I have no idea what “as it’s (sic) own” means. Israel has not annexed these territories, like it annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan. Yes, it’s a fact that Israel is in control of Judea and Samaria. Israel controls the border between these territories and Jordan. And by the way, only one sovereign entity has a legitimate (or any, in fact) claim to these territories.
There is no indication in the video whatsoever that what they’re holding is anything other than a piece of paper with a rough map of the area on it. Definitely no hint to the origin of the map. Care to substantiate that claim?
The map just has rough outlines of countries. For example, there is no Gaza on the map. Do you think that means that Israel considers Gaza “its own”?
It doesn’t?
Oh, c’mon. You left yourself wide open for that one!
No, it doesn’t. You really should learn about the subject you post about.
Very true. Beyond that I think we can all agree regardless of how one feels about things like welfare I think all reasonable people would agree that when you accuse Barack Obama of being “the food stamp President” it looks like you’re using a dog whistle.
Apparently, Israel never formally annexed the Golan Heights, but came about as close to it as makes no difference. The language they used preserves a “fig leaf” of deniability.
In any case, they’ve never even come close to this with the West Bank.
Since no one has claimed that Israel has “formally annexed” West Bank, I don’t get your point.
Israel also has always insisted that they have never engaged in a military occupation why then do you classify it as engaging in “a military occupation”?
You’ve also insisted that Black South Africans were citizens even though the government of South Africa said they weren’t so respectfully it’s rather clear that the official proclamations of proclamations of governments, even those with “elected parliaments” are not the final say for you.
The point is when you take over a territory as Matthew Yglesias and others have pointed out, you don’t get to occupy it forever, you have to either give the people there independence or citizenship.
And of course, as Fareed Zakaria and others have pointed out the situation in the Occupied territories is unique and every other group in a remotely comparable situation has been given citizenship or independence.
OK, we may be mostly talking past each other. Then again, maybe not.
Germans were mostly decent folks, too. The Shoah still happened. <– That’s a deliberate comparison. It’s* not*, say, a cartoon of an Orthodox man with blood dripping from his teeth under a mashup of an Israeli flag and a Nazi flag. But it is, literally, meant as a *comparison *of Israelis and pre-war Germans, with a point.
When I make that kind of statement, and I do, because I genuinely fear the path Israel is on, is it fair to call that anti-Semitism?
There’s this bit in the graphic novel / surrealist memoir Maus where Art Spiegelman finds out his father destroyed a bunch of his mother’s papers and in anger calls his father a “murderer.” This stuns his father, who didn’t see it that way.
Was it fair of Art? Eh, strictly speaking, no. But in this language, was Art “misandrist” or “antisemitic” to use such language to his father? Was he “patricidal” or “framing his father for murder,” even? No, he was angry, he was disrespectful, but it’s useful to understand what is being said and why.
So, yeah, I think get what you mean, and in many, many cases you have a point. But the particular way you said seems to imply a racist motive to an overly broad class of speakers and statements. “Whenever…” yadda yadda. No. Over-broad.
And that kind of sweeping statement worries me, because I am afraid of people much like you being so used to seeing their ethnic group as “good guys” and “victims” that they blind themselves to any evils of “their people’s” actions.
Anyway I’m a bit tired of this hijack and food fight which admittedly I’ve been responsible for and think it more worth getting back to this idea that somehow “the Left” is “anti-Semitic” or “the Left” is “Anti-Semitic”.
The truth is that there are elements of both the Left and the Right that are anti-Semitic.
For that matter the same is true of racism.
There’s a technical term for people who think white liberals can’t be racist. Morons.
Let’s remember it was Andrew Cuomo before either Palin or Rush Limbaugh who decided to say Barack Obama would lose, “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference.”
Beyond that, it’s more than a littgeworthy to hear people claim the Left can’t be anti-Semitic because of “Karl Marx” and “Rachel Maddow”.
Karl Marx of course was not Jewish except in the minds of anti-Semitic idiots. His parents came from Jewish families but they both converted to Lutheranism before he was born, baptized and raised him a Lutheran and he never in all his writings gave any indication he thought of himself as being Jewish. Moreover he made some fairly anti-Semitic comments.
As for Maddow, of whom I’m a big fan. She’s not Jewish according to anything other than the Nuremberg racial laws. Her paternal grandfather was Jewish, but she was raised and considered herself Catholic.
Beyond that, I’m more than a little reminded of all the right-wingers saying “I can’t be racist, I love Allen West and would vote for him in a second” or “We’re not racists, we’d vote for Ben Carson over Hillary Clinton” or “I love the good ones”.
We’re even then, because I sure don’t get yours. Why should Israel allow people who aren’t citizens to vote? Why do you call Israel “not a democracy” because they don’t allow people who aren’t citizens to vote?
Because that’s what it is. The Palestinian Authority can do a lot of things, but they cannot build up a military.
They’re still holding talks over this. The trouble is that each side insists on terms the other side absolutely rejects, without possibility of discussion. So the talks are taking longer than one might think.
As soon as both sides agree on the basic terms, independence (two state solution) or citizenship (one state solution) will come about. Meanwhile, limbo.
None of this makes Israel “not a democracy.”
Straw men?
Some liberals are racists. Some liberals are anti-semitic. Some liberals are anti-semitic and anti-Israel.
However, I claim that they exist in sufficiently tiny numbers that to say that “liberals”, in general, or a as a group, are anti-semitic; is ridiculous. And if anyone wants to make such a claim, I would love them to be clear about what precisely they are saying.
Ok, I’m confused.
Aren’t you the guy who earlier was insisting that South Africa under Apartheid was NOT a democracy because they forbade black people “who were not citizens” from voting?
What changed your mind?
If you feel that Israel has the right refuse to grant the vote to “people who aren’t citizens” then why doesn’t South Africa have the same right?
Your logic is lacking.
The guy you should ask is Terr not me since he’s the one pushing the claim not me.
Nothing the Israelis are doing is remotely comparable to the Holocaust. Nothing most Israelis are doing is remotely comparable to tacit support of Holocaust-level atrocities.
Yes, just as it would be racist for someone to use racist rhetoric because they “genuinely fear the path” black people are on. It’s not okay to use racist or antisemitic rhetoric, ever. There’s no justification for it.
I don’t know about the motive – I’m unable to judge it. I can’t read minds, only actions and words. And these words are anti-semitic. Comparing the Jewish nation, or Jews en masse, to Nazis, is always anti-semitic. Comparing Obama or black people en masse to slavers is always racist. Not just because they’ve done nothing comparable to the Holocaust, but specifically because they are Jews (and the Jewish nation) and the Holocaust has a unique significance to that group.
I don’t think so. I’m not fond of many of Israel’s current policies. I think Netanyahu has done a terrible job, and made peace less likely. I think the two-state solution is the only long term solution for Israel’s safety and security. I don’t believe Israel can remain both the Jewish nation and a liberal democracy unless there is a two-state solution.
But comparing them to the Nazis is always beyond the pale (unless, I suppose, they were literally committing genocide). It’s always anti-semitic.
Ibn Warraq do you still think I’m antisemitic because I think Jews shouldn’t demand Israel be recognized as officially Jewish?
As long as you also think that France should not be “officially French”, Germany should not be “officially German” and Spain should not be “officially Spanish”.
No, that’d be the equivalent of saying Israel should not be “officially Israeli”. “Officially Jewish” has a different meaning.
Sure whatever
“Jewish” in that sense is not a religion. “Jewish” is an ethnicity as well. The concept of “Am” in Hebrew. So yes, Israel is an ethnically Jewish state. Like France is an ethnically French one. And Germany is an ethnically German one. Recognition for Israel as a Jewish state is as natural as recognition for France as a French state. And denying such recognition for Israel while it being ok for France or Germany is motivated by antisemitism.
It’s still a tricky question though. When someone converts to Judaism, they are considered Jews in every sense aren’t they? Does Israel make a distinction between ethnic Jews and converted Jews? It’s not quite the same as becoming a citizen of any other country, regardless of ethnicity.