I decided it might be unwise to start a thread, but in light of various accusations of anti-semitism against the labour party in the UK, I leave this video here. And if anyone can bear to watch it through, I would ask whether it is just possible that some Jewish people are racist; that the state of Israel is institutionally racist; that the victims have tragically become the oppressors? Am I even allowed to ask?

My thought is that the problem with your post in the Shoutbox is likely what you intended to avoid by placing it in the Shoutbox. I get that you feared starting a thread would spark controversial remarks that could be designated anti-Semitic, but I also think by placing a single video here as sort of the definitive description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without offering a full forum for complete discussion sort of limits the responses.

I can't say I watched the whole video, but I did watch the opening lines, which had a woman declaring that Israel's right to exist was rooted in God's decree alone, which was intended to delegitimize Israel's right to exist and it then said Palestinian children were being rounded up in an effort to control the population, placing Israel as monsters who enjoy injuring children.

Questions like what gives our Australian announcer the right to live on Aboriginal lands are not discussed, nor is the question of what has instigated the martial law tactics of the Israelis addressed (although maybe later in the film they offer a balanced explanation of both sides, but it seems not).

Anyway, the right to possess land is complicated in all instances, but the right to protect it generally not. So I'd think a thread would be more appropriate for complete discussion, but I also think special care should be made to avoid suggestions that the Jews are monsters or that the Palestinians are dogs, which are sometimes the unspoken thoughts of the advocates for either side.

I am afraid to watch it. I have this unappreciated power of seeing something once and never being able to get it out of my mind, even years later. I walked out of Bambi in the forest fire scene and I couldn't finish the Lion King after he chased his brother off a cliff to be eaten alive.
Please advise me: is this a video that has hard to watch images?

Please advise me: is this a video that has hard to watch images? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, it's just like Bambi, but without the scary scenes.

No, it's just like Bambi, but without the scary scenes. — Hanover

Ahem...3 seconds in and there is an advisor. :gasp: I'll follow along without the pictures.

I found it very disturbing, but it's not that graphic. You need the subtitles though.

I noticed that the film had comments turned off on vimeo, which is one reason I was hesitant about the thread. But I think people should look at it (no children though). There are some amazing Jewish Israeli people trying to change things for the better on the film, so though it is indeed one sided, and though there are big issues about Australia and Britain and anywhere, this is this and it needs to be known about too. Hopefully we can avoid the 'your atrocities are worse than mine' arguments, along with the 'you're racist for calling me racist' ones. But probably not. :sad:

Anyway, the right to possess land is complicated in all instances, but the right to protect it generally not. So I'd think a thread would be more appropriate for complete discussion, but I also think special care should be made to avoid suggestions that the Jews are monsters or that the Palestinians are dogs, which are sometimes the unspoken thoughts of the advocates for either side. — Hanover

I generally avoid discussions of Israel and the Palestinians and I won't make an exception here except to make one point about moral perspective. Bad things happen to people all over the world. There is violence. People lose their homes. There is oppression and terrorism. As a US citizen, I don't necessarily need to weigh in on who's right, who's wrong, and what's up. Except when I share responsibility for what's happening, which is certainly true in the Middle East. My country has had a big role in screwing that part of the world up. I don't feel any need to fix things. That may not be possible. Often I feel that our continued involvement just makes things worse.

I can't say I watched the whole video, but I did watch the opening lines, which had a woman declaring that Israel's right to exist was rooted in God's decree alone, which was intended to delegitimize Israel's right to exist and it then said Palestinian children were being rounded up in an effort to control the population, placing Israel as monsters who enjoy injuring children.

Questions like what gives our Australian announcer the right to live on Aboriginal lands are not discussed, nor is the question of what has instigated the martial law tactics of the Israelis addressed (although maybe later in the film they offer a balanced explanation of both sides, but it seems not).

There is a difference between systematic, institutionalized discrimination and sanctioning of rights violations in a double standard manner and individual acts of discrimination. Any form of institutionalized sanctioning of rights violation should be criticized and stigmatized. I see no reason why not, and I see an especial need to pipe it down on a group who's very existence was threatened by the same elitist, God-endowed form of discrimination being enacting now. This documentary should be taken as a case study of discrimination and oppression in a modern state, not a wholesale condemnation of a people group.

And just because colonial communities of the past committed terrible acts does not legitimize nor should it relax condemnation of it in the present.

Questions like what gives our Australian announcer the right to live on Aboriginal lands are not discussed, nor is the question of what has instigated the martial law tactics of the Israelis addressed (although maybe later in the film they offer a balanced explanation of both sides, but it seems not). — Hanover

While I do agree that the ultra-orthodox community - though they have the loudest voice (let's not forget Yitzak Rabin) - is actually a small minority in Israel and we could say the same for many countries in the world that violate children' rights, i.e. child soldiers, slave labour and sexual crimes; Australia indeed has a deplorable past with the genocide they have committed against Indigenous peoples and even today continue to violate international human rights conventions with their horrendous treatment of asylum seekers, but it is not about the right of self-determination neither is it pointing fingers here and saying that one is worse than the other. The rights of children are universal and it is our responsibility to protect this right. The question here is not about the possession of land but whether there is any justification to violate Convention of the Rights of a Child for the sake of security.

No.

In Israel, martial law prohibits freedom of expression and association that enables the military to exercise powers that can detain and intimidate children who are subject to martial law and Israeli police continue - in places like East Jerusalem - to violate adopted laws such as Law 5731-1971 (‘Youth Law’) - that attempts to improve the treatment of minors. Order Number 1745 explains the lawful process of interrogation against minors suspected of committing security offences and yet within it - 136d(b)6 - it hypocritically states, “This article does not apply to minors suspected of committing security offenses,” So, :chin: ? I suspect the intention of the Knesset amending the Penal Code to increase the sentence of stone throwing with a minimum imprisonment of three years is to use intimidation to protect residents living in illegally built settlements in the occupied territories of Palestine and/or to try and change the mindset by using fear tactics to enforce submission. It is dubious to say the least whether these hostilities will in fact prevent the makings of future terrorists. These children experience mental health and post-traumatic symptoms from being detained from their families, stripped naked, interrogated, before going back to living in proximity to a wall protected by armed soldiers that continue to use aggressive tactics.

I don't care what country you are from or what religion you follow. The rights of children are universal and to use the pointing fingers card is really not on.

My reference to Australia was not to suggest that since the Australians violate civil rights, it's hypocritical for the Australian presenter to condemn Israel for doing the same thing. It also was not meant to suggest Australians are particularly egregious violators of civil rights. I suppose an argument could be made that hints at anti-Semitic motives if it is indeed Jews being specifically targeted by the international community for its violations, but I don't think that's the case candidly. I do believe the interest in Middle East politics is all about the seas of oil in the region and the need for a strong US ally there. Displacement that occurs in various lesser known regions in Africa, for example, get no attention because there is no economic interest there.

My reference to Australia was over the question of what constitutes legitimate land occupation, and the question can be turned to any nation anywhere. It's no more legitimate to say my quarter acre lot is mine because I bought it through legitimate means under US law as it to say it is mine because my ancestors put a stake in it 1000 years ago. Land is acquired by war, government force, treaty, and purchase, and the question isn't clear when it's morally rightfully one's own, which places Israel's rightful presence as morally ambiguous as Australia's and the US's. The Palestinian right to the lands is just as morally right as the Manhattan Indians right to NYC, only in the latter case no one takes such a claim at all seriously.

And that takes me to the next point, is that if we accept Israel's right to occupy all the lands it does (for example, accepting the Levy Commission's report of its right to the disputed territories), then it is understandable that there be a certain ferocity in protecting those lands. You'd certainly not expect much less from a sovereign nation in allowing the takeover its land. To be sure, if the Mexicans decided they wanted to reclaim Texas, it would end very badly for them, with little public outcry.

And this takes us to the children. I absolutely wish to protect innocent children and even to afford guilty children lesser punishments than adults, but there is no nation on earth that doesn't detain children. Israel, if you take the generous view toward the Israelis (which I understand you do not), is a nation under constant attack and fears for its safety and its continued prosperity. Amid the growing violence, it did in fact increase mandatory sentences for rock throwing, although the Israeli Supreme Court did not allow anywhere close to three year sentences for it, and the sentences in facts were measured in terms of weeks and not years. I would assume again that should some teenagers take it upon themselves to throw rocks at police in the US, I could certainly see sentences being handed down in that range. Say what you wish, but throwing stones into crowds and at officers is a real threat to public order, and doubtfully something you would accept in your community, unless, of course, you shared in the outrage of the rock throwers. But, of course, in this hypothetical, we are assuming the rightful occupation of the Israelis, which you do not.

So, yes, innocent children should not be detained, but dangerous children should, still keeping in mind they are children and should not be treated as punitively as adults.

The British Labour Party is anti-Semitic. The current issue of The Economist magazine even has an article on the topic. The Economist also featured articles on the anti-Semitism of the British Labour Party being so prevalent that top Jewish leaders of the party had to resign, because of all the threats they were receiving from party members.

Land is acquired by war, government force, treaty, and purchase, and the question isn't clear when it's morally rightfully one's own, which places Israel's rightful presence as morally ambiguous as Australia's and the US's. The Palestinian right to the lands is just as morally right as the Manhattan Indians right to NYC, only in the latter case no one takes such a claim at all seriously. — Hanover

I accept the legitimacy of sovereign states as defined by international law whereby such states as members of an international community are subject to the equality principle based on particular characteristics as per the declarative theory test. This would make Israel, as a sovereign state, subject to international human rights law (see Montevideo Convention) however the erosion of human rights is when legitimacy of statehood is accepted on the basis of national law where sovereign powers begin to exercise categorical breaches of human rights obligations based often on potentially ideological underpinnings and violating the League of Nations Mandate (hence the "certain ferocity in protecting those lands" and the Levy Commission Report).

In 1992, Australia' high court case Mabo vs. Queensland overturned the Terra Nullius concept used by the colonialists as justification for the possession of Australian land, despite the indigenous population living here for thousands of years and this declaration was likely inhabited by the vicious concept that the indigenous people were not 'civilised' and why the disgusting White Australia Policy only recognised as loathsome in the 1970s. It took even longer for the government to apologise for the genocide and even the latter is a word not used to describe what they did to indigenous children.

Referring to your statement, indeed, Palestinian statehood has regularly failed the State Recognition tests for a number of reasons, but not what you suggest (vis-a-vis land acquisition) but rather the ambiguity of permanent characteristics where the government is unable to consolidate adequate control over the territories. You speak of war, force, treaty and purchase, but there is also constitutive recognition by the international community - hence why UN resolutions recognising Palestinian statehood cannot be undermined, as well as other characteristics such as defined territory, a solid and unified system of governance, international relations and diplomatic capacity, and finally a permanent population all of which have been undermined both as a result of bad Palestinian leadership but - the latter in particular as per the settlement buildings - by Israel because the intention is clear that they are infringes the Palestinian right to self-determination.

The security and continuous threats of violence plays a pivotal role in this and it is clearly understandable given the constant threats against Israel and particularly the disbelief against the existence of Israel. If cases against Israel were taken to international courts, Hamas would likely be guilty since Israel was merely defending against attacks aimed at Israeli civilians. But if we really want to discuss land occupation and international law, we can remove the potentially emotive elements relating to the Palestinians by focusing on the Golan Heights.

So, yes, innocent children should not be detained, but dangerous children should, still keeping in mind they are children and should not be treated as punitively as adults. — Hanover

Ahed Tamimi is one such girl detained by the Israeli police for kicking a soldier and while I congratulate the soldiers in that instance for not responding to her frustrated resistance, is she "dangerous" enough to merit 10 years imprisonment?

I don't understand how you would assume that I am not taking a "generous view" toward the Israelis when I am well aware of the continuous security threats and have said it as such - hence the relationship between security threats and children's rights - but children are not dangerous. You need good people in dangerous cities to respect and trust the police, just as much as these children belong in schools, to be protected by a safe home, and to be given opportunities so that they can see Israel for what it really is, a beautiful place. Do you not understand that?

Ahed Tamimi is one such girl detained by the Israeli police for kicking a soldier and while I congratulate the soldiers in that instance for not responding to her frustrated resistance, is she "dangerous" enough to merit 10 years imprisonment? — TimeLine

From the article :

"But with Israel’s military court system boasting a 99.7 per cent conviction rate for Palestinians, the odds don’t look good."

Why the bloody hell is a minor judged in front of a military court for a misdemeanor?

Why would anyone want to hold a "generous view" of those who commit such abuse?

The beginning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes back to the beginning of Zionism (late 19th century and forward) and the flight of Jews from Germany before WWII. It was acknowledged at the beginning that bringing non-Arabs into Palestine would be problematic for the resident Arabs. The land was already fully occupied -- of course; it wasn't just sitting there empty, waiting for settlers.

There was resistance from the Arab residents from the beginning, and became more intense once the State of Israel was declared.

It has been evident for quite some time that the Jewish infiltration into the west bank, with settlements and roads, would prevent the Palestinians from organizing a contiguous territory. Further, there was, if I remember correctly, an intention (in the British Balfour Declaration) to include the West Bank as part of Israel. That didn't happen de jure; it's been de facto.

Israel now has the problem of pacifying the Arab population in its midst, never a nice process. It is traumatic for the resident Palestinians to endure, and it is degrading to Israeli culture to do it. I don't see an acceptable way out for either side.

The point I want to reinforce, is that this isn't a new problem: it was created when the first Jews left Europe for Palestine. This is, for better or worse, the way the world works. Columbus's expedition, then later the British, was the beginning of the end for native western hemisphere cultures. When Australia was discovered and claimed by the British, that too was the beginning of the end for the aboriginal culture.

Nobody lands on the shore, discovers people already present, and says, "Oh, look, Jack. See, there are people already living here. That means we must leave so as not to disturb them. They were here first, and they deserve to remain the only residents here."

No. Never happens that way. Instead, calculations are made about what it will take to win a beachhead, then move in settlers. If the calculating is sound, the discoverers will lead to settlers and that will be either the end of the existing residents, or a very long war and then the end of the earlier residents.

Colonial expansion by one people normally occurs at the expense of the natives -- in this case, Arabs. It may not be nice; just; fair; reasonable; and so on, but that is the way the world works.

Questions like what gives our Australian announcer the right to live on Aboriginal lands are not discussed — Hanover

Criticism of those in Australia that seek to deny or downplay the genocides of Australian indigenous people are right and just, as are those of people who do likewise in the US, Canada or many other developed countries where people live affluent lives on land that was stolen from the inhabitants a few centuries ago, and where the few survivors of those indigenous inhabitants have mostly been oppressed and discriminated against in the intervening years.

What differentiates this from the Israel-Palestine case is that I can vehemently criticise the Australian government when it seeks to downplay the country's past genocide (as it shamefully does far too often), without being accused of racism against the current majority inhabitants of Australia. Yet when one criticises the Israeli government one is branded as anti-semitic. Or, if one is one of the many Jews that levy similar criticism against the Israeli government's actions, one is branded a self-hating Jew. I'm not saying that people on this forum, who are mostly a pretty thoughtful bunch, would spray those accusations of anti-semitism or self-hatred around. But there are regrettably very many in the wider world that do exactly that.

Nobody lands on the shore, discovers people already present, and says, "Oh, look, Jack. See, there are people already living here. That means we must leave so as not to disturb them. They were here first, and they deserve to remain the only residents here." — Bitter Crank

I think that what happens is that they land on shore and see a lot of unoccupied land. Land is not an asset as such, it has to be worked to become productive, so there would be no notion that the new arrivals were depriving anyone of anything.

There was something of that notion in early Jewish settlements in Palestine, They were taking on unproductive land, so bringing it into production would benefit everyone.

Of course, this idea dates from a period when it was assumed that Jewish immigration to Israel would only ever involve a tiny number of idealists.

The establishment of Israel was an act of utter imperialist arrogance which has dropped the world into a pit of violence that will last a thousand years.
Despite no final agreement by the League of Nations of the UN with the neighbouring polities Jewish terrorists seized control of Palestine and there has been bloodshed ever since.
Israel was conceived during a time when eugenics was respectable and at a time when race was thought to be a viable proposition. Hitler accepted the position of the Zionists as it was his view that founding a state on racist lines was a good idea.

And with that he left the stage.

Ahed Tamimi is one such girl detained by the Israeli police for kicking a soldier and while I congratulate the soldiers in that instance for not responding to her frustrated resistance, is she "dangerous" enough to merit 10 years imprisonment? — TimeLine

Consider what is being said about Israel as the result of a 16 (now 17) year old child for striking an officer. She was no stranger to intentional provocations against military officers in what basically amounts to a war zone. She is not a little child, but someone who was specifically protesting and physically resisting for the purpose of impacting public opinion about Israel in her effort to gain political advantage where she could not gain it militarily. She was not part of a round up effort of children and she wasn't whisked away after a late night knock on the door. Might a 16 year old be sentenced to 8 months in detention in the US after repeated resistance against police officers, especially if it occurred in areas where officer's safety was threatened? Maybe, it wouldn't be that extraordinary, but does that rise the level of declaring Israel a nation rife with human rights abuses?

I don't understand how you would assume that I am not taking a "generous view" toward the Israelis when I am well aware of the continuous security threats and have said it as such - hence the relationship between security threats and children's rights - but children are not dangerous. — TimeLine

Fair enough, it's likely I'm more defensive than you are ungenerous when it comes to Israel, but you're views on children are overly defensive and entirely unrealistic in your declaration that they are not dangerous. Evil doesn't suddenly emerge at 18 years old.

What differentiates this from the Israel-Palestine case is that I can vehemently criticise the Australian government when it seeks to downplay the country's past genocide (as it shamefully does far too often), without being accused of racism against the current majority inhabitants of Australia. Yet when one criticises the Israeli government one is branded as anti-semitic. Or, if one is one of the many Jews that levy similar criticism against the Israeli government's actions, one is branded a self-hating Jew. I'm not saying that people on this forum, who are mostly a pretty thoughtful bunch, would spray those accusations of anti-semitism or self-hatred around. But there are regrettably very many in the wider world that do exactly that. — andrewk

I'm no fan of calling people racist to end discussion, but that occurs in all sorts of settings. It's a worn out battle cry here in the US, recited often after a Republican speaks. The race card can only be played when race is at play, so one group of white Australians can hardly call another group of white Australians who are decrying the past abuses against the aborigines anti-white for their views. It just wouldn't make sense. I suppose I might be limited in defending Australia's past treatment of aboriginal peoples for fear of claims of racism aimed at me, but I don't know, I'm not Australian and don't know the social limitations placed on such conversations. But when you're criticizing Israel, it can be seen a criticism of Jews specifically, a historically abused minority, and therefore the cries of racism. My guess is that sometimes it is prejudice against Jews, sometimes not, but we all understand an ad hom doesn't respond to a legitimate argument.

So you don't think there is a legitimate way to distinguish Anti-Zionism from Antisemitism?

I think there is. You can be anti-Israel and pro-Jewish. Logically, sure.

Israel was conceived during a time when eugenics was respectable and at a time when race was thought to be a viable proposition. Hitler accepted the position of the Zionists as it was his view that founding a state on racist lines was a good idea. — charleton

And so it's your position that the founding of Israel was motivated by a desire to foist Jewish dominance on the world as opposed to saving an ancient people from the verge of extinction?

Yet when one criticises the Israeli government one is branded as anti-semitic. Or, if one is one of the many Jews that levy similar criticism against the Israeli government's actions, one is branded a self-hating Jew. I'm not saying that people on this forum, who are mostly a pretty thoughtful bunch, would spray those accusations of anti-semitism or self-hatred around. But there are regrettably very many in the wider world that do exactly that. — andrewk

I'm not sure that there are that many, but they manage to dominate the media, and have undue influence.

Hitler accepted the position of the Zionists as it was his view that founding a state on racist lines was a good idea. — charleton

Ken Livingston, ex mayor of London, was kicked out of the labour party for saying exactly that. His defence that it is a matter of historical record was dismissed as - irrelevant?

But by contrast, this guy is not going to get kicked out of the conservative party anytime soon.

On which note, here's a relevant conspiracy theory.

Consider what is being said about Israel as the result of a 16 (now 17) year old child for striking an officer. She was no stranger to intentional provocations against military officers in what basically amounts to a war zone. She is not a little child, but someone who was specifically protesting and physically resisting for the purpose of impacting public opinion about Israel in her effort to gain political advantage where she could not gain it militarily. She was not part of a round up effort of children and she wasn't whisked away after a late night knock on the door. Might a 16 year old be sentenced to 8 months in detention in the US after repeated resistance against police officers, especially if it occurred in areas where officer's safety was threatened? Maybe, it wouldn't be that extraordinary — Hanover

Repeat after me : "A minor has no fucking place being judged in front of a military court for a misdemeanor. The country who does this is a gakhole with no respect for common decency and international laws.".

Its not hard. If you can't do that, sorry, but you are a human rights violation apologist. It's that simple.

It's a worn out battle cry here in the US, recited often after a Republican speaks. — Hanover

Yes it is counterproductive, and sometimes unfair, in that context as well. I find most accusations of racism regrettable, no matter who utters them. In most cases they lead either to an escalating exchange of insults or to a pointless semantic argument over what the word 'racism' means.

I think that the arguments that are made against certain policies using an allegation that they are racist can be made better by appealing to human values of compassion and fairness.

The vitriol and indignation are generally unhelpful.

Human rights, whatever they may be, are dependant upon circumstances. You have the right to live unless you are trying to kill me. You have the right to due process, unless we are on the field of combat. No particular right, I'd submit, dictates that another commit suicide and allow you to kill them.

So, is there an instance when an enemy combatant might be afforded lesser due process rights than a citizen in a milatarized zone even if 16 years old? Of course. It just depends on the circumstances on the ground, the danger posed by the conduct, and precisely the due process limitations in the military court versus the civil court.

The vitriol and indignation are generally unhelpful. — Hanover

Whataboutism is certainly more unhelpful. Indignation is justifiable when one is facing indignities. You are doing the apology of Human Rights violations. That is what your pretense of mild-maneurism is obfuscating.

Opinions are dependant upon circumstances. In a circumstance where you claim that there are justifications for a 16 years old girl facing a military court for a misdemeanor, it is clearly justifiable to hold the opinion that you are, in this instance, batshit crazy wrong.

Super.

Subpar.