Israel imposes 'apartheid regime' on Palestinians - U.N. report

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Wrong! Dexterm's ultimate position supports a scenario in which Israel the hateful racist supremacist ideology of Zionism disintegrates as well.

 

That's just a dishonest way that amounts to the very same thing. Pull the other one.

 

No problems with the Palestinian goal of establishing a state free of Jews. No problems with seeing the so-called Palestinian "Right of

Return" as a legitimate, but rejecting Israeli immigration policies. And self determination, in general, seems to be something only the Palestinian side have a right to.

 

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

Page 4 of the thread and I have yet to see you address a single issue in the OP report.

 

Just the usual tactic: deny, deflect, obfuscate, besmirch.

 

deny... "several debunked"..be interesting to hear about the ones you regard as not debunked.
deflect...trying to blame Palestinians
obfuscate...introducing off topic quotes, and saying its all been discussed before.
besmirch...derogatory digs at me, and dismissing the authors of the report as biased without responding to a single point raised.

 

That's patently false. I have addressed several points raised, though not in the manner you insist on addressing them. On the other hand, you have failed to address anything to do with the "report" being the product of authors and a body holding very biased views.

 

The denials of such a bias, the deflections of any non-supportive reference, the obfuscation of any unflattering point and the constant denigration of other posters holding opposing views are all included in your posts. Again, not a shred of self-awareness there.

 

Almost all of the links provided were discussed in the past, whether debunked or reviewed in context. You are well aware of this, as you have participated in most of these topics. To come now and demand a re-hashing of the same, as if such never happened - is nothing but trolling.

 

There was no attempt to "blame the Palestinians", as you dishonestly claim. There was, there is and there will be an understanding that the conflict involves two sides, not one. The position advocated by yourself, that only one of the sides bears all responsibility to anything that happened, happens or will happen is not acceptable.

 

As evident on these topics, you have no issues with straying into any OT reference, as long as it conforms with your views. Pointing out that a link provided in your post as supportive of your views, is not quite as it seems - that's actually very on topic.

 

Are you seriously trying to play the victim card here? Look up in the topic, or any related topic and re-visit your own posts. A deluge of negative descriptions of posters holding different views, of politicians, journalists and whomever expresses dissent. I fail to see how addressing the "report" authors long held and public views is anything which amount to "besmirching" - unless, that it, if you see something wrong with their views. 

[dexterm]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's just a dishonest way that amounts to the very same thing. Pull the other one.

 

No problems with the Palestinian goal of establishing a state free of Jews. No problems with seeing the so-called Palestinian "Right of

Return" as a legitimate, but rejecting Israeli immigration policies. And self determination, in general, seems to be something only the Palestinian side have a right to.

 

 

>>No problems with the Palestinian goal of establishing a state free of Jews

 

I don't seem to recall Israel building anything other than Jewish only settlements in the West Bank, not forgetting of course one of the OP's Israel's demographic engineering projects within Israel itself.

 

"In October 2010, the Knesset approved a bill allowing smaller Israeli towns to reject residents who do not suit "the community's fundamental outlook", based on sex, religion, and socioeconomic status. Critics slammed the move as an attempt to allow Jewish towns to keep Arabs and other non-Jews out."

https://imeu.org/article/discrimination-against-palestinian-citizens-of-israel   (Very informative link listing the numerous ways that Israel practises apartheid against the Palestinian population)

Controversial Bill Allowing Towns to Reject Residents
Israeli Arab

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/knesset-panel-approves-controversial-bill-allowing-towns-to-reject-residents-1.321433

 

>>No problems with seeing the so-called Palestinian "Right of

Return" as a legitimate, but rejecting Israeli immigration policies.

 

There is a huge difference between allowing unlimited Jewish immigration and instant citizenship from anywhere in the world, for people who have never set eyes on Israel before, may not even feel an affinity to the place (just a handy 2nd passport) and who may not even be religious. Ivanka Trump could come if she wants to,  simply because she married a Jew.

 

Whereas Palestinians who were born there and still have the title deeds and keys to their ancestral homes just a few miles away in Israel, are not allowed to return to their homes and land. And that is not even counting Palestinians in refugee camps in nearby countries.

 

Of course, as the OP report points out: this is all a deliberate apartheid strategy to maintain an artificial Jewish majority. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by dexterm

[dexterm]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That's patently false. I have addressed several points raised, though not in the manner you insist on addressing them. On the other hand, you have failed to address anything to do with the "report" being the product of authors and a body holding very biased views.

 

The denials of such a bias, the deflections of any non-supportive reference, the obfuscation of any unflattering point and the constant denigration of other posters holding opposing views are all included in your posts. Again, not a shred of self-awareness there.

 

Almost all of the links provided were discussed in the past, whether debunked or reviewed in context. You are well aware of this, as you have participated in most of these topics. To come now and demand a re-hashing of the same, as if such never happened - is nothing but trolling.

 

There was no attempt to "blame the Palestinians", as you dishonestly claim. There was, there is and there will be an understanding that the conflict involves two sides, not one. The position advocated by yourself, that only one of the sides bears all responsibility to anything that happened, happens or will happen is not acceptable.

 

As evident on these topics, you have no issues with straying into any OT reference, as long as it conforms with your views. Pointing out that a link provided in your post as supportive of your views, is not quite as it seems - that's actually very on topic.

 

Are you seriously trying to play the victim card here? Look up in the topic, or any related topic and re-visit your own posts. A deluge of negative descriptions of posters holding different views, of politicians, journalists and whomever expresses dissent. I fail to see how addressing the "report" authors long held and public views is anything which amount to "besmirching" - unless, that it, if you see something wrong with their views. 

I am trying to stick to the OP topic...no mention of author bias there. That's just your introduced "shoot the messenger" besmirching.

 

Lots of accusations about rehashing and previously debunked, but no links. Wouldn't it be easier simply to address the points in the OP. That way we could all stay on topic.

 

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

And you talk about deflections and obfuscations....

 

The point raised, and quoted was "No problems with the Palestinian goal of establishing a state free of Jews". Instead of referring to anything germane, your response is but-Israel. Nothing whatsoever which relates to the Palestinian side's similar positions, and none of the faux indignation.

 

The so-called Palestinian "Right of Return" is envisaged as applying to all of the Palestinian diaspora, regardless of how much time passed, what actual connection they had or have to the land and to their extended families. Seeing it as legitimate while denouncing Israel's policy is the usual double standard position.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, dexterm said:

I am trying to stick to the OP topic...no mention of author bias there. That's just your introduced "shoot the messenger" besmirching.

 

Lots of accusations about rehashing and previously debunked, but no links. Wouldn't it be easier simply to address the points in the OP. That way we could all stay on topic.

 

 

Ah yes, the self congratulating strict adherence to topic. Funny how that crops up only when points unfavorable to your position are raised. As for the authors views (or rather, bias) not being mentioned:

 

Quote

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters in New York that the report was published without any prior consultation with the U.N. secretariat.

 

"The report as it stands does not reflect the views of the secretary-general (Antonio Guterres)," said Dujarric, adding that the report itself notes that it reflects the views of the authors.

 

And then there's this:

 

Quote

It was authored by Richard Falk, a former U.N. human rights investigator for the Palestinian territories, and Virginia Tilley, professor of political science at Southern Illinois University.

 

Before leaving his post as U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories in 2014, Falk said Israeli policies bore unacceptable characteristics of colonialism, apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

 

The United States accused him of being biased against Israel.

 

So no, neither the off topic, nor the pathetic "besmirching"  claims hold.

 

Seems like you are very insistent on not addressing this issue, hence the smoke screen of bringing up a pile of previously discussed links and demanding a re-hashed "discussion", even when this was done numerous times before. The usual dishonest tactics, the usual games.

[dexterm]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

And you talk about deflections and obfuscations....

 

The point raised, and quoted was "No problems with the Palestinian goal of establishing a state free of Jews". Instead of referring to anything germane, your response is but-Israel. Nothing whatsoever which relates to the Palestinian side's similar positions, and none of the faux indignation.

 

The so-called Palestinian "Right of Return" is envisaged as applying to all of the Palestinian diaspora, regardless of how much time passed, what actual connection they had or have to the land and to their extended families. Seeing it as legitimate while denouncing Israel's policy is the usual double standard position.

Why should Palestinians reward the invading fanatical Jewish settlers who have made Palestinian lives hell and still do. I doubt the rabid Jewish settlers would want to stay anyway without the IDF to protect the cowardly bullies.

 

You are very disingenuosly equating Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed within living memory, with anyone who simply calls himself a Jew after millenia of absence, and dilution of any race through intermarriage and conversion. Do the latter still have their title deeds?

 

This is exactly what the OP is referring to: a deliberate policy of Palestinian exclusion to boost Jewish only numbers.

 

Israel has used ethnic cleansing twice already to achieve this phony Jewish majority. They want the land, but not the people already living there.They find it more difficult to repeat that in the 21st Century midst the glare of the social media, so as the OP points out they have to resort to dog whistle apartheid by demographic engineering.

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

Why should Palestinians reward the invading fanatical Jewish settlers who have made Palestinian lives hell and still do. I doubt the rabid Jewish settlers would want to stay anyway.

 

You are very disingenuosly equating Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed within living memory, with anyone who simply calls himself a Jew after millenia of absence, and dilution of any race through intermarriage and conversion. Do the latter still have their title deeds?

 

This is exactly what the OP is referring to: a deliberate policy of Palestinian exclusion to boost Jewish only numbers.

 

Israel has used ethnic cleansing twice already to achieve this phony Jewish majority. They find it more difficult to repeat that in the 21st Century midst the glare of the social media, so as the OP points out they have to resort to dog whistle apartheid by demographic engineering.

 

 

The point made was nothing to do with "reward". It simply showed that the Palestinian goal is a state free of Jews. On the other hand, Israel would continue to support a large Arab (mostly Palestinian) minority, in addition to the expectation that it would allow in diaspora Palestinians. Your objections are a clear manifestation of double standards.

 

I am not equating anything. I am pointing out that you make negative judgements only when it suits your narrative. And also to the inconsistency of holding such one-sided positions, while proclaiming to be a "humanist".

 

Seriously doubt all the Palestinian diaspora holds title deeds, or keys to old homes, but granted, it does make a lovely talking point. Same goes for the insistence on the applicability of their claim, regardless to time passed, but rejecting the opposite side position. The drivel which seeks to imply that diaspora Palestinians as a distinct group, with strong and lasting identity if fictional.

 

Integrity doesn't seem to be a requirement when it comes to SJW.

[dexterm]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The point made was nothing to do with "reward". It simply showed that the Palestinian goal is a state free of Jews. On the other hand, Israel would continue to support a large Arab (mostly Palestinian) minority, in addition to the expectation that it would allow in diaspora Palestinians. Your objections are a clear manifestation of double standards.

 

I am not equating anything. I am pointing out that you make negative judgements only when it suits your narrative. And also to the inconsistency of holding such one-sided positions, while proclaiming to be a "humanist".

 

Seriously doubt all the Palestinian diaspora holds title deeds, or keys to old homes, but granted, it does make a lovely talking point. Same goes for the insistence on the applicability of their claim, regardless to time passed, but rejecting the opposite side position. The drivel which seeks to imply that diaspora Palestinians as a distinct group, with strong and lasting identity if fictional.

 

Integrity doesn't seem to be a requirement when it comes to SJW.

So if the 2,000 year old Jewish right of return is legitimate, please tell me why the 50-60 year old Palestinian right of return isn't.

Edited March 22, 2017 by dexterm

[Shawn0000]

On 16/03/2017 at 5:51 PM, Jingthing said:

Equating Israel with the Nazis by definition is antisemitic. Normal criticism of Israeli government policies as towards any other nation isn't. Your post wasn't normal criticism. It was pure vile Jew hatred. 

It's quite depressing to see so much Jew hatred being expressed on this forum, though it's sadly predictable, but it's another good reason why the state of Israel needed to exist in the first place and continues to need to exist.

 

No, making a comparison whether to Nazis or any other group is not by definition antisemitism, what on earth were you thinking there?  Surely not that by calling anti Semite you could distract from the clear parallels drawn?  Pathetic!  Nothing to do with Jews, that would be your own racist mindset, the parallel is between Israel and the Nazis.

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

So if the Jewish right of return is legitimate, please tell why the Palestinian isn't.

 

That the best deflection you got? Disappointing.

 

You were the one hollering against it as an abhorrent policy. It was pointed out that  the Palestinian goal incorporates a similar policy, in reverse (and to a greater degree). All of your replies as to why go against one, but uphold the other, dodge dealing with the Palestinian side of things. But Israel....

 

And as a reference point, I am not the one proclaiming to be a great "humanist" (while applying this approach in a biased manner), nor am I much invested in theoretical ideological concepts and principals as you seem to be. My point of view has more to do with realistic if imperfect solutions.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

No, making a comparison whether to Nazis or any other group is not by definition antisemitism, what on earth were you thinking there?  Surely not that by calling anti Semite you could distract from the clear parallels drawn?  Pathetic!  Nothing to do with Jews, that would be your own racist mindset, the parallel is between Israel and the Nazis.

 

The main purpose of making such hyperbole comparisons is to score PR points, by harping on the dissonance. There is no objective reason to employ the comparison otherwise. That some (or many, depending on one's take) of those using it also hold antisemitic views is a fact.

 

 

[dexterm]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That the best deflection you got? Disappointing.

 

You were the one hollering against it as an abhorrent policy. It was pointed out that  the Palestinian goal incorporates a similar policy, in reverse (and to a greater degree). All of your replies as to why go against one, but uphold the other, dodge dealing with the Palestinian side of things. But Israel....

 

And as a reference point, I am not the one proclaiming to be a great "humanist" (while applying this approach in a biased manner), nor am I much invested in theoretical ideological concepts and principals as you seem to be. My point of view has more to do with realistic if imperfect solutions.

A very simple question which is at the heart of the OP regarding demographic engineering

..if the 2,000 year old Jewish right of unlimited return is quite legitimate, why is the Palestinian 50-69 year old right of return not?

 

You clearly dodge that very basic question which is fundamental to the OP apartheid report.

 

The answer is obvious: it would undermine the phony Jewish majority and would mean the end of Zionism, that iniquitous racist supremacist ideology which must be protected whatever it takes including apartheid.

It would enable Palestinians throught the ballot box as equal citizens to challenge all the discriminatory laws Israel at present uses against them.

 

QED.

Edited March 22, 2017 by dexterm

[Shawn0000]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The main purpose of making such hyperbole comparisons is to score PR points, by harping on the dissonance. There is no objective reason to employ the comparison otherwise. That some (or many, depending on one's take) of those using it also hold antisemitic views is a fact.

 

 

 

No, that is your assumption, unless of course you can substantiate your "fact" with even a single scrap of evidence.

 

What is a fact is that pro zionists use the anti Semite card in attempt to silence people criticising the Israeli regime and that is what we have seen here, the comparisons to the Nazi regime are clear, they were pointed out many years ago as well as the reason we are to never forget the Jews who died, never mind all the others, we simply must regard Jews higher or else we may just notice that Israel is guilty of a similar crime today and we might not be afraid to say it if we were not afraid of being called anti Semitic.

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

A very simple question which is at the heart of the OP regarding demographic engineering

..if the 2,000 year old Jewish right of unlimited return is quite legitimate, why is the Palestinian 50-69 year old right of return not OK?

 

You clearly dodge that very basic question which is fundamental to the OP apartheid report.

 

The answer is obvious: it would undermine the phony Jewish majority and would mean the end of Zionism, that iniquitous racist supremacist ideology which must be protected whatever it takes including apartheid.

 

QED.

 

What a lame spin.

 

You are the one going on about the evils of Israel's policy. When pointed out that the Palestinians aim at a similar policy, nothing to say about it. All the them high principals do not apply suddenly. Pathetic.

 

Again, I am not subscribing to a philosophy of absolute justice on Earth. Not even to the biased version you practice. Trying to foist your faux ideals as representing other posters views is rather low. If you can't own up to your own position, better not air them to begin with.

[Shawn0000]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

That the best deflection you got? Disappointing.

 

You were the one hollering against it as an abhorrent policy. It was pointed out that  the Palestinian goal incorporates a similar policy, in reverse (and to a greater degree). All of your replies as to why go against one, but uphold the other, dodge dealing with the Palestinian side of things. But Israel....

 

And as a reference point, I am not the one proclaiming to be a great "humanist" (while applying this approach in a biased manner), nor am I much invested in theoretical ideological concepts and principals as you seem to be. My point of view has more to do with realistic if imperfect solutions.

 

What Palstinian goal is that?  You mean Hamas' goal, do you?

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

No, that is your assumption, unless of course you can substantiate your "fact" with even a single scrap of evidence.

 

What is a fact is that pro zionists use the anti Semite card in attempt to silence people criticising the Israeli regime and that is what we have seen here, the comparisons to the Nazi regime are clear, they were pointed out many years ago as well as the reason we are to never forget the Jews who died, never mind all the others, we simply must regard Jews higher or else we may just notice that Israel is guilty of a similar crime today and we might not be afraid to say it if we were not afraid of being called anti Semitic.

 

What isn't a "fact", exactly? That the comparison is hyperbolic? That it is used to score PR points based on dissonance? That it sometimes goes hand in hand with antisemitic views?

 

What is a fact is that you bring up a straw man argument. Some supporters of Israel, especially those favoring its right wing policies, make way too frequent use of such allegations, whether or not they apply. But it is hardly that any criticism of Israel is always answered by claims of antisemitism. Many times, in these topics, it is often raised "preemptively" and without as much as anything actually said about it.

 

The comparisons are intentionally hyperbolic, and intentionally inflammatory. Same goes for your nonsense about "forget the others", or ignoring the facts - such as the Jews being the prime target as far as the Nazis go.

 

Israel is not "guilty" of carrying out a genocide of the Palestinian people. But don't let facts confuse you.

[dexterm]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What a lame spin.

 

You are the one going on about the evils of Israel's policy. When pointed out that the Palestinians aim at a similar policy, nothing to say about it. All the them high principals do not apply suddenly. Pathetic.

 

Again, I am not subscribing to a philosophy of absolute justice on Earth. Not even to the biased version you practice. Trying to foist your faux ideals as representing other posters views is rather low. If you can't own up to your own position, better not air them to begin with.

Zionist Israel's policy is evil because it is racist apartheid.

 

I want to replace Zionism with a secular democracy. The details of which and its gradual implementation with checks and balances through a fair constitution is for the politicians and experts to work out.

 

In the implementation there is nothing to say that it should be an overnight massive influx of Palestinians, nor that Israel should cease to be a haven for genuinely persecuted Jews.

 

As the OP report concludes: the present Israeli apartheid regime is wrong.

Many world leaders and commentators also think it is unsustainable. I agree.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

What Palstinian goal is that?  You mean Hamas' goal, do you?

 

Not really. Almost all two-state proposal discussed includes the absence of all Jews from Palestinian territories, a position which was commented upon over the years by PA leadership. The Constitution of Palestine (and related documents) incorporate ideas regarding citizenship and landownership which compliment this view. As for Hamas - inasmuch as they refer to a temporary acceptance of a Palestinian state within the 1967 lines, the position is rather similar.

[Jingthing]

The result of Israel demonization is to push Israel even further to the right. Nice job.

[dexterm]

52 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The result of Israel demonization is to push Israel even further to the right. Nice job.

History is full of incompetent over ambitious politicians who make silly decisions, OTT reactions, and too little too late policies, that have ultimately led to monumental change.

 

It is not the task of Israel's critics to appease their right wing by staying silent.

 

If the current right wing government of Israel digs itself a deeper hole through some of the present laws pending such as annexation of large settlement blocs and the retrospective illegal seizure of privately owned Palestinian land that wildcat outposts have been built on, it will only reinforce the apartheid situation outlined in the OP and make the job of condemning the racist state clearer and  easier.

 

It's up to the more moderate elements within the Israeli electorate and world Jewry to make their voices heard to curb the right wing currently rushing Israel towards a one state full blown apartheid situation.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Zionist Israel's policy is evil because it is racist apartheid.

 

I want to replace Zionism with a secular democracy. The details of which and its gradual implementation with checks and balances through a fair constitution is for the politicians and experts to work out.

 

In the implementation there is nothing to say that it should be an overnight massive influx of Palestinians, nor that Israel should cease to be a haven for genuinely persecuted Jews.

 

As the OP report concludes: the present Israeli apartheid regime is wrong.

Many world leaders and commentators also think it is unsustainable. I agree.

 

Gotcha, it's only wrong if Israel does it. Same old double standards. Same old blind spot for anything reflecting negatively on the Palestinian side, or not in line with your adopted narrative.

 

And on and on you go about changing Israel, without any reference to how people living there feel about it, or as to what perch these wishes hold in reality. You leave that to the "experts". Meaning, you have no clue how such an end might be achieved, if it is wanted by the people, or if a positive outcome is feasible. Just empty words. None of them which refers to the Palestinians, of course, or to how the concept of "secular democracy" features in their society.

 

Who gets to  say what is "overnight"? Who gets to determine what is "massive influx"? How would Israel be a haven for the Jewish people under a Palestinian majority rule? What does "genuinely persecuted" even mean?  And why should that caveat be only implied to Jews?

 

All this, just to avoid addressing the double standards of riling against certain policies when taken by one side, and embracing them when employed by the other. All the while claiming to be a great "humanist".

 

Integrity seems to be a dirty word with some SJWs

[Shawn0000]

53 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What isn't a "fact", exactly? That the comparison is hyperbolic? That it is used to score PR points based on dissonance? That it sometimes goes hand in hand with antisemitic views?

 

What is a fact is that you bring up a straw man argument. Some supporters of Israel, especially those favoring its right wing policies, make way too frequent use of such allegations, whether or not they apply. But it is hardly that any criticism of Israel is always answered by claims of antisemitism. Many times, in these topics, it is often raised "preemptively" and without as much as anything actually said about it.

 

The comparisons are intentionally hyperbolic, and intentionally inflammatory. Same goes for your nonsense about "forget the others", or ignoring the facts - such as the Jews being the prime target as far as the Nazis go.

 

Israel is not "guilty" of carrying out a genocide of the Palestinian people. But don't let facts confuse you.

 

Your comment that ended with, that is a fact, is actually your assumption, the majority of people are in opposition to Zionism and the Israeli regime, that is the norm, whearas a tiny percentage of people are anti Semitic, that is a rare condition indeed yet some like to pretend that many who are critical of Israel or Zionism are secretly anti Semitic, which is just another pathetic attempt to use fear of persecution to silence criticism.

 

My argument was directly referencing having just had the anti Semite card called so obviously it was not a straw man argument, and I did not say it is always used, just it is all too common.

 

It is your opinion that the comparisons were hyperbolic and inflammatory in intention, one could just as easily assume their intention was to warn of the potential danger of the state of Israel.

 

You are correct in that it was my intention to be inflammatory with my "forget the others" comment, and I feel justified, for when was the last time you heard Israel talk of the holocaust and mention any of the other victims?  It really shouldn't be all about who was the prime target in a memorial service, that's shameful.

 

There may not have been a genocide committed in Gaza by Israel, but they certainly have had top officials make public statements calling for the destruction of Gaza as a people, which is incitement to commit genocide, as found by the Russell tribunal, and they have come seriously close to committing genocide, they have walled people in and showered these civilian areas with internationally banned chemical weapons in a policy they call collective punishment.

 

Israel is not in the slightest bit innocent, to compare their brutal and oppressive regime to other attrocious regimes is fair, the most similar I know of being the Nazis, or can you think of a closer example?

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, dexterm said:

History is full of incompetent over ambitious politicians who make silly decisions, OTT reactions, and too little too late policies, that have ultimately led to monumental change.

 

It is not the task of Israel's critics to appease their right wing by staying silent.

 

If the current right wing government of Israel digs itself a deeper hole through some of the present laws pending such as annexation of large settlement blocs and the retrospective illegal seizure of privately owned Palestinian land that wildcat outposts have been built on, it will only reinforce the apartheid situation outlined in the OP and make the job of condemning the racist state clearer and  easier.

 

It's up to the more moderate elements within the Israeli electorate and world Jewry to make their voices heard to curb the right wing currently rushing Israel towards a one state full blown apartheid situation.

 

And yet, you never seem to acknowledge that the Palestinians (and neighboring Arab states) have and had their fair share of such leaders taking bad decisions, making wrong choices. This tunnel vision makes no sense for anyone familiar with political leaders. Narratives which do not address mistakes are good as propaganda, but wholly unconvincing when dealing with reality. Not being able to admit any wrong is a sign one's argument is weak.

 

The objectionable Israeli right wing government's policies aside, your own criticism doesn't stop there. As much as you like to conflate and co-opt, there is a marked difference between objecting and rejecting the ongoing occupation of the Palestinian people, and the wholesale denunciation of Israel you're obsessed with. 

 

JT's point, which is rather spot on, applies to your version of bile filled hatred, not to any criticism (often justified) of the Israeli government's policies. The implied assertion that moderate Israelis and supporters of Israel are expected to go along with your extreme views, is bogus. Your views and your style of posting is exactly the sort of things playing right into right wing politicians hands.

 

Not that this is a problem from your point of view. Quite the opposite. After all, it would "make the job of condemning" easier. So it's not really about bringing change, or effecting a change of heart, but rather creating further bash opportunities.

[Shawn0000]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

The result of Israel demonization is to push Israel even further to the right. Nice job.

 

So you are saying that unless I stop complaining about Israel oppressing Gaza then they are going to be even worse to them?  Another attempt to silence.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Your comment that ended with, that is a fact, is actually your assumption, the majority of people are in opposition to Zionism and the Israeli regime, that is the norm, whearas a tiny percentage of people are anti Semitic, that is a rare condition indeed yet some like to pretend that many who are critical of Israel or Zionism are secretly anti Semitic, which is just another pathetic attempt to use fear of persecution to silence criticism.

 

My argument was directly referencing having just had the anti Semite card called so obviously it was not a straw man argument, and I did not say it is always used, just it is all too common.

 

It is your opinion that the comparisons were hyperbolic and inflammatory in intention, one could just as easily assume their intention was to warn of the potential danger of the state of Israel.

 

You are correct in that it was my intention to be inflammatory with my "forget the others" comment, and I feel justified, for when was the last time you heard Israel talk of the holocaust and mention any of the other victims?  It really shouldn't be all about who was the prime target in a memorial service, that's shameful.

 

There may not have been a genocide committed in Gaza by Israel, but they certainly have had top officials make public statements calling for the destruction of Gaza as a people, which is incitement to commit genocide, as found by the Russell tribunal, and they have come seriously close to committing genocide, they have walled people in and showered these civilian areas with internationally banned chemical weapons in a policy they call collective punishment.

 

Israel is not in the slightest bit innocent, to compare their brutal and oppressive regime to other attrocious regimes is fair, the most similar I know of being the Nazis, or can you think of a closer example?

 

My original comment ended thus: "That some (or many, depending on one's take) of those using it also hold antisemitic views is a fact. "

 

It doesn't say all, it doesn't even say most. It says some. Denying that there is, to one degree or another, that some of Israel's critics do exhibit antisemitic sentiments and views, is counterfactual. We've had quite a bit of overt reference on this forum over the years.

But obviously, you seem to feel that you can make concrete claims about "majority", or "tiny percentage" - without bothering to base these on anything much. And on top of which, you ascribe attitudes which run contrary to what I posted. Full marks for spin there.

 

With regard to the antisemitism reference alluded to, may want to head back to the original comment made, before replying to a comment made within a specific context. But apparently, you consider almost any reference to antisemitism as being off-limits.

 

There is a marked difference between a direct comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany at its full blown form, and pointing out (as warning, for example) that certain practices, process and policies could lead to something resembling it. Most comparisons (and these are the ones often objected to) are of the former variety.

 

Your inflammatory views on Israel's supposed ways of addressing the Holocaust are really, but really - off topic.

 

 

And no - it's not that "there may have not been genocide committed in Gaza". There was no genocide. As for public statements by politicians - if that is what your argument hangs on, then there's no shortage of similar (and worse) things said by Palestinian, Arab and other regional public figures, with reference to Israel. So another case of double standards there. And again, another off topic diversion.

 

Statements like "Israel is not the slightest innocent" are rich coming from someone who just harped on "facts". It is not expected that haters will adopt a pro-Israeli position, but a bit of balance and proportion would be nice. Such an all encompassing denunciation, offered without total disregard for them much coveted facts will obviously go along with the upheld hyperbole comparison. Pretty much point made. All I can say is that if your only reference point is Nazi Germany, then your reading of history is significantly lacking. But then, I suspect that your whole aim is to be intentionally inflammatory...so not much use expecting anything reasonable.

 

Troll on.

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

So you are saying that unless I stop complaining about Israel oppressing Gaza then they are going to be even worse to them?  Another attempt to silence.

 

No, that wasn't it at all. That's just you intentionally taking it to an extreme.

Unless, that is, you believe that one cannot criticize Israel other than by employing such comparisons discussed or resorting to the demonizing rhetoric often employed.

 

[Shawn0000]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

My original comment ended thus: "That some (or many, depending on one's take) of those using it also hold antisemitic views is a fact. "

 

It doesn't say all, it doesn't even say most. It says some. Denying that there is, to one degree or another, that some of Israel's critics do exhibit antisemitic sentiments and views, is counterfactual. We've had quite a bit of overt reference on this forum over the years.

But obviously, you seem to feel that you can make concrete claims about "majority", or "tiny percentage" - without bothering to base these on anything much. And on top of which, you ascribe attitudes which run contrary to what I posted. Full marks for spin there.

 

With regard to the antisemitism reference alluded to, may want to head back to the original comment made, before replying to a comment made within a specific context. But apparently, you consider almost any reference to antisemitism as being off-limits.

 

There is a marked difference between a direct comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany at its full blown form, and pointing out (as warning, for example) that certain practices, process and policies could lead to something resembling it. Most comparisons (and these are the ones often objected to) are of the former variety.

 

Your inflammatory views on Israel's supposed ways of addressing the Holocaust are really, but really - off topic.

 

 

And no - it's not that "there may have not been genocide committed in Gaza". There was no genocide. As for public statements by politicians - if that is what your argument hangs on, then there's no shortage of similar (and worse) things said by Palestinian, Arab and other regional public figures, with reference to Israel. So another case of double standards there. And again, another off topic diversion.

 

Statements like "Israel is not the slightest innocent" are rich coming from someone who just harped on "facts". It is not expected that haters will adopt a pro-Israeli position, but a bit of balance and proportion would be nice. Such an all encompassing denunciation, offered without total disregard for them much coveted facts will obviously go along with the upheld hyperbole comparison. Pretty much point made. All I can say is that if your only reference point is Nazi Germany, then your reading of history is significantly lacking. But then, I suspect that your whole aim is to be intentionally inflammatory...so not much use expecting anything reasonable.

 

Troll on.

 

Well, way to go for completely missing the point, which was to demonstrate to you the difference between opinion and fact, it is my opinion that a tiny percentage are anti Semitic, you seem content on relying on your imagination to base what you call fact on, I will leave you to that one.

 

There are direct comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israels treatment of Gaza, you would have to be ludicrously biased not to admit that, it does resemble it now.

 

It took a lengthy trial to determine whether there was genocide committed in Gaza, it was certainly close, certainly they broke many war crimes, but the jury decided not to call it genocide, incitement to genocide and an illegal detention and illegal bombardment using illegal weapons was the verdict.  It should also be noted that the prime minister did not condemn the officials statements which were inciting genocide, however this does not in itself amount to a endorsement, but again it is close.  Double standards, oh look a swan, sorry, no chance, we were talking about Israel, remember?

 

Israel is not innocent, this has been proven in court, they are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, fact.

 

and it is not that my only reference point is Nazi germany, it is that that regime is the most similar I know of, but by all means enlighten me if you know of a better comparison, judging by your last comment I can only assume that actually you can't and so you just attempt to bully your way out again.

[dexterm]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

And yet, you never seem to acknowledge that the Palestinians (and neighboring Arab states) have and had their fair share of such leaders taking bad decisions, making wrong choices. This tunnel vision makes no sense for anyone familiar with political leaders. Narratives which do not address mistakes are good as propaganda, but wholly unconvincing when dealing with reality. Not being able to admit any wrong is a sign one's argument is weak.

 

The objectionable Israeli right wing government's policies aside, your own criticism doesn't stop there. As much as you like to conflate and co-opt, there is a marked difference between objecting and rejecting the ongoing occupation of the Palestinian people, and the wholesale denunciation of Israel you're obsessed with. 

 

JT's point, which is rather spot on, applies to your version of bile filled hatred, not to any criticism (often justified) of the Israeli government's policies. The implied assertion that moderate Israelis and supporters of Israel are expected to go along with your extreme views, is bogus. Your views and your style of posting is exactly the sort of things playing right into right wing politicians hands.

 

Not that this is a problem from your point of view. Quite the opposite. After all, it would "make the job of condemning" easier. So it's not really about bringing change, or effecting a change of heart, but rather creating further bash opportunities.

You won't answer my very simple question which is on topic:  if the 2000 year old right of return is somehow OK for Jews, why is the 69 year old right of return not OK for Palestinians?

 

So I am certainly not going to be led off topic by addressing your repeated schtick about Palestinian leadership . Besides, Zionists can do their own dirty denigration work.

 

Most observers can see quite clearly what Kerry and many others conclude that Israel can be Jewish or democractic but not both.  I am simply bemused that the current Israeli right wing are undermining a two state solution that would allow Israel to remain predominantly Jewish and democratic.

If they want to shoot themselves in the foot, who am I to tell them nay.

 

If moderate (sensible!) world Jewry and Israeli Jews prefer peace through a two state solution, I would suggest they get their skates on to voice their concern before a single state after a painful flown blown period of apartheid becomes inevitable.

 

The two peoples are geographic neighbors for eternity so they will end up living together anyway, and future generations will wonder why it took them so long.

[Shawn0000]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, that wasn't it at all. That's just you intentionally taking it to an extreme.

Unless, that is, you believe that one cannot criticize Israel other than by employing such comparisons discussed or resorting to the demonizing rhetoric often employed.

 

 

The "demonisation" of Israel comes out of them walling people in and bombing them with banned weapons, and is not actually demonisation at all but condemnation, and the rhetoric used is tame in comparison to the atrocities they are guilty of, people can use whatever words they choose to describe that barbaric state, do you also call the condemnation of other atrocious regimes "demonising rhetoric" and "hyperbole" or are you only this defensive of Israel?