Efrem: Your resounding ignorance has been addressed by others in the thread you initiated in my honour.
Yes and I will deal with them it takes me quite awhile to accumlate my cites and proof read my work before I post.
Are you now dictating to me, on what my postion is?
Amusing. Baseless and foolish, but amusing.
Realized is of course the wrong verb, my dear monty. Believed, accused might be two appropriate verbs. Realized, no.
Occupation. It really is a simple question.
Why does not Israel withdraw? Answer, settlements. Expansion continues to present actually. Partial application of accords in re self-rule in limited areas. No it does not look like the Netanyahu, the following Barak barely and the Sharon goverment not at all either, government intended withdrawal – indeed it was vocally opposed to the application. Settlements continued, expropriations of land etc. Occupatio. Preparaing PA for democracy in some stunningly ignorant mirage.
Walks like the occupation duke, for time to time pretends not to quack like one for the gullible, those who want to believe otherwise, but in the end it quacks like it too.
I would add to Dseid’s largely correct observation that on the Israeli side a certain sub-set get to pursue their dream, drip by drip of total annexation of “Judae and Samaria.”
Got a cite on this?
Analysis, december, analysis. (BTW, my dear old man, you of all people calling for a cite is something an ironic act.)
A restatement might be in order of course, to state among the more important reasons. Clearly there are actual security concerns, however as the Lebanon border situation has shown, occupation is hardly the most efficient resolution of such.
The settlements, however, extended deep into the Occupied Territories, require on the ground troop presence. Occupation. Really very simple and hardly a terribly controversial observation, eh what?
Now, the meaning one attaches to this, that is quite another matter.
BTW, if december wishes to trouble himself to actually read something of an analysis, he might try the Economist, such as the 27 Jun 02 article “The West Bank under occupation: Reconquered land”
Thanks for the restatement, Collounsbury. That was the point I had in mind.
That restatement addressed to me could only be understood by december. Now that’s just sad.
More evidence that divestment is part a more general anti-Israel campaigns this [url=http://www.islamonline.net/english/news/2002-09/23/article23.shtml]UK campaign to boycott Israeli products]/url].
Yes, I would say they shouldn’t have used this comparison. First of all, it’s not the same as what the Nazis did in Warsaw, and if you think so, you are either ignorant of what happened in Warsaw or ignorant of what is happening now. Second, it’s Godwin, so it’s anti-intellectual. But my main point was that it’s inappropriate. To compare your political opponent to the basest political creatures of the last century is shockingly offensive to said opponent, particularly when said opponent is a Jew (though less so when comparer is a Jew). In any case, its efficacy is not a proof of its validity or its appropriateness.
I’m not sure how to prove to you the existence of a significant number of these people. I didn’t say a majority, or even close to 50%. Perhaps “significant number” might have been the wrong words in any case. But it is a real problem among critics of Israel, and it is foolish to not call a spade a spade. Anti-semites cannot fall back on “I’m just criticizing Israel” everytime somebody accuses them of anti-Semitism; it is the rhetorical equivalent of those who respond to all criticism of Israel with charges of anti-Semitism. I suppose I could provide you with a list of incidents of anti-Semitic criticism of Israel, but how many incidents would you want on such a list?
In re december’s comments:
-Hanan Ashrawi, while most likely not appropriate for a 9/11 commemoration, should be held up more as an example by those who think Israel is more right in the current war. Although Ashrawi has expected people to “understand” suicide bombers, this is not enough to preclude her from a list of Palestinian leaders palatable to Israel. Hell, in the West we have plenty of people asking us to “understand” suicide bombers. I can’t say she’s my favorite politician in the world, but if the PNA had more Ashrawis and less Arafats, things would be better off in the Middle East. AFAIK, Ashrawi is marginalized within the Palestinian power structure, but maybe Collounsbury can shed some light on her status.
-As far as that boycott goes, I wonder what percentage of people supporting the boycott are also against sanctions against Iraq, and for those who are, which government do they believe is worse?
It feels like this discussion is getting hijacked here, so although I’d like to respond to Collounsbury’s point about the Lebanese border issue, I don’t want to drag out C and d’s tete-a-tete (or maybe coeur-a-coeur is the appropriate term, given the passions involved) in an interesting thread totally unrelated to that side discussion.
On another note, the stall in the men’s room of my college’s physics building has written on it, “Bush/Sharon/Arafat is a Nazi”. (Also written was “Only at Cornell do you find political discussions in bathroom wall graffiti.”) So today I crossed all that out and wrote, “Hitler is a Nazi”, while thinking of this thread. I expect some people using that stall to be enlightened; others confused.
No, merely pointing out the obvious. You criticize “Israel’s abhorrent, oppressive, and racist” policies, but have no criticism for the Palestinians. In fact, I seem to recall an earlier thread where you call suicide bombers “heroic and brave”.
You goddamned troll! Stop making this stuff up, this is the second time I have to you shut up for the same damn lie. Last time, not only that you could not provide a quote for this claim, you kept following me from thread to thread harassing me. This is getting old and I am running out of patience. For the last time, provide a damn quote or shut the hell up and leave me alone!
Divestment is a perfectly legitimate way of voicing dissent, indeed a simlair situation occer with appartheid-era South Africa. In my experince most accusations of antisemtism directed against Israel critics are very cynical and are designed to de-legitmize criticism.
This isn’t partcularly helpful when accusations of antisemtism are justified as much-respected groups like the Simon Wiensthal Centre are erroding their own credibilty (see the case of its recent complaint to the British government about their special envoy to Israel)
Sure it is. However, when one calls for divesting investments in Israel but not divesting in any other country, one is more-or-less saying that Israel is the most immoral country on earth. This is obviously false.
E.g., consider the Sudan, where Christians are being murdered willy-nilly and slavery is practiced, or Zimbabwe, where the government has created a situation where mass starvation is imminent. Or, consider the Arab nations of the Middle East, with their homophobia, antisemitism, lack of democracy, lack of justice, lack of free speech, use of the death penalty, etc. These are all areas where Israel far exceeds its neighbors in morality.
So, the question then is, why treat Isreal like the most immoral country on earth, when it really isn’t? The answer to this question may not be “antisemitism,” but that possibility sure jumps out at one.
Several reasons, using Sudan as the example as it is often cited.
Sudan does not have any real buisness presence in the US, divestment only works when their is something to divest from.
Sudan is one of the poorest countries on the planet, boycotting Sudanese goods will not help anyone and it could seriously harm the average Sudanese citizen, by destroying their economy.
Sudan is not a democracy (the parliment is currently suspended and as AFAIK it ultimately it hasn’t been a democracy for a number of years), the people responsible for the policies which bring about divestment would not be the ones suffering from them, but the average Sudanese citizen would. Divestment is not a good way of changing policies in dictatorships.
The Sudanes government is not directly responsible for the worst human rights abuses it is currently working with the UN special Rapporteur (?) and the UNHCHR to clamp down on the slave trade. AFAIK the murders carried out by the Sudanese army in the south were not part of government policy.
Israel is and regards itself as a western democracy and it should be judged by the standards of a western democracy and not an unstable banana republic.
Some fun photos of some Orthodox Jews that address the OP.
I believe this statement is indeed how many people think. MC. It seems specious to me, because:
– This POV punishes Israel for maintaining a liberal democracy. They wouldn’t be so widely attacked if they became a dictatorship.
– I don’t see the same standards applied to other liberal democracies. E.g., there’s little outrage over Dutch responsibility for the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia in 1995
MC Master of Cermonies
Wrong - divestment also means withholding new investment - something that would be a vital factor in a poor country.
This is exactly the logic used by those who argue against sanctions on Iraq. What’s the betting that very few of these people were against sanctions on apartheid South Africa, despite the damage it did to the poorest people there, i.e the blacks.
No sir, divestment is an excellent way of changing policies in dictatorships - it was a big part of what worked in South Africa!
an interesting viewpoint, which illustrates your lack of knowledge much better than it makes any factual contribution to the discussion.
So in your view, if Sharon were to suspend the Knesset and declare himself dictator for life (anyone thinking of Mugabe, or Saddam Hussein or Idi Amin at this point?), then the divestment pressure should stop and everything would be hunky-dorey!!! And by extension, because the surrounding Arab countries are not western democracies, they are entitled to do anything they want??
Final note - nowhere here have I called you anti-semitic. IMHO, this whole post is a wank, because the premise is so obviously skewed to a particular point that the poster wants to make. It is intellectually dishonest.