Wait, you got my example backward. There really are people who use the word “Nigger” but aren’t racists. There really are people who are against the existance of Israel but aren’t anti-semites.
But when you run across a random guy screaming “Nigger”, or a random guy ranting about how Israel has no right to exist, which way are you going to bet?
Just more idle curiosity? Or attempting to change the subject when it’s shown that your rejoinder was just sophistry?
Speaking of which, you going to admit any time soon that you were 100% dead wrong with your absolute denial? If not, just ignore the issue again in your next post, and I’ll assume that you’ll be pitching silly questions based on “curiosity” any time one of your points is put to bed. No biggie.
Finn, the word “absolutely” in my post #5 seems to be driving you to distraction, though I thought it would have been obvious from context that it was used in the sense of “vehemently.”
As regards my question to you about NK and antisemitism, what “gotcha” are you specifically fearing?
So you won’t admit that your denial was 100% false? I know that you don’t honestly believe that a false statement becomes true if it is vehement, absolute, or what have you. You refuse to retract your mistake. Check.
Let me refresh your memory:
See, the subject under discussion was that Lemur pointed out that many people who are anti-Israel are genocidal in their ambitions. As a response, you dodged the point, and informed us that just as many people wanted to commit genocide upon the Israelis, some wanted the Israelis to be able to use force to resist genocide.
When it was pointed out that you’d made a point that was, at best, hollow, and at worst deliberate sophistry, you quickly changed the subject.
Since you still can’t admit you were wrong in your initial vehemently held false claim, I’d wager you won’t admit this detail, either. Ah well.
Then I suggest your experience of general usage is woefully less than complete.
Israel defends its “right to exist” against those who say it has no “right to exist.”
What does that mean, “no right to exist”? Does it mean they should enact policies of equality within their government? No. It means that the Israeli government ought not to manage and control the land that it currently governs.
How would you react to a person in early 1900s America saying that the USA had no right to exist because blacks were being treaded in a blatantly discriminatory fashion?
There are two issues: one the treatment of Palestinians living in Israel at the moment, and the other being the conditions of the creation of Israel. The two really have nothing to do with each other as far as deciding policy going forward; and the concatenation of the two is nothing more than an “I told you so” from those who opposed the creation of Israel at its inception.
Genuine talk of peace would involve discussion of equal rights within Israel.
So, Finn, the bottom line is, you’re still afraid to say whether you think Neturei Karta is antisemitic or not. Why are you so afraid? What’s the worst that could happen?
Can we get back to the OP please?
What are you confused about?
Yes, they’re for real.
Yes, most Jews aren’t part of this Orthodox sect, and certainly are not biblical literalists like these folks.
Yes, the fact that most Jews and Israelis aren’t talking about how they have to wait for the Messiah shows what they think of that idea.
The OP has been dealt with and the conversation has evolved. What’s the problem?
Well, there seems to be a large desire to be able to point to a particular person (or small group of people) and say, “Look–over there! An anti-Zionist who almost certainly isn’t a Jew-hater, because they are Jewish! Finally, we’ve found one! Now we can bring them up every time we talk about how Israel must be destroyed!”
Kind of like how the Republicans were trotting out Zell Miller a couple of years ago.
FinnAgain, what Sal originally said is that being anti-Zionist and anti-Israel (in the sense of believing that the state of Israel should not exist, at least not right now) is something, but denying the existence of the Holocaust is something else. He’s right: the first one is a somewhat valid belief (that, I must admit, it is a little late to hold, Israel having existed for 60 years now; what’s done is done) while the second one is denying facts. Alessan answered that to him, they look basically the same. He’s also not entirely wrong: he’s an Israeli, so of course, if the state of Israel stops existing, even without bloodshed, he will probably have to leave his home. So what these anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews are advocating would in all likelihood lead to ethnic cleansing if it was implemented.
You’re the one who seems to have brought up the correlation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in post 13. This isn’t what Sal was denying: he was denying that wanting Israel not to exist was equivalent to denying the Holocaust. I also don’t think they are equivalent, although I can certainly see Alessan’s point, and to me both of these beliefs are harmful. But then the conversation moved to the link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Both are also not equivalent, as the fact that anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews (who presumably are not anti-Semitic) exist.
I agree with Sal’s point that some of Israel’s policies are worth protesting, but I wouldn’t call that being “anti-Israel”. In fact, I consider myself pro-Israel, since I believe that the state of Israel should continue existing, mostly as a nation-state for the Jewish nation. But some of their policies should be reviewed.
So? You’ll just shout “strawman!” And you know what? You’ll be right!
While I took the “David Duke” reference as a reference to a well-known Holocaust denier, I’m willing to concede that maybe it was a reference to a well-known anti-Semite. After all, most Holocaust deniers do it because of their anti-Semitic prejudice.
The comment was that being anti-Zionist is one thing, but that sharing a stage with David Duke is another.
On preview:
It’s an important distinction, I believe. After all, why invoke one of America’s most infamous modern racists instead of some ‘mere’ deniers? I’m reasonably certain that was what Alessan was getting at, too.
Do you think that when Alessan said that a lot of people in that ‘corner’ were ‘close to’ sharing a stage with David Duke, that he wasn’t talking about them having racist similarities to Duke, but being holocaust deniers? I’m interested in seeing what he says, but that’s certainly what I read from his posts.
Nobody has claimed that they are equivalent, either. As such, pointing it out seems to serve no purpose. Which is why it’s so strange that it was trotted out, and even stranger that the reason it was trotted out won’t be copped to.
Hmmm…don’t people protest the existence of Palestine? When I look at most maps, I see lines drawn through certain parts of Israel, and sections that are a different color, but have no country name. It seems to me that we’re admitting those sections are not part of Isreal, yet refusing to acknowledge their existence.
I don’t want to get involved in the whole thing about what “right to exist” means, but it seems to me that it’s untrue to say “there’s only one courty in the world…” I’d say there are two: Many Israelis don’t think that Palestine should exist, and many Palestinians don’t think that Israel should exist. I’m definitely no expert, and I don’t pretend to understand the complexities of that region, but isn’t that a valid assessment?
Are you really this ignorant of history? The right to exist argument predates the 1967 war. In fact it stems from the Arab invasion about five minutes after independence.
Perhaps Israel should only be allowed to exist when its civil rights record matches the high level achieved by the Arab states?
Well, the official position of the Israeli government is for the Palestinian state’s right to exist. You probably don’t like the borders, etc. The position that the government of the Palestinian state should accept Israel’s right to exist (unlike Hamas) does not sound so onerous to me - YMMV.
People arguing for Israel’s right to exist are arguing for Israel to exist as such – as a state whose stated purpose – sole purpose, even – is to ethnically discriminate in favor of the Jews. If I counter that Israel does not have a right to exist as such – because I don’t believe in ethnic discrimination as a principle, still less as the founding principle of a state – am I to be lumped in with people who want to wipe the Jews off the map? And if so, why can’t I lump Finn et al. who support “Israel’s right to exist” with those who want to wipe the Palestinians off the map? Maybe I should, at that, absent evidence to the contrary.
:rolleyes:
Or, if you were being accurate, its purpose is to serve as a homeland for Jews, and the Right of Return guarantees citizenship. All noise to the contrary, an Italian American group, for instance, who automatically accepted all people of Italian descent and still allowed non-Italians to join would not be “discriminating” in any negative way, at all.
But ignore that as you see fit if it makes your rhetoric more fiery.
Or, do you also oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, as it would almost certainly include a form of the Right of Return for Palestinians?
Answer your own question. What would the Arab regimes and groups like Hamas in particular do to the Jews of Israel? Would groups like Hezballah wipe the Jews off the map, or not?
Logic, reason, coherence, the burden of proof, common sense, and the truth?
Knock yourself out, what’s wrong with a good ol’ mess of fallacies anyways?
Well, I seem to be ignored in this thread so far, but I’ll try it again.
In no other context does anyone ever argue that a nation has “no right to exist,” based on discriminatory practices endorsed by its government.
You seem to be turning the phrase “right to exist” around to mean something completely other than what it would seem to be used for.
No one argues about the USA’s “right to exist”.
No one argues about China’s “right to exist”.
In practically all instances when people believe that a country is behaving badly, no one talks about that country’s right to exist. Why does Israel deserve different terminology?
And, you have your cause and effect a bit backwards.
Israel does exist. People don’t argue that it shouldn’t in response to assertations that it does, people argue that it ought to in response to assertations that it shouldn’t.
What I was saying is something you repeated several times: that the anti-Israel/anti-Zionist camp includes a great many anti-semites, and anyone who sees themselves as part of that camp should consider who they’re allies with. It’s a simple point.
Sal, that’s a Humpty Dumpty argument.
You have no right to insist that we use your particular idolect when we converse with you.
To everyone else in the world, “Israel has no right to exist” does not mean that Israel should change it’s policies, it means just what it seems to mean…that Isreal should not exist.
If you want to communicate with the rest of us, like an adult, why don’t you use words and phrases that the rest of us understand.
And the contention that Israel has no right to exist as an ethnic state is simply laughable. France is an ethnic state. France is a French state run by and for the French. Germany is an ethnic state. Germany is a German state run by and for the Germans. Thailand is an ethnic state. Thailand is a Thai state run by and for the Thais. Do these states have no right to exist?