The anti Israel = anti semitism agenda

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just been reading a bit more on the general situation... [snip]
Pretty much the reason why it's already too late for the people of Palestine. In another 70 years Gaza could simply be a beach resort full of carefree tourists and its people long forgotten.
 
The conflict predates my birth. More than half a century ago. Will it ever cease do you think in the next 50 or 100 years?
At the rate of recent escalation there is potential Gaza will have been dealt with, but await the inevitable new Kashmir that will be Jerusalem.
 
Being a racist isn't a protected characteristic...
You continue to conflate the recent and highly contested definition of Anti-Semitism with racism quite repetitively in this thread - You didn't respond to Dowie's analysis of your initial use and don't appear honest enough to wish to discuss.

For someone a intelligent as yourself I find your continual fall-back quote quite laughable and worrying.

For reference:
That's a bit of a leap tbh... while antisemitism is (usually) synonymous with racism when you're including things like a position that Israel shouldn't exist* under that sort of definition of antisemitism then it doesn't logically follow that all antisemitism is racist. It's perfectly possible for someone like @Le Clandestin Brun to hold that position and therefore fall under that detention of antisemitism but also not be racist IMO.

If you're going to claim it is racist then you really ought to give an argument as to why it is racist rather than simply highlighting that it falls under a defention of antisemitism and simply concluding that therefore it must be.

It might we worth drawing a distinction between narrower definitions of antisemitism, something that has existed and could be defined before the state of Israel was created and that is generally describing racism towards Jews and "new antisemitism" which includes rather broader definitions that go beyond what could be summarised as just racism towards jews but also assumes that certain political positions are the result of some racism towards jews (and those underlying assumptions may or may not actually be the case).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

*FWIW I think there should be a two-state solution, Israel should pull its settlements back from the West Bank and UN observers should set up a green line so to speak.
 
You continue trying to excuse or justify racist behaviour by not applying the same standards to Antisemitism as are applied to other forms of racism.

I reject that line of thought.

It's not hard.
Your continual conflation of the highly contested, recent broad definition of anti-Semitism as out-and-out racism and indiscriminate flack cannon of accusations calling others racist based on such is the the issue I have.

I called out legitimate racism of Jewish people on a previous page, which would fall under the traditional bracket of anti-Semitism which is widely regarded as racism.

Your defensive misuse of the term racism is quite negative, also outlined by Dowie previously, and appears to simply be a fall-back. Please, continue to call out what has debatably been referred to as modern anti-Semitism all you wish, but refer to it as such and stop calling others racist when they are quite obviously not and are quite apparently pro-human rights.


You do a disservice to victims of racism.
 
So just to be clear, I'm in the wrong and evil in your eyes for supporting the idea that it's not ok to call jewish people Nazis?

Gotcha.
Hahaha what a rebuttal! The definition you so freely use is not about calling Jewish people Nazi's, it is about comparing the actions of Israel to that of the Nazis.

You appear to be a clever individual, usually, so I'm unsure of why you choose to discuss in a manner akin to that of a SJW.
 
The people who are most vocal about not being able to criticise Israel without being called anti-semite are usually the first to make outlandish claims of Islamophobia, transphobia, racism etc to shut down criticism/debate of a whole range of other topics though, so why shouldn't another minority use the same tactic? you either support free speech and open debate or not, can't have it both ways.
If you read any of the exchanges between myself and Dolph in this very thread you'd see it being quite the contrary.

Your clichéd stance does nothing for either.
 
I wonder what the situation would have been if the US hadn't prevented Tharoor's rise to SG - 'tis a shame.
 
I didn't use the definition to call our random criticism of Israel, but two specific examples, one where the posted claimed that Israel was an illegitimate state
Firstly, you misinterpreted my post as an opinion of my own rather than clarification opposing your wild misrepresentation of Hamas.

Secondly, you didn't use it to "call out", you used it to deflect and avoid discussion, and proceeded to incorrectly label me as a racist (which you have done multiple times since).

Refusing further discussion by throwing inaccurate accusations of racism is very 'social media' and completely unexpected by someone like yourself.

If you read the second post in this thread you'll understand why I continue to call you on such behaviour, as it is the tactic of those with child-like mentalities and not usually in intelligent adult debate.

By blurring the lines between anti-semitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli state's behaviour they can silence their critics, especially if it's also backed by the law in the respective countries.
 
While I'm sure having to go to bomb shelters is rather unpleasant in terms of actual deaths on the Israeli side it's a bit meh to be "terrified" tbh...
Unfortunately the "terror" felt is likely real to them as the propaganda they've been fed for decades is what's used to ensure the majority do not rise up at the atrocious human rights violations committed by their nation, and reason for the hostile treatment of local Arabs. Similar to that used by the Western nations to initially going along with their "war on terror".
 
Why is 'all lives matter' considered a racist response to the BLM movement? The answer is because of the underlying beliefs behind the words.

The full slogan is actually 'free Palestine from the river to the sea', it comes from hamas And the plo before them, and refers to the destruction of israel as per the goals of hamas.

So that's actually exactly what she's saying, either deliberately or in ignorance.

Didn't realise Lior Suchard was a member of these forums.

"exactly" :rolleyes:
 
You hit the nail on the head. With those golden words It's all about peace and how can it be achieved. I hope some can respond here on this matter.
From my point of view. First step to get peace is to aim for it!
Unfortunately I think we've passed the point where there could be peace for Palestinians, the end is enevitable and written many years ago.

Peace for Israel will most likely be a long time away as their goalposts will continually move if foundational fundamentals persist in their governance.
 

"Israeli forces shot a 12-year-old Palestinian girl with a rubber-coated steel bullet at her home near Sheikh Jarrah"(Predominantly Palestinian Neighbourhood in Eastern Jerusalem) "The incident happened as Israeli forces cracked down on Palestinians taking part in nationwide strikes against Israel’s bombing of Gaza."
 
Yeah I don't know which sid eto take tbh

Even when you delve into the facts it is impossible to choose a side as both the Israeli government and Hamas treat the people of Gaza inhumanely.

Hamas forcibly control Gaza and exploit its people.

The Israeli government treats the majority of Palestine with contempt and violates their human rights, regardless of whether they are members of Hamas.

The foundation of Israel was contentious and debatably nefarious.*

The occupation by Israel has (indirectly or directly) created extremist control.

Hamas fight for the liberation of all Palestinian people.


If we bring religion in also, in Judaism the land was left to the descendants of Abraham, of which Judaism follow Isaac, although ironically Islam follows Ishmael.
[I'm not sure follows is the right word, but it's late and I'm tired]

The Palestinian civilians take the brunt of the suffering.


There is no "right" side to choose except for human rights, and currently the consistent land grabs and mistreatment of Palestinian people by Israel is the greatest violation - although the exploitation of their own by Hamas in Gaza has previously been close to par.


*The fundamentals behind the founding can become quite conspiratous (I think I made up a word) when looked at from the outside and understanding the nature of all involved. A destabilised region can hold no true strength.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom