What, other than my posts, would you be basing your opinion on?
The stance clarified in that post is the same stance I've held since information came out about the methods used by Israel in boarding the ship (and previous to that I was still very suspect of Israel, just waiting to get more information before jumping to conclusions. If you care to dig up my posts from the day or so after, you'll see a lot of "this doesn't look good for Israel, but I want to get more information.")
This article isn't loading for my on my work computer. Someone should read it and tell me what it says. All I can see is the headline that says "Abbas' Fatah party averse to direct peace talks with Israel" which sounds bad.
What, other than my posts, would you be basing your opinion on?
The stance clarified in that post is the same stance I've held since information came out about the methods used by Israel in boarding the ship (and previous to that I was still very suspect of Israel, just waiting to get more information before jumping to conclusions. If you care to dig up my posts from the day or so after, you'll see a lot of "this doesn't look good for Israel, but I want to get more information.")
People confuse possible explinations with excuses. They assume if you try to give a reason something may have happened you're trying to defend what happened.
This article isn't loading for my on my work computer. Someone should read it and tell me what it says. All I can see is the headline that says "Abbas' Fatah party averse to direct peace talks with Israel" which sounds bad.
Abbas is refusing direct talks because the indirect talks went nowhere and he doesn't want their results to become defacto.
On the one hand I understand his point, on the other hand, though, couldn't he just insist on recovering the same topics in the direct talks? I mean, it's not like he'd be forced to agree to anything he doesn't agree with.
Ultimately, I;m not quite sure whether this is negative or just neutral.
Basically, a man introduced himself to a woman as daniel. Later, they went somewhere and had consensual sex. Sometime after that, the woman found out that the man was palestinian. The man is arrested and convicted of rape because he told the woman his name was daniel (a traditionally jewish name)
If a single normal person is capable of X amount of evil, then a group of people will be capable of a multiple of that evil assuming that 1X is a quantum amount of evil. Therefore, a community can be capable of 100X amount of evil and a nation can be capable of 1x10^6 to 1x10^12 evil. So basically, unspeakable horror is just another tuesday in the life of a nation.
Therefore, you have to get perspective before you decry a nation for truly despicable acts at the boundary of human imagination, because the work of 100 serial killers is about the national equivalent of telling your landlord you've got the rent when you really haven't.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Basically, a man introduced himself to a woman as daniel. Later, they went somewhere and had consensual sex. Sometime after that, the woman found out that the man was palestinian. The man is arrested and convicted of rape because he told the woman his name was daniel (a traditionally jewish name)
I don't know if this really belongs in this thread. While yes, it did happen in israel, it is really a case about whether or not misrepresenting yourself to get sex is rape. That is a very different question. the article seems to entirely ignore the part of the verdict that ackowledged the man's deception about his interest in a serious relationship.
Basically, a man introduced himself to a woman as daniel. Later, they went somewhere and had consensual sex. Sometime after that, the woman found out that the man was palestinian. The man is arrested and convicted of rape because he told the woman his name was daniel (a traditionally jewish name)
I don't know if this really belongs in this thread. While yes, it did happen in israel, it is really a case about whether or not misrepresenting yourself to get sex is rape. That is a very different question. the article seems to entirely ignore the part of the verdict that ackowledged the man's deception about his interest in a serious relationship.
No, I'm pretty sure it's about racism.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Basically, a man introduced himself to a woman as daniel. Later, they went somewhere and had consensual sex. Sometime after that, the woman found out that the man was palestinian. The man is arrested and convicted of rape because he told the woman his name was daniel (a traditionally jewish name)
I don't know if this really belongs in this thread. While yes, it did happen in israel, it is really a case about whether or not misrepresenting yourself to get sex is rape. That is a very different question. the article seems to entirely ignore the part of the verdict that ackowledged the man's deception about his interest in a serious relationship.
No, I'm pretty sure it's about racism.
Read the verdict, not the spin.
I don't like the verdict, because I think the woman was foolish for not vetting the man further, but the interest in a serious relationship bit is RIGHT THERE.
Basically, a man introduced himself to a woman as daniel. Later, they went somewhere and had consensual sex. Sometime after that, the woman found out that the man was palestinian. The man is arrested and convicted of rape because he told the woman his name was daniel (a traditionally jewish name)
I don't know if this really belongs in this thread. While yes, it did happen in israel, it is really a case about whether or not misrepresenting yourself to get sex is rape. That is a very different question. the article seems to entirely ignore the part of the verdict that ackowledged the man's deception about his interest in a serious relationship.
No, I'm pretty sure it's about racism.
Read the verdict, not the spin.
I don't like the verdict, because I think the woman was foolish for not vetting the man further, but the interest in a serious relationship bit is RIGHT THERE.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That was totally the reason for this verdict. Yup.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Ham, even if you want to ignore half the verdict, this is still a single case.
A single case completely in line with all the other rampant racism in Israel?
And there is rampant anti-Jewish racism in Palestine.
Condemning a nation because a woman is selective in what race she wants to fuck is ABSOLUTELY absurd.
This thread is about an international conflict, not the parameters of the "rape by deception" charge that exists in some countries. Tell me, why is this particular court case significant to this thread, but Gilad Shalit is dissmissed every time he is brought up?
Ham, even if you want to ignore half the verdict, this is still a single case.
A single case completely in line with all the other rampant racism in Israel?
Racism is on both sides of the fence. I don't personally think that the Israelis have any right to have their state where it is, but it's rather different when you don't think that they have such a right because the Jews are all sinister agents of the devil, as is Hamas's stance.
In any case, it's a step forward, and no doubt one that was taken in defiance of Netanyahu, which is doubly positive. If we can get this concession, we can eventually get them to lift the whole damn blockade - we just need to keep on the political offensive against the orthodox conservatives in Jarusalem.
The gay community is actually very hateful and intolerant in general, they just choose their targets carefully.
I mean, I'll always support gay rights, but I have no interest involving myself in "gay culture" because the majority of gay men are insufferable people particularly in groups larger than three.
Most sub-cultures are pretty exclusive and insufferable, frankly. But any gay person who uses the word "breeder" is no better than a homophobe. Two sides of the same coin.
That's a pretty unbalanced coin given the power disparity between those groups.
But you'll never admit that that matters more than how firmly you can conflate people's feelings.
Groups don't commit bigotry- individuals do. A bigoted gay person doesn't get a pass on their behavior just because homophobia has historically been more prevalent.
So, no, there is no difference between a homophobe negatively calling someone "queer" and a gay person using "breeder" as an insult.
So let's consider the distinction I've made in those previous essays--the ones that had my electronic adversary so angry--between white racial bias and institutionalized racism against people of color on the one hand, and occasional bouts of black or brown racial bias on the other. My argument has never been that folks of color can't be philosophically racist. Nor have I said that they cannot, on occasion, practice racial discrimination against whites. What I have said (and frankly what the New Black Panther story and the Shirley Sherrod incident confirm, even if they had happened exactly as the right has spun them) is that there is a fundamental difference, in practical terms, between these various types of racism.
Racial bias on the part of black folks, even the most vicious and unhinged bigotry on their part, is pretty impotent. King Samir Shabazz hates white people and thinks "cracker babies" should be killed. And yet what kind of power does Shabazz have? None. He is in a position to kill no one, and if he were to try he would go to jail. Forever. That's not power. Power is when you can deny people jobs, housing, health care, decent educations, or their physical freedom via the justice system, thereby wrecking their lives. And there are virtually no black folks--and certainly no black folks wearing berets, fake-ass military uniforms and carrying nightsticks--who can do any of that. But there are white folks in positions to do those things, and who do them with or without bigoted intent regularly, as I have demonstrated in previous essays and books.
Just replace "black" and "white" with "gay" and "straight".
Just replace "black" and "white" with "Palestinians" and "Israelis".
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Yikes. If misrepresenting yourself to get laid is rape, then I think a bunch of us could be in a whooooole lot of trouble.
Maybe I'm not following the right criminal cases, but "rape by deception", not accompanied with some form of assault or a use of some drug, isn't a crime you hear of very often.
Well, I guess outside of Israel anyway.
EDIT: Ah, well, "internationally unprecedented". It does bring up the old, often ignored question of Palestinians who "pass" as Israelis for any number of reasons.
...So you're alright with anti-semitism so long as the anti-semites currently powerless?
Funny, I seem to remember a European country that was broken, powerless and under crushing economic sanctions after losing a major global conflict that still managed to do something systematic & heinous to Jews, gypsies, communists ('Judeo-Bolsheviks'), the mentally disabled, etc. Rosenberg wasn't always a powerful man, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain was never powerful (only his writings would prove to be influential).
The Hutus certainly weren't the most politically powerful group in Rwanda when the 'Hutu Power' rhetoric and Tutsi genocide gripped the country.
Racism is never acceptable, even if it's 'the little guy' being the racist.
Yikes. If misrepresenting yourself to get laid is rape, then I think a bunch of us could be in a whooooole lot of trouble.
Maybe I'm not following the right criminal cases, but "rape by deception", not accompanied with some form of assault or a use of some drug, isn't a crime you hear of very often.
Well, I guess outside of Israel anyway.
You don't here about it that often IN Israel (but good job making assumptions).
According to the article, is a crime on the books in multiple countries, just one that very rarely actually recieves convictions.
Now, in this particular case, as I said, I don't like the verdict because it appears to remove all responsiblity from the woman in to actually vetting the guy, but in general, if you are going to defend the right to "lie in order to have sex" then you've got issues much closer to home than Israel/Palestine.
This is a mutual conflict with both sides lashing out against each other. Trying to paint it as anything else is intellectually dishonest.
I imagine that Ham thinks that it's okay to resist an occupation by any means necessary. Chechen rebels blow up school full of children in North Ossetia? No problem - the Chechens are the little guys, afterall!
Yikes. If misrepresenting yourself to get laid is rape, then I think a bunch of us could be in a whooooole lot of trouble.
Maybe I'm not following the right criminal cases, but "rape by deception", not accompanied with some form of assault or a use of some drug, isn't a crime you hear of very often.
Well, I guess outside of Israel anyway.
You don't here about it that often IN Israel (but good job making assumptions).
According to the article, is a crime on the books in multiple countries, just one that very rarely actually recieves convictions.
Actually, I was saying it it in jest (I read the article and appreciate that it is rare), but it's startling nonetheless.
This is a mutual conflict with both sides lashing out against each other. Trying to paint it as anything else is intellectually dishonest.
I imagine that Ham thinks that it's okay to resist an occupation by any means necessary. Chechen rebels blow up school full of children in North Ossetia? No problem - the Chechens are the little guys, afterall!
I think you gave him too much credit by the fifth word.
Really, though, it is absolutely absurd how many people on BOTH sides of the issue refuse to recognize the innumerable parallels between both nation's struggles. Israel had its fair share of refugee freedom fighters, once upon a time, and how is BDS really any different from the Gaza Siege?
This is a mutual conflict with both sides lashing out against each other. Trying to paint it as anything else is intellectually dishonest.
I imagine that Ham thinks that it's okay to resist an occupation by any means necessary. Chechen rebels blow up school full of children in North Ossetia? No problem - the Chechens are the little guys, afterall!
I think you gave him too much credit by the fifth word.
Really, though, it is absolutely absurd how many people on BOTH sides of the issue refuse to recognize the innumerable parallels between both nation's struggles. Israel had its fair share of refugee freedom fighters, once upon a time, and how is BDS really any different from the Gaza Siege?
Well, I'd argue that there is a pretty fundamental difference between the freedom fighters in Israel and Gaza in that Israel should not have been placed there in the first place. Now, what's done is done and the Israeli citizens shouldn't be punished or extradited for a partitioning that happened decades ago, but the old Israeli rebels didn't even have the excuse of being occupied. They were still foreign invaders.
Small Jewish settlements have existed in the area as far back as historical records go, and archeological records clearly show an ancient Jewish kingdom there.
Personally, I would have preferred Herzl's Uganda option, but the decision was made long before I was born. At this point the country has existed for more than 60 years, so talking about having a "right to" exist is absurd. Israel has just as much a right to exist as any other country. If uprooting Palestinaisn from their homes was wrong 60 years ago, then doing so to Israelis today is also wrong (except for the settlements, because it is pretty clear where the borders of Israel end and the occupied territories begin.)
The right to exist that matters now is Palestine's right to exist, which many people are wrongfully denying.
If you still have an issue with Israel's placement, take it up with the British, not the Jews. It is the fault of the UK, ultimately.
Small Jewish settlements have existed in the area as far back as historical records go, and archeological records clearly show an ancient Jewish kingdom there.
My understanding is that this is pretty heavily disputed in academia, but in any case, there certainly weren't any Jewish settlements in Palestine when the land was partitioned by Britain. It's ridiculous that anyone should have expected the Arabs in the region to simply shrug and give up what little they had to the Jewish refugees.
Personally, I would have preferred Herzl's Uganda option, but the decision was made long before I was born. At this point the country has existed for more than 60 years, so talking about having a "right to" exist is absurd. Israel has just as much a right to exist as any other country. If uprooting Palestinaisn from their homes was wrong 60 years ago, then doing so to Israelis today is also wrong (except for the settlements, because it is pretty clear where the borders of Israel end and the occupied territories begin.)
The right to exist that matters now is Palestine's right to exist, which many people are wrongfully denying.
If you still have an issue with Israel's placement, take it up with the British, not the Jews. It is the fault of the UK, ultimately.
I agree with all of this, which is why I said it wouldn't be moral to punish the current citizens of Israel for what was done decades ago (anymore than it would be moral to punish the current citizens of America or Canada for what their ancestors did to the native populations). I'll say it again: what's done is done.
It's not contested by anyone of repute on the matter. The town of Safed, for instance, has had a constant Jewish presences for centuries.
I am NOT holding this up as a argument for the validity of the georgraphiocal choice (as I've said a million times, I'd have preffere Uganda), but rather, to refute the false claim that is championed by some anti-israel groups that there had been zero Jews in the land for centuries, or that Jews had never lived on the land before at all. These absolutist claims are absolutely false.
If you still have an issue with Israel's placement, take it up with the British, not the Jews. It is the fault of the UK, ultimately.
Well, mostly. But the Jews did use terrorism against the British when they didn't get their way, so it's not exactly black and white.
Yes, but if you're going to condemn them for attacking british military, then you'd certainly be incredibly anti-palestinian, considering that they primarily target civilians.
So at that point you are just sort of anti-everyone on principle, rather than recognizing that there are human being involved who need a place to live.
If you still have an issue with Israel's placement, take it up with the British, not the Jews. It is the fault of the UK, ultimately.
Well, mostly. But the Jews did use terrorism against the British when they didn't get their way, so it's not exactly black and white.
Yes, but if you're going to condemn them for attacking british military, then you'd certainly be incredibly anti-palestinian, considering that they primarily target civilians.
So at that point you are just sort of anti-everyone on principle, rather than recognizing that there are human being involved who need a place to live.
First generation immigrants need to be held to a much higher standard in regards to using violence for political ends. It can be justified in extreme cases, but in most cases, the moral choice is, "If you don't fucking like it, don't move there." I think British speech restrictions are unreasonable and unethical, but I'm not going to move to London and then blow up Parliament because of it.
Also, they killed plenty of civilians in the process. One of the most famous, which is celebrated to this day in Israel, the King David Hotel bombing, killed 18 soldiers and police out of 91 total dead. I'd say that is morally and practically worse than intentionally killing, say, 6 civilians. Credit for half-assedly trying to avoid civilian casualties only gets you so far.
The King David hotel was a military base at the time, not a functioning hotel.
Seriously, though, if you are going to criticize proto-Israeli freedom fighters like this, then you must be ABSOLUTELY opposed to the Palestinians, no?
The line "violence is okay if you were born there" has zero logic behind it.
The King David hotel was a military base at the time, not a functioning hotel.
Zionists didn't have a right to rebel in the first place, and they killed almost all civilians. I generously included police in the total because they may or may not be valid targets, but the ratio is pretty fucking terrible anyways.
Seriously, though, if you are going to criticize proto-Israeli freedom fighters like this, then you must be ABSOLUTELY opposed to the Palestinians, no?
Freedom fighters? Fight for the right to immigrate wherever the fuck you want and then tell everyone there you're the fucking government now? Not really.
And yeah, I do oppose the Palestinian tactics. I think illegal settlers, IDF, and oppression specific government officials are valid targets, but "whoever gets hit by my shitty rocket," is not a valid target for violence. Of course, I'd also caution them that even if someone is a valid target, sometimes violence has a net negative effect that you need to take into account for practical reasons.
The line "violence is okay if you were born there" has zero logic behind it.
Yes, it does, and you agree with me. You acknowledge there is a difference between kicking someone out of their family home that they have lived in for generations even if originally gotten illegitimately vs. the home they just invaded just now and still haven't replaced the hinges they kicked over.
There's a difference between reform from within and outside invasion.
If we're going to nitpick, how about Arafat, who was from Cairo? How about the Jews of Safed?
The majority of Palestinians actually fighting today were born as refugees, not on the land that they are fighting for. Doesn't that change things? If not, what is the exact number of years that acts as the cut-off, and why? If there is no cut-off, then archeological evidence shows that Jews were there previous long-ago.
My point being that arguing about the past in order to "discredit" the present is assinine and ONLY serves to hurt peace. BOTH SIDES have done many things that are wrong. Now is not a time for blame, now is a time for pragmatic solutions.
Calling Israel Apartheid is really no different from any of the rest fo this stuff, DC.
There ARE some very real specific things that Israel is doing wrong and needs to cease. Stuff like the Gaza siege and the settlements in the West Bank. Then there are the larger pieces like occupying Gaza and the West Bank to begin with, that need to end.
But there is no systematic oppression of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Those who are facing oppression are non-citizen refugees who live on land that Israel gained in wars with Egypt and Jordan (and who lived in the same conditions when those lands were previously occupied by those nations.) It's an occupation, not an apartheid.
And yes, there is some level of racism in Israel beyond that. There is also racism in Palestine. And in the United States. Black Americans are definitely under-represented in the American government. Does that make America an Apartheid nation?
The real difference between what happened in South Africa and what is happening in Israel, on an ideological level, is that in South Africa the attempt was to force blacks and whites in to being two seperate nations when they did not neccesarily want to do so. In Israel and Palestine, though, both sides DO want their own independant nations. The war being waged in Israel is not a war for equal rights, it is a war for freedom. Palestine and ISrael should be allowed to be their own seperate nations.
If we're going to nitpick, how about Arafat, who was from Cairo? How about the Jews of Safed?
The majority of Palestinians actually fighting today were born as refugees, not on the land that they are fighting for. Doesn't that change things? If not, what is the exact number of years that acts as the cut-off, and why? If there is no cut-off, then archeological evidence shows that Jews were there previous long-ago.
My point being that arguing about the past in order to "discredit" the present is assinine and ONLY serves to hurt peace. BOTH SIDES have done many things that are wrong. Now is not a time for blame, now is a time for pragmatic solutions.
Bullshit. You don't want to have an honest discussion about the past, as evidenced by your "freedom fighters" line.
If we're going to nitpick, how about Arafat, who was from Cairo? How about the Jews of Safed?
The majority of Palestinians actually fighting today were born as refugees, not on the land that they are fighting for. Doesn't that change things? If not, what is the exact number of years that acts as the cut-off, and why? If there is no cut-off, then archeological evidence shows that Jews were there previous long-ago.
My point being that arguing about the past in order to "discredit" the present is assinine and ONLY serves to hurt peace. BOTH SIDES have done many things that are wrong. Now is not a time for blame, now is a time for pragmatic solutions.
Bullshit. You don't want to have an honest discussion about the past, as evidenced by your "freedom fighters" line.
You only read what you want to read.
I was calling Palestinian "freedom fighters" there too.
If we're going to nitpick, how about Arafat, who was from Cairo? How about the Jews of Safed?
The majority of Palestinians actually fighting today were born as refugees, not on the land that they are fighting for. Doesn't that change things? If not, what is the exact number of years that acts as the cut-off, and why? If there is no cut-off, then archeological evidence shows that Jews were there previous long-ago.
My point being that arguing about the past in order to "discredit" the present is assinine and ONLY serves to hurt peace. BOTH SIDES have done many things that are wrong. Now is not a time for blame, now is a time for pragmatic solutions.
Bullshit. You don't want to have an honest discussion about the past, as evidenced by your "freedom fighters" line.
You only read what you want to read.
I was calling Palestinian "freedom fighters" there too.
Pray tell, what freedom were the Zionists fighting for, considering the vast majority were immigrants?
If we're going to nitpick, how about Arafat, who was from Cairo? How about the Jews of Safed?
The majority of Palestinians actually fighting today were born as refugees, not on the land that they are fighting for. Doesn't that change things? If not, what is the exact number of years that acts as the cut-off, and why? If there is no cut-off, then archeological evidence shows that Jews were there previous long-ago.
My point being that arguing about the past in order to "discredit" the present is assinine and ONLY serves to hurt peace. BOTH SIDES have done many things that are wrong. Now is not a time for blame, now is a time for pragmatic solutions.
Bullshit. You don't want to have an honest discussion about the past, as evidenced by your "freedom fighters" line.
You only read what you want to read.
I was calling Palestinian "freedom fighters" there too.
Pray tell, what freedom were the Zionists fighting for, considering the vast majority were immigrants?
The freedom to live SOMEWHERE. These people were coming from DP camps in Europe, where they were considered part of NO land. My aunt was born in the DP camps, her birth certificate lists her nationality as "stateless".
AGAIN, I am not a far of the Palestine plan. I much preffer the Uganda plan. The Palestine plan was actually formulated by non-Zionist religious Jews, as an attempt to prevent Zionism from obsoleting religious Judaism. The ship sailed on the Uganda plan almost a century ago, though, when Herzl died.
The Jewish terrorist groups that were fighting about 70 years ago, though, they were fighting to force Britain to follow through on the promises that Britain had ALREADY made.
If we're going to nitpick, how about Arafat, who was from Cairo? How about the Jews of Safed?
The majority of Palestinians actually fighting today were born as refugees, not on the land that they are fighting for. Doesn't that change things? If not, what is the exact number of years that acts as the cut-off, and why? If there is no cut-off, then archeological evidence shows that Jews were there previous long-ago.
My point being that arguing about the past in order to "discredit" the present is assinine and ONLY serves to hurt peace. BOTH SIDES have done many things that are wrong. Now is not a time for blame, now is a time for pragmatic solutions.
Bullshit. You don't want to have an honest discussion about the past, as evidenced by your "freedom fighters" line.
You only read what you want to read.
I was calling Palestinian "freedom fighters" there too.
Pray tell, what freedom were the Zionists fighting for, considering the vast majority were immigrants?
The freedom to live SOMEWHERE. These people were coming from DP camps in Europe, where they were considered part of NO land. My aunt was born in the DP camps, her birth certificate lists her nationality as "stateless".
AGAIN, I am not a far of the Palestine plan. I much preffer the Uganda plan. The Palestine plan was actually formulated by non-Zionist religious Jews, as an attempt to prevent Zionism from obsoleting religious Judaism. The ship sailed on the Uganda plan almost a century ago, though, when Herzl died.
The Jewish terrorist groups that were fighting about 70 years ago, though, they were fighting to force Britain to follow through on the promises that Britain had ALREADY made.
I've been thinking of how to respond to this, but I think the best way is to just point out how much cognitive dissonance it takes to actually believe all that.
Posts
The stance clarified in that post is the same stance I've held since information came out about the methods used by Israel in boarding the ship (and previous to that I was still very suspect of Israel, just waiting to get more information before jumping to conclusions. If you care to dig up my posts from the day or so after, you'll see a lot of "this doesn't look good for Israel, but I want to get more information.")
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article518894.ece
This article isn't loading for my on my work computer. Someone should read it and tell me what it says. All I can see is the headline that says "Abbas' Fatah party averse to direct peace talks with Israel" which sounds bad.
People confuse possible explinations with excuses. They assume if you try to give a reason something may have happened you're trying to defend what happened.
People are kind of dumb.
Abbas is refusing direct talks because the indirect talks went nowhere and he doesn't want their results to become defacto.
On the one hand I understand his point, on the other hand, though, couldn't he just insist on recovering the same topics in the direct talks? I mean, it's not like he'd be forced to agree to anything he doesn't agree with.
Ultimately, I;m not quite sure whether this is negative or just neutral.
Basically, a man introduced himself to a woman as daniel. Later, they went somewhere and had consensual sex. Sometime after that, the woman found out that the man was palestinian. The man is arrested and convicted of rape because he told the woman his name was daniel (a traditionally jewish name)
Therefore, you have to get perspective before you decry a nation for truly despicable acts at the boundary of human imagination, because the work of 100 serial killers is about the national equivalent of telling your landlord you've got the rent when you really haven't.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't know if this really belongs in this thread. While yes, it did happen in israel, it is really a case about whether or not misrepresenting yourself to get sex is rape. That is a very different question. the article seems to entirely ignore the part of the verdict that ackowledged the man's deception about his interest in a serious relationship.
No, I'm pretty sure it's about racism.
Read the verdict, not the spin.
I don't like the verdict, because I think the woman was foolish for not vetting the man further, but the interest in a serious relationship bit is RIGHT THERE.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. That was totally the reason for this verdict. Yup.
A single case completely in line with all the other rampant racism in Israel?
And there is rampant anti-Jewish racism in Palestine.
Condemning a nation because a woman is selective in what race she wants to fuck is ABSOLUTELY absurd.
This thread is about an international conflict, not the parameters of the "rape by deception" charge that exists in some countries. Tell me, why is this particular court case significant to this thread, but Gilad Shalit is dissmissed every time he is brought up?
Racism is on both sides of the fence. I don't personally think that the Israelis have any right to have their state where it is, but it's rather different when you don't think that they have such a right because the Jews are all sinister agents of the devil, as is Hamas's stance.
In any case, it's a step forward, and no doubt one that was taken in defiance of Netanyahu, which is doubly positive. If we can get this concession, we can eventually get them to lift the whole damn blockade - we just need to keep on the political offensive against the orthodox conservatives in Jarusalem.
You know, I think the following from the gay rights thread applies just as readily to this point.
Just replace "black" and "white" with "Palestinians" and "Israelis".
Maybe I'm not following the right criminal cases, but "rape by deception", not accompanied with some form of assault or a use of some drug, isn't a crime you hear of very often.
Well, I guess outside of Israel anyway.
EDIT: Ah, well, "internationally unprecedented". It does bring up the old, often ignored question of Palestinians who "pass" as Israelis for any number of reasons.
This is a mutual conflict with both sides lashing out against each other. Trying to paint it as anything else is intellectually dishonest.
Funny, I seem to remember a European country that was broken, powerless and under crushing economic sanctions after losing a major global conflict that still managed to do something systematic & heinous to Jews, gypsies, communists ('Judeo-Bolsheviks'), the mentally disabled, etc. Rosenberg wasn't always a powerful man, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain was never powerful (only his writings would prove to be influential).
The Hutus certainly weren't the most politically powerful group in Rwanda when the 'Hutu Power' rhetoric and Tutsi genocide gripped the country.
Racism is never acceptable, even if it's 'the little guy' being the racist.
You don't here about it that often IN Israel (but good job making assumptions).
According to the article, is a crime on the books in multiple countries, just one that very rarely actually recieves convictions.
Now, in this particular case, as I said, I don't like the verdict because it appears to remove all responsiblity from the woman in to actually vetting the guy, but in general, if you are going to defend the right to "lie in order to have sex" then you've got issues much closer to home than Israel/Palestine.
I imagine that Ham thinks that it's okay to resist an occupation by any means necessary. Chechen rebels blow up school full of children in North Ossetia? No problem - the Chechens are the little guys, afterall!
Actually, I was saying it it in jest (I read the article and appreciate that it is rare), but it's startling nonetheless.
I think you gave him too much credit by the fifth word.
Really, though, it is absolutely absurd how many people on BOTH sides of the issue refuse to recognize the innumerable parallels between both nation's struggles. Israel had its fair share of refugee freedom fighters, once upon a time, and how is BDS really any different from the Gaza Siege?
Well, I'd argue that there is a pretty fundamental difference between the freedom fighters in Israel and Gaza in that Israel should not have been placed there in the first place. Now, what's done is done and the Israeli citizens shouldn't be punished or extradited for a partitioning that happened decades ago, but the old Israeli rebels didn't even have the excuse of being occupied. They were still foreign invaders.
Personally, I would have preferred Herzl's Uganda option, but the decision was made long before I was born. At this point the country has existed for more than 60 years, so talking about having a "right to" exist is absurd. Israel has just as much a right to exist as any other country. If uprooting Palestinaisn from their homes was wrong 60 years ago, then doing so to Israelis today is also wrong (except for the settlements, because it is pretty clear where the borders of Israel end and the occupied territories begin.)
The right to exist that matters now is Palestine's right to exist, which many people are wrongfully denying.
If you still have an issue with Israel's placement, take it up with the British, not the Jews. It is the fault of the UK, ultimately.
My understanding is that this is pretty heavily disputed in academia, but in any case, there certainly weren't any Jewish settlements in Palestine when the land was partitioned by Britain. It's ridiculous that anyone should have expected the Arabs in the region to simply shrug and give up what little they had to the Jewish refugees.
I agree with all of this, which is why I said it wouldn't be moral to punish the current citizens of Israel for what was done decades ago (anymore than it would be moral to punish the current citizens of America or Canada for what their ancestors did to the native populations). I'll say it again: what's done is done.
I am NOT holding this up as a argument for the validity of the georgraphiocal choice (as I've said a million times, I'd have preffere Uganda), but rather, to refute the false claim that is championed by some anti-israel groups that there had been zero Jews in the land for centuries, or that Jews had never lived on the land before at all. These absolutist claims are absolutely false.
Well, mostly. But the Jews did use terrorism against the British when they didn't get their way, so it's not exactly black and white.
Yes, but if you're going to condemn them for attacking british military, then you'd certainly be incredibly anti-palestinian, considering that they primarily target civilians.
So at that point you are just sort of anti-everyone on principle, rather than recognizing that there are human being involved who need a place to live.
First generation immigrants need to be held to a much higher standard in regards to using violence for political ends. It can be justified in extreme cases, but in most cases, the moral choice is, "If you don't fucking like it, don't move there." I think British speech restrictions are unreasonable and unethical, but I'm not going to move to London and then blow up Parliament because of it.
Also, they killed plenty of civilians in the process. One of the most famous, which is celebrated to this day in Israel, the King David Hotel bombing, killed 18 soldiers and police out of 91 total dead. I'd say that is morally and practically worse than intentionally killing, say, 6 civilians. Credit for half-assedly trying to avoid civilian casualties only gets you so far.
Seriously, though, if you are going to criticize proto-Israeli freedom fighters like this, then you must be ABSOLUTELY opposed to the Palestinians, no?
The line "violence is okay if you were born there" has zero logic behind it.
Zionists didn't have a right to rebel in the first place, and they killed almost all civilians. I generously included police in the total because they may or may not be valid targets, but the ratio is pretty fucking terrible anyways.
Freedom fighters? Fight for the right to immigrate wherever the fuck you want and then tell everyone there you're the fucking government now? Not really.
And yeah, I do oppose the Palestinian tactics. I think illegal settlers, IDF, and oppression specific government officials are valid targets, but "whoever gets hit by my shitty rocket," is not a valid target for violence. Of course, I'd also caution them that even if someone is a valid target, sometimes violence has a net negative effect that you need to take into account for practical reasons.
Yes, it does, and you agree with me. You acknowledge there is a difference between kicking someone out of their family home that they have lived in for generations even if originally gotten illegitimately vs. the home they just invaded just now and still haven't replaced the hinges they kicked over.
There's a difference between reform from within and outside invasion.
The majority of Palestinians actually fighting today were born as refugees, not on the land that they are fighting for. Doesn't that change things? If not, what is the exact number of years that acts as the cut-off, and why? If there is no cut-off, then archeological evidence shows that Jews were there previous long-ago.
My point being that arguing about the past in order to "discredit" the present is assinine and ONLY serves to hurt peace. BOTH SIDES have done many things that are wrong. Now is not a time for blame, now is a time for pragmatic solutions.
Let's leave it to the next year's Israeli Apartheid Week. Then we can go indepth on how awful Israel just is.
There ARE some very real specific things that Israel is doing wrong and needs to cease. Stuff like the Gaza siege and the settlements in the West Bank. Then there are the larger pieces like occupying Gaza and the West Bank to begin with, that need to end.
But there is no systematic oppression of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Those who are facing oppression are non-citizen refugees who live on land that Israel gained in wars with Egypt and Jordan (and who lived in the same conditions when those lands were previously occupied by those nations.) It's an occupation, not an apartheid.
And yes, there is some level of racism in Israel beyond that. There is also racism in Palestine. And in the United States. Black Americans are definitely under-represented in the American government. Does that make America an Apartheid nation?
The real difference between what happened in South Africa and what is happening in Israel, on an ideological level, is that in South Africa the attempt was to force blacks and whites in to being two seperate nations when they did not neccesarily want to do so. In Israel and Palestine, though, both sides DO want their own independant nations. The war being waged in Israel is not a war for equal rights, it is a war for freedom. Palestine and ISrael should be allowed to be their own seperate nations.
Bullshit. You don't want to have an honest discussion about the past, as evidenced by your "freedom fighters" line.
You only read what you want to read.
I was calling Palestinian "freedom fighters" there too.
The freedom to live SOMEWHERE. These people were coming from DP camps in Europe, where they were considered part of NO land. My aunt was born in the DP camps, her birth certificate lists her nationality as "stateless".
AGAIN, I am not a far of the Palestine plan. I much preffer the Uganda plan. The Palestine plan was actually formulated by non-Zionist religious Jews, as an attempt to prevent Zionism from obsoleting religious Judaism. The ship sailed on the Uganda plan almost a century ago, though, when Herzl died.
The Jewish terrorist groups that were fighting about 70 years ago, though, they were fighting to force Britain to follow through on the promises that Britain had ALREADY made.
I've been thinking of how to respond to this, but I think the best way is to just point out how much cognitive dissonance it takes to actually believe all that.