Argentina, Brazil recognize Palestine; Israel miffed

Ah, you mean if the Gazans were praying for example, for God to kill the Australian aboriginals it would be understandable because of what the Jewish nation has done to them? That kind of "understanding"? The portable one which can be assigned to anyone? What next? Victims of the KKK kill the Chinese? South African blacks against native American Reds?

Amusing as your childish justification for the racist state of Israel is, time to get back on topic:

alongwith:

one has to congratulate Israel, really for actively making the Palestinian state impossible. Future Palestinians will acknowledge the role they played in preventing the partition of Palestine. After Jesus answers the prayers of the Gazans and wipes out all the Jews who don't adopt Christianity that is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

? You'll have to tell me. Since I never asserted that, as such.

But as long as the material has been posted: that would be "recognizing Palestinians as a nation (as opposed to "a people" - what else would they be?) and so entitled to their own state." It's nationhood that confers the entitlement to a state in the contemporary international system, not "peoplehood." That's why people like Khalidi made academic careers out of working to establish and gain recognition for such nationhood.

Why on Earth would you imagine that I would care about your stilted characterizations of Geoff - especially at this particular juncture? Who would possibly be impressed by this stuff?

The subject of Israel is inseparable from the Holocaust. You might as well complain that the Cold War always comes up in discussions of Cuba.

Given such, it's pretty damned obvious that all these attempts to control who can bring up the Holocaust and in what manner are juvenile tactics to assert political control of the discourse. You want rhetorically-impactful topics like GENOCIDE to be reserved exclusively for your side's use. This is childish - get a blog if that's the sort of "conversation" dynamics you favor.

What you should do is grow the fuck up and deal with the legitimate connections between the subjects in a reasoned, measured manner. This would both improve the relevance and saliency of your rhetoric, and disempower those who'd employ the Holocaust for cheaper rhetorical ends (regardless of their particular affiliation). But it would also complicate your rhetoric and position, and make it much more difficult to deal only in vapid cheerleader slogans (the sort of dipshit obtusity quoted at the top of this post would be right out, for example, and you'd no longer be able to uncritically side with anyone who evinces a pro-Palestinian attitude, or vice-versa - you'd find yourself arguing with S.A.M. at least as much as anyone else).

The point being that these invocations of the Holocaust confront you with that choice (grow up, or see your childishness exploited). And that is what bugs you: the challenge to your authority and prerogative to define the political discourse here to conform to your whims. It's a liability that you should patch ASAP - we're long past the point where effective means of using it to troll you have been widely demonstrated. If what you want is some private playground where you can avoid difficult questions and instead throw strawmen around, well, again, that's what private blogs are for.

And, to that, perhaps you should consider the prospect that Geoff doesn't particularly care about the Jews, or the Holocaust, or Palestine, or whatever as such, but rather values these subjects as useful levers for trolling posters like you. Or, more generously, for confronting you with the contradictions and omissions that you seek to foist onto the audience. I.e., that it is your very (over-)investment in these topics that drives the dynamics, and not some malign Zionist sentiment on Geoff's part. In which case, upping your rhetoric to an adult level would again be the most effective way to deal with it. And projecting your hatred of Israel onto Geoff the least.

Yeah, yeah, I know that he tends to lay it on a bit thick. Not exactly atypical behavior around here, as far as that goes.

But what you're missing is that some sort of corresponding paranoia is an important factor to the conflict dynamics. And rhetoric that cannot deal with such, therefore, is necessarily ineffective at addressing the conflict (typically to the point of producing perverse outcomes). When you refuse to understand The Enemy for fear of... what? Sympathizing with him? Diluting the purity of your righteousness and hatred?... you end preaching eliminationist essentialism to the choir. That doesn't go anywhere nice, even if you are on the Right Side of History.

To effectively criticize something, you must become implicated in it. The only space for ideological purity is on the irrelevant sidelines. More specifically, to formulate rhetoric that has a productive effect on conflicts, you must make such answerable to the fears and conceptions and hopes of both sides of the conflict. To simply adopt one side's narrative wholesale and subject the other to essentialist, eliminationist rhetoric is to call for war and destruction. Israeli and Palestinian narratives can't both be right - but they can both be wrong.

Only if you ignore the United States of America (and, in the near future, Turkey and Iran).

"A few dozen" is not "countless," nor anywhere near sufficient to accomplish that sort of apocalyptic outcome. It's not a crazy or out-of-scale arsenal considering the vastly larger geographic and demographic extends of the various hostile states that surround Israel. Israel didn't go to all the trouble to get these weapons without serious reasons. Avoiding aknowledging such does not aid your rhetoric.

Not seeing where anybody of relevance here has opposed such recognitions, as such. I certainly haven't.

Where I come from, that's a good thing.

Untempered arguments that require us to forget major, systemic factors are not the sort of ideal that I'd recommend. That the attendant complexity and ambiguity frustrates you is a criticism of you, and not of the arguments that provoke your ire.

Who does it divide from whom? What are you even referring to here?

It sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting that anything that might render the Israeli perspective comprehensible is dangerous. Which it is, but only to (dangerous) worldviews that depend on rendering the Jews as some irredeemable Other.

On Geoff's part? At SciForums generally? Not that I'd disagree with the statement as applied to, say, US mainstream news media, but I'm not seeing the particular relevance here.

Unless of course you're talking about nominally "pro-Palestinian" ideologues that disregard the actual perspective of the Palestinians in favor of their own convenient imaginings.

Nor, in the first place, does it make sense to erect one roadblock to deal with another. Even if the latter is "bigger." For the road to be passable, all roadblocks need to be cleared. What is needed is an approach that eschews roadblocks, not one that erects even more roadblocks as some sort of passive-aggressive protest against existing roadblocks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

by that I assume you mean people like me who want them to get their full rights. it is YOU who disregard the actual perspective of the palestinians and their wishes. you have attached your self to the defeatist wing of the palestinians probably because you like the idea of them getting fucked. Your disdain for them is well evidenced calling their willingness to debase themselves as not willing to negotiate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're a good example, yes, but S.A.M. is a better one.

It's not what you want, but what you say, how you conceive of the elements of the conflict. Try reading what I actually write, and responding in some way that corresponds to that, if you don't want to coninue to look like a complete shithead.

Where? Throwing wrenches into the cheap rhetoric of armchair revolutionaries (none of them actually connected to Palestine in any relevant way) is not the same thing as disrespecting actual Palestinians.

It's kind of disgusting, the way that y'all go around wrapping your own tawdry psychodramas in the Palestinian flag. You aren't doing them any favors with this silly garbage. It's not for some lack of vapid venom spat at Israel by nobodies in other continents that the Palestinians are in the predicament they are.

Not at all. Either the former, or the latter.

It's exactly because I do not like the ongoing fucking they're receiving that I eschew shallow, unproductive, navel-gazing conceptions of the conflict in favor of more difficult, relevant ones - and suffer the blasts of hatred from the shallow navel-gazers like you in response. Your crowd is the one that, at bottom, enjoys the idea of Palestine getting fucked. Without that, where would your pretext for personal righteousness be? Look at some of S.A.M.'s stuff lately - she's positively salivating at the prospect of increased oppression and violence (sure, she justifies this by predicting it will ultimately harm the Jews even more, but the pornographization of violence is apparent enough regardless).

But even if I had done the former, that would still represent a greater deferrence to actual Palestinian positions than is evinced by y'all, to whom the Palestinians seem to figure in as mere props in a psychodrama.

See, this kind of fantasy ideation is exactly what I'm talking about. That's like the third time today you've accused me of such, despite my having made repeated, explicit statements to the contrary. But it doesn't really matter what I say - you'll just project onto me whatever is convenient for your pathetic moral masturbations. Likewise the Palestinians - they aren't actually people with agency, contradictions, desires, ideas, and so on. They're simply tokens for your ego to play with.

But, never fear, you can always just project all of that shit onto me instead of taking responsibility for your self. Must be nice to be an infant.

 

Actually, I was thinking along the line of the Inuit prayers for the death of Turkish people for the Inquisition. It's just disgusting, isn't it?

Well, I suppose I do lay it on thick. The thing is: the more subtle aspects never really seem to have translated well among individuals. I used to put it on more heavily, out of I suppose my naivety at exigent worldviews, and then I tried more refrained as I realized this was quite assholish. That however, failed as badly as the first, since nuance just doesn't come across a computer screen. So this is the one thing Bells got right: I'm a win freak. I don't think anyone else here would have tried so persistently and with such devotion to nail jello to the wall, or tried to use so many nails. It's an actual failing, and Bells was actually right to point it out.

But the new phase on here is exemplified by this thread: I've been trying a very sober approach, only to get turned on by some rageaholics. Not turned on by them, but turned on by them. Except for that PJ, who gives me shivers.

So anyway: yeah, you've got a point there.

As for my views, though, I have to be honest: I'm being completely genuine. I can't deny that watching Bells get wound up into a tornado isn't funny, because it is, but I didn't select this issue to get her or anyone else to particularly flake out. (Although when ambushed or attacked in certain ways, I do take a cold blooded joy in making them eat their own arguments.) My concern for Jewish people really is genuine, however: not at the expense of any other group, but with some acuity nonetheless.

Thanks for the great post.

 

You mean like calling Bells a "Vile Racist" for advocating the civil rights of Palestinians and for pointing out that yes, Rwanda is a genocide?

You forget Geoff, we actually read the posts we respond to. Pointing out that Palestinians are being oppressed, only you have you jump over the points and point anywhere else Iran, Pakistan, some imam being bombed in Gaza, the genetic purity of Palestinians, their Arab blood, the 20 year old Hamas declaration anywhere at all, but at the Palestinians being actively dispossessed, tortured and killed is not at all subtle. Its pretty obvious, actually.

If you get off on violence against the Palestinians, that is not evidence that I salivate over it. Pointing out what is happening and predicting Israeli choices based on history and current events is not pornography. At least, its not for those of us who would prefer that people stop pretending that Israel is in any way interested in peace. Sitting back in denial is how genocides are allowed to happen. I don't belong to a society where people will look the other way and then pour platitudes on the corpses when its all over. No wonder your society is knee deep in corpses if this is how you confront social oppression.

This is your society...

Palestine Papers: US intimidated PA into stifling Goldstone Report

What is it worth to the Palestinians? How is denying the atrocities commtted against them helpful? If we were still doing it your way, people would still be blaming the Palestinians for resenting their oppression and reacting to it. Its only now that people are moving away from the kind of thinking that still dominates the GeoffPs and quadrophonics of the world. Where Palestinian reaction is recognised as the result of Israeli oppression and intransigence.

Some more pornography for your next whack job - or maybe these self hating Jews are too antisemitic to garner your attention. What are the chances you will see this on mainstream US media?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pw8m4azLcg&feature=player_embedded

In a way its especially enlightening that you view the details of Palestinian oppression as titillating or pornographic. Do you ever view pictures of the holocaust as pornographic? Does it bother you when details of the genocide in Rwanda are explored? Do you find the details of native American oppression as tantalising? Maybe you need to sit back and think why it bothers you to read how Palestinians are oppressed.

 

Considering the amazing breadth of the non sequitur in your first sentence, it's very hard to believe in that last sentence.

You do do an amazing job of reproducing Bells' intermediate style, though. I think this is an unrecognized talent of yours. The sentences following that one had an almost identical non sequitorial run-up, ignoring both context and whatever the hell the specific argument was about at the time, in addition to other elements such as the basic ethics of the poster. It was interesting though.

Sweet new angle. I'm not sure if it's more demented or desperate. Or are you trying to hone your writing skills for something? I can't wait to see the way in which you reinterpret and sensationalise this post. This is really great stuff, as far as it goes. But I'd give it the same talking points quadra was telling Bells about. If you go so far overboard, don't complain about the sharks.

 

Yes undoubtedly, there is a entrenched mindset, that is hard to shake. Beyond this there is the question of the long term survival of the State of Israel.

How long do you think the current situation can continue? I believe, there will be a point (under 4 years) at which Israels actions, around human rights abuses and war crimes issues, will turn the tide and international pressure will mount to a point where compromise is no longer a matter of choice.

 

No. Both sides have to get over the entire race/religion thing, come together, and thrash out a path ahead. If the future hinges on the entire gamut of past injustice, there will be no future. Israel has a valuable role to play if it can bee steered wisely.

Exactly. New illegal settlements=drastic sanctions/zero aid. Period.

A complex arena that needs a gentle touch Cpt. :m:

 

Do you think the Palestinians in Gaza are suffering injustice?

 

Nope.

LOL wut

It is when such consists of fevered imaginings of worldwide violent anti-Jew retaliations. Self-characterize however you want - the glee is readily apparent in most everything you write, and shallow denial doesn't obscure that.

As is the rage - it seems to be a major reason why your level of comprehension and response is so atrocious. Between that and your insistence on dealing with strawmen and projections, you rarely have anything to say of any relevance. Heck, most of the time you barely even make sense at all.

And so it is visible again, this fantastical Othering of Israel into some incomprehensible token of malignance. ALL polities are interested in peace, in at least some ways. Not all are prepared to do what is required to make peace happen - but to deny the basic interest takes a certain level of Kool-Aid ingestion. Are Israelis not human?

Othering target groups as inhuman is also an important part of how genocides are perpetrated.

But, what genocide? Again, you seem to want such a genocide to occur (the better to be outraged at), and be followed by some counter-genocide against the Jews (the better to masturbate to). That's a pretty sick fantasy, and not one that can be honestly described as sympathetic to Palestine. They're a token in your nasty little rage fantasy, not a real people to be treated with real respect.

Again, typical: when confronted, try to turn the topic into a nationalist pissing match. The relentless drive of the identity politic is pretty obvious, here. I'm apparently wrong and evil because... India is better than the USA.

Where have I ever denied anything like that?

Nowhere. You're playing with strawmen, as always.

"We" have never "done it" my way. My exhortations have been uniformly met with ugly, desparate defensiveness of the type you exhibit here.

Again, the exact opposite of the words I actually said. And without even a hint of awareness, at that. Dumbfounding, or just plain dumb?

Nothing particularly mysterious there - oppression is a bummer, as already stated.

The question was why your reaction to such resembles sexual arousal more than digust.

 

Excuse me. I wish you well if I say I do. I think you’re an asshole, and maybe a closet racist, but that doesn’t mean I want to see you harmed. Let's not go all-out psycho here.

The problem being that it is not only Israel that has adopted such measures. Whether or not it was overtly part of this thread, it was a related topic and I introduced it as many other posters have introduced such topics before. FOLLOW UP HERE.

But – but – it’s encouraging to see that you do admit a potential problem of the same type in Pakistan; may I presume from this that you feel that this is no different from the Israeli example vis-à-vis Palestine?

I feel genuinely positive about this progress. Can dialogue be far away?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You err again: I mentioned it as a reminder of why individual marking is wrong. It might have been out of place, but that’s that. Now: you then tried to turn it into my support for some kind of an open bag limit on Palestinians. It wasn’t that, and another poster has already confirmed this. So as we say: “stop fucking lying already”. :shrugs:

Don’t recall that specifically, but they’re not. There seems to be a system of recourse, but it – as in many religious societies – is exploited or ignored.

Actually, you implied it was a bag license first; it wasn’t.

You surely can’t be serious. You’ve backed down and tried to make some kind of bridge here, and already I’m positively jubilant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bells, if I make an offer, it’s a solid one.

Well, yes and no: this is actually very complex. In the brute military sense, they certainly do. It’s a southeastern parallel of yon good old NATO/WP showdown: technology and design versus mobility and numbers. Essentially the same hardware. Now, the nukes are a bit of a blocker, that’s for sure: but it’s also worth mentioning here that Iran is probably pursuing the same thing. A Farsi-Arab alliance might be a long shot, but it wouldn’t be required for Iran to try to nullify Israel’s nuclear option by threatening the same back. Whether that would work is another question. They don’t call it Option Masada for nothing. But anyway: yes, they do have a good deal of reason to have a solid defense against their neighbours. You don’t stay the most powerful nation by slacking up on defense spending.

So that line is probably not open to debate. Are you referring to the One State proposal? The adoption of One State would certainly obviate Israeli power, changing potential conflict to civil war plus the above. I do support Israel’s stance in self-protection, but not what comes out of it in Palestine.

Sorry: I have to re-ask which part of this issue – whether I’ve covered it or not – do both we and they know? There’s a risk of generalization here. If you’re saying risk from the Palestinians, then no, obviously, short of civil war. If you’re saying those nations around them, then that might be a different story.

Well, a mix of things. Israelis – and I know a few – tend to be a bit defensive, or even offensive. Psychology is transmitted as well as transient: Native American and Native Australian communities are mangled psychologically from hundreds of years of social torture. Jewish communities in Israel have, I think, similarly inherited certain attitudes from the generations that went before them. Those attitudes have been formed as the result of the atrocities committed against them. We built this city, Bells. Now rock and roll.

Your accusation never had any meaning to begin with, and it has less now. I mean, it's against forum rules and all - which you're supposed to be upholding, so it's shitty, but also meaningless.

Not as dumb as you’d have to be to forget that the question was whether Rwanda is a ‘genocide’ or a ‘Holocaust’. You probably recall, for example, that the Jewish Holocaust is called a Holocaust, rather than a Genocide, despite nonzero genetic differentiation between Ashkenazim and other ethnic Europeans: now, you might say that this is because of the Roma and communists and homosexual also killed, yet I think there might be detectable genetic differentiation between Roma and other ethnic Europeans: or at least I think it would certainly have been so interpreted at the time. Should we call the Jewish Holocaust within the Holocaust the Jewish Genocide? Or do we go on calling it Holocaust?

If you think this is somehow meant to be demeaning, you’d be dead wrong. The very least we owe the dead is correct terminology, because terminology now informs attitudes later. There are other examples: it’s called the Armenian Genocide, but I’d be surprised if there were much genetic differentiation between Armenian Turks and other Turks. Should it perhaps be called the Armenian Holocaust?

It begs the question – in reference to your outrage – which you think is worse? And why? Is one or the other demeaning? And in what way? You can’t froth about the question and then demand one of the two choices as some kind of spirit-evidence of some darker meaning in an intellectual question when you call the indecision regarding that choice ‘dumb’.

Well, how else am I going to raise up my army of fanatical minions? Seriously, Bells.

Wait what? Are all Muslims Arab? Are all Arabs Muslim? And which is it, if either?

Of course. Sam brought up the bizarre claim of the “genetic right of return” for Jews to Israel. Now, I don’t contend that as a sole rationale – there’s really been no interrupt in their recognition of Israel as an ancestral home - but it’s also incorrect to assert – as Sam and Brian Foley did, once – that Askenazim Jews are not genetically related to the indigenous Jews of Palestine as a counter to the original supposition of “genetic right”. Both arguments are a little fucked. Anyway, to illustrate this, I pointed out that in that case there really isn’t such a thing as an “original Palestinian” either: there’s been introgression from numerous genetic sources including Romans and all nations of the Roman Empire, and of Arabs from the east and so forth. Genetic arguments about that issue are a little freaky.

Well, she and Foley might well be, if you really think so. This would still be another violation of forum rules though.

Somewhere, a mod is crying.

Still no, I’m afraid, because of the reasons I outlined long ago. But their most recent leadership change plan actually made the idea go from bad to incredibly bad. You should probably check the new guy out. If they’d picked, say, Suleyman Schwartz or that guy from AAFD (?), then it would be a-ok to go, more or less…although the site choice would still be a pretty bad idea, really. Schwartz actually pointed that out himself. Meh.

Because I’m a quantitative person, Bells. I thought you knew that. It’s what I do. You can call it what you like; yet you damn the one and never the other. So when you make vapid accusations, you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask who it is you're really accusing.

I don’t, and it is wrong. Nor do I literally shrug.

:shrug:

But what I find on this forum is that some people do in fact concentrate on Israel like it’s the one canker on the face of the world in the fields that are described. Israel is the only country that identifies its citizens officially by religion? Of course not.

I’m sorry if you find that offensive. It’s not meant to be. Should I assume you're a bigot because you diminish the suffering of Jews?

The problem is that all these ‘buts’ are nothing more than ‘don’t forget before we get carried away’s.

Interesting. Well, you did ask about ‘understanding’ hatred, or intolerance. This hatred you will understand, but not the derivative of the hatred from the last round of the Arab-Jewish relations (<1917), when the Arabs were on top. Do you really think that the one does not inform the other? You shriek about why Arabs hating Jews (rather than Israelis) is so critical and understandable, while forgetting what a thousand years of history – rife with oppression and pogrom, in the West and in the East – does to the psyche of a marginalized people.

Long answer short: we made Israel, the West and the East. We created it, every time we pushed Jews around for being Jews. And now it's here. Should we be surprised if the baby got a little aborted? Nope. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fix our mistake, obviously.

Bells, it is far too late to make a plea to ecumenicality, when you haven't touched it until now.

 

Yes.

The lie was the way in which Bells re-interpreted my statements.

 

By that I assume you mean people like me who want the Jews and Israelis to get their full right live with out oppression, murder mayhem and genocide committed against them by the Arabs of the Middle East..

It is YOU who disregard the actual perspective of the Jews and Israel, and their wishes, and the will of the United Nations, and the League of nations before them.

You have attached your self to the Palestinians probably because you like the idea of the Jews getting fucked.

Your disdain for them is well evidenced, by your vulgar language and total disregard of the historical evidence, calling their willingness to defend Israel, their People, and right to exist, as not willing to negotiate, and genocide.

By definition there is no genocide of Palestinians taking place, as for a fact there is and never was a race of people identified as Palestinians, there is no reference to Palestinians in the Quran, the Bible, or any other historical record of the middle east.

 

meaning you can't admit it to your self

the same

it laughable really. you who is showing actualy prejudice is innocent and want peace yet in your mind the people who merely want people's legal rights being followed with zero prejudice are.

it isn't. the twisted super pro Israeli version you suscribe to is however

 

their is no right to steal. I want the people of the jewish faith to get all the rights inherent in a religious community a state on other people's land is not one of those rights.

I ignore the want of people when they have no right to it. I am not ignoring the will of the UN and LON I want their rules to be followed.

Please refrain from projecting your bigotry and ignorance onto me. I support the palestinians because I remember my polish hertiage. I remember what was written on the banners of the polish legion in Italy

I don't believe the bebler is historical evidence.

a non sequiter. any theif will defend their loot it doesn't mean they have a right to it.

they aren't a people and I can show logically how it is so

the state of ISrael has no right to exist. I cannot see any other relevance because I have not ever questioned the right of any person or group to exist

No I call not willing to negotiate not willing to negotiate. they have never made any serious concession in the entire history of zionism

trying to erase people from history is genocide.

your grasp of definition is tenuous at best

lets ignore for the fact that a your wording shows your bigotry and also that its a lie their have been a palestinian people for at least a century and a half by the the most conservative definition and go straight for the main point, its irrelevant. trying to get a rid of any group is genocide. if I tried to kill all the hippies that would be genocide.

that is a flat out lie the quran make refrecences to the arab peoples of the levant. historical refrecences show arabs in the area for 2800 years. the bible doesn't mention them directly but if you put it together with other parts yes it does. not to mention the etymologica evolution of the word palestinian is older than that of the jewish faith and the record of the ancient hebrew states

 

Okay, nothing new to see here except more diversions from the topic at hand. The emotional hysteria/discombobulation seems to be more overwhelming than usual.

Seriously people, stop getting hysterical/bamboozled by the hasbara and look at the situation objectively. Look at what is happening in the Middle East, look at what is happening on the Arab streets - and then look at Israel and ask yourself what the big picture looks like for Israelis

Its pretty clear that the Israelis will never accept a two state solution and what do you think their position will be in the Middle East now that Condi Rice's birth pangs have led us into the labour room? Sooner or later the chickens [from the Sawafeary chicken coop] will come home to roost

It depends on how the popular uprisings play out. Whatever pseudostability there is for Israel in the region is based on having the Arab governments play ball against the Arab street and in favour of Israel. What happens when they fall?

 

So stop. And your little dog too.

Er: this is you asking this, I might remind you.

1967.