Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumAnti-Zionism is anti-Semitism
We have yet to witness a military campaign devoid of anomalies, and Operation Protective Edge was no different. Rule of law presides in Israel, and as such, even if Israel's anomalies are far smaller than those of other countries in similar situations, state has a duty to investigate them all.
For two left-wing groups, B'Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories and Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights, the probes to be conducted by the Israel Defense Forces will not do. And they are already preparing excuses to cooperate with the commission of inquiry set up by UN Human Rights Council, with its findings already a foregone conclusion, and with William Schabas appointed to deliver the goods. According to Yesh Din attorney Michael Sfard, the IDF investigations do not meet the necessary international standards.
I asked the spokeswoman for Yesh Din for information about investigations conducted by countries such as the United States and Britain, which Israel would do well to follow. After all, there have been an endless number of reports pertaining to war crimes on the part of both countries. I received a vague response to the effect that Sfard was not referring to Britain and the US. Then who was he referring to? After all, these are the two Western countries that over the past decade have been more involved in wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, than any others.
A review of how other countries act in such circumstances is therefore a worthy exercise.
cont'd...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4570484,00.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)In September 2003, British soldiers were accused of sadistically abusing prisoners in Basra, Iraq. They were tried. Nine soldiers were acquitted of all charges; and just one was found guilty of "inhumane conduct" and was jailed for one year.
In another incident, in 2005, US Marines forces were charged with killing 24 civilians, including women and children, in Haditha, Iraq. Following lengthy legal proceedings, just one soldier was convicted of a marginal offense. None of them served jail time. And one can go on. There are more stories of this kind.
In some cases, the prosecution was in possession of video evidence – for example, the Collateral Damage video clip, leaked by Bradley Manning, who was jailed for 35 years for passing on hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the WikiLeaks Web site. The perpetrators, Cobra helicopter pilots, walked away unscathed and free of indictments.
Do civilized countries tend to show leniency towards soldiers who commit irregular acts or even war crimes? It appears so. Aside from instances of malicious murder, one would be hard pressed to find American or British soldiers who have paid a high price for anomalies during war time.
Even the brutal torturing and subsequent death of an Afghan detainee, known as Dilawar of Yakubi, resulted in ludicrous jail terms of just two and three months.
Attorney Sfard's claim was that Israel operates differently to other civilized countries. He's right. Israel adopts a far more stringent approach than the British and Americans. But to hell with the facts. The propaganda machine will CONTINUE to churn out baseless claims.
* * *
Is Anti-Zionism also anti-Semitism? Let's check. While the recent war raged, the medical journal, The Lancet, published an open letter against Israel's alleged war crimes – another example of academics being recruited into the Hamas propaganda machine.
Two of the people behind the initiative were Dr. Paola Manduca and Dr. Swee Ang. Concurrent with the letter came an additional petition, claiming acts of slaughter, published by Israeli academics, among them members of the nomadic band of every anti-Israeli petition, like Shlomo Sand, Yehouda Shenhav, Anat Matar, Udi Adiv and Adi Ophir – good souls.
On the other side of the political map, the racist-anti-Semitic right, one finds American David Duke. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion appears amateurish in comparison to the dark plots he attributes to the Jews.
In late 2013, Duke was expelled from Italy following an attempt to set up an all-European neo-Nazi movement. As part of his smear campaign, Duke released a horror film, CNN, Goldman Sachs & the Zio Matrix, about the threat of world domination posed by Zionism.
What's interesting is the fact, as revealed by NGO Monitor, that both Manduca and Ang, from the Lancet letter, spoke highly of Duke's film and warmly recommended it – at the same time they were launching their anti-Israel initiative.
Manduca wrote: "See this video before it is removed from circulation – Please do pass on to others who you think would be interested and would pass on. The whole world needs to know." Hurry, hurry, because the Zionists may take the video down. They control the global media after all. Their control is so absolute, so much so that the anti-Semitic video still remains on YouTube.
The radical left and extreme right are divided on numerous issues. Yet when it comes to one particular issue, they are remarkably united – hatred for Israel and support for Hamas. Some would call it anti-Zionism. Its true name, unmasked, is anti-Semitism.
* * *
The New York Times ran an investigative report about research institutions that receive funding from foreign governments. These investments pay off. Instead of HIRING lobbyists, they are paying researchers. And the documented findings, with their academic flavor, arrive as background papers on the desks of senior government officials. It is forbidden, we are told, to single out individuals. One must, therefore, single out the backers.
Qatar, for example, which finances Hamas and other Jihadi organizations, has undertaken to donate $14 million to the prestigious Brookings Institution. One of the studies to be conducted will deal with the relations between the United States and the Arab world. Is there any chance that the research will also deal with Qatar's funding of Jihad and terrorism?
The investigative report forgot to mention a far greater problem – donations to universities. One of the largest donations of this kind, some $20 million, is credited to Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, and went to the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, founded by Prof. John Esposito, at Georgetown University.
Esposito hasn't stopped repaying the kindness. His research on the Muslim world is a mixture of sycophancy and whitewashing. Bin Talal donates generous sums to other institutions too. The Islamic Studies PROGRAM at Harvard University also bears his name.
Esposito recently signed a letter in support of an absolute academic boycott on Israel. The signatories, more than 100 members of the academe, make it clear that they will not retract their position until Israel, among other things, "respects, protects and promotes the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties."
In other words, they will not rest until Israel declares its own demise. Also among the signatories are Ilan Pappe, Eyal Sivan and Ariella Azoulay. One can always find Israelis to join the party.
Just to clarify matters, there is no such thing as "the right of return" in international law – and UN Resolution 194, on which they base their argument, makes no mention of it either.
To the contrary, the European Court of Human Rights, the most important in the world perhaps, rejected a demand for compensation and repatriation filed by Greeks who were expelled from the Turkish part of Cyprus.
Tens of millions who suffered deportation and uprooting in the previous century in the framework of the establishment of new nation states were not afforded the right of return. But academics have never allowed themselves to be thrown off by the facts. And it's not happening only due to Bin Talal's big money, but due to him too.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There was MASSIVE condemnation of the leniency shown to those who committted the acts you listed above...nobody here was saying "they're not Israeli, so it doesn't matter". And you damn well know it.
shira
(30,109 posts)They either can't admit Hamas is a terror org. or they go out of their way denying Hamas war crimes like human shielding...or both.
And their Israel bashing fans and cheerleaders lap it up.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Hamas isn't the cause of the conflict. The conflict caused Hamas.
The conflict wouldn't end if Hamas were crushed(which isn't possible anyway)because the only thing that crushing it would lead to would be the emergence of more extreme groups. Why do you still refuse to accept reality?
shira
(30,109 posts)But there are plenty of folks here who cheer on certain Israel bashing organizations and committees that CONSTANTLY go out of their way to give Hamas war criminals a pass.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They get it that Hamas(and its now-moral equivalents in the Israeli cabinet)are horrifically violent and extreme. The world gets that. But that isn't the point here at all.
All they are really guilty of is refusing to accept the myth that Hamas is the cause of the conflict.
Screaming "Hamas is evil, Hamas is evil, Hamas is evil" serves no purpose and does nothing to end the conflict.
I suspect the reason YOU are so fixated with getting Hamas denounced as terrorists by everybody is that you want even MORE IDF missile strikes in Gaza...with even shorter warning times. You don't get it that more missiles and more IDF aggression can only produce more extreme Palestinian responses. Unlike World War II, this is a war in which "victory" in military sense, isn't possible.
The way to get past Hamas is to end the conflict through negotiations with the actual leaderships in the West Bank and Gaza and treat Palestinians decently-not denunciation for denunciation's sakes, and not an endless fixation with trying to change the other side's leadership.
shira
(30,109 posts)Organizations like the UNHRC, B'tselem, HRW, and Amnesty Int'l deny, defend, minimize, and ignore Hamas war crimes. And there are plenty here who support these Israel bashing organizations.
Their criticism of Israel is irrelevant given their supportive positions of a known terrorist organization.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Apparently "Hamas apologist" simply means "anyone who cares about human rights".
shira
(30,109 posts)Look it up yourself as they did the same thing during the Goldstone commission. And there are plenty more war crimes like using ambulances for military purposes, 160 dead children digging tunnels for Hamas, booby trapping homes, Hamas stealing humanitarian aid, and Hamas rockets falling short and killing Palestinians, among other war crimes.
The UN's William Schabas admitted on video that he wasn't sure Hamas war crimes would be investigated.
Response to shira (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Because the vast vast majority of Jews are Zionists.
Why do you pick "Jews" in your post ? Do you think it gives your "argument " legitimacy if there are "lots and lots of Jewish people " in your camp ?
roody
(10,849 posts)Now one Jewish friend tells me that all the sane people have left Israel, leaving it to right wing nuts.
King_David
(14,851 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts).... again with Ben-Dror Yemini shira .....the so called "Leftist" 
.....
Conservative Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini, a frequent critic of the New Israel Fund and progressives in general, recently wrote about the manufactured controversy regarding NIF’s participation in the Celebrate Israel parade on Sunday. Acknowledging that we do not in fact support global BDS, the lie that’s been told to justify our exclusion, he wrote that we should participate in the parade, because we are irritating but legitimate.
I love that. I can picture hundreds of liberal Zionists marching down Park Avenue in T-shirts reading Irritating But Legitimate. Kudos to Yemini for realizing that, despite our ideological disagreements with him on serious matters, we and other progressive organizations represent a respected and important stream of the community both here in the United States and in Israel itself.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/199149/dont-ban-us-from-the-celebrate-israel-parade/#ixzz3DStYsn8O
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
Israeli
(4,148 posts)that is why the again .....she has sourced from him before and I told her he was Right wing .....only I cant remember which thread .
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)about the tunnels. Just in time to get out ahead of the human rights groups reports on Israel's
crimes.
King_David
(14,851 posts)
shira
(30,109 posts)...that the only way you respond to an argument is by ad-hominem, hoping to cut-off all discussion by labeling your opponent "right-wing". Is that all you have?
Anyway, here's Yemini describing himself as left....
http://www.nrg.co.il/app/index.php?do=blog&encr_id=f2b4c1b55be76d1e6d7b777256ea0370&id=1761
Read it. You might learn something.
And if you have ANYTHING substantive to argue about his latest article, go right ahead. I doubt it though....
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"If you do not agree with my brutal, racist, genocidal political ideology, you hate Jews!"
Yemeni, like you, like David, is the actual antisemite in this picture, because he is basically stating that all Jews harbor the same political ideology. What's more, given that this political ideology by necessity requires violence against and subjugation of Palestinians to exist, Yemeni is saying that such brutality and oppression is an intrinsic expression of Jewishness, since to oppose it means one hates Jews.
shira
(30,109 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and his op makes it perfectly clear that he's a hateful bigot.
Israeli
(4,148 posts)http://www.israellycool.com/2014/09/14/hagee-welcome-to-jerusalem/
The antisemite who finances Zionist self-righteousness
http://coteret.com/2010/02/01/breaking-hagee-and-cufi-fund-anti-nif-campaign-organizer/#more-1265
King_David
(14,851 posts)I thought you didn't think him so cool ?
Did you read both links King_David ?
Its Hagee I dont like and they think is " cool " .
King_David
(14,851 posts)You should keep him out of your country.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)and has about as much merit.
Consider that a Palestinian would have to support the dismemberment or replacement of his own territory in order to be a Zionist. And if he didnt, well he's a antisemite.
A pretty dishonest argument when you look at it, but the Palestinians have probably gotten used to it.
Just no.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)By Noam Sheizaf
|Published October 26, 2010
The political line of Israeli papers (a reader's guide)
snip* The promotion of conservative contributors such as Kalman Livskind and Ben-Dror Yemini support this theory. Yemini is known for his campaigning against “lefty” influence in the Israel academia and media. He has repeatedly called to hold state funds from critical movies and from artists and professors who are “anti-Israeli”. Last week he published a double spread attacking Haaretz journalist Gidon Levi for an interview he gave to the Independent.
The bottom line for Maariv: Highly conservative on security; anti-civil rights, anti-Supreme Court; slightly critical of Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
UPDATE: Maariv was bought by Israeli tycoon Nochy Dankner, and is currently (fall 2011) edited by Nir Chefetz, former spokesperson for PM Binyamin Netanyahuu.
http://972mag.com/the-political-line-of-israeli-papers-a-readers-guide/4072/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Israeli
(4,148 posts)do you think Bradley Burston is radical Left ?
A plea to Israel from the right: End the Gaza war now
Prominent columnist Ben Dror Yemini, an outspoken critic of the Israeli left, urges Israel to make a move which no one expects – follow a unilateral cease-fire by inviting Hamas to peace talks.
Source : http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/a-plea-to-israel-from-the-right-end-the-gaza-war-now.premium-1.479061
King_David
(14,851 posts)Did you know though he's American ?
You said - different culture to you and all... More like Pelsar...
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 16, 2014, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Burston is definitely not part of the unhinged delegitimizing, Israel = Nazi Apartheid crowd.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Oh, and "different culture to you and all" is Putin's justification for his persecution of gays. Sure you want to lead with that one?
Israeli
(4,148 posts)If he cannot see that there is a difference between someone born, raised and educated within the environment of a socialist atheist Kibbutz compared to someone born raised and educated in his environment ....then its his problem .
King_David
(14,851 posts)I agree with Ken.
Embracing immigration is a left trait and I support it .
Israeli
(4,148 posts)does not mean it does not exist . ...there is a huge cultural difference between you and I .
King_David
(14,851 posts)You say you live on a kibbutz, there's a culture difference between myself and a farmer in Nebraska .
I live in a big city , very much like Tel Aviv, where there us not so much difference .
Israeli
(4,148 posts)...there is a huge culture difference between you and I ....and its not restricted to where one lives .
King_David
(14,851 posts)Like Bradley Burston who assimilate very nicely .
It's a left wing trait to embrace immigrants .
shira
(30,109 posts)Israeli
(4,148 posts)....you are wrong about Yemini shira ....
“The Nazification project”
That is the headline the right-wing journalist Dror Yemini gave to his column of Friday, 1 February 2013. Yemini is one of a handful of journalists at Maariv who were not dismissed by the new owner, the settler Ben-Zvi. Yemini, who sees his past as being stained with blots of leftism, is sparing no effort – again, as he sees it – to cleanse himself of those spots. He is doing so through a reckless campaign of incitement against the Left. He fits the new owner’s outlook like a glove. No wonder Ben-Zvi fell in love with him. Every week Yemini hammers away at left-wing and human rights organizations and leftists and liberals worldwide who criticize the Occupation and apartheid, attacks Israeli academic faculty members who criticize the Occupation and oppression, and like every good McCarthyist he calls them aiders of the enemy – that is, traitors who are contributing to an international leftist campaign to to slander Israel as a continuation of the Nazi regime. In his words, “a project of Nazifying Israel”.
What is to be done with the traitors in the universities that receive government funding? Yemini, having drawn the outline, leaves it to his readers to reach the obvious conclusion, in the hope that his readership includes people who are responsible for allocating government funds to universities and who will reach the required insights: those aiding the enemy must be dismissed and put on trial for aiding the enemy in time of war, for which the death penalty can be applied, and to house them in the detention camps that have been built in the Negev for asylum-seekers. There’s lots of room there.
With his weekly venomous writings against the Left, Yemini is contributing to legislation to silence criticism and therefore the denial of freedom of expression that he enjoyed under the editorship of Doron Galezer and Ruth Yuval, who struggled not to vomit whenever they saw his column. They acted like democratic leftists, and respected his freedom of expression.
Yemini is part of a group that is endeavouring to suppress the freedom of speech of those who criticize and condemn the policies of the Israeli government by tarring them with the brush of anti-Semitism. Recently he did that to a cartoon that was published in the Sunday Times of London, in which Netanyahu was depicted building a wall that was strangling the Palestinians. A legitimate cartoon, and also a correct one in my view, and I would gladly add my name to those of the 28 Jews in Britain who published a letter in the British newspaper Independent protesting against the effort to label the Sunday Times cartoon as anti-Semitic. This is a classic example of illegitimate use of the concept. Not only is the cartoon free of any whiff of anti-Semitism, they write; but it is a correct critique, and the timing of its publication, on the eve of International Holocaust Day, is appropriate, for Israel has not internalized even one essential lesson from the Holocaust, apart from the cult of military force.
But above all, Yemini’s accusations are unfounded, and the little truth that they contain is like the truth in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Leftists do not seek to Nazify Israel. It is Israel itself that is doing that, with the failure of the police to find those responsible for the burnings of mosques and Muslim holy books, with Beitar Jerusalem football fans displaying giant placards saying “Beitar – pure forever” after two Muslim players joined the team, with fabricated accusations that asylum-seekers from Africa are spreading disease, by sewing destruction and death among a civilian population – the list is long. The “guilt” of the Left is that it demands an end to these shameful phenomena so that Israel can become a civilized democratic state.
Source:
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=58197
shira
(30,109 posts)Going so far as to label any action a genocide and Gaza = Auschwitz.
Straight-up KKK rightwing David Duke gutter hatred.
Israeli
(4,148 posts)its the truth .....sorry you cant handle the truth .
shira
(30,109 posts)It's loathsome and vile.
Israeli
(4,148 posts)in answer to ....
" Because only right-wingers make absurd arguments like this? "
yes .
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)B'tselem conducts their investigations appropriately and draws their conclusions in the same manner.
They connect the dots but this idiot's OP Ed tries to smear them by calling them a left wing
organization, lol.
The respected group just won an award for their work.
aranthus
(3,385 posts)Anti-Zionism is the denial of the Jewish people's right to a state of their own. That's what is antisemitic about anti-Zionism. But this article isn't about that. Opposing the recent Israeli action in Gaza isn't anti-Zionist. Claiming that the Israelis engaged in overkill? Nope. Accusations of war crimes? Not anti-Zionism. There may be some of these people who really are anti-Zionist, but the article is really about claiming that everyone who opposed the Israeli operation is anti-Zionist, and therefore, an antisemite. That claim isn't true, it's unfair, and ultimately hurts our side more than it tars the anti-Israel crowd.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I guess that bird didn't fly very well so he's back with this piece
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)B'tselem also made no mention this summer of Hamas using Gazans as human shields.
What do you make of that?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Their record for this latest round of violence is not complete on Gaza. If they have not listed evidence
of Hamas using human shields thus far, then it's because the evidence does not exist to meet that
definition. They have condemned Hamas on other aspects of the violence in Gaza to date.
I feel their decision to not identifying Hamas as a terrorist organization is sound, they also
have not identified Bibi and his cronies as one, either.
From B'Tselem:
A note on terrorism and human rights
Some people were recently disconcerted to hear B’Tselem refer to Hamas as an “armed Palestinian group”, not a “terrorist organization”. Why does B’Tselem not say that Hamas is a terrorist organization? Does B’Tselem not reject the mode of action adopted by Hamas, of deliberately targeting civilians?
First and foremost, let us reiterate B’Tselem’s position on this point: Any action by Hamas that deliberately targets civilians is unquestionably unlawful and morally unacceptable. B’Tselem unequivocally rejects such actions. We have made this clear on many occasions, including condemning the firing of rockets at Israel and attacks on Israeli civilians. This has been our principled position in the past, and we will of course continue to voice it in the future as well. Deliberate targeting of civilians is completely and utterly unjustifiable.
In order to avoid lengthy discussions of the loaded and controversial term “terrorism”, B’Tselem strives to employ objective wording. Any interpretation of such neutral language as a reflection of a neutral position with regard to harming civilians could not be further from the truth. Rather than entering into a dispute over how to define various entities, we focus on expressing strong, clear-cut condemnation of actions that harm civilians, be they carried out by a state, army, armed group or an individual. This moral and legal position enables the factual examination of actions by various bodies as well as the clear and decisive criticism of said actions.
http://www.btselem.org/on_human_rights_and_terror
shira
(30,109 posts)...to meet the definition of human shields? Here's evidence of Hamas human shielding that is STRONGER than any evidence that exists of alleged Israeli war crimes:
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I suggest you send B'Tselem your evidence and please post any response you
may receive from the group.
shira
(30,109 posts)Any so-called human rights group that ignores such evidence is politically compromised and morally bankrupt.
Anyone denying the content of those videos has no room to speak about alleged war crimes and human rights violations WRT the latest Gaza war.
Hamas cannot get away with their war crimes WITHOUT the help of western enablers who defend, deny, or explain away their war crimes.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)B'Tselem will not be bullied and intimidated by Israel, so you're certainly no threat...send them
your evidence.
Keep me updated, please.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I can post their e-mail address if you change your mind.
shira
(30,109 posts)...using these "pawns" cynically as human shields.
And you couldn't give a damn.
With friends like you, the Palestinians don't need enemies.
=======
But please, humor me. Tell me how much you support the human rights of Palestinians. Go ahead...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)attempts to make such a claim on DU, let me know..I'll set them right. No worries.
shira
(30,109 posts)Those who do are for the most part posers who couldn't give a shit about Palestinians, and this can be easily proven.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
gordianot
(15,237 posts)Try it some time make sure you use an accurate definition of Semite. As for myself it would give me a headache.
Larkspur
(12,804 posts)At the heart of Zionism is the assumption that there were no people populating Palestine and the "land without a people" was ready for a "people without a land".
Zionism is an ideology and can be rejected and challenged.
Jews are people who deserve a right to live just like everyone else. But Jews have no right to oppress indigenous people occupying land that they want to achieve a fictional image of Israel.
Arabs, who are also Semites, have the same rights as Jews.
shira
(30,109 posts)...to their historic homeland. That's it. It's as progressive as it gets.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Jews share history, blood quantum, culture, traditions, language, and religion that goes back thousands of years.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Religion and folklore do not make for territorial claims. Israel was established via colonialism and ethnic cleansing. It's there now, and I am not anti-Zionist in that I don't think that they should pack up and leave simply because of historical sins, but let's not pretend that's not what happened.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's more than that.
It's also shared history, culture, language, and blood-quantum going back thousands of years.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's great that Jews have shared history, culture, and language, but the native people of Israel and Palestine are the Palestinians.
shira
(30,109 posts)To deny that Jews are a people is just as racist as denying that the Palestinians are a people.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...and you'll find that the Jewish people meet all the criteria WRT the Jewish homeland.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The indigenous people are the ones who were living there before: the Palestinians. Like I said, religion and folklore don't make for a territorial claim.
shira
(30,109 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That would be the Palestinians.
shira
(30,109 posts)Not to say there cannot be more than 1 indigenous people, but to deny that Jews are indigenous DESPITE meeting all the criteria for an indigenous people is regressive and the opposite of all that is progressive.
The Palestinians identify as Arabs and according to all the history books it was the Arabs (from Arabia) who colonized much of the mideast starting around the 7th century.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like I said again, these things are not the basis for territorial claims. Justifying the colonization and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians who lived on the land for centuries based on something that happened millenia ago with groups of people whose link to the present is tenuous at best is absurd. By that standard, basically anyone could claim to be indigenous to anywhere, looking far back enough.
shira
(30,109 posts)...on common history, ancestry, traditions, spiritual ties to the land, blood-quantum, and culture as well.
European Jews meet all the criteria set forth in the definition by Martinez-Cobo and that definition is disputed by no one.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Any link between European Jews and actual people who lived on the land thousands of years ago is tenuous at best. And, like I said, even it could actually be established that they were the descendants of one tribe that was conquered by another tribe several millenia ago, to translate this into a claim of "indigenousness" is beyond absurd. A lot of different people lived in that land in ancient times. Is everyone who is a descendent of any one of those people "indigenous". Of course not.
shira
(30,109 posts)...you chose to go with your own contrived perception of what is or is not indigenous. Religious people tend to be just as allergic to facts and logic.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It is crystal clear based on the definition you gave. I have nothing against religious people, but, again, religion does not make for a valid claim of territory. Just because your deity says that this is your land, doesn't make it so.
shira
(30,109 posts)Do all Jews, including Europeans, meet the definition?
Yes or No?
If not, why not?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Why is this so difficult for you?
If they do NOT meet the definition's criteria, then kindly explain why that is.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They are European people who feel a religious and cultural association with ancient peoples who lived in Israel/Palestine. That doesn't make them indigenous.
Christians, by the way, also feel a religious association to lands in Israel/Palestine. Does that make all Christians indigenous to Israel?
shira
(30,109 posts)You keep omitting the fact that European Jews have a common ancestry with other Jews, blood quantum, history, culture, religion, language, and traditions.
It's not just religion and folklore.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Simply having the slightest link to any of the many different groups of people who lived in a certain area at some point in ancient history doesn't make one "indigenous" to there.
shira
(30,109 posts)You only see Jews as a religious group and that's a major blindspot. Jews are unlike Christians and Muslims.
Jews meet all the criteria related to being indigenous to Israel. Christians do not. Here is the definition again according to Martinez-Cobo, and once again this is disputed by no one:
“This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into the present of one or more of the following factors:
a) Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;
b) Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
c) Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);
d) Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normal language);
e) Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world;
f) Other relevant factors.
“On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through self-identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group).
“This preserves for these communities the sovereign right and power to decide who belongs to them, without external interference”.
Christians do not meet the requirements but Jews do.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And, yes, if we consider any tenuous link to people who lived in a certain area thousands of years ago, then Christians could also claim to be indigenous to I/P. That definition doesn't require that indigenous people be a single ethnicity, as far as I can tell. If Christians decide to consider themselves a "people", I would say go ahead and consider yourselves whatever you want. If they decided that the land in I/P belonged to them because that's where their prophet is from, that I would consider absurd.
shira
(30,109 posts)Christians in general, however, do NOT meet the criteria for being indigenous to Israel but Jews do. Christians are not a people. They truly are a religious group.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Unless the criteria are interpreted so broadly as to become meaningless. Whether "Christians are a people" or not is entirely irrelevant.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's why you're in denial.
You're impervious to facts and reasoning.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Either tenuous millenia old linkages count as "indigenous" or they don't. We could all insist on being "indigenous" to Africa where the species homo sapiens first arose a couple hundred thousand years ago, but that would be dumb. By any meaningful definition, the native population in I/P are the Palestinians.
shira
(30,109 posts)...to Africa, just as Christians cannot be considered indigenous to Israel.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't see why you need to disparage my intimate connections to my ancient homeland. Maybe I should create a Zionist-type movement of my own where I move to Africa and kick the current residents out.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sounds like you have a case based on what Shira says.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)After the Bar Kochba revolt and the subsequent diaspora, and the Muslim conquest, and many centuries of conversion to first Christianity and later Islam, by the Ottoman period there were fewer than a thousand Jews in the territory that is now Israel and the numbers did not increase substantially until the nineteenth century. Ashkenazim are largely the descendants of Jewish men who took wives from the local populations in the parts of Europe they fetched up in, at least according to the most reliable evidence of genetic studies. Hebrew was a dead language until its revival; diaspora Jews spoke Yiddish, or Arabic, or Ladino. After the lapse of two millenia of exile and intermarriage, the average Ashkenazi is no more indigenous to Israel than the average Romanian is indigenous to Italy.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)You're gonna totally fuck up someone's narrative with your historical facts. And that is clearly Not Allowed.
shira
(30,109 posts)The findings bolster the mainstream view that the ancestors of European Jews were people from the Levant and local Europeans, said study researcher Itsik Pe'er, an associate professor OF COMPUTER science and systems biology at Columbia University.
I know that definitions are a real bitch to people with political agendas but European Jews, just like Mizrahi who may have mixed with locals throughout the mideast, meet all the criteria of an indigenous people based on Martinez-Cobo's work for the UN.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Not having a continuous presence in the territory pretty much eliminates any claim to being "indigenous". And did you mean this study? http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.html (Which shows that the maternal ancestry of Ashkenazim is almost entirely of European origin.)
shira
(30,109 posts)Your argument is with Martinez-Cobo, an expert anthropologist about indigenous people who wrote a study for the UN. I've linked to it several times upthread. Jews not having a continuous presence in the territory does NOT eliminate claims to being indigenous anymore than native Americans living abroad who remain distinct from other peoples with their culture and traditions intact.
Jews are indigenous according to the actual definition. They meet all the criteria.
Your riposte is little more than your own inexpert say so.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I somehow doubt it. It's really kind of stunning that you deploy this as an argument to whitewash Zionist colonialism.
shira
(30,109 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Present-day Israelis are not indigenous. They are the descendants of colonists. The Bedouin and Samaritans are indigenous peoples. Jews are not "indigenous" in the sense that the term is generally used and understood by sociologists or ethnologists. Your introduction of "indigenous" into the discussion as such represents an irrelevancy based on both your evident lack of understanding of the term and spurious claims to "indigenous" status for a people who have no recent historic ties to the region in question.
shira
(30,109 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)and the study doesn't actually say that, well then...actually that's just par for the course for you given the other absurd arguments you've made.
shira
(30,109 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Zionism is by definition a colonial project. Jews in modern Israel are colonisers.
shira
(30,109 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)You were the one who brought up the Martinez-Cobo study, remember? I've never read it, I have no idea what it says or whether it mentions Jews.
shira
(30,109 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)But he doesn't, so your claim is false. If you could come up with anyone (besides your usual right-wing crazies) who actually considers Jews indigenous to Palestine, you probably would. But you can't, so instead you simply make false claims.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Scottish history ? Not so many people worry about that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)Have like 2 Billion fact checkers on their history and culture -- ranging mainly from extremist right to extremist left.
Just an interesting observation.
Jews have been fascinating and troubling the world for centuries.
That's the reason Israel exists.
That's the reason more than 80% of us support the USA Democratic Party .
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You know, it's interesting, a group of Europeans about 100 or so years ago decided that the Palestinians' land actually belonged to them based on folklore and religion, so they moved there, and took the land, and kicked the Palestinians off of it. You should read up on it.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I read about it on extremist right wing sites all the time .
Just never thought I would see it in a Democratic Party supporting website.
But explains why one never sees a Democratic Party rep or candidate ever linking here.
Imagine the headline : The delegitimization of Israel the Jewish State.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Maybe you should read about the history of Palestine from someone other than a right-winger.
King_David
(14,851 posts)I can't link to websites here that contain what you just posted there delegitimizing the Jewish state as I would then have my posting privileges revoked.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It doesn't delegitimize, say, the US, to point out that this nation was also started by European colonists who kicked the native people off of their land. It's still America, and it's not going anywhere.
Again, you're the one who repeatedly posts OPs linking to right-wingers. I don't read right-wing websites, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Once again .....you----once again...
Bye
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
Mosby
(16,306 posts)They are the largest Jewish group in Israel and have been living in Israel and the Levant continuously for thousands of years.
When immigration picked up and the Zionists created their state the Arabs started a war of genocide against the Zionists including the million or so Mizrahi Jews living in their countries and yet the Zionists gave citizenship to all the Arabs living in Israel at the time, if they were kicked out as you claim why do they make up 20 percent of the Israeli population?
Quick question, don't most Native American tribes claim their lands based on folklore and religion, why are Jews different?
If your really interested in the history of the conflict you need to find less biased sources.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But the Zionists were mostly Europeans, who had no ties to the land other than religion and folklore. They moved in to land that already had an indigenous population of Palestinians, and then kicked them off their land. You're right, they didn't kick all of them off of the land. It wasn't complete ethnic cleansing, it was only partial ethnic cleansing.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Misrahi Jews (Arab Jews) lived all over the Middle East and were ethnically cleansed following the creation of Israel as retaliation. Around a million mizrahim left Arab states for Israel, America and France (in the case of Algeria.) Around half of all Israeli Jews are either from Arab states or are descended from those immigrants.
Your summary of the ethic cleansing that occurred in Israel of the native Arabs is technically correct, but misses some important qualifying details. It's not as if there was an influx of European colonialists who systematically cleansed Palestine of Arabs. The nakba resulted from a civil war, started by the Palestinian Arabs, after they rejected a UN partition arrangement. This was the second partition plan presented to the Arabs, after the peel plan which was also refused. Even following the nakba, the West Bank and garza strip, (and east Jerusalem), remained, completely free of Jews as well, as they were cleansed from those areas. It was Egypt and Jordan who prevented a Palestinian state's creation in those areas. Additionally around 20% of Israel's citizens were/are Arab Palestinians who refrained from either fighting and leaving during the war. Lastly, it should be noted that Israel attempted a partial return of those Palestinian refugees in exchange for a peace agreement, which was rejected by the Arab league.
What eventually occurred was similar to a population exchange similar to what was seen during the Indian partition, but with a small fraction of the casualties. The number of Palestinians who were actually "thrown out" of Palestine (from the later Israeli boundaries), were actually very small. Most left of their own accord and then later were prevented from returning. A small but notable distinction. The vast majority of Arabs who did not flee or fight against the Yusuf were left alone, excepting those living in certain specific, strategic areas.
Had the indigenous population not reacted violently to the Zionist immigrants then the ethic cleansing likely would never have occurred.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First of all, the only thing that could really have avoided all the problems is if there were no Zionist migration to begin with, or if the Zionists were content to live as immigrants in a nation controlled by the native population, rather than create their own ethnic-majority state. I can't think of any example in recorded history where a group of foreigners decides to move into a land where there is already a population, claims that land for their own, and pulls the whole thing off without violence. That is the source of all the problems. It should also be noted that the, while some Zionists may have believed that Palestine had no people in it, when they arrived they realized that they were wrong, there was already an indigenous population, and in order to create a majority Jewish state, they would have to be moved, one way or another. For example:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bL9dfjYK2eMC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102#v=onepage&q&f=false
At first, the displacement of Palestinians was largely non-violent. For example, purchasing land and labor discrimination. Of course, it should be pointed out that the native population were in large part subsistence farmers and the system of property rights was imposed by the Ottoman rulers at the time, so the process of purchasing land was in essence an agreement between two different groups of foreigners over who owned the land that the Palestinians had been living on for centuries.
Yes, the Nakba resulted from the civil war. The civil war resulted from the grossly unjust UN partition in which one group of foreigners (the UN) decided that another group of foreigners (the Zionists) were entitled to more than half of the land of the native population despite being a minority of the population. To add to the injustice, under the division, Palestine contained few Jews, while Israel contained a substantial number of Palestinians, meaning that even if this did turn out to be an India-Pakistan situation with voluntary migrations of either side to their own state, there would have had to be far more displaced Arabs than Jews. Here are Wiki's numbers on this, though I'm sure that, like everything else, these are contested as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_war
(One side note here. If these numbers are correct, then there probably would have had to be ethnic cleansing at some point anyway, even without a civil war, because the Jewish majority in Israel was already very tenuous, and Israel probably wouldn't have survived as a Jewish Democratic state without somehow managing the demographics. Maybe Wiki is overestimating the Arab population in the UN's Israel, like I said these numbers are probably contested).
But it didn't turn out that way. During the Civil War, Israel decided to seize more territory for itself and expel the Arabs from it. When you say the number of Arabs expelled was "very small" I'm sure you know that you are taking an extreme position in a highly contested historical debate. The reality is that we don't know how many were forcefully expelled, its somewhere between "very few" and "very many". What we do know is that, unlike the India-Pakistan split, these people were refugees from conflict, not people who intended on leaving their homes permanently to settle somewhere else. Many of those who weren't forcefully expelled fled for fear of being massacred by Israeli forces, something that hardly makes their situation more justifiable.
A final irony is that the Zionist claim to the land of Israel was based primarily on religion and folklore, based on a certain version of events that occurred over two millenia ago. The Palestinians expelled during the nakba, on the other hand, are people who physically lived on the land less than 100 years ago, and had actual homes there. And yet, the prevailing narrative is that Israel is the homeland of the Jews, while the very thought of the Palestinian refugees returning to their physical homeland is unthinkable. Why? Because the prevailing narrative places more importance on the ethnic composition of the Jewish state than on the right of people who had their homes taken from them to return to them. Another thing that is unthinkable is for the refugees to return to their homes and for Israel to retreat to the original UN borders.
A lot of things along the way could have prevented the conflict from getting to where it is. Both sides have made bad decisions. But the original source of the problem was the very Zionist plan to migrate to a foreign land and claim it for themselves, and create an ethnic-majority nation on it. After that there's a lot of tit-for-tat.
shira
(30,109 posts)There were no designs to take the country from Turkey.
Once Turkey lost WW1 there were enough Jews there to declare it once again as the Jewish homeland. The rest is history...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)....in the late 19th century with designs to go to war against the Turks and thus take over Palestine.
Cool stuff there.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Larkspur
(12,804 posts)Mahatma Gandhi rejected the Zionist argument for seizing Palestine in order to create Israel.
He advised the European Jews to stay in their European lands after WWII.
Creating a religious state in Palestine, which already had a native population, in modern times was anti-democratic and he foresaw it leading to the problems Israel faces today. Israel is doomed to become an apartheid state or die, if it wants to retain its religious status as a Jewish state. And if it chooses the former, it will die as Jews can not match the population growth of Arabs and Palestinians. The Israeli Jews short term solution under Bibi and the Likkud extremist dominated government is to slaughter Palestinians via their "mowing the lawn" policy. That policy is wearing thin on the world and making a mockery of Israel's democratic form of government.
shira
(30,109 posts)....with other Jews worldwide.
And of course you don't believe the Jews are a people or nation deserving of sovereignty in their own land. THAT's as racist a thought as those who deny the Palestinians are a people.
Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)Actually, gandhi's statement was for the Jews to stay in Europe DURING WWII, and fight the nazis non-violently. He was convinced this strategy would "melt the stoniest German heart."
Israel isn't a religious state.
How so?
He said nothing of the sort.
You believe that policy refers to slaughtering Palestinians occasionally as a form of population control?!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The roots on both sides are equal, and whatever agreement settles all of this will have to acknowledge that...including a two-state solution.
Besides which, the Zionist cause has already won, and the fight for that state is over. We're past that now.
shira
(30,109 posts)Everyone here is for it and no one is arguing they're not indigenous.
The critics here are arguing Jews had no right to self-determination, they aren't indigenous, they're colonialists, etc... It's this kind of hate rhetoric that keeps the conflict going. Even with a 2-state solution in place, it's this unhelpful rhetoric that will keep the fires burning.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That the Zionists weren't indigenous and were colonialists isn't "hate rhetoric", it's historical fact. The fact that Israel was founded via colonialism and ethnic cleansing doesn't mean it has no right to exist. The United States was also founded via colonialism and ethnic cleansing.
shira
(30,109 posts)....to self-determination. DU has many anti-zionists posting here.
And Jews are indigenous to Israel, according to the UN's definition (Martinez-Cobo). This definition cannot be read in such a farcical way as to make any people indigenous anywhere they want to be on the planet. Jews, including European ones, meet all the criteria of an indigenous people (shared ancestry, culture, history, blood-quantum, traditions, religion, language). I know you argue that (European) Jews only share a religion and some traditions but let me ask you...
Do European Jews NOT share a common ancestry, blood-quantum, history, and culture with most other Jews worldwide that dates back to their ancient homeland?
Yes or No?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The term "anti-Zionism" seems to be mainly a conduit by which right-wingers accuse anyone who criticizes Israeli policy of anti-semitism.
I haven't seen anyone here claim that Jews have no right to self-determination. The objections to Israeli human rights violations have nothing to do with the question of self-determination. We're talking about war crimes.
As I've explained many times, European Jews are not in any meaningful way indigenous to Israel. More to the point, pointing out the fact that the European Jews are not indigenous to Palestine has nothing to do with self-determination, it's simply a historical fact. You have a strong tendency to blend together unrelated issues.
shira
(30,109 posts)That's one thing you don't have with another people dating back to some time in some part of Africa, for example. It's what Christians do not have going back to some time period in Israel.
Stick around, you'll see the anti-zionists and post-zionists here as well. They believe Zionists are racists, warmongers, etc. People who want to see Israel destroyed tend to be biased when it comes to war crime accusations against Israel. For the most part, they've adopted the Hamas narrative and their advocacy reflects it. When it comes to Hamas they defend, deny, and enable Hamas war crimes and then accuse the Hamas' critics of being racist bigots. It's called mirroring, because that's what they claim Zionists do with their claims against the Jewish state.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)All humans do. I don't have a religious text saying that god granted that land to me and my people, but I can probably write one if you want. Is the fact that you don't recognize my status as an indigenous African due to some kind of prejudice on your part?
And, while Christians aren't all of the same ethnicity, I don't see why that would disqualify them from claiming their ancient homeland in the place where their prophet was born. They don't forfeit their claims just because they intermarried and converted people. Sounds a little anti-Christian of you.
You know, it's a good thing that every group that can concoct some far-fetched rationale to claim Palestine as it's native land doesn't decide to act on that belief, or it would be split into 50 different countries.
As far as people wanting to see Israel destroyed, I guess I'll stick around and see. I certainly haven't seen anything anywhere close to that. Mainly the debate is between people who object to Israeli war crimes and people who apologize for them. Not believing Israel should commit war crimes isn't the same thing as wanting Israel destroyed.
shira
(30,109 posts)Christians do not meet the criteria WRT Israel.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Since you ignore the Martinez-Cobo study, can I assume you do so because you disagree with it?
And once again, you didn't answer my question regarding Jewish ancestry, blood quantum, base culture, spiritual continuity with the land, etc. That's something Jews have in common that YOU don't have with any other people regarding Africa. Christians in general don't have this either.
And the only hostile critics of Israel who want Israel tried for war crimes tend to be apologists and defenders of Hamas war crimes. Take western friends of Hamas out of the picture and who's left to hold Israel accountable for its alleged war crimes?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)are indigenous to Palestine, by your very own standards.
In fact, my connections to Africa are far greater than the connections of Jews to Israel. This is because 100% of my ancestors lived in Africa 100,000 years ago, whereas it is impossible to tell how many -- or even if any at all -- of any given European Jew's relatives actually lived in Palestine over 2500 years ago. As I said before, it offends me deeply that you would challenge my spiritual and cultural connection to my ancestors in Africa and our shared homeland where they live.
As far as Christians, simply because they spread their religion and culture differently than Jews doesn't mean that they are any their connection to the land where their prophet was born is any less significant. Again, I think it is quite prejudicial of you to treat their connection as lesser because of these differences. It seems as if you are tuning your definition very specifically so that Jews meet and other groups do not. By the definition you gave above, if it is interpreted loosely enough to consider Jews to be native to Palestine, then there is no doubt whatsoever that both I am a native African, and that all Christians worldwide are native to Palestine.
I'm not sure what Martinez-Cobo study is that you're referring to. I'm also not sure what question about the "blood quantum" you want me to answer. I will admit I don't know what a blood quantum is though.
And finally, once again, this whole line about "Western friends of Hamas" is purely a figment of your imagination. It is a fictional boogeyman used to slander people who criticize Israeli war crimes. You'll notice that these supposed "friends of Hamas" don't actually say anything friendly towards Hamas.
shira
(30,109 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)"Zionism is racism "can be found on the most extreme nasty right wing sources
Palestinians are Semites , true but AntiSemitism means anti-Jewish ONLY, it's a favorite canard in nasty places.
You missed the USS Liberty paragraph .
King_David
(14,851 posts)Are racism because they insular homogenous ethnic nations.
Jews are not homogeneous but very multicultural. Jewish nationalism or Zionism is not racism.
Irish or Scottish nationalism is , they don't even have a distinct culture or language .
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)You've apparently never heard of Gaelic, I take it? Tartan, bagpipes, haggis, clans? How does Scotland not have a distinct culture or language? And Scottish nationalism, at least the modern form of it, is not ethnic but civic nationalism; the desire for the geographically defined country of Scotland to be an independent nation. There are Scots nationalists of Pakistani and Indian and African and Asian origin as well as Scottish.You've said some pretty ignorant things but that's just astonishing, really.
King_David
(14,851 posts)They mostly homogenous and they civic nationalists ?
Right !
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)they don't want to make Scotland a country for only ethnic Scots. See this for instance:
In recent months, the Yes campaign says it has seen a surge in support for independence among minority groups, with one radio poll showing two-thirds are voting 'Aye'.
That, coupled with a number of high-profile Scottish Asian defections to the nationalist cause, seems to suggest that minorities do not see Scottish patriotism as threatening, but tolerant and immigration-friendly. Some have expressed concern though that with a rise of nationalist fervor, a rise in xenophobia is inevitable, and perhaps yet to come if resentment against outsiders continues to simmer.
Minorities make up around 2% of the Scottish population, compared to around 13% of the United Kingdom population as a whole. A poll by Asian radio station Awaz FM poll showed 64% of Asians in Scotland would vote Yes, while 32% were against.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/12/scotland-independence-referendum_n_5488582.html
King_David
(14,851 posts)Same as irish nationalism .
Zionism is far far far more diverse my friend and much more tolerant to Gays too.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)There isn't any requirement for supporters of Scottish nationalism to be ethnic Scots, or Presbyterians.
King_David
(14,851 posts)The Real Israel :
http://www.israelapartheidweek.co.za/comparing-israel-to-apartheid/real-israel/
As you can see ...DIVERSE
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Not especially diverse. And unlike Scotland Israel gives preference to Jews in emigration. Israel is "the nation state of the Jewish people"; Zionism is an ethnic-nationalist colonial project.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Arguing that is just foolish and silly.
Zionism is way more diverse , every single race mixed up in 1 little country.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Let me know when Muslim Arabs enjoy the same rights in Israel as Jews, eh? (As they do in Scotland, as long as they're citizens.)
King_David
(14,851 posts)Enjoy the same rights in Israel as Jews do since 1948.
The 2% minorities in Scotland are nationalists ? Where do you get this from?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)that anyone that disagrees with shira is guilty of anti-Semitism according to shira. 
Cary
(11,746 posts)... make such bold proclamations, assuming that their personal opinion of their target means something.
It's such a tired ploy and it is so common among "conservatives" to attack the opponent instead of the opponents' argument.
The decent thing for you to do would be to apologize. Shira has a legitimate basis for her opinion which is at more than can be said of the opinion behind your shameful post.
If you wish to call me a bad person, at least you used some nice words to do so.
Thanks for that.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Not the article -- I can't make myself read it, so I can't comment on it.
But the assertion by the OP that "anti-Zionism" is "anti-Semitism" is clearly bullshit. I am Jewish. I disagree loudly and profoundly with the current Israeli government's policies toward Gaza. Obviously, I am not a Zionist by the standards in use by the OP. But the idea that I am therefore anti-Semitic is absurd.
Broad-brush, obviously erroneous statements do not serve anyone's cause well.
King_David
(14,851 posts)DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)I am an anti-Zionist Jew, in that I oppose policies of Israel expansion. I'm hardly alone in that position.
Many Hasidim are anti-Zionist -- surely you're not going to suggest that those Hasidim are anti-Semites?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Are the most right wing homophobic bigoted social misfits - that happen to be Anti Zionist for religious reasons .
These are your poster boys ?
Carry on... kadimah...
King_David
(14,851 posts)Have nothing to do with Zionism .
That's like saying" I am an anti Zionist in tgat I hate the recipe of chicken soup , so does that make me antiSemitic ?"
I'm not sure you know what Zionism is ...
There are different streams of Zionism too.
Israeli
(4,148 posts)....need some balance to counter the opposition .
BTW over here many of us are not Zionists .... the preferred term is either non zionist or post zionist ....we are in general secular but we do have a few religious amongst us .
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)But this exchange (and others above that didn't include me) reminded me that beating my head against a brick wall isn't that much fun. And that there are some posters it's just not worth arguing with.
Israeli
(4,148 posts)to be honest I agree with you ....but ..if we let shira and co to control the dialog ...without protesting .... then what does that make us ?
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Absolutely.
But I'm not really into arguing back and forth with people who aren't interested in actual dialogue, you know? I have enough aggravation raising 2 kids in this world, I'm not looking to raise my blood pressure more than necessary.
(And to be honest it's *really* hard for me, some days, to control my fingers and keep them from typing 'you are an idiot' when I read something really egregious -- which is not a helpful comment to anyone, but my fingers don't seem to grasp this concept. Sometimes it's just best not to give them the chance. 
)
Israeli
(4,148 posts)...here was me trying to convince you to post more .....and you just convinced me that I am wasting my time and energy .
To be honest I came to that conclusion a while ago .... all I needed was a nudge .
I've said all I want to say .
Now its time to say goodbye .
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nothing that the author you quote condemned was done out of any desire to abolish the State of Israel. It's not as though calling for independent investigations rather than just being ok with the inevitable whitewash that would come from any official investigation anywhere equates to wanting Hamas to take over.
You're still trying to equate ANY criticism of the civilian deaths in Gaza caused by the IDF missile attacks(deaths that probably would have been prevented if people had been given, say, five minutes notice to get out of the way(as opposed to a useless 58 second warning)with the desire to see Israel cease to exist, or, worse yet, with support of Hamas.
shira
(30,109 posts)...who defend, deny, or explain away Hamas' many war crimes committed against its own people? Do you take them seriously on Israel, and if so WHY?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You make it sound like this was almost over and then Hamas appeared, for no reason, to keep all the bad things going.
I loathe Hamas(as those people you're demonizing clearly do)but see them as what they are: a product of the conflict and, in significant measure, of the Israeli government's previous obsession with getting rid of Arafat and the PLO. If the hawks on the side you defend had accepted reality and negotiated with the PLO at the height of its power(at the same tine pulling out the settlements, NONE of which were ever more important than peace)then Hamas wouldn't be in the picture.
But because it IS there now, and because it won't go away, the only thing that can be done is to negotiate with the leaders Gaza and Palestine actually has. Nothing else(including the even-more-scorched-earth campaign you dream of, can achieve anything at all.
shira
(30,109 posts)Criticism of Israel coming from Hamas apologists is irrelevant.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Accepting that Hamas IS the leadership of Gaza is not the same thing as endorsing that leadership. It's simply acknowledging reality. So is accepting the fact that the only way to end the conflict is to negotiate with all leading Palestinian factions(which is the only thing that ended the equally bloody conflict in Northern Ireland). Wars can't be won anymore.
Getting rid of Hamas(which you know perfectly well isn't possible)would only produce more extreme leaderships. It's not possible to crush a country into friendship, especially in the Middle East.
shira
(30,109 posts)....Hamas war crimes, if not friends of Hamas?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Neturei Karta - Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists
Satmar Hasidim - Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionists
Or are they all self hating Jews as the State of Israel proclaims all liberal Jewish thinkers who oppose the cruelties and oppression of the State?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Natera Karta
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The 2 examples I gave show that is a lie - or are you trying to claim they are not truly Jewish?
As I implied this is merely a resurgence of the old canard that Jews who oppose the actions of State of Israel are "self hating" Jews.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Have you heard the things that they have said about Jews who do not follow their particular brand of the faith?
There is more disdain towards secular Jews coming from those two groups you mentioned then from many of the more "conventional" antisemitic organizations.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)By your argument fundamentalist Christians are anti-Christian and Sunni militants are anti-Islam and anti-Arab; indeed using your own logic your opposition to these 2 groups renders you anti-Semitic.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Serious question - have you heard what NK folks have to say about non-NK Jews (who are 99.99 percent of all Jews)?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)It does not make them anti-American it makes them racists and bigots. These extremist Jews are being religious and political bigots not anti-Semitic.
Remember that whatever else you think of them they remain religiously and culturally Jews. If your argument had any validity you would have to call yourself anti-Semitic because of your opinion of them - and one thing you are not is anti-Semitic ...
shira
(30,109 posts)http://standforpeace.org.uk/neturei-karta-demonstrate-in-support-of-fascist-jobbik-party/
intaglio
(8,170 posts)It makes them hateful and in need of restraining.
However I note you have ignored that Neturei Karta are just one element of Jewish anti-Zionism. Many other Satmar Hasidim are also anti-Zionist and I have heard that there are even reformed Jewish anti-Zionists.
The simple truth is that the OP conflates 2 separate ideas, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, in a blatant attempt to set up a straw man. Note I am not saying that there are no anti-Semitic anti-Zionists but there are also anti-Semitic Zionists; indeed one way in which Establishment figures in the Free World salved their conscience was by supporting the "right" of return instead of grasping the nettle of the embedded anti-Semitism in European and American culture
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Regarding NK:
This is a tiny (maybe 5,000 total in the world) sect who believe that Jews who do not practice Judaism the way they do are heretics. In that way, they share some qualities with a group like ISIS (a group which President Obama and others have gone out of their way to stress are in fact anti-Muslim in spite of their claims to embrace Islam).
NK leadership has gone as far to say that the Holocaust was punishment from God against secular Jews.
If anyone had stated the above about the Holocaust, I would think they would be immediately condemned as an anti-semite (I hope you would agree).
In regard to your argument that expressing antipathy towards this small sect represents a form of anti-semitism, I would disagree. There are Jewish groups, such as the JDL, who abuse Judaism in a condemnable way (just like there are similar Islamic and Christian groups). Calling out these fringe hate groups is different from asserting that all Jews except those who practice Judaism in one specific way are heretics and that the Holocaust was deserved punishment from God for those Jews.
I think the ISIS example, while not ideal, is instructive in this regard. I believe that Muslims who stand against ISIS and accuse the group of being anti-Islamic can do so without being Islamophobes themselves. This is by no means a one-to-one analogy, but I think there are enough similarities to make the point.
NK has said and done things that are blatantly anti-semitic. The fact that they self-identify as Jews, in my opinion, should not serve to immunize them from this appellation.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Unfortunately you are attempting to redefine the term anti-Semitic as exactly equivalent to anti-Zionism. It is not
King_David
(14,851 posts)Re read my post.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)The point is that these persons, by both religion and culture, are Jews; just as Westboro Baptist Church members are both Christian and American. You also missed my citation of the Satmar Hasidim who are also anti-Zionist and Jewish. Likud seems to care a lot about them, granting special exemptions to the National Service requirements.
In either event the OP remains a load of utter rubbish as there are large numbers* of Jews who are anti-Zionist and thus cannot be "anti-Semitic"
[hr]
* the words are "large numbers" not a majority, not even a "significantly large minority"
King_David
(14,851 posts)There's a lot to keep up with.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)and the current bill does nothing to address that.
cali
(114,904 posts)Israel's policy of destroying the homes of terror suspects. and then there's this, which is quite revealing of his bigotry and hate:
Esposito hasn't stopped repaying the kindness. His research on the Muslim world is a mixture of sycophancy and whitewashing.
Imagine saying "his research on the Jewish World is a mixture of sycophancy and whitewashing"? So the ENTIRE "Muslim World"- whatever that actually means, is bad?
More right wing dog shit.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)fucking racist. On, the other hand, if I am pro-Zionism, I support a racist ideology, and I'm still a fucking racist. Which side do I take?
Fuck it. I am pro- justice, so I choose anti-Zionism.
