Lemur, it’s shorthand. I’m anti-Israel not in the sense of wishing a tsunami would gouge that particular swath of territory out of the Levant, but because I don’t like the current discriminatory conception of the state of Israel. When people defend “Israel’s right to exist,” they’re defending Israel’s right to continue trundling merrily along in its discriminatory way.
Can’t give you the minutes but if ‘creating a mood’ counts for anything, here’s an article with a small portion of the host’s ‘words of welcome’ (and maybe encouragement?) to the attendees.
Er, not exactly. Maybe that’s what you mean. But there are many voices in your choir who mean exactly what it sounds like when they say “right to exist.” They want Israel replaced by an Islamic state. Same story, different day.
I think that anyone who believes in the Messiah as just as misguided as anyone who denies the Holocaust.
Why?
What possible reason would you have for suggesting that they were antisemites? What reason would I have?
It seems that faced with the fact that your absolute denial was false, you brought up a non sequitor and an absurdity to boot. To what end?
You can’t really believe that.
When people defend “Israel’s right to exist” they’re defending the right of the population of Israel not to be massacred.
You know, I know, and the American people know, what the result would be if Israel were “swept away”, like the Iranian president fantasizes.
If people defend the right of Israel to exist as a country that encompases both Irsrael, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and that Palestinians could not be citizens of this country, then you’d have a point. But they don’t, so you don’t.
When you say Israel has no right to exist, do you say the United States has no right to exist? That Canada has no right to exist? That China has no right to exist?
You are being disingenous in the extreme when you claim to say that Israel has no right to exist because of their human rights record, yet you never seem to argue that China has no right to exist, or Cuba, or Iran.
And the reasons why are easy to imagine.
Geez, ask a simple question…
The group in question is anti-Israel.
So?
What does that have to do with suspecting them, in specific, of being antisemites?
I’m trying to figure this out. Is it simply rhetorical obfuscation? Is it an attempt at a strawman? A ‘gotcha’?
Sal is either unwilling or unable to answer why he thought that an absurd non sequitor served a valid function. What’s your point ?
I simply don’t agree. People who defend Israel’s “right to exist” are always, in my experience, defending Israel’s right to continue as a state that discriminates in favor of the Jews – and usually defending Israel’s practices in the West Bank and Gaza.
Your argument about Cuba is misplaced. No one denies Cuba’s right to exist, because no one defends Cuba’s right to exist. What people argue about is whether Cuba’s socialist system should exist. And that’s really the same thing we’re talking about with regard to Israel – the system. I don’t doubt there are people (like Ahmedinejad) who want to drive out all the Jewish inhabitants, but then I can find you people who want to drive out all the Arab inhabitants as well.
Oh, and how are you on Palestine’s “right to exist”?
Let’s put it to you this way using current events. Attending this function is the equivalent of screaming “Nigger! Nigger!” on stage. There may be some other reason a person would scream “Nigger!” on stage than racism against blacks, but which way are you gonna bet? Yeah, Richard Pryor and Lenny Bruce and Chris Rock used that word in comedy, and they weren’t anti-black. So there’s a few.
But just a few.
Finn, call it simply curiosity. Your overreaction to the question is starting to feel a little strange to me.
Equivalent? David Duke IS the US representative at the conference you know - 
It’s not an absurd non sequiter. The anti-Israel = anti-Semitism idea was presented early on in this thread. So SA offered as a rhetorical counterpoint the existence of Jews who are known for being anti-Israel.
My “point” was to just offer clarification because you seemed in need of it. Never mind, if you don’t.
Are you arguing that the Neturei Karta are not anti-Israel? Forget about anti-Semitic, for a minute. Do you think that they are in favor of Israel existing as it does today? Because that’s all I said.
No need to liken Pryon to a bunch of idiots attending a Holocaust Denial conference, because the comparision is just. not. there.
I believe that Palestinians, like every human being, are entitled to self-governance. So the creation of a Palestinian state is one way to achieve that. But of course, the creation of a Palestinian state isn’t likely to achieve it, because said Palestinian state will almost certainly be authoritarian rather than liberal. Or Palestine could be folded into a larger Arab state like Jordan, as was the case in 1967. Except neither Jordan nor Palestine seems to want to return to the pre-occupation status quo, so that option is out. And Palestinians don’t want to be ruled by Israelis, neither do Israelis want to be ruled by Palestinians. So a one-state solution is out. Creation of a Palestinian state is the only option with even a small chance of success.
And back to Cuba. Why don’t people constantly feel the need to defend Cuba’s right to exist as an independent country? Wouldn’t a “one state” solution with the US and Cuba be appropriate? Why not? Except no one needs to constantly defend Cuba’s right to exist as a nation because no one constantly questions Cuba’s right to exist as a nation. Sure, people fight over how Cuba should be governed, but no one disputes that Cuba should continue to exist.
Except, that’s not the case with Israel. There are many people who argue that Israel should NOT exist, and they are willing to use violence to achieve that goal. And while there are some who would be willing to let Jews continue to live in what is now the country of Israel, many more feel that Jews have no right to live there…after all, they’re invaders and colonists. And how many Jews are left in the rest of the Middle East? If it was just a question of Israel, and not Judaism, why have Jews been expelled from every other country in the Middle East?
But would the Jews been expelled from every other country in the Middle East (which, incidentally, is overstating the case somewhat) if it hadn’t been for the foundation of the state of Israel? I don’t see it.
And for your assertion that “There are many people who argue that Israel should NOT exist, and they are willing to use violence to achieve that goal,” I would counter that there are many people who argue that Israel SHOULD exist, and they are willing to use violence to achieve that goal.
Based on…? When given absolutely no reason to think that anybody, at all, in the thread was accusing them of antisemitism, why ask the question? Was it some attempt at a gotcha? Were you trying to divert the debate with that old canard “Anybody who criticizes Israel is labeled an antisemite!”
There was no reason for you to think that anybody was calling them out for antisemitism. There was no reason for you to wonder if I was holding such a position.
Perhaps it was a simple bit of obfuscation, as you still refuse to admit that your “absolute” denial was absolutely false to facts?
And your reason for asking an obviously absurd non sequitor that had nothing to do with the actual discussion, at all, is certainly strange. And it certainly wasn’t simple “curiosity”. But that’s okay too. If you don’t want to talk about whatever you were getting at, that’s fine.
Of course it is, as it follows nothing. Why you’re arguing otherwise is rather odd, especially since Sal admitted that it was a total non sequitor.
A rather obvious strawman, don’t you think? And, I’d wager, the exact fallacious ‘gotcha strawman’ that was the point of the original question. The canard that all criticism of Israel is classified as antisemitism is often trotted out, but has no actual basis in fact.
Most certainly, in this thread, nobody has said that “anti-Israel = antisemitism.” Even Lemur has only said that it is indicative of something that might be there, and that it evinces that some people are clearly grinding an ideological axe with their disproportionate focus on Israel, and Israel alone. So I am left wondering why you trot us such an obviously false claim.
Well, I suspect that Sal might very well have been using it as an obfuscative attempt at a ‘gotcha’ in order to knock down a strawman, but he’ll only claim that it was simple curiosity that caused him to ask such an absurd question that had no relation to anything said by anybody in the thread.
You may indeed be right that he was using it that way, I’m not sure.
Little detail: supporting genocide by violent means is not morally equal to defending against genocide by violent means.
And are Naturei Karta supporting genocide by violent means?