What makes you think that Rabbi Lerner speaks for any significant number of Jews? This is as much one person's opinion as anything else.
Criticizing Israel is not an act of bigotry
Wed, 2007-02-28 21:08
#52
Wed, 2007-02-28 21:09
#53
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
[b]What makes you think that Rabbi Lerner speaks for any significant number of Jews? This is as much one person's opinion as anything else.[/b]
Stop hiding. Answer my question. What do you mean by saying you're a "Zionist"? Zionism means Aliyah. Or has it now come to mean just sending money and arms?
Wed, 2007-02-28 21:15
#54
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
[b]What makes you think that Rabbi Lerner speaks for any significant number of Jews? This is as much one person's opinion as anything else.[/b]
What the . . .? Nice deflection. Try arguing what he has to say.
Wed, 2007-02-28 21:25
#55
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
[b]Secondly, Kunin mentions Farber's evocation that he wishes to educate people about the links between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Ya so why is this a problem? There are links at times.
[/b]
Bernie Farber is a conspiracy theorist whose way of thinking exactly that of the people he says he is attacking. Under every bed, instead of a Jew, there is an antisemite. Same story, different cloths.
Wed, 2007-02-28 21:53
#56
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
[b]Secondly, Kunin mentions Farber's evocation that he wishes to educate people about the links between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Ya so why is this a problem? There are links at times. [/b]
This is how the Canadian Jewish News reported it:
quote:
Farber predicted better co-ordination with other advocacy organizations, including CIC and those on campus. As the distinctions between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have receded, organizations that have addressed only one of these issues in the past must develop a more unified voice, he said.
[url=http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=5584&s=1]Canadian Jewish News[/url]
There's been a deliberate attempt in recent years to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism by labeling the latter the "New anti-Semitism". Farber seems to be suggesting this position in the CJN article and indeed the actions of the CJC, CIC et al and people like Irwin Cotler to discredit criticism of Israel in this way has intensified in the past few years. I believe it is this that the Kunin piece is addressing.
Wed, 2007-02-28 21:57
#57
Ya and your point?
Wed, 2007-02-28 22:30
#58
So what does it mean to you to be a Zionist, Petsy? I don't know a lot about it, and I get different impressions from different people.
Thu, 2007-03-01 06:37
#59
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b][url=http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=5584&s=1]Canadian Jewish News[/url]There's been a deliberate attempt in recent years to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism by labeling the latter the "New anti-Semitism". Farber seems to be suggesting this position in the CJN article and indeed the actions of the CJC, CIC et al and people like Irwin Cotler to discredit criticism of Israel in this way has intensified in the past few years. I believe it is this that the Kunin piece is addressing.[/b]
From what I've heard in speeches from Cotler et.al, they are not opposed to criticism of Israel in a general sense, but what they consider unduly harsh, disproportionate criticism. Cotler said that on several occasions, he has criticized Israel himself on rights issues, mostly recently regarding, if I remember correctly, an issue involving Ethiopian Jews.
Thu, 2007-03-01 07:12
#60
Well, Cotler is right about that.
It is about being balanced.
A westerner who has nothing negative to say about Syria or Iran, but is VEHEMENT about Israel, should really consult his or her psyche to determine where the anger originates, and why it is confined to Israel.
Israel merits a LOT of criticism. But so do those other guys. Bush knew what he was doing when he sent Maher Arar to Syria, and it wasn't because he thought they respect human rights.
Thu, 2007-03-01 07:28
#61
Frustrated Mess
That is nonsense, Jeff. Does it work both ways? Every time you criticize Iran do you also criticize Israel? In fact, from what I observe, defenders of Israel generally seldom criticize Israel while demonizing all Arab states.
quote:
Well Im a Zionist. I travel in many different circles mostly progressive. Most Jews I know are Zionist though many are critical of Israeli policy towards Palestinians.
What the hell does that mean? is that like slave owners believing slaves shouldn't be beaten as often?
Zionism is a racist ideology. How can it be anything but?
quote:
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims.
[url=http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html]http://...
Further up above Joel suggested we swap "Jewish" for "Muslim". I suggest you swap "Jewish" in the above sentence for "white". Is it still an acceptable ideology?
Thu, 2007-03-01 07:29
#62
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]It is about being balanced.
A westerner who has nothing negative to say about Syria or Iran, but is VEHEMENT about Israel, should really consult his or her psyche to determine where the anger originates, and why it is confined to Israel.
[/b]
Does the reverse hold? What of someone who never critisizes Israel, but only Syria and Iran et.al.? Should they also consult their psyches?
Thu, 2007-03-01 07:29
#63
Balance is the eye of the beholder. This reminds me of the cold war, when the right would complain that those who criticized right-wing dictators needed to condemn Communist states in the same breath.
It's also a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Of course, Syria's human rights record is poor. But Syria doesn't claim to be a western-style democracy. Israel does, as its supporters consistently point out. Well, if you hold yourself out to a higher standard, you set yourself up for, justifiably, criticism when you fall well short of it.
Thu, 2007-03-01 07:45
#64
[url=http://falsedichotomies.com/2007/02/15/independent-jewish-boyses-mission... Boyses Unite For Piece [/url]
quote:
Independent Jewish Boyses Mission statementWe are a group of Jews in Britain and Israel from pretty much the same type of background, with the same kind of jobs and affiliations, who have in common a stong commitment to getting our names in the papers and basking in the attention. We come together in the belief that the broad spotlight among the Jewish population of our countries is not focused sufficiently upon us, and we don’t like it. We really don’t like it. We further believe that individuals and groups within all communities should feel free to express their adoration and love for us – and only us – without incurring accusations of disloyalty. Why disloyalty? Dunno. It’s just a big, provocative word that we stumbled across when looking up the correct spelling for disestablishmentarianism in our bumper Collins Dictionary.
We have therefore resolved to promote the expression of alternative (sorry – we mean ‘our’) Jewish voices, particularly in respect of the grave situation in the Middle East, which threatens the future of Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the stability of the whole region. [Well, when we say particularly in respect of…, of course we mean only in respect of. Wot, you mean there are other things we, as Jews, could concern ourselves with? Like what? Synagogue politics and communal welfare? What’s a synagogue? Ed.]
We are guided by the following principles:
1. Human rights are really cool. We really love human rights. They are our favourite type of rights, ever. No joke.
2. We will go all starry-eyed and fawning if anyone with the following credentials says anything, or even coughs in our direction:
- Someone who’s written a play
- Someone who’s written a poem
- Someone who’s written a shopping list
- Someone who lives, has lived, or plans to live in an ivory tower in Hampstead
- Someone whose Jewish roots causes them sleepless nights, tortured days, and unfathomably high levels of acidity in their stomach
- Someone who thinks Jacqueline Rose shouldn’t have to practise what
she preaches. Or, in fact, do anything other than preach. Really loudly.3. Palestinians and Israelis (see how we put the word Palestinian before Israelis? Clever, innit?) should all turn their swords into ploughshares, or something. Then they can all be happy, and come over for tea at our houses, and we can all discuss poetry. And hug each other. And argue about whether Ronit Zilkha really is better than Nicole Farhi.
4. There is no justification for any form of racism. Sorry if you find that condescending, but we’ve even penned a cheerleader chant about it: We hate racism. H-A-T-E. H-A-T-E. We hate racism. Yay!
5. The battle for media coverage is vital and undermined whenever opposition to our flooding the press with banal declarations of peace, love and unity is automatically branded as anti-disestablishmentarianism (phew, nearly forgot to use that one).
These principles are contradicted when those who claim to want to read about something other than us and our narcissistic tendencies are allowed to post comments on commentisfree. We don’t like it when anyone has a go at us. The truth really hurts. Sometimes so much so that nothing short of an intense pilates session will make the pain go away.
We declare our support for a properly negotiated peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people. Peace = good. No peace = bad. (See what we did there? It’s not rocket science, you thick, colonial, oppressive, subjugating, fascist….[see website for full list of superlatives]… Israeli scum.
It is imperative and urgent that everyone stops what they’re doing, downs tools, and looks at us. Look! Over here! Look at us dance. And write poems. And sing. We can do everything! We’re the best! Goooo us! Sorry, where were we? Oh yeah, it is imperative that we find a coherent and consistent way of asserting ourselves on these and other issues of concern. (Did you notice how that sentence seemed to say so much, yet actually said sweet FA? I only realised when I read it again. Oh well).
We hereby reclaim the moral high ground that has lain vacant and uninhabited ever since our last attempt at fame (JJJLJLJAC - Jews for Justice for Jews who Like Justice and Attention and Croissants) failed miserably. The lessons we have learned from our own history of attention seeking compel us to try, try and try again. We therefore commit ourselves to make public our views on a continuing basis (yeah, you heard) and invite other concerned publicity whores to join and support us.
Seth Freedman
Josh Freedman Berthoud
Alex Stein(and loads more really cool people who don’t actually exist other than in our heads. Do they count? No? What about pets? Fine. Whatever)
Thu, 2007-03-01 07:54
#65
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b]Balance is the eye of the beholder. This reminds me of the cold war, when the right would complain that those who criticized right-wing dictators needed to condemn Communist states in the same breath.It's also a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Of course, Syria's human rights record is poor. But Syria doesn't claim to be a western-style democracy. Israel does, as its supporters consistently point out. Well, if you hold yourself out to a higher standard, you set yourself up for, justifiably, criticism when you fall well short of it.[/b]
This is what I've observed from local protests.
Israel: Terrorist state, Star of David=swastika and some milder statements
Saddam Hussein: "Yes, we know he's a bad guy..."
The perception you get is that the criticism comes a lot easier where israel is concerned, but you have to take the initiative to ask the question to get the comparatively mild response about Saddam above.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 07:55
#66
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Stop hiding. Answer my question. What do you mean by saying you're a "Zionist"? Zionism means Aliyah. Or has it now come to mean just sending money and arms?[/b]
I certainly don't think being a zionist automatically means that one has to make Aliyah. Zionism is more ideology than action. It is a general belief in the idea of Jewish self-determination and the right to a homeland. (I'm paraphrasing, obviously.) But I don't think that considering oneself a Zionist comes with an implied obligation to go and live in that homeland. No more than being in favour of a certain war means that all supporters actually fight in it or that supporting building housing for the homeless means picking up a hammer.
Thu, 2007-03-01 08:36
#67
Cueball
I guess this needs repeating.
The reason we criticize Israel, is that Israel is part of our objective alliance structure. Its creation is also a direct decistion, largely created at the behest of our states, and the alliances we were part of in WW1 and 2. Also we shares direct cultural and historical links to Israel, in a manner similar to the way we share history, culture and an objective (and literal) alliance with the US amd Britain.
Among other things this is relevant in the solution to the problem, in that we have more interest and influence over Israel for the above reasons. This is precisely the reason that criticism of Apartheid was oftenmost expressed officially through the mechanism of the Commonwealth.
This factor can be seen to be in operation, precisely in the "undue" defence of Israel mounted not just by Zionist Jews but also there gentile supporters like Jeff House, who show uncommon interest in mounting this and other defences of the Israeli actions. There is nothing unusual or suspicious about this "uncommon interest", just as there is nothing suspicious about the fact that Jeff House never denounces, or seeks to draw attention to, the routine supression, and sometimes outright slaughter of Thailand minority Muslims.
The fact is that we really have very little to do, both geopolitically, or culturally, or historically with Thailand or its government policies, except in a very abstract sense. For this reason, they rarely make the news.
Setting up the false dichotomy of "objectivity," and being an even handed broker (a lie often asserted by the US state department, in issues of Palestinian grievances) by posing Iran (say) and Israel as equal opposites in a game of political chess, each which we must denounce, is merely political finesse that ignores historical reality that our country is a player in the game, and is a shallow attempt by individuals to wipe their hands clean of our collective responsibilty for Israel as an objective ally, and as an expression of the will of our political leadership today, and in the past.
We have more responsibility to talk about Israel, because we as nation and a culture are far more responsible for it, as tacit, and sometimes overt supporters of Israel, than we are for the actions of the state of Iran.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 09:12
#68
Oh I didn't mention Thailand.
I mentioned Iran, and Syria.
I said that people who cannot criticize Iran and Syria, but get all vehement about Israel, should do some soul searching.
That is because Iran and Syria, as well as other Arab states, are the other side in THIS dispute.
Thailand isn't.
Cueball says that Israel is part of the structure of alliances of "our" side. So he believes it is fair minded to criticize only "our" side, because we supposedly have some influence there.
I disagree. I am not interested in one-sided criticism, no matter what the ideological justification for it might be.
I believe in criticism of both sides, when both sides deserve criticism.
Distributing criticism based on your identity is a terribly faulty way of acting. Cueball says he identifies with the Western powers and so is more critical of Israel than Iran, Syria, etc.
The problem here is that it is so easy to PRETEND that you identify with one side, and then justify criticism of that side alone.
It would allow you to criticise segregation in the South, while remaining silent about the Soviet gulag, or indeed, Hitler.
I'd rather be honest and criticise those who violate specific standards, no matter who they are.
Thu, 2007-03-01 09:20
#69
I asked a fairly direct question to which I would appreciate a response, Jeff.
Thu, 2007-03-01 09:22
#70
Cueball
I didn't say anything about "fair minded." that is your trope. I am talking about reality.
People are concerned about the amount of criticism asserting that it is disproportional to the amount I might make about worse events elsewhere.
What is at issue here is the proportionality of the criticism, and personal responsibility for the collective.
As a leftist I have often criticized GULAG because I have more responsibility to do so, as a leftist. In fact as a self-identified leftist I have more interest in, and bring more attention to GULAG than most people. Fortunately, GULAG however is history, and so I spend less time denouncing it than I might were it operable today. However I still do repeatedly.
Many Germans feel a special responsibility to denouncing Hitler and National Socialism, so much so that the state has even created laws wich express that responsibility. These are the toughest laws in the world on the issue of National Socialism. Most of those laws don't exist here. It is not theoretically illegal to display the Swastika here.
Absolutely no such laws exist in Thailand. What gives there? Is the government of Thailand unbalanced because it doesn't take up ever single issues ever concieved of by man?
quote:
That is because Iran and Syria, as well as other Arab states, are the other side in THIS dispute.
Almost! What is sailent is our duty to making an analysis founded in the political realities, not being "fair minded."
But what is exempt from your analysis is the fact that "we" are on a side of this dispute, and that this dispute is a direct result of "our" policy of ramming the creation of Israel through the UN in 1947. "We" have since then fostered and supported the state of Israel continuously. Trying to pretend that Israel just fell from the sky one day (more or less the way it appeared to ordinary Arabs living there) and that we are somehow neutral in this affair is willful blindness born of wishful thinking, akin very much to that of Soviet apologists of yore.
My point is that we bear a specific responsibility, not only for the actions of our leaders of today, but also our historical legacy, because our present day actions are a direct manifestation of that legacy and flow from it. Israeli crimes are also our crimes, as we directly enable them.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 09:58
#71
Frustrated Mess
As well, there are currently two bloody, brutal, and violent occupations in the middle-east where the occupiers insist on a cultural and moral, perhaps even racial, superiority over the oppressed. Neither of those occupations are by an Arab state. Or a Persian state.
Jeff's convoluted logic (I suppose before he criticizes one neighbour for loud parties he finds another for which the criticism may be balanced) overlooks that the great majority of criticism leveled at Israel stems directly from the occupation.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 10:04
#72
Cueball
That last is true too. Most criticism of Israel made here, has very little to do with Israel's relationship to Syria and Iran, and much to do with the occupation itself. Jeff's point is entirely a Red Herring.
Thu, 2007-03-01 10:06
#73
quote:
Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
[b]From what I've heard in speeches from Cotler et.al, they are not opposed to criticism of Israel in a general sense, but what they consider unduly harsh, disproportionate criticism. Cotler said that on several occasions, he has criticized Israel himself on rights issues, mostly recently regarding, if I remember correctly, an issue involving Ethiopian Jews.[/b]
And what criticism has he made of Israel's treatment of Palestinians?
I think everyone agrees that there is some criticism of Israel that is beyond the pale and unacceptable and that there is some criticism that is acceptable. The question is where you draw the line. For Cotler, Farber et al it seems to be ok to criticize Israel as long as you don't oppose the underlying ideology of Zionism or the nature of the state as a "Jewish state". It's a bit like saying one can criticize the Soviet Union as long as one doesn't criticize the Communist Party or the official state ideology.
For them, therefore, advocating a secular, democratic binational state that is a homeland for both Jews and Palestinians in which neither have supremacy and in which there is full civil, political and social equality is unacceptable.
Joel, do you agree or disagree that "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism"? To me it seems the flipside of the equally irrational "Zionism is racism" axiom.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 10:25
#74
Cueball points out that he has said nothing about being "fair-minded" and that is my "trope".
How true.
He then says:
quote:
Most criticism of Israel made here, has very little to do with Israel's relationship to Syria and Iran, and much to do with the occupation itself. Jeff's point is entirely a Red Does Herring.
I have no problem with criticism of Israel, and in particular, with its treatment of Palestinians and the occupation of the West Bank.
But as we know, there is lots of criticism of Israel per se. Maybe not "here" on this particular thread, but in many other places, including on babble.
And yes, people who cannot criticize Iran when it holds a holocaust denial festival starring David Duke are not being fair, or fair minded. (My trope.)
Another poster asked if those who only criticize Arab states should also consult their psychiatrists concerning the source of their vehemence. Of course. There are many Israelis, and others too, who are racist towards Arabs. They are not found on babble to my knowledge, but if they were, I'd say they stink to high heaven. And need a shrink.
Thu, 2007-03-01 10:44
#75
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]
Another poster asked if those who only criticize Arab states should also consult their psychiatrists concerning the source of their vehemence. Of course. There are many Israelis, and others too, who are racist towards Arabs. They are not found on babble to my knowledge, but if they were, I'd say they stink to high heaven. And need a shrink.[/b]
I think you're being pretty wilfully blind, here.
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:01
#76
Cueball
Edited to adjust for agitprop.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:26
#77
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]
Joel, do you agree or disagree that "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism"? To me it seems the flipside of the equally irrational "Zionism is racism" axiom.[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ][/b]
Depends on the way it is expressed...
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:27
#78
Cueball
Perhaps you can give examples since you seem to be illiterate in the realm of theory?
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:33
#79
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]
Joel, do you agree or disagree that "anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism"? To me it seems the flipside of the equally irrational "Zionism is racism" axiom.[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ][/b]
Depends on the way it is expressed...
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:34
#80
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Perhaps you can give examples since you seem to be illiterate in the realm of theory?[/b]
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:36
#81
Cueball
Reposted to adjust thread for Agitpoop:
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]Cueball points out that he has said nothing about being "fair-minded" and that is my "trope".How true. [/b]
It seems to me that your idea of being fair minded more or less in the form of suggesting that any discussion about the Holocaust or the Nazi rampage througout Europe, must, in order to meet your standard of objectivity, add equal weight and time to a discussion of the depredations committed by the WW1 allies, against Germany under the Treaty of Versaille.
This of course is so much sophistry.
So much as to say that you have magnitized your moral compass to the extent where:
quote:
And yes, people who cannot criticize Iran when it holds a holocaust denial festival starring David Duke are not being fair, or fair minded. (My trope.)
Is somehow comparable to a regieme of martial law imposed upon an civilian population of 3 million people, including land grabs, illegal settlement, mass arrests, curfew, summary execution by helicopter gunship, forced removal and house demolition for a period of 40 years, and that each must be given equal time, and weight of thought.
As you have just so elegantly demonstrated in your post. A milqutoast appraisal of the Israeli occupation as being worthy of criticism posed against a conference of dubious import held in Tehran described in the most hysterical tones.
No one died at the conference in Tehran Jeff, and that is the stark truth that demonstrates the idiocy of your position. For you may wish to suggest that the conference indicates the possibility of tyranous Iranian policy against Jews, the fact is that Israel's policy of occupation is not just a possibility, but a fact, and the practice of the Israeli government.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:40
#82
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Perhaps you can give examples since you seem to be illiterate in the realm of theory?[/b]
Despite the snide tone, I will respond.
When unfair comparisons are made, such as to the Nazis. Interstingly, the Neuturei Karta has made such references, such as calling the treatment of Palestinians a "Holocaust"
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:45
#83
Cueball
I was snide, because your open ended statement without definition could lead to confusion, as to whom you were talking about, and had the tone of unsubstantiated allegation by means of innuendo. In other words you failed to name names.
I don't think that making exagerated comparisons, or being historically inaccurate is provably antisemitic.
The principle that people are indictable morally by fact of historical error, is a Stalanist principle. So much so that often people accused of such were considedered historical errors themselves.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:52
#84
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I was snide, because your open ended statement without definition could lead to confusion, as to whom you were talking about, and had the tone of unsubstantiated allegation by means of innuendo. In other words you failed to name names.I don't think that making exagerated comparisons, or being historically inaccurate is provably antisemitic.
The principle that people are indictable morally by fact of historical error, is a Stalanist principle. So much so that often people accused of such were considedered historical errors themselves.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]
I really don't think that those making such comparisons are historically erring in good faith.
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:55
#85
Cueball
But you can't really prove that. So your hunch amounts to an unfair characterization itself. Editorializing for effect, may not be "fair" (we see plenty of it here) but it is not the same a libel.
Thu, 2007-03-01 11:57
#86
Frustrated Mess
quote:
When unfair comparisons are made, such as to the Nazis.
So when some Israeli Jews compare Ahmadinejad with Hitler and claim Iran represents a second holocaust, they are expressing a rabid anti-Islam or anti-Persian racism? I mean, by your logic.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 12:03
#87
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]So when some Israeli Jews compare Ahmadinejad with Hitler and claim Iran represents a second holocaust, they are expressing a rabid anti-Islam or anti-Persian racism? I mean, by your logic.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ][/b]
First of all, Ahmadinejad does not represent all Persians or Muslims. It's like saying bashing of Bush makes you anti-American or Christian.
Secondly, I haven't heard anyone say Iran itself represents a second Holocaust. Many people believe Ahmadinejad wants to wipe out Israel, thus the Holocaust comparison.
Thu, 2007-03-01 12:14
#88
Agent 204
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Huh? I don't get this. Why would "decent, progressive people" want to buy movies made by an anti-semite because of what the Israeli government is doing to Palestinians? That's a really weird thing to say.[/b]
I was being hyperbolic and facetious. Sorry if it didn't come across that way. What I really meant was, the Zionofascists threaten to give all Jews a bad name, much as the Stalinists, for instance, made it difficult for all socialists. Ever been canvassing and had a door slammed in your face with a cry of "NDP? Communist!"? I have.
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 12:16
#89
Frustrated Mess
quote:
First of all, Ahmadinejad does not represent all Persians or Muslims. It's like saying bashing of Bush makes you anti-American or Christian.Secondly, I haven't heard anyone say Iran itself represents a second Holocaust. Many people believe Ahmadinejad wants to wipe out Israel, thus the Holocaust comparison.
Many believe it is Israel's goal to wipe Palestine off the map cleanse Eretz Israel of Arabs. Is "fair" defined by what many think?
And it is acceptable to declare that Olmert is Hitler?
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Thu, 2007-03-01 12:52
#90
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
[b]I really don't think that those making such comparisons are historically erring in good faith.[/b]
But you can't really prove that. So your hunch amounts to an unfair characterization itself. Editorializing for effect, may not be "fair" (we see plenty of it here) but it is not the same a libel.
Thu, 2007-03-01 19:10
#91
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]Many believe it is Israel's goal to wipe Palestine off the map cleanse Eretz Israel of Arabs.[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ][/b]
I haven't heard Olmert or any other leader use the term "wipe off the map," Ahmadinejad, on the other hand...
Thu, 2007-03-01 19:14
#92
Cueball
Other Israeli leaders have openly suggested blowing up Damascus in a nuclear strike. I won't bother finding the exact quote. Just trust me, i could find it if necessary.
Thu, 2007-03-01 19:15
#93
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]But you can't really prove that. So your hunch amounts to an unfair characterization itself. Editorializing for effect, may not be "fair" (we see plenty of it here) but it is not the same a libel.[/b]
If it was printed somewhere that I was perpetrating a Holocaust and could be compared to a Nazi, I'd feel pretty libelled.
Thu, 2007-03-01 19:33
#94
Cueball
Would you? My first thought would be that someone was engaging in histrionics, and hyperbole.
For instance, it has often asserted here, by pro-Zionists that the Hamas charter calls for the extermination of the Jews, when it does not. It says that Jews should exists in a state of Dhimitude in an Islamic state, the only kind of state capable of accomodating all the religions fairly, according to them. It is then usually argued that this amounts to the same thing, and that extermination is the logical conclusion of the Hamas Charter.
But this latter is an inferred conclusion, not a statement of the explicit words of Hamas. It is an arguement, for what its worth. Therefore I would argue that such statement were inflamatory, but not necessarily racist.
Likewise, I would argue that the conditions in the Gaza Strip closely match the pre-Holocaust stage of the Nazi regieme, as in the reduction of free Jews to the existance of living in tightly controlled Ghettos, such as the one in Warsaw. It could be derived from this example that Holocaust was just over the horizon and were their a sudden shift in the objective circumstances, (a major regional war for example) and the the logical conclusion of the policy is mass extermination.
This would by hyperbolic, I think, and inflamatory, but still within the range of fair comment based on deductive reasoning.
For instance, no where does Amdenejad say that he believes that Israel, and all Israelis, should die in a thermonuclear porgrom. This is inferred from this statements about "wiping Israel from the pages of time."
It is still an inferred conclusion, as the thermonuclear option is never stated, but it is felt logically "implied."
I would call such deduced implications editorial commentary.
Now, what did Ariel Sharon mean to "imply" when he said: "The Arabs may have all the oil, but we have the matches"?
[ 01 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fri, 2007-03-02 03:58
#95
Agent 204
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]For instance, it has often asserted here, by pro-Zionists that the Hamas charter calls for the extermination of the Jews, when it does not.[/b]
Actually, I've heard more than one person claim that the extermination of the Jews is a fundamental tenet of Islam in general. The evidence, of course, suggests that it is not (weren't the Jews treated better in the Ottoman Empire than in much of Christian Europe?) When bullshit claims like this are levied against another people, we call it "blood libel". Sounds like the right term for this, too.
Fri, 2007-03-02 04:59
#96
Frustrated Mess
quote:
I haven't heard Olmert or any other leader use the term "wipe off the map," Ahmadinejad, on the other hand...
You haven't heard Ahmadinejad say that either. But in any case, Israel is actively wiping Palestine from the map while brutalizing the Palestinian people in order to encourage them to cleanse themselves from Israel while Iran is not doing a single thing to Israel. And yet you dance around the facts raising tangents and always avoiding the direct questions.
If I was suspicious I might think you really aren't interested in the questions posed so mush as diverting attention to frivolity.
Fri, 2007-03-02 09:33
#97
From Ahmadinejad's official website, at the 2005 World Without Zionism conference:
"He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away."
URL=www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/08/4/index-e.htm#b3]Ahm... Oct. 2005 speech[/URL]
Fri, 2007-03-02 09:44
#98
Waiting to now read how Ahdiminijad's defenders explain this away.
Fri, 2007-03-02 09:46
#99
Cueball
And what does that mean:
quote:
"Today, supporting the Palestinian nation and objective is a definite and indispensable principle for continued campaign to achieve victory. "The palestinian issue has not ended. It would end when a government belonging to the Palestinian people takes over, the homeless return home [b]and a free election is held to form a government representing [i]all[/i] people."[/b]
Fri, 2007-03-02 10:05
#100
Cueball
So in fact, anyone who suggest that Amedinejad is proposing a thermonuclear pogrom against the Jews of Israel, either does not know, (likely misinformed), is summising the hidden intent, or is deliberately "editorializing for effect," in precisely the same way that Joel is talking about when he complained that "unfair comparisons... ...such as calling the treatment of Palestinians a 'Holocaust,'" are racist.
Mostly that kind of thing is demonstrative hyperbole.
[ 02 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fri, 2007-03-02 10:47
#101
quote:
I haven't heard Olmert or any other leader use the term "wipe off the map," Ahmadinejad, on the other hand...
The Zionist entity has always been riding the propaganda train while -as pointed out above- doing the actual deed of wiping up Palestine, Palestinians and the occasional Lebanese off the map.
Repeat and propagate half truths, full lies and exploit some inane and stupid utterings on the part of leaders of totally powerless nations -Nasser and others, to bolster the false claim that Israel being besieged and threatened and keep the bulldozers and tanks rolling.
With world public opinion more aware of the reality, more propaganda arsenals have been added: "The only democracy" .. "fighting terrorism. Empty and deceiving fronts for a colonialist, expansionist, brutal and racist State determined to annihilate Palestinians, people and territory.
[ 02 March 2007: Message edited by: sidra ]