Israel's government is turning into a settlement

[Bob]

While I agree that you have conceded--albeit always with reluctance and caveats galore--that "not everyone who criticizes Israel is anti-semitic," you have also told me, directly, that "most" critics are. When asked where you get this startling information, you talk about the vast reading and years of careful study you've done on this matter. But pointing out that you've done a lot of research is not evidence of your conclusions; it's evidence that you're telling us you've done a lot of research. You'll forgive anyone, I hope, for not taking this "evidence" as particularly compelling. Even if you cite opinion in response, you're--to continue with the tautology, though this time in a reasonable sense--only citing opinion in response.

I'm not conceding anything, because I never even implied that all criticisms of Israel were anti-Semitic. I don't need to retract statements I never made. Moreover, the vast majority of Israel's critics, when pressed to get to the fundamentals, will reveal that they are opposed to Jewish independence in Israel. Either they'll say something implying that a Jewish state is inherently racist, make claims suggesting that we're a bunch of foreign colonialists stealing land from the noble indigenous population, or something towards that effect. So I stand by my original suggestion that most critics of Israel, whether or not they realize it, are anti-Semitic. What I never said, however, was that all criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic. I've consumed enough information and have enough discussions to feel more than confident in my position.

And I'm certainly not saying there's no anti-semitism. I'm saying there's plenty of anti-semitism. But each case must be judged on its own merits, not squeezed into some overarching anti-semitism box, especially since no one agrees on how big the box is.

"How big the box is" isn't really relevant. We can usually reveal anti-Semitism on a case-by-case basis. I agree with you - each case must be judged on its own merits (generally speaking, of course).

As always, with acusations of bigotry, the onus is on the accuser, not those being accused. That anti-semitism is not always going to be easy to spot or articulate is a problem for the accusers, not those who might be labelled as such under some conveniently scattergun appraoch.

This approach is called "the shotgun blast in the dark": it may hit its target, but it hits everyone else as well.

At any rate, you fall back into the same problems while talking about Cast Lead. Since it's a given--to you--that the operation was necessary for self-defense, anyone who therefore thinks it wrong is opposed to Israeli self-defense. Such tautological arguments, which are unanswerable precisely because they're unfair and unreasonable, disallows any debate by definition. To disagree with official State pronouncement bespeaks anti-semitism.

You're either misunderstanding me or deliberately misrepresenting my position. I have never stated that one must support the official government line. I approach these issues, like virtually all informed Zionist Jews, with preset values and expectations. The government position doesn't determine what is right or wrong. Indeed, had the Israeli government NOT done anything serious about the rockets and other forms of terrorism from Gaza (as they were doing for many months), we would be calling for military intervention. In other words, a military response was necessary to defend Israel from terrorism, and had the Israeli government continued to ignore this threat because of anti-Semitic international pressure, the Israel government would be criticized by us, as was being done in the months leading up to Cast Lead. There is right and there is wrong, and they exist independently of the government's position.

I'll add one more thing about Cast Lead - if anything, it wasn't prosecuted aggressively enough. That doesn't mean we wish to see more casualties, but it does mean we're opposed to absurdly restrictive rules of engagement placed on our soldiers which only benefit the terrorists and place our soldiers at increased risk. Moreover, many of us are opposed to continued life-support we provide to Gaza - electricity, natural gas, water, gasoline, access to our hospitals, and aid deliveries. We don't tow the government line, we tow the moral line, which often conflicts with the government's position.

And this leads to another, ongoing issue. Because Israel is a Jewish state, it is sometimes felt that criticism of the state must be criticism of Jews; and the conclusion from such a formulation is an obvious one. Again, this allows a convenient debating position: we are led to believe that there is one state, and only one, of which all criticism is instantly suspect...with allowances made for certain people, say, myself, based solely on the magnanimity of those calling "anti-semitism."

Why I am one of the lucky few determined to be "probably not an anti-semite" remains pretty unclear to me. It's not my friendly way of posting, so perhaps I've made my point clear enough to allow me at least this much leeway, I don't know. But I disagree that I'm a rarity, and find it improbable that I'm one of a very few "good lefties."

Again, not relevant and inaccurate. I'm not AIPAC, I don't tow the government line for the hell of it. I recognize right and wrong independently from the statements of politicians. If I support or oppose a position, it has little or nothing to do with the statements from our politicians.

[dre]

I'm not conceding anything, because I never even implied that all criticisms of Israel were anti-Semitic. I don't need to retract statements I never made. Moreover, the vast majority of Israel's critics, when pressed to get to the fundamentals, will reveal that they are opposed to Jewish independence in Israel. Either they'll say something implying that a Jewish state is inherently racist, make claims suggesting that we're a bunch of foreign colonialists stealing land from the noble indigenous population, or something towards that effect. So I stand by my original suggestion that most critics of Israel, whether or not they realize it, are anti-Semitic. What I never said, however, was that all criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic. I've consumed enough information and have enough discussions to feel more than confident in my position.

"How big the box is" isn't really relevant. We can usually reveal anti-Semitism on a case-by-case basis. I agree with you - each case must be judged on its own merits (generally speaking, of course).

You're either misunderstanding me or deliberately misrepresenting my position. I have never stated that one must support the official government line. I approach these issues, like virtually all informed Zionist Jews, with preset values and expectations. The government position doesn't determine what is right or wrong. Indeed, had the Israeli government NOT done anything serious about the rockets and other forms of terrorism from Gaza (as they were doing for many months), we would be calling for military intervention. In other words, a military response was necessary to defend Israel from terrorism, and had the Israeli government continued to ignore this threat because of anti-Semitic international pressure, the Israel government would be criticized by us, as was being done in the months leading up to Cast Lead. There is right and there is wrong, and they exist independently of the government's position.

I'll add one more thing about Cast Lead - if anything, it wasn't prosecuted aggressively enough. That doesn't mean we wish to see more casualties, but it does mean we're opposed to absurdly restrictive rules of engagement placed on our soldiers which only benefit the terrorists and place our soldiers at increased risk. Moreover, many of us are opposed to continued life-support we provide to Gaza - electricity, natural gas, water, gasoline, access to our hospitals, and aid deliveries. We don't tow the government line, we tow the moral line, which often conflicts with the government's position.

Again, not relevant and inaccurate. I'm not AIPAC, I don't tow the government line for the hell of it. I recognize right and wrong independently from the statements of politicians. If I support or oppose a position, it has little or nothing to do with the statements from our politicians.

Moreover, the vast majority of Israel's critics, when pressed to get to the fundamentals, will reveal that they are opposed to Jewish independence in Israel. Either they'll say something implying that a Jewish state is inherently racist, make claims suggesting that we're a bunch of foreign colonialists stealing land from the noble indigenous population, or something towards that effect. So I stand by my original suggestion that most critics of Israel, whether or not they realize it, are anti-Semitic.

I call bullshit. You say the "vast majority of Israel's crisis" oppose Jewish Independence in Israel.

Very very few of "Israels Critics" take that position. As far as I can tell the aggregate position of modern critics of Israel is that it most certainly SHOULD exist as whatever kind of state Israelis want it to be. They just dont believe the occupied territories are part of that state.

This is the position of pretty much the entire world and its not anti-semitic in the slightest. Even Israel itself acknowledges in most cases that these territories are not Israeli proper, and even most jews and even most jews in Israel think that "almost all" of the settlements should be abandoned.

make claims suggesting that we're a bunch of foreign colonialists stealing land from the noble indigenous population, or something towards that effect

Sorry but that is objectively what you are doing. Are you building settlements in the occupied territories or not? Are you pumping water out of there, or not? These things are not even up for any real dispute.

Edited January 22, 2011 by dre

[Bob]

You're creating a false reality. The list of examples of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism among Israel's most prominent and well-known critics is endless. Whether they be prominent politicians, intellectuals, activists, governments, or other institutions - anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are the most common denominator uniting Israel's critics.

Why I am about to waste my time trying to prove an obvious point, I'm not sure. Here is the tip of the iceberg, off the top of my head. Consider the infamous Durban Conference in 2001 which equated Zionism with racism - this is an indisputably anti-Semitic perspective to hold. Remember that this was a big deal, considering that this statement was widely supported by UN member states. There was also Durban II in 2009, as well as a recent GA motion which "commemorated" this racist event in a positive light.

Other prominent trends include the way Arab media rejects Jewish independence in Israel. The most accessible example for English-speaking people who don't do serious research is Al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera regularly denies the legitimacy of Jewish independence in Israel and is openly anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic. This trend permeates virtually all of its coverage of Israel, from "factual" stories to op-eds.

Look at the statements of Arab leaders, starting with Abu Mazen. He cannot bring himself to acknowledge Jewish independence in Israel, which is the very foundation of the fabric of the country. Israel *is* Jewish independence and self-determination. Jewish independence and self-determination isn't just some footnote in the story of Israel. No Arab politician can bring himself to acknowledge this. Yes, I know, after many decades they could acknowledge what they saw before them: the existence of Israel. That "acknowledgement" or "recognition" means nothing without the fundamental purpose behind Israel's existence, which is Jewish statehood. They might as well be acknowledging Israel as just another Arab/Muslim country.

Even you yourself can't bring yourself to say it. To suggest that Israelis will define Israel as they wish washes over the sole purpose of Israel, which is to be a vehicle through which the Jewish people actualize independence in our own homeland. This isn't malleable or time-sensitive. It doesn't depend on Israeli popular opinion. This purpose transcends everything. You chose your words carefully in order not to acknowledge Jewish self-determination, but rather to pass it off as some sort sort of temporary status dependent on what "Israelis" want, knowing full well the large Arab-Israeli minority almost exclusively opposed Jewish independence. Furthermore, you think we'll ever allow Israeli popular opinion to oppose this fundamental component of our country? The only way that could ever happen is if the Jewish proportion of the population was diminished - another thing we will never allow to happen. You knew that before you made that statement. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, the need for Israel to remain Jewish overrides every other concern. We will do our best to balance all needs, but if push comes to shove, the Jewish character or Israel isn't up for negotiation.

After writing this post, I've realized yet again, that having a conversation with you about these issues is a total waste of time - you bring nothing to the conversation except simplistic perspectives and dishonest politicization.

[bud]

You for example accuse Israel of engaging in ethnic cleansing because it wants a sovereign state for Jews.

no rue. again, no.

this will be the last time i will address your irresponsible and inappropriate accusation.

i support the state of israel within the legal and internationally recognized borders. what i do not support is the illegal occupation and annexation of land in the west bank and east jerusalem.

an example of ethnic cleansing is taking a palestinian home, on palestinian land, demolishing it, building jewish only homes. all supported by the government. if you are unable to condemn that, then you are a supporter of ethnic cleansing as well.

Edited January 22, 2011 by bud

[jbg]

no rue. again, no.

this will be the last time i will address your irresponsible and inappropriate accusation.

On this part we agree, but probably for different reasons.

i support the state of israel within the legal and internationally recognized borders. what i do not support is the illegal occupation and annexation of land in the west bank and east jerusalem.

an example of ethnic cleansing is taking a palestinian home, on palestinian land, demolishing it, building jewish only homes. all supported by the government. if you are unable to condemn that, then you are a supporter of ethnic cleansing as well.

So your view is ultimately that May 15, 1948 - June 6, 1967 boundaries also represented "ethnic cleansing"?

[Bob]

no rue. again, no.

this will be the last time i will address your irresponsible and inappropriate accusation.

i support the state of israel within the legal and internationally recognized borders. what i do not support is the illegal occupation and annexation of land in the west bank and east jerusalem.

an example of ethnic cleansing is taking a palestinian home, on palestinian land, demolishing it, building jewish only homes. all supported by the government. if you are unable to condemn that, then you are a supporter of ethnic cleansing as well.

Define "internationally recognized borders", and then tell me why that definition represents the moral choice with respect to this conflict.

[bud]

Define "internationally recognized borders",

you should know the meaning of legal boundaries and borders. it's kind of important.

and then tell me why that definition represents the moral choice with respect to this conflict.

your question does not make sense. however, if we're talking morality, then it could be argued that humanitarian laws can represent morality.

many of israel's actions in the occupied territories, including gaza is both illegal and morally wrong.

illegal: as an occupier, demolishing a palestinian home in east jerusalem and then setting up jewish only homes.

morally wrong: demolishing a person's home, on his land to set up homes that do not allow that person to live there, because of his religious background.

[Bob]

you should know the meaning of legal boundaries and borders. it's kind of important.

your question does not make sense. however, if we're talking morality, then it could be argued that humanitarian laws can represent morality.

many of israel's actions in the occupied territories, including gaza is both illegal and morally wrong.

illegal: as an occupier, demolishing a palestinian home in east jerusalem and then setting up jewish only homes.

morally wrong: demolishing a person's home, on his land to set up homes that do not allow that person to live there, because of his religious background.

Why can't you answer the two simple questions? Please define "internationally recognized borders", and then tell me why this is moral choice to select. These are simple questions, please answer them.

Instead of answering the questions, you just type false rhetoric. Arabs do not have their homes demolished because of their "religious backgrounds" in order to Jewish people to move in. That simply doesn't happen, saying it over and over and over doesn't make it true. I asked you to expand on this lie a few days ago and am still awaiting a response. Please show me an example of someone having their legally-owned and constructed home demolished because of their ethnicity in order to allow a Jewish person to move in. If it is happening all the time and is a common practice in Israel, certainly you can provide examples with explanations?

[bloodyminded]

I'm not conceding anything, because I never even implied that all criticisms of Israel were anti-Semitic. I don't need to retract statements I never made. Moreover, the vast majority of Israel's critics, when pressed to get to the fundamentals, will reveal that they are opposed to Jewish independence in Israel. Either they'll say something implying that a Jewish state is inherently racist, make claims suggesting that we're a bunch of foreign colonialists stealing land from the noble indigenous population, or something towards that effect. So I stand by my original suggestion that most critics of Israel, whether or not they realize it, are anti-Semitic. What I never said, however, was that all criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic. I've consumed enough information and have enough discussions to feel more than confident in my position.

Oh, I'm well aware that you feel confident in your inane assertions. There's no debating you, because you are an extremist who thinks the worst of everybody who doesn't agree with you. Too bad.

"How big the box is" isn't really relevant. We can usually reveal anti-Semitism on a case-by-case basis. I agree with you - each case must be judged on its own merits (generally speaking, of course).

And yet I feel prett confident you have not looked at the millions of critics on a "case-by-case basis." (They're "usually" anti-semites, as you say, though often ignorant of this perturbing fact.) Which proves your own hateful conclusion wrong in the first instance, by this very formulation.

[Bob]

I've spent much, much, much more time examining and studying Israel's critics than you have. I read their websites, I've been to their demonstrations, I've attended their lectures, I've read their op-eds, I've talked to them in the streets. I know what most of them are about. As can be seen with TrueMetis, dig a little beneath the surface of what at first seems like a superficial animosity towards Israel, and you'll often reveal anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic leanings.

See for yourself, go to the thread about Palestinians preferring Israeli citizenship over citizenship in a possible future state of their own, and read TrueMetis' comments. You think he is an exception? You think his perspective is rare? He's the typical anti-Israeli antagonist. Ask fundamental and basic questions, and the anti-Semitism quickly reveals itself.

[bloodyminded]

I've spent much, much, much more time examining and studying Israel's critics than you have. I read their websites, I've been to their demonstrations, I've attended their lectures, I've read their op-eds, I've talked to them in the streets. I know what most of them are about. As can be seen with TrueMetis, dig a little beneath the surface of what at first seems like a superficial animosity towards Israel, and you'll often reveal anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic leanings.

See for yourself, go to the thread about Palestinians preferring Israeli citizenship over citizenship in a possible future state of their own, and read TrueMetis' comments. You think he is an exception? You think his perspective is rare? He's the typical anti-Israeli antagonist. Ask fundamental and basic questions, and the anti-Semitism quickly reveals itself.

Yes. In almost every case, according to your sober theory (continually buttressed by your special pleading about the gobs of "research" you've done, including all the critics you've accosted for opinions "in the streets").

I don't expect to convince you that your ideas border on misanthropic lunacy.

Edited January 24, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Yes. In almost every case, according to your sober theory (continually buttressed by your special pleading about the gobs of "research" you've done, including all the critics you've accosted for opinions "in the streets").

I don't expect to convince you that your ideas border on misanthropic lunacy.

You think I'm overstating how much time I've spent on these issues? You think I'm lying or misrepresenting myself? You think the amount of time and energy you've invested in learning about these issues is comparable to mine?

[Oleg Bach]

Yawn.

Another hate Israel thread.

I didn't think that anyone cared enough about Israel to hate it? Interestingly...I did partially read an article that said..Israel was always bullishly unreasonable when dealing with Palistine over the years...Pushy selfish people are everywhere these days...I guess we should have a hate the brutes thread!

[Bob]

I didn't think that anyone cared enough about Israel to hate it? Interestingly...I did partially read an article that said..Israel was always bullishly unreasonable when dealing with Palistine over the years...Pushy selfish people are everywhere these days...I guess we should have a hate the brutes thread!

You really think Israel doesn't evoke revulsion in its enemies? You think people obsess over Israel because they don't care about Israel? How can you not realize that the Israel-Ara conflict is one of the most, if not THE most, passionately fought controversies today?

One more thing, certainly nobody can dispute an article you read advocating a particular point-of-view. If there's an article written stating a particular opinion, that opinion is indisputable.

[jbg]

See for yourself, go to the thread about Palestinians preferring Israeli citizenship over citizenship in a possible future state of their own, and read TrueMetis' comments. You think he is an exception? You think his perspective is rare? He's the typical anti-Israeli antagonist. Ask fundamental and basic questions, and the anti-Semitism quickly reveals itself.

Funny, ain't it, that Jews seem to be the only ethnic group not entitled to self-determination?

[Bob]

Funny, ain't it, that Jews seem to be the only ethnic group not entitled to self-determination?

Apparently we're not distinct enough. Apparently we're just like everyone else, with small modifications. Therefore, according to TrueMetis and others like him, we should just assimilate into our host societies.

We can only be singled out as different when we're put into death camps. That's when we are allowed to be distinguished as different.

[bud]

Why can't you answer the two simple questions? Please define "internationally recognized borders", and then tell me why this is moral choice to select. These are simple questions, please answer them.

your question was responded to and you chose to say:

Instead of answering the questions, you just type false rhetoric.

i wrote about the facts on the ground. if you're going to sit there and deny that arab homes are being demolished and then jewish only homes are being built on top of them, then you are not here to discuss the truth. you're here to spread misinformation.

here are some facts that you can choose to deal with:

official statistics show that from 2000 - 2008, 670 east jerusalem homes were demolished. majority of them administrative demolitions. reason given for the demolition? lack of permit.

so why are the palestinians building without permits? only between 50-100 housing permits are given to palestinian each year while there is a shortage of over 25,000 housing units for them. that's less than 1 in 250. suspicious? give them a jewish first name and last name and see what their chances will be. or maybe they can just move into the jewish only settlements in east jerusalem that continue to receive subsidies from the israeli government.

this kind of behaviour by the government that administers this land goes against legal rules, moral rules and western culture ideals.

[Bob]

Why are you refusing to answer simple questions? Please define "internationally recognized borders", and then tell me why this is the ideal we should work towards. You're evading simple questions. Let's get to core issues and stop wasting time with tangents.

I won't even waste time addressing your rhetoric on housing demolitions. You don't know the first thing about regulations in Jerusalem with respect to construction.

Please answer these two simple questions and stop dodging.

[bud]

Why are you refusing to answer simple questions? Please define "internationally recognized borders", and then tell me why this is the ideal we should work towards. You're evading simple questions. Let's get to core issues and stop wasting time with tangents.

the core issue is israel's policy of systematic ethnic cleansing of the palestinians and the land grab in east jerusalem.

I won't even waste time addressing your rhetoric on housing demolitions.

there is a difference between rhetoric and facts. i gave you numbers that show the systematic discrimination towards the palestinians. numbers that prove israel's discriminatory policy.

israel's policy towards ethnic control, which is clearly stated by the city, aims at preventing the demographic changing from 70% jewish and 30% arab. yes. they actually have a stated policy and master plan.

You don't know the first thing about regulations in Jerusalem with respect to construction.

you are unable to respond to the statistics and facts so you're back to your 'you don't know.. blah blah'. instead of the tired old response, try something a little different and address the facts on the ground.

[Bob]

I asked you two specific and simple questions a few days ago. You are now responding to me with tangents on another issue entirely.

Bud, having a conversation with you is a waste of time - although I should've realized this instantly.

[bud]

I asked you two specific and simple questions a few days ago. You are now responding to me with tangents on another issue entirely.

Bud, having a conversation with you is a waste of time - although I should've realized this instantly.

i'm sticking with the topic that was being discussed before you went off on a tangent with your question.

we are talking about israel's policy and the systematic ethnic cleansing of east jerusalem. i've provided statistics and numbers that show this. what you've provided is opinion and patting yourself on the back 'because you know everything and we don't'.

you say there is no systematic discriminatory policy towards palestinians. however, when i show you the numbers and the statistics and the official policy, i am backing up the fact that ethnic cleansing is being done, you are unable to directly respond to them.

it's your choice whether or not you want to respond to the information given to you that backs up israel's discriminatory policy.

Edited January 25, 2011 by bud

[jbg]

Apparently we're not distinct enough. Apparently we're just like everyone else, with small modifications. ********We can only be singled out as different when we're put into death camps. That's when we are allowed to be distinguished as different.

A "distinct" or "indigenous" group must be either totally unsuccessful, or prone to going into drunken stupors, or violent, or otherwise needing massive support and subsidies, in order to qualify as suitably "indigenous" to allow "nationhood". Groups that promote thrift, education, family and accomplishment don't count.

[dre]

Funny, ain't it, that Jews seem to be the only ethnic group not entitled to self-determination?

[Bonam]

Funny, ain't it, that Jews seem to be the only ethnic group not entitled to self-determination?

It's not really an entitlement. Who can grant self-determination to a people and create for them a viable state out of nothing? Certainly not the UN. Self-determination is something that a group needs to achieve for themselves. Other nations can offer recognition or support, but in the end it is only the members of the group themselves that can make it happen. Clearly, Jews have succeeded in doing this in Israel.

[bloodyminded]

You think I'm overstating how much time I've spent on these issues? You think I'm lying or misrepresenting myself? You think the amount of time and energy you've invested in learning about these issues is comparable to mine?

I think it's unprovable, but more importantly, it doesn't prove that you're correct. For the record, no, I don't think you're lying...though your discussions with critics "on the streets" is confusing, and follows the Limbaughian tradition of "I spoke to the protesters themselves, folks, and they had no clue, no clue!"; and no, I'm positive that you've spent more time and energy considering these matters than I have; but this does not plainly denote "learning." Plenty of Holocaust deniers have spent far more time than I in considering and reading about and debating the Holocaust, but I hesitate to deem their accumulation of information "learning" in the normal sense of the word.

In short, I agree that you have to work to properly understand this (or any) large political/historical issue; but it does not follow that doing this work will lead you to the right answers. If that were so, we would not be having this discussion at all.

Along this line, it should be pointed out that lots of people have done lots of research--I daresay many have done more than yourself by a long shot--and come to different conclusions. Including (as you well know) many Jewish people, both Israeli and diaspora. Arguably, Jewish critics have been central and crucial to the critiques themselves.

You're offering opinions, and claiming them as objective truths. Including an extremely difficult proposition: that while criticisms of Israel are not necessarily anti-semitic (a basic trusim, which takes zero "research" to ascertain), most of the critics themselves are anti-semitic, and just don't know it yet.

Luckily you're here to inform them that they're unknowingly anti-semites, by virtue of their thinking "Cast Lead" a criminal act, for example.

(As for the "anti-Zionism is anti-semitic" claim: I remain an agnostic on that, never having considered it, and not being an anti-Zionist myself. Though I would consider myself an "anti-Christian-Zionist," in no small part because I consider the Christian Zionists to be anti-semites, since the destruction of the Jews is the fantasy future to which they adhere as Holy.)

And I remain slightly perplexed as to how I personally don't deserve the anti-semitic disapprobation, when "most" who share my opinion are not so fortunate.

Edited January 25, 2011 by bloodyminded