Gilad Shalit, an interesting calculation

[Holsety]

Serving yourself on a silver platter for troll-abuse, but

I enjoy reading responses and responding in kind.

And make sure you read the full thing cuz I edited.

[Prebe]

...cuz I edited.

So did I, Holsety, so did I

[Avatar]

May I suggest you go back and read what I wrote rather than just what Prebe's accusing me of?

I went back and read both your and his posts again, and I haven't changed my mind.

The only thing I can possibly think of that might be vaguely relevant is Prebe's original comment that allowing violence to continue might actually be in the best interests of politicians or religious fundamentalists.

Sure, you didn't actually say "Prebe, you are an anti-Semite." You even said you weren't saying that. But you followed that up immediately by saying "your posts contain a very coherent stench of anti-Semitism."

Now I'll grant you that explicitly, there is a difference. Implicitly however, the difference is very slight. Too slight for my taste, given the emotionally loaded nature of the term. No different from accusing somebody of being a racist. In fact, socially speaking, it's one of the worst things we can be accused of these days, along with racism. (And after all, isn't it a kind of racism anyway?)

Antisemitism is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage.

None of Prebe's comments were predicated on the Jewish heritage of the Israelis. Not even the one brief mention of religious fundamentalists. So I think that implying anti-Semitism is pretty prejudicial.

If I criticise my government, supporters of it call me a racist, because I'm white and the government is black.

If you criticise your government, people call you unpatriotic, (or republican or democrat depending on who's in charge).

If somebody criticises Israel, they get called anti-Semitic. Like the Arch, as I mentioned before.

I wonder what causes that? It's obviously not unique to any culture or religion or group...it's like it's easier to accuse your critics of some big thing than it is to actually talk about the criticisms.

--A

[Cail]

it's like it's easier to accuse your critics of some big thing than it is to actually talk about the criticisms.

Almost like it's easier to to accuse your critics of calling you an anti-Semite than it is to talk about their points.

'Cause unless you can show me the post, no one's said that Israel is blameless. In fact, everyone disagreeing with Prebe & LM has been very clear about that. In fact, it's pretty much just them that keep beating the "blame Israel" drum, and only place the tiniest bit of responsibility on the surrounding nations when pushed.

[Zarathustra]

The founding of the state of Israel by Israeli colonists was immoral, essentially a repurposing of Palestinian land for Israeli use.

Thankfully, I live in the United States of America, which for all its flaws at least on the face of things attempts religious equality.

Sorry for butchering your post. You had lots of thoughtful things to say, and took the time to say them with care.

However, the founding of Israel was no less immoral than the founding of the United States. In fact, since we displaced entire nations of Native Americans, and took over much of an entire continent, you could argue that what the Jews did was literally only a fraction of what we did. The only real difference between our mutual situations besides size is the fact that Native Americans aren't shooting rockets into our cities. As bad as we have--and still do--mistreat Nat.Ams, our treatment of them would get a lot worse if they were constantly at war with us, if they were more on par with our numbers, and if they had help from numerous countries surrounding us, who vastly outnumbered us.

The irony here is that the religious freedom which you love about America is only maintained through strength. It is our present strength and our past ruthlessness that allows us to enjoy this relative peace and freedom. It is our disproportionate strength that allows us to stand here in America and judge people like Israel for doing something similar to what we did ourselves. So if the Jews had taken over more of the Middle East, and reduced its enemies to a much smaller fraction, and was 1000 times more disproportionate in their responses than they are now, it would become a place you could be thankful to live in ... like America?

These kinds of discrepancies in thought is what makes people wonder if something more than the stated reasons are at play. I'm not implying antisemitism, I'm just pointing out the apparent discrepancy in your attitudes towards Israel and your attitude toward your own country that has done all the things you despise about Israel, except on a much larger scale.

[Lord Mhoram]

Look, the moral consequences of the founding of the United States and of Israel make for a very interesting historical discussion, one I would be glad to have even. But I thought we were talking about what's happening in Israel and the Occupied Territories now, today. There are certain things that, in my view, need to be said about that state of affairs -- certain things that can be said without recourse to the history of the US persecution of Native Americans. What happened then was probably wrong and immoral and there are things happening today in Israel and the Occupied Territories that are in my view deeply wrong and immoral, and about which we as Americans, the great supporters of Israel without whom they couldn't do what they do, have to talk about. I should add that I think I'm being more than generous in trying to ignore the shocking innuendo about anti-Semitism bandied about in this thread. If we're going to have that discussion, I suggest you guys be a bit more frank about it.

[Zarathustra]

Look, the moral consequences of the founding of the United States and of Israel make for a very interesting historical discussion, one I would be glad to have even. But I thought we were talking about what's happening in Israel and the Occupied Territories now, today.

Then you should have directed your comments to the person who started using the past to justify his "despite" for Israel. But you waited until someone with whom you disagree responded to his point. Odd.

I was thinking the same thing, actually, that it misses the point to use the past to justify a judgment of things that are happening now. Every country on earth is peopled by conquerors. Just because we’ve all been in our relative countries long enough to talk and look differently, doesn’t mean that any one of us has more right to be where we are than any other. Our placement on this globe is contingent upon people who are long dead. Right and wrong has very little to do with it. For the most part, we the living didn’t commit the acts which put each race in its respective place. We just have to deal with cards we were played. This is where we live, let’s deal with it now.

The temptation to view current events in terms of blame for previous events [such as: judging Israel in terms depend upon a moral judgment of its founding] never seems to take into account that at one time the Jews were one of the few (the only one I know of) distinct races which did not live in its place of origin, that didn’t have a homeland. This entire situation arose because they were displaced, butchered, and then the world did something about it to rectify the situation. If they hadn’t been displaced in the first place, there would be no situation in need of rectifying. I’m not saying that justifies any current action. It only balances the reverse argument (which I think is equally inadmissable as justification for current actions) that the Jews’ actions are wrong and despicable because their founding was never moral in the first place.

Holsety (and others) are correct to identify what really matters now. It’s not a racial thing. It’s not a religious or cultural thing. It’s political. This is why one side of the political spectrum always seems line up for or against Israel. In this matter, conservatives largely support our ally, while liberals side more with our enemies. It’s not anti-semitism, it’s anti-Americanism … at least in the sense that liberals view America as immoral just like they view Israel.

I should add that I think I'm being more than generous in trying to ignore the shocking innuendo about anti-Semitism bandied about in this thread. If we're going to have that discussion, I suggest you guys be a bit more frank about it.

Are you equally shocked when your side throws the term "Islamophobia" around? Things like outrage and shock always seem to depend on which side you're on, don't they?

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

Okay, I'm glad we agree that some moral judgment about Israel's founding isn't the basis for all current judgments. I don't think Israel's founding is fundamentally immoral. I think the way it was done was wrong but the principle of the creation of Israel is not in my view fundamentally a wrong one. There are issues from the founding that fester till today, such as the right of return, but the moral issue isn't one that concerns me too much. Like I said in another Israel thread recently, in my estimation 1967, the beginning of the occupation, is a much more convenient starting point for these discussions.

This is why one side of the political spectrum always seems line up for or against Israel. In this matter, conservatives largely support our ally, while liberals side more with our enemies. It’s not anti-semitism, it’s anti-Americanism … at least in the sense that liberals view America as immoral just like they view Israel.

Here I really disagree. I'm disappointed that you think support for Israel in the US is something that can be chalked up to differences between "conservatives" and "liberals." Liberals in the US are often the most passionate supporters of Israel. (A good recent example: Anthony Weiner, a staunch economic liberal, was off the spectrum in his support of Israel.) There isn't a liberal who has held national office in the United States since 1967 who hasn't psychotically supported Israel. A big part of that is the internationalism and "idealism" (big scare quotes around that idea) inherent in a lot of their foreign policy, as well as the fact that "conservatives" and "liberals" hold pretty much the same foreign policy in our political system with some marginal differences, and the unerring support for Israel is a perfect example of that phenomenon. If anything, the outliers are right-wing isolationists like Ron Paul who are most critical of our Israel policy among national political figures.

I explicitly agree, however, that support/condemnation of Israel is political. It had better be political, because political pressure is the only way to stop it. It's just not an issue of "liberals" and "conservatives."

Are you equally shocked when your side throws the term "Islamophobia" around?

It would be stupid to think that Islamophobia is the primary basis for somebody's views about, say, Islamic terrorism, just as it's stupid to imply that anti-Semitism is the basis for my opposition to Israel. Nevertheless, both ideologies are in the air. Fundamentalist Christians are often basically Islamophobic; fundamentalist Muslims are often basically anti-Semitic.

[Holsety]

Zar, I'm afraid I'm going to have to butcher your post in kind. It's quite simple really. There are far more Americans VS Native Americans than Israelis VS Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. This means that a shift in the status quo in America to benefit the native americans such as a restoration of land is, in terms of an equitable distribution of resources among peoples, far less sensible. Although this is secondary since one could argue there is no statute of limitations on this kind of thing AFAIK and therefore it's perhaps a negligible point, much more time has passed since the re appropriation of American land from Native Americans by colonists (and for that matter the appropriation of Israel from the Jewish people by, who was it again, the Assyrians? The Persians?).

I would say that the identity of native americans as people who deserve to free their land from the white man has been crushed, since they no longer fight to liberate their lands from us AFAIK - there was a definite lapse in conflict and a surrender to our conditions. If they raised up arms against us, it would be a resurgence of hostilities and they would be the aggressors, not a continuance of hostilities. However, in the case of the arabs in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it seems in my estimation that the resistance to the idea of a Jewish State was never really crushed, and that there are still those who desire their ancestral homes returned to them and who never gave up the fight (Hamas). As long as their resistance remains, I can see no reason to adjudicate against them simply because they wish to have their homeland returned to them, though I wish that they would accept their new place for the sake of peace I do wonder whether their new place does not guarantee them stable living compared to their old place.

If the Arab's resistance and dream for a homeland in Israel does not guarantee them the right to Israel, then neither does the Jewish people's hope for a new homeland after their expulsion from the old, and they have no right to be in Israel, or at least no more right than the Palestinians.

I would admit that it is not just Israel that is at fault for the reappropriation of land - the UN permitted it to join as a member state, perhaps happy that a principally western problem in the wake of the Holocaust, the destiny of the remaining jews, had been exported to a new region. We permitted another colonial state to arise.

I agree that the taking of Native American land was immoral, and I wouldn't mind the idea of giving them some land that was originally theirs in developed area if they wanted it back, even if it was my household (not that I have the right to do that, so these are empty words), as long as the government, being the ones who would surely be facilitating the exchange, helped me find someplace new to live and recompense was made to my family for the exchange, but that would have to be carefully negotiated. One suspects, however, that the native americans of today would rather not fragment themselves across their new tribal lands and any restored lands, but that is not my determination to make, it would be theirs.

Look, the moral consequences of the founding of the United States and of Israel make for a very interesting historical discussion, one I would be glad to have even. But I thought we were talking about what's happening in Israel and the Occupied Territories now, today. There are certain things that, in my view, need to be said about that state of affairs -- certain things that can be said without recourse to the history of the US persecution of Native Americans. What happened then was probably wrong and immoral and there are things happening today in Israel and the Occupied Territories that are in my view deeply wrong and immoral, and about which we as Americans, the great supporters of Israel without whom they couldn't do what they do, have to talk about. I should add that I think I'm being more than generous in trying to ignore the shocking innuendo about anti-Semitism bandied about in this thread. If we're going to have that discussion, I suggest you guys be a bit more frank about it.

Sorry, I didn't really mean to charge anyone with antisemitism without charging myself with it. I agree that what's going on today may well be more important, and I didn't mean to derail the thread, but I thought it important to address Zar's concerns regarding my post.

Holsety (and others) are correct to identify what really matters now. It’s not a racial thing. It’s not a religious or cultural thing. It’s political. This is why one side of the political spectrum always seems line up for or against Israel. In this matter, conservatives largely support our ally, while liberals side more with our enemies. It’s not anti-semitism, it’s anti-Americanism … at least in the sense that liberals view America as immoral just like they view Israel.

But here's the rub. Israelis claim a right to exist as a religious state based on Jewish identity, such as their right to the state of Israel as outlined in the torah (I don't know if the politicians in the state of israel claim as much, but I know the Jewish people do). As long as you oppose that, it could be argued that you are antisemitic because you oppose what they feel they need to be in order to exist as they are - people living in a JEWISH STATE, as opposed to a secular state.

[Avatar]

it's like it's easier to accuse your critics of some big thing than it is to actually talk about the criticisms.

Almost like it's easier to to accuse your critics of calling you an anti-Semite than it is to talk about their points.

Sure. Except when one is accused of it, however implicitly, it's not surprising that the actual point is lost.

'Cause unless you can show me the post, no one's said that Israel is blameless. In fact, everyone disagreeing with Prebe & LM has been very clear about that. In fact, it's pretty much just them that keep beating the "blame Israel" drum, and only place the tiniest bit of responsibility on the surrounding nations when pushed.

I never said that anybody said Israel was blameless. I said it wasn't ok to strongly imply that somebody was anti-semitic without a lot more justification than that.

--A

[Prebe]

That is an excellent post Holsety.

[Holsety]

Since you said so, I thought it would be worth my while to outline one other thought. LM said something about not charing Israel's existence with "fundamental" immorality. I don't charge Israel with "fundamental" immorality either, for I don't argue for the existence of fundamental morality. I argue for the existence of my morality, and if that morality is deemed wrong by those around me then that's not something I have any real ability to deal with beyond further, likely doomed to fail, rhetoric.

[Cybrweez]

Fundamentalist Christians are often basically Islamophobic; fundamentalist Muslims are often basically anti-Semitic.

What is Islamophobia? They are afraid of Muslims? Like, physical fear?

What is anti-Semitism? They want to kill Jews?

[Holsety]

Fundamentalist Christians are often basically Islamophobic; fundamentalist Muslims are often basically anti-Semitic.

What is Islamophobia? They are afraid of Muslims? Like, physical fear?

What is anti-Semitism? They want to kill Jews?

I suspect that LM's claim was intended to be vague. "often basically" outlines that we can generally agree that fundies of both groups tend to align themselves against other groups, though the exact reasons for which they do so can differ. He is not trying to deal in exactitudes.

[Cybrweez]

Ah, then let's just remove Fundamentalists, as it seems to add nothing. And we can tidy it up - some groups are against other groups.

[Holsety]

It's a claim about specific aggregates though. He's claiming that those who focus on following the specific, orthodox tenets of Christianity tend to fear Islaam, which is probably a somewhat rational fear. Followers of Islaam who are fundies do at least claim to believe, according to something I read from AA, that Jihad is fighting physically against other religions in order to convert them with one's life on the line. I have to admit that I can't think of a very rational reason to fear followers of Islaam as a whole, as long as they don't believe that dying in Jihad is what they should be focused on. Similarly, Middle Eastern Islaam has a somewhat rational basis to be antisemitic, specifically because Jews moved into Israel and took it over from the Palestinians.

Fundamentalists is a fuzzy term since the people who we align as fundamentalists may not actually perfectly practice every aspect of their religion, but I suspect it is useful enough assuming they claim to follow every aspect of their religion.

[Avatar]

Another (much less) disproportionate swap...

Israel, Egypt, Agree To Prisoner Swap

Tel Aviv- Israel and Egypt have reached a deal to swap 25 Egyptian prisoners in Israeli custody for US-Israeli dual national Ilan Grapel, held by Egypt since June, a statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said on Monday.

The deal was reached days after a successful Egyptian-brokered swap between Israel and Hamas Islamists that freed captive soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for more than 1 000 Palestinian prisoners.

It was subject to Israeli security cabinet approval widely expected to be issued at a session scheduled on Tuesday, the Israeli statement said.

Egyptian officials also confirmed the agreement.

- Reuters

--A

[finn]

When I lived in England, the position of the catholic "minority" in Northern Ireland was characterised by sinn fein and the IRA. The "loyalists" were an English sacred cow despite the atrocities of the UDA and their ilk. When I left England I saw a whole different perspective, the catholics were only a minority because a line had been drawn around the protestants in Ireland and a new state (Northern Ireland) was established.

In Australia we call the Pakistini Cricket team "Pakis"; in England you'll get arrested for doing the same.......my point is that each country has its own perspectives on certain issues, which when you leave that country and live in another, changes. The information everyone is fed is slanted a different way in different places.

In the US there appears to be a very pro-Israel stance, far more so than in other parts of the world and the Israelis seem to be forgiven some pretty horrendous sins whereas the arabs are not forgiven so readily. Evidence of this is the veto the US excersises on Israel's behalf when the rest of the world stands together to condemn some its behaviour. Now that does not mean that anyone condones the behaviour of some Arab groups and in fairness that has not been suggested by Cail or Z or Syl, however Israel IS a Sacred Cow in America and that is a different perspective.

I don't see Prebe being anti-semitic but he's looking, as do I and Av and afew others I'm sure, from a different viewpoint than that of the average American.

[Avatar]

The information everyone is fed is slanted a different way in different places.

I think we're done with that right now, but I'll certainly agree with the quote above. And we're almost certainly all affected by it...it's like one of those meta things.

--A

[finn]

See even that is contextual....say that in England and 80% will think it relates to David Beckham's foot!