Anyway, Sucks about the apartheid in Israel. — StreetlightX

Sucks even more that both combatants are mass murdering relious zealots that justify their atrocities because of flying donkeys and talking asses. Humanity for the win, while you play side-choosing in a game of mass murder like it's watching a fucking football game, good on you.

I think Israel would be a nicer place without the apartheid, I'm quite happy to be 'on their side'.

I think Israel would be a nicer place without the apartheid, I'm quite happy to be 'on their side'. — StreetlightX

That's because you're not thinking clearly. Any side where mass murderers reside is no place for any ethical human. But, you know what I think. I bet if Palestine changed their tune and issued a peace statement one of two things would happen: 1. Israel would come to the table and co-operate, or 2. Israel would continue their "ethnic cleansing," and Palestine would thereby garner overwhelming support from the American people as a response to miltary action against a peaceful people. Until that day comes, fuck all murderers.

I think Israel would be a nicer place without the apartheid. — StreetlightX

That's because you're not thinking clealry. — Garrett Travers

Cool.

Cool. — StreetlightX

:flower:

The apologists for the state of Israel are required to discuss the on-going apartheid in vague equivocations and abstractions. Even its common designation as a "conflict" obscures the reality of one-sided brutality and power. Sure, Israel may restrict and deny Palestinian movement, however, Palestinians might be "teaching their children that Jews murder Arab babies and drink their blood". Sure, sure, Israel forcefully seizes Palestinian property, appropriates land, and transfers Palestinians against their will, but "have the Palestinians made any substantive efforts to live peacefully with the Israelis?" Which is worse? Who is to say?! I mean, yeah ok, from 2008 - 2020, the Israeli government killed ~22x as many Palestinians as the number of Israeli's killed, "but have they [Palestinians] not earned it many times over? Or even can the Israelis afford to be less vigilant?"

The below charts divulge the palpable one-sidedness of the "conflict", the atrocity of which stems all the way back to 1917 with the Balfour Declaration. Disputants can only hide behind aforementioned moral equivocations to mask their historical and contemporary ignorance combined with a general stupidity.

Exactly. This bothsidesism bullshit is just plain delusional/in denial of the facts. Israel is using one of the most advanced and well-equipped/well-funded militaries in the world to indiscriminately kill Palestinians and steal their land (and consign them to second class citizen status), in violation of international law. Obviously attacks on civilians are still wrong when committed by Palestinians, but there's nothing symmetrical or equivalent about the situation, whether from a military/political standpoint or a moral one.

:100:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It's funny that racist apologists for apartheid simply quote Wikipedia as though that said anything whatsoever.

Impressive numbers. So I took a look online myself. And what do I find but that the suicide bombings of Israeli citizens ran from 1989 to - you will never guess - 2008. Just a coincidence, I guess, that the dates you chose omitted the bombings. Coincidence, yes? — tim wood

I guess in your mad scramble to see how you could cover your ass through a Wikipedia search to make what amounts to an immaterial point, you missed the second chart showing that between December 1987 - May 2021 87% of the 14,000 dead were Palestinian. Here I'll post it again so you don't miss it

And the overall point is that it all is not simple. The to-date inexhaustible source of heat is the friction between the combined neighbors' desires to annihilate the Jews, and the Jews' desire not to be annihilated. Rodney King's lament, "Why can't we all just get along?" resonant here. And as long as they don't, bad things will happen, and that lamentable. And if and when they do decide to get along, the world will be a better place for all. — tim wood

Perfect example of vague moral equivocation. Maybe log off and turn on Sesame Street? Sounds like that's more your speed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I don't pretend to any special knowledge of these events. I do some online looking and i remember, more or less, the news of the time. — tim wood

Lmao. This reads: "I have no idea what I'm talking about except for what I've passively absorbed without looking too much into it". Just so happens that this includes blaming crimes against humanity on those humans against whom said crimes have been committed.

Israel has been systematically comitting ethnic cleansing agaisnt Palestinian territories for decades now, but sure, just a bit of defensive ethnic cleansing which they "don't start". You ignorant racist slime.

Israel killing=serial killing=serial lilking... It's all in the name...

I don't get it. They do the same to Palestinians as what was done to their antecedents in nazi Germany, so it seems.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It's true that after all this time there is embedded resentment on both sides, mothers who have lost their children on both sides.

But conservative Israelis have never hidden their agenda of cleansing the country of non-Jews. If you don't know that, you owe it to yourself to learn more about the history of the region.

And your suggestion that wife-beating isn't as simple as it looks needs some examination on your part.

Its unfortunate how frequently spurious/arbitrary accusations of anti-Semitism are used as an excuse to wave away legitimate criticisms of the Israeli state/military. I'd say that the victims of actual anti-Semitism deserve better than to have it turned into a cheap rhetorical ploy. — Seppo

I wonder if you know what anti-Semitism is. Without going on a long lecture about it, anti-Semitism is structural and is not about "victims." There is/was anti-Semitism in places that don't even have a single Jew and haven't/hadn't for hundreds of years. We can explore this more, but that would be for another thread.

There are lots of legitimate criticisms of Israel. I make them, you can make them, and 180 can make them. What I was specifically criticizing in 180's posts is the idea that Israel must stop what it is doing entirely before anyone can be critical of what the Palestinians are doing in response to their perceived oppression. It isn't that the Palestinians are wrong, but rather that one must consider Israel to have legitimate interests at least equal to that of the Palestinians. You don't have to stomp Jews in the street to participate in/perpetuate anti-Semitism.

This is just textbook whataboutism; — Seppo

No, it is textbook "Here is the way in which what you are doing right now is emblematic of anti-Semitism". Yes, Israel does bad things. No, Saudi Arabia doing bad things doesn't excuse Israel's bad things. Yes, Israel has done bad, unjustifiable things to Palestinians, should be held to account for that, and should immediately desist from doing those things. If someone is concerned about the welfare of people and they manage to spend a disproportionate amount of energy on Israel relative to the harm caused by Israel, one must ask "Why?" I am explicitly not saying don't be critical of Israel. I am, however, calling the internet sport of bashing Israel out for what it is. Here is an analogy - there is lots of trash music in the world. A white dude in Kansas spending all of his time denigrating the rap scene in LA because it is derivative and listening it to it primarily to negatively critique it is probably not so interested in detached musical criticism if he never spends time engaging with country music in the same way.* One can be racist while still being right in a particular criticism.

And there is massive asymmetry between the two groups — Seppo

Undeniably so. And the grinding of the boot into the Palestinian's throat is gratuitous. But just as a police officer is authorized to subdue a suspect, our expectation is that the least amount of justifiable force is applied and that anything beyond that is worthy of criticism. So yes, Israel SHOULD do something other than what it is doing. That does not mean, however, that Israel has no interest/justification in doing some portion of what it is doing. There is never going to be a time where Israel de-militarize to equalize potential use of force between themselves and the Palestinians. That asymmetry cannot, therefore, stand as an independent criticism of Israel. Yes, that means that Israel should recognize restraint in ways that the Palestinians cannot (Israel has guided missiles, Palestinians do not), but regardless of effectiveness of method, BOTH parties are wrong when they fire those missiles at population centers.

my Irony Meter just about exploded! — Seppo

Your irony meter might explode, but the fault is with the equipment. You should talk to the person responsible for calibrating/designing it.




* - I want to be careful here about saying that no one outside of an oppressed community can ever be critical of it and that of necessity such criticism is motivated by bad intent. Intent has nothing to do with the analysis, rather the focus is on the systems which led to doing A over B. Indeed, one can even be supportive of such communities and still be acting in a way that is reflective/supportive of that group's oppression - consider, e.g., fetishism and exoticism.

Perfidious Albion, the Holocaust, European guilt, the bizarre and deadly belief in a divinely bestowed homeland which hasn't been a homeland since Hadrian's legions crushed the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 C.E. at the latest, Christian fundamentalism, not to forget fanaticism and political expediency, all combined to create this bloody, running sore which shows no sign of healing. Makes one believe it Nemesis (the Greek goddess, I mean).

:up:

I wonder if you know what anti-Semitism is — Ennui Elucidator

You're the one mis-using the term, not me (and so we can probably safely pass on a lecture about what anti-Semitism is, from the person who has demonstrated in this very thread that they don't know what it is). I imagine my Irony Meter would be going off frantically right about now, if you hadn't broken it last time.

It isn't that the Palestinians are wrong, but rather that one must consider Israel to have legitimate interests at least equal to that of the Palestinians. — Ennui Elucidator

:grimace: Yikes.

No, it is textbook "Here is the way in which what you are doing right now is emblematic of anti-Semitism". Yes, Israel does bad things. No, Saudi Arabia doing bad things doesn't excuse Israel's bad things. — Ennui Elucidator

So, in other words, it was whataboutism, and you are, once again, abusing the term "anti-Semitism" as a way to silence legitimate criticism of a government/military that is committing human rights abuses and operating an apartheid state. False and disingenuous accusations of anti-Semitism undermine and distract from legitimate accusations of anti-Semitism, and actual anti-Semitism is a thing... so you should probably just stop. Seriously. Try to be wrong in a slightly less disgusting and harmful way.

Try to be wrong in a slightly less disgusting and harmful way. — Seppo

That's sound advice. We should all be careful to be wrong the right way.

being wrong in the right way is an art to which I've dedicated the better part of my life :grin:

being wrong in the right way is an art to which I've dedicated the better part of my life :grin: — Seppo

You aren’t wrong about that. I hope you finally master it one day.

You're the one mis-using the term — Seppo

Tell me, where does Supersessionism fall in your definition? How about otherness and scapegoatism? Just wondering if you are coming at this from typical western ignorance or something special.

I'm doing fine, you need to worry about yourself; I'm not the one attempting to justify/hand-wave away human rights violations and apartheid and trying to dilute the term "anti-Semitism" to meaninglessness by throwing it around without regard to either its definition or the facts of this particular case.

trying to save face, eh? :lol:

or is it that you want people to know that your abuse/mis-use of the term wasn't done out of ignorance, but out of a deliberate attempt to deceive/mislead?

or is it that you want people to know that your abuse/mis-use of the term wasn't done out of ignorance, but out of a deliberate attempt to deceive/mislead? — Seppo

Increasingly you seem to have no idea what you are talking about and just want to put words in my mouth. Not one single time did I say Israel has done nothing wrong or that Israel hasn’t unjustifiably abused Palestinians. What I did say is that 180’s demand of “stop oppressing them now” (a paraphrase) before they can claim any moral standing in the conversation is problematic. It isn’t the sort of advice that is offered to be constructive, but dismissive. And if someone is unwilling to actually engage with someone’s interests to see how they can be addressed within the context of the ongoing situation, one might question whether the “oppressor” is seen in the same human terms as the “oppressed.” In particular, one might question why Israel isn’t the oppressed whose methods can’t be questioned until their oppressors stop.

It would be swell if, on a philosophy forum, you could do some. What makes case A and B similar/dissimilar? What constitutes oppression? Can the oppressed ever be oppressors? How might an oppressed group understand demands that they “play by the rules?” To what extent does history have relevance in understanding current cultural behaviors/power?

Othering either group is wrong. Acknowledging divergent interests isn’t equivalent to approving bad behavior.

Israel's interests involve cleansing Palestinians from the land. This cannot be addressed 'constructively'. One should acknowledge it - if only to demand its utter cessation.

Why is this being hotly debated again? Has there been another flare up?

Israel's interests involve cleansing Palestinians from the land. — StreetlightX

You make a good argument for an asshole, but a bad one for a peacnik. Particular Israelis fall on a wide spectrum of how to relate to Israeli Arabs, Palestinian Israelis, and Palestinians. The interest of the state, however, is not usually defined as the politics of a particularly reprehensible bunch of them. When one speaks of the interests of a state, generally they are invoking theories of government and statehood, not a particular agenda. In this specific instance, if one does not deny the right of Israel to exist, it seems like that person must acknowledge that Israel has a right to secure itself against destruction. In the context of the nations surrounding Israel that have made it abundantly clear they wish Israel not to exist and groups within the occupied territories have said the same, why shouldn’t Israel take those threats seriously? And if they do take them seriously, how should they respond to those threats?

If we can’t start the conversation with “the Palestinians should not be oppressed/abused/exploited by anyone, including the Israelis” and “the Israelis have an interest in continued existence which they have the right to forcibly defend”, then there appears to be an asymmetry in how each group is being treated in the conversation. The question is generally not whether that is the case, but how much oppression Israel permitted to foist upon others in order to defend itself in the face of ongoing existential threat. That is to say, we are involved with negotiating the legitimate claims of two parties in what feels much like a zero sum game. How does Israel remain secure while instantly stopping any form of “oppression” of the Palestinians? What do you suppose will happen if Hamas is given free transit across Israeli territory so that Israel is not depriving them of their freedom of travel?