International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   (Ed) General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=306886)

caveman1917 1st August 2016 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman (Post 11418035)
What do when a neo-nazi takes an anti-zionist coat of paint and then rants about the "Zionist Occupied Government" and hides behind "I'm not anti-semitic i'm anti-zionist"?

What to do when a fascist takes a jewish coat of paint and then rants about the "lebensraum of his Nation" and hides behind "I'm not a fascist, I'm a zionist"?

CapelDodger 1st August 2016 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman (Post 11417797)
Given how Neo-Nazis tend to flourish in pro-israel groups when they change "jew" for "Zionist", and BDS has serious problems with Holocaust deniers among their ranks, they are much much closer than you think. For instance, if an "anti-zionist" activist talked about the "Zionist Occupation Government", what would you think?

I'd think Oklahoma bombing and the militia movement. That's totally irrelevant.

I distinguish between Jewish people and Zionists by use of the word "Zionist". It's hardly a taboo word in Israel, why should it be for me?

Quote:

And to be honest, if Israel was the devil it is made to be, they'd have saturated WB/Gaza in VX gas and fed the survivors into woodchippers and livestreamed the whole damn thing.
The fact that some people make Israel out that way, just like the fact that some people make out Muslims that way, is irrelevant.

When anti-Zionists predicted a century of conflict stemming from the Balfour Declaration they were correct. Most of them were Jewish, of course, because they were paying the most attention. A land fit for Netenyahu would not have surprised them at all.

CapelDodger 1st August 2016 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11418222)
I think it's truly fascinating that even after having been corrected several times, you still think I'm saying all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

Heaven forfend you might be thought to think that all critiscism of Israel, or Zionism as a principle, conceals anti-semitism.

Here in the UK we have a Chief Rabbi who sees concealed anti-semitism everywhere he wants, but as a priest he's trained in the art of seeing imaginary things where they're most useful.

CapelDodger 1st August 2016 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11418667)
What to do when a fascist takes a jewish coat of paint and then rants about the "lebensraum for his Nation" and hides behind "I'm not a fascist, I'm a zionist"?

Probably best to leave them to it.

The Le Pen-Sharon bro-love was a thing to wonder at.

NWO Sentryman 2nd August 2016 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11418667)
What to do when a fascist takes a jewish coat of paint and then rants about the "lebensraum of his Nation" and hides behind "I'm not a fascist, I'm a zionist"?

Evasion noted

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11418681)
I'd think Oklahoma bombing and the militia movement. That's totally irrelevant.

I distinguish between Jewish people and Zionists by use of the word "Zionist". It's hardly a taboo word in Israel, why should it be for me?

So what do you think when a neo-nazi comes in to a pro-palestinian march and says/waves placards saying:

"Zionists control our government!"

"Take our country back from the Zionist Occupation Government"

"Zionist Cockroaches!"

I personally suspect he'd be cheered along.

Quote:

The fact that some people make Israel out that way, just like the fact that some people make out Muslims that way, is irrelevant.
It does matter due to the fact that Israel is painted as being the most evil nation in the Middle East. To wit, Between 1973 and 1980 Israel was subject to far more UN resolutions than Pol Pot's Cambodia.

TubbaBlubba 2nd August 2016 07:04 AM

If you were to declare your oppisition to Israel explicitly separate from antisemitism, why use a word tainted with a hundred-odd years of anti-semitism? :confused:

caveman1917 2nd August 2016 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba (Post 11419596)
If you were to declare your oppisition to Israel explicitly separate from antisemitism, why use a word tainted with a hundred-odd years of anti-semitism? :confused:

Because nobody is under any obligation to please the sensitivities of some zionists who see concealed antisemitism everywhere it is politically convenient. If they don't like the, exact and accurate, term "anti-zionism" to denote opposition to their ideology then they are free to start calling their ideology something other than "zionism". In the meantime, anti-zionism it is.

TubbaBlubba 2nd August 2016 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11420238)
Because nobody is under any obligation to please the sensitivities of some zionists who see concealed antisemitism everywhere it is politically convenient. If they don't like the, exact and accurate, term "anti-zionism" to denote opposition to their ideology then they are free to start calling their ideology something other than "zionism". In the meantime, anti-zionism it is.

But you are also inviting misunderstandings. I vehemently oppose fascism, but I don't go around breaking windows in my free time, so I don't call myself an "anti-fascist". It is sufficient to say I oppose this and that policy, movement, etc due to my opposition to fascism.

Call yourself whatever you want, but don't be surprised to be lumped in with people like David Duke or whoever, who have certainly used that label for longer than you have.

caveman1917 2nd August 2016 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman (Post 11419194)
Evasion noted

Fine...

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman (Post 11418035)
There are serious problems with anti-zionists as I explained in post #392. What do when a neo-nazi takes an anti-zionist coat of paint and then rants about the "Zionist Occupied Government" and hides behind "I'm not anti-semitic i'm anti-zionist"?

I'll answer this in two parts. First, "what to do with neo-nazis"? There are several options, here is but one of them:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Second, "is zionism special" - in the sense that we should do something special when neo-nazis are using anti-zionism as a cover? Of all nationalisms it is a particularly annoying one, that's for sure. But that has nothing to do with neo-nazis, that's just zionism.

caveman1917 2nd August 2016 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman (Post 11417797)
Given how Neo-Nazis tend to flourish in pro-israel groups when they change "jew" for "Zionist", and BDS has serious problems with Holocaust deniers among their ranks, they are much much closer than you think.

Much much closer? It's good to know that someone's keeping an eye on neo-nazis.

How is it in your city/region with them? How many rallies do they hold, how many people are there, which groups exist, who leads them, what are the relations between the groups, what activities do these groups do, etc?

Here's what I think, you don't have a clue about any of that because you only care about "how close" neo-nazis are when it suits your nationalist agenda.

caveman1917 2nd August 2016 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba (Post 11420330)
But you are also inviting misunderstandings.

Not really, no.

Quote:

I vehemently oppose fascism, but I don't go around breaking windows in my free time, so I don't call myself an "anti-fascist". It is sufficient to say I oppose this and that policy, movement, etc due to my opposition to fascism.
Sufficient for what? Effectively opposing fascism? Or sufficient for the balancing act of attaining social status accorded to opposing fascism using a method - producing minor vibrations in the atmosphere - which conveniently avoids the loss of social status going with the - so desperately inaccurately termed - "going around breaking windows in your free time"?

Here are some other assertions regarding this sufficiency:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Frison, holocaust survivor
If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitler
Only one thing could have stopped our movement - if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.

Doesn't seem to be quite sufficient to me. Well, in the sense of effectively opposing fascism at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba
Call yourself whatever you want, but don't be surprised to be lumped in with people like David Duke or whoever, who have certainly used that label for longer than you have.

There's nothing surprising about it. But this is blah blah blah anyway.

Hlafordlaes 3rd August 2016 01:18 AM

Interesting to debate what should have or could have been done in history. But Israel is here to stay, barring its destruction. This is the starting assumption: it is too late to undo the creation of the state of Israel, regardless of your opinion of it. Therefore, you can sweat the details of a two-state agreement, the only reasonable way forward, or advocate for the status quo of permanent conflict. To contemplate punitive measures on any party, absent a framework for moving forward, is futile and only exacerbates the problem.

For that agreement:
- No negotiation should be started in earnest, nor will be, unless part of a comprehensive regional plan for peace in Israel and Palestine. The precondition for honest negotiation which would have a chance of succeeding requires a genuine, lasting, full-throated and sincere acceptance of Israel's right to exist, and full demilitarization of the conflict with all its neighboring nation-states - including Palestine - in order for anyone to expect any sort of concession from Israel. Until that happens, until the present and constant danger is entirely removed, and no credible political or religious threat remains in force, no dice.
- Translated: Islam must give up its religious claim to all the land; Israel/Judaism must abandon its claims to more territory based on religion.
- No one is a vested party to any negotiations save Israel and Palestine, and from this point of the conflict forward, religious truths should be no basis for anything not affecting the internal affairs of each state alone.
- The singular objective of retaining whatever borders are agreed to for Israel as the Jewish homeland, in light of history, is non-negotiable. The Jewish people are not safe anywhere else. The right to return, making Jews a minority in Israel, in practical terms today, is not workable. Israel will never accept this, nor should it, given history.
- The 1967 borders are a reasonable and legal starting point for discussion of final borders. Pure religious argument for establishing borders not relating to the 1967 boundaries should be entirely unacceptable from any party, only argument relating to the fair needs and actions of democratic states should be forthcoming. If both parties so agree, any border changes and exchanges of land are fine.
- Palestine does not represent nor does it constitute a religious homeland, and speaks for its inhabitants as a nation-state alone. In other words, any backdooring of other parties or "higher authorities" is completely illicit in a political, not religious, negotiation.

I do care that maintaining a Jewish majority, or any such artificial majority in a democracy, is in principle unacceptable. However, let's be mindful that of such democracies in the ME, Israel's is far, far less strict about which religions are allowed to operate, so if there is to be howling in this regard, let it be a full but honest roar. But as for a primarily Jewish, albeit non-expansionist state of Isreal, most emphatically "Yes." I won't argue why; it is obvious from historical events, but the non-argument in this regard primarily stems from the fact that we needn't rail against facts that will not change. Israel is here to stay.

Childlike Empress 3rd August 2016 09:04 AM

Meanwhile in everybody's favorite apartheid settler colony:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Quote:

In September 2012, Israeli security forces put up a chain-link fence along al-Ibrahimi Street in Hebron, separating the paved road from a narrow, rough walkway. Since then, B’Tselem has twice documented security forces denying Palestinians access to the paved road, despite official claims that there is no such prohibition. On 25 July 2016, B’Tselem volunteer Raed Abu Ramileh filmed a Border Police officer seizing the bicycle of 8-year-old Anwar Burqan and throwing it in the bushes for riding it down the paved road, which is reserved for settlers.
More info:
http://www.btselem.org/_hebron/20160...bike_in_hebron

Mycroft 3rd August 2016 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress (Post 11421941)
Meanwhile in everybody's favorite apartheid settler colony:

He was suspended for it too.

Border Policeman suspended after taking bicycle from Palestinian girl

8-year-old Anwar Burqan was playing with her siblings on a road closed off to Palestinians; Border Policemen seen scaring her away and throwing her bicycle into nearby bushes.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...836770,00.html

Navigator 3rd August 2016 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes (Post 11421135)
Interesting to debate what should have or could have been done in history. But Israel is here to stay, barring its destruction. This is the starting assumption: it is too late to undo the creation of the state of Israel, regardless of your opinion of it. Therefore, you can sweat the details of a two-state agreement, the only reasonable way forward, or advocate for the status quo of permanent conflict. To contemplate punitive measures on any party, absent a framework for moving forward, is futile and only exacerbates the problem.

Understanding, but no peace for Palestinian and Israeli students in UK [link]

Mycroft 3rd August 2016 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11418635)
Who does she cast as the conspirators?

From the article, the photographer being at the location somehow proves Israel is the conspirator. Also dancing Israelis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11418630)
That makes no sense.

Still making no sense.

A claim that Jews are the sort of people who will harvest organs for profit is anti-semitic. A claim that this sort of thing happens in Israel is anti-Israeli. A claim that Zionism necessarily leads to the sort of state where such things will happen is anti-Zionist.

If you're going to follow the line that any criticism of Zionism or Israel is concealing anti-semitism then you'll see a lot of concealed anti-semitism.

Quite literally, if one replaces "Jew" with "Zionist" or "Israel" then it's not anti-Semitism? No matter how bizarre the claim? It seems that "anti-Zionism" is a very large tent allowing for all kinds of conspiracy kookery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11418647)
I'm not an anti-semite, I'm an anti-Zionist.

They are not mutually contradictory. Or maybe in your opinion they are?

Mycroft 3rd August 2016 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba (Post 11419596)
If you were to declare your oppisition to Israel explicitly separate from antisemitism, why use a word tainted with a hundred-odd years of anti-semitism? :confused:

I think "anti-Zionism" is also useful in that it obscures that the person is against the existence of the state of Israel, and not just opposed to it's policies. It makes it more palatable to the general public who would mostly just assume it means the later.

Mycroft 3rd August 2016 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11418693)
Heaven forfend you might be thought to think that all critiscism of Israel, or Zionism as a principle, conceals anti-semitism.

It's the most common straw-man I come across. Why it's so hard to understand that there is a vast gulf between "all" and "none" I just don't get, unless it's something one doesn't want to understand because they're just not comfortable dealing with those issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11418693)
Here in the UK we have a Chief Rabbi who sees concealed anti-semitism everywhere he wants, but as a priest he's trained in the art of seeing imaginary things where they're most useful.

I'm going to guess you disagree with him in every circumstance?

Mycroft 3rd August 2016 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navigator (Post 11422899)
Understanding, but no peace for Palestinian and Israeli students in UK [link]

This is the way to reach for peace.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local...8228ecd4c.html

Building bridges.

trustbutverify 3rd August 2016 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salerio (Post 11418025)
Where do anti-zionist jews (eg. Jew Torah Jews) fit into the anti-semitic stance?

Providing plausible deniability for vile, holocaust-denying, Jew baiting skunks?

Mycroft 3rd August 2016 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress (Post 11421941)
Meanwhile in everybody's favorite apartheid settler colony:

I went to that youtube page and got a sampling of the comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...MWiPhRylGg#t=0

Monsters!

how the multicultural thing working in israel ??
not so good.

I'm surprised that macho man brave soldier didn't throw a knife next to the little girl and say that he was attacked.

Don't give them any idea that these filthy isteal people didn't do.

HITLER, I forgive you.

+Sam K Hitler deserves a place in heaven!

Typical jew Cowards.The Satanic Parasite Race.Pure Evil Scum.

Why are jews so evil and subhuman wherever they live?

And people wonder why Palestinians stab Israelis all the time.
Reply

another video with a neonazi scum

i hope the jews get another holocaust and now a real one.



My take on this is that "anti-Zionism" draws the anti-Semites like poop draws flies.

LeoMajor 3rd August 2016 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11418667)
What to do when a fascist takes a jewish coat of paint and then rants about the "lebensraum of his Nation" and hides behind "I'm not a fascist, I'm a zionist"?

I'm not Pro-Israel at all, but there can be no comparison with Israeli crimes and the Nazi ethnic cleansing plans for Eastern Europe. The Nazis were planning to murder about 50-70 million slavs and destroy an entire civilization.

trustbutverify 3rd August 2016 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11416905)
Anti-semitism and anti-Zionism are two very different entities.

Peanut butter and jelly are also two very different entities.

Navigator 3rd August 2016 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11422967)
This is the way to reach for peace.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local...8228ecd4c.html

Building bridges.

Yes - building bridges is better than building walls.

Mycroft 3rd August 2016 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navigator (Post 11423109)
Yes - building bridges is better than building walls.

They found a non-violent solution to a violent problem.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Navigator 3rd August 2016 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11423140)
They found a non-violent solution to a violent problem.

If you are referring to the wall, then yes - but really, a short term solution to an enduring problem.

Navigator 3rd August 2016 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CapelDodger (Post 11416905)
Anti-semitism and anti-Zionism are two very different entities.

Well from what is know of Zionism.... (from wiki)

"...is a nationalist political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land)"

Antisemitism is being against Jews in general...From Wiki

"The terms "anti-Semite" or "antisemitism" came by a circuitous route to refer more narrowly to anyone who was hostile or discriminatory towards Jews in particular."

I would have to say then that anything a person identifying as a Jew might do to which others are hostile or discriminate against could be called "antisemitism".

'anti' is generally a hostile reaction...

caveman1917 4th August 2016 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11422905)
No matter how bizarre the claim?

There's nothing bizarre about accusations of war crimes during military conflicts, even the specific accusation of organ trafficking is not all that rare. What is bizarre is the response that Israel must be considered special such that such accusations, when leveled at Israel, must immediately be considered antisemitism without any sort of evidence for such - by vague appeals to "blood libel" myths. Well, I guess it's not all that bizarre when the goal of the rhetoric is simply to a priori absolve Israel of any accusations of war crimes, and to make sure that no investigations would be undertaken of these accusations.

Too bad the people in Kosovo didn't have any "blood libel myth" at hand, or they could've gotten out of an investigation by some handwaving rhetoric.

caveman1917 4th August 2016 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeoMajor (Post 11423016)
I'm not Pro-Israel at all, but there can be no comparison with Israeli crimes and the Nazi ethnic cleansing plans for Eastern Europe.

There can be every comparison with Zionist ethnic cleansing plans for Palestine. The designated inferior people are Palestinian Arabs rather than Slavs, the territory is Palestine rather than Eastern Europe, the designated superior people are Jews rather than Aryans; but otherwise it's the same ideological position - a designated set of inferior people must be ethnically cleansed to make room on their land for the settlement of the designated set of superior people.

Mycroft 4th August 2016 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Navigator (Post 11423177)
If you are referring to the wall, then yes - but really, a short term solution to an enduring problem.



I was referring to the kids. An enduring solution will require cooperation from both sides.

Mycroft 4th August 2016 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423472)
There's nothing bizarre about accusations of war crimes during military conflicts, even the specific accusation of organ trafficking is not all that rare. What is bizarre is the response that Israel must be considered special such that such accusations, when leveled at Israel, must immediately be considered antisemitism without any sort of evidence for such - by vague appeals to "blood libel" myths. Well, I guess it's not all that bizarre when the goal of the rhetoric is simply to a priori absolve Israel of any accusations of war crimes, and to make sure that no investigations would be undertaken of these accusations.

Too bad the people in Kosovo didn't have any "blood libel myth" at hand, or they could've gotten out of an investigation by some handwaving rhetoric.


Allow me to quote from your article to illustrate an important difference:

According to Montgomery, he and his team didn’t have enough corroboration to publish a story, but they did produce a memo which they sent to UN Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK, which was the administrative authority in Kosovo after the war ended in June 1999.

“We had multiple sources but not everything lined up. We had people who heard that people have been taken away for their kidneys. There were couple of houses we were able to locate where these things allegedly happened, but we decided we didn’t have enough information to publish and that at the time our evidence didn’t support the allegations,” he said.


When these journalists heard the allegations they then searched for evidence to support them. When they were unable to find enough evidence, they didn't publish the allegations. That's Journalistic ethics.

By contrast when Donald Boström heard allegations, he just published them. When the controversy broke, every other Swedish paper said they would not have published the article because there was no corroborating evidence.

And of course, almost ten years later, the false article is being taught to university students as though it were true.

Mycroft 4th August 2016 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423483)
There can be every comparison with Zionist ethnic cleansing plans for Palestine. The designated inferior people are Palestinian Arabs rather than Slavs, the territory is Palestine rather than Eastern Europe, the designated superior people are Jews rather than Aryans; but otherwise it's the same ideological position - a designated set of inferior people must be ethnically cleansed to make room on their land for the settlement of the designated set of superior people.

Palestinians are not designated "inferior people". Their leaders make them hostile combatants.

Jews are not designated "superior people". Struggling for survival as a group does not make that group racist towards other peoples.

Your allegations here echo the sentiments of the likes of David Duke and the creators of Metapedia.

caveman1917 4th August 2016 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11423546)
Allow me to quote from your article to illustrate an important difference:

According to Montgomery, he and his team didn’t have enough corroboration to publish a story, but they did produce a memo which they sent to UN Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK, which was the administrative authority in Kosovo after the war ended in June 1999.

“We had multiple sources but not everything lined up. We had people who heard that people have been taken away for their kidneys. There were couple of houses we were able to locate where these things allegedly happened, but we decided we didn’t have enough information to publish and that at the time our evidence didn’t support the allegations,” he said.


When these journalists heard the allegations they then searched for evidence to support them. When they were unable to find enough evidence, they didn't publish the allegations. That's Journalistic ethics.

By contrast when Donald Boström heard allegations, he just published them. When the controversy broke, every other Swedish paper said they would not have published the article because there was no corroborating evidence.

And of course, almost ten years later, the false article is being taught to university students as though it were true.

None of which has anything to do with your accusations of antisemitism and certainly not with Aisha's easy-peasy a priori handwaving of war crime accusations against Israeli soldiers.

Besides, there's no such thing as journalistic ethics, papers publish war crime accusations without corroborating evidence all the time. The only ethics in journalism are whether it is (geo-)politically convenient to publish such accusations or whether it is more convenient to ask for evidence first, usually depending on the (geo-)political status of the people being accused.

caveman1917 4th August 2016 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11423555)
Palestinians are not designated "inferior people". Their leaders make them hostile combatants.

Jews are not designated "superior people". Struggling for survival as a group does not make that group racist towards other peoples.

Your allegations here echo the sentiments of the likes of David Duke and the creators of Metapedia.

Blah blah blah

Mycroft 4th August 2016 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423559)
None of which has anything to do with your accusations of antisemitism and certainly not with Aisha's easy-peasy a priori handwaving of war crime accusations against Israeli soldiers.

Besides, there's no such thing as journalistic ethics, papers publish war crime accusations without corroborating evidence all the time. The only ethics in journalism are whether it is (geo-)politically convenient to publish such accusations or whether it is more convenient to ask for evidence first, usually depending on the (geo-)political status of the people being accused.

Lying is not justified by political expediency just because someone else did it in another time and place. If it were then literally nothing would be out of bounds.

Further, that debate strategy has a name and a history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

caveman1917 4th August 2016 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 11423636)
Lying is not justified by political expediency just because someone else did it in another time and place. If it were then literally nothing would be out of bounds.

Lying? Feel free to present your evidence that the accusations are false.

You've asserted that publishing uncorroborated war crime accusations is antisemitism and that the specific accusation is "bizarre". I've shown that

1. There's nothing odd about accusations of war crimes being leveled in military conflicts.

2. There's nothing "bizarre" about the specific accusation of organ trafficking.

3. There are plenty of precedents of journalists publishing war crime accusations without corroborating evidence.

If anything is bizarre it would be Aisha's mythical appeals in defense of your assertions.

Quote:

Further, that debate strategy has a name and a history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Blah blah blah. Besides, that's not even a real fallacy, that's just Western supremacist thinking couched as a fallacy.

Mycroft 4th August 2016 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423666)
Lying? Feel free to present your evidence that the accusations are false.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

You don't understand how an evidence based worldview works. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the allegations. That's why "innocent until proven guilty" is a foundational principle of Western justice systems.

Or is that "Western Supremacist" thinking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423666)
You've asserted that publishing uncorroborated war crime accusations is antisemitism and that the specific accusation is "bizarre". I've shown that

The willingness to publish them, believe them, and then teach them in a collegiate setting as truth after the allegations have been discredited for lack of proof is certainly irrational and bigoted. Anti-Semitism is the leading contender as to what type of irrational bigotry it derives from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423666)
1. There's nothing odd about accusations of war crimes being leveled in military conflicts.

There is nothing odd about anti-Semitism either. That and similar forms of irrational bigotry are common.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423666)
2. There's nothing "bizarre" about the specific accusation of organ trafficking.

Yes, there is.

"Bizarre" is not synonymous with "unique".

And again, that it's taught in a collegiate setting without evidence is the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423666)
3. There are plenty of precedents of journalists publishing war crime accusations without corroborating evidence.

The example you gave was not one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423666)
If anything is bizarre it would be Aisha's mythical appeals in defense of your assertions.

I suppose if you think it's okay to teach "history" that's discredited for lacking evidence you would find a well educated person who is very knowledgeable about history and social issues finding parallels between what is happening today with what has happened in the past to be "bizarre". Particularly when it is politically expedient for you to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423666)
Blah blah blah. Besides, that's not even a real fallacy, that's just Western supremacist thinking couched as a fallacy.

It is a very real fallacy as a sub-set of "tu quoque" arguments.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

LeoMajor 4th August 2016 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423483)
There can be every comparison with Zionist ethnic cleansing plans for Palestine. The designated inferior people are Palestinian Arabs rather than Slavs, the territory is Palestine rather than Eastern Europe, the designated superior people are Jews rather than Aryans; but otherwise it's the same ideological position - a designated set of inferior people must be ethnically cleansed to make room on their land for the settlement of the designated set of superior people.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong about everything. The Israelis, as far as I know, committed a number of expulsions, but they did not plan form the beginning to relocate the entire Arab population. They did not have explicit plans for enslavement of the locals, as the Nazis did, and they did not plan, ad far as I know, to withhold education and medical care from the locals.

That is not meant to minimalize Israeli crimes, but to make clear that the Nazis were obviously in a different league. There can be no comparison.

NWO Sentryman 4th August 2016 09:54 AM

And on top of that, Israel hasn't:

1) Set out to starve 80% of Palestine's population
2) Reduced the survivors to illiterate peasants
3) Forced palestinians to march across minefields and shoot them if an Israeli officer stepped on amine
4) Kidnapped Palestinian women and forced them into sexual slavery
5) Rounded Palestinians into barns and mosques before burning them to the ground and shooting any survivors

Hlafordlaes 4th August 2016 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress (Post 11421941)
Meanwhile in everybody's favorite apartheid settler colony:

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 11423483)
There can be every comparison with Zionist ethnic cleansing plans for Palestine. The designated inferior people are Palestinian Arabs rather than Slavs, the territory is Palestine rather than Eastern Europe, the designated superior people are Jews rather than Aryans; but otherwise it's the same ideological position - a designated set of inferior people must be ethnically cleansed to make room on their land for the settlement of the designated set of superior people.

I notice you each post in absence of a meaningful way to deal with facts on the ground moving forward. Israel is as it is today, as is Palestine. What's your policy?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.