Israel's Netanyahu urges talks to calm Jerusalem violence

[Seastallion]

You don't have to be a "hater" to consider any state pariah that is nuclear armed and refuses to submit to the normal inspections, or commit to any nuclear treaties. North Korea, for example.

You don't have to be a "hater" to consider a state pariah when it consistently over decades commits war crimes on an occupied people. I can think of only one that has been allowed to go on for so long.

Nothing deluded about considering Israel a pariah state as it contravenes numerous international laws and human rights.

Designating anyone who considers Israel a pariah state as "deluded haters" is just a variation on the victim card antisemite whine.

I do not deny the right of any poster to the opinion that Israel a pariah state. Knock yourself out.

Demonstrating how Israel is in fact a pariah state seems a bit more difficult to articulate.

Hence "deluded". As for "haters"....considering the rhetoric normally displayed by relevant posters, it seems on spot.

The one bringing antisemitism into this argument was you, never appeared in this specific post, nor a major theme in my posting in general.

Same goes for "victim card", or whining.

I just did demonstrate why Israel is a pariah state! Any country that does not conform to the legal and humanitarian norms, is by definition pariah. There's no delusion there....but of course you may have your opinion...as long as it does not denigrate my sanity.

You normally are quite coherent, but your spin about never mentioning antisemitism is not cohesive. Read my post again...I said (effectively) that your accusation of "hater" is tantamount to the victim card antisemite label.

And it is whining. "Ooo you haters, you don't like Israel having uncontrolled nukes and breaking international laws...oooo, you're just haters hating Jews.".

Thankfully, you do draw short of the nauseatingly repetitive "This tiny state defending itself against thousands of years of persecution....".

I think we might have different notion of what "demonstrate" means. What you mention is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. How is anything posted actually amount to "pariah"? That is, in any effective manner? Was Israel kicked out of the UN recently? Some other international organization? Was there a mass recall of ambassadors? Sanctions in place?

There are many countries that do not conform to many legal and many humanitarian norms. Some of them even sit on the UNHRC. Surely you had a point there?

I read and understood your meaning clearly. That you interpret my post as resembling something akin to accusations of antisemitism, is not my responsibility. My post was discussing Israel, and as we are assured many times on these discussions, it is a totally different matter. Right?

People are welcome to express hate to whatever they feel like (personally, don't see the attraction), but why then be incensed when called "hater"? If that's how one feels, wear it proudly.

I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth - I never, ever, used the phrase appearing in your last line.

something to do with referring antisemitism

Come on, you can do much better than that.

My idea of "demonstrate" was to describe, with no spin or exaggeration, the actual reality that Israel (and North Korea, if you recall), do not submit to what is generally regarded as proper legal norms. You can not deny that Israel does not comply with nuclear legalities or treaties. You can not deny (in fact you have often admitted) that Israel breaks international law with respect to how it occupies Palestine.

You appear to contradict yourself in your reasoning....On the one hand you say Israel is not pariah because it has not been kicked out of the UN, while on the other, you say there are pariah states in the UN. I suspect that we both agree N. Korea is a pariah state? And why? Does it have something to do with it's unregulated nukes, it's humanitarian record, and it's refusal to follow UN directives? Yet it is a member of the UN.

You are smarter than that, to spin my mocking analogy into "putting words in your mouth"...so why do it? Everyone with an ounce of sense knows I was not quoting you, attempting to quote you, or putting words in your mouth.

I won't insult you by suggesting you look up "tantamount", so why ignore the meaning?

Edited October 17, 2015 by Seastallion

[bangon04]

Surely not even his own party and voters actually believe Netanyahu would ever negotiate in good faith.... to suggest that they do so does them a disservice. Nobody could be so naïve..

Better he just keeps his mouth shut if he can't state his true intentions without risking international censure.

[Jingthing]

Surely not even his own party and voters actually believe Netanyahu would ever negotiate in good faith.... to suggest that they do so does them a disservice. Nobody could be so naïve..

Better he just keeps his mouth shut if he can't state his true intentions without risking international censure.

Talks about what?

I believe Netanyahu sincerely wants the Arab terrorist violence to calm down.

If talks would help with that, why wouldn't he talk?

I know the obsessive Israel demonizers make up BS that this is all Netanyahu's plan to see lots of Jews get murdered so that he can spin this to "steal" more land ... such extremist haters will see conspiracy theories in everything.

As far as more substantial matters towards a two state solution, yes, you're right to be skeptical about the sincerity from the current leadership on BOTH sides. The truth is there is significant opposition to a real two state solution on BOTH sides.

Is not THIS thread more limited to be about the current terrorist wave?

Edited October 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[Morch]

I just did demonstrate why Israel is a pariah state! Any country that does not conform to the legal and humanitarian norms, is by definition pariah. There's no delusion there....but of course you may have your opinion...as long as it does not denigrate my sanity.

You normally are quite coherent, but your spin about never mentioning antisemitism is not cohesive. Read my post again...I said (effectively) that your accusation of "hater" is tantamount to the victim card antisemite label.

And it is whining. "Ooo you haters, you don't like Israel having uncontrolled nukes and breaking international laws...oooo, you're just haters hating Jews.".

Thankfully, you do draw short of the nauseatingly repetitive "This tiny state defending itself against thousands of years of persecution....".

I think we might have different notion of what "demonstrate" means. What you mention is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. How is anything posted actually amount to "pariah"? That is, in any effective manner? Was Israel kicked out of the UN recently? Some other international organization? Was there a mass recall of ambassadors? Sanctions in place?

There are many countries that do not conform to many legal and many humanitarian norms. Some of them even sit on the UNHRC. Surely you had a point there?

I read and understood your meaning clearly. That you interpret my post as resembling something akin to accusations of antisemitism, is not my responsibility. My post was discussing Israel, and as we are assured many times on these discussions, it is a totally different matter. Right?

People are welcome to express hate to whatever they feel like (personally, don't see the attraction), but why then be incensed when called "hater"? If that's how one feels, wear it proudly.

I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth - I never, ever, used the phrase appearing in your last line.

Come on, you can do much better than that.

My idea of "demonstrate" was to describe, with no spin or exaggeration, the actual reality that Israel (and North Korea, if you recall), do not submit to what is generally regarded as proper legal norms. You can not deny that Israel does not comply with nuclear legalities or treaties. You can not deny (in fact you have often admitted) that Israel breaks international law with respect to how it occupies Palestine.

You appear to contradict yourself in your reasoning....On the one hand you say Israel is not pariah because it has not been kicked out of the UN, while on the other, you say there are pariah states in the UN. I suspect that we both agree N. Korea is a pariah state? And why? Does it have something to do with it's unregulated nukes, it's humanitarian record, and it's refusal to follow UN directives? Yet it is a member of the UN.

You are smarter than that, to spin my mocking analogy into "putting words in your mouth"...so why do it? Everyone with an ounce of sense knows I was not quoting you, attempting to quote you, or putting words in your mouth.

I won't insult you by suggesting you look up "tantamount", so why ignore the meaning?

What you refer to, I think, is more to do with academic international relationships definitions. If so, one can either choose from the many formulation out there, or mix and match elements from different models. I do not believe that there is a general, agreed upon criteria, or a unified view on how criteria should be applied. Playing around with components of these definitions and criteria, it is not too hard to negatively tag many a country. .

My standing objection to the term "pariah" stems from considering that the most common interpretations rely on its basic immediate connotations - outcast, untouchable, isolated, shunned - to name a few. Being an emotive term, it is easily misused in shaping public opinion, rather than having a concrete, informative meaning. Or in other words, a handy propaganda tool.

There is no argument that the NPT is an international norm, and that Israel does not conform (that it amounts to law is doubtful). Israel, however, is not a signatory to the NPT, so non-compliance does really come into it - unless not being a signatory is grounds enough by itself to earn this tag. Equating Israel with North Korea using the "pariah" terminology ignores the fact that North Korea's is a case of non-compliance, so not quite the same thing. The main motivation for referencing North Korea, rather than, say, India, is simply due to the additional negative value generally associated with North Korea. Works better for the agenda and the narrative supported.

I have no problem saying Israel breaks international law when it comes to some of the issues pertaining to the Palestinians. That it merits tagging Israel as "pariah" is not something I subscribe to. Violations of human rights and international law being globally common is not an excuse by itself, but one got to wonder if "pariah" would still have any meaning left had it been applied to every country engaging in such actions.The application of the term is often selective and subjective.

There is no contradiction in my reasoning - I simply treat the term as it is (see above). The UN membership was cited as one example refuting this claim, and not as a sole criteria. If this is not clear enough, comparing North Korea's and Israel's relative level of international isolation should do the trick. The other reference, was in response to the humanitarian norm angle - which is often brought up by citing UNHRC resolutions.

As for the "mocking analogy" - it might have been relevant with connection to other posts, by other posters. Had it been directed at them, I would have less of an issue with it. My own posts concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rarely focus on allegations of antisemitism, and the same goes for the "victim card" slogan. The way it was used in your posts amounts to simple deflection, and aimed at the wrong poster, to boot.

You normally are quite coherent, but your spin about never mentioning antisemitism is not cohesive. Read my post again...I said (effectively) that your accusation of "hater" is tantamount to the victim card antisemite label.

And it is whining. "Ooo you haters, you don't like Israel having uncontrolled nukes and breaking international laws...oooo, you're just haters hating Jews.".

Thankfully, you do draw short of the nauseatingly repetitive "This tiny state defending itself against thousands of years of persecution....".

Could you show me where, exactly, in my post do you find anything resonating of "haters hating Jews"? The post was about Israel, and the reference was clearly to haters of Israel. Since it is often vehemently claimed on these topics that being anti-Israel, or anti-Zionist got nothing to do with being anti-Jewish or with antisemitism, I can't really see why "hater" got you riled up. The leap from what I actually posted, and the interpretation tying it with playing the antisemitism and victim cards is quite a of an achievement. Wouldn't be the first time you have alluded to or attributed meanings to my posts that had nothing to do with their content (recent example, from this very topic - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/863320-israels-netanyahu-urges-talks-to-calm-jerusalem-violence/?p=9972721).

Thanks due to Soutpeel for inadvertently facilitating this response.

Could we get back on topic now?

[Morch]

Surely not even his own party and voters actually believe Netanyahu would ever negotiate in good faith.... to suggest that they do so does them a disservice. Nobody could be so naïve..

Better he just keeps his mouth shut if he can't state his true intentions without risking international censure.

Some of his coalition and party members count on it. Some of those to his right are outraged that he would even express willingness to meet with Abbas.

Negotiations are usually a better alternative to violence, good faith aside. Palestinian violence, by itself, will not make their national aspirations come true. Even if it was to be more effective in results, there would still have to be negotiations down that road. Netanyahu's record, when it comes to agreements and negotiations (not only vs, the Palestinians) shows two major trends - he is not very good at keeping his word, and he is susceptible to pressure. Like many a politician, as long as he can spin an outcome to look favorable, he might be coerced. Relative to his coalition partners he is still somewhat in touch with reality with regard to the possible consequences of international public opinion backlash.

Writing off Netanyahu or Abbas as a partner for talks fits with their respective unwillingness or inability to deliver. The outcome of such an approach, however, spells a continuation of the violence, if not a deteriorating state of affairs.

World opinion usually favors hollow statements calling for calm over sincere incitement to violence. Even without the current situation not being in Netanyahu's own best political interest, the international pressure to issue such a statement was expressed by both the USA and the UN.

[Seastallion]

I think we might have different notion of what "demonstrate" means. What you mention is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. How is anything posted actually amount to "pariah"? That is, in any effective manner? Was Israel kicked out of the UN recently? Some other international organization? Was there a mass recall of ambassadors? Sanctions in place?

There are many countries that do not conform to many legal and many humanitarian norms. Some of them even sit on the UNHRC. Surely you had a point there?

I read and understood your meaning clearly. That you interpret my post as resembling something akin to accusations of antisemitism, is not my responsibility. My post was discussing Israel, and as we are assured many times on these discussions, it is a totally different matter. Right?

People are welcome to express hate to whatever they feel like (personally, don't see the attraction), but why then be incensed when called "hater"? If that's how one feels, wear it proudly.

I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth - I never, ever, used the phrase appearing in your last line.

Come on, you can do much better than that.

My idea of "demonstrate" was to describe, with no spin or exaggeration, the actual reality that Israel (and North Korea, if you recall), do not submit to what is generally regarded as proper legal norms. You can not deny that Israel does not comply with nuclear legalities or treaties. You can not deny (in fact you have often admitted) that Israel breaks international law with respect to how it occupies Palestine.

You appear to contradict yourself in your reasoning....On the one hand you say Israel is not pariah because it has not been kicked out of the UN, while on the other, you say there are pariah states in the UN. I suspect that we both agree N. Korea is a pariah state? And why? Does it have something to do with it's unregulated nukes, it's humanitarian record, and it's refusal to follow UN directives? Yet it is a member of the UN.

You are smarter than that, to spin my mocking analogy into "putting words in your mouth"...so why do it? Everyone with an ounce of sense knows I was not quoting you, attempting to quote you, or putting words in your mouth.

I won't insult you by suggesting you look up "tantamount", so why ignore the meaning?

What you refer to, I think, is more to do with academic international relationships definitions. If so, one can either choose from the many formulation out there, or mix and match elements from different models. I do not believe that there is a general, agreed upon criteria, or a unified view on how criteria should be applied. Playing around with components of these definitions and criteria, it is not too hard to negatively tag many a country. .

My standing objection to the term "pariah" stems from considering that the most common interpretations rely on its basic immediate connotations - outcast, untouchable, isolated, shunned - to name a few. Being an emotive term, it is easily misused in shaping public opinion, rather than having a concrete, informative meaning. Or in other words, a handy propaganda tool.

There is no argument that the NPT is an international norm, and that Israel does not conform (that it amounts to law is doubtful). Israel, however, is not a signatory to the NPT, so non-compliance does really come into it - unless not being a signatory is grounds enough by itself to earn this tag. Equating Israel with North Korea using the "pariah" terminology ignores the fact that North Korea's is a case of non-compliance, so not quite the same thing. The main motivation for referencing North Korea, rather than, say, India, is simply due to the additional negative value generally associated with North Korea. Works better for the agenda and the narrative supported.

I have no problem saying Israel breaks international law when it comes to some of the issues pertaining to the Palestinians. That it merits tagging Israel as "pariah" is not something I subscribe to. Violations of human rights and international law being globally common is not an excuse by itself, but one got to wonder if "pariah" would still have any meaning left had it been applied to every country engaging in such actions.The application of the term is often selective and subjective.

There is no contradiction in my reasoning - I simply treat the term as it is (see above). The UN membership was cited as one example refuting this claim, and not as a sole criteria. If this is not clear enough, comparing North Korea's and Israel's relative level of international isolation should do the trick. The other reference, was in response to the humanitarian norm angle - which is often brought up by citing UNHRC resolutions.

As for the "mocking analogy" - it might have been relevant with connection to other posts, by other posters. Had it been directed at them, I would have less of an issue with it. My own posts concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rarely focus on allegations of antisemitism, and the same goes for the "victim card" slogan. The way it was used in your posts amounts to simple deflection, and aimed at the wrong poster, to boot.

You normally are quite coherent, but your spin about never mentioning antisemitism is not cohesive. Read my post again...I said (effectively) that your accusation of "hater" is tantamount to the victim card antisemite label.

And it is whining. "Ooo you haters, you don't like Israel having uncontrolled nukes and breaking international laws...oooo, you're just haters hating Jews.".

Thankfully, you do draw short of the nauseatingly repetitive "This tiny state defending itself against thousands of years of persecution....".

Could you show me where, exactly, in my post do you find anything resonating of "haters hating Jews"? The post was about Israel, and the reference was clearly to haters of Israel. Since it is often vehemently claimed on these topics that being anti-Israel, or anti-Zionist got nothing to do with being anti-Jewish or with antisemitism, I can't really see why "hater" got you riled up. The leap from what I actually posted, and the interpretation tying it with playing the antisemitism and victim cards is quite a of an achievement. Wouldn't be the first time you have alluded to or attributed meanings to my posts that had nothing to do with their content (recent example, from this very topic - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/863320-israels-netanyahu-urges-talks-to-calm-jerusalem-violence/?p=9972721).

Thanks due to Soutpeel for inadvertently facilitating this response.

Could we get back on topic now?

OK. if you want to fall back on to the semantics of the word "pariah", we may as well not continue. My meaning, and others that use the term is clear and apt.

Haters? It is usually used, on this forum, to denigrate those posters that criticise Israel, but (usually) is in reference to antisemitism. That you use the word unusually (for this subject on this forum), I accept, now that you have explained, but reject all the same. I (and others) do not "hate". I deeply resent the policies that successive Zionist governments have imposed.

[TheKnave]

I think we might have different notion of what "demonstrate" means. What you mention is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. How is anything posted actually amount to "pariah"? That is, in any effective manner? Was Israel kicked out of the UN recently? Some other international organization? Was there a mass recall of ambassadors? Sanctions in place?

There are many countries that do not conform to many legal and many humanitarian norms. Some of them even sit on the UNHRC. Surely you had a point there?

I read and understood your meaning clearly. That you interpret my post as resembling something akin to accusations of antisemitism, is not my responsibility. My post was discussing Israel, and as we are assured many times on these discussions, it is a totally different matter. Right?

People are welcome to express hate to whatever they feel like (personally, don't see the attraction), but why then be incensed when called "hater"? If that's how one feels, wear it proudly.

I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth - I never, ever, used the phrase appearing in your last line.

Come on, you can do much better than that.

My idea of "demonstrate" was to describe, with no spin or exaggeration, the actual reality that Israel (and North Korea, if you recall), do not submit to what is generally regarded as proper legal norms. You can not deny that Israel does not comply with nuclear legalities or treaties. You can not deny (in fact you have often admitted) that Israel breaks international law with respect to how it occupies Palestine.

You appear to contradict yourself in your reasoning....On the one hand you say Israel is not pariah because it has not been kicked out of the UN, while on the other, you say there are pariah states in the UN. I suspect that we both agree N. Korea is a pariah state? And why? Does it have something to do with it's unregulated nukes, it's humanitarian record, and it's refusal to follow UN directives? Yet it is a member of the UN.

You are smarter than that, to spin my mocking analogy into "putting words in your mouth"...so why do it? Everyone with an ounce of sense knows I was not quoting you, attempting to quote you, or putting words in your mouth.

I won't insult you by suggesting you look up "tantamount", so why ignore the meaning?

What you refer to, I think, is more to do with academic international relationships definitions. If so, one can either choose from the many formulation out there, or mix and match elements from different models. I do not believe that there is a general, agreed upon criteria, or a unified view on how criteria should be applied. Playing around with components of these definitions and criteria, it is not too hard to negatively tag many a country. .

My standing objection to the term "pariah" stems from considering that the most common interpretations rely on its basic immediate connotations - outcast, untouchable, isolated, shunned - to name a few. Being an emotive term, it is easily misused in shaping public opinion, rather than having a concrete, informative meaning. Or in other words, a handy propaganda tool.

There is no argument that the NPT is an international norm, and that Israel does not conform (that it amounts to law is doubtful). Israel, however, is not a signatory to the NPT, so non-compliance does really come into it - unless not being a signatory is grounds enough by itself to earn this tag. Equating Israel with North Korea using the "pariah" terminology ignores the fact that North Korea's is a case of non-compliance, so not quite the same thing. The main motivation for referencing North Korea, rather than, say, India, is simply due to the additional negative value generally associated with North Korea. Works better for the agenda and the narrative supported.

I have no problem saying Israel breaks international law when it comes to some of the issues pertaining to the Palestinians. That it merits tagging Israel as "pariah" is not something I subscribe to. Violations of human rights and international law being globally common is not an excuse by itself, but one got to wonder if "pariah" would still have any meaning left had it been applied to every country engaging in such actions.The application of the term is often selective and subjective.

There is no contradiction in my reasoning - I simply treat the term as it is (see above). The UN membership was cited as one example refuting this claim, and not as a sole criteria. If this is not clear enough, comparing North Korea's and Israel's relative level of international isolation should do the trick. The other reference, was in response to the humanitarian norm angle - which is often brought up by citing UNHRC resolutions.

As for the "mocking analogy" - it might have been relevant with connection to other posts, by other posters. Had it been directed at them, I would have less of an issue with it. My own posts concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rarely focus on allegations of antisemitism, and the same goes for the "victim card" slogan. The way it was used in your posts amounts to simple deflection, and aimed at the wrong poster, to boot.

You normally are quite coherent, but your spin about never mentioning antisemitism is not cohesive. Read my post again...I said (effectively) that your accusation of "hater" is tantamount to the victim card antisemite label.

And it is whining. "Ooo you haters, you don't like Israel having uncontrolled nukes and breaking international laws...oooo, you're just haters hating Jews.".

Thankfully, you do draw short of the nauseatingly repetitive "This tiny state defending itself against thousands of years of persecution....".

Could you show me where, exactly, in my post do you find anything resonating of "haters hating Jews"? The post was about Israel, and the reference was clearly to haters of Israel. Since it is often vehemently claimed on these topics that being anti-Israel, or anti-Zionist got nothing to do with being anti-Jewish or with antisemitism, I can't really see why "hater" got you riled up. The leap from what I actually posted, and the interpretation tying it with playing the antisemitism and victim cards is quite a of an achievement. Wouldn't be the first time you have alluded to or attributed meanings to my posts that had nothing to do with their content (recent example, from this very topic - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/863320-israels-netanyahu-urges-talks-to-calm-jerusalem-violence/?p=9972721).

Thanks due to Soutpeel for inadvertently facilitating this response.

Could we get back on topic now?

OK. if you want to fall back on to the semantics of the word "pariah", we may as well not continue. My meaning, and others that use the term is clear and apt.

Haters? It is usually used, on this forum, to denigrate those posters that criticise Israel, but (usually) is in reference to antisemitism. That you use the word unusually (for this subject on this forum), I accept, now that you have explained, but reject all the same. I (and others) do not "hate". I deeply resent the policies that successive Zionist governments have imposed.

It might be interesting to note that the term, 'anti-semitism', has been somewhat neutralized by Arab commentators pointing out (rightly) that the Semites include many ethnicities found in the Middle East, including Arabs. Therefore, it is probably more meaningful to call your ilk 'Jew-haters', rather than the amorphous, 'anti-semites'.

I learned this from a Jordanian, who, in the midst of a tirade against Jews (not merely Israelis), preemptively warned me not to raise anti-semitism in retort, for the above reasons.

I obliged him, limiting my reference to his Jew-hatred. Hard for him to rebut...

Same type of logic afoot here, dancing around their core hatreds, some posters go to great lengths to construct elaborate rationalizations for their hatred of Israel and her people. But their general emotional tone belies their true obsessions.

As stated before, the usual suspects are afoot.

Edited October 18, 2015 by TheKnave

[Jingthing]

Yes that diversion comes up here periodically and it is so very tedious and silly. There is a weak trend to use the word Judeophobia instead of antisemitism because of some people snarkily/disingenuously refusing to accept the well established definition of anti-semitism, which is of course limited to be about Jews.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[TheKnave]

Having tried it on, I think I now prefer the non-euphemistic version, however coarse it be. Hits like a 2x4, whereas 'anti-semite' is almost fashionable, in some (awful) circles, and can be slithered away from...

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full,

The Knave wrote...

It might be interesting to note that the term, 'anti-semitism', has been somewhat neutralized by Arab commentators pointing out (rightly) that the Semites include many ethnicities found in the Middle East, including Arabs. Therefore, it is probably more meaningful to call your ilk 'Jew-haters', rather than the amorphous, 'anti-semites'.

I learned this from a Jordanian, who, in the midst of a tirade against Jews (not merely Israelis), preemptively warned me not to raise anti-semitism in retort, for the above reasons.

I obliged him, limiting my reference to his Jew-hatred. Hard for him to rebut...

Same type of logic afoot here, dancing around their core hatreds, some posters go to great lengths to construct elaborate rationalizations for their hatred of Israel and her people. But their general emotional tone belies their true obsessions.

As stated before, the usual suspects are afoot.

Spinning hatred of Zionism or current right wing Israelis polices as Jew hatred is totally a figment of your own imagination. You are entitled to your fantasy, but don't confuse it with fact.

I personally don't give a hoot about a person's religion or atheism. I am a humanist, and I know that any active form of racism /religionism is wrong.

I am simply anti bully. And Israel at the moment is the bully. I long for it otherwise to be different because decent Israelis have a lot to offer and a rosy future if only they would only grasp the olive branch.

[TheKnave]

Sorry thread full,

The Knave wrote...

It might be interesting to note that the term, 'anti-semitism', has been somewhat neutralized by Arab commentators pointing out (rightly) that the Semites include many ethnicities found in the Middle East, including Arabs. Therefore, it is probably more meaningful to call your ilk 'Jew-haters', rather than the amorphous, 'anti-semites'.

I learned this from a Jordanian, who, in the midst of a tirade against Jews (not merely Israelis), preemptively warned me not to raise anti-semitism in retort, for the above reasons.

I obliged him, limiting my reference to his Jew-hatred. Hard for him to rebut...

Same type of logic afoot here, dancing around their core hatreds, some posters go to great lengths to construct elaborate rationalizations for their hatred of Israel and her people. But their general emotional tone belies their true obsessions.

As stated before, the usual suspects are afoot.

Spinning hatred of Zionism or current right wing Israelis polices as Jew hatred is totally a figment of your own imagination. You are entitled to your fantasy, but don't confuse it with fact.

I personally don't give a hoot about a person's religion or atheism. I am a humanist, and I know that any active form of racism /religionism is wrong.

I am simply anti bully. And Israel at the moment is the bully. I long for it otherwise to be different because decent Israelis have a lot to offer and a rosy future if only they would only grasp the olive branch.

Yeah, what olive branch? You mean the one in the hand opposite the one with the knife "anointed in poison", as suggested by the Palestinians? Or the one held out by Hamas, whose charter requires the destruction of Israel AND the Jews?

There is no other explanation for such willful diregard of the facts than Jew-hatred.

As for hating bullies, judging by your posts, self-hatred must be a real issue for you.

Dismissed.

[DaddyWarbucks]

Sorry thread full,

The Knave wrote...

It might be interesting to note that the term, 'anti-semitism', has been somewhat neutralized by Arab commentators pointing out (rightly) that the Semites include many ethnicities found in the Middle East, including Arabs. Therefore, it is probably more meaningful to call your ilk 'Jew-haters', rather than the amorphous, 'anti-semites'.

I learned this from a Jordanian, who, in the midst of a tirade against Jews (not merely Israelis), preemptively warned me not to raise anti-semitism in retort, for the above reasons.

I obliged him, limiting my reference to his Jew-hatred. Hard for him to rebut...

Same type of logic afoot here, dancing around their core hatreds, some posters go to great lengths to construct elaborate rationalizations for their hatred of Israel and her people. But their general emotional tone belies their true obsessions.

As stated before, the usual suspects are afoot.

Spinning hatred of Zionism or current right wing Israelis polices as Jew hatred is totally a figment of your own imagination. You are entitled to your fantasy, but don't confuse it with fact.

I personally don't give a hoot about a person's religion or atheism. I am a humanist, and I know that any active form of racism /religionism is wrong.

I am simply anti bully. And Israel at the moment is the bully. I long for it otherwise to be different because decent Israelis have a lot to offer and a rosy future if only they would only grasp the olive branch.

Yeah, what olive branch? You mean the one in the hand opposite the one with the knife "anointed in poison", as suggested by the Palestinians? Or the one held out by Hamas, whose charter requires the destruction of Israel AND the Jews?

There is no other explanation for such willful diregard of the facts than Jew-hatred.

As for hating bullies, judging by your posts, self-hatred must be a real issue for you.

Dismissed.

There are moderate Israelis as well as moderate Palestinians.

Those are the groups that will ultimately provide a solution to the conflict.

The Zionist agenda of creating Eretz Israel isn't going to happen.

There is too much opposition from the Palestinians who occupy the land and from the international community who support them.

Before any progress can be made, the radical Zionists must be replaced by leadership that will agree to live within their 1967 borders.

That is the prerequisite for peace, but it's not going to happen under the present Likhud government.

[TheKnave]

Sorry thread full,

The Knave wrote...

It might be interesting to note that the term, 'anti-semitism', has been somewhat neutralized by Arab commentators pointing out (rightly) that the Semites include many ethnicities found in the Middle East, including Arabs. Therefore, it is probably more meaningful to call your ilk 'Jew-haters', rather than the amorphous, 'anti-semites'.

I learned this from a Jordanian, who, in the midst of a tirade against Jews (not merely Israelis), preemptively warned me not to raise anti-semitism in retort, for the above reasons.

I obliged him, limiting my reference to his Jew-hatred. Hard for him to rebut...

Same type of logic afoot here, dancing around their core hatreds, some posters go to great lengths to construct elaborate rationalizations for their hatred of Israel and her people. But their general emotional tone belies their true obsessions.

As stated before, the usual suspects are afoot.

Spinning hatred of Zionism or current right wing Israelis polices as Jew hatred is totally a figment of your own imagination. You are entitled to your fantasy, but don't confuse it with fact.

I personally don't give a hoot about a person's religion or atheism. I am a humanist, and I know that any active form of racism /religionism is wrong.

I am simply anti bully. And Israel at the moment is the bully. I long for it otherwise to be different because decent Israelis have a lot to offer and a rosy future if only they would only grasp the olive branch.

Yeah, what olive branch? You mean the one in the hand opposite the one with the knife "anointed in poison", as suggested by the Palestinians? Or the one held out by Hamas, whose charter requires the destruction of Israel AND the Jews?

There is no other explanation for such willful diregard of the facts than Jew-hatred.

As for hating bullies, judging by your posts, self-hatred must be a real issue for you.

Dismissed.

There are moderate Israelis as well as moderate Palestinians.

Those are the groups that will ultimately provide a solution to the conflict.

The Zionist agenda of creating Eretz Israel isn't going to happen.

There is too much opposition from the Palestinians who occupy the land and from the international community who support them.

Before any progress can be made, the radical Zionists must be replaced by leadership that will agree to live within their 1967 borders.

That is the prerequisite for peace, but it's not going to happen under the present Likhud government.

As if the Palestinians would recognize Israel's right to exist within those, or ANY border...

Please...

[Morch]

Sorry thread full,

The Knave wrote...

It might be interesting to note that the term, 'anti-semitism', has been somewhat neutralized by Arab commentators pointing out (rightly) that the Semites include many ethnicities found in the Middle East, including Arabs. Therefore, it is probably more meaningful to call your ilk 'Jew-haters', rather than the amorphous, 'anti-semites'.

I learned this from a Jordanian, who, in the midst of a tirade against Jews (not merely Israelis), preemptively warned me not to raise anti-semitism in retort, for the above reasons.

I obliged him, limiting my reference to his Jew-hatred. Hard for him to rebut...

Same type of logic afoot here, dancing around their core hatreds, some posters go to great lengths to construct elaborate rationalizations for their hatred of Israel and her people. But their general emotional tone belies their true obsessions.

As stated before, the usual suspects are afoot.

Spinning hatred of Zionism or current right wing Israelis polices as Jew hatred is totally a figment of your own imagination. You are entitled to your fantasy, but don't confuse it with fact.

I personally don't give a hoot about a person's religion or atheism. I am a humanist, and I know that any active form of racism /religionism is wrong.

I am simply anti bully. And Israel at the moment is the bully. I long for it otherwise to be different because decent Israelis have a lot to offer and a rosy future if only they would only grasp the olive branch.

Yeah, what olive branch? You mean the one in the hand opposite the one with the knife "anointed in poison", as suggested by the Palestinians? Or the one held out by Hamas, whose charter requires the destruction of Israel AND the Jews?

There is no other explanation for such willful diregard of the facts than Jew-hatred.

As for hating bullies, judging by your posts, self-hatred must be a real issue for you.

Dismissed.

There are moderate Israelis as well as moderate Palestinians.

Those are the groups that will ultimately provide a solution to the conflict.

The Zionist agenda of creating Eretz Israel isn't going to happen.

There is too much opposition from the Palestinians who occupy the land and from the international community who support them.

Before any progress can be made, the radical Zionists must be replaced by leadership that will agree to live within their 1967 borders.

That is the prerequisite for peace, but it's not going to happen under the present Likhud government.

It is not always clear what some members on this forum consider moderate. On a parallel topic, one of the posters quoted declared even Netanyahu's opposition in Parliament to be racist. This was achieved by asserting a rigid interpretation of Zionism (which is more to do with posters view than pragmatic reality). Asked to make clear which moderate forces were referred to, the list produced was of personas from Israel's fringe left, and a few NGO's.

It would seem that for some even replacing them radical Zionists with other Zionists wouldn't be good enough. If any Israelis not fully subscribing to the Palestinian agenda are rejected as racist and non-moderate, whom is there to make peace with on the Israeli side?

As for moderate Palestinians - it is very rarely, on this forum at least, that they can be clearly pointed at. Nor is it demonstrated that they command mass public support. In the same vein, hardly any mention of what "moderate" means when it comes to the Palestinians. Guessing that no changes are required as far as the Palestinian leadership and its positions go?

"The Zionist agenda of creating Eretz Israel isn't going to happen" - for someone quoting the same line over and over again, you're doing it wrong. "Eretz Israel" simply means the land of Israel - most Israelis would interpret it as 1967 lines, Jerusalem and perhaps a few of the more established illegal settlements. It does not carry any significant Ideological or political meaning. After 1967 and up to the 1990's a variation of this was adopted by Israel's right-wing - literally meaning "the whole Eretz Israel" (whole as in complete). This pertained mainly to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and to a lesser degree for other areas conquered. The hyper expansionist "greater Israel" term was present at the early days of Zionism, and even then it was not taken as a realistic objective by most. Considering that Israel cannot handle even its backyard, support for some notions is all but non-existent.

[Steely Dan]

I guess the response from some of our esteemed members would have been equally positive had Netanyahu ruled out any talks. As it is talks are futile as The Palestinians are engaged in premeditated acts of terrorism which coincide with their judgement that they have extracted as much as they can from the UN and the Oslo accords before reverting to their favorite tactic for nation building.