This thread is about the flotila and anything relating to the palestine/israel issue. If you want to have a different conversation about some other shit, go make a different thread.
This thread is about the flotila and anything relating to the palestine/israel issue. If you want to have a different conversation about some other shit, go make a different thread.
that's funny seeing how you've made quite a few posts since the op and not a single one of them has been about what you just stated the thread is about. the actual events or the conflict, unless you want to count this one:
trolls being trolls, but anyway, protip:
You might want to reconsider claims of people going off-topic when they've posted considerably more commentary on the actual topic than you.
WTF @ this thread, I thought I made it clear right from the start, moar blatant commander shepard meme pics and less anti-semitism.
Taking Kuya's threads and Elvis's posts seriously is like taking Fox News seriously. Making one-sided sensationalist threads and posts then trying to post links to sites that have the same tone is their thing. People acting surprised by this type of trolling is what is even more hilarious.
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/29/137481...ents-spark-row
Meir Dagan was the head of Israel's spy agency for eight years and has been credited with raising the international prestige of the agency. So it came as a shock to many that upon leaving office he would talk about one of the most sensitive issues here: Iran.
Dagan has said that a military strike on that nation targeting its suspect nuclear program would be disastrous, and he lambasted the current Israeli leadership for being reckless in pursuing that aim. This past week, Dagan was stripped of his diplomatic passport, in apparent retaliation.America's best ally![Deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset and a member of Netanyahu's Likud Party Danny] Danon says legislation should be introduced to bar public officials from making critical statements like Dagan's after they've left office.
Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy says Israel has to present a united front publicly to an enemy like Iran, whatever the internal divisions.
Breaking knews, the Christian Science Monitor is a one-sided, sensationalist rag.Making one-sided sensationalist threads and posts then trying to post links to sites that have the same tone is their thing.
Ok, back.
Before I get into it. 2 things:
First, on this notion of 'internalized antisemitism [as] a societal problem'
Antisemitism studies are an actual research field in college. There's been a new term cropping up in the years following the 2nd Intifada, called the 'New antisemitism'. This relates to Israel and anti-Zionism.
To illustrate how I feel about this and provide a current-events example, I'll talk about the issue of the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's so-called "working definition of antisemitism."
In 2004, the EUMC issued a report that stated the need for an operational definition of antisemitism "provide a common standard for data collection across the EU." Within the report, several figures are cited for their opinions on how antisemitism should be defined; what it's criteria should include, etc.
One example is that of Peter Pulzer, Chairman of the 'Leo Baeck Institute' in London.
I don't agree that talking about Jewish identity in terms of 'the Jewish vote' for example is antisemitic. In fact, Jewish intellectuals commonly refer to this term - and in recent news, there are several articles that reflect this casual way about referring to a demographic. It's not antisemitic, for instance, to relate this term to donors and their interests.Peter Pulzer[...] attempted to define and operationalise the dividing line between criticism of Israel and antisemitism in media research on the basis of a list of seven questions. According to Pulzer, one should examine whether anonymous collectivities such as "the Jewish community", "the Jewish lobby", or "the Jewish vote" are attacked; whether the ethnic or religious affiliation of the subjects are emphasized; whether the power or economic status of Jews is exaggerated; whether the complaint is launched so that every criticism of Israel is automatically denounced as antisemitism, or whether every denunciation of antisemitism or suicide bombing is qualified with a "but..."; whether Israel, its Government and its policies are compared to Nazism and the South African apartheid policy; and finally whether any boycotts or sanctions proposed are directed only against Israel, but not against any other country violating human rights and international law.
Pulzer adds that the decision whether to qualify a particular criticism as antisemitic or not is context dependent and, furthermore, distinguishes between explicitly antisemitic intentions and cases where the effect is antisemitic, without the intention of the writer or speaker.
Obama's recent speech on I-P, in which he referred to the 67' borders, and mainstream commentary that followed illustrate how the term 'Jewish vote' is both relevant and acceptable in context.
(If you want me to provide sources for that label, and how it's referred to in the MSM, I will.)
This comes down to context. Pulzer stresses that as well. However, I don't agree with him on other examples like the apartheid analogy.
Why is it possibly antisemitic to say that Israel is carrying out apartheid in the territories? It's either right or not. Simple. I don't see what it implies about all Jews.
The definition of antisemitism in this case becomes politicized. It's not that you'd be saying all Jews are like this/that/the other thing - but rather, you level a harsh criticism against 'the Jewish State'. It reflects badly on Israel to be compared to apartheid South Africa. Since Israel refers to itself as the Jewish State/the Jewish homeland and blah blah - then perhaps, there is a lot of insecurity about the conclusions someone would arrive at when - once again - 'the Jewish State' does something 'bad'.
A couple of summers ago, there was the organ trafficking story. When it appeared that someone had evidence Israel was harvesting the organs of dead Palestinians, without consent - several Jewish groups cried 'blood libel'. Then, Israel admitted to having done so in the 90s. It noted that it didn't just harvest Palestinian organs primarily, so you know, nothing personal.
The point however, is that as soon as that accusation came up, there were tons of Zionists (and I say this, because in my mind, it's about this political ideology and not about SIMPLY being Jewish and being offended) and Zionist advocacy groups in an uproar. I think at some point, some people were calling for Israel to sever ties with Sweden or something? That's where the story originated I believe.
Anyway, bottom-line is that as in the case of the apartheid analogy, Israel can do something bad. It's possible. How you use that FACT, is another issue. If you conflate that behavior with all Jews and/or suggest there is something inherent to Jewishness that leads to criminal behavior then it should be apparent that you are an antisemite. That to me is what that term means, conflation/making assumptions without basis.
And actually, that's what Solanis did. You didn't say why I'm an antisemite. And even though you think this thread isn't worth the time, you keep posting in it!
That's why I think it's great when a rabid Zionist calls an anti-Zionist an antisemite. That means you're doing something right.
You drain the meaning out of that word.
In fact! Recently Yale disbanded it's antisemitism studies precisely because of the lack of intellectual integrity of the program. (Follow this story. Enlighten yourself.) It was highly publicized in the blogosphere. The issue is that the program was marked by partisan hacks equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. That and of course, shoddy scholarship, etc.
I won't talk about this anymore for the remainder of the thread because it's a fucking waste of time.
This isn't about Jew-hatred. And the only people who bring that up are intellectual light-weights who can't string an argument together for their side if their life depended on it.
I'll reply to Plow's usual faggotry a bit later. LOL@3000 years of wandering + 'coming back' (WHER WER DEM JEWS FOR 3000 YRS PLOW?) and legitimately buying up all the land! = the ethnic cleansing of 800K Palestinians and all the tragedy that ensued is A-OK!
God you're fucking stupid.
If you feel my threads are too one sided, you're more than welcome to post your own version of events and defend them. You're even welcome to post pro-isreal threads if you feel you need to combat my horrible bias. I certainly have no obligation to treat every point of view as uniquely legitimate, especially when i don't think they're as legitimate as mine. So, again, feel free to combat my point of view with your own. Post your own version of news stories, your own commentaries on relevant events. Go crazy.
But don't come in here, accuse someone of being one sided, without actually ever presenting your own side of the story and defending it. Otherwise, I get the impression that you can't actually defend your side of the story, so you resort to just taking potshots from the sidewalk, so to speak.
I'm not a troll. I cite mainstream sources to make my point - always. I don't make stupid generalizations and I don't make lame equivocations.
I want to see someone counter what I have to say with the minimal level of effort I've shown. All you do is LOL or post stupid outdated memes.
You're in no position to talk about this issue. Get lost.
The BG Forums: We hate jews (sometimes)
I think Kuya masturbates furiously whenever he reads some anti-jew piece.
Jews are better because they dont have to reduce their numbers to kill someone else.
Elvis in your absence I explained basic anti-semitism theory to kuya in chat but you missed it. your dismissal of it is sadly basic and willfully ignorant of the facts of the situation. you can PM me if you want the same explanation kuya got but otherwise I'm not wasting my time on someone who's demonstrated his unwillingness to learn. ball's in your court
Sensationalism. A most salient point.
That's the most retarded shit I've seen in any BG thread.Originally Posted by Elvis
Not only are those "arithmetics of life" arguments stupid, they're incredibly insensitive.
Senseless loss of civilian life is always a tragedy, whether that life is Palestinian or Israeli, whether numerous or not; human rights violations do not excuse other human rights violations.
And I won't even touch on the implication that the side which causes the least civiliant casualties (not out of humanism, but rather incompetence/bad equipment) is necessarily morally justified in its action.
Right. And Hamas merely wants Netanyahu to quit, maybe?Originally Posted by Elvis
They've gone on record saying Israel doesn't have the right to exist, ffs!
How much more unambiguous d'you want them to be?
Someone says I don't have the right to exist while stroking his AK-47, I'll have a hard time not to take it as a threat on both my life and anal virginity.
Hamas is at war with everyone. You think the rockets help Palestine?
They:
- Don't accomplish any kind of militarily significant result. You've said that yourself.
- Give an excuse to Israel to retaliate (excessively and indiscriminately).
- Give an excuse to the US to fund Israel's military.
- Kill innocents.
Both sides suffer from them, either directly or indirectly. Hamas merely uses Palestine as a tool to spread their brand of religious zealotry, they don't care about the civilians.
http://swagsportsnetwork.com/wp-cont...nHindsight.jpgOriginally Posted by Elvis
You don't. But we're in 2011, Captain Hindsight.
Pointing out errors of the past doesn't help solve the present situation one iota.
More than 50 years have passed, maybe we could move on from the implications that Israeli have no right to be there?
What do you propose? Moving them elsewhere? Exterminating them down to the last one?
If not, why bring it up at all?
The original story is about the 2nd aid flotilla with supplies for civilians, attempts to sabotage it by admitted zionist activists and Israel's threat to block foreign journalists who cover the story with a 10-year visa lockout.
Yet the only defense people can muster is 'Hamas wants to destroy Israel and kill civilians.'
The blindspots are just fucking huge today.
Sure be raining strawmen round here.