This isn’t appropriate for Great Debates. Knock it off.
You’ve been here long enough to know better than this. You’re not allowed to complain about moderation in this forum.
There is certainly little question that while Israel is a racist country* founded on an archaic form of blood and soil nationalism it gets a vastly worst rap than it should and is held to massive double standards.
People have regularly tried to justify this by saying that she is a western democracy with massive American support and so earns this, but Turkey is a western democracy who also receives massive amounts of American aid and is also a member of NATO yet since I’ve been a member of this board I don’t think there’s been a single thread on Turkey invasion, ethnic cleansing and occupation of Northern Cyprus while there’ve been countless threads on Israel and Palestine.
That said, there are lots of other reasons other than “anti-Semitism.”
For starters, to many Europeans what’s happening in Israel/Palestine is a rather profound reminder of colonialism which is a bigger issue for them than Americans. It’s similar to the way many Americans due to Apartheid’s similarity to Jim Crow reacted to that.
Similarly many if not most of the Americans harshly critical of Israel are Jews who feel defensive about the way they feel Israel reflects on them.
Beyond that, it’s rather obvious that many of the most pro-Israel supporters couldn’t give two fucks about Israel or their cause but really just love a chance to sock it to the Muslims.
I don’t mean this as an attack on anyone reading this but I suspect most the major critics/supporters of Israel who aren’t either Israelis or Palestinians would flunk the simplest history test on the region.
*. Considering that 40% of their population are the descendants of European Jews fleeing genocide and 40% are the descendants of Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Muslim lands they’d lived for centuries and 20% are Arabs who’ve had to live their entire existence as second class citizens in their own country such an attitude is understandable.
My apologies.
You did more than just speak too soon, you’re using the same faulty logic as brazil. Just as criticizing Israel without immediately following it up with criticism of other countries actions doesn’t make one an anti-Semite, every time brazil makes statements such as that doesn’t demand that everyone queue up to state their disagreement with him or else they endorse his position. Seeing as he is the only source you’ve found who freely tosses the term anti-Semite around and you’ve just had three people line up to call him to task, could you stop using this claim?
By the by, you consider me an Israeli apologist? Seriously?
Yes, anyone who does a search to see if their username is mentioned is a bad person. :rolleyes:
Or does that apply only to people you disagree with?
Lol, nice strawman. I’m not saying anyone can or can’t do anything. I’m saying that one can make reasonable inferences about a person’s motivations by their conduct (or lack thereof).
Let me ask you this: Do you agree that generally speaking if a person has a double-standard with Group X being judged more harshly than other groups, it is reasonable to infer that the person is biased against Group X, or at least that his criticism is informed (directly or indirectly) by such a bias?
I’m asking you this question in an attempt to figure out what part of my argument you disagree with.
Not necessarily, it would depend on the context. It is of course possible for members of a group to be biased against that group.
Sure, I picked an example where it’s pretty clear that the person’s conduct is informed by anti-Semitism – even though, as far as I know, David Duke has never admitted that his concern for the Palestinian Arabs is motivated primarily by bias against Jews.
Eh? Ha! Check again.
How many of you have been to Israel! It amazes me that people see the Arabs living there living in squalor…they aren’t. Why not look at countries like Saudi Arabia where women are oppressed? Why is it we hold Israel to the highest standard and their enemies to the lowest ? Jews will always be scapegoats
I always assumed that it was because of the whiskers on his chinnegan.
You would have to ask Iran why they signed it, and why they are now breaking their word.
I’m sorry you don’t see any course of action between nuking Iran and doing essentially nothing.
Regards,
Shodan
The problem I have with this narrative is not that I disagree with the logic, it is that it casts the “racism” net too widely. Most countries in the world were founded on ethno-nationalistic lines; thus, most are “racist”.
America is a major exception; but even Canada was formed, expressly, on ethno-nationalistic lines - we here speak of having two “founding peoples”, the English and the French, with a third group (Native Canadians) also given a constitutional nod; all have legal group rights entrenched in the law. That makes Canada a “racist nation”, too. Albeit, a pretty mild form.
America was not founded on ethno-nationalist lines - yet, it was founded as an expressly slave state. So while on the surface it looks like an exception, up close it isn’t.
To my mind, the real issue isn’t whether nations are inherently “racist” due to the principles on which they were founded, it is what they do right now that counts.
Israel is, as you know, by no means faultless in this respect. In particular, Israeli Arabs have legitimate complaints about how they are treated by the government - in many ways, they suffer significant inequalities, particularly in the official allocation of resources like education, land and water: partly as a result of Israel’s truly bizzare retention of the Ottoman “millet” system, partly because of racism among officials charged with implementing that system; and, undeniably, partly because of systemic inequalities deliberately introduced or perpetuated by lawmakers.
Damuri, if you’d still like to argue your claims about biased moderation,I’ve created a thread for you in ATMB to do so. Don’t say I never dun nuthin’ for ya.
You fail at logic. People who do vanity searches are vain. That’s why they are called vanity searches. It has nothing to do with being a bad person or my agreeing or disagreeing with them.
It’s not a straw man. I’m calling your argument specious. That makes three words you’ve misused or misunderstood already, and inferring anti-Semitism from someone criticizing Israel and not immediately criticizing similar actions by other countries is far from reasonable. It is, in fact, entirely unreasonable.
You picked an inflammatory example that makes absolutely no sense. David Duke is openly and proudly anti-Semitic. If one can’t deduce from that from his website within seconds of opening it, they are either mentally handicapped or illiterate. It doesn’t take a giant leap of logic to deduce that his open, declared hatred for Jews forms the basis for his opinions on Israel. You may as well go all the way, Godwinize it, and hold up Hitler as your example.
Lol, nice weasel. You were obviously trying to imply something negative about me as a person. But let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that I’m a great person who happens to be extremely vain. And that people with normal levels of vanity never ever do searches to see if their username was mentioned in a thread. Because I’m sure that you have never ever done that. And never ever even done a Google search to see if any web pages mention you.
Doesn’t affect my argument in the slightest.
Please show me where I asserted that the criticism of other countries must be “immediate” to avoid an inference of anti-Semitism (either direct or indirect). Please quote me. Failing that, please admit that I said no such thing and apologize.
(And yes, you set up a strawman because I never said that someone “can’t” criticize Israel.)
Has David Duke ever admitted that his concern for Palestinian Arabs is motivated primarily by anti-Semitism?
Also, you ignored my question from before. It is a simple, reasonable question so that I can figure out exactly where you disagree with my position:
Do you agree that generally speaking if a person has a double-standard with Group X being judged more harshly than other groups, it is reasonable to infer that the person is biased against Group X, or at least that his criticism is informed (directly or indirectly) by such a bias?
Oh FFS… If people have a double standard on Israel, even if we eliminate stupidity, intellectual laziness, following what’s popular in certain political circles, and so on… That would still only allow you to conclude that they might be bigoted against Israel/Israelis. That still isn’t Anti-Semitism.
And if he doesn’t follow your demands does he get “banned”?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
You would have to ask Iran why they signed it, and why they are now breaking their word.
[/QUOTE]
Who cares? If a country “breaking their word” was a crime, most countries would be in the “Axis of Evil”. Is Iran the only country to break its word? Has Israel always kept its word 100%? What about Europe 100%? What about the U.S 100%?
The U.S has done enough with Iran all that way from Stuxnet to U.N sanctions. That’s more than enough. Period. I’m probably the minority here, but I don’t fear Iran and I’m certainly not afraid of them having nuclear power (or nuclear weapons for that matter).
[Quote=Dissonance]
You fail at logic. People who do vanity searches are vain. That’s why they are called vanity searches. It has nothing to do with being a bad person or my agreeing or disagreeing with them.
[/quote]
It is appalling the degree in which you make your arguments personal. It’s never about the substance, always about the poster and person, eh? I’m starting to think, if you aren’t bashing someone because of their username, their join date, their location, or their purported search history, you likely feel twinge of emptiness inside. Let me hold your hand and assuage you right-here, right-now: putting people down does not make you look better, it simply makes you look like a preadolescent bully.
- Honesty
I should have mod-noted this stupidity earlier, and I’m sorry I didn’t. Drop it right now or you’ll get a warning. This also means other posters should stop commenting on the issue.
An interesting if somewhat unexpected benefit to Israel from the ME convulsions is that the risk of actual conventional war with immediate neighbours has dried up, according to Israeli planners - who are planning significant military budget cuts.