MSA Student Would Prefer Second Holocaust

Here is an interesting comment by a liberal American Jew to ponder:

I can certainly see the advantages of giving up human rights and civil rights for other people. It must be the new wave of democracy sweeping the west. So if Jews are not given full equal citizenship in non-Jewish countries, they can understand the sentiments behind such "liberalism"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you want to criticize a regime, then criticize a regime. Israel is a nation, and Zionism is (basically) its national ideology. When you conflate the two, you don't get to then insist that you are only attacking one of them.

So have plenty of other nation states, none of which seem to attract your attention. You've even gone to bat against such scrutiny, in other cases.

The qualifier "enough" is crucial, there: that's how the system of nation-states works. And people generally accept that, since it's believed that it results in a geopolitical order that is more-or-less stable. The casualties of the wars that would result from upending the nation-state system would make 1300 casualties look like a footnote. Heck, tens of millions were violently killed in Europe alone, and entire cities eradicated, to get this system put into place.

Again, that's pretty much par for the nationalism course, and the Nazi hyperbole isn't good on you. You won't have to look far to find nation-states where the dominant national group runs around treating everyone else like inferiors - that's the rule, not the exception. And it's a pretty big part of the reason that nations tend to want their own states in the first place - especially in Israel's case.

It's also a reason that lots of people move out of such countries and into the few where such behavior is, if not absent, at least more attenuated and addressable through legal means.

There's nothing strange about it - this is standard nation-state behavior. It just happens to be occurring in a messier set of circumstances than in most places.

Right - and that makes them much more powerful than the Palestinians. Hence the highly stilted relationship between them.

Oh? How does one reconcile with evil criminals bent on one's destruction?

Other than by starting to understand them as something other than evil criminals, that is.

Disaster for the Palestinians, you mean. What is Israel's motivation for ending the conflict?

The reason it's expected is that its a prerequisite to ending the conflict - that it's difficult is sort of the point. It's an easy matter for Israel to undermine efforts to end the conflict: pissing someone off is a simple matter when you have bigger guns. And so that's what they do, since continued conflict is in the interest of whoever has the bigger guns.

To resist that, you have to resist provocations to war. That means refusing to see Israel as evil, even when they do things to provoke such a response. Nobody said that is easy - by definition, resisting a more powerful opponent is difficult - but that's no excuse for giving up.

? Of course it does - the whole point is about how it should be best advanced.

And which of the latter attributions is selected has a big impact on how (or, if) that stuff gets addressed. If you pick the "inherently evil criminals" attribution, then the only way to "address" the issue is warfare, which is a losing proposition. That just results in more grave human rights abuses.

But if you pick the "basically like any national movement, but in a unique position" attribution, the way to address the issue is through an inclusive, reasoned dialogue. This reduces the power and influence of the violent factions in Israeli, Palestinian and international politics, and empowers the peaceful factions.

Put it this way: your choice is not between Israel and Palestine, but between those who would war and those who would make peace (on both sides). To take Israel's side or Palestine's side is to side with the war-makers. To refuse to take sides in national terms is to support the peacemakers. You know which one I think is the better choice.

No, that's not what I said at all. It's a question of how one responds to injustice. If it's with hate and violence, then all you get is more injustice. If it's with love and peace, you have a chance at actual progress. You know, the whole "turn the other cheek" stuff that Jesus is famous for.

Again, the point is that demonization is in the interest of the more powerful party, and not of the weaker party.

Moreover, I have not seen any demonization of the Iranian or North Korean nations, in the sort of terms you apply to Israel. Those memes are all about respectable nations that have been co-opted by vile, oppressive, non-representative tyrants.

No, I'm suggesting you make different inferences on that basis.

And the interest in effecting the changes you'd like to see is heavily biased away from Israel - and the more the two sides are polarized and held to be incompatible, the more pronounced that will get.

The point is exactly that such change was not achieved through a contest of power - that's why it was bloodless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The track record of violence in the Palestinian cause is not as clearly negative as you imply, unless Israel is credited with a moderation and wisdom not in evidence..

The Palestinians maintain a physical presence on the landscape, not completely cleansed or driven into the neighboring countries, and after forty years and more Israel remains without firm and exclsuive and secure possession of all the good land or water or strategic resources of the region. Israel is not necessarily winning this whatever it is, despite its overwhelming military superiority - as in similar conflicts, all the Palestinians have to do is hang on, not completely lose, and they eventually "win".

If this were a war between equivalent states, the Palestinians would be behaving foolishly. But it is an occupation and imposition of tyranny, and the evaluations weight accordingly.

The question is whether Israel is provoking, or actually acting - moving in, cleansing, ghettoizing.

The success of Gandhi's tactics depended on the British not doing that - being incapable, from their small island half a planet away, of doing that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I criticizes the policies of the Israeli State, which I consider to be a regime.

This particular topic is not about other nation states, thus my focus. Feel free to start a thread in regard to other scenarios, and I will happily participate.

Sadly, the Palestinian issue has claimed casualties/displaced persons/etc. far in excess of 1300. That was just the most recent outrage, and one which has bitten Israel`s image in the backside.

Footnote? What is sickening is that we can compare this to the situation in Iraq, where nefarious attempts to effect the political order for "stability", or whatever, has lead to the 1 million plus casualties, and absolutely increased instability throughout the entire region. How does your system answer this?

Killed for what?
1.) Who is to say life would not have been better if there were a different outcome to the war.
2.) For even one of these deaths to have any "moral/system" value, the least we could have expected was a world free of unnecessary wars. Clearly not the case.

So according to this logic the Palestinian cause can not be advanced until they become the dominant national group?

But is it acceptable? Clear and concise answer please.

Indeed, so given the fact that Israel keeps receiving better and bigger arms, at the expense of others, can we say that justice and democracy, are ideological illusions employed by the West to further geo political agendas?

You will find that a certain level of compromise is required. (as I have said all along) HAMAS wanted to talk along the lines of permanent truces, etc. from the get go, alas Israel does not talk to terrorists, even if they are an elected government. Again, if Israel presented some of acts of good faith, who knows what can be achieved. Thus far, we see little evidence for this.

Obviously very little, otherwise we should have seen some positive changes by now. Thus pressure is required.

Yes, understood, but that point is exactly valid for the Palestinians as well.

Clearly.

Lets see Israel as morally defunct, rather than evil. :m:

Yes, agreed.

I concede "inherently evil" is perhaps an erroneous term, but I re assert "criminal" describes many State policies.

Yes, I understand and agree with this approach.

Yes, you have absolutely hit the nail on the head.

No, I believe one can take sides based on moral perspective, and still support non violent channels of resolution. Until such time, as events unfold and the situation improves, and one can comfortably amend ones view.

In "national terms"? There is no "national" that combines the two sides as yet.

Largely my position, stated on a number of occasions.

Clearly. Of course given the unpredictable nature of events, this approach can backfire and weaken the powerful party.

Iran (no nukes) is a nuclear threat. Israel (200 nukes) is not a nuclear threat. Thats demonization plain and simple. (for whatever reason)

That Iran is painted as having a non representative government in light of the fact that the Palestinian people do not even exist as a proper "nation," (shhhh) is a blatant example of Western hypocrisy.

Sadly, there is little scope for confusion. It is what it is.

So the sooner pressure comes to bear for talks, the better. Right?

Correct, and its sets a precedent for a bloodless resolution in this case, one that ALSO requires great compromise.

 

In the first place, you've repeatedly invoked several other nation states in this topic (Germany, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc.).

And in the second, your posting record speaks for itself.

The geopolitical system of nation-states is no more "mine" than it is "yours" (which has been one of my points).

But we'll note that at no point in all that conflict has the basic right of the Iraqi nation to a state of their own been put in question, by any party. This illustrates the deep, resilient position that this system plays in the geopolitical consciousness. It is so profound that many people don't even realize it exists, or that it hasn't always been there. And that isn't helped by the willingness of most nations to extend their national mythology arbitrarily far into the past. But the reality is that this is not the basis on which political units were ordered until quite recently - a few hundred years ago, there was no such thing as a nation state.

To establish a system of distinct nation-states with mutually respected boundaries and orderly political relations. Prior to those wars, it was a bunch of dynastic empires that cut across national lines, warred endlessly, overran other continents, etc.

If you have a different outcome in mind, we can speculate, but that's not really the point. The point is that the level of violence associated with fundamental changes of this sort is spectacularly greater than the sort of things we see today - the very fact that you consider the level of bloodshed in the Middle East noteworthy is itself a consequence of the fact that most of the big, basic issues of how major groups of people are going to relate politically have already been settled.

Don't be ridiculous - the benefit is that we don't have to live with constant, systemic war on the scale of the World Wars, or the Partition of India, or that sort of thing. Those sorts of conflicts produce orders of magnitude more violence than the ones you're so up in arms about. The particular conflict in question here is an ancillary side effect of those major conflicts, just to keep the scale in mind.

? huh? Palestinians already are the dominant national group in the Palestinian nation - they're the only one, in fact. The point is that progress requires a state to serve as a safe homeland for said nation.

I've been very, very clear and consistent in pointing out that waiting around for parties who aren't interested in peace to initiate a peace process is unproductive - and dishonest, to boot. It's a way to promote conflict while pretending to favor peace. That's why Israel does it, but why do you, if you don't want more conflict?

My point has been that the sort of pressure you need is bottom-up moral pressure stemming from a courageous embrace of peace and love, and not top-down punitive pressure from outside, which will just radicalize the situation.

Distinction without a difference.

I have no complaint with criticism of state policies and actions as such. It's when these things boil over into hatred - denial of basic human empathy in favor of characitures of evil - that there's a problem.

I've just asserted that one should side with the peaceful, against the violent, based on morality, and that this requires declining to side with one nation against the other. If you disagree with that, you should explain what "moral perspective" justifies that, or something - you're being non-responsive here.

Right, that's why you can't be on the side of both one of the nations, and the cause of peace.

I'm aware of that, and that is why I am urging you to stop undermining that stance by indulging in pro-violence "Israel=Nazi" rhetoric.

I wouldn't try this with S.A.M. (or, anyway, not again), for example.

It's demonization of a political regime held to be distinct from - and, indeed, antithetical to - the nation it rules. And so it is not demonization of Iran, the nation. Quite the opposite.

No "painting" is required: the street thugs and rape dungeons are pretty conclusive stuff on their own.

What are you on about? Palestine has been a nation for quite some decades now.

Character inferences are never a matter of simple observation. They require attributing properties to invisible, internal entities such as a national consciousness (in this case).

If it's the right kind of pressure, of course.

I've mentioned before that I don't think the sort that is usually called for here (i.e., everyone gang up on Israel on the basis that they're bad people) will help.

 

Now, if only your point weren't hyperbole. Or if you'd stopped for even a second to think about what banning people from making a living really means. I'd wager you've never gone hungry. Perhaps that does things to your empathy.

(BTW: the latter part of your argument implies that Jews are natural oppressors of other human beings. Blisteringly bigoted.)

Ah, if only they'd had such a chance in the past 2000 years. Perhaps they learned by example. Regrettably.

Well, I doubt they'd be dancing to celebrate their own deaths, Sam.

http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0087.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/11/west_bank/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k

:shrug:

 

On the contrary as a Muslim, I am in the singular position to know what it means to go hungry for 30 days every year, it is perhaps why Palestinians are hospitable even in the face of oppression, as visitors to Hebron and Gaza have discovered. But where is the evidence that Jews in Yemen were starving? Or even evidence that they were denied "commerce"? Do you expect me to believe stories about Jewish persecution from those who bury pigs in a state funeral and call them Jewish martyrs?

http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=e...ws+Yemen+starving&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

And for someone who is so worked up at Jews being denied commerce, I can only assume that commerce means more to you than what Jews have been doing for the last 60 years in Palestine and that only Jews being denied commerce is an issue, since occupation is in itself the biggest hurdle to commerce, Palestinians have not been free to live, let alone make a living since the nakba. What would you prefer, Geoff, not getting the job of your dreams or picking up the pieces of your children when they are burned by white phosphorus? I lost all sympathy for Israelis during the Gaza war. The image of those children starving for four days as they clutched the corpses of their parents, the story of the young brother who dug through the rubble to find a tomato for his brother and who could not understand that the brother was not chewing because he died while he was putting the pieces of tomato in his mouth- all this while Israeli soldiers stood and watched within hearing distance as they prevented the ambulance from coming to take them, for three whole days...everytime I think of Israel, I think of the al Samouni family. I think of Israelis watching as children lie against their dead parents without water for three days. And do nothing. That is a level of soullessness that is insupportable. To me, that is the face of Israel.

And your justification for this is because they were denied commerce in Yemen some centuries ago! Oh my gawd, they couldn't make a living! Well the Jews of Yemen never left Yemen until Israel was formed so unless they lived without jobs for several hundred years, they were doing something. And the Jews of Israel have shown that whatever was done to Jews in the past, they are capable of much much worse. You tell me they could not follow their religion, wear colourful clothes, follow the occupation of their dreams and I see a little boy putting a piece of tomato into his brothers mouth as he dies and the Israelis watching, watching, watching, for three whole days. And I can't find any sympathy for clothes and jobs for those who lived centuries ago and the Israeli religion to me is reduced to chapter 28 verse 28 of Deuteronomy.

 

Ahem.

Its an abstraction. Fair enough.

That is very pertinent point. At this juncture I am tempted to say something tardy regarding the "Palestinian nation" and the events of 1947, but I will instead ask you why (IYO) said resilience was not a factor here?

Do you have a examples in mind?

OK, that seems reasonable enough for context.

Fair enough, and well articulated. Thank you.

Yes of course. I will maintain however that the lessons from these conflicts have not been learnt, given the events of the last 10 years. Albeit on a lesser scale, these events seem to have everything to with the same impulsive, paranoid, hegemonic motivators that drove the world wars.

I meant the dominant group within Israel/Palestine. And sadly we have a divided and contained Palestinian nation, physically, geographical and politically. There was talk of building a tunnel to connect them, so the wall and fences could stay. :m:

OK.

OK. I think what you are expressing is noble and I absolutely agree that this approach has great merit and potential. However, I question the fundamental ability of the particular oppressor nation to yield to such an approach?

"Misguided"?

Is that how I am coming across?

Simplified. Moral perspective as in oppressor and oppressed. Regarding the actual injustice, I will take the side of the oppressed. Where I stand firm, is that I will reject violence equally and outright, committed by either side.

I understand your point. A question, is Chomsky, a vocal critic of Israeli policies, contributing to conflict or peace?

I did not realize that was the perception.

But sadly as we have seen, when demonization of a regime leads to conflict, its the people who make up the nation that get hurt. Time and again.

Standard fare, globally speaking. Its all the rage.

You mean nations. Separated, fenced and walled.

Let me ponder upon that some more.

Fair enough. How does the worm turn?

 

But of course everyone has to gang up on Israel for some reason, or Israel will continue its expansion and usurption and annexation of Palestinian lands, and its sickening mistreatment and ghettoization of Palestinian people.

It's fine to pick a better motive than "Israelis are intrinsically bad people", but some motive is necessary for the concerted and risky efforts that will be required.

 

Indeed.

Think about it. The Palestinians are not to protest their occupation because it provides them with commerce. Thats like not protesting the death camps at Aushwitz because its commerce for Jews - they get to participate in their own ethnic cleansing!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Meanwhile, in the same la-la-la land

Israel bans cardamom, coriander, ginger, jam, halva, cholocate, fruit preserves, fresh meat, glucose, clothes and fishing rods, among other things. Diapers fortunately, have recently received a clean bill of health

http://gisha.org/UserFiles/File/HiddenMessages/ItemsGazaStrip060510.pdf

edit: you beat me to it!!!

 

Maybe they are afraid they will send paper planes with missiles over the wall

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Again. Exactly. Perfect.

I note that you stopped this point halfway through when even you realized you were talking out of your own ass. But wait - finish. I "attempt to say ridiculous reasons as to why..." - what?

The obstruction of UN votes was front-page? Then I missed it. (That must mean I'm evil. Do carry on.)

And you're back on the argument I never made. Kudos.

Sorry, but you gave up monitoring my opinions a while back. I'll carry on, thanks.

Dubious, actually. Never seen it. I didn't pull over Cheski, who is abhorrent, but then again I've never seen you once vote in such a poll. Since you've given up on honesty, why would I believe you?

Evidently it does, because the poll's actually quite simple. But, your silence has spoken for you.

Already addressed this. Again you didn't read what I wrote, stabby.

That's what people usually do when they drag their 'friends' through the gutter on what are clearly false pretenses; another thing I guess I needed to remind you of. But don't worry about it now. It's kind of getting past it's prime.

Anyway: so what, in your definition, is a "species", Bells?

 

This is the foolishness of your - and Sam's - position laid bare. I've already told you that Israeli aggression in the West Bank is unacceptable, and even laid out a simple system to stop it, which both of you will pretend never to have heard of. Yet, you're completely unconcerned about the historical perspective that got there. It's an impressive kind of limited vision. It sort of fails the humanitarian pass too: denied commerce in history makes it sound like they were turned down for a credit card in Yemen, rather than starved and beaten into submission.

And here I thought you were against genocide. :shrug: Some genocides, I guess.

 

Only in the West Bank? You approve of the IDF watching the Samouni children starve? Sometimes, Geoff, I wonder if you have sold your humanity to Zionism.

 

Tag-team denials?

Wow. That is a very impressively boldface example of complete dissonance and cultural chauvinism. You understand genocide because you starve yourself. Why, they should look up to Saint Sam, not degrade her.

And there's that Hitlerian attributation to all Jews again. Well, that's fair, isn't it? Surely I attribute all Palestinian and Islamic antisociality to "those people", don't I? Except I don't. I'll pick a story off the top of your search list:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/yemeni-jews-immigrate-to-israel-in-covert-jewish-agency-op-1.270521

Wow. And the two of you used to be moderators, no less.

Actually, quantitatively, that seems doubtful. Being denied the right to all monetary exchange means that to survive you're forced into subsistence farming. Here's another simple question that neither you nor Bells will know the answer to: are Palestinians forced into subsistence farming? No. I would easily go so far as to say the two situations are comparable, but you and Bells don't have the slightest recognition of the pertinent history, or that the persecution of Jews is bad. Bells won't even notice the Hitler perspective above. I guarantee it. I suppose I could PM her with it, but that would be stooping unnecessarily low.

Because this equates to being reduced to an economic slave? I appreciate full well how you and Bells feel about Jews, but do you get tired of this nonsense? Can you not even meet me halfway, as I have done? I gather very well that you hate Israel; that's fine. Do you hate other genocides, however? I do. I'm not sure that Bells does, although I doubt it. It's amazing that simply drawing the attention of you two to history does this much damage to your egos. No perspective? This is why I wonder if, having brought Israel to heel, if the same can be done for Palestinian rocket and suicide attacks. Why should they? Even the supposedly liberal can't look past their own navels.

Neither taking into account whether a) those Jews accepted effectively forced conversion or b) couldn't leave because they were held by a hostile army. In parallel, why haven't Palestinians left, Sam? Is that a fair question?

Ethnic cleansing: sometimes it's ok when you need to get that deep-down societal clean?

 

Again: a picture-perfect distillation of my point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Brilliant.