Basically, on this forum, as on almost every social media platform, there is an enormous amount of anti-Semitism. It is basic for the left to be anti-Semitic, and it's not just in the USA, but throughout the western world

This is an incredibly far reaching claim. The first author of the UN report was himself Jewish; Noam Chomsky is Jewish; there are numerous other, less prominent Jewish critics of Israel. Are you claiming they are self-hating? How can it be basic for the left to be anti-semitic? That contradicts foundational principles which ground and influence leftist thinking. Zionism, Jewish nationalism, is a completely separate issue from Jewishness. And the present day issues are a matter completely separate from both. Basically I think if you got rid of the extreme right wing leadership and its UN pooping policies, many people would have less issue with the place.

[Delete] @Baden

The claim that any group of people have a "natural and historic right" to a nation in a certain location, separate and distinct from a legal right, is necessarily biased, however, as it favors a particular group of people over other groups. In other words, it's a claim that a particular group of people, and no other group of people, are entitled to a nation at a certain place. So, I think reference to rights in these cases is best avoided. Israel simply exists. — Ciceronianus the White

I think you are confusing divine law here as indigenous populations had legal systems that we today do not recognise as 'law' and natural rights emerged to coexist so as to recognise the historic meaning of content that is valuable to populations as beneficial users of the land, a mechanism for recognition that is ultimately aimed at resolving disputes but also to ameliorate the content behind the legality. International customary law is binding as it demonstrates the meaning from this identification and therefore qualifies the content of the rights and interests of members of that society and their relationship to the land, which international law and human rights in particular, being universal and inalienable, helps build that bridge. It is heterogeneous and variable but nevertheless this is what Native Title rights are in Australia.

Exclusive use and possession of lands envelops a number of factors and in the case of Israel, notwithstanding the dissolution of imperial control in the region, failures that need to be recognised by poor leadership of the Palestinian people (Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini sided with the German Nazi's against the United Kingdom and the Allies who, at the time, controlled the region). There are legally binding recognition 'tests' to determine a 'state' including the required permanent characteristics and the ability to consolidate adequate control over the territories, a solid system of governance, diplomatic capacity, and a permanent population among others. This could actually be achieved for Palestine as part of the two-state solution, and while consistently undermined by Israel, poor Palestinian leadership that continues to disregard international law by failing to recognise the state of Israel will only perpetuate the problem. Let us not forget the misappropriation of millions of dollars by leaders like Arafat and Abbas while the Palestinian people continue to suffer.

I actually believe that Israel really is trying - as seen with their diplomatic relations with Jordan and Egypt, in particular the former and some amazing contracts they have signed vis-a-vis gas and electricity - but where they fail is the Netanyahu revisionism and the vocal reverberations of the ultra-orthodox community that scream nonsense of which 70% of Israeli people roll their eyes to. Their brutality is used as an effective method to deter violence - particularly following the intifada - but I think it is backfiring when they have a chance now to build effective and positive methods of acceptance.

Basically, on this forum, as on almost every social media platform, there is an enormous amount of anti-Semitism. It is basic for the left to be anti-Semitic..., — LD Saunders

They are anti what might be called pro-Semitism, that is the idea that any people should be grouped according to their race or religion. Rather crudely, if somebody is opposed to the KKK it doesn't follow that they must be anti-white. And if one is opposed to the crazier manifestations of Zionism it doesn't follow that they are anti-Jewish.

If we were discussing racism and somebody claimed a distinct identity for the 'white race', or that God had given a piece of the earth to white South Africans, say, or the Aryans, we would (most of us) treat this as lunacy. But because Judaism is part of Christianity many are reluctant to say the same about the set of beliefs by which the Jews see themselves as distinct.

Perhaps the left tends to contain more atheists, or those who take a ecumenical view of religion. So when they see Jewish people celebrating their Jewishness (let alone making political claims based on their Jewishness) they are not sympathetic. They regard it all as self-serving superstition. They are anti-Semitic in the sense of regarding anyone who identifies themselves as 'Jewish' as just as deluded as somebody who regards themselves as a member of the Aryan Master Race, or whatever.

Maybe, it wouldn't be that extraordinary, but does that rise the level of declaring Israel a nation rife with human rights abuses? — Hanover

No one is saying that it is rife with human rights abuses, but that there are abuses, excessive use of force, detaining children in poor and sometimes extreme conditions, interrogating and violating not only international law but even Israeli domestic laws. If Israel is even conscious of the fact that disproportionate use of force against minors continue to occur and made efforts to raise the standards of applying measures that ensure procedures are correctly adhered and yet time and time again clear evidence shows continuous breaches that result in the deaths of many children, how could you possibly suggest the following:

...but you're views on children are overly defensive and entirely unrealistic in your declaration that they are not dangerous. — Hanover

Are you serious?

[Delete] @Baden

They still carry out assassinations with Mossad. I don't see in what way that is trying. — René Descartes

You don't see many things. So, should we say that France, Russia, the United States should not exist?

[Delete] @Baden

That's not what I said. I was simply saying they carry out assassinations. I disagree with all assassinations including those commited by France, Russia and the US. All I was trying to say is that assassinating people doesn't help build relationships. — René Descartes

Assassinations are bad. The deep state is a scary world. I am talking about what they are doing and, yes, there are mistakes as much as there is progress as it is a young state in an extremely hostile environment. I was in Israel when they signed a multi-billion dollar deal with Jordan. I met Israelis that continuously stage protests against the government in support of Palestine and the Palestinians themselves have vocalised to me that they are happy for the strong support coming from Israeli citizens for them. I was with these women.

It is full of Israeli people who are genuinely desirous of peace and who simply want a place to call home. Is everything about America simply Trump? Do we believe that the loud noise made by rednecks or evangelicals to be an epitome of that country? There are many left-wing and right-wing suggestions being made against them and indeed there are wrongs - I am from Australia and we have committed genocide to our indigenous peoples and continue to breach human rights against refugees and asylum seekers - but communicating the faults and follies of a country is an important aspect to democracy.

...but you're views on children are overly defensive and entirely unrealistic in your declaration that they are not dangerous. — Hanover
Are you serious? — TimeLine

So here's what you said and what I responded to:

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

This statement really isn't limited to Israel, but takes an unrealistic view and overly protective view of children. Some children simply are in fact dangerous. That's a fact. It's not like someone is innocently confused regarding the danger of his behavior until age 18 and then suddenly he's malicious.

This statement really isn't limited to Israel, but takes an unrealistic view and overly protective view of children. Some children simply are in fact dangerous. That's a fact. It's not like someone is innocently confused regarding the danger of his behavior until age 18 and then suddenly he's malicious. — Hanover

I think you are misconstruing the intent behind what 'danger' entails and while, indeed, there are dangers to stone-throwing, the real impetus behind the excessive use of force and the nature of criminalising behaviours as represented by children like Amir is the overall danger, the symbolic danger that may form the impetus to mobilise further attacks, which is why she was arrested several days after the incident when it became viral. Palestinian children are regularly detained and even shot and killed for throwing stones and the continuity of undermining the laws by security personnel is intended to deter the threat and promote submission to their authority. What is questionable here is whether such martial rigidity ultimately creates the very enemy they are seeking to deter.

When I was in Denmark, I was in a fellowship of international students undertaking research on Islamic communities and one of the students was formerly in the military and he asked me, "you are at war; if you see a child on the mountain ahead of you, would you shoot the child?" I immediately responded with no, before he stated, "you have no choice but to kill the child. The child could be used by the enemy to obtain information to be given back to them." It was distressing, to say the least, but understandable. This parallels the problematic security situation in Israel, only they are not in a state of war that would merit such drastic behaviour and yet they are clearly not out of danger either. So, the real problem here is not the 'unrealistic and over protective view of children' but whether such trauma inflicted on children will in fact produce tomorrows enemy adults who then become the real danger.

I immediately responded with no, before he stated, "you have no choice but to kill the child. The child could be used by the enemy to obtain information to be given back to them." It was distressing, to say the least, but understandable — TimeLine

That was sort of the plot of the movie Lone Survivor.

Anyway, It'd be hard to kill anyone, but I still hold pretty firm on my view that there's nothing magic that happens between being 17 and 18.

Of course I'm opposed to human rights abuses and don't think a 17 year old or 19 year old prisoner should be slapped around and beaten. I also realize that war is war and maintaining all these standards to the satisfaction of an outside evaluating agency is not realistic and not going to be of primary concern to any military leader, except to the extent political blowback affects his ability to accomplish his task. I'm reminded of waterboarding by the US, and my view regarding its elimination was based more on the arguments that it was ineffective in obtaining intelligence than that it was abusive.

There's just no such thing as a cleanly fought war. Again, I'm not saying that we need to ignore abuses that might occur during the war, but that's just one thing I'd be looking at, with a greater focus on the success of the operation, assuming it was just in the first place. An ugly win can be better than a clean loss between gentlemen.

The USA actually gives far more to Israel's enemies than it does to Israel. — LD Saunders

Those that have signed a peace deal with Isreal really aren't Israel's enemies anymore. And still, the US has given the most to Israel when it totally dominates it's neighbours in every way, starting with it's nuclear deterrent.

There's just no such thing as a cleanly fought war. — Hanover

Ummm... the Falklands war is basically a war where both sides stick to the International conventions in war and didn't engage in what are called war crimes. Civilians weren't targeted.

So that's one for the history books.

The USA actually gives far more to Israel's enemies than it does to Israel.
— LD Saunders — René Descartes

Care to offer some evidence???

The USA actually gives far more to Israel's enemies than it does to Israel. — René Descartes

Beat this!
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-u-s-foreign-aid-to-israel-1949-present

What you laughingly call Israel's "enemies" get aid on the CONDITION that they are not Israel's enemies. `This aid to other countries constitutes aiding Israel!

Ummm... the Falklands war is basically a war where both sides stick to the International conventions in war and didn't engage in what are called war crimes. Civilians weren't targeted.

So that's one for the history books. — ssu

Or not.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109429/A-dirty-war-British-soldiers-shot-dead-enemy-troops-waving-white-flag-Argentinian-prisoners-bayoneted-cold-blood-An-ex-Para-tells-horrors-Falklands.html

Every fact is both provable and disprovable by a well phrased Google search. See, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/169761

[Delete] @Baden

I never said any of that. I was quoting someone else and you are saying that I said it. I agree with you. — René Descartes

Okay. NP

By the way, most Zionists in Israel have wanted nothing from the USA, PROVIDED the USA stops financing Israel's enemies. That has never happened. The USA actually gives far more to Israel's enemies than it does to Israel. — LD Saunders

That is a complete travesty of the facts.
1) The USA funded Israel from the start, dumping thousands of Persing tanks that the WW2 factories pumped out of the US.
Israel currently receives about $3 billion annually, and it's neighbours continues to receive large amounts on the CONDITION that they keep the peace with Isreal. In particular Egypt signed agreements (quoted above) to suspend all hostilities and was paid to do so.
You seem top want to believe what you chose to believe.
Are you Jewish by any chance?
It is usually polite to declare an interest during discussions.

Are you Jewish by any chance? — charleton

I didn't want to get involved in this discussion. But this is irrelevant. Play the ball not the man (even if your opponent won't).

[Delete] @Baden

I didn't want to get involved in this discussion. But this is irrelevant. Play the ball not the man (even if your opponent won't). — Baden

THis question is TOTALLY relevant. Since when did asking a person if they were Jewish become an insult?

It's more about Zionism as opposed to Judaism. — René Descartes

I'm not interested in his religion, but his "culture:. Being brought up a Jew might account for his bias.

Being Jewish or not being Jewish is not going to make his arguments any better or worse. Nor does it necessarily make him biased. There are Jewish people on both sides of this debate. And that goes as a general principle for all religious or non-religious here (or of whatever culture). Stick to the arguments. Personal stuff will be deleted.

Or not.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109429/A-dirty-war-British-soldiers-shot-dead-enemy-troops-waving-white-flag-Argentinian-prisoners-bayoneted-cold-blood-An-ex-Para-tells-horrors-Falklands.html

Every fact is both provable and disprovable by a well phrased Google search. See, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/169761 — Hanover

Well,

Individual instances do happen and especially on the battlefield, that's for sure. Yet in that war you didn't have warcrimes basically ordered from higher above. Or perhaps the case just shows that a war fought lawfully and/or according to international laws is an oxymoron.

In the university I made a small study of the Crimean War in Finland, which showed just how honorable soldiers were during the Victorian era -especially to other Europeans. Today you wouldn't take "A word of honour" not to escape from an enemy officer and let him freely travel in your country, but captured Finnish officers (serving the Russian military) were granted just that in the UK.

[Delete] @Baden

Yes, US's opening of its diplomatic embassy in Jerusalem, which I think puts to an end the two state solution, leaving only the one nation or bi-national solution.

I dont think anything will come of it other than further vocal condemnation and maybe an uptick in extremist sympathizers.

Is Bernie Sanders the only prominent democrat to come to the defense of Rep. Ilhan Omar? Correct me if there are others that showed some backbone and logic in this matter. Critique of the policies of Israel is absolutely NOT anti-Semitism in itself. The Democrats look like fraidy-cats on this one. But then politics and logic go together like grease and water. Guess which is the grease? :wink:

About the topic... I am far from an expert and it isn't a black and white clear case. However, the basic unfairness is becoming clearer. A Palestinian state won't make Israel smaller. It will make Israel greater.