:up:

SSU: There you go completely trying to twist my words. — LD Saunders

Oh I wasn't specifically talking to you. But seems like you thought so. Which is telling.

Your claims against Israel are pure bullshit. — LD Saunders

I do have faith in what the UN Peacekeepers have observed in Lebanon. They gave an objective view... that usually wasn't heard in the media.

How about you tell us when you have ever condemned the barbarity and crimes against humanity by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority? The Palestinian Authority as its official government policy demands the mass murder of Jews.

Yep, the typical viewpoint I was talking: critique of something makes you the ardent supporter of the other side. The typical ignorant bashing so common in the net.

Israel has been able to make peace with Egypt and Jordan and these countries have had the ability to also reinforce and stick their side of the agreement. Lebanon is far too weak to do this and so are the Palestinians. Withdrawal from Lebanon didn't make Israel's situation better as it was the Hezbollah, not the Lebanese Government, which then retook southern Lebanon.

Hamas has it's line to destroy Israel and the low-level conflict goes on. That shouldn't come as a surprise.

The most strange thing is how peaceful the Golan Heights have been where the Muslim extremists and Israel have been next to each other.

It's amazing how many crazy Jew-hating comments are on here. — LD Saunders

I stopped reading right here. If this is what you took away from the preceding discussion, then you are not in a position to participate in the discussion (for whatever reason; I am not going to speculate about the possible psychological reasons of such striking incomprehension).

This is a dispute over land. That's what this is. If we accept Israel's right to the land it occupies, it stands morally right. If we don't, it doesn't, although I would not allow that the terroristic acts by the Palestinians are acceptable in any circumstance. — Hanover

Interesting asymmetry. Atrocities are conditionally excused on one side and unconditionally condemned on the other.

“Palestine is only a geographic expression” - A well known 19th century diplomat

Interesting asymmetry. Atrocities are conditionally excused on one side and unconditionally condemned on the other. — SophistiCat

Yep.

I guess it is the American vitriolic style of juxtapositioning things to good and evil that makes the discourse so inherently dumb. My wife has a friend who is married to an Israeli and when talking with him about Mid-East politics he has allways been totally rational, realistic and had what I would call a natural critique towards his government which anyone living in a democracy typically has towards some policy actions of one's government. In fact, when you read the English versions of Israeli newspapers, you get the same feeling.

You don't get the same feeling when Americans or the American media talks about Israel. Never mind Christian fundamentalists who see modern day Israel not as just a nation state, but something very biblical and a benevolent sign of the end times finally coming. Even the ordinary commentary is totally different from any other country. To be fair, the other side, those who denounce Israel support the plight of the Palestinian people are similarly annoying in their zealous support of their cause.

And both sides just use the "useful idiots" that they have on their side.

What is different about Israel are the occupied/controlled territories. If they were annexed then the people living in them should have equal rights to Israelis. If they are not annexed then Israel should not build settlements there. But they are kept in limbo; a situation where Israel can exploit the land and people without giving them rights and this seems a throwback to the worst forms of colonialism. Like colonialism it seems underpinned by the notion that Israelis and Palestinians are not equal as humans. The very idea of Israel, a state being 'for' one particular religion or race is out of step with most modern thinking. In other words, Israel is an unapologetic assertion of social/political attitudes we would reject.

I think that is why Israel arouses such passions. Other states may do worse things, including persecute minorities, but as long as our own nations support Israel people feel they have lost the moral high ground.

(I am trying answer a specific question here that is often asked; Why Israel gets so much attention, especially from the liberal/left, when objectively other nations do worse things?)

Anti Israel sentiment does smell of antisemitism because it is disproportionate considering millions of people have died in the Republic of Congo wars and received little attention or academic studies or appearances in The Lancet. People are clearly very selective about which cause to get behind. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, I am very selective. I am interested in conflicts that impinge on me. Whatever I posted about the Congo on one side or another, I doubt i would be accused of spreading propaganda or of racism. But the Congolese secret service is not very active in the UK, the policies of the Congo is not an issue in Uk politics. But here, it is a major issue which faction of Jews one spends passover with.

The smell of antisemitism, as I have shown in previous links, is not associated with people who give talks at meetings of avowedly antisemitic and white supremecist organisations, but rather with supporters of Palestinian rights. Now that is what I call propaganda.

Hitler supported Israel? That's absolutely false.

His administration supported and co-drafted the Haavara agreement and supported a variety of emigration ''solutions'' to the ''jewish question''. I think if repatriation was an option during early nazi period they would have been supportive of it.

Israel is a racist state? False.

This report was published last year. There have been numerous attempts to discredit it, mostly by -of course- Israeli and US govt. To my knowledge, there are no real counterarguments to arguments made in the report itself, just accusation of anti Israel bias and antisemitism. The first and second authors; you can read about them and their educational background.

Israel gives its Arab-Muslim citizens free education, free medical care and greater rights than they would have if living in any Islamic nation, or even any European nation. Yet, the world obsesses over Israel 24/7.

I believe most of the discrimination is with respect to property rights and building permits. I believe there is also segregation of educational facilities/schooling and discrimination in education funding practices (and possibly other sectors, but I'm not sure).

Also there is plenty of condemnation against and accusation of rights violations by the typical critics - UN, amnesty international. So I've never quite understood this point about Israel being disproportionately targeted.

There are Muslim people in other locations, including Iran, who are fighting for state hood, and no one even knows who they are. In fact, there are presently 350 active groups of people trying for independent statehood, and yet, other than the so-called Palestinian Arabs, how many such groups can people name? Not to mention that when Egypt bombs Gaza, no one says a word. When Lebanon mistreats Palestinians, no one says a word. When the King of Jordan violated international law and claimed the land for Jordan, through military action, no one said a word. Not even the so-called Palestinian Arabs said anything.

None of those groups are recognized as having states or being subjugated or oppressed within their own, internationally recognized boundaries.

Also, I don't see why the bold can't be recognized as in need of international attention while simultaneously recognizing israeli to palestinian rights violations as well.

If one makes a list of countries with human rights records, from the best to the worst, Israel would be near the top. Yet, Israel gets more than half of the UN sanctions? And that's not anti-Semitism? So, Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc., combined have fewer sanctions than Israel? Israel is a nation where an Arab headed the country during an interim period. It's a nation where Arab Muslim judges sentence Jewish Israelis to prison. It is a country where it's fairly well integrated among various "races," and religious groups, and extends greater rights for women, gays, atheists, and other minorities than any country in the Middle East, while its neighbors routinely commit crimes against humanity, deny freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and cleanse all non-Muslims from their states.

Israel has had no economic sanction placed on it, only condemnation. US and its pro-israeli interest has too much influence for anything more than that. Anti semitism is discrimination or prejudice against the Jewish people. Jewish people are distinct from the Jewish state. Anti zionism is distinct from anti semitism and is also distinct from anti human rights violations. I don't think the international community would have any real issue with Israel if it stopped acting on, what are effectively, paranoid-schizophrenic delusions. Just working to economically discourage settlement construction and reduce building demolition in west bank would be a huge plus for their public image.

Israel is a racist state? False. — LD Saunders

Uhuh. Except that it makes a distinction between Israeli citizens based on being Jewish or not and gives more rights to Jewish Israeli citizens than non-Jewish Israeli citizens. Israel discriminates based on religion as the High Court concluded you could lose those benefits if you converted to another religion.

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

an ancient people from the verge of extinction? — Hanover

The provenance of the modern Jew is debatable.
Extinction? There are as many Jews in the USA as in Israel.
Self identify yourself as Jews, white, black reifies racism.

It's amazing how many crazy Jew-hating comments are on here. Hitler supported Israel? — LD Saunders

No it's TRUE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

That's absolutely false. Israel is a racist state? False.

Immigration policy to so-called "Israel" has denied non-Jews. That is racism.
Non Jews, especially Arabs are denied basic rights of land ownership, and their lands have ben systematically stolen. That is racism.
Israel is an apartheid state, expansionist and founded by terrorism.
Whilst the British government were brokering a deal for the foundation of the state, Jews bombed British soldiers stationed in Palestine.

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

There is so much more antisemitism and casual racism in the Tory party but for some reason the media seldom seem to feature it in their articles.
By contrast the media seem very keen in denigrate FB pages that support Jeremy Corbyn. In Labour there is really no one in any position of power that would ever get away with expressing antisemitic views and party rules make the mere mention of Zionism, or apartheid next to impossible.
The new rules have been termed thought crime;"
“No member of the party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the NEC is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the party. The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment or identity; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as prejudicial to the party; these shall include but not be limited to incidents involving racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the party.”

Jews are not an economically disadvantaged groups, and I feel are moving towards a privileged status where any criticism of any Jew for any reason tend to attract accusations of antisemitism.

I cannot see what it is that being a Jew makes it okay to have established sub-groups inside the Labour party.
What would the reaction be if there was a group called Whites Labour Movement, or White Voice for Labour?

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. — Londoner

So if Somalis landed on English shores, that happen to be unoccupied at the time, they can start working on them to make them more productive for everyone's benefit, right? With such mentality, no wonder the old english imperialists felt entitled to help themselves to anything that crossed their path.

With such mentality, no wonder the old english imperialists felt entitled to help themselves to anything that crossed their path. — CuddlyHedgehog

The mentality of British Imperialism was an abomination. And the legacy in India, Myanmar, Africa, Ireland, and elsewhere is a series of lasting fuck-ups of Biblical proportions. Partition has been a source of conflict everywhere it has been tried. Except possibly Cyprus, for the moment, as far as I know. And the attitudes linger on, unfortunately. And there is no denying that Israel has 'made the desert bloom'.

But there is also a resonance of the imperialist attitude in that of Israel along the lines of, 'the Palestinians have done nothing with the land, they don't deserve it.'

Except possibly Cyprus, for the moment, as far as I know. — unenlightened

Really?? Check this out:

So if Somalis landed on English shores, that happen to be unoccupied at the time, they can start working on them to make them more productive for everyone's benefit, right? With such mentality, no wonder the old english imperialists felt entitled to help themselves to anything that crossed their path. — CuddlyHedgehog

The example of colonisation that everyone had in mind was America. An endless frontier of land that could be brought under cultivation. To bring in some philosophy, this is a feature of Locke, it is the explanation of why you should obey the rules of your existing state - because if you don't like them everyone has the option of moving to the new world. Similarly it underlies the notion of property. One has a right to ownership of land because it is only your input of labour that gives land a value.

I'm saying that there was a reflection of this idea in the early Jewish settlements. That they would be creating something new, rather than taking away what somebody else owned. But obviously very few people were expected to want to take this up, any more than most people today would want to leave their homes and jobs to join a pioneering hippy commune in the desert. That is why everyone was relaxed about the idea of a few Jewish settlements in Palestine. They did not know the Holocaust was coming.

Yes, people saw things differently in the past. It is enjoyable to re-tell history as a simple story of goodies and baddies but that is not how it seemed to the people involved then, and nor is helpful when trying to understand the situation today.

Yes, people saw things differently in the past. It is enjoyable to re-tell history as a simple story of goodies and baddies but that is not how it seemed to the people involved then, and nor is helpful when trying to understand the situation today. — Londoner

Attempts to morally justify or excuse what was clearly wrong then and now, won’t wash either.

Charleton: No, it's not true, and I don't even need to waste my time looking at some conspiracy video on social media to know the truth. Go ahead and cite to us a single work by a leading university, like Oxford, that supports your Jew-hating claim that Hitler supported Zionism? The truth is that Hitler always wanted Jews dead, and the policy of kicking Jews out of Germany initially was used to create more anti-Semitism in those nations that had to absorb poor Jewish refugees, as Hitler confiscated all their belongings. Keep in mind, most of the killings of Jews took place in the later years of the Third Reich, after WWII broke out. Although, Hitler and the Nazis did murder Jews in the streets of Germany even before Hitler took over in Germany.

Your comments about the political structure of Israel is also as far-fetched as your conspiracy theories regarding Hitler.

SSU: You think the UN has an "objective" view regarding Israel? That's laughable. How about when the UN claimed that Zionism was racism? Rather odd since Zionism simply means support for a Jewish homeland where Jews have lived longer than any other group of people. It's also true that anyone can become a Jew, so it would be impossible for Zionism to be racism. How many years did it take for the UN to give up on this BS claim?

How about the fact that a terrorist tunnel from Gaza originated from a UN building? You seriously claiming that the UN would not have known about the tunnel? That would have been impossible.

How about when the UN handed over rockets in their own buildings, to Hamas, knowing that Hamas would fire them at Jewish children in Israel? You call that being "objective"?

How about when the UN claimed that because of the number dead Israel must have targeted civilians, in its Goldstone report, written by an anti-Semitic Jew, when years later the Palestinians admitted that they lied about the death toll? How come the UN then did not change its findings? How come it originally used a death toll that even included people dying of natural causes?

How come Israel has been sanctioned more than Syria, when Syria is actively butchering people on its streets?

The UN's own leadership has admitted to bigotry against Israel. It's not surprising. How many Islamic nations are in the UN, as well as allied socialist ones? How many Jewish states in contrast? Is it really surprising that the UN would single out the lone Jewish state for discriminatory treatment given the UN's composition?

Attempts to morally justify or excuse what was clearly wrong then and now, won’t wash either. — CuddlyHedgehog

No, it was not 'clearly wrong' then. Do you imagine that in the past people did what they did because they woke up one morning and thought 'Let's be evil'?

I would like to hope I could have been magically born with modern sensibilities, but I have to face the fact that if I had been born in another place and at another time I would probably have seen nothing wrong with slavery, or the subordination of women. And I doubt if you would have either. If you cannot get your head around the fact that people see things differently to you then you will never understand either the past or the present, let alone have any hope of making things better.

As to my 'attempting to morally justify or excuse', if you look about six posts down on the previous page you will see what my own opinion is of Israel. But I do not believe I should try to support my opinion by falsifying history. People wrote about the moral justification for taking land in Palestine and I gave my opinion about how that was seen at the time, bearing in mind that nobody then imagined it would involve any more than a handful of people.

No, it was not 'clearly wrong' then. Do you imagine that in the past people did what they did because they woke up one morning and thought 'Let's be evil'? — Londoner

I disagree. They very well knew it was wrong to kill and oppress but invented all sorts of excuses to justify their evil deeds. Not much has changed in that regard today.

Go ahead and cite to us a single work by a leading university, like Oxford, that supports your Jew-hating claim that Hitler supported Zionism? — LD Saunders

My answer is that Hitler was a populist politician. When he saw a tactical political advantage he would support emigration to Palestine, or other places. But did he 'support Zionism' in the sense that he wanted to help Jews? Of course not. It was a money-extraction scheme combined with what we now call 'spin'. So yes, you can find papers (Haavara Agreement) that can be interpreted as supporting Zionism, but there is no reason to assume they were sincere. As later became evident, Hitler never felt bound to honour his written undertakings.

Really?? Check this out: — CuddlyHedgehog

Well that completes the set of failed Imperial partitions then. One could almost make an aphorism of it. "You can't unmake an omelette even if one of the eggs is fresh."

The partition of Cyprus was not 'Imperial', unless you consider all partitions are by definition Imperial.

You're quite right. But it was a colony, and it was within a generation that the shit hit the fan, so it still looks like a botched withdrawal to me. But then there are those who would take the opposite view, that it shows the beneficence of the Empire that all these places fall into conflict without our supervision.

Well I'm still educating myself about British collaboration, and the holocaust seems to have given urgency to a Zionist movement that was already in progress.

But the Zionists did avert their eyes.

Their eyes were filled with the holocaust, and still are, and it is hard to reproach them for that. Perhaps it is time now, when there is less of a credible threat, to indulge in a little self criticism. But it is worth noting that all this dates back to a time when racial thinking was considered perfectly normal and legitimate. Cultures do not change very fast.

Let me ask this: If Israel stopped the settlements of the disputed lands entirely and offered the Palestinians full autonomy within the lands generally recognized to be theirs, that is they offered a two state solution, would the sentiment on this Board be entirely in favor of Israel? That is, is it really the settlement of those lands that has caused the negative reaction to Israel?

I really question that based upon the comments in this thread, with many arguing that the right to Israel to exist at all is in question. We also have to remember as well that Israel has offered a two state solution and it was rejected by the Palestinians. http://arabisraeliconflict.info/arab-israel-facts/fact-3-two-state-solution

And hypothetically, if Israel did provide Palestine it's own land, and should the Palestinians then launch rockets into Israel, would you agree at that point Israel would have the right to respond in full out war against an act of war by a now sovereign nation?