Not recently.
Because our little dispute doesn’t have a knock-on effect with the rest of the world, as far as I am aware.
Arabs and Persians are two entirely different ethnic groups. Most Iranians are Persians; there are small minorities of other ethnic groups in Iran, notably Arabs, Jews, and various Turkic groups.
ivan astikov, you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. Go read a fucking book or two and then come back before you start blathering on about shit of which you are entirely ignorant.
Maybe he’s confused about the purpose of the shofar during the Days of Awe.
I think people are being a bit sloppy about the phrase “pro-Israel” – does it mean “thinks Israel has a right to exist” or does it mean “thinks Israel is doing a great job and can do no wrong?” Myself and most progressive Jews I know believe the former but not the latter.
What’s the cut-off date for “recently” ?
Well, at about the time that Israel was formed, the UN became an effective international law body. The UN took Britain’s Palestine Mandate and gave a portion to form the state of Israel to the people who had been attacking the Brits. Now keep in mind that the Brits had no right other than of conquest to the land. The UN had no right to the land. The indigenous people did. The UN gave it to one group in favor of the other. For a variety of reasons which I support the original UN authorization. This left the other indigenous people out in the cold, without a country.
Since then there have been a great number of wars involving Israel. In some of those Israel took the first shot and started it. Certainly Suez is one of those. In others it was defending itself, sometimes after taking the first shot, and sometimes after being shot at. Israel seized land in those wars and took additional political prerogatives. The UN has never ratified those seizures. Israel has no intention of ever ceding that “conquered” land back under any circumstances under the policies of the current government.
Your post suggests that the right of conquest is valid under international law. I don’t think that it is without the recognition of the international community in general with respect to those conquests. The international community in general does not recognize these as legitimate land gains for Israel.
The consequence of “the right of conquest” under your theory is that any person or nation is welcome to try to conquer all or portions of Israel if they are prepared to suffer the consequences (death and further disenfranchisement). Most people do not think that is a wise course or a legal one. It is an invitation to terrorism on a small or grand scale. Most people recognize that and reject it. The consequence is that anybody with a beef and a suitcase nuke can drive up to a military facility anywhere and blow it up, collateral damage be damned. I reject that. The world rejects that.
The US takes a lot of heat for not publicizing Auschwitz and the Holocaust during WWII and for not doing more about it. This criticism is legitimate in my opinion, especially with respect to lack of US criticism and propaganda effort denouncing the Holocaust. The US didn’t denounce the Holocaust in communiques and war propaganda because anti-Semitism was acceptable in the US during that time and it would have hurt the war effort overall.
But what if the show were on the other foot? If it were Jews locked in Gaza? If the Palestinians were settling in neighborhoods that the UN had not set aside for a Palestinian state?
The point of law, including international law, is to end the rule of force and impose the rule of law.
No, the UK has not within the last 100 years been as brutal to the Irish as Israel is to the Palestinians in Gaza.
Eire is by agreement among all the parties in Ireland. Israel clearly doesn’t have to withdraw from the Territories because they are willing to face the publicity and moral consequences of not doing so.
I’m not familiar with your personal posting history, but in this thread, the thread title alone calls a particular poster, by innuendo, an anti-Semite. That is the “sting” of the sarcasm in the title.
Not all of us who are critical of some Israeli policies are to be painted with the same brush as the KKK and the Nazis.
Cite, please?
And as someone with half Jewish ancestry, I agree with this as far as it is taken. In another thread someone congratulated me for having said I was opposed to the current Iraq war before it started based on the small criticisms allowed in the press from people like Blix and Ritter. Sorry, I am not to be congratulated, as I said in that thread. I failed. My mouthing off that isn’t successful and that doesn’t stop oppression is nothing to celebrate. It might constitute a weak defense of my personal share of the guilt.
Gaza is a monstrosity. I am partly responsible for it because my country does nothing to end it. Israel is in a greater part responsible because it insists with force of arms and diplomatic action that it continue.
Try reading Samantha Power’s “A Problem From Hell”, there’s a few clues in that.
I’ve read it. I don’t recall there being anything about how publicizing the Holocaust would have hurt the US’ war effort in it.
I understand that they’re not, in a geographic context.
But Socially and geneologically are they significantly different?
Yes. Why is this so baffling?
So, Raphael Lemkin had no problems getting the US government to accept his accounts of what was occurring in Germany and Poland, and to intervene, or did you miss that bit?
More than just yes. Drastically yes. Fundamentally yes.
Where did I say it was baffling, or that I was confused?
I said I was on fence, as in I hadn’t made a decision due to lack of proper evidence.
In much the same way that I don’t consider Americans and Canadians (for the most part) to be significantly different, I allow for the possibility that those from Persia are not significantly different from their very close neighbors on the Arabian peninsula.
I didn’t say they weren’t, if you’ll notice. I said I hadn’t drawn a conclusion. Perhaps that’s a fault of mine, but I tend not to do that unless I have adaquette information on a subject.
IIRC, most of Lemkin’s work took place after the war was already over. Lemkin coined the term “genocide” and made getting the UN to recognize it as a crime his life’s work, but I don’t recall (it’s been about five years since I read the book) that his efforts were in getting the US to intervene in the Holocaust.
Either way, I agree that the US government did not accept the stories of the Holocaust. What I would like a cite for is that the US actively suppressed stories of it because anti-Semitism was so ingrained in American culture that publicizing it would have been detrimental to the war effort, which is what I inferred from The Second Stone’s post.
If that is not what The Second Stone was implying, I look forward to a clarification.
Well, I’m sorry for jumping on you, it was just that you seemed to reluctant to accept this information. It seemed strange to me that you didn’t want to accept the Persians own definition of themselves as being Persian, and not Arab, and were looking for more sources. IMO, if someone says they’re ethnic group A and not ethnic group B, I take them at their word.
Page 29.
“As he lobbied for action in Washington and around the country in 1942 and 1943, …”
Are you even reading what I wrote?
- me.