Remick » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:16 am

Git Mobile wrote:
Remick wrote:I Have to agree with Git on the "State for the Jewish people" issue. I don't see how it is much/any different from several others.

Though git, I do have a question as to why you put occupied in ""s?
Because, and if you actually read the UN Resolutions concerned, their fate is to be agreed between Israel and the Arabs as part of final status talks leading to a " “a just and lasting peace.” (talks which haven't taken place because the Arabs keep turning them down). People keep mentioning UNR242, but it doesn't actually say what many people think it does - it merely refers to "territories", not even specifying them. To call them "occupied" is making a value judgement which I don't share.

http://www.defensibleborders.org/rosenne.htm

Also, it is noticeable that it wasn't a Chapter 7 resolution, but merely a Chapter 6 resolution, which deal with "pacific resolution of disputes."

Will there have to be an agreement? Yes. Will it involve land swaps? Probably. I'd prefer it if it were between Israel and Jordan (as indeed the original authors of 242 intended). But whatever happens, the so-called Green Lines are not borders, they are merely armistice lines awaiting negotiation.
Interesting, The UN just published a report stating that the "occupations" are "illegal" because they "violate" the 4th Geneva "convention"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21274061


DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#29

Post by DGS » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:47 am

I'm with Git.

Hamas are a bunch of Islamist thugs. There are Jewish extremists of course, but Israel is a highly functioning liberal democracy, not a theocracy. Between the both of them though, only one of them has the extermination of its neighbour written into its charter.

That's all most Israeli's are saying. 'Hello! Hamas wants us all dead. Like, really....Like, I'm really not kidding..Fucking dead.'

That's an extreme bottom line they need to work up from.

Oh, and hi! :D


Brain Box
.
.
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:53 am

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#31

Post by Brain Box » Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:40 pm

Since apparently this anything goes forum actually has rules I should add the above post was by me- Brain Box.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4675
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#32

Post by another lurker » Fri Mar 15, 2013 1:55 pm

This is interesting:

http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/ ... ?id=152408


Not only that, many Palestinians retain Jewish customs, including mourning rituals, lighting Shabbat or memorial candles and even wearing tefillin. While the common wisdom among many Israelis is that the group that calls itself "Palestinian" is a motley collection of Arabs from various parts of the Middle East who immigrated to the Land of Israel following the employment opportunities provided by Jews, Misinai says that the vast majority of today's Palestinians are descended from the remnants of Jewish families who managed to avoid being deported over the past 2,000 years, or returned to their lands after they were exiled, as the Jews in the Holy Land suffered blow after blow - from the Roman destruction of the Temple to the Crusades to famine, poverty and war throughout the Middle Ages. One thing many were unable to avoid, however, was converting to Islam - a forced conversion that never really "took," done more out of fear than conviction. Misinai has made it his mission to spread the word among Palestinians, giving them the opportunity to retrieve their lost heritage.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 3724
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#33

Post by Pitchguest » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:49 pm

The most ridiculous aspect of Git's attempt to disprove the claim of segregated buses is that he links to OBVIOUS partisan sources, like Cif Watch and a blog called THE ELDERS OF ZIYON. Seriously. It's like if a Republican would link back to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and say, "See? I'm right, you're wrong." It was fucking ridiculous.

Like, what the fuck were you thinking, Git?

John Greg
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 2669
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#34

Post by John Greg » Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:16 pm

Like, what the fuck were you thinking, Git?
Git does not think; Git Knows.

Git emotes; Git evangelises; Git tells us all what is true.

Git holds the right hand of GoD in his apPalLing pAlm.

GIT remindes us alles oF what is TrUE, and HoLy, and reDemptiOUsly delicious and LiKeriSH in this, our visciously viscOus and INvalid world!

Git reminds that he who shall not be naMED, THE MiGHTY & holY XXX IS THE ONLY GIT-TRUE ONE TRUE VIEW OF LIFE.

Yes mighty Kings do speak, but Git knows all.

/squeak

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#35

Post by Git » Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:50 am

Oh yes, PitchGuest, damn those pesky Jews for actually explaining what is the reality eh? And the Guardian, named in Parliament as one of the biggest sources of Anti-Semitic hatred in the UK is somehow non-partisan? LOL!

And John Greg, thank fuck that the Jews no longer need permission from the likes of you to thrive.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#36

Post by Git » Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:59 am

To recap, I have provided links where that the claim of segregated buses is completely false, and yet another smear against Israel, and all Pitchguest and Greg can do is whine and throw personal abuse. Revealing.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 3724
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#37

Post by Pitchguest » Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:33 pm

What do you mean you provided links? We asked for proof, you gave us the equivalent of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Cif Watch isn't exactly non-partisan (it has the subtitle, "monitoring and combating antisemitism, and the assault on Israel's legitimacy, at the Guardian and its blog") and then a blog called Elders of Ziyon (Zion with a 'y'). This article even describes the blog as 'pro-Israel'. Yeah, they're definitely going to objective when it comes to Israeli affairs. What's next, are you going to link us to the IDF?

Are you really this daft?

Is every newspaper and news outlet that reports on the segregated buses in Israel anti-semitic or is there actually some truth to the allegations? I would imagine the State of Israel would deny it, as would a pro-Israel blog, as would a blog documenting anti-semitism and the (alleged) assault on Israel's legitimacy. But the rest? Are they all lying? (Even the Jerusalem Post?)

I want to make this clear, Git. When we criticize Israeli politics, we are not necessarily criticizing the Israeli people. We are not necessarily criticizing the Jews. I'm critical of the insular views of the Israeli government, in particular of Netanyahu. I'm critical of the way Palestinian citizens are still being treated in and outside of Israel. I'm critical of the settlements that are being built illegally in the contested territory of the West Bank, despite assurances they would quit. I'm critical of the way the IDF treated the Mavi Marmara when it passed the (immoral, unethical and illegal) naval blockade set up by the IDF to monitor the Gaza strip. If the claim of segregated buses is true, then I am (and would be) critical of that as well. However, because I'm critical of these things does not make make me anti-semitic, or anti-Israeli for that matter. More accurately I would say I'm anti-Israeli government. Anti-Netanyahu. I think I can say that much without carrying the taint of being 'anti-semitic.'

Besides, it's not like people inside Israel don't speak up against these sorts of things. Many of them do.

On the flipside, I don't think Haaretz is objective either. I think removing Hamas from power would serve as a catharsis for the Palestinian people. I think shooting rockets (even Qazzam rockets) is counterproductive to a peaceful solution. However, the one with the most power to change things for the better right now is Netanyahu and until he changes his tune, then nothing will happen.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#38

Post by Git » Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:28 pm

Pitchguest wrote:What do you mean you provided links? We asked for proof, you gave us the equivalent of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Cif Watch isn't exactly non-partisan (it has the subtitle, "monitoring and combating antisemitism, and the assault on Israel's legitimacy, at the Guardian and its blog") and then a blog called Elders of Ziyon (Zion with a 'y'). This article even describes the blog as 'pro-Israel'. Yeah, they're definitely going to objective when it comes to Israeli affairs. What's next, are you going to link us to the IDF?
And those blogs provide links to a) the Israeli Government, b) the Bus Companies themselves, and c) the local Press, of all stripes.

All of which state that the claim is false, that so-called segregated buses never happened, and indeed, are now actually forbidden from actually happening.
Pitchguest wrote:I want to make this clear, Git. When we criticize Israeli politics, we are not necessarily criticizing the Israeli people. We are not necessarily criticizing the Jews. I'm critical of the insular views of the Israeli government, in particular of Netanyahu. I'm critical of the way Palestinian citizens are still being treated in and outside of Israel. I'm critical of the settlements that are being built illegally in the contested territory of the West Bank, despite assurances they would quit. I'm critical of the way the IDF treated the Mavi Marmara when it passed the (immoral, unethical and illegal) naval blockade set up by the IDF to monitor the Gaza strip.
The Blockade is actually legal, as even the UN found recently, and given how Hamas have declared that they want the genocide of the Jews worldwide, hardly immoral either. And let's not forget, Egypt also blockades Hamas, And the Settlements are not actually illegal, as the relevant Geneva Convention on Settlement only applies to sovereign states, which the West Bank isn't. You can criticise them if you wish on utilitarian grounds, but they simply aren't illegal.

This is the point I make time and time again, that no matter how many times that the facts are pointed out about said things, people still persist in coming up with the same old lies about Israel. Once, twice, one can forgive, but when the same old bullshit is brought up time and time again, what you think I should think?
Pitchguest wrote:If the claim of segregated buses is true, then I am (and would be) critical of that as well. However, because I'm critical of these things does not make make me anti-semitic, or anti-Israeli for that matter. More accurately I would say I'm anti-Israeli government. Anti-Netanyahu. I think I can say that much without carrying the taint of being 'anti-semitic.'
No one is saying that you would be. But when you start, as you did, from a starting point of the slur against Israel being automatically true, then yes, that's a fucking problem, and it is an example of the manifestation of anti-semitic discourse.

Hold Israel to higher standards is (as per the EUMC definition) an example of anti-semitism. JG claims that this is because the US gives money to Israel. Well, the US gives much more money to many other countries, but it is only Israel that he is worked up about. If this isn't anti-Semitism, then its fucking ugly hypocrisy.


Pitchguest wrote:Besides, it's not like people inside Israel don't speak up against these sorts of things. Many of them do.

On the flipside, I don't think Haaretz is objective either. I think removing Hamas from power would serve as a catharsis for the Palestinian people. I think shooting rockets (even Qazzam rockets) is counterproductive to a peaceful solution. However, the one with the most power to change things for the better right now is Netanyahu and until he changes his tune, then nothing will happen.
Want to neutralise Netanyahu? Get the Palestinians to the table for final-status negotiations.

But the Palestinians won't negotiate, because time and time again, they have made it clear that they will never compromise on their aim of destroying Israel.

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#39

Post by Git » Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:07 pm

In retrospect though, I unfairly ascribed a motivation of anti-Semitism to both Greg and yourself, Pitch, that I don't think was correct. Therefore I unreservedly withdraw and apologise for it, to both of you

I still think you both have elements of double standards and you unfairly criticise Israel, but on reflection, I don't see any attribution of that to anti-Semitism is currently possible.

John Greg
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 2669
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:05 pm
Location: New Westminster, BC, Canada

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#40

Post by John Greg » Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:10 pm

Git, in all sincerity, I deeply respect your apology. Man, that's ... well, you know, that is really what we, here at the Pit, are supposed to be about: intellectual honesty and personal integrity. And, I must retract my nasties to you. They were out of character, and regretable.

Let's continue this dialogue. Tell me, without the emotional bombast, but with the pleasent essence of fact (and all those other things that can be verified) where I have, not in "feeling", but in fact, gone wrong in your/my/our perception of the MidEast conflict*. There are so many, many things to confuse that issue, and, overall, it has gone on for so, so, so, long, with literaly uncountable instances of both wrong and right from both ... nay, all sides.

*As I see it, at this point in time, this particular conflict cannot be resolved, at all. Not at all..

DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#41

Post by DGS » Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:55 am

On the theme of segregated buses (with all the evocative Rosa Parks themes that throws up) what's the status of Israeli's on Palestinian buses?

Git
.
.
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Engerland

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#42

Post by Git » Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:45 am

DGS wrote:On the theme of segregated buses (with all the evocative Rosa Parks themes that throws up) what's the status of Israeli's on Palestinian buses?
"Dead" would be the answer.

DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#43

Post by DGS » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:22 am

Yes! You win!!

DGS
.
.
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:23 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#44

Post by DGS » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:27 am

I'm going to adapt this into an un-pc joke for my stand-up.

What do you call a Jew on a Palestinian bus?

Deceased.

ccdimage
.
.
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:22 am

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#45

Post by ccdimage » Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:09 am

After a war the winners get to choose.
The Nazis lost.
Bad luck for the people who chose team Nazi.

helenhighwater
.
.
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:43 pm
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#46

Post by helenhighwater » Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:46 am

i haven't had a chance to thoroughly read everyone's posts here but i wanted to add this little tidbit: there is a growing fear by many moderate and liberal jews about the state of israel. moderate and liberal jews use contraception while the more orthodox and conservative jews tend to have larger families. if this trend continues the jewish state of israel will be ruled by that extreme far-right jewish voting bloc.

TiBo
.
.
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#47

Post by TiBo » Sat Nov 02, 2013 5:10 pm

I'd like to ask a question, directed towards those who either think that (A) palestinians are mistreated/robbed of running their own thing or (B) existence of a 'jewish state', namely Israel, is something of a 'mistake'. <- something along these lines, since I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

My question:
How do you weigh the factor, that almost all palestinian leaderships (elected/self-proclaimed/exiled and everything in between) have repeatedly called not only for the annihilation of the state of Israel, but for the killing of all jews ?

What I want to find out by asking this question, is this:
It seems to me, that western folks are still under the impression that there is always some basic goodwill towards peace on 'both sides', after all, that's what our own history has taught us (with notable exceptions, though). However, when I evaluate the evidence that's on the table for the conflict around Israel, I come to a different conclusion. I think there is no honest will on the palestinian side to grant Israel a right to its permanent existence.

If one shares that overall estimation, it begs the question why the situation is handled in the way it is. The western nations have to be asked why they're endangering Israel by supporting its enemies (e.g. financial help by the EU) and trying to press Israel into fruitless negotiations with whatever palestinian authority claims leadership at the moment. And the Israeli government has to be asked why it keeps on supporting an ever-repeating sequence of fruitless negotiations, blockades, failed truces and truckloads of everyday skirmishes, which achieves nothing but fucking up ppl's lives and piling up corpses along the roadside.

I don't understand the naivety of the west (and that's the nicer explanation) and I don't understand the self-effacement of Israeli governments.

Any takers?

Plutonian lifeform

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#48

Post by Plutonian lifeform » Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:35 am

Very late to this thread but okay.

"How do you weigh the factor, that almost all palestinian leaderships (elected/self-proclaimed/exiled and everything in between) have repeatedly called not only for the annihilation of the state of Israel, but for the killing of all jews ?

I'd weigh that very heavily indeed.

Israel keeps trying to make peace and has voluntarily given up lots of land that it won at a high price in wars the other side started with the aim of wiping Israel off the map. Rhetoric and a goal the Islamic side still seems to largely cling to. The Palestinians keep on launching rockets, homicide-suicide bombers attacks and other acts of terrorism and rejecting peace. That's how it looks to me.

Israel gave back the Sinai peninsula to Egypt in the deal with Sadat back in the 1970's-80s. Its had a cold peace with Egypt ever since but given the choice Egyptians voted - although by the very narrowest of margins for the Muslim brotherhood. (Interesting bit of trivia - "Palestinian" leader Yasser Arafat was actually born in Cairo.)

Israel gave land incl. most of Judea and Samaria aka the West Bank to the PLO and Arafat around the early 1990's under the Oslo accords. For a while it all looked promising but the short-lived peace broke down when an Israeli PM visited the Temple Mount and simultaneously peace talks broke down. During the Oslo accords period Arafat was caught trying to smuggle weapons in from Iran and it is very clear -even Arafat's wife has admitted -that the PLO were planning the 2nd intifada before Sharon's visit gave them the "excuse" to launch it.

Most recently Israel gave more land back unilaterally to the Palestinians - including the Gaza strip which was then promptly taken over by Hamas who used the returned land to fire rockets into Israeli cities. Israel also withdrew from land it had occupied in southern Lebanon and Hezbollah took over that land and has also used it as a base to fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians.

Before criticising Israel as being heavy handed in its response I think everyone needs to ask what the USA or Australia or any other nation would do if they had groups of violent, brain-washed religious fanatics firing rockets at their cities - even if those rockets are pretty inaccurate and don't kill all that many people* - with the open ultimate goal of committing genocide against your whole country?


"I think there is no honest will on the palestinian side to grant Israel a right to its permanent existence."

I agree mostly. I do think there would be a few exceptions and most Palestinians probably just want to live their lives in peace but the leadership of the Palestinians esp. Hamas are just bloodthirsty Islamists. How does anyone deal with people like Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad that just live to kill you? If a group of people's life long wish is war and /or your destruction, how can you ever make and trust in a long term peace with them?

Its really hard to see peace coming whilst Hamas is in power or even influential and while so many Palestinians are so brain-washed and anti-Semitic and ignorant and hate-filled. Not that the Israelis are all angels here either I'll admit. But the cycle is deeply entrenched and the hatreds are incredibly fervant and hard to change. Wish there'd be peace but doubt we'll see it in our lifetimes unless something truly unexpected and remarkable happens.

I'll also note that a lot of Arab nations could solve a lot of problems with Palestine by resettling the refugees from the 1967 and even 1948 wars. Most of the so-called "palestinians" in refugee camps in places like Syria and Jordan are descendants of people who fled many decades ago - often in the promise that Israel would be quickly destroyed by the invading Arab armies. Time they accepted the verdict of history, made new homes for themselves in the countries they've spent all their lives in anyhow and moved on. Same for the rest of the Arab world generally. You tried to destroy Israel, you gave it your best shot and you lost. Tough biccies, move along.

BTW. there's a lot of Israel-bashing and even outright anti-Semitism on FTB where Islam tends to get a soft and easy ride.

* Seriously, some Israel bashers do make that argument! Oh its only a few rockets and they don't kill that many people so why the big fuss! Er, because these people are trying - and sometimes succeeding - in killing innocent civilians that's why!

Plutonian lifeform

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#49

Post by Plutonian lifeform » Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:19 am

ccdimage wrote:After a war the winners get to choose.
The Nazis lost.
Bad luck for the people who chose team Nazi.
Quite. And very firmly on team Nazi were the Arabs especially the Palestinian ones. (Although they weren't called Palestinians at the time. The invention of "palestine" came later in the late 60's, early 1970s.) Not sure if I can link here so I won't but look up the Arab (Palestinian) Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. From his wikipedia entry :

Gilbert Achcar, referring to this meeting (Haj Amin al Husseini's- ed) with Himmler, observes:

The Mufti was well aware that the European Jews were being wiped out; he never claimed the contrary. Nor, unlike some of his present-day admirers, did he play the ignoble, perverse, and stupid game of Holocaust denial…. His armour-propre would not allow him to justify himself to the Jews….gloating that the Jews had paid a much higher price than the Germans… he cites… : ”Their losses in the Second World War represent more than thirty percent of the total number of their people …. Statements like this, from a man who was well placed to know what the Nazis had done … constitute a powerful argument against Holocaust deniers. Husseini reports that Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler … told him in summer 1943 that the Germans had ‘already exterminated more than three million’ Jews: “I was astonished by this figure, as I had known nothing about the matter until then.” …. Thus. in 1943, Husseini knew about the genocide… (snip)

.. Husseini had publicly declared that Muslims should follow the example Germans set for a "definitive solution to the Jewish problem".[164]
Subsequently, the Mufti declared in November, 1943:

"It is the duty of Muhammadans in general and Arabs in particular to … drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries….Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [endgültige Lösung] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world. …"


Charming bloke - not!

The Palestinians actually have a very good record of choosing the losing side in every conflict from that one even before they were a concept to their support of Saddam Hussein in the Kuwait war and beyond.

farangutan
.
.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:43 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#50

Post by farangutan » Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:56 am

I agree with the Above. Palestinians chose team Nazi.

fuck em

Nec_V20
.
.
Posts: 937
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:19 am

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#51

Post by Nec_V20 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:42 am

another lurker wrote:
Remick wrote:Honestly, it only really matters if Git shows up and continues to be ridiculous.
Or somebody could fill in, while we wait.

YOU'RE ALL HITLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I call Godwin's Law :naughty:

TiBo
.
.
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:40 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#52

Post by TiBo » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:27 am

Why are the Israelis again wasting their resources on military strikes which only promise temporary relief from terrorism ?
Isn't it time to dissolve the Gaza Strip and send the people to the northern territories ?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#53

Post by Steersman » Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:44 pm

As per Lsuoma's request, my comment in the main thread:
Steersman wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: <snip>
So Palestinians moved to Egypt, made halfer Egyptian/ "Palestinian" babies and moved back to Palestine is not migration. Egyptians haven't really migrated to Palestine in the past few centuries? After all they did occupy the area from time to time for thousands of years, not to mention shortly before the mandate.

Who twisted the story to make it look like Yasser Arafat wasn't a full blood Palestinian. I don't know.
Maybe the Jooze? :think:
I'm pretty sure I set up an Israel thread somewhere. Perhaps everyone could take this shit over there, please?
Might be a good idea, at least so we can get back to the important stuff - like hammers & screwdrivers, guitar necks and thumbs, and Watson's peccadilloes. But a parting shot, something I've periodically wondered about, that I may post in that thread, to maybe throw the fox in amongst the chickens:
[youtube]
[/youtube]

free thoughtpolice
Best Post Evah!!!
Best Post Evah!!!
Posts: 9719
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#54

Post by free thoughtpolice » Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:04 am

Did you know that Tolkein was behind 9/11? The Two Towers. Coincidence?

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 9988
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: The Israel-Palestine Discussion Zone

#55

Post by Steersman » Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:57 pm

free thoughtpolice wrote:Did you know that Tolkein was behind 9/11? The Two Towers. Coincidence?
:lol: #NotAllCoincidences are particularly significant. But sometimes they betray or suggest a bias, a common cause buried somewheres in amongst the more or less random ones. Which certainly seems to be the case with the infamous 6 million number.

No doubt a genocide took place - too many other almost irrefutable facts that are consistent with the claim. And while there might well be innocuous reasons for that coincidence - maybe the entire population of Jews in Europe was somewheres around that number, although somewhat incongruous then that one item in the video claimed that that was also the entire population of Jews just in Russia - it seems worth considering whether the magnitude of the genocide was inflated - or not.

But, to maybe kill the proverbial two birds with one stone, Andrew suggested (in the main thread) that as far as the all the main players are concerned "there are no clean hands". Which is probably substantially true but not particularly helpful - seems one must decide which is the "lesser of two evils". And it sure seems to me that for many reasons - not least of which is the many pograms that Jews have been subjected to over virtually millennia - the Jews have the higher ground. And for being disproportionally represented in the august company of Nobel Laureates for another. But I think there's some merit in asking to what extent the Jews are, in general, the authors of their own misfortunes.

And, as I suggested earlier with my reference to Canada's own Mordecai Richler - Jews being a "stiff-necked lot", there's some justification for arguing - as Philip Wylie has done for example - that their insistence on being God's "chosen people" was a large part of their self-imposed segregation - frequently in ghettos or their own fashioning - which made them targets for the surrounding society, not always without justification. Wylie (1942,1955) in his Generation of Vipers (highly recommended):
One reason is simple. The so-called “case against the Jew” is the case against humanity. The fault of the Jew is the fault of mankind. But it happens that, in every large nation, there exists a minority of Jews who have carefully maintained their separate identity. To ascribe to them the faults of common man—and to them solely—furnishes a convenient alibi for common man, whose doting vanity has now got him in such shape that he can bear neither to continue as he is nor to look at himself for the reasons of his course. The psychology is primitive and therefore, in modern man, infantile. It is the psychology of the school child who says, “Jimmy put me up to it” or “Tony dared me.” Even the teacher is sometimes taken in by that specious formula. And it is easier for everybody, Americans included, to say, “The Jews corrupted us” or “The Jews wouldn’t play according to the rules so we had to cheat, also,” than it is to say what is true: we Americans have always been the slickest bunch of cheaters in the history of time, and furthermore, proud of it!

That much of anti-Semitism is understood by at least a minority of intelligent Americans who are not Jewish and who do not propose to let in the horror of antidemocratic national policy by allowing a gaggle of men with slime instead of gray matter to blame the Jews for the stink that simmers visibly out of their own dirty mouths. The little red schoolhouse should have taken care of this whole business - but the little red schoolhouse has become the national privy.

However, that is only part of the ferocious rot. Anti-Semitism has stained the centuries. There must have been, once, a reason for it, a point of origin. And there was — long ago. The Jews, sadly enough, have their religion, to blame for their now senseless predicament. The Old Testament described punishments that will be passed on to the “fathers and sons, unto the third and the fourth generation.” They are suffering such punishment, now. Our written law says that no son can be held for the crimes of his father. Society, actually, gives the son of a criminal father no such break. He is generally avoided or demeaned. In the matter of group and race behavior, the process is magnified in violence and extended in time. Thousand-year-old hates still spell out battle cries heard on the fields of Europe today. Preposterous—insane—another sample of that against which the individual lives to fight—but true, none the less; a blind freight of unrecognized instinct.

It was effective, if obvious, of Hitler to select the Jews as his whipping people: there they were still partially identifiable and somewhat clannish—with a history of having been scourged for centuries without retaliation. But it was also ironic. For, by the choice, the Nazis began making themselves into the Jews of the future, and in exactly the same way the Jews begot their spitefully preserved tragedy. To the extent that the Nazis are successful in perpetrating and maintaining their arrogant pride of “race” they, too, will payoff through the centuries; for that was the crime-against-man of ancient Israel.

Man will stand for, and sometimes even appreciate, the superior achievements of individuals. He will absorb conquerors. He will throw them off. He will even accept slavery quiescently for a while. But he will not stand the subjective arrogance of a herd. His instincts tell them that there is no superiority of herds and that all men are, as men, basically alike, for better and for worse. Pride goeth before a pratfall and a haughty spirit before the hotfoot. The arrogance of the English got them the peculiarly perverted hate of the Japs; the Japs will get our detestation.

The Jews, beyond all men until the Nazis, carried that particular vanity to its outermost excess—the segregation of themselves from the rest of humanity, into a “superrace.” Their vainglorious beginnings are traceable in the Old Testament. Under Joshua, and others, they rolled over the Near East, burning cities, leveling them, sowing salt in the ruins, carrying away the woman for concubines, and putting the males to death. If you will take the trouble to read the Talmud, you will find that the orthodox Jews had a code (which they practice no more than we do the villainous codes of our Old Testament) whereby there was even a separate morality for Jews. It was necessary for them to be honest and decent only with each other. All the rest of mankind was cold turkey, to be preyed upon, cheated, lied to, swindled, and knocked on the head. No punishment for gutting a goy. Ten points and a gold star, rather-as in Mohammedanism.*
Addendum wrote:* This, in its literal sense, is an error. I have since read the Talmud and realize my impression came from a published discussion of it—the work, beyond any doubt, of an antiSemite. However, in the psychological sense, the sense that Jews considered themselves the master race, the “chosen people”—and in the historical sense that the Twelve Tribes dealt ferociously with their Gentile neighbors—the assertion holds valid.

One needs not to read the Talmud, a just and wonderful book, but only the Old Testament, to learn these things. Indeed, the Bible itself is a long, seldom-broken account of sado-masochistic reflexes in various tormented, arrogant people. Barbaric people, to be sure; yet its uncounted murders, massacres, tortures, crucifixions and the like form the acknowledged basis of our Western society!

It is a wonder we never notice what that means—a wonder, just for instance, at such an instant as this, when there happens to be a brouhaha over children’s comic books, socalled. Without the sado-masochistic foundation of Western personality, the little apes could never have such appetites! One hesitates to call the Bible a comic; but it is, surely as man breathes, the first and greatest horror book of all and nothing the kiddies see in the pulps can touch it.

We do not—not yet, at least—have any national habit—when we are confronted with human horror at home—of looking sharply at the base of our culture. Such a look is more than most men have the guts, brains, knowledge, honesty and—may I add?—the inner serenity—to dare.

Post Reply