Al Jazeera (english) story about all this, contains an interview with Boström and some opponent from “the Israel Project”, as well as some Palestinian dude:
Funny, Desmond Tutu doesn’t seem to be.
Yeah, he sounds real pissed off that anyone would dare compare the treatment of Palestinians to South African apartheid.
'Cos, y’know, Archbishop Tutu is such a rabid anti-Semite.
You are conflating Arab Israelis with Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Who are doing things such as at least once smuggling explosives in ambulances.
More empty rhetoric. Yet again, despite your repeated mistakes, what actually happened after Evian was that the UK, for example, stopped the ability of Jews to flee the Germans to the UK or the Mandate. There was never, at any point, any concerted effort to save the Jews nor can you actually point to one. During the war the allies avoided disrupting the trains to the concentration camps even once they had detailed surveillance photos. Talk about delusion all you want, but as long as your narrative is obviously fictional, your claims don’t hold much weight. The fact, as opposed to your fiction, is that while the Jews were being oppressed the rest of the world stood by and let it happen. It wasn’t until Hitler initiated military force against the rest of the world that anything began to happen. This, alone, should help you figure out whether the cause of the world’s reaction was treatment of Jews or Hitler’s initiation of military force.
Yet again, read your cite.
This was before thing got really bad, and the UK closed its immigration policy for Jews after Kristallnacht..
Yet again, cite, read it.
The UK allowed in 9000 children and barred immigration to all further Jews both in the UK and proto-Israel.
Tellingly, you still have not retracted your fiction where you claimed that stopping all Jewish immigration was actually easing immigration requirements.
Yet again, this is why a superficial understanding of history is a very bad thing.
What actually happened was that one of Britain’s first actions was to take 3/4 of the land they had promised for “close settlement” by Jews and created Transjordan. They went on to limit Jewish land purchases and immigration, even as they allowed Arab immigration to continue unchecked.
Further, the Jewish population in proto-Isreal under the British did not grow substantially legally, this is a fiction. It wasn’t until the beginning of the Nazi persecution that Jews began to flee after roughly a decade of stagnated immigration due to British policies. After '35, much of the immigration was illegal as the British did their best to stop all but a trickle. And as pointed out, during WWII when Jews would actually need to escape, Britain did their best to make sure that none did. Even after the war Britain did their best to keep supplies from reaching proto-Israel, disarmed the Jews while allowing their own officers to train and lead the armed Arabs and still kept Jews from immigrating, keeping them in Displaced Persons camps instead.
You are also slinging fiction when you claim that the earliest forms of Jewish government were created under the British. It was under the Ottomans that Tel Aviv was created as well as numerous Jewish settlements.
And it is somewhat… odd, for you to point to ‘tax raising powers’ as somehow a pro-Jewish measure that the British took. Britain also allowed landlords in India the power to raise taxes. Your argument is, of course, roughly equivalent to claiming that British imperialism in India was all about helping the Indians.
Again, this is fictional. Immigration stagnated for much of the 20’s and when it picked up during the mid 30’s, the British did their level best to crush it before restricting it entirely in '39.
Actually, the original fiction you presented was the the UK made immigration easier.
You still have yet to admit that what the UK did in response to Kristallnacht was to make immigration almost *impossible. * But you’ll keep pointing to those 9000 people as if prohibiting all other immigration didn’t exist.
It’s interesting that you can quote the definition but still not understand it. People claimed that by criticizing one specific article without attempting to restrict FotP, at all, Swedish politicians would somehow be transgressing against FotP. Which is, indeed, equivalent to saying that a parent who disciplines their child is against child rearing in general or that an artist who is says a particular piece is ugly is against paint. See, the comparison has to be wrong for it to be a strawman. That’s kinda, ya know, what makes it a strawman.
But, of course, if you understood the strawman fallacy you’d realize that I did not, in fact, rebut the comparisons I brought up and then claim I’d rebutted the self-serving silliness that criticism was against FotP. Instead, I showed the inherent absurdity of that position via analogy. This is kinda basic stuff here.
If you’re talking about this thread, none of them have given any proof that such an interpretation is justified by the Swedish constitution, either. Yet again, give proof or retract.
Or, I suppose, continue to sling the fallacy of appeal to authority.
And it was, unless you’re claiming that it was nefarious hackers who removed the apology and have forbidden it to be posted again. You’re running a funny game of semantic tap dancing. The government retracts a government comment, but because they don’t say “By the way, we are retracting this!!!” it doesn’t count. RightO.
Yet again, you have ‘forgotten’ to include the rest of the relevant facts… namely that they allowed in 9000 and then totally closed immigration to anybody else. But of course, you only point to those 9000. Gee, I wonder why?
Still no retraction on your confusion as to how “totally prohibited all immigration” somehow equals “made immigration easier”. Let me guess, you won’t be admitted you were spitballing, eh?
… yes, yes you are.
That’s why you’re conflating the refugees (many of whom were Jewish) who happened to be allowed in before Kristallnacht and the only 9000 who were allowed in afterwards when the British totally closed all Jewish immigration to the UK and to the Mandate.
As I pointed them out before you found the wiki cite and made your mistake, yes, I was aware of what the numbers refer to. I was the one who first mentioned them. :rolleyes: That’s how I know you’re playing real fast and loose and conflating the things that happened before Kristallnacht with those that happened after it.
Yes, showing that you’ve been voicing fiction is terribly unfair. I am ashamed.
Still no retraaction on your part, of course.
Here, let me make it very simple for you. The facts are that after Kristallnacht the UK totally closed immigration to Jews (except for almost 1/5 of one percent of those who were butchered :D) and prohibited all Jewish immigration to the Mandate. You claimed that it made immigration “easier”.
Either retract your mistake or explain how making immigration impossible means it has made it easier.
The figures don’t lie but you’re not exactly putting them to an honest use here. Those 90K? Before Kristallnacht. After Kristallnact? Total ban on immigration to UK and the Mandate (But don’t forget [del]Poland[/del] 1/5 of one percent of those who went on to be killed).
In fact, the UK didn’t do next to nothing, that would be neutral. The UK was actively harmful and actively tried to prevent any and all Jews from escaping the Nazis and coming to the UK or the Mandate. Sorry I misspoke and wasn’t clear on how active rather than passive the UK’s policy of condemning the Jews to Hitler’s tender mercies was. And please, none of this silliness about how they just didn’t know. I already pointed out that the British press itself was reporting on the concentration camps in 1938. I pointed out how the whole world knew about Hitler’s systematic oppression of the Jews.
If anything, your tapdancing proves my point. Europe did not try to stop Hitler or save the Jews when they were being oppressed. They didn’t try to stop the movement of Jews to the camps even after someone had escaped from the camps and let them know what was going on there. They didn’t try to evacuate the Jews and save them from Hitler. The war wasn’t about the Jews, the war didn’t aim at helping the Jews.
Yet again, I’m not going to answer this as long as you keep wildly distorting the actual facts under discussion. It’s hard to have a factual debate when one party keeps trying to substitute fiction.
If you contend I’m wrong, please try to explain how the UK’s total ban on immigration (other than that whole massive 1/5 of one percent, of course) and total ban on Mandate immigration is, as you’ve claimed, an effort to make immigration “easier”.
Like… the Mandate?
A technicality to avoid discussing the real subject at hand. Knock off the smoke and mirrors.
The Aftonbladet article wasn’t about Arab Israelis, it was about Palestinians. The subject is Israeli treatment of Palestinians and Israel’s reaction to questions they have not yet proven unfounded because they refuse to.
The questions were proven unfounded because they had no foundation.
Ya know, no evidence, no support, no substantiation, no nothing. We have a grand total of one body with an incision. That’s it. And from that we’re supposed to believe that there’s a massive international Jewish conspiracy dedicated to organ theft?
Elaborate on how exactly any nation could prove a negative against accusations such as these. Israel ‘refuses’ to? What exactly have they refused to do? Be
specific.
All you seem to be doing is shifting the burden of proof.
Military necessity? Or are Desmond Tutu mistaken that this is going on?
I don’t know where flagrant lie on the scale of breaches. Probably not grave then.
Thanks for finding that quote, it was exactly what I remembered.
Houses destroyed don’t belong to “suspected” terrorists; they belong to dead suicide bombers. They’re used as a form of deterrence for people who are hard to deter.
Fair? Probably not. Effective? Probably. But certainly not “willful”.
You obviously don’t speak legalese - if they had meant “grave”, they would have said “grave”.
Besides, the Security Council was merely expressing their opinion.
As for Desmond Tutu… it’s no secret that Israel traded with South Africa extensively during Apartheid; it’s not something that we’re proud of today, but we can’t deny it happened. I wouldn’t blame him for bearing some resentment against my country as a result.
This is ridiculous. You are attacking the character of Desmond Tutu simply to advance your position.
Have you any evidence that Tutu “bears some resentment against your country”?
Or are you just spreading nasty rumours and slander against a Nobel prize winning humanitarian??
The questions haven’t been proven anything because they haven’t been addressed. Instead there’s a diplomatic uproar accusing Sweden of supporting anti-Semitism and demanding apologies from those who cannot give them.
Boström interviewed at least 20 families, all of whom asserted their dead relatives were coming back cut open and sewn up. It is perfectly reasonable for them to ask “What’s going on?” And no, we’re not supposed to believe there’s a conspiracy about anything simply because of a few assertions, but actually addressing and attempting to answer the questions would go a lot further than the current approach on Israel’s part.
I’ve already addressed this question in this very thread. Sure, it may not convince the die-hard conspiracy theorists, but that’s not who Israel should be aiming to convince.
Address the issues of why Palestinians like Bilal Ghanan are coming home cut open and sewn up. Prove they’re not harvesting organs from Palestinian corpses. In general, take the issue seriously.
Yes, I am. Israel would have a far easier time disproving the question than Boström and the families concerned would have proving it. Sticking uncritically to the axiom “the burden of proof is always on the accuser” outside of the realm of jurisprudence is completely fallacious thinking. It allows Israel to completely dodge the question and cast its usual arsenal of unfounded aspersions.
I reserve the right to criticize whomever I choose. Desmond Tutu may be a great man, but he is not a perfect man - no-one is - and I’m sure he has his own failings and biases. Is it slanderous to point out what some of those biases may be?
As for Nobel Prizes… Yasser Arafat had a Nobel Prize. Those aren’t worth as much as they used to be.
Leander, learn what you’re talking about then post. Pretty much always better in that order.
Yes, totally ridiculous that a South African would resent Israel for its role in trading with South Africa. Of course, it should also be noted that by the vast majority, South Africans rather obviously do not consider Israel to be an Apartheid state as most do not care about it one way or the other, and a larger percentage support Israel than the PA. But that’s neither here nor there…
You might, however, want to read up on the World Campaign Against Military and Nuclear Collaboration with South Africa and Tutu’ work with it. To say that he didn’t resent Israel’s role along that dynamic is… interesting. Or, perhaps, you could read up on Tutu’s comments about Israel and South Africa in 1987 when he said that South Africa’s black community were upset with the Jewish community because of Israel’s close ties with the Apartheid government. Or how Tutu repeatedly condemned Israel’s ties with South Africa during the Apartheid government’s reign.
Etc, etc, etc.
Obviously, knowing that Tutu was a harsh critic of the Israeli relationship with South Africa and resented their role in that relationship is pure slander. We must avoid knowing such things, lest we slander such a luminary as Tutu by assuming that he has human emotions.
Your righteous anger is well placed.
You can prove something (ya know, if it has proof?) even if your target doesn’t address it. That’s what proof means after all.
Something tells me that if they were legitimate questions asked in some context other than allegations of an international Jewish conspiracy of organ theft, you might get some answers.
No, actually you answered a totally separate question, which is how Israel can monitor its legal organ transplants. How Israel can prove that it’s not secretly abducting random Palestinians and harvesting their organs (in contradiction to everything we know about medical science) and doing… something… with their organs is quite another question. As it’s a CT the can just gets kicked down the road a bit. Even if you prove that 100% of the legal organ transplants are above board, the CT already posits an international Jewish organ thieving conspiracy, how do you then prove that all the ‘stolen organs’ are recorded and the operations aren’t hidden?
That isn’t the issue. There wasn’t a calm scholarly piece about the recollections of a few Palestinian families, and an assumption-free question as to why something of the sort might be done. The issue on the table was the allegation of a conspiracy to steal organs. Asking Israel to address one of the minor premises that the CT was based on is nonsensical, and there’s no reason to take the issue seriously.
Honestly… you’ve got a wild CT alleging an international Jewish conspiracy. The best reaction is to ignore it and/or condemn it and/or mock it, not to start a fact finding mission. What’s next, the American Jewish community should be obligated to prove that we don’t really control the US government? Maybe the international Jewish community should have to prove that we’re not traitors to our homes, nefariously scheming to betray them for the sake of Israel? Maybe Israel should also conduct a full and open inquiry to prove that they’re not, in fact, breeding evil super-rats who unerringly seek out and target only Arabs? Why isn’t Israel letting us see the full details of its rodent genetics experiments? Surely if Israel isn’t hiding something, they should turn over all that data immediately. Right?
No.
As it is, it’d be very nice to see the primary sources for the claims that illegal organ transplants are rampant in Israel. I haven’t studied the issue and I have no idea if they’re true, but the article under discussion is hardly a good secondary source to describe other people’s investigations.
Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. You’re attempting to claim that not shifting the burden of proof is. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. It’s not the job of the person you accuse, without evidence, to then disprove the claim. We’re not talking about the legal system, we’re talking simple epistemology. You have to falsify the null hypothesis, not prove it.
Why on Earth should Israel not “dodge” the question? Israel also hasn’t opened the books and revealed each and every step in the manufacture of every single piece of gum in the country. Obviously they are also dodging the accusations of distributing Sex Gum.
Bonus points, though, for the “arsenal of unfounded aspersions”. Because when someone alleges, without any proof, that there is a global Jewish conspiracy to steal and traffic illegal organs, it’s totally unfounded to notice what’s being alleged.
Once again I see that your post is full of stupid nonsense. (note I am referring to your post, not you, so no need to go running to the mods.) You and Allessan are attacking Tutu and his character simply because he disagrees with your position.
Fortunately I think most people will see what you are doing. Which means the rest of your 'argument", however valid, is pretty much lost. 
Why did you bring Tutu into this debate, anyway? What does Desmond Tutu have to do ith the Arab-Israeli conflict?
I didn’t bring Tutu into this debate, but I’m not going to sit back while you slander him just because he disagrees with your position.
Brilliant factual rebuttal there Leander.
I’m sure you can show a single fact I pointed out that’s wrong or misinterpreted. Just one. Any time now. Any time…
What, no?
I’m shocked. Shocked!
Well, not that shocked.
You do know that “lol ur argument am dumb!” is not, in fact, a refutation?
Right! You are so right.
I’m pointing out Tutu’s own comments and publicly stated resentment about Israel’s role in SA’s history because, erm… I dunno, but it sure is stupid. And nefarious. Instead, I should deny it, like you’re doing. That’s the best course of action.
Luckily you came along to argue against the public record, because who knows what sort of damage not being ignorant might do. Only someone with an agenda would point out that you are deliberately denying the actual facts in order to sling ad hom fallacies. Nasty agenda holders.
It is a vile and blatant attack to note what the man himself has said on the public record. I am ashamed for pointing out facts which you would like to pretend don’t exist. You have shown me the light. Any other facts that we should deny because you don’t like them? Gravity is a slander? Photons are libelous? Ocean tides are a conspiracy theory? I mean, if you’re going to make such silly arguments, cut loose. Knowing Tutu’s own position on Israel and the Apartheid government of South Africa isn’t just slander, it’s puppy-rape!
Oh, I agree. They’ll see that I’m citing Tutu’s own publicly made and never denied statements and actions wrt Israel’s relationship with the SA Apartheid government. They’ll see you attempting to deny it with flimsy nonsense.
Gosh darn but my entire argument is sunk!!!
It’s a microcosm of the tactic that we’ve seen several times in this thread alone.
It allows Leander to talk about someone as an unimpeachable source.
Then it allows Leander to ignore all the actual facts about his source and claim that anybody who isn’t willfully ignorant about the source’s own statements must be vile slanderous bastards willing to unfairly attack a veritable saint.
It’s not about Israel.
It’s a stalking horse.
Well, South Africa was the site of the first human heart transplant operation in 1967.
And as we all know, 1967 was the year of the Six-Day Middle East war. This can’t be a coincidence.
Do we really know where the donor for that first heart transplant came from? I mean, can the Israelis prove the donor organ didn’t come from a Palestinian and then get routed to South Africa, a trading partner?
Just connect the dots. :(:dubious::eek:
Jack, don’t be silly. Everybody knows that the first organ transplant in SA was performed with the still-beating heart stolen from a poor little black girl, and that the South Africans in turn gave the idea to Israel to start farming the Palestinians.
Your Zionist tricks have no power here!
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that this post (not you, remember, I’m talking about the post, so no need to go running to the mods) would once again say nothing whatsoever of consequence.
Now let’s look at your own cite:
Now can you and Alessan please post something factual that actual proves Tutu is biased against Israel?