Interesting enough, you responded to Red’s citation of the UN’s kangaroo court which was so blatantly biased against Israel that several of its own judges remarked that the law wasn’t actually applied fully and the relevant facts weren’t allowed into evidence let alone considered… and your response is something about paranoia and how your camp is being persecuted.
Also known as “racism”, but moving along…
Read the article. There’s a difference between “Israel Lobby” and “Jewish Lobby”. It’s also interesting that Hagel jumps to the same tired old failure of a defense that many anti-Israel partisans on the Dope do when caught out in a difference of opinion on proper policy; he alleges that people who disagree with him on American foreign policy must really want American lawmakers to put a foreign nation ahead of us. One might even say that it’s an allegation of putting Israel, hrm… First.
Actually, you seem to have missed what you were responding to. See, this was the post you were responding to, and this was your response. So, of course that’s what you were responding to. Glad I could help you understand that. Now, I suspect that what you meant to say is “Sure, that’s what I was responding to, but I didn’t really notice or care what the subject under discussion was, I just wanted to claim that nobody can criticize Israel without being called an anti-Semite, since if I don’t have an argument I can at least hop up on the cross.” Easy typo to make, Elvis.
P.S. You still haven’t explain what exactly you meant by IOKIAJ. I wonder why.
(I see where you’re looking sir, and I’ll have you know that the cross is booked solid six months in advance by folks who are preparing to open their 1st post in Israel threads by declaring, woe unto them, for they are surely to be accused of anti-Semitism shortly, just as has never ever happened to them on the Dope any times ever.)
Yes, your post is #552 which was responding to post #551, which was responding to the discussion concering Israel as most reviled country in the world.
For clarity, here’s the chain:
Caroza
Malthus
Brazil84
Elvis1Lives
Malthus again
Seems pretty clear to me. I can’t see the “Straw Elvis” you are complaining about. Or what exactly it was you were “responding to” other than the posts that immedialy preceded yours.
ibn, I was expressing frustration, as someone who considers himself civilized and desiring peace, with the endless stream of rationalizations, special pleading, claims of exceptionalism and persecution, accusations of ignorance, denial, irresponsibility, racism, exceptionalism, self-justification of lebensraum, and general narcissism that we see from the yahoo side almost to the exclusion of anything else anymore. Israel wasn’t always like that, and neither were its people, but something changed, tragically.
**Malthus **and Finn, have a nice day on your planets.
If I may, IOKIAJ is a variation on IOKIARDI (and similar phrases), which stands for “it’s OK if a Republican does it”, i.e. a sarcastic comment that an earlier poster’s pro-Republican statement shows bias - that the poster is okay with the Republican’s action because he is sympathetic to the Republican’s goals, and the same action from a Democrat would instead have earned abuse and criticism.
For example, if a Democrat takes action that suppresses voting from people likely to vote against the Democrats, there are posters on this board who will call that grossly immoral and unconstitutional. If a Republican does it, though, that’s just clever electoral strategy.
Feel free to swap Republicans and Democrats in the above example (i.e. IOKIADDI), which was chosen only for illustration and not as a comment on either party. In that specific case of “IOKIAJ”, it seems the trailing “DI” was dropped (laziness? efficiency? meh, I could care less), but the sentiment is the same. The person who wrote that is claiming that someone is defending the actions of Jews just because they are Jews, and similar actions from other groups would be cause for criticism.
Your Pit-lite post to the contrary (complete with Godwinizing the topic, good job Elvis), people able to read and comprehend English will note that you didn’t actually respond to his question, just changed the subject your flaming people who regularly hand you your head in these sorts of debates. Care to elaborate on your claim that you are being persecuted and that said persecution is somehow organized by those who think that “It’s Okay If [you’re?] A Jew.” How does that relate to “exceptionalism”, ol’ buddy? Are you, pr’aps, referring to “Jewish exceptionalism?”
Do feel free to change the subject with a general rant about how the people who prove your argument wrong on the facts and irrational in its attempts at logic must be “narcisists”. (Pro Tip: you really should look up a word you don’t know before you use it, you probably meant “sociopath” not “narcissist.”)
So we both provide citations of your own words, in context, and exactly what they were referring to… and you claim, in response, that we must live on alternate worlds. Do you generally find that denying your own quoted, cited, archived, never-going-to-change-ever statements is an effective strategy with people whose grey matter exists from the brain stem up? Or is it more a tactic of desperation and failure?
See how nasty those pro-Israel Yahoos are, and Israel and its people? They make peace-loving and civilized Elvis lash out in frustration.
They used to be cool. But they changed, man.
Am I the only one deriving amusement from the fact that I’ve been preemptively dismissed in the very same thread by pro-Israeli Brazil84 and anti-Israeli ElvisL1ves?
The difference is that It’s Okay If You’re A Democrat is an accusation of partisan loyalty and double-standards. However, “It’s Okay If A Jew” is an accusation of clannish loyalty, preference for in-group members to the detriment and at the expense of out-group members, and so on. Especially when coupled with Elvis’ accusation that his camp is being persecuted by a group of people who believe in Jewish “exceptionalism”.
It goes beyond being an accusation of hypocrisy in the context in which Elvis uses it. Which, of course, is why he can’t or won’t actually voice a cogent explanation as to what he meant and instead only spit vitriol at his opponents in GD.
“IOKI” expressions aren’t, in my experience, said sincerely by people who are defending the groups in question. Rather, it’s an accusation one makes against people who, one perceives, are defending the group in question in a hypocritical manner.
Person 1: I see Group A is at it again. What a bunch of jerks.
Person 2: But yesterday you praised Group B and they were doing the same thing.
Person 1: The actions and circumstances are significantly different, though.
Person 2: Bullshit. Obviously to you, IOKIGBDI [i.e. it’s okay if Group B does it].
The differences noted by Person 1 might have merit or they might not, but Person 2 has already decided Person 1 is a hypocrite (possibly justly, possibly not), end of debate.
No, that many Israelis (and pro-Likud people who don’t actually live there) see themselves as such, that the moral standards that generally apply to the rest of the world don’t apply to them. It’s deploring hypocrisy and self-delusion, and the ugliness and pain that follow from it. Clear now?
The acronym, since you sincerely ask, is derived from IOKIYAR.
Ok, then if your point was meant to be about "Israelis and pro-Likud people then why didn’t you type out IOKIAI(it’s okay it’s an Israeli) instead “It’s Okay It’s a Jew”?
Also what’s with the “pro-Likud” comment?
What makes you think the people you’re attacking support Likud over Labour or Kadima?
I’ll give that a shot, given your sincerity. Those are not the same thing. Jewry /= Israel. Support of Israel may and often does require *opposition *to its government and its actions, and to the electorate and the attitudes that put it in power. There are different forms of patriotism than mere yahooism, after all, and most of them are more respectable and more civilized. However “the Israeli lobby” typically refers to the yahooist version, and implies that we need to bankroll whatever the hell Netanyahu does, without question, or else we’re just antisemitic.
Similarly, some issues important or relevant to the Jewish community of the United States have jackshit to do with Israel, although they mostly do, making “the Jewish lobby” a useful term.
However, based on what you’re saying Chuck Hagel’s reference to “the Jewish lobby” was at best quite offensive since AIPAC doesn’t care about issues that “have jackshit to do with Israel” and isn’t even an exclusively Jewish organization.
Had Hagel referred to either of the AJCs(American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress) that would have made sense since those are Jewish organizations concerned with helping the American Jewish community or, to a lesser extent had he applied the term to the ADL.
However, he did. He used the term to apply to AIPAC.
Similarly, had he labeled CAIR as “the Muslim lobby” or AADC as “the Arab lobby” he’d certainly have recieved heat from Muslim Americans and Arab-Americans even though such a comment would have been more defensible than calling AIPAC “the Jewish Lobby”.
