Thread: Dealing with bigots Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020419

---

Posted by aliehs (# 18878) on :
 
I am somewhat perplexed by some reactions I have read in a nonrelated group, by bigoted remarks from those who are fundamental Christians, condemning not just the sin as well but also the sinner. The situation strikes me as contrary to the spirit of tolerance and forgiveness. It is akin to "shunning".
How should I deal with these people? I do not wish to condemn them, as that would be doing what they do. I have been as rational as possible, pointing out politely that others may have reasons for doing what they are doing, and therefore merit our understanding, rather than censure, but to no avail. Yet I feel I should say something to motivate them to question their self-righteousness. Or does that make me self righteous myself?
 

---

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I find that the best way to deal with bigots is to get in touch with my own bigotry.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
aliehs--

If they're not willing to consider other perspectives (like yours), is it worth your time?

If your answer is "yes", maybe keep in mind a couple of things.

--People say all kinds of crap on the Internet. Recently, I ran into some pro-Hitler messages on virtual snowflakes on the Snowdays site! It's normally a pretty peaceful place. Occasionally, people post what is likely a stupid prank, or yell at a former significant other. But this is the worst I've seen, in the many years I've used the site.

--Sometimes, people mean what they say online, and sometimes they don't. They're trying to be clever, or forget they're talking to real people, or really do want to cause trouble and hurt.

--Sometimes, the best thing is to politely and respectfully put forth what you have to say, then back off and don't try to convince anyone.

--Does this other group have any guidelines for posting and behavior? Are there moderators of any kind?

Wisdom and good luck to you!
 

---

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 


Great advice GK.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thx, simontoad.
 

---

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:


--Sometimes, the best thing is to politely and respectfully put forth what you have to say, then back off and don't try to convince anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:
I find that the best way to deal with bigots is to get in touch with my own bigotry.

---

quote:

---

bigoted remarks from those who are fundamental Christians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
One way of dealing with high-profile bigots is to expose them with a full-page ad in the Washington Post, which is what has just happened to NZ singer Lorde.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
One way of dealing with high-profile bigots is to expose them with a full-page ad in the Washington Post, which is what has just happened to NZ singer Lorde.

It is to be hoped that she is just ignorant and thoughtless rather than anti-Semitic, but it might make her (and other airheaded entertainers) take the issue more seriously.

The problem is that with anti-Semitism now as prevalent on the left (sympathy for Islamofascism masquerading as "anti-Zionism") as on the right, she will probably be treated as some sort of victim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Binary thinking is the natural outcome of our egos doing the thinking. It carries with it the implicit assumption that we actually understand everything we so classify.

And it certainly seems to make the world simpler.

The world, creation, is not simple. Scientists will be happy to tell us that. People who objectively have a close look at situations like Palestine/Israel will be happy to tell you that.

We believe we know a great deal more than we actually know. It makes a sometimes bewildering world seem safer. And that belief is delusional.

It is only when I understand that I don't know that I can begin to learn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
One way of dealing with high-profile bigots is to expose them with a full-page ad in the Washington Post, which is what has just happened to NZ singer Lorde.

---

quote:

---

It is to be hoped that she is just ignorant and thoughtless rather than anti-Semitic, but it might make her (and other airheaded entertainers) take the issue more seriously.

---

quote:

---

The problem is that with anti-Semitism now as prevalent on the left (sympathy for Islamofascism masquerading as "anti-Zionism") as on the right, she will probably be treated as some sort of victim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
aliehs:

quote:

---

bigoted remarks from those who are fundamental Christians

---

How to you get to classify a remark as bigoted, as opposed to simply strongly stated views? Can you give an example?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Of course she's not anti-Semitic. She just gives a shit about the human rights of Palestinians. Unfortunately some people like to accuse anyone with any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic; accusing them of sympathy with Islamofascism as well is a new low though. You speak of ignorance. I'll show you ignorance - seeing a simplistic situation where the nice kind democratic Israelis are under siege from wicked Palestinians who all hate and want to kill them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Of course she's not anti-Semitic. She just gives a shit about the human rights of Palestinians. Unfortunately some people like to accuse anyone with any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic; accusing them of sympathy with Islamofascism as well is a new low though. You speak of ignorance. I'll show you ignorance - seeing a simplistic situation where the nice kind democratic Israelis are under siege from wicked Palestinians who all hate and want to kill them.

---

Unfortunately, that's all too near the truth, Karl. Why should the Israelis take a chance with their security, after what happened last century? All those nice kind democratic Germans, Ukrainians, Russians, Lithuanians, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The BDS thing (boycott divest sanction) Lorde bought into is anti-Israel in terms of Palestinian rights as noted but is also anti-Semetic when it holds Israel to a standard other countries are not held to. Which is the basic problem with BDS. BDS also says that Israel has to solve the Palestinian issue on its own which is also anti-Semetic if it is made to be solely responsible to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Israel maintains a sliver of moral high ground above 'Islamofascists'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Israel maintains a sliver of moral high ground above 'Islamofascists'

---

sliver?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Israel maintains a sliver of moral high ground above 'Islamofascists'

---

sliver?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Helen-Eva:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:


--Sometimes, the best thing is to politely and respectfully put forth what you have to say, then back off and don't try to convince anyone.

---

I like that - there is much wisdom in it. You say what you need to say to avoid passively agreeing with the hateful thing but then step away to avoid getting into a row (mainly to preserve your own sanity as you probably won't convince anyway).

In real life (i.e. not on the internet) there's a wider selection of options for dealing with bigotry with everything from the polite redirecting of Aged Relation X who has just said the wrong thing at the Christmas dinner table onto a neutral subject, to slamming the phone down on a racist rant from an acquaintance. (My mother did that one.)

---

quote:

---

--People say all kinds of crap on the Internet. Recently, I ran into some pro-Hitler messages on virtual snowflakes on the Snowdays site! It's normally a pretty peaceful place. Occasionally, people post what is likely a stupid prank, or yell at a former significant other. But this is the worst I've seen, in the many years I've used the site.

---

Wish I'd seen that flake. I would have tacked on the reply: "Melt, little flake, melt!"
 

---

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
What a pity this thread descended into discussion about Israel. I find the discussion about responding to prejudice useful and worthwhile. Surely Lorde and Israel can be discussed elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
It seems to me that we label people as bigots because they have different views from our own. We are just as much bigots for labelling these people. What a boring world if we all thought alike.
 

---

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I think that's a good point. We need to be careful about the words we throw around. And what our beliefs are in different areas.

There are real bigots out there. To me, calling them that won't make a damned bit of difference, except for you and your cohort to feel smug and superior. And calling everyone we think is a bigot, a bigot, lessens the word and makes it become meaningless. But a new one will arise to take its place.

My strategy is, as has been said above, to say my piece and let it lie. I've read studies that presenting people with facts makes them believe the misperceptions all the more [!], so unless someone is truly trying to decide an issue, I suspect time and effort is wasted.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Please don't take refuge in the defence that IS's crimes need no direct condemnation, or any similar defence, or you might undermine the idea that as long as Israel maintains a sliver of moral high ground above 'Islamofascists' it is beyond criticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Please don't take refuge in the defence that IS's crimes need no direct condemnation, or any similar defence, or you might undermine the idea that as long as Israel maintains a sliver of moral high ground above 'Islamofascists' it is beyond criticism.

---

Okay, here is your quote in full if it makes you happy, but it is still bullshit.

To sneeringly dismiss the civilized, liberal democratic nation of Israel as "a sliver of high ground" above its corrupt, dictatorial, theocratic, justiceless, censoring, misogynistic, (genuinely) homophobic, genocidal, anti-Semitic enemies in the region, is obscene.

You can stick your smartarse inverted commas around Islamofascism, because that is precisely what it is.

No, Israel is not "beyond criticism", and has been guilty of unwise and sometimes downright wicked acts (eg Deir Yassin).

But for pompous, moralistic, safe and secure Western armchair critics to pontificate about the less than perfect behaviour of a tiny, beleagured country with a more than 3,000 year old claim to its homeland, whose enemies deny even its right to exist, and whose people within living memory underwent a serious attempt to annihilate them, is nauseating bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To sneeringly dismiss the civilized, liberal democratic nation of Israel as "a sliver of high ground" above its corrupt, dictatorial, theocratic, justiceless, censoring, misogynistic, (genuinely) homophobic, genocidal, anti-Semitic enemies in the region, is obscene.

---

quote:

---

No, Israel is not "beyond criticism", and has been guilty of unwise and sometimes downright wicked acts (eg Deir Yassin).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To sneeringly dismiss the civilized, liberal democratic nation of Israel as "a sliver of high ground" above its corrupt, dictatorial, theocratic, justiceless, censoring, misogynistic, (genuinely) homophobic, genocidal, anti-Semitic enemies in the region, is obscene.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
But since you bring it up, the fact is that if Germany or Russia were treating Jews the way that Israel treats Palestinians, the world would - correctly - be up in arms. Such behavior as stealing their property for illegal settlements, making it all but impossible for them to travel around their own country, keeping women in labor at checkpoints instead of allowing them to get to hospitals, building bridges between buildings in Hebron from which to fling garbage and turds on the Palestinian population - to name just a few offenses - is unspeakable and hardly civilized.

---

quote:

---

The central question that emerges - and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal - is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes - the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

<snip>

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavisitic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You can stick your smartarse inverted commas around Islamofascism, because that is precisely what it is.

---

No it isn't. The word 'islamofascist' as far as I can tell means 'I hate Western liberals'. It's a conservative/alt-right version of a virtue signal. I've never seen anyone use it in the course of a sober discussion of how to deal with the group's involved. It's only ever used when the writer wants a stick to beat Western liberals with.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Croesos--

Not one of Buckley's better moments.

 

---

Posted by aliehs (# 18878) on :
 
Who'd have thought that my little query would have generated so many responses: for which thank you, even if I don't agree with you necessarily.

I feel as a newbie as if I have unwittingly created a monster. It has transformed from a request for "Do I say something, or not, knowing that I have Buckley's of changing the views expressed, even though I find them repugnant, and contrary to my understanding of Christianity?" to world politics and the rights of Palestinians/versus Israelis.
I think that this is wonderful forum for the expression of views, and hope to learn from all of you even if it is to keep my mouth shut. P.S.: Where and How do you get the quotes to sign off with? Told you I was new...
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: No-one has a claim to someone else's land because their ancestors came from there two thousand years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The word 'islamofascist' as far as I can tell means 'I hate Western liberals'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Justification of prejudice through superior civilization is fairly common

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either it is beyond criticism by pompous moralistic safe and secure Western critics or it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: No-one has a claim to someone else's land because their ancestors came from there two thousand years ago.

---

It's not "someone else's" land.

There have been Jews living there for three thousand years.

If it were anyone else there would be no argument about their right to it, but when it comes to Jews, the age-old double standard must always be upheld.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Either it is beyond criticism by pompous moralistic safe and secure Western critics or it isn't.

---

False dichotomy.

The contrast is between those on the one hand who recognise that Israel is not above criticism, but are aware of its historical and contemporary circumstances and its cultural and political preferability to its enemies, and those on the other who either sophistically assert moral equivalence with its would-be destroyers, or relentlessly condemn it while blithely and blindly ignoring the faults of those haters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

And the "occupied territories" most certainly are someone else's land. Jordan's, in the case of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
One way of dealing with high-profile bigots is to expose them with a full-page ad in the Washington Post, which is what has just happened to NZ singer Lorde.

It is to be hoped that she is just ignorant and thoughtless rather than anti-Semitic, but it might make her (and other airheaded entertainers) take the issue more seriously.

The problem is that with anti-Semitism now as prevalent on the left (sympathy for Islamofascism masquerading as "anti-Zionism") as on the right, she will probably be treated as some sort of victim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No-one is doing that on this thread. Not one person. But it suits you to make this sort of false accusation, doesn't it. Don't worry; we're used to this. You say Israel isn't above criticism, but the moment someone does it they want to bring back the gas chambers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Don't go to China because of the way they're treating Tibetans. Don't go to Spain because of the way they throw animals from tall towers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can think of no other situation where the presence of people of a particular ethnicity in a place gives other people sharing that ethnicity from the other side of the world the right to push out other people who are already there. It's so unusual I can think of no parallels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So I am sure as hell not going to join in the sanctimonious chorus of those ordering Israel to commit what, to them on the spot, is obvious national suicide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Bullshit. I can think of no other situation where the presence of people of a particular ethnicity in a place gives other people sharing that ethnicity from the other side of the world the right to push out other people who are already there. It's so unusual I can think of no parallels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can think of no other situation where the presence of people of a particular ethnicity in a place gives other people sharing that ethnicity from the other side of the world the right to push out other people who are already there. It's so unusual I can think of no parallels.

---

Those who are "already there" are the Jews, who have been there for millennia.

And what's "unusual" is what drove them to create a haven in their homeland after WWII.

Genocide is not "unusual", but the Shoah was "unusual" in being probably history's most thorough attempt at it, and Israel is still confronted by elements who would like to see it re-attempted.

It would be nice to think that they and Gentiles could peacefully co-exist there, there are no doubt many well-meaning members of both communities prepared to make it work, and as an outsider I find it difficult to understand some Israeli policies (seemingly unwise, to say the least) which appear to militate against that.

But I don't live there, and I am not threatened by surrounding lunatics who hate not only Israel but Jews themselves.

So I am sure as hell not going to join in the sanctimonious chorus of those ordering Israel to commit what, to them on the spot, is obvious national suicide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Okay, we've had China, Spain and North Korea cited, but not (so far) Burma/Myanmar, Turkmenistan or Central African Republic.

All have questionable features, but none has much to do directly with Israel.

Reference to the Islamofascist features of Israel's regional enemies, however, is not "whataboutery", but a realistic recognition of what Israel is actually up against.

It is called relevance - look it up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Those who are "already there" are the Jews, who have been there for millennia.

---

quote:

---

mr cheesy: Israel has been functioning as a modern Western state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Now there's a statement that needs unpacking!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was talking about an over-reaction against people calling for a boycott.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And I'm explaining why it is not "whataboutery" to bring up Israel's haters when it is vilified.

---

quote:

---

And they don't include only countries, but organisations such as PLO, Fatah, Hamas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad - even more distant terrorist groups such as Boko Haram and Al Shabab which would take any opportunity that offered to lash out at Israeli interests and citizens.

---

quote:

---

mr cheesy: Israel has been functioning as a modern Western state.

Kwesi: Now there's a statement that needs unpacking!

mr cheesy: Does it? What do you mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course the Holocaust has had huge ramifications, and it is even understandable why the early Zionists wanted to return to Jerusalem and why the world powers let them, particularly after the disaster of the European genocide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Please don't take refuge in the defence that IS's crimes need no direct condemnation, or any similar defence, or you might undermine the idea that as long as Israel maintains a sliver of moral high ground above 'Islamofascists' it is beyond criticism.

---

Okay, here is your quote in full if it makes you happy, but it is still bullshit.

To sneeringly dismiss the civilized, liberal democratic nation of Israel as "a sliver of high ground" above its corrupt, dictatorial, theocratic, justiceless, censoring, misogynistic, (genuinely) homophobic, genocidal, anti-Semitic enemies in the region, is obscene.

No, Israel is not "beyond criticism", and has been guilty of unwise and sometimes downright wicked acts (eg Deir Yassin).

...to pontificate about the less than perfect behaviour of a tiny, beleagured country with a more than 3,000 year old claim to its homeland, whose enemies deny even its right to exist, and whose people within living memory underwent a serious attempt to annihilate them, is nauseating bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So by that reasoning, nobody should have said anything about racist South Africa - because worse regimes existed at the time elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So, in short, as long as I can find some country or countries that are worse, then Israel's atrocities are merely "imperfections." Got it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Instead, there were passionate, fashionable, persistent and well-organised protests against sporting competition with South Africa, but practically bugger-all interest in preventing athletic and sporting contact with repressive dictatorships such as China.

---

quote:

---

As for your casuistical dismissal of Islamist groups, just stop and try instead to imagine a Jew living under any one of them to capture their essential sickness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Without entering into the debate, I think in view of some of the posts it needs to be pointed out that Israeli sees itself as a secular state, and that its territorial claims have nothing to do with any donation by God.

---

quote:

---

mr cheesy quote:

Originally posted by Kwesi: Without entering into the debate, I think in view of some of the posts it needs to be pointed out that Israeli sees itself as a secular state, and that its territorial claims have nothing to do with any donation by God.

mr cheesy: Wrong. The Basic Law says it is a Jewish and Democratic state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
mr cheesy, you are confusing ethnicity (in this case ancestral origins) with religion. Zionism is essentially secular in character, and most of the founders of modern Israel were atheists. To repeat, Israel's territorial claims have nothing to do with any donation by God, but a return to the lands of their ancestors. In the case of Israel "Jewish" in this context is not a reference to religion. Israel is a secular state.

---

quote:

---

In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo. This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace... No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land... Peace cannot be imposed. It must be negotiated. But it can only be negotiated with partners committed to peace.

---

quote:

---

Defense is important and security is important, but the most important thing is the moral claim of Israel. We are committed to go forward with living in our ancient land, land that was given us not by Google and Wikipedia, but by the Bible.

---

quote:

---

When a British royal commission came to Jerusalem at the end of 1936 to weigh the future of the Mandate, I said to it: “Our Mandate is the Bible.” It was from the Bible that we drew the strength to withstand a hostile world and to perpetuate our faith that we would one day return to our land and that peace would reign in the world.

---

quote:

---

This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aliehs:
I am somewhat perplexed by some reactions I have read in a nonrelated group, by bigoted remarks from those who are fundamental Christians... Or does that make me self righteous myself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:

quote:

---

mr cheesy quote:

Originally posted by Kwesi: Without entering into the debate, I think in view of some of the posts it needs to be pointed out that Israeli sees itself as a secular state, and that its territorial claims have nothing to do with any donation by God.

mr cheesy: Wrong. The Basic Law says it is a Jewish and Democratic state.

---

mr cheesy, you are confusing ethnicity (in this case ancestral origins) with religion. Zionism is essentially secular in character, and most of the founders of modern Israel were atheists. To repeat, Israel's territorial claims have nothing to do with any donation by God, but a return to the lands of their ancestors. In the case of Israel "Jewish" in this context is not a reference to religion. Israel is a secular state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:

quote:

---

mr cheesy quote:

Originally posted by Kwesi: Without entering into the debate, I think in view of some of the posts it needs to be pointed out that Israeli sees itself as a secular state, and that its territorial claims have nothing to do with any donation by God.

mr cheesy: Wrong. The Basic Law says it is a Jewish and Democratic state.

---

mr cheesy, you are confusing ethnicity (in this case ancestral origins) with religion. Zionism is essentially secular in character, and most of the founders of modern Israel were atheists. To repeat, Israel's territorial claims have nothing to do with any donation by God, but a return to the lands of their ancestors. In the case of Israel "Jewish" in this context is not a reference to religion. Israel is a secular state.

---

Have you ever sat through a synagogue service?
I have been in (only) two; and I can tell you that in their prayers and readings they go on and on about the land. It's not an ancestral thing, to be Jewish is to be focused on the land of Israel; the whole covenant with God is land-based.
Read the Book of Exodus - in fact throw in Genesis through to Revelation. God's purposes and dealings with the Jews and Israel - which was always a political state not just a religious idea - have always been based on the promise of that land to the Jews, the children of (guess who?) Israel.

You cannot take the land away from Judaism. They have existed in the last 2000 years as a diaspora on the dream of being restored to their God-given land.

To deny that is instrinsically antisemitic - as is the Islamic denial (followed by the craven UN) that Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.

---

Wanting something doesn't give you the right to take it. Is your message to the Palestinians really "tough shit, they can take your lands and you just have to put up with it because they're Jewish and you're not"?

[ 06. January 2018, 19:59: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Sorry Whose lands?
Just who are these 'Palestinians' to whom you refer?
A recognised state?
A recognised ethnic group?
A history?

Ate you suggesting - or even strongly implying - that the ground where Israel is now was a state called Palestine that actually was populated and governed by these people you see today and call Palestinians?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Of course not. It was completely deaerted before 1948 wasn't it?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Of course it wasn't deserted!
It belonged to the Ottoman Empire and then the British.

It never belonged as a sovereign state to anyone called Palestinians (in the way they are called that today)
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Part of the problem of asserting the nature of the state of Israel is that it lacks a Constitution in which the principles are systematically set-out. Consequently, a joint committee formed by the Knesset and the Jewish Agency for Israel embarked on an attempt in 2003 to construct a constitution. Its work has not been completed, though it has published an interim report. (http://knesset.gov.il/constitution/ConstMJewishState.htm).

As mr cheesy indicated, it states that Israel is both Jewish and Democratic as its ‘ethos’, but also recognises the difficulties in reconciling two very different traditions. “The one is rooted in religion faith, the other is secular in nature; one is a nationalistic tradition, focused on the preservation of a particular people, the other focuses on the equal worth of all human beings; one is exclusive and communal, the other inclusive and universal.” Furthermore, there are two practical problems, “ first, non-Jewish ethnic groups, most notably Israeli Arabs, make up one fifth of Israel’s population. Second, even among Jews, the meaning of Judaism, Jewish heritage, and Jewish values is highly controversial. The question then arises: Can a state that explicitly defines itself as a Jewish state also respect the fundamental democratic value of equal citizenship to all? How does the Jewish national identity and collective ethos of the state affect the individual identities of citizens who cannot or do not share in this identity? Who will define what Judaism is and means in modern-day Israel?” The report also points out that “Israel's two official languages are Hebrew and Arabic, and all ordinances, official government forms and documents must be presented in both languages. The state broadcasts radio and television news in both languages, and a Member of Knesset may address the plenum in either language. The educational system is divided as well, with some schools taught in Arabic, and other schools taught in Hebrew.”

On the question of minority rights, the report states:

quote:

---

The Israeli Declaration of Independence promises that:
" “The State of Israel will maintain complete social and political equality for all its citizens, without distinction on the grounds of religion, race or sex’’
……….. As Chief Justice Aharon Barak stated in the Ka’adan case in which the Supreme Court ordered the Israel Lands Authority to treat Arabs equally in land allocations:
“Equality is among the fundamental principles of the State of Israel. Every authority in Israel, beginning with the State of Israel, its institutions and employees, must treat the various elements in the state equally. This is requisite from the Jewish and democratic character of the state and it is a function of the principle of rule of law, which is in force here. Thus, the state must honour and protect the fundamental right of every individual in the state to equal treatment”

Nevertheless, the discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel constitutes one of the most severe infringements of equality in the State of Israel. The repeated instances of discrimination cover all aspects of life, from the inadequacy of educational facilities to discrimination in the work force to insufficient government services and resources allocated to Arab areas. Israeli land planning authorities show insufficient regard for the needs of Israel’s Arab citizens, and, despite their representation in the population, it was only recently that the Supreme Court ordered the appointment of an Arab representative to the Israel Lands Authority.

The proposed constitution will reiterate the state's commitment to equal rights for all, including minorities. The constitution will emphasise universal human rights, and forbid state discrimination among its citizens on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ask yourself one question: In the covenants between YHWH and Abraham and YHWH and Moses - those covenants that are basically 'Judaism' - what was the central feature?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Of course it wasn't deserted!
It belonged to the Ottoman Empire and then the British.

It never belonged as a sovereign state to anyone called Palestinians (in the way they are called that today)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Of course it wasn't deserted!
It belonged to the Ottoman Empire and then the British.

It never belonged as a sovereign state to anyone called Palestinians (in the way they are called that today)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE]Wanting something doesn't give you the right to take it. Is your message to the Palestinians really "tough shit, they can take your lands and you just have to put up with it because they're Jewish and you're not"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, who 'owned' the land where Israel now exists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
a state called Palestine that actually was populated and governed by these people you see today and call Palestinians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
It appears that the ideology of terra nullius is alive and well. (That is, land that isn't registered in a Western-style land registry isn't owned at all and can just be taken.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Instead, there were passionate, fashionable, persistent and well-organised protests against sporting competition with South Africa, but practically bugger-all interest in preventing athletic and sporting contact with repressive dictatorships such as China.

---

Speaking as someone with white South African parents, the obvious difference is that there was a reasonable chance that a boycott of South Africa would succeed.

---

quote:

---

I'll note that two of the groups you mentioned are secular rather than Islamist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Speaking as someone with white South African parents, the obvious difference is that there was a reasonable chance that a boycott of South Africa would succeed.

---

Okay, so if a regime is evil, but also big and strong, then don't say or do anything about it.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'll note that two of the groups you mentioned are secular rather than Islamist.

---

Ostensibly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, who 'owned' the land where Israel now exists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, who 'owned' the land where Israel now exists?

---

Largely, absentee landlords in Istanbul, who got it from the native Palestinians due to intentionally confiscatory taxation. The Palestinians were unable to pay the new rate of taxes (as designed), and lost their land. The new landlords then sold it to Zionists. I don't think that buying land from such people exonerates Zionists from "stealing" the land.

It's like buying stolen goods. If the cops catch you, the goods still go back to the legitimate owners, and "but I bought it fair and square" gets you exactly fuck-all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What you need to "find" is some sort of sense of proportion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:
...I'm not accusing you of antisemitism MT, but I wonder how you can say that the Jews should give back their stolen land without calling for every colonial people, Australians, Americans, Brazilians and all the rest to do the same. If all you are saying is that the land was stolen and let's leave it that way, fine. But let's remember the history of the ground we tread too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm not accusing you of antisemitism MT, but I wonder how you can say that the Jews should give back their stolen land ...

---

I'm not accusing you of not reading for content, but I wonder where I said that. I think that Zionism is inherently racist and morally unsupportable. But the situation on the ground in the Levant is clearly not going to be solved by all the Jews getting up and moving away somewhere.

My ancestors, of course, stole a whole continent from a number of independent and interdependent already-there people groups, mostly via subterfuge and murder. Needless to say I feel very conflicted about that.

But every people group in the world that we know of came from somewhere else, and many migrated/invaded (say it how you will) to places where there were already people living. How far back shall we go to send people back to their native land? Olduvai?
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
mt--

I hear Olduvai is gorgeous this time of year.
 

---

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
When would you like to go back to, MT, in terms of righting wrongs about land seizures? 1940, to give a round figure? Think about the Greeks expelled from Turkey at the time of the Cyprus Crisis. A friend's husband's family come from there on his mother's side. Another friend, a Gulanist as it happens, emigrated from Turkish Cyprus.

If Palestinians and Israelis continue to fight about questions of who is historically entitled to own Palestine, it will delay peace, as it does right now to the fault of both sides and the agony of their peoples. Peace requires a focus on what the parties have in common, of how they are going to live together in the future and yes the difficult question of who gets what. Once peace is achieved, it will then I hope be time to look at the competing truths, and to seek justice and reconciliation. Without peace I fear that the Palestinians will be ground into nothing.

Even truth is yet to happen in my country. Hell, I was taught a different truth about my country's beginnings as a child than the one beginning to emerge now. Stolen land is the land beneath my feet. What can I do? I choose to try and discover what happened as a first step. The scholarship is available I think (I'm dipping my toe at the moment), and I'm starting, at fifty fucking one, to pay attention to my past and my responsibility to contribute to justice within my capacity.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

My ancestors, of course, stole a whole continent from a number of independent and interdependent already-there people groups, mostly via subterfuge and murder. Needless to say I feel very conflicted about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:
When would you like to go back to, MT, in terms of righting wrongs about land seizures?

---

quote:

---

If Palestinians and Israelis continue to fight about questions of who is historically entitled to own Palestine, it will delay peace, as it does right now to the fault of both sides and the agony of their peoples. Peace requires a focus on what the parties have in common, of how they are going to live together in the future and yes the difficult question of who gets what.

---

quote:

---

Once peace is achieved, it will then I hope be time to look at the competing truths, and to seek justice and reconciliation.

---

quote:

---

Without peace I fear that the Palestinians will be ground into nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
And still Palestinians have rejected land for peace every time it has been offered. I wish they would not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:
I disagree with you if you say that most Israelis don't want peace, or are not prepared to compromise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:
I disagree with you if you say that most Israelis don't want peace, or are not prepared to compromise.

---

Well, I did refer to the leadership of Israel. On the other hand how did they get to be the leaders? They were elected, weren't they? Just as in this country, the nutcase right clearly represents enough people (or can hoodwink them) to win elections.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'So-called Palestinians' - blimey, could anyone be more offensive if they tried?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'So-called Palestinians' - blimey, could anyone be more offensive if they tried?

---

Of course I could - because my phrase is not in the slightest way offensive. Can you tell me by what right some of today's Palestinians have to call themselves such a thing?

It is true that pre-1948 the whole area was called Palestine and even the Jews who lived there called themselves Palestinians. It is entirely possible that some very elderly Jewish people who are now Israelis once called themselves Palestinians, under the old British Mandate.

What right therefore does anyone who was not part of the old Palestine have to call themselves exclusively 'Palestinians'?
Indeed, on what basis are they Palestinians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Indeed, on what basis are they Palestinians?

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog: What right therefore does anyone who was not part of the old Palestine have to call themselves exclusively 'Palestinians'?
Indeed, on what basis are they Palestinians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting post, Kwesi. I've noticed that right wing people tend to call Palestinians Arabs, which over-rides nationality by ethnicity, well, that is, for Palestinians, who are conveniently erased.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had a Lebanese neighbour who hated being called an Arab, although her first language was Arabic. She used to say that she was a Christian! She was a nice lady.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had a Lebanese neighbour who hated being called an Arab, although her first language was Arabic. She used to say that she was a Christian! She was a nice lady.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simontoad:
When would you like to go back to, MT, in terms of righting wrongs about land seizures? 1940, to give a round figure? Think about the Greeks expelled from Turkey at the time of the Cyprus Crisis. A friend's husband's family come from there on his mother's side. Another friend, a Gulanist as it happens, emigrated from Turkish Cyprus.

If Palestinians and Israelis continue to fight about questions of who is historically entitled to own Palestine, it will delay peace, as it does right now to the fault of both sides and the agony of their peoples. Peace requires a focus on what the parties have in common, of how they are going to live together in the future and yes the difficult question of who gets what. Once peace is achieved, it will then I hope be time to look at the competing truths, and to seek justice and reconciliation. Without peace I fear that the Palestinians will be ground into nothing.

Even truth is yet to happen in my country. Hell, I was taught a different truth about my country's beginnings as a child than the one beginning to emerge now. Stolen land is the land beneath my feet. What can I do? I choose to try and discover what happened as a first step. The scholarship is available I think (I'm dipping my toe at the moment), and I'm starting, at fifty fucking one, to pay attention to my past and my responsibility to contribute to justice within my capacity.

---

quote:

---

No Prophet: Israel is justifiably concerned with its existence, with the avowed aim of Palestinian organizations including Hamas of eliminating it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But then the Palestinians have faced an existential threat - and have lost. They are now atomized and humiliated. I don't know what I would do, if I was a Palestinian living there. You can give in, and accept the status quo; you can go and live somewhere else; and you can fight back. I suppose it's the end of a dream.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a nice balance, then. Israel is 'justifiably concerned with its existence', and the Palestinians are fucked. "Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a nice balance, then. Israel is 'justifiably concerned with its existence', and the Palestinians are fucked. "Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing".

---

No. That's not it. The Palestinians have to accept that they will not regain territory from before, probably, 1967. They get a state which contains Gaza and the West Bank, and at least at the start of things, would be supervised because of the existential threat Israel realistically perceives. This is what the prior deals contained in essence.

Once that is in place, there may be further things to discuss, such as how Jordan might participate, given that it occupied the West Bank, is part of what the UK partitioned originally, and its people seem to be Palestinian.

It isn't acceptable to burden Israel with all the costs and responsibility. It exists, was created from a UN mandate. That, as you say the Palestinians are "fucked" is the responsibility of more than one country and one ethnicity.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: But then the Palestinians have faced an existential threat - and have lost. They are now atomized and humiliated. I don't know what I would do, if I was a Palestinian living there.

---

quote:

---

No Prophet: “They get a state which contains Gaza and the West Bank, and at least at the start of things, would be supervised because of the existential threat Israel realistically perceives. This is what the prior deals contained in essence.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
For a number of years the Palestinian people of the west bank were allowed to be Jordanians until the Jordanians withdrew that status and left the Palestinians stateless and high and dry. Why? The people of the West Bank were offered their own state in 1948. why did they reject it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Palestinians have to accept that they will not regain territory from before, probably, 1967.

---

You really think Israel is willing to go back to the 1967 borders? Pour yourself another one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
However, they all decided to attack Israel on day 2 of the State of Israel being in existence, attacking again in 1967. I want to know why, and I also want to know why some shipmates seem to think that's OK

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You really think Israel is willing to go back to the 1967 borders? Pour yourself another one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The people of that region down the long centuries saw huge groups of Europeans swoop in and establish states and shed rivers of blood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The purpose of campaigning is to effect meaningful change; not to give oneself a hard-on at the thought of one's own self-righteousness.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'll note that two of the groups you mentioned are secular rather than Islamist.

---

Ostensibly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The people of that region down the long centuries saw huge groups of Europeans swoop in and establish states and shed rivers of blood.

---

The people of that region for four centuries prior to the Crusades saw huge groups of Muslims swoop in and establish states and shed rivers of blood.

---

quote:

---

From a Christian point of view the Crusades were indefensible, but they didn't happen ex nihilo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

You really think Israel is willing to go back to the 1967 borders? Pour yourself another one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Why: Their land was given to somebody else. They tried to fight back and re-take their land. Why indeed. Why did France fight back in WW1? Why not just let the Germans invade, and accept a nice little partition somewhere out of the way? With the right to invade at any time, and continually meddle in their internal affairs, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You're probably right. Shoddy Palestinian leadership had them walk away in the 1990s. Criminal really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You're probably right. Shoddy Palestinian leadership had them walk away in the 1990s. Criminal really.

The only other option to Palestinian agreement to whatever terms they can currently get is perpetuation of what exists now. They really did blow it. Worse now than before.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps best is to wait until Iran and Saudi Arabia dump their dictatorships and are ready to force it. And they also make peace with each other. Which means they make peace with Israel. Which will take generations. Currently having a proxy war in Yemen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the Jordanians tried to fuck the Israelis and now they are fucking the West Bank Palestinians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...: Perhaps best is to wait until Iran and Saudi Arabia dump their dictatorships and are ready to force it. And they also make peace with each other. Which means they make peace with Israel. Which will take generations. Currently having a proxy war in Yemen.

---

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the Jordanians tried to fuck the Israelis and now they are fucking the West Bank Palestinians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jordan has millions of Palestinians. The queen, wife of the current king, is Palestinian. If the late King Hussein of Jordan were still alive, and if Jimmy Carter were younger and healthier, something might be done. Both of them were deeply involved in Middle East negotiations, back in the day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It was taken. People lived there who now cannot return. However, as I have already said, Israel is now a reality and it is neither prudent nor practical to try to change that. Our attention has been on its treatment of those who also have long standing ties to the land, especially in the light of the Naqba. Would you be OK with us claiming, on the basis that you think there is legitimate Jewish claim to the land, that you think the King David Hotel bombing was OK? Or the Deir Yassin massacre? At least credit us with the humanity you'd expect us to credit you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It seems to me that the Jordanians tried to fuck the Israelis and now they are fucking the West Bank Palestinians.

---

Wow! I didn't realise the SA had adopted the language of squaddies! I'd like to hear you preach on Judges!

Come to think of it, the promotion of miscegenation between the Palestinians and Jews might be the answer. As the book of Ruth indicates, it worked pretty well in biblical times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The purpose of campaigning is to effect meaningful change; not to give oneself a hard-on at the thought of one's own self-righteousness.

---

The purpose of campaigning is, at the very least, to speak truth to power, whether nor not there is any chance of success.

There was no reason why such demonstrations could not have taken place in the case of sporting and athletic competitions involving nations like China which were as bad or worse than South Africa.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'll note that two of the groups you mentioned are secular rather than Islamist.

---

Ostensibly

---

And your evidence for saying that is?

---

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The people of that region down the long centuries saw huge groups of Europeans swoop in and establish states and shed rivers of blood.

---

The people of that region for four centuries prior to the Crusades saw huge groups of Muslims swoop in and establish states and shed rivers of blood.

From a Christian point of view the Crusades were indefensible, but they didn't happen ex nihilo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The people of that region down the long centuries saw huge groups of Europeans swoop in and establish states and shed rivers of blood.

---

The people of that region for four centuries prior to the Crusades saw huge groups of Muslims swoop in and establish states and shed rivers of blood.

From a Christian point of view the Crusades were indefensible, but they didn't happen ex nihilo.

---

I'm not sure actual history bears that out. Compare the initial Muslim capture of Jerusalem (the city surrendered after a bloodless siege and residents were treated fairly well) or Jerusalem's recapture by Muslims during the Second Crusade (after the Crusaders refused fairly generous terms they lost a brief siege and were still given fairly lenient terms, though not as generous as the initial offer) with the Christian capture of Jerusalem in the First Crusade (a brutal massacre of Muslims, Jews, and eastern Christians that was considered an atrocity even by those who considered the normal standards of Mediæval warfare to be acceptable).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The purpose of campaigning is to effect meaningful change; not to give oneself a hard-on at the thought of one's own self-righteousness.

---

The purpose of campaigning is, at the very least, to speak truth to power, whether nor not there is any chance of success.

There was no reason why such demonstrations could not have taken place in the case of sporting and athletic competitions involving nations like China which were as bad or worse than South Africa.

---

The governments of Western Europe and North American were under little illusion about China. They did however routinely maintain that the South African government were basically decent people and the main opposition were terrorists with no legitimacy.

---

quote:

---

I don't think the PLO are any more morally innocent than Sinn Fein; but much as one dislikes Sinn Fein one couldn't accuse them of planning to set up a Catholic fascist theocracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I repeat that there is no Christian justification for the Crusades, but neither is there any justification for Muslims to complain about their ancestors receiving a taste of what they had been dishing out for over 450 years prior to 1295.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It is of further note that Hamas continues to hold to their position that Israel should be destroyed while at the same time agreeing to unite with the Palestinian Authority (PLO). The problem being that Hamas continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Hamas apparently agreed to this unity thing, and the hand over of administration of Gaza to the PA because Qatar cut off its funding in the midst of its own problems with Saudi Arabia. Hamas has worked to organize its sponsorship with Saudi as recently as 2015, as it's relationship with Iran cooled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You really think Israel is willing to go back to the 1967 borders? Pour yourself another one.

---

No party that suggested going back to the 1967 borders would ever form a coalition again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
One of the reasons they can't go back to the 1967 border is because there is one section that is indefensible against attack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
THIS is helpful as an explanation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
On the contrary, there was widespread, nauseatingly starry-eyed idealism about China after Nixon's visit in 1972 and Australian PM Whitlam's visit in 1973.

---

What, among governments? Speaking truth to left-wing students is not treating truth to power.

quote:

---

[QUOTE][qb] I don't think the PLO are any more morally innocent than Sinn Fein; but much as one dislikes Sinn Fein one couldn't accuse them of planning to set up a Catholic fascist theocracy.

---

One could, however, point out the PLO's fascist and anti-Semitic use of Holocaust denial and quotes from The Protocols of Zion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You really think Israel is willing to go back to the 1967 borders? Pour yourself another one.

---

No party that suggested going back to the 1967 borders would ever form a coalition again.

---

One of the reasons they can't go back to the 1967 border is because there is one section that is indefensible against attack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I repeat that there is no Christian justification for the Crusades, but neither is there any justification for Muslims to complain about their ancestors receiving a taste of what they had been dishing out for over 450 years prior to 1295.

---

This is just obscene. I can't imagine anyone who calls himself a Christian thinks like this. You must have misspoken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion while disgusting is not Islamic (being if anything Russian Orthodox), and not specifically fascist (having no positive program of its own).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The people of that region for four centuries prior to the Crusades saw huge groups of Muslims swoop in and establish states and shed rivers of blood.

From a Christian point of view the Crusades were indefensible, but they didn't happen ex nihilo.

---

I'm not sure actual history bears that out. Compare the initial Muslim capture of Jerusalem (the city surrendered after a bloodless siege and residents were treated fairly well) or Jerusalem's recapture by Muslims during the Second Crusade (after the Crusaders refused fairly generous terms they lost a brief siege and were still given fairly lenient terms, though not as generous as the initial offer) with the Christian capture of Jerusalem in the First Crusade (a brutal massacre of Muslims, Jews, and eastern Christians that was considered an atrocity even by those who considered the normal standards of Mediæval warfare to be acceptable).

---

You can cherry-pick instances in which Muslims behaved better than Christians, but it doesn't change the fact that during the four centuries prior to the Crusades, Muslims swept across the ME, north Africa and into Europe in wars of conquest which caused countless thousands of deaths.

---

Hey, I'm not the one doing the cherry-picking here. You were the one who suggested that initial Muslim invasion of Palestine / Israel / Outremer and the subsequent Muslim re-conquest after the collapse of the Second Crusade were exceptionally bloody when compared with actions taken by the various Crusader factions (and in some sense justified the Crusades, but from a non-Christian point of view ). It's not my fault that your own preferred (cherry-picked?) historical example isn't what you claimed it to be.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...If you believe in and practise religious violence, then you are in no position to complain if it is then used against you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion while disgusting is not Islamic (being if anything Russian Orthodox), and not specifically fascist (having no positive program of its own).

---

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an infalllibe indicator of anti-Semitism, and its use and propagation in the post-WWII context (especially in the ME where there was explicit Islamist support for the Holocaust) must be counted as some sort of fascist or even neo-Nazi act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You were the one who suggested that initial Muslim invasion of Palestine / Israel / Outremer and the subsequent Muslim re-conquest after the collapse of the Second Crusade were exceptionally bloody when compared with actions taken by the various Crusader factions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Are you saying that the Crusaders and Muslims practiced religious violence centuries ago, and that justifies Israeli religious violence against Christian and Muslim Palestinians today?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'd say especially in the West.

---

quote:

---

You haven't provided any evidence for your assertion that the PLO uses the Protocols.

---

quote:

---

Is there any reason we should pay attention to anything you say on the subject?

---

quote:

---

A while back you told someone else that you wished you were as sure of anything as they were sure of everything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You were the one who suggested that initial Muslim invasion of Palestine / Israel / Outremer and the subsequent Muslim re-conquest after the collapse of the Second Crusade were exceptionally bloody when compared with actions taken by the various Crusader factions

---

It is not a matter of "suggesting" anything, but of recognising the historical fact that both the Muslim wars of conquest following Mahommed's death, and the reaction to them in the form of the Crusades were both examples of "exceptionally bloody" religious violence.

---

I'm pretty sure that consistency would dictate that you are in no position to complain about the [Muslim wars of conquest] given the centuries of [Christian] religious violence which preceded them.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
All I am pointing out is the very obvious and unexceptionable point that Muslims are in no position to complain about the Crusades given the centuries of Muslim religious violence which preceded them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...What you should be paying "attention to" are the facts that Israel is a small nation, with a multiple millennia claim to its territory,
whose people were threatened with genocide within living memory, and whose existence (and the existence of its people) is under constant threat from surrounding countries containing significant fascistic elements. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kaplan--

Re "Protocols":

Maybe the Palestinians have simply fallen into the trap of believing them? Rather than, as you seem to think, knowing they're a fraud and using them anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'd say especially in the West.

---

Really?

I'd say anywhere.

---

quote:

---

(especially in the ME where there was explicit Islamist support for the Holocaust)

---

quote:

---

At what particular meridian of longitude would you say that usage of the Protocols becomes "especially" anti-Semitic, fascist, and potentially neo-Nazi?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You haven't provided any evidence for your assertion that the PLO uses the Protocols.

---

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/PLO-ambassador-endorses-Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion-408250

And please don't try to pretend that this was only one person, because no-one in a political organisation, particularly someone with an official position in it, would even dream of publicly endorsing such vile trash unless they thought that they had some sort of implicit approval behind them to do so.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is there any reason we should pay attention to anything you say on the subject?

---

What you should be paying "attention to" are the facts that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If you believe in and practise religious violence, then you are in no position to complain if it is then used against you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is not a matter of "suggesting" anything, but of recognising the historical fact that both the Muslim wars of conquest following Mahommed's death, and the reaction to them in the form of the Crusades were both examples of "exceptionally bloody" religious violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Well, no. The Muslim conquest was not by the standards of warfare at the time exceptionally bloody.

---

quote:

---

The city you cited as being massacred had previously surrendered and then revolted, according to wikipedia: destroying a city that had done so was standard practice in the area at the time.

---

quote:

---

It's even arguable that the Muslim conquests were not religious violence (at least no more than the Byzantine wars against Persia were). There was no attempt by the conquerors to convert their new subjects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So it still comes down to your making people responsible for the sins of their long-dead forebears.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Abbas recalled the ambassador and disavowed his remarks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It comes down to saying that Muslims are in no position to feel aggrieved against Westerners in general, or Christians in particular, because of what our ancestors did to their ancestors, because their ancestors did the same to our ancestors.

If you can't see the difference, ask someone to explain it for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Abbas recalled the ambassador and disavowed his remarks

---

To quote the immortal Mandy Rice Davies, "He would, wouldn't he?".

One of the jobs of someone in charge of an organisation like PLO is to move quickly to put out brushfires when someone lets the cat out of the bag (to mangle a metaphor).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
You however are trying to excuse it with talk like this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Does that mean that contemporary Israel has every right to treat Palestinians shittily

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
All I have said is that while Christians should feel ashamed of the Crusades, there is no room for Muslims to take any moral high ground over them, or cite them as a grievance against Westerners in general or Christians in particular.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: Yes, Israel is a liberal country which is a lot more than can be said for its neighbours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If done by Christian Europeans in the past - we need to judge them by the standards of their age.

If done by Muslims in the past - look at what a vicious load of bastards they are.

---

quote:

---

Im also intrigued as to why having opinions on Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is nauseating armchair self-righteousness, but passing judgement on the equally distant behaviour of Palestinians is perfectly fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If done by Christian Europeans in the past - we need to judge them by the standards of their age.

If done by Muslims in the past - look at what a vicious load of bastards they are.

---

I have consistently condemned the past religious violence of both Muslims and Christians.

You just made that up.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Im also intrigued as to why having opinions on Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is nauseating armchair self-righteousness, but passing judgement on the equally distant behaviour of Palestinians is perfectly fine.

---

You are not "intrigued" at all - you know perfectly well what the problem is.

It is the fashionable, incessant, pervasive (practically global) and almost exclusive criticism of Israel (whose very existence is under threat), which is risibly disproportionate when compared with the grudging, almost non-existent condemnation of the terrorist, anti-Semitic stance of some Palestinians and their Islamofascist allies in the region.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...And I still want to know when we get to set up our English state in Denmark and push the Danes out of their homes. After all, our ancestors left there 1500 years ago.

---

quote:

---

It's all relative, Kwesi, Israel is certainly far more liberal than many of its neighbours on certain issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...But its faults don't mean that Jews are not entitled to secure possession of their millennia-old homeland, to which many of them fled as a result of a historically recent attempt to annihilate them, and which is surrounded by Islamofascist elements pledged to the destruction of them and their nation....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If Kaplan is calling for an equal spread of ire and moral outrage with some of that directed at Israel's neighbours as well, then to that extent I think he has a point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:


Person 1: "I see that the IDF has bulldozed yet another hundred homes in Betjala. I have cousins in Betjala. This really pisses me off."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:


Person 1: "I see that the IDF has bulldozed yet another hundred homes in Betjala. I have cousins in Betjala. This really pisses me off."

---

Beit Jala, presumably. I've never seen that alternative spelling.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: Where did I endorse any of Israel's purposes or actions, Kwesi?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd rather hope Kaplan would do the same but I somehow doubt he would, but he may surprise us.

---

quote:

---

If Kaplan is calling on the Ship to be more even handed, then I suggest he also makes the same approach to some of the often strongly pro-Israel voices within his own evangelical constituency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...As it happens, I have criticised the ultra-Zionist attitude of dispensationalists ("everything that Israel does is divinely sanctioned and therefore beyond discussion, let alone reproof") both on and off the Ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I've only seen the "Israel is entitled to the Palestinians' land because God set it up that way millennia ago" stuff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
the miracle is that they maintain such a liberal and civilised nation in the face of the looniness, savagery and barbarism they are up against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
the miracle is that they maintain such a liberal and civilised nation in the face of the looniness, savagery and barbarism they are up against.

---

That's no miracle. Their liberal and civilised lives are constructed on the back of an industrio-military structure which literally deprives a population of basic rights so another can have beautiful views and outdoor swimming pool.

Of course, one could argue that this is the basic description of any/all Western democracies - but there is something terribly blaze and blatant about the societal foundations in Israel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Well, thank you for responding to one of my posts, Kaplan Corday.

Yes, it would be nice if the Israelis would allow the people who were there before their country was established to retain their property and their freedom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:Your second paragraph, first sentence isn't a "one could argue". It's fact.

---

quote:

---

Your second sentence is a problem because it singles out Israel as special and different.

---

quote:

---

see mr cheesy's last post

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Their liberal and civilised lives are constructed on the back of an industrio-military structure which literally deprives a population of basic rights so another can have beautiful views and outdoor swimming pool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Literally?

You are exaggerating in order to trivialise.

---

quote:

---

No doubt if you searched long enough could find the occasional rich Jew in Israel with a "beautiful view and and outdoor swimming pool", but my memory of Israelis is of them living in accommodation such as apartments and very modest houses, not all that different to that of the non-Jews, and all inferior even to my very ordinary (by Western standards) suburban home.

---

quote:

---

Like it or not, Israel for all its faults is, by Middle Eastern standards, extremely liberal and civilised, and it is extraordinary that it remains so, given the provocations it faces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, no, no, that will not do. Planting settlements outside your borders and cutting the inhabitants off from their own farmlands is not liberal or civilised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, no, no, that will not do. Planting settlements outside your borders and cutting the inhabitants off from their own farmlands is not liberal or civilised.

---

...to say nothing of cutting them off from medical care, or jobs, or throwing turds at them from above in their occupied cities...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
...or bulldozing homes...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My point in part is that it is illegitimate to single Israel out as specially bad among the community of nations. But perhaps it helps us to not look at ourselves as recently as the 1980s here.

It's also helpful to really be clear that Jews are not going to ever agree again to be ruled by anyone nor share power among ethnicities. It is a Jewish state, though not a very religious one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

But the singling out of Israel will not wash. He's they do bad things and so do Palestinians. But don't just discuss this year's or decade's conduct. Get the history of at least a lifetime if you want to discuss seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
<snip>
Like it or not, Israel for all its faults is, by Middle Eastern standards, extremely liberal and civilised

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
<snip>
Like it or not, Israel for all its faults is, by Middle Eastern standards, extremely liberal and civilised

---

...if you are Jewish

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
<snip>
Like it or not, Israel for all its faults is, by Middle Eastern standards, extremely liberal and civilised

---

...if you are Jewish

---

You are safer as a non-Jew in Israel than as a Jew living under one of their Islamist enemies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Illegal settlements - with all the abuses that go along with them - aren't enough?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Illegal settlements - with all the abuses that go along with them - aren't enough?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
No, they aren't. We have the history of war from its neighbours, invasion, missile attacks, and the 100 years of escalated anti-Semitism culminating with genocide.

My heart bleeds for anyone who is under persecution. My father's family was twice refugee. I get it. Almost all of his family was killed. I get it.

---

quote:

---

There has to be real will to settle the thing. Which is about giving up things held dearly to heart. And it is will be painful. But both sides will have to experience the giving up. Along with all of the other countries agreeing to Israel's security. It is land for peace, and it nearly happened. Take another run at it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
First off, the language has to change. You cannot call one side an oppressor and the other side a victim.

---

quote:

---

You have to acknowledge that Israel was in the past targetted for destruction, and also sees itself as oppressed in the past.

---

quote:

---

And it doesn't matter if the Palestinians see themselves as victims divorced from world history, because it haunts them anyway. The Palestinians have also been manipulated by other countries in the region.

---

quote:

---

The settlements in occupied areas should not be there, nor should there be destruction of homes, nor random and targetted shootings, and there should be rule of law. But it isn't going to happen unless the Palestinians accept a transitional situation of land for peace, give up most right of return etc.

---

quote:

---

I suspect a Palestinian state might have been possible under international supervision in the past, but things are presently such that it'd be Israel. Terrible that past opportunity was wasted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is settlements so...:
Well we're not going to agree, if you're not going to position the present-day situation within the history, viz., the Palestinians (and the nation states in the region) have not wanted Israel to exist. While we could debate which side hasn't wanted the other's nation to exist more, we are in agreement I think that Israel has the upper hand presently. Real politik will not get them to give it up unless there is something worthy to give it up for, and they were prepared to do so in terms of land for peace in several attempts per a UN resolution in 1967.

---

quote:

---

It almost happened in 1993 with the Oslo agreement (I think this was the best chance since 1967) which was land for peace" per the 1967 UN thing.

---

quote:

---

But the Palestinians walked out: this was the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for peace, with a 5 year transition period. Someone suggested on these boards that it ways a bad agreement and the Palestinians were justified in reneging. But I do not understand what they thought they might gain in addition to a Palestinian state in West Bank and Gaza, and how they might gain it (right of return is a non-starter for the Israelis and the Palestinians know this).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For that matter, you are safer as a Muslim and an Arab in Israel than you would be in many Arab and/or Muslim countries.

https://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/arabsinisrael/index.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Palestinians have compromised by giving up more than 50% of their pre-1948 land for Israel.

In return the refugees should be financially compensated and allowed to run a fully operational state within the 1967 borders.

If that's not on the table, there is nothing to comprise for or about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Palestinians have compromised by giving up more than 50% of their pre-1948 land for Israel.

In return the refugees should be financially compensated and allowed to run a fully operational state within the 1967 borders.

If that's not on the table, there is nothing to comprise for or about.

---

Just keep saying this mr c.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Palestinians have compromised by giving up more than 50% of their pre-1948 land for Israel.

In return the refugees should be financially compensated and allowed to run a fully operational state within the 1967 borders.

If that's not on the table, there is nothing to comprise for or about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Just keep saying this mr c.

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel: It'd be great if Jews and Arabs could live together peacefully Inna land they share equally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Just keep saying this mr c.

---

That's right, keep up the pressure on those bloody uppity Jews.

Who do they think they are, demanding what's their own land anyway, and wanting to live safely in it?

And paranoid, too.

After all, it's not as if they've got any reason to think anyone's ever had anything against them.

---

FFS the "problem" is not the Jews or Judaism. The problem is the Netanyahu government and specifically its policy of stealing land from those who formerly lived there.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, but the Netanyahu government has to be given a free pass on that, Sioni because the Jews have been treated shittily for millenia and because the surrounding Arab nations are barbaric and full of Islamofascists.

Therefore Netanyahu can do what the hell he likes in terms of evicting people from their homes and taking other people's land.

Get with the programme ...
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Netanyahu's brother Yonathon was killed at Uganda's Entebbe airport in 1976 when Israeli forces attacked the hijackers of an Air France flight carrying mostly Jews which had been diverted there. The Ugandan gov't like other countries' before had supported the hijackers.

A longer view of history is required.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure. I didn't know his brother had died at Entebbe.



But yes, a longer perspective is needed. How long though? 1948? 1848? AD 48, 48 BC, 480 BC, 1480 BC ...

Whatever the case, Netanyahu didn't invent the current policies but is building on what went before.

But he's the guy we are dealing with now.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Netanyahu's brother Yonathon was killed at Uganda's Entebbe airport in 1976 when Israeli forces attacked the hijackers of an Air France flight carrying mostly Jews which had been diverted there. The Ugandan gov't like other countries' before had supported the hijackers.

A longer view of history is required.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0