I'm somewhat concerned (and this is not directed specifically at you, Evander) that it is considered anti-Semitic to critique the policies of the Israeli government.
This part here is what I'm trying to get at.
What is and isn't an acceptably asemitic way to say "Israel shouldn't go into the territories with armored bulldozers and run over palestinian kids in an attempt to defend themselves"?
I forget which book it was in, but in the time after Endor and before the fall of Courascant the Empire spun the death of the Emperor and loss of the second Death Star into some sort of heroic sacrifice and ultimate moral victory over the vile rebels.
rogue squadron, when they take coruscant they go through the museum which details that.
I'm somewhat concerned (and this is not directed specifically at you, Evander) that it is considered anti-Semitic to critique the policies of the Israeli government.
This part here is what I'm trying to get at.
What is and isn't an acceptably asemitic way to say "Israel shouldn't go into the territories with armored bulldozers and run over palestinian kids in an attempt to defend themselves"?
the issue there is that Israel's "to do" list doesn't state "go into the territories with armored bulldozers and run over palestinian kids"
Not that it's an anti-semitic statement. That one is just stupid.
I guess the line is simply that you need to look at what Israel is actually attempting to do, not just the aftermath, before criticizing them.
And you'll always run in to an idiot who will call you an anti-semite. As long as you're actually looking at the whole issue, fuck 'em.
Evander on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
It does bear noting that Israel has only ever "given away" land that was taken by force in the first place.
"Taken by force" is an interesting term to use here, because all of the land that Israel has taken they acquired during defensive wars.
They came in with an army and then started living there. It's an accurate term, no?
After coming under attack by several other states, they take land that belonged to none of those states and then refuse to give it back once the war is over?
If some guy tries to mug you, that doesn't give you a right to his wallet. (or his friend's, for that matter)
If some guy tries to mug you, that doesn't give you a right to his wallet. (or his friend's, for that matter)
Pffft. It's right of conquest as far as I'm concerned. If you can't handle your knife well enough to take my wallet, then you don't deserve to have yours.
It does bear noting that Israel has only ever "given away" land that was taken by force in the first place.
"Taken by force" is an interesting term to use here, because all of the land that Israel has taken they acquired during defensive wars.
They came in with an army and then started living there. It's an accurate term, no?
After coming under attack by several other states, they take land that belonged to none of those states and then refuse to give it back once the war is over?
If some guy tries to mug you, that doesn't give you a right to his wallet. (or his friend's, for that matter)
Those other states all took land too. Why are you singling Israel out?
Should a newly created nation leave tons of open land surrounding it, right after it has been attacked by EVERY one of its neighbors? Does that sound like a smart idea to you?
The residents of the land were all offered Israeli citizenship if they wanted to stay. Plenty of them did, and they're currently living well (Israeli Palestinians, when polled, always say that they would support the creation of a Palestinian state, but that they would have no interest in moving there because they are doing fine where they are.)
I'm somewhat concerned (and this is not directed specifically at you, Evander) that it is considered anti-Semitic to critique the policies of the Israeli government.
This part here is what I'm trying to get at.
What is and isn't an acceptably asemitic way to say "Israel shouldn't go into the territories with armored bulldozers and run over palestinian kids in an attempt to defend themselves"?
Not that it's an anti-semitic statement. That one is just stupid.
And that's fine. I just think Israel gets to use the anti-semite card in a lot of places that they shouldn't...
Let me rephrase that, not Israel even specifically, certain elements of Israeli interest, have honed the art of obfuscating the line of anti-semitism.
Dude, relating something to World War 2 is not a special skill.
I can related pretty much anything to World War 2.
The delicate dance of light across the waters of Caladan.
I'm sure I could pull that in towards Krystalnacht.
the light glinting off of the broken shards of glass in the streets.
Touché
I'm somewhat concerned (and this is not directed specifically at you, Evander) that it is considered anti-Semitic to critique the policies of the Israeli government.
This part here is what I'm trying to get at.
What is and isn't an acceptably asemitic way to say "Israel shouldn't go into the territories with armored bulldozers and run over palestinian kids in an attempt to defend themselves"?
Not that it's an anti-semitic statement. That one is just stupid.
And that's fine. I just think Israel gets to use the anti-semite card in a lot of places that they shouldn't...
Let me rephrase that, not Israel even specifically, certain elements of Israeli interest, have honed the art of obfuscating the line of anti-semitism.
I think that's a problem.
Sure it's a problem.
It's a problem that isn't helped by the fact that there IS a whole lot of anti-semitism out there.
The Hamas charter states that Jews are the cause of all the world's wars, and that they run the world through organizations like The Freemasons and the Rotary Club.
The UN was once talked in to declaring Zionism to be racism, despite the fact that Zionist philosophy says absolutely zero about anyone other than Jews, and also doesn't clarify any reasons why Jews are any different from anyone else.
You get paranoid when some of the folks out there really ARE out to get you. After a couple thousand years, you start making assumptions.
Man, don't even get me started on the fucking Rotarians. They are worse than Scientology and the Bilderbergers rolled into one.
I forgot the Lions. That is the third one that Hamas says Jews are behind.
The point being that Jews are generally expecting an anti-semite to come at them, because it has happened so many times before. If you have an actual reasoned statement to make, then no worries.
To give an example, in reaction to the banning of the two Arab parties from the coming elections, statements about that proving that Israel is a racist nation are going to be called anti-semitic. Statements about the vote undermining the democratic nature of Israel, and being a real shame on the nation for that reason, that is not anti-semitic. Anyone who says it is, THEY are the fucking idiot.
I'm looking at YOU, AIPAC.
Evander on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
It does bear noting that Israel has only ever "given away" land that was taken by force in the first place.
"Taken by force" is an interesting term to use here, because all of the land that Israel has taken they acquired during defensive wars.
They came in with an army and then started living there. It's an accurate term, no?
After coming under attack by several other states, they take land that belonged to none of those states and then refuse to give it back once the war is over?
If some guy tries to mug you, that doesn't give you a right to his wallet. (or his friend's, for that matter)
Those other states all took land too. Why are you singling Israel out?
Should a newly created nation leave tons of open land surrounding it, right after it has been attacked by EVERY one of its neighbors? Does that sound like a smart idea to you?
The residents of the land were all offered Israeli citizenship if they wanted to stay. Plenty of them did, and they're currently living well (Israeli Palestinians, when polled, always say that they would support the creation of a Palestinian state, but that they would have no interest in moving there because they are doing fine where they are.)
What would you have had Israel do?
What? Egypt lost all of Sinai, and Syria lost the Golan Heights. What land did those other states take?
Look, they took the land from the Palestinian proto-state as well as from recognized other states. As part of future peace agreements, they handed back the land to the other states, but not to Palestine.
The issue is not would would I have had them do, because the execution of the war seemed pretty reasonable considering the circumstances, the issue is what I would have them do now, which is recognize that people who fled the area because there was about to be a huge fuck-off war waged in it shouldn't lose their rights to live in the area. Saying "you can keep your right to live here if you stay, but word of warning: us and everyone else in the region is going to be shelling the tits off the place" is not reasonable.
Basically I want them to recognize reasonable terms for negotiation. There hasn't been another peace agreement in history in which one side required that the other lay down their arms before negotiation takes place, and I don't expect it shall work now. It will be pretty hard to get a successful agreement out of anyone in Palestine unless "the shit we took from you by rolling tanks over it" is part of the package.
"Right of Conquest" my ass. That kind of idea has no place in the modern world.
I'm not at all interested in second guessing the tactics of the Israelis. All I'm interested in is where we go from here. It's not often you'll hear me say "Israel shouldn't have." It's not unreasonable, however, to say "Israel ______ed, and therefore _______."
I thought I made myself clear, but I will give it one last shot. The OP does not represent my view, and when evander seemed to be offended by it I just wanted to make it clear that it was indeed bullshit. I have not tried to defend my thread, the "artistic vision" and pretty much everything else was meant as sarcasm.
But yes, obviously I have failed. Serves me right for trying to use sarcasm on the internet I suppose.
Edit: Ok, letting it go now.
Vic you made a fine and ridiculous OP.
Evander is just a Jew whore.
If you like if you make fun of Australians I will tell you how we all eat dangerous animals for afternoon tea.
Posts
they don't really have a lot of land to give away to begin with though
and couldn't all of israel be considered "taken by force"?
No
This part here is what I'm trying to get at.
What is and isn't an acceptably asemitic way to say "Israel shouldn't go into the territories with armored bulldozers and run over palestinian kids in an attempt to defend themselves"?
Oh ok, I didn't know about that
oh
oh please don't do this
the issue there is that Israel's "to do" list doesn't state "go into the territories with armored bulldozers and run over palestinian kids"
Not that it's an anti-semitic statement. That one is just stupid.
I guess the line is simply that you need to look at what Israel is actually attempting to do, not just the aftermath, before criticizing them.
And you'll always run in to an idiot who will call you an anti-semite. As long as you're actually looking at the whole issue, fuck 'em.
They came in with an army and then started living there. It's an accurate term, no?
After coming under attack by several other states, they take land that belonged to none of those states and then refuse to give it back once the war is over?
If some guy tries to mug you, that doesn't give you a right to his wallet. (or his friend's, for that matter)
Pffft. It's right of conquest as far as I'm concerned. If you can't handle your knife well enough to take my wallet, then you don't deserve to have yours.
Those other states all took land too. Why are you singling Israel out?
Should a newly created nation leave tons of open land surrounding it, right after it has been attacked by EVERY one of its neighbors? Does that sound like a smart idea to you?
The residents of the land were all offered Israeli citizenship if they wanted to stay. Plenty of them did, and they're currently living well (Israeli Palestinians, when polled, always say that they would support the creation of a Palestinian state, but that they would have no interest in moving there because they are doing fine where they are.)
What would you have had Israel do?
And that's fine. I just think Israel gets to use the anti-semite card in a lot of places that they shouldn't...
Let me rephrase that, not Israel even specifically, certain elements of Israeli interest, have honed the art of obfuscating the line of anti-semitism.
I think that's a problem.
Sure it's a problem.
It's a problem that isn't helped by the fact that there IS a whole lot of anti-semitism out there.
The Hamas charter states that Jews are the cause of all the world's wars, and that they run the world through organizations like The Freemasons and the Rotary Club.
The UN was once talked in to declaring Zionism to be racism, despite the fact that Zionist philosophy says absolutely zero about anyone other than Jews, and also doesn't clarify any reasons why Jews are any different from anyone else.
You get paranoid when some of the folks out there really ARE out to get you. After a couple thousand years, you start making assumptions.
Uh
the fuck?
I forgot the Lions. That is the third one that Hamas says Jews are behind.
The point being that Jews are generally expecting an anti-semite to come at them, because it has happened so many times before. If you have an actual reasoned statement to make, then no worries.
To give an example, in reaction to the banning of the two Arab parties from the coming elections, statements about that proving that Israel is a racist nation are going to be called anti-semitic. Statements about the vote undermining the democratic nature of Israel, and being a real shame on the nation for that reason, that is not anti-semitic. Anyone who says it is, THEY are the fucking idiot.
I'm looking at YOU, AIPAC.
What? Egypt lost all of Sinai, and Syria lost the Golan Heights. What land did those other states take?
Look, they took the land from the Palestinian proto-state as well as from recognized other states. As part of future peace agreements, they handed back the land to the other states, but not to Palestine.
The issue is not would would I have had them do, because the execution of the war seemed pretty reasonable considering the circumstances, the issue is what I would have them do now, which is recognize that people who fled the area because there was about to be a huge fuck-off war waged in it shouldn't lose their rights to live in the area. Saying "you can keep your right to live here if you stay, but word of warning: us and everyone else in the region is going to be shelling the tits off the place" is not reasonable.
Basically I want them to recognize reasonable terms for negotiation. There hasn't been another peace agreement in history in which one side required that the other lay down their arms before negotiation takes place, and I don't expect it shall work now. It will be pretty hard to get a successful agreement out of anyone in Palestine unless "the shit we took from you by rolling tanks over it" is part of the package.
"Right of Conquest" my ass. That kind of idea has no place in the modern world.
I'm not at all interested in second guessing the tactics of the Israelis. All I'm interested in is where we go from here. It's not often you'll hear me say "Israel shouldn't have." It's not unreasonable, however, to say "Israel ______ed, and therefore _______."
Vic you made a fine and ridiculous OP.
Evander is just a Jew whore.
If you like if you make fun of Australians I will tell you how we all eat dangerous animals for afternoon tea.
Satans..... hints.....
It never ceases to amaze me when people take me seriously about politics or debate.
See, this is where you show that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Neither of those losses occurred during 1948.