AG: Ethics committee to probe racist comments made by MKs

[Classical_Liberal]

"Boim is 100 percent correct, given the Arab slaughter of Jews that has continued for decades. You can't even believe an Arab who has been lying dead in his grave for 40 years. It's in their blood. The killing of Jews is something that happens naturally. This is the meaning of the expression that it is forbidden to turn your back on an Arab because they will stab you in the back," Hazan said......

.......Boim claimed the statements he made at the memorial ceremony were taken out of context. He said he was relating to the inexplicable phenomenon that world, regional and local terror is being carried out by extreme Islamic bodies.

Boim refused to apologize for his remarks and even said that "whomever asks me to do so is a bleeding-heart liberal............

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/462459.html

[number6]

1. now take that and switch the words Arabs and Jews

and see how much outrage there would be ....

in our country (or Israel) you can say anything about Arabs or Muslims
and our "Press" won't make a big deal out of it .....

[Jim Sagle]

2. Who ya crappin'? Arabs say worse about Jews every day of every week of

every year, and nobody gives a goddamn. It happens in Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia and just about any other Arab Country one could name.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Even if that was true, that makes anti-Arab racism okay?

People who give a damn about opposing racism oppose racism against any group it's aimed at. They don't trot out some pathetic 'Look Over There! That bunch deserves it because they do it to another group!' line of crap...

Violet...

[Gimel]

4. "Even if it was true"

People who give a damn about opposing racism oppose racism against any group it's aimed at.

Like defending one's country from attack is racism because the attackers say so.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Yes, even if it was true...

No, racism isn't racism just because someone says it is. It becomes that when hate is aimed at an entire group of people, or people are stereotyped solely based on what ethnic group they belong to. Are you trying to say that saying: 'You can't even believe an Arab who has been lying dead in his grave for 40 years. It's in their blood. The killing of Jews is something that happens naturally. This is the meaning of the expression that it is forbidden to turn your back on an Arab because they will stab you in the back," isn't racist, but a well-meaning desire to defend one's country from attack?? If that's not racism, then what is? It appears to me that some folk hold the view that there's no such thing as racism against Arabs, as anything that would fall into the category of racism if it was aimed at any other group of people, is automatically labelled as being born out of security concerns or that the people deserve it because they're racists in the first place. Sorry, but those attitudes make me sick, and it sickens me even more when I see those attitudes defended or even promoted by folk who'd scream racism if any tiny whiff of the same was aimed at their own ethnic group...

Violet...

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

14. My comments

referred only to your statement, which I see you are trying to convince me doesn't need any backing up.

Look at the current opposition to the anti-semitism resolution in the GA, by the Arab states, and you'll see that this group refuses to oppose racism.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. What do I need to back up?

Are you trying to say that you don't think the comments made in the article are racist? Is there something about 'It becomes that (racism) when hate is aimed at an entire group of people, or people are stereotyped solely based on what ethnic group they belong to.' that you disagree with?

Violet...

[Gimel]

27. The racist comments

The article reported about racist comments that were made in a ceremony marking 26 years since an attack on an Israeli bus. The comments were not "made in the article". The comments were made 6 month ago. The article is about the censoring of the MK. It does not support the comments in the least.

Boim's comments aroused a political and public storm.

Knesset members called on Boim to retract his words or resign his position.

The ethics committee called the remarks "borderline racist".

I have made no comment about the remarks themselves, but yes, I think they are racist.

You made a general comment about "people who oppose racism". My post #4 above clearly responds to your comment only. Your accusations that I am trying to condone any of the statements are insulting, to say the least.

Claiming that there is no racism in the Arabs attacks on Israeli citizens, and Jews around the world, attacks made by the PLO for more than 30 years, is not racism, and that the refusal of the Arab states to condemn anti-semitism as racism in the UN GA in the past few weeks, is quickly brushed aside, while making comments link "People who give a damn about opposing racism oppose racism against any group it's aimed at" and see it as only a problem with Israelis, is certainly hypocritical.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. The comments were in the article...

I'm quite aware of when they were made, btw...

Yr response to my post to Jim makes no sense. Care to explain it?

I haven't made any accusations towards you. I have my own opinions based on what I've read in this forum, and I'll keep them to myself...

As for the rest of yr post, I'm not interested in playing Look Over There! or having to defend myself against charges of hypocrisy...

Violet...

[Gimel]

29. Your post #6

was in response to my post#4. I have no alternative but to assume your extremely egregious remarks were aimed at me.

I expressed no racist attitude and have never condoned racism. I oppose it outright.

Defensive measures taken by Israel have been branded unfairly as racism, simply because of the nature of the conflict, which is propagated against Jews and the Jewish state, primarily by Arab nationals.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. A bit less assumption would be in order...

Hows about assuming that unless I address my comment to *you*, that I'm speaking in general?

What are these defensive measures that have been branded unfairly as racism?

To portray the I/P conflict as being some anti-Semitic campaign against Jews is totally incorrect and incredibly simplistic. That attitude tries to make people believe that the Palestinian people don't resist the Occupation out of a very real desire for the self-determination most people feel they rightly deserve, and that if it was anyone else but Israel that was treating them that way, they'd be just fine with it. It's a remarkably simplistic and ridiculous attitude as far as I'm concerned...

Violet...

[Gimel]

31. nationalistic ideals

The nationalistic aspirations of the Palestinians does not excuse them from attacking civilians, and often killing civilians who are visitors to Israel, the majority of them Jewish. Pointing out that there is this nature to the conflict is only recognizing the complexity of it. Your claiming my views as simplistic is merely self-serving.

Furthermore, Jews around the world, in Europe and in Canada, are being attacked with the very same basis and the very same nationalistic battle cry. Therefore, not to recognize the broader aspects of the conflict is foolish.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. So Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians would be the same?

The claim of 'defense' for Israelis does not excuse them from attacking civilians, and often killing civilians who are visitors to the Occupied Territories?

I'll tell you why that explanation of the conflict you offered up is completely simplistic. Because you haven't explained why the Palestinians wouldn't have responded in the same way regardless of who or what their occupiers were. The brutality of the occupation goes a long way to explaining the brutality in the responses to it. Also, Jews and Palestinians co-existed pretty peacefully for a hell of a long time before Zionism was created. If the conflict was all down to it being against the Jewish people then people would expect to see a longstanding pattern of terrorism prior to the advent of Zionism. I haven't seen it, so maybe you could show me?

Now I'll tell you why that stance is completely ridiculous, and there's absolutely nothing self-serving in it, though yr free to help me try to understand why it would be self-serving. Because in painting the conflict as being driven by anti-Semitism, those who hold that view must also believe that those of us who oppose the Israeli occupation are being driven by anti-Semitism as well....

Violet...

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Here's an obvious fact repeated yet again...

I was NOT aiming that comment at you. I've already told you that, so I'm not sure what the point is in you insisting otherwise....

No-one has asked you to write a volumes long tome explaining the conflict. You offered up a reason for the conflict, one that I explained is incredibly simplistic and incorrect. If yr of the belief that anti-Semitism isn't what drives the conflict, then we're not disagreeing....

Sorry, but trying to negate the brutality of the Israeli occupation by offering up the other side of the coin when it comes to brutality doesn't hold water. And there's been in depth articles, material and opinions posted on this discussion board about the brutality of the occupation. If you've missed them, I'm sure someone can provide you with links so you can read them :)

Political Zionism has only existed since the late 19th century. And where's all these examples you must have of Palestinian terrorism prior to the Zionist movement? To have a successful argument, you'd have to come up with the goods on that one...

No, I don't find yr views inferior. I find them to be on the whole totally incorrect, though it may warm the cockles of yr heart to know that I'm going to be using some of the arguments you've put up here as a contrary argument for an essay I'm working on...

You have more first hand experience? In what exactly?

Violet...

[Gimel]

35. Your response

"Defensive measures taken by Israel have been branded unfairly as racism, simply because of the nature of the conflict, which is propagated against Jews and the Jewish state, primarily by Arab nationals. "

I'm very puzzled as to how this statement could be construed to be "offered up a reason for the conflict" .

You have simply gone beyond the words and grabbed the "brutal occupation" shtick and that "Zionism" is the cause of the conflict. Zionism is apparently synonymous with "the occupation" in your view, and therefore there is no possibility of any existence of a Jewish state. This really show your true viewpoint which is very anti-Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. An end of puzzlement and a bit of a correction...

"Defensive measures taken by Israel have been branded unfairly as racism, simply because of the nature of the conflict, which is propagated against Jews and the Jewish state, primarily by Arab nationals. "

I'm very puzzled as to how this statement could be construed to be "offered up a reason for the conflict" .

This is how: "...simply because of the nature of the conflict, which is propagated against Jews and the Jewish state".

This comment leads to the question I asked previously. Would the Palestinians react any differently to an equally brutal occupation if it were carried out by, say, Americans? I really don't think so...

Yr apparently convinced that the occupation isn't a brutal one which involves human rights violations against the Palestinian people. How do you then explain Israel's treatment of the Palestinian population? Are all the violations of their human rights explained away as being a necessity out of security concerns?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never said I oppose the existance of Israel. What I've said is that the growth of Zionism was indeed one of the root causes of the conflict. As I believe that Zionism can exist without the occupation, how does that make me 'very anti-Israel'?

edit: forgot to add that for incredibly self-serving reasons, I wouldn't mind seeing some examples of pre-Zionism terrorism by Palestinian Arabs aimed at the Jews of Palestine. If they exist, then I may have to change tack on my essay somewhat...

Violet...

[Gimel]

37. Anti-semitism

The anti-Semitism which preceded anti-Zionism pre-sumed that Jews would want to reclaim their land, as has been a part of Jewish traditions for thousands of years. This in turn, along with the anti-Semitism in Europe gave rise to modern Zionism, as defined and promoted by Theodore Hertzl.

Now you say that you said "the growth of Zionism was indeed one of the root cause of the conflict." While this adds a bit of shading, I think you will not find that I have said that there was Arab violence against Israelis before there was a Zionist movement.

Your claim to such "examples of pre-Zionism terrorism by Palestinian Arabs aimed at the Jews of Palestine" as supporting a claim that I have not made, such as you have claimed that I tried to "explain the conflict" by the defensive measures of the current Intifada, which I was referring to.

One excellent source you might refer to for your proposed work is that of Meir Latvik. He traces the beginnings of Arab anti-Semitism to pre-Zionist sources:

“In 1894, before the creation of the Zionist movement, a book entitled The Talmud Jew by the German anti-Semite Eugen Duhring, was translated into Arabic. The publication of this book -- which popularized the concept of the 'Jewish threat' -- can be considered the beginning of modern Arab anti-Semitism.

.....

“Within this framework of hatred, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was first translated into Arabic in 1920. In 1925 it appeared in Arabic translation in Palestine, and in 1927 the book was released in Egypt.3 This falsified text purported to explain Zionism's scientific and historical background. It fulfilled the need of bewildered Arabs confronted with a modern world in which they were unable to compete. In a state of confusion, conspiracy theories are accepted easily, also outside the Middle East.”



http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-5.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Thanks...

I've just had a quick look at it, and it looks interesting :)

Violet....

[Gimel]

38. Attacks that produced Zionists

This would be interesting to add into your accounts:

“Iraqi nationalism has always been xenophobic and has suppressed minorities such as the Kurds and the Assyrian Christians. In 1933 between 600 and 700 of the latter were slaughtered. This violently intolerant Iraqi nationalism later also turned against the Jews. The Palestine conflict already in the 1930s had become an internal political issue. Iraqi nationalists increasingly identified local Jews as Zionists, even though until the 1940s the overwhelming majority were not so at all. The 1941 pogrom turned them into Zionists.”

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-5.htm

the above is found under the sub-heading: Anti-Semitism's 1948 Peak

[Jim Sagle]

5. It IS true. Admit it and we can talk, othewise I can't be bothered.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. It's not true that nobody gives a damn...

Now it's yr turn. Even if it were true, why would that make anti-Arab racism okay?

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

11. It doesn't. But there is NO moral equivalence between some marginalized

jagoff making anti-Arab remarks and an array of Arab governments that make antisemitism their state policy.

[number6]

18. Israel makes religious discrimination its policy

Arab governments that make antisemitism their state policy.
they also make sexism .. their state policy.

so what else is new ?

marginalized jagoff ?

[Jim Sagle]

19. Israel's policy is based somewhat on traditional bias but more on security

concerns. The Arab states have hardly any Jews, so they have NO security concerns. And their view is basically exterminationist.

That's the difference.

[number6]

20. are Jews a security threat, I don't think so

"The Arab states have hardly any Jews, so they have NO security concerns"
its Religious discrimination whether its Christians, Hindus, Buddhists or Jews, they want only Muslims.

Why drive out Religious minorities, is there a big rush of
Christians and Jews wanting to move to Muslim Countries ?

[Jim Sagle]

22. Obviously Jews are not a security threat. But if they lived in Arab

nations in significant numbers, those nations would at least have an implausible excuse for their attitudes. As it stands, they have none.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. A Deputy Defence Minister isn't a 'marginalised jagoff'

I see absolutely no difference in a govt minister making racist comments, no matter what country they're in. Personally, I think the remarks of these two hateful morons shouldn't have been brought before any ethics committee, because they should have been sacked from their positions in the govt before it got to that stage. Doesn't matter what country it is, that sort of behaviour shouldn't be treated lightly....

Violet...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

12. What attitude do you claim I have exhibited toward Arabs?

Links, please. Otherwise, please apologize.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

13. I wasn't referring to this board. I was referring to Arab societies.

Please read for comprehension.

[Lithos]

16. The real issue is this:

The fact that such a discussion could take place in Israel versus other ME countries is real, positive and differentiable.

The article is about this event to discuss what were bigoted remarks. To use the tu quoque argument to shift discussion elsewhere not only weakens what is going on inside of Israel (and the article's focus), but also is a fallacy in that it doesn't justify such comments.

L-

[number6]

17. didn't know you were hangin out on the the Arab street in

Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia and just about any other Arab Country.
listening to what Arabs say about Jews ....Jim

oh and Jim I give a damn ....;)

[Lithos]

15. Both problems exist in our country

Bigotry is alive and well in the US and affects not only Arabs, Muslims or Jews but also Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Whites, French, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Pagans, Wiccans, Atheists, Gays/Lesbians, Catholics, etc.

To say there is only one without the other is a naive statement.

[number6]

21. yes, and right now Liberals, Muslims and Gays are the easiest

to pick on, next to the French and Atheists....;)

[JohnLocke]

23. Let me be the first to condemn these remarks.

Racism is inexcusable.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Well, to be fair...

Jim did say that the comments were racist and he doesn't approve of them. Maybe I do more reading between the lines than is healthy, but I would have been surprised and disappointed if he hadn't said that...

Anyway, yr spot on in saying that racism is inexcusable. I'd no more respect anyone who who made excuses for the racist comments these MKs made as I would for anyone making excuses when a politician in an Arab state makes slimy anti-Semitic comments, or I would for any attempt to justify any pathetic ranting of Wilson Tuckey about indigenous Australians...


Violet...