No. I was referring to Lebanon, Turkey, and arguably Iraq.
The idea that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East is pure propaganda.
It is usually a short form term for ‘only functioning first-world-type democracy enjoying the rule of law, with a system that more-or-less functions and has the legitimacy within the country to actually rule’. In sum, a country which has the reality of a functioning democracy. Other countries (with the exception of Turkey, I’d have said two weeks ago) have free voting it is true, but they do not resemble what people in the West think of as “democracies”.
Until the last couple of weeks I’d have said Turkey’s past of military coups and repression was well behind it and it was in the club, too. Now, that doesn’t look so certain.
Lebanon and Iraq - they don’t really qualify. Lebanon’s system is too anarchic to reliably function.
Lebanon is a good example of a country that is fully democratic in having elections, but the government cannot reliably rule. Parts of the country are subject to Hezbollah, which although it has members elected to the Lebanese Parliament, acts outside of the political system, and indeed has its own foreign policy at odds with that of the Lebanese state - for example, interfering on behalf of the Syrian government in a conflict in which Lebanon itself is “neutral”.
Serious question: could you make matzah with human blood?
It is possible to make matzah using additional ingredients such as fruit or eggs, but for the seder matzah at Passover, (the stuff to which the nasty rumors allude), only flour and water are permitted, so ading blood would not work.
In addition, even if one were using human blood for a non-Passover matzah, the prohibition against eating any blood would render it tref or taboo. The prohibition against consuming blood appears several times in the Torah.
The blood libel was just nasty stupidity that would have required Jews to violate multiple laws to engage in it.
Thanks.
I would not dignifythatquestion with an answer
Then it was good that I could fill in for you, here.
It is quite possible for a person to have no contact with Judaism and to be unaware of the traditions, rituals, and rules that order it. If a poster has not displayed a strong streak of anti-semitism, I am going to presume ignorance rather than malice–and even when asked in malice, the answer is liable to be informative to others who thought the question, but did not post it.
In fact, one of the goals of koshering meat it to draw the blood from it. That’s a purpose of salting the meat.
In the absence of any further context, I would not blame you. I was just trying to figure out if the blood libel rumor was even plausible (other than the implausibility of the baby killing part).
Then I apologize.
This is actually a good point, OurLordPeace, it’s quite a shame it was never addressed. As you’ve noticed,OurLordPeace, a great deal of your posts have been carved out and reduced into snippets that are so far removed from the original context, that they’re essentially caricatures of your posts. This is done to diminish you as a poster and, in turn, make light of your position. The secret to Israeli and (most) Middle Eastern threads is to don’t participate in them. Ever. I attempted to warn you several pages ago and sincerely hope you’ve learned your lesson.
- Honesty
Since you think OurLordPeace is making a great argument here, what do you think of OurLordPeace arguing that yes, he thinks that “the blood libel” had “a basis in reality”?
Do you think “the blood libel” had “a basis in reality”?
To me, it seems that anyone who makes such an argument is either a bigot, a moron, or both?
Do you disagree with me, and if so, why?
Thanks.
No, I don’t think blood libel - as I understand it - has a basis in reality. I can’t really comment on OurLordPeace’s feelings on that issue, however, I do think you guys did a great job running him/her off, so I doubt s/he will be back to explain it.
- Honesty
What do you mean you can’t comment on it.
He/she rather stupidly decided to put forth a website set up by an anti-Semitic hack who claimed that Israeli soldiers kidnapped and murdered Palestinian children for their organs and who claimed the blood libel had a basis in fact.
When questioned OurLordPeace defended the claims that “the blood libel” had “a basis in fact”.
So, please answer my question.
In my opinion, anyone who claims that “the blood libel” has “a basis in fact” is either a moron or a bigot.
Do you disagree, and if so, why?
Thanks.
I’m also not sure why you’re complaining that we “ran” him/her off since he/she made rather improbable claims about her academic background and then made statements that made such claims look rather dubious.*
It doesn’t appear to me that anyone “ran” him/her off.
*. Note, I’m not accusing him/her of lying, though it is truly shocking that after first being completely ignorant of the work of Dr. Massad, he/she would then claim to not only know who he was, but to have cited him in his/her thesis. It was extremely curious.
Yet another “Israel can do no wrong” thread at The Dope – as I said, it’s just a permanent ‘bug’ in this site.
May as well bang your head against a wall. At least you’ll know why it hurts.
Both sides claim to be in the right, but I honestly don’t see why I should care about either of them.
By my estimation over the last 30 years Israel has killed around three times as many innocents as it has lost.
The Israelis perpetually claim the moral high ground because they do it with more advanced killing technologies. Sorry, but that doesn’t fly with me. The use of white phosphorous munitions and US made cluster bombs is no more morally right than home made rockets.
Either way the result is a bunch of innocent dead children.
If I could cut the whole middle east out of the history of human existence I’d do it in a heartbeat. I really don’t see how there would be any net loss to humanity if that happened.
Other than the part where civilization never occurs, you mean?
No, he’s right. I fully support removing geographic regions from history on account of being bad and troublesome. How about this: we erase every land mass in which a major war or genocide took place over the past 200 years. The world would certainly be a nicer place, albeit a wetter one.
If y’all did a third as good a job actually learning about the issue, citing your arguments and crafting cogent arguments, rather than complaining about how very oppressed you are…* on the Dope*? If y’all spent that same energy working to craft a logical, cohesive gloss that took facts into consideration instead of avoiding inconvenient facts which you can’t hammer into your narrative? If, rather than leaping to claims of Undue Influence and Foreign Agents and Media Manipulation and Dual Loyalty, you actually understood that America is, has been, and pretty much looks to be reliably pro-Israeli and, if not anti, at least not pro-Palestinian political causes? Well, then you could try realizing, especially in a debate with people who know more than you do and who can actually connect the facts, that you need to bring your A-game rather than just complaining about how very unfair it is that even though you just know you’re right, people keep refuting you with facts and logic.
Or you could just complain some more.
How’s that workin’ out for ya?
Given his/her lack of knowledge of things they were talking about, that would probably be for the best.
The irony, it stings a little.