I don’t remember death camps being run by Palestinians.
I have seen Palestine referred to as a non-independent state.
You think Israel would exist where it is today if the ottoman Empire was on the winning side of WWI?
I was asking you a question about what you considered bigotry, not what the history of middle east debate has been over the last 10 years. Are there any critics of israel that you don’t think are at least mild bigots?
And the point YOU miss is that comparing the “plight” of Israelis to the situation of the black American is a bit silly.
Its like when some in the gay lobby tried to liken their plight in America to the plight of blacks during Jim Crow south.
He appears to be claiming that I objected to what he said because I always secretly hated his guts. Which is not true, and as you pointed out, the mods hav repeatedly been accused of bias toward FinnAgain’s side of these issues. I thought what I said about him in the ATMB thread was pretty fair.
Regardless - although you won’t see this until you catch up 
- I’m trying to understand where he and I went awry here, and I’m waiting for his response.
This kind of lame avoidance-via-‘humor’ is lucy’s territory, and it isn’t impressive when he does it either.
If you aren’t aware of the alliance between the Nazis and Arab nationalists to extend the Holocaust to the Middle East, and you don’t know that the Arab League announced that the '48 war was one of extermination, then yucking it up about it won’t help.
No… I correctly stated that you misinterpreted my post because you let your prejudices get in the way. If you believe that someone regularly makes “efforts to claim someone who was arguing with them would like to see Israel destroyed,” then it’s hardly rocket science to figure out why you’ve interpreted another statement as doing that.
If you state "this is why people hate dealing with your voluminous participation in threads related to Israel. " and “in typical FinnAgain style - you are factually knowledgeable but uniquely skilled at missign the forest for the trees” it’s hardly revolutionary to suggest that you have pre-judged me and believe I engage in certain patterns, and you’ll interpret new information through that filter. There’s nothing secret about it Marley, you voiced your views quite clearly.
Of course to your credit you seem not to let it get in the way of your job as a mod, which is good. But come on, launching a string of personal attacks about a pattern of behavior, then then claiming that you don’t have anything against me? It’s just silly.
An opinion about someone’s behavior is not a prejudice. That being said, I am trying to understand what happened here. You said I misunderstood your post, and I asked you to clear up a few things about what you were saying. If you want to answer those, maybe we’ll make some progress. If not, I’ll live.
Well, yes, it is. If you have a pre-conceived notion about how someone is likely to act, and all new behavior is filtered through that pre-conception, then of course it’s an instance of prejudice. And when you repeatedly miss my point while arguing that “this is just like you always do in accord with what I believe you behavior to be like!” then of course you’re acting off a pre-judging.
What’s curious is that I explained it a few times. I pointed out that the one state “solution” is a back door method for supporting the end of the state of Israel as a sovereign state. Like arguing for a North American Superstate would do away with the United States of America, even if violence wasn’t involved. In the context of a situation where people have been advocating against the right of Israelis/Jews to self determination for decades, a “solution” that just happens to remove that ability for self determination is just about as honest (in almost all cases) as those who support Gaza being absorbed by Egypt and the Palestinian sections of the West Bank being absorbed by Egypt… as a “solution” to the Palestinians’ aspiration for self determination.
Of course there is a difference between ending a sovereign state and destroying it via military force. If the EU was one government that did away with individual nations’ sovereignty instead of a voluntary means of cooperation, then, say, Spain would be ended even if it was never bombed. If Belgium, for instance, splits into differing ethnic states then it’s been ended as a state even if it isn’t destroyed by war. If the resulting land of Waloonistan is then reabsorbed by a reconstituted Belgium, then Waloonistan has been ended as a state.
You didn’t answer the questions I asked you yesterday. Indulge me.
Things were getting along fairly peacefully in Palistine until the Ottomans lost the area to the British in WWII who were able to put into effect the Balfour Declaration which proactively facilitated Jewish immigration beyond any level that occured previously.
I already clarified, but I can make it even more explicit if you require.
- Yes, it was a general comment about the one state “solution”. You said you’d be okay with either a two state solution or a one state “solution” (the fact that it’s even called that should be evidence enough of how some folks have distorted the discussion). I pointed out that the one state “solution” was not a serious negotiating posture from anybody, at all, involved in the situation and neither was it a proposal that allowed for the continuation of the state of Israel.
That, in a nutshell, it would be like saying “I’d be okay with peace and self-determination along viable economic lines for both groups… or I’d be okay with little green men coming down in flying saucers and mindcleansing everybody so they just got along. Whichever works.”
- Yes, as I stated many times in this thread, there is a difference between ending a state and destroying it (presumably through military force). If Belgium goes the way of the dodo and splits into separate states for its component groups, that doesn’t mean it’s been destroyed by war but it has certainly ended. If Walloonitopia is then reabsorbed into Belgiumiania, then it will then have been ended even if no shots have been fired.
make that WWI
I think your implication that an Israel that is not majority Jewish might be an acceptable solution
“I’d support a one- or two-state solution. I’m opposed to state support for religions”
I’m frequently impressed by his wit. He doesn’t engage in debates as deeply as he might but I think he does a credible job of pointing out absurdities in GD.
Not true at all, and it’s a strange myth that has sprung up.
Dhimmi status was never a good thing, and life for the Jews under Ottoman rule, especially in the administrative sub-district of Palestine, was often quite rough.
Nope, it’s the same tactic you just engaged in, one of obfuscation and not elucidation. Faced with an actual announced plan of genocide and an actual, document alliance with the Nazis to commit genocide once they defeated the Allies, you instead try to joke about how there weren’t actual death camps set up. Just like when it’s pointed out that a blockade has military impact Lucy tries to shift the focus to talk of “weaponized coriander”.
And just like now you’ve failed to retract your error.
Well I have no reason to disagree on that statement. However may I suggest that there are now a hell of a lot more people in Palistine/Israel who are much worse off today than the number of Jews who live in Palistine prior to WWI ?
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem ran death camps?
Yes, and they wouldn’t be if they didn’t wage a war of extermination in 1948. And again in 1967. And they didn’t respond to their losses in 1967 by declaring that there would no peace with, no negotiations with, and no recognition of Israel. And they wouldn’t if they’d agreed to proposals in 2000-2001 or continued to negotiate, or…
Which is why it’s weird that you state that the problem was a lack of racist anti-Jewish immigration laws rather than the disastrous and self-defeating wars that were fought to kill the Jews. Faced with the fact that we could have had two separate, sovereign secure states for more than 60 years now, with Israel being a fraction of its current size… your argument seems to be not “Then they shouldn’t have started a war over it.” but “Then they should’ve kept the Jews out.”
When you have notions about an individual based on direct experience with particular person, can you really call that prejudiced?
Of course.
I didn’t make that comparison. I suggested that bigotry against both Jews and blacks is unacceptable.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the impression I get from your remarks here and previously in this thread is that 1) bigotry against blacks is abhorrent, but 2) bigotry against Jews is not so bad because they have more advantages and because you’re pissed off at Israeli policies.
Leaving aside the accuracy of your allegations, you seem to be saying that blacks haven’t done these bad things, but Israelis have, so spreading anti-Jewish hatred is in at least some degree OK.
Talk about conflating Israel and Jews in general.
Oh, good. So anti-gay bigotry can be excused too because after all blacks have had it worse.
What other minority groups should shut up about bigotry because they don’t meet your criteria to be free from prejudice?
Your hole is getting deeper, better stop digging.
Perhaps, but we’ll never know will we. I try to put myself in the perspective of the Palistinian resistance of that time by considering a Taliban immigration into Canada of the same relative scale facilitated and mandated by the US government . I’d say the 48 conflict was simply inevitable and I lay the blame on British foreign policy that led up to it. Somewhat similar to many of the other colonial legacies.
I present this view, because I believe I understand where this 90 year old reporter is coming from. It appals me that she is regarded as a racist. She even desires Jews to come back to her own country. How racist is that ?
But I’m much younger. That history is long over for me and my perspective is simply two peoples living in the same region that need to get along. As such, you won’t find a greater supporter of Israel and their security needs and implementations than myself. Its clear that one side wants peace and the other wants to drive the other out. Get over it, Palistinians lost a long time ago, Jews aren’t going away, they won’t allow themselves to be vulnerable again, and the best Palistinians can do is to enlist world opinion to recover the best deal they can get.