Iran's "Review of the Holocaust" 2-day conference starts

[steverino]

Does anyone here have any information on who is attending this, other than Mel Gibson's father's buddy in this link? I wonder if any surviving Germans from WWII who at least have admitted they "were only following orders" would have the nerve to speak out against Ahmadinejad in public. I find the whole matter extremely unsettling and feel awful for aging Jews haunted with memories of their concentration camp experiences.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/holocaust-denier-at-tehran-meeting/2006/12/10/1165685553995.html

[Pescado]

Well, I don't know who is attending, but I can tell you who isn't attending. Iran refused a visa to this guy, a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship, who would have assuredly been in the minority of views at this 'debate' by acknowledging the holocaust and being prepared to debate the deniers. Read his views in the article on Arab acknowledgment of the holocaust; is it any wonder he was barred from attending? He is much too rational of a person.

"Holocaust deniers ban dissenting voice": http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2497895,00.html

Is all of this holocaust denial stuff by Ahmadinejad just politics, playing to the Jew-hating Muslim masses for popularity during a time when his government is under intense pressure from within to cave to the west on the Iranian nuclear program/etc, or is it prep work for something more sinister? Certainly many of the Israeli newspapers that I read believe the latter, and I fear they may be right, though I hope not.

[Zep]

Of course it is baiting! Gamesmanship and brinkmanship. Middle Eastern politics is made of this...

[zenith-nadir]

or is it prep work for something more sinister?It is prep work. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telegraphing his real intentions much like Hitler telegraphed his real intentions in Mein Kampf.

1) The first step in deligitimizing a group of people is to question their history.

Hold a "Review of the Holocaust" conference.

2) Second step is blame them for all the ills in the world.

"Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, marking the 27th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, told tens of thousands of his countrymen Saturday that the United States and Europe should pay a heavy price for publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, saying the West had become a tool of "Zionism." cite (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395389146&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)

"Tehran, Iran, Feb. 23 – Iran’s hard-line President accused the United States and Israel of being behind Wednesday’s bombing of a holy Shiite Muslim shrine in the Iraqi city of Samarra." cite (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5893)

"Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief." cite (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/29/ahmadinejad.letter/)


3) Third step is call for their destruction. By this time it ok to do that as you have questioned their history AND shown they are "a danger to the world", (steps 1 & 2).

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini." cite (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816)


Hitler meet Ahmadinejad....Ahmadinejad meet Hitler.

[Pescado]

Yeah, that's certainly the biggest fear of Israel, and a great fear to the rest of the world.

But is this posturing really so different from what other iron-fisted Muslim rulers do? Seems par for the course to me; maybe done just a bit more desperately due to the (supposedly) extreme power struggles in Iran right now. Broad public appeal is probably very important to Ahmadinejad right now. While I do agree that Iran could have the most sinister of motives for the future, I'm not convinced that Ahmadinejad really plans on taking action, and not just playing up his hard stance to the Jew-haters(pretty much everyone in Iran, and the entire Middle East for that matter) for good PR, Middle-Eastern style.

[zenith-nadir]

I'm not convinced that Ahmadinejad really plans on taking action, and not just playing up his hard stance to the Jew-haters(pretty much everyone in Iran, and the entire Middle East for that matter) for good PR, Middle-Eastern style.I am convinced that Ahmadinejad really believes what he says and he goes out of his way to say it repeatedly, publicly.

In the face of overwhelming documentation, witnesses and evidence name one other country on earth that officially questions the holocaust and holds conferences. Frankly the thought of these guys getting a nuclear bomb scares the _________ out of me.

[Pescado]

Granted, nobody else is frothing at the mouth as much as Iran, you're right. However, Iran is in a bit of unique situation here and Ahmadinejad is a bit of a unique guy. There are other countries that may feel similarly, but can't publicly make such a scene due to the damage that it would do to important western relations, even though such statements would probably make them very popular. Perhaps only Syria is in a similar situation as Iran, where relations with the west are already so far deteriorated that they can take actions that the west doesn't like if it helps them at home, since it would be hard for relations to get any worse. Such is the case with all of this posturing about the holocaust by Ahmadinejad. Just look at how popular it's making him, not just in Iran, but in the entire Middle East. That is popularity that he sorely needs right now. Would he be even remotely as popular if not for how outspoken he has been about Joos? And if he wasn't nearly as popular, would he still be able to hold his bargaining position in the nuclear dispute?

I'm not saying that he definitely doesn't have something very nasty up his sleeve, but I remain skeptical. It seems like he certainly wants us to think he does, which makes me all the more suspicious. He's definitely a loon, but I'm not certain that he is a suicidal loon, even if he does believe every word he says. That doesn't mean that I'm not just as concerned as the next guy about Iran getting ahold of a nuke or ten.

[JamesM]

Does anyone here have any information on who is attending this
The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6167695.stm) story lists some attendees.

[Marc L]

Yeah, that's certainly the biggest fear of Israel, and a great fear to the rest of the world.

But is this posturing really so different from what other iron-fisted Muslim rulers do? Seems par for the course to me; maybe done just a bit more desperately due to the (supposedly) extreme power struggles in Iran right now. Broad public appeal is probably very important to Ahmadinejad right now. While I do agree that Iran could have the most sinister of motives for the future, I'm not convinced that Ahmadinejad really plans on taking action, and not just playing up his hard stance to the Jew-haters(pretty much everyone in Iran, and the entire Middle East for that matter) for good PR, Middle-Eastern style.

Par on course, perhaps, but how do we know it's not just trying to lull us into a false security? Iran could be blustering and blustering until we start to ignore it, then decide to attack.

Marc

[Pescado]

Par on course, perhaps, but how do we know it's not just trying to lull us into a false security? Iran could be blustering and blustering until we start to ignore it, then decide to attack.

Marc
True. I'm not advocating trusting Iran, I'm just saying that I am not as convinced as some others that Iran is definitely going to attack.

[ponderingturtle]

Granted, nobody else is frothing at the mouth as much as Iran, you're right. However, Iran is in a bit of unique situation here and Ahmadinejad is a bit of a unique guy.

Yea how many other world leaders recruited children to clear land mines by walking on them?

[Cello Man]

He's definitely a loon, but I'm not certain that he is a suicidal loon, even if he does believe every word he says. That doesn't mean that I'm not just as concerned as the next guy about Iran getting ahold of a nuke or ten.

Who needs this world when you've got your 72 virgins in paradise waiting for you? These guys have a warped ideology, and the people running Iran right now do not have the same views on life and death that the West shares. I for one worry that Ahmadinejad really means what he's saying.

[zenith-nadir]

I for one worry that Ahmadinejad really means what he's saying.He does IMHO.

cite (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html) - "The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?"

cite (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml) - "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country."

cite (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060205-100341-6320r.htm) - "The man in charge of hoodwinking the Western powers about Iran's now 18-year-old secret nuclear program believes the apocalypse will happen in his own lifetime. He'll be 50 in October."

cite (http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1714431,00.html) - "Such devoutness is in harmony with the beliefs of Iran's ultra-Islamist president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has put the hidden imam's long-awaited return at the heart of his political philosophy in a manner not exhibited by his predecessors."

[Merko]

I think it's not so much designed to please Iranian antisemites, as to piss off Israel as much as possible. He probably wants to provoke further Israeli aggression which would give him increased popularity at home and in the region.

It's more of the same as Hezbollahs attack on the border post, just that Iran can't really allow themselves a direct military provocation.

Same game as everywhere.. instead of becoming popular for something you do, you create an enemy and get supporters because they dislike the enemy.

[Dave1001]

I think it's not so much designed to please Iranian antisemites, as to piss off Israel as much as possible. He probably wants to provoke further Israeli aggression which would give him increased popularity at home and in the region.

It's more of the same as Hezbollahs attack on the border post, just that Iran can't really allow themselves a direct military provocation.

Same game as everywhere.. instead of becoming popular for something you do, you create an enemy and get supporters because they dislike the enemy.

Yup, I agree. Strauss was a genius, in that he correctly predicted the politics of our age. In that sense Bush, Ahmedinajad, and Chavez are all more or less working together to keep each other in power.

[Mycroft]

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6167695.stm) story lists some attendees.

Yes, a few words about who attends a conference like this.

From the article:

Participants include a number of well-known "revisionist" Western academics. American David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, is to present a paper.

But a number of Jewish rabbis are also there. One, British Rabbi Ahron Cohen, said he had come to the conference to put the "Orthodox Jewish viewpoint" across.

David Duke is certainly the type of person we would expect to attend and support an event such as this, but for the BBC to claim that "Jewish Rabbis" would give an event like this legitimacy by their attendance is somewhat misleading.

Rabbi Ahron Cohen is a prominent speaker for a specific sect of Orthodox Judaism called the "Neturei Karta" that is rabidly anti-Israel and will stand with anyone else that is anti-Israel no matter how vile they are.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Rabbi+Ahron+Cohen&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

http://www.nkusa.org/activities/recent/022603Bham.cfm

Identifying this person as just another British Orthodox Rabbi is either amazingly dishonest or profoundly ignorant.

[geni]

Yea how many other world leaders recruited children to clear land mines by walking on them?

It was a logical tactical descision under those conditions. War isn't nice.

[ponderingturtle]

It was a logical tactical descision under those conditions. War isn't nice.

So it is only a war crime if they are forced to do it? So was useing gas by sadam, but we seem to be holding him accountable.

[Dave1001]

So was useing gas by sadam, but we seem to be holding him accountable.

I'm sure you can appreciate the irony in this statement. The idea that America's "holding [Saddam] accountable" is in some way linked to his using poison gas?

[wahrheit]

I read in Der Spiegel of the following attendees:

Gerald Fredrick Töben, Director of the Australian "Adelaide Institute". He was arrested and convicted for sedition when he once visited Germany, where he was born.

Robert Faurisson, French literature professor, convicted multiple times for holocaust denial

Georges Thiel, also from France, also convicted like the above

KKK David Duke has been mentioned before

And then the article mentions two well-known german rightist extremist who had to hand in their passports so they couldn't leave the country and visit Iran. Well, one of them is in jail right now, anyway. Guess what he was concivted for.

[steverino]

Yes, a few words about who attends a conference like this.

From the article:



David Duke is certainly the type of person we would expect to attend and support an event such as this, but for the BBC to claim that "Jewish Rabbis" would give an event like this legitimacy by their attendance is somewhat misleading.

Rabbi Ahron Cohen is a prominent speaker for a specific sect of Orthodox Judaism called the "Neturei Karta" that is rabidly anti-Israel and will stand with anyone else that is anti-Israel no matter how vile they are.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Rabbi+Ahron+Cohen&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

http://www.nkusa.org/activities/recent/022603Bham.cfm

Identifying this person as just another British Orthodox Rabbi is either amazingly dishonest or profoundly ignorant.

His opinions I find extemely disturbing. What would attract him to a conference about the holocaust? A Jewish Rabbi hating Israel should still believe in the historical accuracy of the holocaust.

[Dave1001]

I think it's not so much designed to please Iranian antisemites, as to piss off Israel as much as possible. He probably wants to provoke further Israeli aggression which would give him increased popularity at home and in the region.

It's more of the same as Hezbollahs attack on the border post, just that Iran can't really allow themselves a direct military provocation.

Same game as everywhere.. instead of becoming popular for something you do, you create an enemy and get supporters because they dislike the enemy.

A perfect illustration:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/11/061211130257.ypfkzp5b.html

Americans and Westerners who pretend that Iran is filled with anti-Western, anti-American "bad people" strengthen Ahmenidajad's hand. Like him, they want Arabs and Iranians as permanent bad-guy foils (just like he wants Americans as foils) more than they want a free and prosperous world (and Iran), in my opinion.

We should keep an eagle eye on these thousands of Iranian student protesters, and as a world community we should give them full support to express themselves without negative repercussions.

[Cleon]

His opinions I find extemely disturbing. What would attract him to a conference about the holocaust? A Jewish Rabbi hating Israel should still believe in the historical accuracy of the holocaust.

From the BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6167695.stm):


But a number of Jewish rabbis are also there. One, British Rabbi Ahron Cohen, said he had come to the conference to put the "Orthodox Jewish viewpoint" across.


"We certainly say there was a Holocaust, we lived through the Holocaust. But in no way can it be used as a justification for perpetrating unjust acts against the Palestinians," he said.

[gtc]

His opinions I find extemely disturbing. What would attract him to a conference about the holocaust? A Jewish Rabbi hating Israel should still believe in the historical accuracy of the holocaust.

He might think it has been used or exagerated by Israelis to justify the existence of Israel.

[Dave1001]

He might think it has been used or exagerated by Israelis to justify the existence of Israel.

I don't think that's a very debatable point. The answer is transparently yes, it has been.

[steverino]

Dave 1001-I think what you just wrote is terrible. But I am not sure. Please say what you mean exactly. I am not sure I get it. Thanks.

[Marc L]

Dave 1001-I think what you just wrote is terrible. But I am not sure. Please say what you mean exactly. I am not sure I get it. Thanks.

He's saying that the Holocaust doesn't justify taking land from the Arabs and creating the state of Israel. Just because something awful happened (and there's no real dispute that it did), doesn't mean you can take away from another person to rectify it.

Are there real justifications for creating Israel? Other than "they had a nation there up until the Diaspora," I, personally haven't heard any. The Holocaust, however, shouldn't be used as a justification.

Marc

[steverino]

He's saying that the Holocaust doesn't justify taking land from the Arabs and creating the state of Israel. Just because something awful happened (and there's no real dispute that it did), doesn't mean you can take away from another person to rectify it.

Are there real justifications for creating Israel? Other than "they had a nation there up until the Diaspora," I, personally haven't heard any. The Holocaust, however, shouldn't be used as a justification.

Marc

No. That sounds nothing like what he is saying. It SOUNDS LIKE he is saying that specific events many of us consider truths about the holocaust were exaggerated to justify Zionism. I want his opinion on this.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sure you can appreciate the irony in this statement. The idea that America's "holding [Saddam] accountable" is in some way linked to his using poison gas?

That is what the trial is about.

[Darth Rotor]

I am convinced that Ahmadinejad really believes what he says and he goes out of his way to say it repeatedly, publicly.

So, other than posting here, are you doing anything about it?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

He's saying that the Holocaust doesn't justify taking land from the Arabs and creating the state of Israel. Just because something awful happened (and there's no real dispute that it did), doesn't mean you can take away from another person to rectify it.

Are there real justifications for creating Israel? Other than "they had a nation there up until the Diaspora," I, personally haven't heard any. The Holocaust, however, shouldn't be used as a justification.

Marc
From the history, the Creation of Israel was not a direct response to the Holocaust, but the outcome of the hard work of some very dedicated people, the early Zionist movement. I think it is very reductionist of anyone to take the narrow view that Israel was granted its place solely as a recompense for the Final Solution. The immigration had begun over 50 years prior, with the dream of Herzl and Hess being given form.

I'll accept that sympathy for the Holocaust's effect on European Jewry played a part. Also playing a part was a further erosion of European Imperial holdings.

IIRC, the USSR was the first to recognize Israel. ;)

DR

[a_unique_person]

I think that without the Holocaust, the creation of Israel would not have happened. It was due to the Holocaust that there was such sympathy around the world for the suffering during the Holocaust to have a UN resolution passed to create the State. In recognition, however, of the existing Palestinian inhabitants, the map proposed would not have been acceptable to any of the parties.

[Zep]

IIRC, the USSR was the first to recognize Israel. ;) Erm, not so, I'm afraid.11 minutes after the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel at 18:00 (Washington, D.C. time), on 14 May 1948, the United States formally recognized the State of Israel, followed by Guatemala, Nicaragua and Uruguay. The Soviet Union recognized the State of Israel on 17 May 1948, followed by Poland, Czechoslovakia (formally), Yugoslavia (formally) and South Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Establishment_of_the_State_of_I srael

[steverino]

I think that without the Holocaust, the creation of Israel would not have happened.

That's cool. But tell it to President Ahmadinejad. He says that there was no Holocaust. He acknowledges there is a creation named "Israel." He talks about it every day. Therefore he believes Israel was created without a Holocaust, and so he would disagree with you.

It was due to the Holocaust that there was such sympathy around the world for the suffering .

Really? Don't tell my dad. After fighting in WWII, when he came to Chicago's suburbs house-shopping with my mom, there were many suburbs the realtors informed him he'd need to avoid. Maybe they were hoping he'd shlep his family off to Tel Aviv instead.;)

[a_unique_person]

In WWII there were still segregated regiments, IIRC. I am trying to work Ahmenijad out. He seems to vacilate between saying there was a holocaust, and there wasn't.

One of the drivers for the creation of the state of Israel from the UN was the Australian politician HV Evatt.



Between 1947 and 1949, United Nations decisions changed the shape of the Middle East. The vote to partition Palestine into both Jewish and Arab states led to the birth of Israel and, soon thereafter, the battle for Jerusalem. Mandel works to elucidate the role played by H.V. Evatt, an Australian diplomat in 1947 who assumed the chairmanship of the U.N. Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question.
Mandel explores Evatt's enigmatic qualities, especially his dichotomy of character. Described by contemporaries as an "altruist" and "visionary internationalist," Evatt was also seen as a "self-promoting and jejune amateur." Those he worked with found him hard to trust: "the Arabs felt betrayed [by Evatt], the Jews frequently questioned his fidelity to promises, and the Americans and British were often mystified or outraged." But Mandel portrays Evatt as unwavering in his commitment to partition, however inexplicable his reasons to contemporaries.
In 1947, Evatt knew little about the Jews, the Arabs, or Zionism, but he made friends and acquaintances on both sides of the debate over Zionism who influenced his views. He admired the former U.S. Supreme Court justice and staunch Zionist Louis Brandeis. In the end, Evatt came to be devoted to the creation of a Jewish homeland. He deemed the unity of Jews and Arabs not viable and thus took up the cause of partition.
At times, Mandel tries to conquer too much of both Evatt's personal story and the broader events surrounding the birth of Israel. His exhaustive detail is edifying, but it obfuscates the exploration of Evatt's role and motivation in both pushing the partition plan and shepherding through the U.N. a vote on the internationalization of Jerusalem. While Mandel is correct to emphasize the contemporary importance of the partitioning of Palestine, his decision to extend his discussion through the Oslo peace process dilutes the focus on what is otherwise a useful contribution to the history of Israel's founding.



http://www.meforum.org/article/954

[steverino]

I am trying to work Ahmenijad out. He seems to vacilate between saying there was a holocaust, and there wasn't.

Geeze. He'd make a great Massechusetts senator.;)

[zenith-nadir]

So, other than posting here, are you doing anything about it?

DRI make my feelings known to whomever is willing to listen. I feel Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and fundy islamic groups such as Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, (ALL Iranian-supported), are one of the greatest threats the West has seen since the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.

Luckily I am not alone in this estimate. Remember these guys are so racist that they don't even care what people think. They just wanna have tea and crumpets with militant white supremacists, Holocaust-deniers and historical revisionists to figure out ways to deligitimize the history of the jewish people. That's what they do for fun.

Well after the jews I wonder who the fundy muslims will turn on next.

[Mycroft]

He's saying that the Holocaust doesn't justify taking land from the Arabs and creating the state of Israel. Just because something awful happened (and there's no real dispute that it did), doesn't mean you can take away from another person to rectify it.

Wow, that’s a very callous opinion. I disagree strongly.

Sometimes the awful thing happening does justify taking something away from someone else.

For example, if you’re lost in the woods and you come across someone’s hunting cabin, and the owner is not there to give you permission to use it, you would be perfectly justified in breaking in and eating their food anyway if it were to save your life. Surely nobody would fault you if you were also to warm yourself from a fire made from their chopped wood or to wear their clothes or sleep in their bed.

Are there real justifications for creating Israel? Other than "they had a nation there up until the Diaspora," I, personally haven't heard any. The Holocaust, however, shouldn't be used as a justification.

Marc

Why not? If need does not give birth to right, then what does? Or should we just tell the Jew to kindly die so he won't inconvenience anyone by his struggle to live?

[Dave1001]

I make my feelings known to whomever is willing to listen. I feel Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and fundy islamic groups such as Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, (ALL Iranian-supported), are one of the greatest threats the West has seen since the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.

Luckily I am not alone in this estimate. Remember these guys are so racist that they don't even care what people think. They just wanna have tea and crumpets with militant white supremacists, Holocaust-deniers and historical revisionists to figure out ways to deligitimize the history of the jewish people. That's what they do for fun.

Well after the jews I wonder who the fundy muslims will turn on next.

foil alert. They're not a threat against "the west". They're a thread against "the world", including transparently, many secular muslim societies and individuals. By the way, those who want to construct a "west vs. islamic world" narrative seem to be playing more on Ahmenidajad's team than on the team of the rest of us, who are looking to increase cross-cultural connections between classic liberals regardless of geographic location.

[ponderingturtle]

Wow, that’s a very callous opinion. I disagree strongly.

Sometimes the awful thing happening does justify taking something away from someone else.

For example, if you’re lost in the woods and you come across someone’s hunting cabin, and the owner is not there to give you permission to use it, you would be perfectly justified in breaking in and eating their food anyway if it were to save your life. Surely nobody would fault you if you were also to warm yourself from a fire made from their chopped wood or to wear their clothes or sleep in their bed.



Why not? If need does not give birth to right, then what does? Or should we just tell the Jew to kindly die so he won't inconvenience anyone by his struggle to live?

So when does it stop? Something bad happens to you what bad behavior does it excuse? I lose all my money in the stock market to corrupt lieing corperations it is fine for me to start breaking into houses and takeing their stuff?

Edit:thinking more on this it leads to the idea that there is no problem in the middle east, just people violently asserting their compeating rights. BUt they are all correct in those rights so fighting it out is the only way to solve it.

[geni]

"Iran's one Jewish MP" must be interesting position.

[Marc L]

Wow, that’s a very callous opinion. I disagree strongly.

Sometimes the awful thing happening does justify taking something away from someone else.

For example, if you’re lost in the woods and you come across someone’s hunting cabin, and the owner is not there to give you permission to use it, you would be perfectly justified in breaking in and eating their food anyway if it were to save your life. Surely nobody would fault you if you were also to warm yourself from a fire made from their chopped wood or to wear their clothes or sleep in their bed.

No, but it wouldn't justify the US airlifting you to my house, kicking me out, and letting you use it.


Why not? If need does not give birth to right, then what does? Or should we just tell the Jew to kindly die so he won't inconvenience anyone by his struggle to live?

Yeah, that must have been what I was saying. Silly me. Thank you for putting the words in my mouth for me.

Now, to answer your question. "Need" does not give birth to right. I "need" more money, it doesn't give me the right to go rob a bank. I "need" a new car, it doesn't give me the right to go steal one. Nor does it give the government a right to take money or a car from other people and give them to me.

Let me ask you this: Suppose you and your family had been living in your house for generations. Mine lived there for generations before. Now, I come to you after having been mugged, beaten, mistreated, etc, and I say, "This was my family's house, you need to leave." Would you truly pack your stuff and go? Why or why not?


Marc

[zenith-nadir]

Let me ask you this: Suppose you and your family had been living in your house for generations. Mine lived there for generations before. Now, I come to you after having been mugged, beaten, mistreated, etc, and I say, "This was my family's house, you need to leave." Would you truly pack your stuff and go? Why or why not?


MarcBut that is not the way it worked. There was Turkish Palestine and then there was British Palestine. There has never been a Palestinian Palestine unless anyone at JREF wants provide me with the founding date of the Palestinian nation in Palestine.

While I wait for that founding date let's go back to roughly 1919. Zionists, jews, are emigrating to Palestine which is a British Mandate. Arabs are also emigrating to Palestine. Jews do it to flee the Russian pogroms and to re-connect with ancestral land, Arabs do it to get work from the British and Zionists who are doing all sorts of stuff, for instance, building the seaport in Haifa, building communities, farms and towns.

Economic conditions in Palestine were never good, infact they were pretty medieval for hundreds of years until the British and zionists came. Well the League of Nations told Britain that Palestine was theirs. They were free to do what they wanted to do with it. One of the things they did was to allow jews to settle there. The Arabs went nuts because they felt they owned something they had never possessed, Palestine. The Ottomans controlled Palestine for some 400 years and now the British controlled Palestine. The Arabs felt "they" owned Palestine, but it was something they never ruled over or had control of.

Led by the proto-Bin Laden, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Arabs/Palestinians rioted and began began to kill jews, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron_massacre_%28disambiguation%29)). When that didn't work so well for them they rioted and began began to kill jews AND British, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Uprising)). Well rioting and killing wasn't the best way to go about winning friends of the British and Zionists so the proto-Bin Laden, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni went to Hitler and the Third Reich for help, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni#Nazi_ties_and_activities_during_World_War_ II)). Well that didn't work out so well either cuz as we all know Hitler lost WW2 and therefore the Arabs lost their ally.

The United Nations decided after WW2 that Palestine should be partitioned into two states, one Arab, one jewish. After all it was British territory. So in 1947 UN Resolution 181 was passed by 33 nations. The State of Israel was born.

The Arabs wasted no time and on May 15th 1948 the combined armies of Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen invaded. Guess what Mark. They lost. They also lost in 1953, 1967, 1973, and through two intifadas. The Arabs have been on a hostile footing since the riots and killings waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 1929, (which I cited above).

So this meme that the Arabs/Palestinians are simple harmless underdogs who had their land stolen by the white man is false. They have tried repeatedly to gain through war and lost every single time. The only ones left that are carrying on "the war" are Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades. Once they are gone then the Arabs/Palestinians should sit down and negotiate.

Had they taken what was offered in 1947 they would have a 60-year-old state larger than Israel today.

[Cleon]

Wow. Amazing, the way some people cling to historical revisionism when it suits them.

[Marc L]

But that is not the way it worked. There was Turkish Palestine and then there was British Palestine. There has never been a Palestinian Palestine unless anyone at JREF wants provide me with the founding date of the Palestinian nation in Palestine.

While I wait for that founding date let's go back to roughly 1919. Zionists, jews, are emigrating to Palestine which is a British Mandate. Arabs are also emigrating to Palestine. Jews do it to flee the Russian pogroms and to re-connect with ancestral land, Arabs do it to get work from the British and Zionists who are doing all sorts of stuff, for instance, building the seaport in Haifa, building communities, farms and towns.

Economic conditions in Palestine were never good, infact they were pretty medieval for hundreds of years until the British and zionists came. Well the League of Nations told Britain that Palestine was theirs. They were free to do what they wanted to do with it. One of the things they did was to allow jews to settle there. The Arabs went nuts because they felt they owned something they had never possessed, Palestine. The Ottomans controlled Palestine for some 400 years and now the British controlled Palestine. The Arabs felt "they" owned Palestine, but it was something they never ruled over or had control of.

Led by the proto-Bin Laden, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, Arabs/Palestinians rioted and began began to kill jews, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron_massacre_%28disambiguation%29)). When that didn't work so well for them they rioted and began began to kill jews AND British, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Uprising)). Well rioting and killing wasn't the best way to go about winning friends of the British and Zionists so the proto-Bin Laden, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni went to Hitler and the Third Reich for help, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni#Nazi_ties_and_activities_during_World_War_ II)). Well that didn't work out so well either cuz as we all know Hitler lost WW2 and therefore the Arabs lost their ally.

The United Nations decided after WW2 that Palestine should be partitioned into two states, one Arab, one jewish. After all it was British territory. So in 1947 UN Resolution 181 was passed by 33 nations. The State of Israel was born.

The Arabs wasted no time and on May 15th 1948 the combined armies of Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen invaded. Guess what Mark. They lost. They also lost in 1953, 1967, 1973, and through two intifadas. The Arabs have been on a hostile footing since the riots and killings waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 1929, (which I cited above).

So this meme that the Arabs/Palestinians are simple harmless underdogs who had their land stolen by the white man is false. They have tried repeatedly to gain through war and lost every single time. The only ones left that are carrying on "the war" are Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades. Once they are gone then the Arabs/Palestinians should sit down and negotiate.

Had they taken what was offered in 1947 they would have a 60-year-old state larger than Israel today.


Ok. So going back to the discussion at hand, why do we need the Holocaust to justify it?

Marc

[ponderingturtle]

But that is not the way it worked. There was [FONT=Arial][FONT=Verdana]Turkish Palestine and then there was British Palestine. There has never been a Palestinian Palestine unless anyone at JREF wants provide me with the founding date of the Palestinian nation in Palestine.

That is govermental control not nessacarily reflecting anything about the people living there, or was it all brits when it was british palestine? ANd does the same work for india?

This arguement means nothing, unless you are really saying that it was uninhabited when the british left.

While I wait for that founding date let's go back to roughly 1919. Zionists, jews, are emigrating to Palestine which is a British Mandate. Arabs are also emigrating to Palestine. Jews do it to flee the Russian pogroms and to re-connect with ancestral land, Arabs do it to get work from the British and Zionists who are doing all sorts of stuff, for instance, building the seaport in Haifa, building communities, farms and towns.

Economic conditions in Palestine were never good, infact they were pretty medieval for hundreds of years until the British and zionists came. Well the League of Nations told Britain that Palestine was theirs. They were free to do what they wanted to do with it. One of the things they did was to allow jews to settle there. The Arabs went nuts because they felt they owned something they had never possessed, Palestine. The Ottomans controlled Palestine for some 400 years and now the British controlled Palestine. The Arabs felt "they" owned Palestine, but it was something they never ruled over or had control of.

So no one lived there before 1919, all these interesting facts you learn on the internet.


So this meme that the Arabs/Palestinians are simple harmless underdogs who had their land stolen by the white man is false. They have tried repeatedly to gain through war and lost every single time. The only ones left that are carrying on "the war" are Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades. Once they are gone then the Arabs/Palestinians should sit down and negotiate.

Had they taken what was offered in 1947 they would have a 60-year-old state larger than Israel today.

Why are you ignoreing say the jewish invention of modern terrorism with the bombing of the king david hotel?

[geni]

But that is not the way it worked. There was Turkish Palestine and then there was British Palestine. There has never been a Palestinian Palestine unless anyone at JREF wants provide me with the founding date of the Palestinian nation in Palestine.

Sometime prior to 18th century BC. Assumeing you belive the Sumerians.


While I wait for that founding date let's go back to roughly 1919. Zionists, jews, are emigrating to Palestine which is a British Mandate. Arabs are also emigrating to Palestine. Jews do it to flee the Russian pogroms and to re-connect with ancestral land, Arabs do it to get work from the British and Zionists who are doing all sorts of stuff, for instance, building the seaport in Haifa, building communities, farms and towns.

Economic conditions in Palestine were never good, infact they were pretty medieval for hundreds of years until the British and zionists came.


Economic conditions improved in a lot of britian's empire. In most cases the remains of our local proxies gave up eventualy.


Well the League of Nations told Britain that Palestine was theirs.

When a superpower says it wants something that no other super power really wants peopel tend not to raise to many objections.


They were free to do what they wanted to do with it.


The same could be said for rather a lot of the planet.


One of the things they did was to allow jews to settle there. The Arabs went nuts because they felt they owned something they had never possessed, Palestine.


Today people object to outsourceing. I think fiji is haveing simular issues
To be fair they had lived there rather a long time


The Ottomans controlled Palestine for some 400 years and now the British controlled Palestine. The Arabs felt "they" owned Palestine, but it was something they never ruled over or had control of.


Because living there for a few thousand years doesn't count for anything (the like most groups the identify as arab the palistians are not historicaly arab).


Led by the proto-Bin Laden, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni,


Al-Husayni was a arab nationalist. The al-Husayni school of arab nationalists do not like Bin Laden.


Arabs/Palestinians rioted and began began to kill jews, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron_massacre_%28disambiguation%29)). When that didn't work so well for them they rioted and began began to kill jews AND British, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Uprising)).


It's part of the normal problems of running an empire just something you have do with. Kurds tired it as well. Most tiresom.


Well rioting and killing wasn't the best way to go about winning friends of the British and Zionists

Why would you want to make friends with your occupiers? Oh it makes sense in the sort term on an individual level but not so much in the long term.


so the proto-Bin Laden, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni went to Hitler and the Third Reich for help, (cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni#Nazi_ties_and_activities_during_World_War_ II)). Well that didn't work out so well either cuz as we all know Hitler lost WW2 and therefore the Arabs lost their ally.



The United Nations decided after WW2 that Palestine should be partitioned into two states, one Arab, one jewish. After all it was British territory.
So in 1947 UN Resolution 181 was passed by 33 nations. The State of Israel was born.


Since the mandate was not followed a case could be made that it still is. (there is also the issue that the Greater Jerusalem area should be under UN control which would ceritanly be ammusing to watch).


The Arabs wasted no time and on May 15th 1948 the combined armies of Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen invaded. Guess what Mark. They lost. They also lost in 1953, 1967, 1973, and through two intifadas. The Arabs have been on a hostile footing since the riots and killings waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 1929, (which I cited above).

So this meme that the Arabs/Palestinians are simple harmless underdogs who had their land stolen by the white man is false. They have tried repeatedly to gain through war and lost every single time. The only ones left that are carrying on "the war" are Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades. Once they are gone then the Arabs/Palestinians should sit down and negotiate.

Why?


Had they taken what was offered in 1947 they would have a 60-year-old state larger than Israel today.

Since that idea was rejected by the jewish lot as well that is somewhat unlikely.

[zenith-nadir]

That is govermental control not nessacarily reflecting anything about the people living there, or was it all brits when it was british palestine? ANd does the same work for india?You are trying to draw a parallel between less than a million people in post-WW1 Palestine and millions upon millions of folks in India who have an ancient culture and identity.

Let's stick with Palestine. How many people were living in Palestine when the Ottomans lost it to the British after WW1? I'll give you a hand, there was less than a million people. Jewish, Druze and Arab.

Face it, the Ottomans lost Palestine. The British won it. That doesn't mean that the few hundred thousand people living there are the rightful owners, they are the tenants.

This arguement means nothing, unless you are really saying that it was uninhabited when the british left.It means nothing because you feel the Ottomans should have given Palestine "to the people living there" and the British should have given Palestine "to the people living there." Well that's not the way it worked. That's not what happened. That's the way the cookie crumbled.

So no one lived there before 1919, all these interesting facts you learn on the internet.Now you are just getting silly because you feel that the Ottomans should have given Palestine "to the people living there" and the British should have given Palestine "to the people living there."

Why are you ignoreing say the jewish invention of modern terrorism with the bombing of the king david hotel?Because I wasn't talking about "terrorism", I was pointing out that the Arabs have had their fair swing at bat and yet, they have lost every single war. They are not the underdogs that they are painted to be.

[Darth Rotor]

Erm, not so, I'm afraid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Establishment_of_the_State_of_I srael
Thanks for the correction. :)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I make my feelings known to whomever is willing to listen. I feel Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and fundy islamic groups such as Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, (ALL Iranian-supported), are one of the greatest threats the West has seen since the rise of Hitler and the Nazis.

Luckily I am not alone in this estimate. Remember these guys are so racist that they don't even care what people think. They just wanna have tea and crumpets with militant white supremacists, Holocaust-deniers and historical revisionists to figure out ways to deligitimize the history of the jewish people. That's what they do for fun.

Well after the jews I wonder who the fundy muslims will turn on next.
Each other. Oh, wait, that's already happened, and keeps happening, with Iraq as a current arena.

I note that David Duke is participating. :rolleyes: There's a guy who is doing whatever he can to kill his own political career in the US, or perhaps bury it deeper in the grave than it was before.

DR

[ponderingturtle]

You are trying to draw a parallel between less than a million people in post-WW1 Palestine and millions upon millions of folks in India who have an ancient culture and identity.

Let's stick with Palestine. How many people were living in Palestine when the Ottomans lost it to the British after WW1? I'll give you a hand, there was less than a million people. Jewish, Druze and Arab.

Ah stealing from less than a million people is fine then? What does the number matter? The arguement was that no one owned it because of goverment shifts, this has nothing to do with population and everything to do with goverments and those in power.

How many people did the british force to leave when they took over, expressed as a proportion of the population?

Face it, the Ottomans lost Palestine. The British won it. That doesn't mean that the few hundred thousand people living there are the rightful owners, they are the tenants.

So you don't like the idea of self determination I see.

It means nothing because you feel the Ottomans should have given Palestine "to the people living there" and the British should have given Palestine "to the people living there." Well that's not the way it worked. That's not what happened. That's the way the cookie crumbled.

This is a very different arguement, the one above is about what should happen this is about what did. This is wrong because you where argueing that what happened is what should have happened, here you are talking about dealing with the historic realities. These are not self consistent.

Now you are just getting silly because you feel that the Ottomans should have given Palestine "to the people living there" and the British should have given Palestine "to the people living there."

I know you hate self determination as a principle

Because I wasn't talking about "terrorism", I was pointing out that the Arabs have had their fair swing at bat and yet, they have lost every single war. They are not the underdogs that they are painted to be.

Of course they are, they lost, if they had been the winners they would have the right of conquest as is traditional. Loseing makes people underdogs.

[Darth Rotor]

Because I wasn't talking about "terrorism", I was pointing out that the Arabs have had their fair swing at bat and yet, they have lost every single war. They are not the underdogs that they are painted to be.
May I again point out that little bumper sticker I previously passed to you from Clausewitz? "In war, the outcome is never final." So long as one has the will to fight, one will do so. I understand that there is a sentiment "to end war" but that sentiment tends to be among people who don't have the desire, the will to fight wars any longer. When confronted with those who have the will to fight for what they want, illusions of brotherhood start to crumble. "We are all in this together" still doesn't scale globally, except perhaps in the mind of Utopians.

DR

[marksman]

unless anyone at JREF wants provide me with the founding date of the Palestinian nation in Palestine.
Sometime prior to 18th century BC. Assumeing you belive the Sumerians.
Do you have a cite for that? I have only tangential interest in the modern history of the Levant, but I have a serious interest in the ancient history of the Levant, and I have no evidence of a "Palestinian nation" circa 3800 years ago.

Heck, the word "Palestine" is simply a muck-up of "Philistine", which was founded some time around 1200 BC. The Phillistines may, in fact, have been one of the "Sea Peoples" that invaded the area around the beginning of the Iron Age. The Philistines only occupied the area around Gaza. Their reign never extended into much of what is now considered part of Israel or the West Bank.

The Philistines existed and competed alongside ancient Israel (which appeared on the political scene about the same time as the Philistines). And both nations were ended by the Assyrians and Babylonians at the same time as well. However, the Judeans managed to maintain a cultural identity after their conquest, whereas nobody identified themselves as Philistines after the eigth century BCE.

The name, as a description of the general area, persisted. When the Romans took the land (after it being ruled by Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and the Seleucid Empire), they called the southern Levant "Palestinian Syria". (Syria was the general terms for the area, based on the ancient Assyrian Empire.) Eventually, this got shortened to "Palestine" in the 2nd century CE, but it never referred to an autonomous region.

Sorry to be pedantic, and to engage in thread drift, but this is an area that interests me, so if you have information on an independent Palesitinian nation in the Bronze Age, I would love to read about it.

[webfusion]

As more Iranian-sponsored rockets are launched at Israel (trying to goad the IDF into a response), it is fascinating to read the media HEADLINES of the bogus "conference" in Tehran, while at the same time, a legitimate gathering in Berlin is ignored:

The Iran gathering coincided with an independently convened academic conference on the Holocaust in Berlin, Germany, where historians affirmed the accuracy of the Nazi genocide data and questioned the motives of those behind the Tehran forum. One of the primary participants is Raul Hilberg, considered one of the leading experts on Holocaust studies who wrote the comprehensive multi-volume book, The Destruction of European Jewry.


BTW, I noticed that Dave1001 has avoided answering (and clarifying) the position he seems to be taking which he thinks is "not very debatable", namely that the Israelis have intentionally exaggerated the dimensions of the Holocaust. post #25 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2168258&postcount=25)

Who is Dave1001, is that you, Dave Duke?

[steverino]

I don't think that's a very debatable point. The answer is transparently yes, it has been.

I am STILL awaiting your response. Why be ashamed if this is your opinion. is it or is it not your opinion that the events of the Holocaust were exaggerated to garner sympathy to establish a Jewish state?

[zenith-nadir]

Ah stealing from less than a million people is fine then? That would be a strawman. Land theft is not the issue, it is the spin.

The people living in early 20th century Palestine were not the owners, they were the tenants. The owner was Britain, under mandate from the League of Nations, after the land was lost in a great big nasty war. That's why it was called the British Mandate of Palestine.

Now the owners of Palestine, (Britain), had the right to do with Palestine what they saw fit. Too bad for the tenants if the landlord wants to rent out apartment 3B to Zionists. Too frikkin bad. The tenants didn't own the joint.

What does the number matter?Because that is what this is all about. You are defending the property rights of less than a million dead people who resided in Palestine in the early 20th century. You seem to base your defense on the premise that these tenants should have been the landlord. But they weren't. Before the British arrived they were not the owners, they were the tenants of the Ottomans. Before that they were STILL the tenants of someone else, the Mamluk Sultanate.

You then tried to draw a parallel to the people living in post WW1 Palestine to India, which is ridiculous.

Post WW1 the owner of the property in question was Britain. When Britain ran Palestine it did what the hell it wanted. Why can people accept that and move on instead of endlessly freaking out that the owner rented out apartment 3B to Zionists?

The arguement was that no one owned it because of goverment shifts, this has nothing to do with population and everything to do with goverments and those in power.See my reasoning above.

How many people did the british force to leave when they took over, expressed as a proportion of the population?See my reasoning above.

So you don't like the idea of self determination I see.There's a difference between self-determination and waging a futile endless war, that you lose every time, and being unable to accept it. That is where the Palestinians are today.

if they had been the winners they would have the right of conquest as is traditional.Much like Britain after WW1. It's right of conquest was Palestine.

May I again point out that little bumper sticker I previously passed to you from Clausewitz? "In war, the outcome is never final." So long as one has the will to fight, one will do so.

DRI do not underestimate the will of the Palestinian people to have a state to call their own. In fact I cheer for it. It's the way they are going about it, strapping bombs on women and children, firing rockets at civilians, that I have the problem with.

[Cleon]

BTW, I noticed that Dave1001 has avoided answering (and clarifying) the position he seems to be taking which he thinks is "not very debatable", namely that the Israelis have intentionally exaggerated the dimensions of the Holocaust. post #25 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2168258&postcount=25)


He only "seems" to be taking that position if you insist on seeing it that way. The post he's responding to says "used or exaggerated." You're pretending it just says "exaggerated."


Who is Dave1001, is that you, Dave Duke?

Wow. Care to sink any lower, or are you going to do the mature thing and apologize?

[steverino]

I cannot believe that, with the level of intellect and evidence-driven folks on this forum, some are equating the Jews establishing Israel with "breaking into someone else's cabin." Particularly disturbing to me, as a Jew, is that this "cute" but inaccurate "Jews-as-criminal-bullies" metaphore is piggy-backed onto this thread which I started to express my concern of a Holocaust denial conference in a major international capital taking place right now. When my father's generation dies out (he is 84) it will be left to us to pass the Holocaust story to generations to come. It seems this will become an enormous burden. Unlike the slavery experience in America, the Holocaust experience could very well become watered down to a footnote.

[Cleon]

I cannot believe that, with the level of intellect and evidence-driven folks on this forum, some are equating the Jews establishing Israel with "breaking into someone else's cabin." Particularly disturbing to me, as a Jew, is that this "cute" but inaccurate "Jews-as-criminal-bullies" metaphore is piggy-backed onto this thread

Israel != The Jews. Please take the spin elsewhere.

[ponderingturtle]

That would be a strawman. Land theft is not the issue, it is the spin.


True conquest is always right.

The people living in early 20th century Palestine were not the owners, they were the tenants. The owner was Britain, under mandate from the League of Nations, after the land was lost in a great big nasty war. That's why it was called the British Mandate of Palestine.

Got it you pay rent to the US government? Why do you never mention anything about self determination?

Now the owners of Palestine, (Britain), had the right to do with Palestine what they saw fit. Too bad for the tenants if the landlord wants to rent out apartment 3B to Zionists. Too frikkin bad. The tenants didn't own the joint.

So inhabitants have no right to say anything about their government. Following this logic the American revolution was a great act of theft against the British landowners by their tennants as well.

Of course the British were also driven out by Jewish terrorism at least in part so does that mean it was stolen from the British and not the Palestinians?

Because that is what this is all about. You are defending the property rights of less than a million dead people who resided in Palestine in the early 20th century. You seem to base your defense on the premise that these tenants should have been the landlord. But they weren't. Before the British arrived they were not the owners, they were the tenants of the Ottomans. Before that they were STILL the tenants of someone else, the Mamluk Sultanate.

Yes I am saying that it was wrong. I am not saying that current Israel should be held responsible for it, but that does not change the morality of how it came about.

You then tried to draw a parallel to the people living in post WW1 Palestine to India, which is ridiculous.

Why? Your only support for this position is that there where less than 1 million people in one and more in the other. Both where colonies, neither was inhabited by the British in any serious way.

Post WW1 the owner of the property in question was Britain. When Britain ran Palestine it did what the hell it wanted. Why can people accept that and move on instead of endlessly freaking out that the owner rented out apartment 3B to Zionists?


So forced deportations is always an option for any government. It is just evicting an unwanted tennant. And as the St. Louis proved no one wanted Germany's Jews, so how else are you supposed to get rid of an unwanted tennant? The same way you deal with any infestation I suppose, gas them.


There's a difference between self-determination and waging a futile endless war, that you lose every time, and being unable to accept it. That is where the Palestinians are today.

And there is a difference between trying to say that the current situation is right and trying to accept the current situation.

Much like Britain after WW1. It's right of conquest was Palestine.

As it will be

I do not underestimate the will of the Palestinian people to have a state to call their own. In fact I cheer for it. It's the way they are going about it, strapping bombs on women and children, firing rockets at civilians, that I have the problem with.

Yea, because blowing up civilians to gain your political objective is only good when Jews did it, it is not at all acceptable now.

[ponderingturtle]

I cannot believe that, with the level of intellect and evidence-driven folks on this forum, some are equating the Jews establishing Israel with "breaking into someone else's cabin." Particularly disturbing to me, as a Jew, is that this "cute" but inaccurate "Jews-as-criminal-bullies" metaphore is piggy-backed onto this thread which I started to express my concern of a Holocaust denial conference in a major international capital taking place right now. When my father's generation dies out (he is 84) it will be left to us to pass the Holocaust story to generations to come. It seems this will become an enormous burden. Unlike the slavery experience in America, the Holocaust experience could very well become watered down to a footnote.

url (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing)

So how do you describe it when people start moving into an area and start blowing things up to make their own nation?

I have heard individuals talking about how the proper way for Israel to solve the Palestinian problem is to in effect start taking pages out of the SS playbook and use massive reprisals for every Jewish death, say kill 1000 people.

[ponderingturtle]

Israel != The Jews. Please take the spin elsewhere.

Also debating the morality of its founding != wanting the current state of israel to be destroyed.

[steverino]

He only "seems" to be taking that position if you insist on seeing it that way. The post he's responding to says "used or exaggerated." You're pretending it just says "exaggerated."

I ask that Dave respond. Not "Dave appologists" who are searching for nuance and wiggle room in his response.

[steverino]

url (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing)

So how do you describe it when people start moving into an area and start blowing things up to make their own nation?

I have heard individuals talking about how the proper way for Israel to solve the Palestinian problem is to in effect start taking pages out of the SS playbook and use massive reprisals for every Jewish death, say kill 1000 people.

Oh, OK. so when it suits you, Israel=Jew. But only when it suits you.

[steverino]

url (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing)

So how do you describe it when people start moving into an area and start blowing things up to make their own nation?.

"Start moving into an area?" They were there thousands of years, genius.

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, OK. so when it suits you, Israel=Jew. But only when it suits you.

And I am sure you are taking arab israel citizens into account?

The discussion has been about the founding of Israel and you now totaly ignore that. So yes properly that should have been Israeli Jew, because I am sure the people stateing it did not mean the arab israeli's.

[ponderingturtle]

"Start moving into an area?" They were there thousands of years, genius.

Yea, and just because they had been living in europe for a thousand years means nothing.

So the current jewish population in Israel has a majority of its population not coming from europe and other areas?

[steverino]

And I am sure you are taking arab israel citizens into account?

The discussion has been about the founding of Israel and you now totaly ignore that. So yes properly that should have been Israeli Jew, because I am sure the people stateing it did not mean the arab israeli's.

And again, what does this Jew-blaming, I mean, Israel-blaming, have to do with Holocaust denial in Tehran?

[zenith-nadir]

True conquest is always right.Not always right, but a fact of life. To the winners go the spoils.

Got it you pay rent to the US government?My apartment comparison was an analogy. The British were the landlords and the tenants were the Arabs, Druze and jews who lived in post WW1 Palestine.

Why do you never mention anything about self determination?I did. I mentioned just a few posts up that I want Palestinians to have a state.

So inhabitants have no right to say anything about their government.Not in post WW1 Palestine they didn't. Sorry but that's the way the cookie crumbled after WW1.

Following this logic the American revolution was a great act of theft against the British landowners by their tennants as well.Yes. The tenants revolted and won. Ergo they became the landlord. In Palestine the tenants revolted and lost, ergo they did not become the landlord. What many people want is for the losers in Palestine to be the landlord eventhough they continue to lose their revolts.

Of course the British were also driven out by Jewish terrorism at least in part so does that mean it was stolen from the British and not the Palestinians?The British were not "driven out" by Jewish terrorism. The United Nations held a democratic vote, UN Resolution 181, to partition Palestine to give both the Arabs and Jews a state of their own. The Zionists went "where do I sign?" The Arabs went "F you" and went to war. That war, and subsequent losses, have delayed the Arab state voted for in 1947.

Yes I am saying that it was wrong. I am not saying that current Israel should be held responsible for it, but that does not change the morality of how it came about.If you are interested in morality I have a question. How many more Israelis and Palestinians have to die to defend "what should've been" a hundred years ago? Seems to me Hamas is fighting a war they cannot win. Perhaps it's time to lay down the arms and negotiate for peace.

Your only support for this position is that there where less than 1 million people in one and more in the other.My position is that hundreds of thousands of people have suffered and died because some of the tenants still don't like Zionists living in the same apartment building. And they are willing to kill over it.

Yea, because blowing up civilians to gain your political objective is only good when Jews did it, it is not at all acceptable now.Now you are building a strawman that I condone the zionist terrorism in the 1940's. With that I am all talked out.

[Cleon]

I ask that Dave respond. Not "Dave appologists" who are searching for nuance and wiggle room in his response.

There's no "nuance and wiggle room," just you and webfusion manufacturing something that isn't there for the sake of spin.

[ponderingturtle]

And again, what does this Jew-blaming, I mean, Israel-blaming, have to do with Holocaust denial in Tehran?

Nothing. It is thread drift. But how else would I have learned that there was no influx of jews from europe into the middle east with zionist intentions in the early to mid 20th century?

Damn you antisemetic history teachers with all your lies.

[Darth Rotor]

Yea, and just because they had been living in europe for a thousand years means nothing.

So the current jewish population in Israel has a majority of its population not coming from europe and other areas?
Given the migrations of the 1940's and 1950's, I'd guess that the childbearing process has increased the number of Israeli Jews who were born in that land considerably. We are entering the third generation of native born, roughly, if one considers a generation to be 25 years. I am trying to see how your consideration of "where immigrants once came from" point is relevant to Israel of the year 2006. The fact that one of my great grandfathers came from Denmark does not make me Danish. I am American, not Danish, and not English, which is where another of my family lines through a grandmother has its origin, in York(England) of the 1600's. I am not English, but American. York was first settled by Vikings, or Danes, some hundreds of years before that, but I am not any more "Danish" for that fact of migration patterns.

I am American.

What am I missing in the point you are trying to make?

"Zionist intentions?" A phrase I am not familiar with, but which I guess means "with the intent of fulfilling the goals of the Zionist movement, whose origins were in 19th century Europe?" Am I close?

DR

[zenith-nadir]

And again, what does this Jew-blaming, I mean, Israel-blaming, have to do with Holocaust denial in Tehran?You are right. Back to the story.

Holocaust deniers praise Ahmadinejad (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061212/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_holocaust_conference)

"International condemnation continued to pour in against the government-sponsored conference in Tehran, which has drawn Holocaust deniers from around the world.

The 67 participants from 30 countries — who include some of Europe's most prominent Holocaust deniers — were expected to meet Ahmadinejad later Tuesday.

"This conference has an incredible impact on Holocaust studies all over the world," said American David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan leader and former state representative in Louisiana.

"The Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder," Duke told The Associated Press."

[Merko]

The Nazi holocaust of Jews and the justified sentiment after the war that the survivors should be compensated was definitely a necessary condition for the formation of the state of Israel, as it came to be.

However, this was no justification for accepting the formation of Israel as it came to be, with its non-Jewish population being relegated into second-class citizens, or forcibly driven out of their home country.

Whether or not there ever was an independent Palestine, and when, how and why 'Palestinians' came to be an ethnic group, is of no consequence. These people were born there, they lived there, and they had the right to keep doing that. The respect for their right to property and to equally take part in the government of their country is not conditioned by whether they ever had any kings, their level of economic development, or their ethnic or cultural uniqueness.

If the western powers wanted to compensate the Jews, they could have been given land in Europe. Or, an agreement with the Palestinians could have been reached, where Jews were allowed to move into Palestine/Israel, as equal citizens, at an increased rate, in return for economic support from the western powers.


However, now that Israel has existed for almost 60 years, several generations of Israeli are born there and have grown up there. To chase them out of their home country would be just as wrong as it was to chase the Palestinians out of theirs nearly 60 years ago. And two wrongs still don't make a right.


Has the Nazi holocaust of Jews been exploited? Yes. Has it been exaggerated? I'm sure it has, although that is of no consequence. The real holocaust was certainly massive enough to cause the response that happened, and any exaggerations that have surely been done can hardly have added anything to that. The error comes from the impropriety of the compensation, not from an overestimation of the injustice done to the Jews.

[corplinx]

What part of somewhere between 5-7 million dead, ass lampshades, and gas chambers is exaggeration?

When I was a young 80s kid going to elementary school, I remember having a WW2 veteran visit my class and talk about the war. I remember having a local muslim come and talk about Islam (back when Islam had a more metropolitan face). And the only special visitor who I remember in stark detail was the holocaust survivor rolling up his sleeve at the prodding of the teacher and revealing that faded tattoo on his arm.

[Cleon]

What part of somewhere between 5-7 million dead, ass lampshades, and gas chambers is exaggeration?


You answered your own question. My understanding is that the "lampshade" bit, like the story about Jews being made into soap, is something of a myth. Googling (http://www.google.com/search?q=holocaust+lampshades&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) hasn't provided any clear answers, either, though I note that SkepticWiki (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Holocaust_Denial) says that "there really is no evidence that the bodies of holocaust victims were used for making soap or lampshades."

[corplinx]

You answered your own question. My understanding is that the "lampshade" bit, like the story about Jews being made into soap, is something of a myth. Googling (http://www.google.com/search?q=holocaust+lampshades&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) hasn't provided any clear answers, either, though I note that SkepticWiki (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Holocaust_Denial) says that "there really is no evidence that the bodies of holocaust victims were used for making soap or lampshades."

Damn. My sixth grade teacher told me that whopper. Too bad she was Irish.

Millions dead: check
Torture and industrial executions: check

But I doubt the ass lampshades were the part that got Israel statehood as far as the "holocaust is exploited" goes.

[steverino]

Funny. The former Nazi's still alive who proudly perpetrated these "exaggerations" will not be pleased with this talk. You are discrediting their concentration camp efficiency. I am sure they, of all people, would prefer to goose-step into the 21st century with more credit than you give them.

[Merko]

steverino: I think it would help your case if you could point out what specific statement(s) you take issue with, rather than just displaying how offended you are in general. It seems hard to believe that you take the position that no one ever exaggerated anything about the Nazi holocaust?

[gtc]

During and after WWII a lot of maps were redrawn. Germany and Japan shrank, ethnic Germans were forced out of Czechoslovakia; Jews, Poles etc lost their European homelands and so on.

A lot of the forced repatriations were unfair on the losers, for instance the Soviets taking Japanese islands after declaring war at a very late stage. The creation of Israel may have been unfair to the local arab population (particularly those who did not support Hitler).

Why is it that we still discuss the plight of the Palestinians and not the plight of the repatriated Germans (bar the occasional far right German politician or their scaremongering Polish counterpart)?

The difference seems to be that the arabs were never allowed to become functioning members of the arab community and proper citizens in their new homes. Instead it seems they are permanent refugees. Is it simple anti-Palestinian sentiment on the part of their neighbors? Is it systemic inertia on the part of the international refugee system? Or are their neighbors keeping the pressure on the Palestinians as a way to get at Israel?

[gtc]

steverino: I think it would help your case if you could point out what specific statement(s) you take issue with, rather than just displaying how offended you are in general. It seems hard to believe that you take the position that no one ever exaggerated anything about the Nazi holocaust?

I think it is necessary that people be precise when they claim the holocaust has been exaggerated, even if they mean it in the mild manner you appear to be using.

I think it makes some people feel that their experiences have been deligitimised.

I am not suggesting that such discussion shouldn't take place.

[a_unique_person]

Israel != The Jews. Please take the spin elsewhere.

Both sides seem to play that game



"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.



I thought it was supposed to be a conference on the Holocaust.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800098.html

[Mycroft]

It means nothing because you feel the Ottomans should have given Palestine "to the people living there" and the British should have given Palestine "to the people living there." Well that's not the way it worked. That's not what happened. That's the way the cookie crumbled.

Now you are just getting silly because you feel that the Ottomans should have given Palestine "to the people living there" and the British should have given Palestine "to the people living there."


I just want to interject:

The anti-Zionist argument here is essentially that while Jews fleeing persecution don't have the right to inconvenience anyone in their struggle for survival, but simultaneously the native Arabs do have a right to maintain a racial purity of their homeland unchanged by immigration.

If we were talking about white Europeans people instead of Arabs the inherent racism of that position would be painfully obvious.

[webfusion]

a_u_p, you linked to a Ha'aretz report on the Iranian farce, but it might have been worthwhile for you to also provide links to these other two stories related to the subject (from that same source) ---

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800508.html
The photographs of ultra-Orthodox, anti-Zionist Jews attending the Holocaust conference in Tehran this week were given pride of place in the Arab media.
The secret of the Iranian conference's success lies in the confusion and blurring it has managed to create (in Arab, Muslim and world public opinion) between the Jewish people and the State of Israel.


and

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800509.html
Reality cannot be a debatable issue
A conference of Holocaust experts and government officials was held Monday in Berlin in response to the Tehran conference. The Berlin meeting was organized by the federal government's Council for Political Education.

[Mycroft]

No, but it wouldn't justify the US airlifting you to my house, kicking me out, and letting you use it.

Okay, now please explain what part of the creation of Israel matches your analogy? I don't see it.


Now, to answer your question. "Need" does not give birth to right. I "need" more money, it doesn't give me the right to go rob a bank. I "need" a new car, it doesn't give me the right to go steal one. Nor does it give the government a right to take money or a car from other people and give them to me.

You're playing with the word "need" and trivializing it.

A person lost in the desert "needs" water, or he will die. A person with cancer "needs" medical care, or he will die. An astronaut in space "needs" oxygen, or he will die.

A Jew driven from his home in a state sanctioned pogrom in Russia of the 1880's "needs" a place to go.

A people systematically slaughtered by the millions in Europe by Europeans (not just Nazis, let’s be honest) have a right to struggle for their survival, and if in that struggle some of them decide that self-determination is the only workable long-term answer to relentless persecution, then I think a handful of farmers in a small corner of the world suddenly having to learn to live with not being the ethnic majority anymore is a small price to pay for the survival of a people.

My opinion. Others may disagree.

Let me ask you this: Suppose you and your family had been living in your house for generations. Mine lived there for generations before. Now, I come to you after having been mugged, beaten, mistreated, etc, and I say, "This was my family's house, you need to leave."

Again, now tell us what part of the creation of Israel matches this analogy of yours?

[Mycroft]

Ah stealing from less than a million people is fine then?

What exactly was stolen from who?

Can you answer that?

[a_unique_person]

a_u_p, you linked to a Ha'aretz report on the Iranian farce

Farce it is.

[Skeptic]

"The Onion" as usual hit the nail on the head, suggesting the following title for a talk given at this conference: "The holocaust--too good to be true?"

[zenith-nadir]

However, this was no justification for accepting the formation of Israel as it came to be, with its non-Jewish population being relegated into second-class citizens,The non-Jewish population in Israel is not "relegated into second-class citizens." That is a myth. Druze, Christian and Muslim Israelis are full citizens of Israel.

or forcibly driven out of their home country.There was no home country. Why do people continue to invent a country/identity that has yet to exist? That is what all the fighting is about, a Palestinian state. Palestinian arabs have yet to have a country.

Whether or not there ever was an independent Palestine, and when, how and why 'Palestinians' came to be an ethnic group, is of no consequence.It is of consequence. The Palestinians/Arabs were offered a state in 1947, they rejected it and have gone to war since then. The fact that they had no state, were offered one larger than Israel is today, and rejected it, then went to war repeatedly is of consequence when one is questioning why they don't have a state yet.

These people were born there, they lived there, and they had the right to keep doing that.The Palestinian Arabs who didn't flee or were forced out during the 1948 war are still there. The ones who did flee are hostages in 60-year-old artificial refugee camps less than a three hour drive from their original 1948 homes.

The respect for their right to property and to equally take part in the government of their country is not conditioned by whether they ever had any kings, their level of economic development, or their ethnic or cultural uniqueness.But it is conditioned by if they lost several wars to take over Palestine. The losers in war don't win. Only in Israel's case the losers are supposed to take the spoils, (Palestine), and the winners, (Israel), are suppose to give up to the losers. I don't understand this repeated logic I just don't.

It is no different than saying Saddam lost the war in Kuwait but should have still kept Kuwait. The Germans lost WW2 but should have still kept most of Europe. The Arab nations and the Palestinians lost the 1948 war. They didn't win Palestine they lost Palestine. Why can't people get that into their heads?

If the western powers wanted to compensate the Jews, they could have been given land in Europe. Or, an agreement with the Palestinians could have been reached, where Jews were allowed to move into Palestine/Israel, as equal citizens, at an increased rate, in return for economic support from the western powers.The Western powers wanted to repatriate the jewish people with their ancestral homeland. Since THE BRITISH ruled over Palestine the UN decided to give a tiny part of THE BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE to the jews.

Well the Arabs didn't like the deal, they wanted all of the BRITISH MANDATE OF PALESTINE, so their leaders first conspired with Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni#Nazi_ties_and_activities_during_World_War_ II) and the Third Reich to kill all the jews in Palestine and the deal fell through. Then the combined Arab armies invaded on May 15th 1948 and lost a war to the jews.

Once again, (as it always is in the foundation-of-Israel topic), the losers of that 1948 war, (the Arabs), should really have been the winners and kept all of Palestine.

[Cleon]

The non-Jewish population in Israel is not "relegated into second-class citizens." That is a myth. Druze, Christian and Muslim Israelis are full citizens of Israel.

This is a demonstrable lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Examples_of_Discrimination ). Arabs, including Arab citizens, are discriminated against routinely and systematically. This has been documented by every human rights organization, including Israeli ones such as B'tselem. The "full citizens" bit is more of an "on-paper" thing than objective reality.

(This is, of course, not including the fact that the idea of a state dedicated to representing one ethnicity, yet containing several, inherently turns those of the "other" ethnicities into second-class citizens.)

[Darth Rotor]

This is a demonstrable lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Examples_of_Discrimination ). Arabs, including Arab citizens, are discriminated against routinely and systematically. This has been documented by every human rights organization, including Israeli ones such as B'tselem. The "full citizens" bit is more of an "on-paper" thing than objective reality.

(This is, of course, not including the fact that the idea of a state dedicated to representing one ethnicity, yet containing several, inherently turns those of the "other" ethnicities into second-class citizens.)
This raises the interesting issue of "second class citizen status" that is a defacto custom of old school Muslim governance: non believers, but people of the book, could exist in a Muslim society but be obliged to pay a tax for remaining true to their original faith.

While I am not aware of a formal requirement for anyone to convert to Judaism if one lives in Israel, the informal "second class status" seems a bit similar to post Emancipation problems faced by American blacks.

Does it take a civil war to change this, within Israel, or something more akin to the American Civil Rights movement? As I understand it, the "liberal press" of Israel has been harping on that theme for some decades, though I confess to not having followed the debate very closely due to my own assumption, perhaps incorrect in its root.

I am under the impression that the desire for assimilation, so common among European immigrants to America, is not a very powerful motive among the Arab Israeli citizens, the desire to be considered simply "Israeli."

What we hear a lot about is folks wanting to re establish the Palestinian/Arab identity, but one hears a great deal less about the citizens who simply want to get on with it and be treated as "full" citizens. How much leverage does advocacy for that position hold within Israel? I am guessing that in some, if not most, Arab circles, the pluralist theme is held apostate, if not just a sell out.

Am I even close?

DR

[webfusion]

The arabs of Israel face discrimination. This is not in dispute.
Few nations (if any) on the planet do not have problems of minority discrimination, for a myriad of reasons. Some even have laws on paper that proclaim the inferiority of jews.
However, in Israel, according to the written and practical laws, the arabs are not "second class" citizens.
This is demonstrably true:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800679.html
The Knesset on Wednesday approved in a preliminary reading a bill which would establish an academy of the Arabic language.

[drkitten]

I am under the impression that the desire for assimilation, so common among European immigrants to America, is not a very powerful motive among the Arab Israeli citizens, the desire to be considered simply "Israeli."

What we hear a lot about is folks wanting to re establish the Palestinian/Arab identity, but one hears a great deal less about the citizens who simply want to get on with it and be treated as "full" citizens. How much leverage does advocacy for that position hold within Israel? I am guessing that in some, if not most, Arab circles, the pluralist theme is held apostate, if not just a sell out.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why should it be necessary to "assimilate" in order to obtain the benefits of citizenship?

For example (from the cited web page):

Approximately 93 percent of land in the country was public domain, including that owned by the state and some 12.5 percent owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF). All public land by law may only be leased, not sold. The JNF's statutes prohibit the sale or lease of land to non-Jews.

Why should it be necessary to "assimilate" in order to buy or lease land?


Israeli-Arab advocacy organizations have challenged the Government's policy of demolishing illegal buildings in the Arab sector, and claimed that the Government was more restrictive in issuing building permits in Arab communities than in Jewish communities, thereby not accommodating natural growth.

... or to build on land?


According to a 2003 Haifa University study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail.

... or to get bail when charged with a crime?

[zenith-nadir]

This is a demonstrable lie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Examples_of_Discrimination ). Arabs, including Arab citizens, are discriminated against routinely and systematically.Luckily for you Cleon there is no discrimination in America. And if there was discrimination in America against African Americans they must be officially second class citizens. Now I can say that is why America is bad, cuz all blacks are second class citizens.

That is how this line of thought goes doesn't it?, some Arabs are discriminated against by some Israelis, ergo all Arabs are second class citizens in Israel, which makes Israel a bad place.

This has been documented by every human rights organization, including Israeli ones such as B'tselem. The "full citizens" bit is more of an "on-paper" thing than objective reality.There is discrimination in every country on earth. That still doesn't make discrimination an official Israeli policy. When you are talking about Arabs in Israel there is the context that you failed to mention, an ongoing war where the surrounding Arab nations are trying to destroy Israel. Repeated calls for Israel's destruction is bound to make some non-Arab Israelis form an negative opinion of Arabs.

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor Japanese Americans were thrown in holding camps no questions asked, stripped of their land, professions, homes and possessions these folks were thrown in camps in YOUR country.

Blacks are routinely discriminated against in America. Ever heard the term "DWB?" It's short for "Driving while Black". Look it up some time. They generally get heavier prison sentences than whites too. So using the Israeli meme, all blacks in America are second class citizens. Here are the human rights reports to "prove" it. Therefore America is a bad place.

Just a hint, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

(This is, of course, not including the fact that the idea of a state dedicated to representing one ethnicity,Ahhhh... there it is.

yet containing several, inherently turns those of the "other" ethnicities into second-class citizens.)Yup, that's it. Extrapolate that some Arabs are discriminated against in Israel into everyone in Israel who isn't jewish is automatically a second class citizen.:rolleyes:

[Cleon]

This raises the interesting issue of "second class citizen status" that is a defacto custom of old school Muslim governance: non believers, but people of the book, could exist in a Muslim society but be obliged to pay a tax for remaining true to their original faith.

While I am not aware of a formal requirement for anyone to convert to Judaism if one lives in Israel, the informal "second class status" seems a bit similar to post Emancipation problems faced by American blacks.

You mean Jim Crow--and I agree.


Does it take a civil war to change this, within Israel, or something more akin to the American Civil Rights movement? As I understand it, the "liberal press" of Israel has been harping on that theme for some decades, though I confress to not having followed the debate very closely due to my own assumption, perhaps incorrect in its root.

Well, I think you have to re-think the idea of a "Jewish state." Especially in a region that's majority non-Jewish (this is true whether we're talking about the ME in general or mandate Palestine).

Yeah, sometimes the liberal press addresses this--at the same time the more conservative press decries the "demographics problem." (The "neutral" phrasing for the fact that non-Jews, particularly Arabs, are reproducing faster than the Jewish Israeli population.)


I am under the impression that the desire for assimilation, so common among European immigrants to America, is not a very powerful motive among the Arab Israeli citizens, the desire to be considered simply "Israeli."

You also have to keep in mind that many--quite possibly most, though I don't have the numbers onhand--of Israeli Arabs have relatives (sometimes even spouses) in the Occupied Territories and still consider themselves Palestinian. It's not a question of what it means to be "Israeli" so much as what it means to be a non-Jew in a "Jewish state."

There are Israeli Arab groups and individuals that try to fight discrimination, a la NAACP. However, it's difficult--well, nigh on impossible--to separate the issues of Israeli Arab citizens with their families in the West Bank and Gaza. It's more the equivalent of pre-Emancipation US; picture a group that tried to fight for civil rights of Northern Blacks while ignoring slavery in the South. The situations are just too closely related to each other to ignore one and focus on the other, especially when many times the same families and individuals are involved (think runaway slaves). (Disclaimer: This is not an attempt to compare the Palestinian situation in the OT with Southern chattel slavery; apples and oranges there, and I'm well aware of it.)

Also, as long as Israel defines itself as a "Jewish state," you're probably not going to see any movement for non-Jews to "just be Israeli." The definition of the nationality itself is wrapped up in an ethnicity/religion to which they do not belong. When you have situations like that, minority groups tend to *assert* themselves, not try to assimilate further.

For example, in the US, when you see Jewish groups come into conflict with Christians over state-sponsored religious observation (such as Christmas, prayer in schools, or whatever), they try to focus on the message that "hey, we're Americans, and we're Jews." That would lose something if the US was explicitly a Christian state; we might be Americans, and we might be Jews, but it's their state, not ours.


What we hear a lot about is folks wanting to re establish the Palestinian/Arab identity,

There's no need to "re-establish" anything; the Palestinian identity never went away. The language, culture, etc. are all still there.

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why should it be necessary to "assimilate" in order to obtain the benefits of citizenship?
I am more concerned with group identity than with the matters of what looks good on paper, since a number of the comments here point out that significant difference between formal and informal standards. It is apparent that the "Civil Rights" matter is a work in progress, as it is in many places. How can it be considered sincere if the intent is other than being "Israeli" "German" "Chinses" or "American."

If you want to be separate but equal, how does one remain consistent with a demand for being treated the same? The inconsistency cuts both ways. The advantage to a law, or a structure like the 14th Amendment, is that it provides a remedy, but it doesn't stop much of anything, human behavior wise, does it? If what is written on paper were that powerful, the American Civil Rights movement would not have been necessary.

Which takes me, in a repetition for emphasis, to the matter of politics (as exercised, not idealized), sincerity, and group identity. The "separate but equal debate" wasn't limited to whites in America, and it appears (not sure) that it isn't limited to any one party in Israel either.

DR

[Cleon]

Luckily for you Cleon there is no discrimination in America. And if there was discrimination in America against African Americans they must be officially second class citizens. Now I can say that is why America is bad, cuz all blacks are second class citizens.

That is how this line of thought goes doesn't it?, some Arabs are discriminated against by some Israelis, ergo all Arabs are second class citizens in Israel, which makes Israel a bad place.

Er...No. When said discrimination is systematic, then yes, they are second-class citizens.


There is discrimination in every country on earth. That still doesn't make discrimination an official Israeli policy.No--the fact that discrimination is official Israeli policy makes it official Israeli policy. Read the wiki link I posted.


When you are talking about Arabs in Israel there is the context that you failed to mention, an ongoing war where the surrounding Arab nations are trying to destroy Israel. Repeated calls for Israel's destruction is bound to make some non-Arab Israelis form an negative opinion of Arabs. Ah, so you went from "there is no systematic discrimination" to "systematic discrimination is justifiable." You can't have it both ways.


When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor Japanese Americans were thrown in holding camps no questions asked, stripped of their land, professions, homes and possessions these folks were thrown in camps in YOUR country.Yep. It was disgusting, undemocratic, and abominable, and today is widely accepted as such. Had I been around during WWII, I'd like to think I would have spoken out against it.


Yup, that's it. Extrapolate that some Arabs are discriminated against in Israel into everyone in Israel who isn't jewish is automatically a second class citizen.:rolleyes:There are two points to my logic, which you are deliberately conflating:

1. That discrimination against Arabs is widespread, commonplace, and systematic. This is backed up by the facts, as presented in my link and widely available using a tool called "Google." This discrimination therefore makes Arabs second-class citizens.

2. That if Israel is a "Jewish state," that is, a nation-state designed to represent the Jewish population, then those residents of Israel--even "citizens"--who are not Jewish are inherently second-class citizens. It seems to me this is simple, basic logic. By being a "Jewish state," Israel represents one ethnic group/religion above others. Ergo, those "others" are second-class citizens.

[Darth Rotor]

You mean Jim Crow--and I agree.
Jim Crow was formal, not informal. That it was unConstitutional was what required a lot of effort to remedy.

That would lose something if the US was explicitly a Christian state; we might be Americans, and we might be Jews, but it's their state, not ours.
Group identity at work, at a scale lower than national.
There's no need to "re-establish" anything; the Palestinian identity never went away. The language, culture, etc. are all still there.
It appears from the outside that "Palestinian" is a convention that means "not Jewish" (particularly given the failed attempt to displace King Hussein in Jordan, 1970-1972) but I'll need to go back to some refs on 1914-1948 Arab commentary on the situation under the Mandate to get a better sense of that. Not enough background to understand beyond the surface level.

DR

[Merko]

The non-Jewish population in Israel is not "relegated into second-class citizens." That is a myth. Druze, Christian and Muslim Israelis are full citizens of Israel.

I don't think they are full citizens, considering that there are rights that apply only to Jews. For example, there is a law that allows Jews from around the world to move to Israel. There is nothing wrong with that, there are clearly many Jews around the world in need of refuge. Other countries, including Germany, have similar laws. However, this becomes discriminatory because Palestinians living in wretched conditions abroad have NO right to move to Israel.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

Another law that specifically discriminates against Arab citizens, is the relatively recent law that bars Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens from living with their spouse and becoming Israeli citizens themselves. The law specifically singles out Palestinians.
See http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3989

Additionally, there is a religious law that prohibits non-Jews from buying land. To cite from the following article: "..for years such rulings have been routinely invoked by rabbinical courts which are a recognized part of the State of Israel's judiciary."
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0795/9507018.htm

Then we have the systemic discrimination of Arab citizens, such as evidenced for example by the inferior schooling given to Arab-Israeli.
See: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/


There was no home country. Why do people continue to invent a country/identity that has yet to exist?


Were, or were not, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians forced to flee their homes? As seen above, those who managed to stay, did not get to enjoy the same priviliges as the rest of the population.

You're trying to establish some bogus theoretical framework where these grievances are omitted for some nonsense criteria that you invented yourself for this purpose. This is a disgraceful attempt to ignore the plight of these people and I don't want to debate it further.


The ones who did flee are hostages in 60-year-old artificial refugee camps less than a three hour drive from their original 1948 homes.


Yes. Exactly. That is the problem. These people are not allowed to return. I agree that it would not be practical to let everyone return immediately. It has to be done gradually with a controlled repatriation - just as it is done with Jewish immigrants.


But it is conditioned by if they lost several wars to take over Palestine. The losers in war don't win. Only in Israel's case the losers are supposed to take the spoils, (Palestine), and the winners, (Israel), are suppose to give up to the losers. I don't understand this repeated logic I just don't.


"They" lost? Oh, so if Hitler won, even if he was not allowed to exterminate the Jews, he'd have been perfectly free to persecute them and force them out of his country, to live in some wretched camps? Because after all, in this theoretical outcome, the Jews were supported by the losers in a war...

No. Might does not give right.


They didn't win Palestine they lost Palestine. Why can't people get that into their heads?


According to your logic I can't see anything wrong with Iran and other Arab nations trying to conquer Israel and drive out the Israeli. After all, you seem to think that military conquest of someone's territory is a perfectly acceptable way to gain land!


Once again, (as it always is in the foundation-of-Israel topic), the losers of that 1948 war, (the Arabs), should really have been the winners and kept all of Palestine.

There's no thing as "the Arabs". There's no such thing as "the Jews". If some Jews took part in a crime, that does not excuse punishment of all Jews. If some Arabs go to war, that does not mean all "Arabs" can justly be punished. Furthermore, the "Arabs", that is the Palestinians, should not have kept all of Palestine. They should however have been allowed to stay in their homes, or to return to them if they had been driven away, and they should not be treated as second-class citizens.

[Cleon]

Jim Crow was formal, not informal. That it was unConstitutional was what required a lot of effort to remedy.

And discrimination against Arabs in Israel (whether Israel Proper or the OT) is both formal and unformal.

It appears from the outside that "Palestinian" is a convention that means "not Jewish" (particularly given the failed attempt to displace King Hussein in Jordan, 1970-1972) but I'll need to go back to some refs on 1914-1948 Arab commentary on the situation under the Mandate to get a better sense of that. Not enough background to understand beyond the surface level.

Not quite. "Palestinian" generally refers to the Arab population of Palestine, and the descendants thereof. This group consists of Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Jews.

[Darth Rotor]

And discrimination against Arabs in Israel (whether Israel Proper or the OT) is both formal and unformal.



Not quite. "Palestinian" generally refers to the Arab population of Palestine, and the descendants thereof. This group consists of Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Jews.
Just out of curiosity, what would be the odds of Christian, Jewish and Druze Palestinians being part of the PLO? Hamas? Fatah?

DR

[Cleon]

Just out of curiosity, what would be the odds of Christian, Jewish and Druze Palestinians being part of the PLO? Hamas? Fatah?

Well, given that Suha Arafat (Yassir's wife) and Hanan Ashrawi are Christian, I'd say the odds of a Christian being part of the PLO or Fatah are pretty good. :D There are a number of Christians involved in the PLO--it's a coalition of different organizations, including Fatah, the PFLP, and others. George Habash, founder of the PFLP, was Christian.

Hamas is, of course, explicitely Muslim--it would be a little odd for non-Muslims to be involved (kinda like a Muslim involved in Moledet or Shas), though it wouldn't surprise me one little bit if some Christians voted for them in the last election. Fatah's corruption was pissing a lot of people off.

I really don't know about the Druze; I really haven't looked into Druze-Palestinian activity a whole lot. Much (most?) of the Israeli Druze population is in Israel Proper and loyal to Israel. I do know that during the Lebanese civil war the Druze and the PLO were allies; I'm honestly not sure how that translates to Gaza and the West Bank, if there are even any substantial Druze populations there.

Jewish Palestinians were largely absorbed into Israel; as far as I'm aware, they don't really function as part of Palestinian society anymore, though some Jewish activists have been involved in the PLO and Palestinian Authority.

[Mycroft]

That is how this line of thought goes doesn't it?, some Arabs are discriminated against by some Israelis, ergo all Arabs are second class citizens in Israel, which makes Israel a bad place.

It's more than that. It's the apparent belief that any discrimination at all not only validates the worst charges against Israel, but makes the whole concept of Israel a bad idea. It’s nonsense, of course. It would be like saying the United States was a bad idea because we had slavery when we were founded.

Discrimination of any kind is bad, everyone agrees with that. The double standard is that only in Israel does the issue of discrimination bring into question the very existence of the state. Everywhere else the rational approach is to deal with the discrimination and only the discrimination.

For example, in the US, when you see Jewish groups come into conflict with Christians over state-sponsored religious observation (such as Christmas, prayer in schools, or whatever), they try to focus on the message that "hey, we're Americans, and we're Jews." That would lose something if the US was explicitly a Christian state; we might be Americans, and we might be Jews, but it's their state, not ours.

Oh boo-effin’-hoo.

Every nation in the world has a culture that in one way or another reflects a predominant religion held by the majority and every country in the world has a minority population that doesn’t belong to that religion.

Across the globe non-Christians in Europe/America, non-Buddhists in China, non-Hindus in India, and non-Muslims in Islamic countries have to deal with a culture and government that honors the wrong holidays and symbols. So what? It’s not a special tragedy for Muslims and other non-Jews that in Israel they make a big deal of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

From a practical point of view, “Jewish state” boils down to two things: the state holidays are Jewish holidays, and the government offers fast-track immigration to Jews world wide. Neither of these are a special hardship for Israel’s non-Jewish citizens.

[Darth Rotor]

. . . and the government offers fast-track immigration to Jews world wide. Neither of these are a special hardship for Israel’s non-Jewish citizens.
Before I reply to that claim, will you reconsider your assertion on the impact of immigration on current residents of Israel? I think you are in error.

West Bank settlements, for fifty, Alex. :p

DR

[zenith-nadir]

When said discrimination is systematic, then yes, they are second-class citizens.Well lemme see. Blacks are routinely discriminated against in America. They get longer prison sentences and many live in inner-city ghettos which the government does not re-develop. Inner-city schools receive less funding than white suburban schools. Ergo, it's systematic and therefore all Blacks are second-class citizens in America. Which, taken to the next level, makes America a bad place.

No--the fact that discrimination is official Israeli policy makes it official Israeli policy. Read the wiki link I posted.I'm dumb. Please quote these official Israeli policies.

Ah, so you went from "there is no systematic discrimination" to "systematic discrimination is justifiable." You can't have it both ways.This is the trick of yours that I ran into last time you tried to debate me. You build a strawman and then using your own construct, "systematic discrimination is justifiable", to label me.

Yep. It was disgusting, undemocratic, and abominable, and today is widely accepted as such. Had I been around during WWII, I'd like to think I would have spoken out against it.Luckily for you there is no more discrimination in America.

That discrimination against Arabs is widespread, commonplace, and systematic. This is backed up by the facts, as presented in my link and widely available using a tool called "Google."Discrimination against Blacks and American Indians is widespread in America, commonplace, and systematic. This is backed up by the facts, as presented widely available using a tool called "Google."

This discrimination therefore makes Arabs second-class citizens.This discrimination inherently makes all Blacks and American Indians second-class citizens.

That if Israel is a "Jewish state," that is, a nation-state designed to represent the Jewish population, then those residents of Israel--even "citizens"--who are not Jewish are inherently second-class citizens.And the official Israeli law that states citizens who are not Jewish are inherently second-class citizens is where? Could you link to it for me.

Well, I think you have to re-think the idea of a "Jewish state." Especially in a region that's majority non-Jewish (this is true whether we're talking about the ME in general or mandate Palestine).These Japs moved in next door. I think they should really rethink moving into my neighborhood which the majority of people living there are non-Japanese. I mean really...How dare they?

I don't think they are full citizens, considering that there are rights that apply only to Jews.And this official Israeli law that states citizens who are not Jewish are not full citizens is where? Could you link to it for me.

However, this becomes discriminatory because Palestinians living in wretched conditions abroad have NO right to move to Israel.So they can move to Lebanon...oh wait Palestinians aren't allowed to own land or businesses in Lebanon. They could move to Syria, oh wait, that's only if they reject peace with Israel. They could move to Jordan where Palestinians constitute about one-half of Jordan’s population. Naaaa, that's too easy. They could move to Egypt where Palestinians enjoy many restrictive laws and regulations. Naaa. They could move to Saudi Arabia where Palestinians are not allowed citizenship. Naaa.

So why do you demand Israel accept all these Palestinians when other Arab nations don't? I know, because the Palestinians should have won the wars they lost in 1948, 1953, 1967 and 1973.

You're trying to establish some bogus theoretical framework where these grievances are omitted for some nonsense criteria that you invented yourself for this purpose. This is a disgraceful attempt to ignore the plight of these people and I don't want to debate it further.What really gets my goat is anything jewish is discriminated against in 99.99% of all Arab countries. Palestinians are denied citizenship in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and still live in 60-year-old refugee camps eventhough generations have been born in Egypt, Lebanon and elsewhere.

But the REAL heart-of-the-matter is there is discrimination in Israel. Why that is the smoking gun isn't it. How dare Israel have a negative opinion of the people sworn to destroy it. Why that's unconscionable.

Jewish Palestinians were largely absorbed into Israel; as far as I'm aware, they don't really function as part of Palestinian society anymore, Was it because of ...let's say... discrimination?

[Cleon]

Well lemme see. Blacks are routinely discriminated against in America. They get longer prison sentences and many live in inner-city ghettos which the government does not re-develop. Inner-city schools receive less funding than white suburban schools. Ergo, it's systematic and therefore all Blacks are second-class citizens in America. Which, taken to the next level, makes America a bad place.

Yay for straw.


I'm dumb. Please quote these official Israeli policies.


Please see previous post.


This is the trick of yours that I ran into last time you tried to debate me. You build a strawman and then using your construct, "systematic discrimination is justifiable", to then label me.

No strawman at all. First you claimed that "The non-Jewish population in Israel is not 'relegated into second-class citizens.'" Then you began to "explain" why it's ok if they are. You can't have it both ways.


Luckily for you there is no more discrimination in America.

Your claim--not mine.


Discrimination against Blacks and American Indians is widespread in America, commonplace, and systematic. This is backed up by the facts, as presented widely available using a tool called "Google."

And has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Feel free to continue deflecting if it makes you feel better about yourself.


And the official Israeli law that states citizens who are not Jewish are inherently second-class citizens is where? Could you link to it for me.

This is completely and totally irrelevant to the point I made. Look up the word "inherently," for starters.


These Japs moved in next door. I think they should really rethink moving into my neighborhood which the majority of people living there are non-Japanese. I mean really...How dare they?

Well, if they move in, declare that your neighborhood is a "Japanese neighborhood," proceed to rule over non-Japanese citizens with two standards of rules, discriminate against non-Japanese, kick non-Japanese out of their homes...Then maybe you have a point.

Until then, the idea that the creation of Israel as a Jewish State was no more than a couple of Jews moving to the neighborhood is completely without substance.


And this official Israeli law that states citizens who are not Jewish are not full citizens is where? Could you link to it for me.

More straw.

[ponderingturtle]

Given the migrations of the 1940's and 1950's,
But according to Stevearino those never happened. That is mindless Anti-Jewish statements

"Zionist intentions?" A phrase I am not familiar with, but which I guess means "with the intent of fulfilling the goals of the Zionist movement, whose origins were in 19th century Europe?" Am I close?

DR

Well as we are taking about the people from that movement yes.

[Mycroft]

Before I reply to that claim, will you reconsider your assertion on the impact of immigration on current residents of Israel? I think you are in error.

West Bank settlements, for fifty, Alex. :p

DR

I'm not making the claim that Israel is perfect and has no bad policies. I am specifically arguing against Cleon's assertion that Israel being a "Jewish state" is somehow inherently an unbearable tragedy for Israel's non-Jews.

[ponderingturtle]

You answered your own question. My understanding is that the "lampshade" bit, like the story about Jews being made into soap, is something of a myth. Googling (http://www.google.com/search?q=holocaust+lampshades&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) hasn't provided any clear answers, either, though I note that SkepticWiki (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Holocaust_Denial) says that "there really is no evidence that the bodies of holocaust victims were used for making soap or lampshades."

True the soap thing makes no sense, people in concentration camps where not known for having alot of body fat, so where would you be getting the fats needed to make soap?

[ponderingturtle]

I just want to interject:

The anti-Zionist argument here is essentially that while Jews fleeing persecution don't have the right to inconvenience anyone in their struggle for survival, but simultaneously the native Arabs do have a right to maintain a racial purity of their homeland unchanged by immigration.

If we were talking about white Europeans people instead of Arabs the inherent racism of that position would be painfully obvious.

Wow, I was unaware of the Nazi's chasing all the Jews into Israel. And here I thought from Stevearino that the Jews had always been there.

Am I the only one to see the people supporting Israels actions in creation are using fundamentally different versions of history?

[ponderingturtle]

What exactly was stolen from who?

Can you answer that?

So taking lands with forced deportation is not stealing then?

[zenith-nadir]

Yay for straw. I am not misrepresenting your position. Your claim that discrimination in Israel = second-class citizenship.

And I quote:

Arabs, including Arab citizens, are discriminated against routinely and systematically. This has been documented by every human rights organization, including Israeli ones such as B'tselem. The "full citizens" bit is more of an "on-paper" thing than objective reality.

I am not misrepresenting your position.

African Americans and American Indians are discriminated against routinely and systematically in America. That's the whole reason that civil rights groups exist in the USA such as the NAACP. Therefore, using your definition, African Americans and American Indians are second-class citizens. The "full citizens" bit is more of an "on-paper" thing than objective reality.

Please see previous post.Then I shall ask again. Please provide these official Israeli policies. It should be simple since you already know where they are.

No strawman at all. First you claimed that "The non-Jewish population in Israel is not 'relegated into second-class citizens.'"It is your contention that all non-jews in Israel are second-class citizens. I disagree.

Then you began to "explain" why it's ok if they are. You can't have it both ways.Ahhh, now you are feeding on the strawman which you constructed for me above:

Ah, so you went from "there is no systematic discrimination" to "systematic discrimination is justifiable." You can't have it both ways.You claimed I said there was no discrimination in Israel when I repeatedly said there was, (the wars and calls for Israel's destruction thingy.)

You then claim I said systematic discrimination is justifiable, (quoted above), and then go on to feed on your strawman by asking me to explain why discrimination in Israel is ok. A typical Cleon move.

And has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Feel free to continue deflecting if it makes you feel better about yourself.So you don't wanna reference comparable discrimination in your own country because it gets in the way of posting about discrimination in Israel. I get it.

This is completely and totally irrelevant to the point I made. Look up the word "inherently," for starters.

"inherently" - Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic. Ok. I looked it up.

Well, if they move in, declare that your neighborhood is a "Japanese neighborhood," proceed to rule over non-Japanese citizens with two standards of rules, discriminate against non-Japanese, kick non-Japanese out of their homes...Then maybe you have a point. And here we go again. :rolleyes:

Eventhough the Arab/Palestinians lost the wars in 1948, 1953, 1967 and 1973 they really should have won, and in doing so they should have got to keep the lands they lost. It's the "when Saddam lost in 1991 we should have let him keep Kuwait" logic.

More straw.So are you going to cite the official Israeli laws or aren't you?

[ponderingturtle]

The non-Jewish population in Israel is not "relegated into second-class citizens." That is a myth. Druze, Christian and Muslim Israelis are full citizens of Israel.

So the report about how arab towns in the north of isreal got less reconstruction money than jewish towns further away from the border is not true?

There was no home country. Why do people continue to invent a country/identity that has yet to exist? That is what all the fighting is about, a Palestinian state. Palestinian arabs have yet to have a country.

Yes, just like the jews where not native to germany before that and would never have been concidered germans either, no matter how long they lived there.

And really if the nazi's could have found someone willing to take the jews off their hands there would never have been anything wrong happening to the jews as a result as we have already established that there is nothing wrong with forced deportation if done by the goverment. Concidering that ethic cleansing is just wrong.


It is just like saying that if the Nazi's had no right to be in france, they conquored it and so where the rightful govenerment. And there where all these french terrorists to deal with, I mean you heart really goes out to these guys right?

[Merko]

This discrimination inherently makes all Blacks and American Indians second-class citizens.


It is arguably so, even if the situation has quite clearly improved over the decades, and hopefully will continue to improve.


And the official Israeli law that states citizens who are not Jewish are inherently second-class citizens is where? Could you link to it for me.


I provided plenty of links. But you seem to think that if one law states that they are full citizens, then they must be that, no matter how many other laws there are that deprive them of their citizens' rights?

You seem to have a strange opinion of reality - only formal matters seem to count, if we define a law saying that war is peace and slavery is freedom, then so it must be.


So they can move to Lebanon...oh wait Palestinians aren't allowed to own land or businesses in Lebanon. They could move to Syria, oh wait, that's only if they reject peace with Israel. They could move to Jordan where Palestinians constitute about one-half of Jordan’s population. Naaaa, that's too easy. They could move to Egypt where Palestinians enjoy many restrictive laws and regulations. Naaa. They could move to Saudi Arabia where Palestinians are not allowed citizenship. Naaa.


Oh great. So then it would be perfectly fine to chase out all Israelis out of Israel, as Ahmadinejad wants, because after all they could all move to Madagascar, right? No, it would not be. They have a right to keep living in their home country. You and Ahmadinejad are on the wrong side here.


What really gets my goat is anything jewish is discriminated against in 99.99% of all Arab countries. Palestinians are denied citizenship in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and still live in 60-year-old refugee camps eventhough generations have been born in Egypt, Lebanon and elsewhere.


Where do you see me or anyone else in this thread defending this heinous discrimination perpetrated by these brutal dictatorships, totalitarian states and theocracies?


But the REAL heart-of-the-matter is there is discrimination in Israel.

That's because we don't have any apologists defending persecution of Jews in the middle east. We don't have any apologists defending discrimination against blacks and amerindians in the USA. Well, we had that skepticism guy in some other thread, and I believe we all gave him the treatment he deserved.

[steverino]

It was disgusting, undemocratic, and abominable, and today is widely accepted as such.

Or maybe it, too, was exaggerated. (Insert Twilight Zone theme music)

Tell ya what. Why not contact David Duke when he gets back from that li'l old conference thinggy in Tehran, and discuss these internment camps over sushi.;)

[zenith-nadir]

So taking lands with forced deportation is not stealing then?Have you ever heard of the 1948 war?

Here I shall link it for you (http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr45/fisrael1948.htm). It goes like this:

"When Israel achieved its independence on May 14, 1948, the Haganah became the de facto Israeli army. On that day, the country was invaded by the regular forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria."

When Israel went to war in Lebanon last summer did everyone who fought for Hizbollah survive? Did their apartments and towns remain unscathed? Did all non-combatants stay in their homes or did many non-combatants flee on ships, in cars, buses and whatever they could use?

This constant myth that Israel up and kicked everyone out of Palestine, when the historical record shows the regular forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria invaded Israel in 1948, disturbs me greatly. The non-combatants in 1948 fled, those, (MANY PALESTINIANS) who fought with the regular forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria got run out of town or killed because they LOST the war.

[Mycroft]

So taking lands with forced deportation is not stealing then?

That's a great question. When exactly did that happen and why?


Wow, I was unaware of the Nazi's chasing all the Jews into Israel. And here I thought from Stevearino that the Jews had always been there.

Zionism began long before Nazism, and Nazism was not the only expression of European anti-Semitism, just the largest and most deadly.

Am I the only one to see the people supporting Israels actions in creation are using fundamentally different versions of history?

Different from what? From the narrative put forth by the anti-Israeli crowd?

[Cleon]

Tell ya what. Why not contact David Duke when he gets back from that li'l old conference thinggy in Tehran, and discuss these internment camps over sushi.;)

Care to sink any lower, or will you do the mature thing and apologize?

[zenith-nadir]

That's because we don't have any apologists defending persecution of Jews in the middle east. We don't have any apologists defending discrimination against blacks and amerindians in the USA. Well, we had that skepticism guy in some other thread, and I believe we all gave him the treatment he deserved.And you don't have apologists defending discrimination in Israel in this thread. I don't see one person defending discrimination in Israel. What we do have though is posters faulting Israel because discrimination exists there but unwilling to confront equal discrimination issues in their own countries.

[Merko]

And you don't have apologists defending discrimination in Israel in this thread.


Then why are you making all these posts about how the Arabs seemingly should blame themselves because 'they' started 'it'. What is the relevance if you're not trying to excuse the discrimination?

Why are you denying that Palestinian Israelis are second class citizens, even in the face of ample evidence that they are deprived of important and fundamental rights enjoyed by other citizens?

Why do you try to even question the very notion that there are any Palestinians?


What we do have though is posters faulting Israel because discrimination exists there but unwilling to confront equal discrimination issues in their own countries.

How can you possibly know what these posters are confronting and not confronting on other issues?

But can we agree then that there is systemic discrimination of Palestinians in Israel, that Israel should revoke laws discriminating against Palestinians, and that representatives of other countries should put pressure on Israel for doing so, for example by conditioning economic aid and political support to the government of Israel showing a clear commitment to these issues?

[ponderingturtle]

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor Japanese Americans were thrown in holding camps no questions asked, stripped of their land, professions, homes and possessions these folks were thrown in camps in YOUR country.


Why is it that people always ignore the Italian and German Americans thrown into the same camps?

[steverino]

Care to sink any lower, or will you do the mature thing and apologize?

Sorry. It was a personal attack. I admit it. :o

[Merko]

Why is it that people always ignore the Italian and German Americans thrown into the same camps?

Personally I've never heard of it. It seems impossible to me that this would have happened on the same proportional level though. Maybe it was at least a tad less arbitrary? Not defending it if it happened, mind you, just wondering.

We had a similar camp in Sweden during WWII where communists were internated, because they would supposedly be unpatriotic in the event of a Soviet invasion. I think this is generally agreed to have been wrong, since there were no real individual grounds for making such assumptions. Also, Swedish nazists openly symphatising with Third Reich expansion were not internated.

[Cleon]

I am not misrepresenting your position. Your claim that discrimination in Israel = second-class citizenship.

No, as I explained earlier:


1. That discrimination against Arabs is widespread, commonplace, and systematic. This is backed up by the facts, as presented in my link and widely available using a tool called "Google." This discrimination therefore makes Arabs second-class citizens.

2. That if Israel is a "Jewish state," that is, a nation-state designed to represent the Jewish population, then those residents of Israel--even "citizens"--who are not Jewish are inherently second-class citizens. It seems to me this is simple, basic logic. By being a "Jewish state," Israel represents one ethnic group/religion above others. Ergo, those "others" are second-class citizens.


It's beyond "is there discrimination in Israel." Of course there is--as you pointed out, there's discrimination everywhere. Yes, just as there is discrimination against Blacks in the US. Yet there is still a difference between the status of Black Americans in, say, Atlanta, GA and in apartheid-era South Africa.

On purely the point of discrimination, it is not a question of whether such discrimination merely exists, but whether it is systematic, widespread, and commonplace both in person-to-person interaction and (more importantly) in dealings with the state apparatus.

I tell you what--why don't you explain to me what exactly a "second-class citizen" means, in your view.


I am not misrepresenting your position.

Yes, you are.


Then I shall ask again. Please provide these official Israeli policies. It should be simple since you already know where they are.

If you're intent on holding your hands over your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU," it is not my job to forcibly try to remove them.

I provided evidence. But if you're insistent on ignoring it, here we go:

Linky 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Examples_of_Discrimination )
Linky 2 (http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Israel/20060519-Forward+Oped.htm) (when even the ADL says there's a problem, it might be time to check it out)
Linky 3 (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150422006?open&of=ENG-2MD)
Linky 4 (http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=66601)
Linky 5 (http://www.world-crisis.com/news/1173_0_1_0_M/)
Linky 6 (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0309/S00048.htm)

There are many, many more. Google "'israeli arabs' discrimination." The fact that Arab citizens have voting rights does not mean they don't face serious, systematic, widespread discrimination in both the political and economic spheres.


You claimed I said there was no discrimination in Israel when I repeatedly said there was, (the wars and calls for Israel's destruction thingy.)

Wow. Your dishonest and desire for spin knows no bounds, does it?


You then claim I said systematic discrimination is justifiable,

You did.


So you don't wanna reference comparable discrimination in your own country because it gets in the way of posting about discrimination in Israel. I get it.

No, you clearly don't. If you want to discuss the history of racism, discrimination, and oppression of non-whites in the US, I will be more than happy to. But it is not germane to this conversation.



"inherently" - Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic. Ok. I looked it up.

Right, which means that when I say the concept of a "Jewish state" inherently makes non-Jews second-class citizens, it doesn't make the least bit of sense to demand that I post "the official Israeli law that states citizens who are not Jewish are inherently second-class citizens."

Either address the argument, or don't. Don't dance in circles around it.


Eventhough the Arab/Palestinians lost the wars in 1948, 1953, 1967 and 1973 they really should have won, and in doing so they should have got to keep the lands they lost. It's the "when Saddam lost in 1991 we should have let him keep Kuwait" logic.


This is complete straw.



So are you going to cite the official Israeli laws or aren't you?

Already did--as did Merko. Not my fault if you won't pay attention.

[Cleon]

Sorry. It was a personal attack. I admit it. :o

Accepted. Please keep in mind that you're not the only Yid around here, k? My family went through the Holocaust, too. Associating me with the likes of Duke is beyond the pale.

[Cleon]

Why is it that people always ignore the Italian and German Americans thrown into the same camps?

Honestly, I simply wasn't aware of it, but I'd like to learn more if you have any links.

I can't imagine it was that widespread--I grew up in Pittsburgh, which has a huge honkin' population of German and Italian-descended folks (immigrant labor for the steel mills). If they'd tried a widespread internment, they would've turned half of Pennsylvania into a prison camp.

[zenith-nadir]

Why is it that people always ignore the Italian and German Americans thrown into the same camps?Who's ignoring it?

My point was, and is, during wartime there is bound to be discrimination against "the enemy." The enemy in WW2-America was Japanese, Italian and German Americans and they were off to camp in no time flat.

Israel is in the unique position of being in a perpetual state of war because it is surrounded by some pretty hostile nations. All Arab. One of those nations, the Persian one, is holding a "Review of the Holocaust" convention. Remember this thread topic?

Given the perpetual state of war, the terrorism and the "Review of the Holocaust" conventions some people and politicians do discriminate against Arabs in Israel. After all this war was on long before there were any settlements in the West Bank or Gaza.

And that is why I am so vocal about individuals spreading myths that Arabs in Israel are "second-class citizens" .... because there is some discrimination.... (the perpetual state of war, the terrorism and the "Review of the Holocaust" conventions).

If I protest that myth, that's when the religion card is generally played, it goes something like this;

"But...but... how can any non-jew really be a full citizens of a jewish-state since they are not jewish?"

And then other people nod their heads in agreement. Seems to be common sense right?

Well that is also part of the card trick.

Any Israeli Arab has the right to vote and to hold public office in Israel, unlike anywhere else in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs have their own newspapers, they are free to speak their minds, they are democratically represented in the Israeli Knesset by the Balad and United Arab List parties. Israeli Arabs also benefit from having Israeli human rights groups and civil rights groups who are FREE TO SPEAK OUT without fear when they see discrimination taking place. There has even been an Arab Miss Israel, Rana Raslan, (and she is very hot (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1999/421/rana.jpg) ;)).

Israel ain't such a bad place as many paint it to be considering it is in a perpetual state of war.

[Darth Rotor]

Israel ain't such a bad place as many paint it to be considering it is in a perpetual state of war.

There has even been an Arab Miss Israel, Rana Raslan, (and she is very hot ).
Think about the term "tokenism." Perceived or real, it doesn't advance an image of plurality, but rather one of condescension.

Yes, she's gorgeous. :)

DR

[Skeptic]

Two questions:

1). Is nobody else here annoyed by the absurdity of the Arab and Muslim world complaining about Israel violating human rights when in most cases their official ideology is that it must be destroyed, let alone their own far worse record in the human rights field even if this little "butcher the jews" thingy is ignored?

2). Have Geni, Dr. Adequate, and the rest of the crew here who are so concerned about Israeli human rights violations ever been there? I, for one, find the picture of Israel painted by the "facts" they present as gospel truth totally unrecognizable.

[Darth Rotor]

Two questions:

1). Is nobody else here annoyed by the absurdity of the Arab and Muslim world complaining about Israel violating human rights when in most cases their official ideology is that it must be destroyed, let alone their own far worse record in the human rights field even if this little "butcher the jews" thingy is ignored?

2). Have Geni, Dr. Adequate, and the rest of the crew here who are so concerned about Israeli human rights violations ever been there? I, for one, find the picture of Israel painted by the "facts" they present as gospel truth totally unrecognizable.
I was there twenty years ago. Good place. Of course, that was pre Intafada, and during the cold war, post Arafat cornered in Beirut. The big arse pain for the US in those days was Qadaffi, and the usual assortment of scum hijacking aircraft, or bording the Achille Laura and tossing wheelchair bound tourists to the sharks. A ship I was on was somewhat involved in the intercept of an aircraft, and associated Italian operation, to deal with the Achille Lauro hijackers.

Oh, those halcyon days, when gunmen strafed the Rome Airport at the beginning of the 1985 Christmas season. :p Oh for the days when American diplomats and aid workers were kidnapped, in some cases assassinated. The good old days, when the Red Brigade and 17th November attacked Americans just for being American.

Has anything really changed?

DR

[Merko]

Two questions:
1). Is nobody else here annoyed by the absurdity of the Arab and Muslim world complaining about Israel violating human rights when in most cases their official ideology is that it must be destroyed, let alone their own far worse record in the human rights field even if this little "butcher the jews" thingy is ignored?


It's about as absurd as the Israel-apologists complaining over the Arab world violating human rights, when Israel is also violating human rights on a very significant scale. It seems to be human nature: complain about what you cannot change, shun your own responsibility.

I have very much respect for Israeli human rights organisations complaining about mistreatment of Jews in the Arab world - especially when the same organisations also show equal concern for Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians.

The issue is not whether one side would be worse than the other, or how significant the difference would be. The issue is that Israel, and the Arab world for that matter, are doing very significantly worse than what could be expected of them. This is not excusable.

[Darth Rotor]

The issue is not whether one side would be worse than the other, or how significant the difference would be. The issue is that Israel, and the Arab world for that matter, are doing very significantly worse than what could be expected of them. This is not excusable.
As I understand it, your criterion for expectancy drives acceptability?

Who died an made you queen?

I think one should look beyond the platitude of the generalization you make, "something bad happens here and there" and consider the specific actions, appeals, avenue for remedy, severity of sanction, and level of adherence to a standard. Lacking any other, pick something out of the UN statements of ideal as a standard, and compare metrics. The details of process are important.

DR

[steverino]

Accepted. Please keep in mind that you're not the only Yid around here, k? My family went through the Holocaust, too. Associating me with the likes of Duke is beyond the pale.

Noted, and I am glad to hear you voice your feelings on Duke, which, of course, I share. I do not mean to sound like I am sniping here, but I am wondering why I am surprised you have Jewish background and family holocaust victims, or escapees, base on your posts here? Your points, and the direction they have taken, seem against the grain of your background.

My thread started with the question who attended this conference on holocaust denial. It was redirected to holocaust exaggeration, and onto Israel critique. Why is this disturbing to me? It is like bouncing from the (imagined) topic of an "American-slavery-denier's conference" to "slavery was exaggerated" to "our violent black hip hop culture." In other words, a bait-and-switch of victims with the help of the time-line.

[Cleon]

Noted, and I am glad to hear you voice your feelings on Duke, which, of course, I share. I do not mean to sound like I am sniping here, but I am wondering why I am surprised you have Jewish background and family holocaust victims, or escapees, base on your posts here? Your points, and the direction they have taken, seem against the grain of your background.

Why? Because I don't toe the line on Israel?

The question of Israel and Zionism is, has been, and always will be, a political question. Judaism is (depending on who you ask at what particular time) a culture, an ethnicity, and a religion. It is not a political philosophy. You do not need to be a supporter of Israel in order to be Jewish, and (obviously) you don't need to be Jewish to support Israel.

(And to answer your implied question; both victims and escapees. Often, when it comes to the Holocaust, the two are the same.)


My thread started with the question who attended this conference on holocaust denial. It was redirected to holocaust exaggeration, and onto Israel critique. Why is this disturbing to me? It is like bouncing from the (imagined) topic of an "American-slavery-denier's conference" to "slavery was exaggerated" to "our violent black hip hop culture." In other words, in other words, a bait-and-switch of victims ith the help of the time-line.A fair point, though I'd quibble about the analogy.

[gtc]

Jewish Palestinians were largely absorbed into Israel; as far as I'm aware, they don't really function as part of Palestinian society anymore, though some Jewish activists have been involved in the PLO and Palestinian Authority.

Out of interest, why were the Jewish Palestinians largely absorbed into Israel?

[Merko]

As I understand it, your criterion for expectancy drives acceptability?

Who died an made you queen?


Sorry, I can't parse the above. What is a 'criterion for expectancy'? I'm not familiar with this queen parable.


I think one should look beyond the platitude of the generalization you make, "something bad happens here and there" and consider the specific actions, appeals, avenue for remedy, severity of sanction, and level of adherence to a standard. Lacking any other, pick something out of the UN statements of ideal as a standard, and compare metrics. The details of process are important.


I couldn't agree more. According to B'tselem, 4,030 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli since the start of the second Intifada in 2000.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp
How many Jews have been killed in the Arab world, combined, in this period? I don't have a source, but I'm willing to bet that it is significantly less than 1,000. While we can debate the reasons for these casualties, this is a metric that is relevant and that can be compared, like you say.

Then let us consider the case of avenue for remedy and severity of sanction. I assume that you are a westerner like me. The official relation between our countries and the Middle East Arab countries could perhaps be described as 'strained', at best. Officials regularly condemn breaches of human rights perpetrated by these regimes, in no uncertain terms. I don't believe that this is enough. They should be more candid. We should also consider sanctions such as, at the very least, a weapons embargo (some of these states are obviously already under such embargo by some states).

But now contrast this with Israel. This state has the open support of most of our governments. Israel is widely regarded as a democracy (I do not protest this). There is hardly any official criticism that is not carefully conditioned. And more importantly, we have favourable trade agreements with Israel, some states even providing direct support. In other words, we have a much more viable avenue for remedy. We don't need to bomb Israel to get our point across.

There is precious little we can do about human rights abuse in Iran, for example. We should still protest it, of course, but our influence is clearly very limited. With Israel, it is not so. Therefore, we have a greater responsibility there.

[Merko]

Judaism is (depending on who you ask at what particular time) a culture, an ethnicity, and a religion.

Hm. I've always thought that Judaism was the religion, while I would describe what you're talking about as 'Jewry'. Is this wrong? I believe I have many times claimed my dislike for Judaism, although it would always have been right after Christianity and Islam, so I don't think there would have been much room for misinterpretation anyway. But I would like to know my terms since it is so easy to accidentally step on someone's toes when discussing these issues.

[Merko]

Darth Rotor: Oh, I understand that you may accuse me of trying to limit the comparison to just Jews being killed, when we should also consider repression of Arabs by Arabs. I would agree, but it depends on what comparison we are engaging in. I guess we should single out some country to make the comparison with. I think Saudi Arabia would be a good candidate, as one of the more repressive Arab states. According to Amnesty, 'more than 1100 people' have been executed there in the past 20 years.
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/8.html

Of course, there may be additional human rights abuses causing death that are not tallied as executions, but I think there's reason to believe that this would be the majority of all such killings. Of course, Saudi Arabia has about 27 million inhabitants, while Israel has only a bit over six millions.

The rest of my argument stays the same as my previous reply to you.

[gtc]

I couldn't agree more. According to B'tselem, 4,030 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli since the start of the second Intifada in 2000.
http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp
How many Jews have been killed in the Arab world, combined, in this period? I don't have a source, but I'm willing to bet that it is significantly less than 1,000. While we can debate the reasons for these casualties, this is a metric that is relevant and that can be compared, like you say.

It only seems relevant to those who wish to proclaim moral equivalence between Israel and Palestine or worse.

If we killed more fascists in WWII than the number of allies killed by fascists, would that make us worse or in some way morally comparable to the fascists?

Of course not. You need to be mindful of the the circumstances in which the deaths occurred and the broader context of deaths averted. Without context, you might just be condemming the Israelis for having relatively more effective defences or Palestinians for having relatively worse luck.

[a_unique_person]

you are assuming all Palestinian deaths are to do with defending Israel from attack, etc.

[gtc]

you are assuming all Palestinian deaths are to do with defending Israel from attack, etc.

No, I used 'might'.

Assuming all deaths are due to Israeli defensive actions is as erroneous as using the raw numbers to imply moral equivalence or worse.

My point is that without context, it is meaningless to compare numbers.

That said, few conflicts have not seen attacks excused as pre-emptive defense.

[Pardalis]

I haven't read through this thread, it seems like the same old bickering about who is to blame between the Muslims and the Jews, which I don't care for. But this is about Holocaust denial, and a freaking head of state openly promoting it. :mad:

Not only that, what I think is even more infuriating (if that is possible) is the lack of reaction from the civilised world:

Where are the thousands of protesters on the streets? Where are the supposed peace loving crowds to shout against this lunatic?

Everytime Bush says something, you got thousands of people rallying on the streets shouting and calling him a monster. But this Ahmadinejad is the real thing. Why is everyone so silent?

Someone told me it's because noone takes him seriously. Say what???

[UnrepentantSinner]

Everytime Bush says something, you got thousands of people rallying on the streets shouting and calling him a monster. But this Ahmadinejad is the real thing. Why is everyone so silent?

Someone told me it's because noone takes him seriously. Say what???

Ahmadinejad had to truncate a speech the other day when the assembled university students started booing, holding his photo upside down and shouting "death to the dictator." Some people are speaking out him. I'd also note that whenever I watch C-SPAN and they get callers from Iran, most of them say he's not taken seriously and he's just playing politics to distract the population from how crappy the economy is - and it's not working.

Back to the OP. I lived in Tehran as a boy. I visited Dachau in my teens. It's hard for me to take this loonacy any more seriously than Holocaust Denial warrents. Deniers should be spoken out against always, but I don't think this meeting has the larger implications some of you are giving it.

[ImaginalDisc]

I haven't read through this thread, it seems like the same old bickering about who is to blame between the Muslims and the Jews, which I don't care for. But this is about Holocaust denial, and a freaking head of state openly promoting it. :mad:

Not only that, what I think is even more infuriating (if that is possible) is the lack of reaction from the civilised world:

Where are the thousands of protesters on the streets? Where are the supposed peace loving crowds to shout against this lunatic?

Everytime Bush says something, you got thousands of people rallying on the streets shouting and calling him a monster. But this Ahmadinejad is the real thing. Why is everyone so silent?

Someone told me it's because noone takes him seriously. Say what???

It may have something to do with the fact that he's a president of a different country, and that protests tend to be commonly directed, at least in the U.S., at domestic politicans?

That said, I have no intention of writing my Senators and Representatives to broker deals with the government of Iran in a spirit of friendship when open Holocaust Denial meetings are the order of the day. We may have to sit down with them at the table at some point, because circumstances often compell governments who hate eachother to negotiate rather than face war, however.

[DanishDynamite]

A lunatic conference held by a lunatic high-priest.

"Just when you thought the Fall of the Wall made it safe to get on with living happy and free....LUNACY!. Soon showing at a cinema near you.".

Why is life so depressing? Should be a law against that.

[Pardalis]

It's hard for me to take this loonacy any more seriously than Holocaust Denial warrents. Deniers should be spoken out against always, but I don't think this meeting has the larger implications some of you are giving it.

I respectfully disagree. This time, a head of state, someone with power and "legitimacy" is promoting it, giving it world attention. I think this is very serious and we shouldn't let this go so easily.

It may have something to do with the fact that he's a president of a different country, and that protests tend to be commonly directed, at least in the U.S., at domestic politicans?

You got a good point, but alot of anti Bush protests happen in Canada, everywhere in Europe and alot of other places.

Why should it be different for Ahmadinejad?

Bush never said anything as remotly as insane as he did.

[gtc]

I think it has larger implications in the context of his aims towards Israel and his aim to get greater influence in the Middle East. I would rather see more realists in the muslim world when it comes to Israel, not more fanatics.

Finally, few in the West may actually believe his holocaust denial. But his suggestion that the holocaust is exaggerated or otherwise 'used' to justify the creation of Israel and/or used to justify the West's support for Israel and/or used to try to supress discussion of these topics seems to resonate in the West.

[ImaginalDisc]

You got a good point, but alot of anti Bush protests happen in Canada, everywhere in Europe and alot of other places.

Why should it be different for Ahmadinejad?

Bush never said anything as remotly as insane as he did.

Perhaps this is a bit cynical of me to say, but maybe it's because Bush's idiotic mutterings have a more direct impact on their lives than the craziness of the president of Iran?

[gtc]

I was going to suggest that there might be some correlations between

a) Thinking Bush is an idiot.
b) Thinking protesting Bush will achieve anything.
c) Supporting Ahmadinejad.

As evidence I would submit The Non Work Safe Zombie Hall of Shame (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/)

[ImaginalDisc]

I was going to suggest that there might be some correlations between

a) Thinking Bush is an idiot.
b) Thinking protesting Bush will achieve anything.
c) Supporting Ahmadinejad.

As evidence I would submit The Non Work Safe Zombie Hall of Shame (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/)

Considering Bush's approval ratings hove in the 30's, lots of people believe in (a).

Protests can accomplish much, but protesting the actions of foreign governments, not so much.

As for actually supporting Ahmadniejad, that's absolutely not the mainstream of Democrats or liberals in the U.S.

[President Bush]

But this is about Holocaust denial, and a freaking head of state openly promoting it. :mad:
What happens in Tehran stays didn't happen in Tehran.

[a_unique_person]

I was going to suggest that there might be some correlations between

a) Thinking Bush is an idiot.
b) Thinking protesting Bush will achieve anything.
c) Supporting Ahmadinejad.

As evidence I would submit The Non Work Safe Zombie Hall of Shame (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/)

The need for B as a means of attacking A by implying C is fallacious.

[webfusion]

Pardalis says:"This time, a head of state, someone with power and "legitimacy" is promoting it, giving it world attention. I think this is very serious and we shouldn't let this go so easily."


Bibi Netanyahu is not willing to let it go.
He is suggesting that the Iranian President be tried in the Hague.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/800870.html
The proposal is part of an international public relations campaign being put forward by the LIKUD party. It will include a proposal to file a complaint in the International Court of Justice against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for war crimes, and his plans to commit genocide will be presented.

[gtc]

The need for B as a means of attacking A by implying C is fallacious.

That has nothing to do with my post. I don't believe that A implies C and that is not how a correlation works.

Pardalis brought up the point about people who protest Bush but not Ahmadniejad.

He asked why.

ID cynically replied that it might be because Bush has a greater impact on their lives than Ahmadniejad.

Equally cynically, I replied that it might be because they actually support Ahmadniejad.

Now of the people who:

A) Dislike Bush;
B) Think that protesting Bush will be worth their time and effort;
C) Don't protest Ahmadniejad;

How many think that:

D) Ahmadniejad is bad; and
E) Protesting Ahmadniejad is not worth their time

E) Ahmadniejad is good;

F) Ahmadniejad who?

When you answer, please provide evidence. For instance, how many anti-Bush rallies have you witnessed?

[Skeptic]

Jewish Palestinians were largely absorbed into Israel;

This is certainly the first time I ever heard of "Jewish Palestinians"--let alone their "absorption" (or lack thereof) into Israeli society. Presumably, you mean the Yishuv Yashan--e.g., those communities of religious Jews who lived in Jerusalem, Safed, etc. (and, ahem, Hebron and Gaza, before they were butchered and expelled by the Arabs).

But while not Zionists, they, apart from a small minority of fringe groups, never considered themselves Palestinians, either--any more than, before that, they ever considered themselves Ottomans, or Egyptians, or Romans. They simply saw themselves as Jews--not as Palestinians, Jewish or otherwise.

It is this sort of language that shows your bias and lack of understanding of what Israeli is like, Cleon. If you had ever been or known anything about Israel, you'd realize that a phrase such as "Jewish Palestinians" is (almost) nonsensical, historically speaking. Yet you reach all kinds of far-flung conclusions about Israeli "evil" based on it.

Again, I am not saying here Israel is immune from criticism. Far from it. But if you are going to criticize, let alone reach far-reaching conclusions of moral condemnation, at least take some care that the words you use have some connection to the reality in Israel.

[Cleon]

This is certainly the first time I ever heard of "Jewish Palestinians"--let alone their "absorption" (or lack thereof) into Israeli society.

Oh, FFS. Read a goddamn history book, Google "Jewish Palestinians" and "Palestinian Jews" to your heart's content, and stop blaming me for your ignorance.

[gtc]

It seems to be only used in the context of Jews who lived in the general vacinity of what is today Israel, Palestine and Jordan.

The Palestinian National Covenant (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm#art5) seems to suggest that only Jews who's fathers (or paternal grandfathers etc) lived in Palestine before 1917 can be Palestinians.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I respectfully disagree. This time, a head of state, someone with power and "legitimacy" is promoting it, giving it world attention. I think this is very serious and we shouldn't let this go so easily.

When President bush cuts a speech short because a bunch of university students are chanting "death to the dictator" instead of having his goons escort them out of the building, I'll start taking Ahmadinejad's rheteric more seriously. Yes, he is head of state - the President of Iran - who is still beholden to the Revolutionary Council and the Supreme Leader. Even if Iran had a button, I'm not sure he'd be allowed to have his finger on it.

And to stress, I'm not poo pooing his pathological anti-Semitism, I'm just saying he's a lot further from putting words into action that a lot of other dangerous people on the planet.

[Skeptic]

The Palestinian National Covenant (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm#art5) seems to suggest that only Jews who's fathers (or paternal grandfathers etc) lived in Palestine before 1917 can be Palestinians.

Ah, yes. The good ol' "all the dirty Jews must be expelled from the holy Arab land because they are racists" Palestinian covenant.

The only national charter in the history of the world that defines as its most important principle the destruction of another nation (apart, perhaps, from Nazi Germany, which according to Mein Kampf was established to destroy Russia).

What a moral beacon in the fight against racism the Palestinians are.

[steverino]

Hm. I've always thought that Judaism was the religion, while I would describe what you're talking about as 'Jewry'. Is this wrong? I believe I have many times claimed my dislike for Judaism, although it would always have been right after Christianity and Islam.

Judaism is not just a religion, but is also a culture, like Hinduism. "Jewry" sounds to me like "nudism," a general reference to that collection of people.

See "Humanistic Jew" for how I would describe Judaism in its cultural sense. It might be something you find beautiful, Merko, rather than something you dislike.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Judaism

There is also the obvious. Those who seek to persecute Jews, like Amadinejad, and the David Dukes and (other) white supremacists, do not, as I understand it, distinguish their hatreds between observant and secular Jews and would throw us in the same caldron to boil if they had their druthers.

[Skeptic]

I suppose Cleon's confusion about the existence of "Jewish Palestinians" is due to the fact that while the English word "Palestinian" was used by the Jews in the area to desribe themselves in pre-state times, the Hebrew term used was always "Erez Israeli"--"From (or belonging to) the land of Israel".

The Jews saw the term "Palestinian" as a distortion, unfortunately necessary in English, but never considered themselves to be living in "Palestine" (but rather, in the "Land of Israel"); they certainly didn't see themselves as part of any multi-Ethnic Palestinian nation, but as part of the Jewish nation.

That's the problem with googling in English, Cleon: you miss all the differences translation makes, which, in this case, makes all the difference in the world. This shows, I suppose, that not only have you never been to Israel, but that you do not speak Hebrew.

But, by all means, continue to enlighten us with your (googled) expert opinion on the subject.

[a_unique_person]

Ah, yes. The good ol' "all the dirty Jews must be expelled from the holy Arab land because they are racists" Palestinian covenant.

The only national charter in the history of the world that defines as its most important principle the destruction of another nation (apart, perhaps, from Nazi Germany, which according to Mein Kampf was established to destroy Russia).

What a moral beacon in the fight against racism the Palestinians are.

It quite clearly states it is not 'all' Jews.

[a_unique_person]

Not defending him, but he seems to specify what he means by wiping out Israel.



"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out."



That is the Soviet Union does not exist, but all it's people were not wiped out. He appears to be calling for the end of the State of Israel. Of course, he did not specify exactly what mechanism would cause it to be wiped out.

[Skeptic]

It quite clearly states it is not 'all' Jews.

Oh, quite right. All Jews born before 1917 can stay. After Israel destroyed and the other 98% of the Jews there are expelled, of course. And to think I considered the Palestinian Covenant racist and genocidal--what was I thinking?

[Skeptic]

Not defending him,

Yes, you are.

[a_unique_person]

********. It's like studying a virus. I don't approve of viruses just because I try to understand how they work.

[Mycroft]

Accepted. Please keep in mind that you're not the only Yid around here, k? My family went through the Holocaust, too. Associating me with the likes of Duke is beyond the pale.

Beyond the pale?

This thread starts out discussing Iran’s Ahmadinejad teaming up with world famous holocaust deniers and anti-Semites such as David Duke and Robert Faurisson for the purpose of questioning the holocaust and de-legitimizing Israel. You’re contribution to this discussion? Well, just like the Neturei Karta, you quietly disagree with the Holocaust denial part (very quietly, such that you don’t actually express an opinion), but stand up and shout for the de-legitimization of Israel part.

So is it beyond the pale to associate you with Duke, Faurisson and Ahmadinejad? Well, you’re standing on the same side of the argument as they are. Like the Neturei Karta, you’re not being associated with them, you are associating with them. As long as they share your hatred of Israel, you will tolerate their anti-Semitism so long as it gives you an opportunity to voice your own hatred of Israel.

[Pardalis]

It's funny that some people are willing to stop a moment and ponder if this guy (Ahmadenajad) has a point. The same thing with people like Al Qaeda: I hear often great thinkers, real humanists try and see the big picture by giving them the benefit of the doubt and try to see the world their way, if only a second... [/sarcasm]

But when it comes to Bush, he is totally wrong and could never have any kind of point, ever.

:rolleyes:

ETA: this is the kind of self-loathing and exagerated self criticism that really annoys me these days.

Holocaust denial is wrong, it can't be more wrong than wrong, and who ever is promoting it is defacto wrong. Period.

[Skeptic]

But when it comes to Bush, he is totally wrong and could never have any kind of point, ever.

Well, of course. Bush is EVIL.

[a_unique_person]

It's funny that some people are willing to stop a moment and ponder if this guy (Ahmadenajad) has a point. The same thing with people like Al Qaeda: I hear often great thinkers, real humanists try and see the big picture by giving them the benefit of the doubt and try to see the world their way, if only a second... [/sarcasm]

But when it comes to Bush, he is totally wrong and could never have any kind of point, ever.

:rolleyes:

ETA: this is the kind of self-loathing and exagerated self criticism that really annoys me these days.

Holocaust denial is wrong, it can't be more wrong than wrong, and who ever is promoting it is defacto wrong. Period.

Holocaust denial is wrong, but what is Ahmenijad actually on about? I'm not wondering if he has a point, I want to know exactly what he thinks. It's like reading a speech of Bush's. This is what he is saying, what does it actually mean. Eg, when Bush claimed that all Saddam had to do was cough up the WMD and the invasion was off, that was just BS.

[Skeptic]

********. It's like studying a virus. I don't approve of viruses just because I try to understand how they work.

When studying a virus, one usually doesn't start explaining why dying from the disease the virus causes isn't that bad, or why the virus doesn't really mean to kill you, or that the ebola or AIDS virus aren't really worse than the flu virus, or why fighting the virus would be a case of human-centered imperialist agression against other life forms.

If somebody studied viruses like that, I think we'd have a good case to say that he is not merely understanding how the virus works, but also has sympathy and support for the virus and against humanity.

[a_unique_person]

A virus doesn't mean to kill you.

[Skeptic]

Of course it doesn't--a virus doesn't "mean" to do anything.

But what would you think if someone studied viruses and minimized reports of the death it causes by saying, "well, it doesn't really mean to kill anybody"?

[a_unique_person]

He's not a virus, he's a human being. He's not saying everything he thinks. I am trying to work out exactly what he is on about.

[Pardalis]

He's not a virus, he's a human being. He's not saying everything he thinks. I am trying to work out exactly what he is on about.

Take a wild guess... :rolleyes:

[UnrepentantSinner]

It's funny that some people are willing to stop a moment and ponder if this guy (Ahmadenajad) has a point.

Who in this thread has been suggesting that?

[Pardalis]

Who in this thread has been suggesting that?

Not you, AUP, at least that is what I understand when he says that he wants to understand Ahmadinejad.

[Skeptic]

It's interesting that some people here, who can spot "racism" and "hatered" and "extremism" at 100 paces when it suits them, are looking at Ahmanedijad declaring Israel will be destroyed in a holocaust-denial conference and are suddenly completely at a loss to discover anything extreme, antisemitic, or haterful going on, and full of desire to understand the guy.

Never do they give the same benefit of the doubt or show the same desire to understand the other side when the person in question is, say, a KKK leader attacking blacks or an extreme conservative attacking Islam.

Strange.

Of course, I am not even remotely suggesting that this has anything to do with the fact that objects of this non-hate by the non-extremist Ahmanedijad are Jews.

Perish the thought.

[a_unique_person]

Take a wild guess... :rolleyes:

He is using his anti-semitism as a means to attempt to boost his power and popularity. What does he actually expect from that? Hitler type hatred, or what it takes to give him more power? Hitler type is suicidal for him, he can't hope to take on Israel.

[a_unique_person]

Not you, AUP, at least that is what I understand when he says that he wants to understand Ahmadinejad.
**** you too.

[Pardalis]

He is using his anti-semitism as a means to attempt to boost his power and popularity. What does he actually expect from that? Hitler type hatred, or what it takes to give him more power? Hitler type is suicidal for him, he can't hope to take on Israel.

Can you rephrase that please, it makes no sense to me.

[a_unique_person]

Can't see the point.

[The Fool]

Beyond the pale?

This thread starts out discussing Iran’s Ahmadinejad teaming up with world famous holocaust deniers and anti-Semites such as David Duke and Robert Faurisson for the purpose of questioning the holocaust and de-legitimizing Israel. You’re contribution to this discussion? Well, just like the Neturei Karta, you quietly disagree with the Holocaust denial part (very quietly, such that you don’t actually express an opinion), but stand up and shout for the de-legitimization of Israel part.

So is it beyond the pale to associate you with Duke, Faurisson and Ahmadinejad? Well, you’re standing on the same side of the argument as they are. Like the Neturei Karta, you’re not being associated with them, you are associating with them. As long as they share your hatred of Israel, you will tolerate their anti-Semitism so long as it gives you an opportunity to voice your own hatred of Israel.

Yes son, it is beyond the pale. I can only assume your values provide you with no alternative.

[Pardalis]

I'm not being uncivil to you AUP, I trully don't understand your previous post.

If you have been insulted I apologize, if you feel I misinterpreted your point of view, please feel free to explain it.

[a_unique_person]

I am not questioning if Ahmenijad is an anti semite. I am wondering what he hopes to achieve. Iran does not have nukes, so Israel can wipe it out in a mushroom cloud if it attacks, although how it could actually directly attack is not apparent. If it does not attack, it is a case of MAD. It has the satisfaction of seeing Israel go down while it disappears in a mushroom cloud. What is he actually on about?

[Pardalis]

I agree, I don't think nuclear confrontation with Israel is in his immediate plans. But he is trying to legitimize hatred against it, and he is provoquing the West into a diplomatic conflict.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not you, AUP, at least that is what I understand when he says that he wants to understand Ahmadinejad.

O.K. I just want to make clear that while I think Ahmadinejad is a pathological anti-Semite (was his reaction to the Denmark cartoon bruhahah Jesus cartoons? no, it was Holocaust cartoons - the dude is sick) I don't think he's in a position, nor will he be in one any time soon, to act on his rhetoric and I don't think most Iranians take his rheteroic seriously - especially ex-pats.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I agree, I don't think nuclear confrontation with Israel is in his immediate plans. But he is trying to legitimize hatred against it, and he is provoquing the West into a diplomatic conflict.

To go with what I said in post #187, from what I've seen his rhetoric plays better in Amman, Damascus, Sa'na and Riyadh than it does in Tehran. I think that's more dangerous than how the rhetoric will drive Iranian foreign policy per se.

[a_unique_person]

I agree, I don't think nuclear confrontation with Israel is in his immediate plans. But he is trying to legitimize hatred against it, and he is provoquing the West into a diplomatic conflict.

The west, whatever it's differences about Israel, is not going to let Israel get wiped off the map in a war.

[zenith-nadir]

Yet there is still a difference between the status of Black Americans in, say, Atlanta, GA and in apartheid-era South Africa.Note the veiled reference to apartheid folks. As in, Atlanta, GA = USA, Israel = apartheid-era South Africa. How typically Cleon.

Any Israeli Arab has the right to vote and to hold public office in Israel, unlike anywhere else in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs have their own newspapers, they are free to speak their minds, they are democratically represented in the Israeli Knesset by the Balad and United Arab List parties. Israeli Arabs also benefit from having Israeli human rights groups and civil rights groups who are free to speak out without fear when they see discrimination taking place. Israel is a free country and if some people don't like it there they are free to leave.

Not so in Apartheid South Africa. But that is the parallel being drawn nevertheless.

On purely the point of discrimination, it is not a question of whether such discrimination merely exists, but whether it is systematic, widespread, and commonplace both in person-to-person interaction and (more importantly) in dealings with the state apparatus.Well since I am not a witness to each and every person-to-person interaction or dealings with the state between jewish and Arab Israelis, all I can say is any Israeli Arab has the right to vote and to hold public office in Israel, unlike anywhere else in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs have their own newspapers, they are free to speak their minds, they are democratically represented in the Israeli Knesset by the Balad and United Arab List parties. Israeli Arabs also benefit from having Israeli human rights groups and civil rights groups who are free to speak out without fear when they see discrimination taking place. Israel is a free country and if some people don't like it there they are free to leave.

I tell you what--why don't you explain to me what exactly a "second-class citizen" means, in your view. What's the point. Your opinion is the only thing that is really important to you.

Linky 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel#Examples_of_Discrimination )Leads to Wikipedia. It documents examples of discrimination in Israel. I can link to examples of discrimination in France, Britain and the USA as well. That still doesn't make all Israeli Arabs officially second-class citizens.

Linky 2 (http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Israel/20060519-Forward+Oped.htm)Leads to an OP ED piece at the ADL in which American Jews are address the disparities of opportunity and discrimination confronting Arabs in Israel. Sounds like a positive step in my books. That still doesn't make all Israeli Arabs officially second-class citizens, it means some Israeli Arabs face disparities of opportunity and discrimination that Jewish Americans want to address.

Linky 3 (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150422006?open&of=ENG-2MD)Leads to Amnesty International. It documents the decision by the Israeli High Court of Justice which bars family reunification for Israelis married to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. Key word "Israelis", jewish and non-jewish. Not all Arabs in Israel.

I can also link to the Amnesty International website (http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510462003) which states:

"African Americans are disproportionately represented among people condemned to death in the USA. While they make up 12 per cent of the national population, they account for more than 40 per cent of the country’s current death row inmates, and one in three of those executed since 1977. It is relevant, therefore, to ask if the capital justice system selects these defendants for death in a manner that is free from racial bias."

So does that "prove" Blacks are second class citizens in America? Not to you Cleon, but change the words to Arab and Israel and it does prove Arabs are second class citizens in Israel. That's the game being played here.

Linky 4 (http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=66601)Leads to an obscure website belonging to the "Minorities at Risk Project" which states:

"Israeli Arabs are relatively much better off economically than neighboring Arabs, and Israel has been their homeland for generations. However, as long as the intifida (with its link to domestic terrorism within Israel), and the relative lack of interaction between Jews and Arabs continues, Israeli Arabs will largely remain at the fringes of mainstream Jewish society."

Which goes back to my point earlier. BECAUSE there is a war going on where Arabs are trying to destroy Israel and Persians are holding "Review of the Holocaust" conferences there is bound to be some bad blood. Go figure.

Linky 5 (http://www.world-crisis.com/news/1173_0_1_0_M/)Leads to another totally obscure website called the "World Crisis Web" which is a frikkin' book report about “The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish/Arab Divide.”

Book reviews do not make all Israeli Arabs officially second-class citizens

Linky 6 (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0309/S00048.htm)Leads to Scoop which references a press release by the Palestine Media Center. If anyone here bothers to go to the Palestine Media Center website note the giant "Israel=Apartheid" graphic on the home page. Nice unbiased source Cleon. :rolleyes:

Anyhow this press release documents the Or Commission findings. For those who do not know the Or commission was an inquiry into clashes between security forces and Israeli civilians at the beginning of the second intifada. Remeber the second intifada folks? That is when Arab Israelis began riots on the Temple Mount and across Israel. (But don't mention that, ;))

13 Arab Israelis and one Jewish Israeli were killed. Cleon's Palestine Media Center report states:

"In a landmark report, an Israeli commission of inquiry found on Monday a pattern of government “prejudice and neglect” and decades of discrimination against Israel’s more than one million Arab minority"

Which nobody is arguing. Arabs in Israel face discrimination. Why? Wars, second-intifada-riots-inside-Israel as in the case of the Or Commission, terrorism by Arabs inside and outside of Israel, and "Review of the Holocaust" conventions by Persians.

Does this make all Arabs in Israel second class citizens? No. In fact two of the Supreme Court Judges in the Or Commission were Arab Israelis, Judge Hashim Khatib and Judge Sahal Jarah. I guess they got to be Supreme Court Judges in Israel cuz all Arabs are second class citizens there. :rolleyes:


There are many, many more. Google "'israeli arabs' discrimination." The fact that Arab citizens have voting rights does not mean they don't face serious, systematic, widespread discrimination in both the political and economic spheres.You've already made up your mind Cleon.

If blacks/hispanics face serious, systematic, widespread discrimination in both the political and economic spheres in America they are not second class citizens living under apartheid. If Arabs face serious, systematic, widespread discrimination in both the political and economic spheres in Israel they are second class citizens living under apartheid. That's the game being played here and Homey don't play that.

[zenith-nadir]

Here's how to measure what Ahmadinejad is doing.

The American government is holding a "Review of Slavery" Convention because the American government feels the whole slavery thingy was just a myth. Invited guests are white supremacists, KKK leaders and Slavery deniers.

Thursdays topic will be wiping African off the map.

Then go, "Let's give America the benefit of doubt, I really don't think America means it" :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

So who said that? No one in this thread, as far as I can see?

[zenith-nadir]

So who said that? No one in this thread, as far as I can see?I didn't say anyone said it in this thread. What I am saying is you cannot brush off what Ahmadinejad is doing. Not in the slightest. He is dead serious and the Iranian government is dead serious.

Not only does Ahmadinejad and Iran sponsor Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, they also almost have the "bomb" too. Ahmadinejad is telegraphing his, (and others like him), intentions as clearly as Hitler telegraphed his intentions in Mein Kampf.

[The Fool]

That's the game being played here and Homey don't play that.

In my Nation it is illegal to differentiate in law based on the ethnicity, religion or skin colour of its citizens....do you support this principle?

[a_unique_person]

I didn't say anyone said it in this thread. What I am saying is you cannot brush off what Ahmadinejad is doing. Not in the slightest. He is dead serious and the Iranian government is dead serious.

Not only does Ahmadinejad and Iran sponsor Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, they also almost have the "bomb" too. Ahmadinejad is telegraphing his, (and others like him), intentions as clearly as Hitler telegraphed his intentions in Mein Kampf.

Like I said, does he want to play mad, that is, watch his own country go up in a mushroom cloud?

[zenith-nadir]

In my Nation it is illegal to differentiate in law based on the ethnicity, religion or skin colour of its citizens....do you support this principle?Israel has laws too. They go:

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty

(http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic3_eng.htm)Fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free; these rights shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.

There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any person as such.

Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (1994)

(http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic4_eng.htm)Every Israel national or resident has the right to engage in any occupation, profession or trade.

All governmental authorities are bound to respect the freedom of occupation of all Israel nationals and residents.


Those are the basic core laws of Israel. With links to boot. So this veiled hint through a supposed "trick question" that Israeli laws do differentiate based on the ethnicity, religion or skin colour of its citizens is just more B.S.


(http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic4_eng.htm)

[The Fool]

.....So this veiled hint through a supposed "trick question" that Israeli laws...........
Its just a simple question.....do you support the principle that laws should not apply differently to citizens of a nation on the basis is ethnicity colour or religion?

[zenith-nadir]

Its just a simple question.....do you support the principle that laws should not apply differently to citizens of a nation on the basis is ethnicity colour or religion?It is a simple question that has a veiled hint that Israeli law does differentiate based on the ethnicity, religion or skin colour of its citizens.

Therefore if you have the law cite it. Or stop playing games.

[a_unique_person]

Israel has laws too. They go:

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty

(http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic3_eng.htm)Fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free;

(http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic4_eng.htm)

That's about where it fell apart. From the occupation of the west bank and gaza, there were millions who weren't. There is also the simple issue of Israel being a Jewish state, but all persons are free. It's an inherent contradiction.

[Pardalis]

I believe this thread was about Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust conference...

[a_unique_person]

Hmm, he has a blog.



A: Thank you very much for your words. In your words a number of time, you said you were speaking on behalf of American people. I do not reject this claim but you need to provide us with evidence and documents. Even you claimed you have some evidence but you did not provide us with. I have not heard anywhere that the American people have presented their related view.
What I said is quite clear. I raised a number of questions which unfortunately received no response yet. Even any response from those who claim that thinking of various subjects shall be free. I, as a President, as a citizen and as a professor raised a number of questions but received only threats. My questions were quite clear. The question is that in the world war the second more than sixty million people were killed. Out of these sixty millions two millions were among military personnel and the rest were civilians who did not have anything to do with war. These civilians were killed differently and they were respected. Now why we shall focus on certain number of people. Another question was that if you claim that this incident is real, why no impartial groups are allowed to investigate on it? Why European citizens are put behind bars only because of expressing their views? This occurs while we are allowed to question the most proved realities of the world. We allow every one to investigate and raise questions on God, prophets, freedom of human being, human being democracy and human rights but we do not allow anyone to question or investigate a historical event which happened sixty years ago. This is a big question. We think if this is a real incident we can present and prove it more clearly through researches and investigations. But here we face the main question which is raised by no one: this incident happened in Europe but the Palestinians are paying the price. Palestinian people are punished for what? They did not play any role in the world war the second but five millions of their population are displaced. It is sixty years that the displaced Palestinians could not return to their homeland. Two Palestinian generations lost their lives but could not return to their mother-land. This is the main and serious question. I do not judge on historical events for sure. But why impartial groups are not allowed to make researches? For me the response is clear. When I see the anger of Zionists, when I see 5 millions of Palestinians are displaced on the pretext of the Holocaust. When I see Palestinian lands are occupied, then I understand the Zionist’s anger and I understand what has happened in this region.
The Main question is that why Palestinians shall pay the price? While they did not play any role why their lands are occupied? It is about sixty years that they are exposed to harsh pressures. Their houses are bombed on daily basis. Their youth get killed and their men killed under the rubbles, why? When they shout, then they call them terrorists, and when there comes somebody who asks, everybody who is any how related to such issues, get angry and call that person a terrorist and anti-Semitist. No we are not anti-Semitist. In our country the Jews and Moslems are living in peace, and they have a role in our rule, but we say why Palestinians must make up for the crimes which other people committed 60 years ago. I await a response to this question. If there is anybody who has a clear response, he may bring up this response.



http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

The translation is not great, but you can get the intent.

As an outsider to the holocaust, he wonders why no-one can question it. Forum members who are pro-Israeli, IIRC, have wondered if this is the best approach. I can understand why European countries outlaw holocaust revisionism, but in this case, it does appear to be counter productive. However, at the same time, his conference doesn't appear to have any pro-holocaust attendees. Any one feel like posting on his blog?

[zenith-nadir]

That's about where it fell apart. From the occupation of the west bank and gaza, Which was the result of?

I help you out with that one because I know it won't be mentioned.

The occupation of the west bank and gaza came about from a war fought between Israel and the Arab states of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. Guess what? The Arabs lost! :eye-poppi OMFG! No Way!:jaw-dropp

Because they lost, Egypt lost Gaza and Jordan lost the West Bank and both areas became occupied by the winner of the war. What you, and so many others seem to want is the analogy I put forth earlier in this thread, it goes like this;

"Regardless that Saddam lost the war in 1991 he should've kept Kuwait."

Now let's change the words a bit;

"Regardless that the Arab states of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq lost the war in 1967 they should've kept the West Bank and Gaza."

[a_unique_person]

In terms of the dead in the war who were civilians, the Russians were probable next on Hitlers list, once he finished with the Jews. He just never got the chance to get that far. The civilian deaths were a feature of modern war, but due to a desire to win the war by breaking the civilian spirit, that is, killing enough people to win the war, or incidental to it, that is, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Jews were targetted specifically, along with other groups.

[a_unique_person]

Which was the result of?

I help you out with that one because I know it won't be mentioned.

The occupation of the west bank and gaza came about from a war fought between Israel and the Arab states of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. Guess what? The Arabs lost! :eye-poppi OMFG! No Way!:jaw-dropp

Because they lost, Egypt lost Gaza and Jordan lost the West Bank and both areas became occupied by the winner of the war. What you, and so many others seem to want is the analogy I put forth earlier in this thread, it goes like this;

"Regardless that Saddam lost the war in 1991 he should've kept Kuwait."

Now let's change the words a bit;

"Regardless that the Arab states of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq lost the war in 1967 they should've kept the West Bank and Gaza."

I would call that a fine example of creative writing. It is in no way equivalent.

[zenith-nadir]

I believe this thread was about Ahmadinejad and his Holocaust conference...It is...but suddenly a couple posters began to expose how "All arabs are second class citizens in Israel" while ignoring the thread topic. Interesting deflection huh?

I felt the need to confront the arabs-in-Israel-are-second-class-citizens non sequiturs. For that I apologise and will refrain, but I do not retract a single word.

[The Fool]

It is a simple question that has a veiled hint that Israeli law does differentiate based on the ethnicity, religion or skin colour of its citizens.

Therefore if you have the law cite it. Or stop playing games.


no, its a simple question that (hopefully) identifies what are your basic principles ...if you cant say if you support or don't support laws that apply based on the ethnicity, Religion or skin colour of a citizen thats up to you....we can move on if you like and leave you in the "won't say" group.... People like Ahmadinejad thrive on such laws....he also thrives on people's inability to clearly condemn such laws....Can you help me send a clear signal to him by condemning such laws?

[Pardalis]

As an outsider to the holocaust, he wonders why no-one can question it. Forum members who are pro-Israeli, IIRC, have wondered if this is the best approach. I can understand why European countries outlaw holocaust revisionism, but in this case, it does appear to be counter productive. However, at the same time, his conference doesn't appear to have any pro-holocaust attendees. Any one feel like posting on his blog?

Ahmadinejad's thinking:

A-The Palestinians are opressed by Israel (in his opinion)
B-Israel was created after the Holocaust
C-Therefore, the Holocaust couldn't have happenned

:boggled:

[Pardalis]

It is...but suddenly a couple posters began to expose how "All arabs are second class citizens in Israel" while ignoring the thread topic. Interesting deflection huh?

I felt the need to confront the arabs-in-Israel-are-second-class-citizens non sequiturs. For that I apologise and will refrain, but I do not retract a single word.

Now you know how I feel in the Québec thread. ;) :p

[zenith-nadir]

Now you know how I feel in the Québec thread. ;) :pBeing a Canuk I can assure you that frogs French Canadians are second-class citizens in Canada. :D

no, its a simple question that (hopefully) identifies what are your basic principles ...if you cant say if you support or don't support laws that apply based on the ethnicity, Religion or skin colour of a citizen thats up to you....we can move on if you like and leave you in the "won't say" group.... People like Ahmadinejad thrive on such laws....he also thrives on people's inability to clearly condemn such laws....Can you help me send a clear signal to him by condemning such laws?My basic principals are unimportant. I know there is discrimination in every country and Israel is no different. Therefore it has nothing to do with my support, lack there of, or with me "sending clear signals."

Either you have laws that prove Israeli law does differentiate based on the ethnicity, religion or skin colour of its citizens or you don't. That's your endgame. Don't toy with me, and frankly, debating about Israeli laws in a thread about Iran seems to be, for obvious reasons, a curious derail.

[Pardalis]

How many Stanley Cups have the Canuks won? :p

[zenith-nadir]

How many Stanley Cups have the Canuks won? :pTrick question. 0 ;)

[Cleon]

Note the veiled reference to apartheid folks. As in, Atlanta, GA = USA, Israel = apartheid-era South Africa. How typically Cleon.

How typically "Sabra." That's obviously not the point I was making. Which means that...Yes, this is another strawman.


What's the point. Your opinion is the only thing that is really important to you.

So you won't say what you think the criteria are for being "second-class citizens," you just decide that Israeli Arabs don't qualify. How...incredibly self-serving.


Come back when you have something substantial to contribute.

[The Fool]

My basic principals are unimportant. I know there is discrimination in every country and Israel is no different. Therefore it has nothing to do with my support, lack there of, or with me "sending clear signals."

So do you condemn law that treats citizens differently based on Ethinicity, religion or skin colour? Ahmadinejad doesn't....Many Iranian laws are quite specifically based on a persons religion, is this a principle to be condemned? He uses disgusting events like this conference to help demonise those he wants to treat differently under those laws. Lets show him how little support there is for such law...anywhere.....and everywhere...agreed?

[zenith-nadir]

Which means that...Yes, this is another strawman.Zzzzzzzz.

So you won't say what you think the criteria are for being "second-class citizens," you just decide that Israeli Arabs don't qualify. How...incredibly self-serving.Ya. Let's derail further about how "All Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel" in a thread about Iran denying the holocaust ever happened. Not.

Come back when you have something substantial to contribute.Wow. You waltz in to a thread about Iran denying the holocaust ever happened, derail it because, (in your opinion), "All Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel", and then tell me to come back when I have something substantial to contribute to the thread about Iran denying the holocaust ever happened.

Man that is hilarious. It really is.

[Skeptic]

So you won't say what you think the criteria are for being "second-class citizens," you just decide that Israeli Arabs don't qualify. How...incredibly self-serving.

No, he simply will not move a thread from its real point--Iran's threats and holocaust denial.

[Cleon]

Zzzzzzzz.

Ya. Let's derail further about how "All Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel" in a thread about Iran denying the holocaust ever happened. Not.

Wow. You waltz in to a thread about Iran denying the holocaust ever happened, derail it because, (in your opinion), "All Arabs are second-class citizens in Israel", and then tell me to come back when I have something substantial to contribute to the thread about Iran denying the holocaust ever happened.

Man that is hilarious. It really is.

What's hilarious is you trying to blame me for derailing the thread. Fortunately, the thread is here for all to see.

Honesty just isn't one of your strong suits, is it?

[Cleon]

No, he simply will not move a thread from its real point--Iran's threats and holocaust denial.

Then he probably should start addressing that topic rather than bombard us with platitudes and excuses for Israel's policies.

[ImaginalDisc]

From the "things I did not expect to see today" file:

http://www.comcast.net/data/news/photoshow/html/news/540075.html

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, shakes hands with anti-Zionism Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, of Monsey, N.Y., at the start of his meeting with participants of a conference on the Holocaust, in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, Dec. 12, 2006.

He is a well known anti-Zionist, but he can't possibly be a Holocaust denier, can he?

[Cleon]

From the "things I did not expect to see today" file:

http://www.comcast.net/data/news/photoshow/html/news/540075.html



He is a well known anti-Zionist, but he can't possibly be a Holocaust denier, can he?

He's not. Neturei Karta went there to say that the Holocaust did happen (it would be tough for them not to), but that it's no excuse for Israel's actions.

They've been in Iran before; they believe in dialogue with the Muslim world, and I'm all for that. This time, though, I think they crossed the line by giving this conference legitimacy.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm sorry, but sometimes the "Islamofascist" rhetoric presented borders on as rediculous as the bloviation from Ahmadinejad.

I didn't say anyone said it in this thread. What I am saying is you cannot brush off what Ahmadinejad is doing. Not in the slightest. He is dead serious and the Iranian government is dead serious.

He might be dead serious, but do you have any evidence that the Supreme Council and most Iranians in the Majlis take him or his rhetoric seriously? And as I've noted several times in this thread, where is the evidence that he'll be able to put his whacky visions into reality other than just rhetorically? An Islamic Bomb in Iran? I hate to play the frightenly successful MAD card, but do you really think every other leader in the Middle East would let Iran nuke Israel knowing they would be vaporized within 30 minutes?

Not only does Ahmadinejad and Iran sponsor Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, they also almost have the "bomb" too. Ahmadinejad is telegraphing his, (and others like him), intentions as clearly as Hitler telegraphed his intentions in Mein Kampf.

I'm sorry, my Bush-o-meter just pegged when I read the bolded assertion. Do you have any evidence that Iran sponsors Al Queda, a Sunni organization (just ask Rep. Silvestre Reyes about this...now) when they are completely opposed to bin Laden's Sunni Caliphate dreams? Or is this yet another example of how pervasive the "if you're not with us you support the terrorists" and "Islamofascist" rhetoric from reactionary talk radio and the White House has tainted supposedly skpetical minds?

Call me for nit-picking if you want, since Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad all do receive funding from Iran, but if you want to make a valid point, you should be more careful about making obvious broad brush statements.

[zenith-nadir]

He might be dead serious, but do you have any evidence that the Supreme Council and most Iranians in the Majlis take him or his rhetoric seriously? I cannot speak for "most Iranians" but I do know that the public and official position of the government of Iran is A) all for wiping Israel off the map, B) holding "the holocaust is just a myth" conventions, and C) pledging themselves (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html) to work for the return of the Mahdi, AKA the apocalypse.

And as I've noted several times in this thread, where is the evidence that he'll be able to put his whacky visions into reality other than just rhetorically?"He" doesn't have to. Iran sponsors plenty of proxies, (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Al Qaeda), that would just love to drive/fly/sail a dirty nuclear bomb into Tel Aviv or Haifa.

Then Ahmadinejad has the benefit of plausible deniability. "Who us?" he will declare.

An Islamic Bomb in Iran? I hate to play the frightenly successful MAD card, but do you really think every other leader in the Middle East would let Iran nuke Israel knowing they would be vaporized within 30 minutes?Once again "Iran" doesn't have to do it, they have thousands of Jihadists on their payroll.

I'm sorry, my Bush-o-meter just pegged when I read the bolded assertion. Do you have any evidence that Iran sponsors Al Queda, a Sunni organization...Sure.

(cite (http://au.news.yahoo.com/061114/19/11f4u.html)) "Iranian officials are pushing for a pro-Iranian activist to be promoted within the Al-Qaeda terror network's hierarchy, The Daily Telegraph reported."

(cite (http://www.nysun.com/article/43442)) "The Iranian government has been providing a safe haven for fighters loyal to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror group since they were forced to flee Afghanistan in late 2001. But Western intelligence agencies now report that the Iranians are training Al Qaeda fighters at centers that were previously used by other Islamic militant groups, such as the Lebanese militia Hezbollah."

(cite (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html)) "Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran...Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards"

When I used the word "sponsor" earlier I didn't mean fund, full stop. I meant "support", "work with", "help".

Or is this yet another example of how pervasive the "if you're not with us you support the terrorists" and "Islamofascist" rhetoric from reactionary talk radio and the White House has tainted supposedly skpetical minds?The only thing I know is that Iran helps Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad. It's a fact.

Call me for nit-picking if you want, since Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad all do receive funding from Iran, but if you want to make a valid point, you should be more careful about making obvious broad brush statements.Hopefully I have cited enough information from various sources that show cooperation and support between Al Qaeda and the Iranian government.

[Giz]

The west, whatever it's differences about Israel, is not going to let Israel get wiped off the map in a war.

Do you think it is reasnoble to ask the Israelis to put their defence in the hands of other countries? (Considering their short, medium, and long term history...)

[Merko]

It only seems relevant to those who wish to proclaim moral equivalence between Israel and Palestine or worse.

If we killed more fascists in WWII than the number of allies killed by fascists, would that make us worse or in some way morally comparable to the fascists?


I don't believe in morality and 'moral equivalence' is like saying a 'similar spook' in my book.

I'm not interested in taking sides. The comparison is only interesting in order to determine if there is a problem. Yes, some palestinian deaths can partly be 'justified' by self-defence. However, it is would be absurd to dismiss all or most of the responsibility on those grounds. It is not important to me whether you think Israel is being more or less repressive than Saudi Arabia. I have no real opinion on that issue, it's completely unimportant to me. But the comparison shows that there is a very serious problem with Israeli breaches of human rights. This problem should be addressed.


Where are the thousands of protesters on the streets? Where are the supposed peace loving crowds to shout against this lunatic?


I'd be the first one to protest if my country accepted Ahmadinejad as an honoured guest. But it's not. The government of my country is officially condemning this conference. All oppositional parties represented in my parliament do the same. What would be the point of having street protests when it is already perfectly clear that almost everyone in my country is condemning this conference?

Have you ever organised a major street protest? I have, and I know how much work it takes. A protest against Ahmadinejad would have to take into account the likely presence of zealous extremist anti-Ahmadinejad Iranian exile groups, for example, who may otherwise cause some major trouble. I'm not willing to put in this kind of work in order to get a few thousands on the streets, when it is clear that there is already the support of millions. And I have the experience to tell me that we'd get a hard time to even get the thousands out, because most people are thinking like me: our prime minister has already articulated this point, we don't need to take it to the streets to get it across. It's one of the advantages of living in a representative democracy, you know.


You got a good point, but alot of anti Bush protests happen in Canada, everywhere in Europe and alot of other places.

I give you my promise, that if president Ahmadinejad is ever invited as an honourable guest to my country, as Bush was, I will be there organising a protest, and the criticism will definitely be much sharper than what we had against Bush. But you know, this isn't going to happen.

Judaism is not just a religion, but is also a culture, like Hinduism.


I guess I would call that Hindu culture, though.


See "Humanistic Jew" for how I would describe Judaism in its cultural sense. It might be something you find beautiful, Merko, rather than something you dislike.


Of course I like it. I find the considerable level of intellectual integrity that has been displayed by disproportionately many Jews throughout history especially appealing.

Of course, he did not specify exactly what mechanism would cause it to be wiped out.

He answered the same question in a CNN interview I saw. To me it doesn't matter much, because his 'vision' of the Israeli moving out voluntarily or ceding control to an Arab-dominated government is so unrealistic that it only serves to disguise the true outcome of any serious attempt to carry out the vision. It is another 'Madagascar evacuation plan' as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, you are.

No, he is not. He's trying to be rational, instead of blindly accepting whatever accusation that is levelled at his enemies. But you're probably one of those people who don't care when it is inferred that Hamas would be in league with al Qaeda, who believe that terrorists are attacking the US because they 'hate freedom', and who thinks it doesn't really matter that Saddam didn't have any WMD because he was evil anyway and that's all that matters? And anyone questioning any of those accusations would be defending Hamas, al Qaeda, terrorists and Saddam, right?

It's funny that some people are willing to stop a moment and ponder if this guy (Ahmadenajad) has a point. The same thing with people like Al Qaeda: I hear often great thinkers, real humanists try and see the big picture by giving them the benefit of the doubt and try to see the world their way, if only a second...

But when it comes to Bush, he is totally wrong and could never have any kind of point, ever.

You're totally wrong and you have no kind of point. Here. People are most definitely trying to understand Bush, his motives, his world view, etc. I could give you a few book titles if you're interested.


ETA: this is the kind of self-loathing and exagerated self criticism that really annoys me these days.


I guess we are totally different. I get annoyed by people who are ever ready to dismiss any criticism towards themselves, but eagerly spend all their time complaining about things they have absolutely zero influence over.

It's interesting that some people here, who can spot "racism" and "hatered" and "extremism" at 100 paces when it suits them, are looking at Ahmanedijad declaring Israel will be destroyed in a holocaust-denial conference and are suddenly completely at a loss to discover anything extreme, antisemitic, or haterful going on, and full of desire to understand the guy.


Who did that? Quotes please. Put up or shut up. Now.

He is using his anti-semitism as a means to attempt to boost his power and popularity. What does he actually expect from that?

I think I already expressed my theory: He wants to entertain hostile relations with Israel, in order to create a believable 'outside enemy'. He needs this enemy to deflect from his domestic failures. It's the old 'you are either with me, or with the enemy' plot.

[Merko]

Israel has laws too. They go:

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic3_eng.htm)
[...]
Those are the basic core laws of Israel. With links to boot. So this veiled hint through a supposed "trick question" that Israeli laws do differentiate based on the ethnicity, religion or skin colour of its citizens is just more B.S.


Wonderful. Here are some laws from the Constitution of Nazi Germany:
Article 109
All Germans are equal in front of the law.
In principle, men and women have the same rights and obligations.
[..]
Article 113
Reich communities speaking a foreign language may not be deprived by legislation of their national identity, especially in the use of their mother language in education, in local administration and jurisdiction.

Some parts of this constitution was excepted or revoked by the Nazis, but I believe the above sections were not.
http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php#Basic%20rights%20and%20obligations% 20of%20the%20Germans

So I guess this proves that Jews were not 'officially second class citizens' in Nazi Germany, then. It can't be that there were other laws and actual practice that were at odds with the constitution, spaghetti monster forbid!

You chose to ignore me when I provided links on Israeli laws that single out Palestinians or non-Jews. I don't know if it is your position that these laws do not exist, or if you're just trying to avoid the issue.

[Pardalis]

I'd be the first one to protest if my country accepted Ahmadinejad as an honoured guest. But it's not. The government of my country is officially condemning this conference. All oppositional parties represented in my parliament do the same. What would be the point of having street protests when it is already perfectly clear that almost everyone in my country is condemning this conference?

Good point.

I give you my promise, that if president Ahmadinejad is ever invited as an honourable guest to my country, as Bush was, I will be there organising a protest, and the criticism will definitely be much sharper than what we had against Bush. But you know, this isn't going to happen.

I'll take your word for it.

You're totally wrong and you have no kind of point. Here. People are most definitely trying to understand Bush, his motives, his world view, etc. I could give you a few book titles if you're interested.

Really? From what I hear, most protesters use exaggerations and fear mongerings like Bush=Hitler.

I guess we are totally different. I get annoyed by people who are ever ready to dismiss any criticism towards themselves, but eagerly spend all their time complaining about things they have absolutely zero influence over.

I think a balance between the two would be better, I'm not against self-criticism, I think that's a show of great thinking. But I feel when it comes to such issues, people are spending more time doing that then engaging the real threats.

Ahmadinejad is a real threat. And whatever he does or say, the West is not to blame for it. He is 100% wrong

[Mycroft]

In my Nation it is illegal to differentiate in law based on the ethnicity, religion or skin colour of its citizens....do you support this principle?


That would make affirmative action, set-asides and reparations illegal, wouldn't it? That would make it tremendously difficult to do anything to mitigate the damage done to aboriginals for your 100+ years of genocidal policies, wouldn’t it?

Do you support that principle?

[Mycroft]

There is also the simple issue of Israel being a Jewish state, but all persons are free. It's an inherent contradiction.

I don't see the contradiction, could you explain it to me?

Europe, for example, has many Christian states, yet their non-Christian citizens are still free. No contradiction there, why does it become a contradiction if it's a Jewish state?

[Darth Rotor]

Europe, for example, has many Christian states,
Name one, set up specifically as a homeland for Christians. I'll accept the Vatican, so name one other. I am not talking about Spain of 1500, for example, where King Ferdinand was "Defender of the Faith." I refer to Europe, 2006, or Europe, 1949.

ETA: I think Mahmoud has a point, but it is a point that has been twice settled: once in 1949, via both war and UN ceasefire agreements, and the other in 1973, when an international Arab coalition, led by Egypt and Syria, tried to redress the alleged wrong of the 1949 decision. That blood and iron effort also ended in UN ceasefire/armistice agreements.

His point is that he disagrees with a previous decision. In a like manner, his opponent in the last Iranian election should ask why it is that Mahmoud has any right to be President, since he disagrees with a previous decision.

He could, perhaps, argue that he is trying to emulate President Bush, and make "unilateral" decisions that aren't fully supported by the UNSC. Since he doesn't have the US Military to back up his dreams, he's left with the options of fighting this out in the war of words. I don't think he's chosen a good weapon, nor a good coalition. David Duke as ally is sort of like the US allying with Pinochet to support Amnesty International initiatives.

DR

[Merko]

Really? From what I hear, most protesters use exaggerations and fear mongerings like Bush=Hitler.


Nah. Those people might get the attention of the cameramen, because after all it's a better image than someone trying to get a complicated point across about stem cell research. Try writing a placard about stem cell research and you'll see what I mean.

Besides, we have these stupid comparisons here too, like Ahmadinejad=Hitler and whatever. Ok, they are/were both viciously antisemite, but is there really anything to learn from such an 'equivalence'? I think not.


Ahmadinejad is a real threat. And whatever he does or say, the West is not to blame for it. He is 100% wrong

Sure. Well, when we're on the subject of antisemitism and holocaust-denial, at least.

[zenith-nadir]

Wonderful. Here are some laws from the Constitution of Nazi Germany:Here we have a thread dedicated to Iran holding a convention with the most notorious holocaust deniers, Neo-nazis and KKK leaders on the planet. Cleon draws a parallel to apartheid South Africa and Israel. You draw a parallel to Nazi Germany and Israel.

Besides, we have these stupid comparisons here too, like Ahmadinejad=Hitler and whatever. Ok, they are/were both viciously antisemite, but is there really anything to learn from such an 'equivalence'? I think not.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you two would rather talk about Israel more than Iran holding a convention with the most notorious holocaust deniers, Neo-nazis and KKK leaders on the planet.

[Mycroft]

Name one, set up specifically as a homeland for Christians. I'll accept the Vatican, so name one other. I am not talking about Spain of 1500, for example, where King Ferdinand was "Defender of the Faith." I refer to Europe, 2006, or Europe, 1949.

That’s what they call “moving the goalposts.”

I never claimed any European state had been set up specifically as a homeland for Christians, I claimed they were “Christian states.” I point this out specifically to refute the unsupported assertion that a “Jewish state” is an inherent contradiction to non-Jews being “free”.

England, to name one example, is a “Christian state.” It has an official state religion, supported by the state that even places its monarch as the head of the church. At the same time, non-Christian citizens of England are still free.

[zenith-nadir]

England, to name one example, is a “Christian state.” It has an official state religion, supported by the state that even places its monarch as the head of the church. At the same time, non-Christian citizens of England are still free.And that Swiss flag. I wonder where that came from? ;)

[Darth Rotor]

That’s what they call “moving the goalposts.”

I never claimed any European state had been set up specifically as a homeland for Christians, I claimed they were “Christian states.” I point this out specifically to refute the unsupported assertion that a “Jewish state” is an inherent contradiction to non-Jews being “free”.

England, to name one example, is a “Christian state.” It has an official state religion, supported by the state that even places its monarch as the head of the church. At the same time, non-Christian citizens of England are still free.
Your terminology is now clear. Thank you. No goal post moved, your vague label left a great deal open to question, so I took a stab at your attempt to draw a clumsy parallel.

I am fully aware of the crosses of St Andrew, and St George on the UK flag, and on the Scanadnavian flags. I find them to be, given the current situation in Europe vis a vis Christianity losing its support, ironic anachronisms.

DR

[Mycroft]

He's not. Neturei Karta went there to say that the Holocaust did happen (it would be tough for them not to), but that it's no excuse for Israel's actions.

They've been in Iran before; they believe in dialogue with the Muslim world, and I'm all for that. This time, though, I think they crossed the line by giving this conference legitimacy.

That crosses the line for you? You mean their open support for Arafat and his methods as well as their support and congratulations to Hamas and their continued support and contributions to the Saudi funded WRMEA propaganda doesn't do it, but showing up at Ahmadinejad’s hate-fest does?

Hate is hate, Cleon. Isn't it a bit disingenuous to say that supporting three kinds of genocidal hate is okay, but that fourth kind is “crossing the line”?

[Mycroft]

Your terminology is now clear. Thank you. No goal post moved, your vague label left a great deal open to question, so I took a stab at your attempt to draw a clumsy parallel.

I am fully aware of the crosses of St Andrew, and St George on the UK flag, and on the Scanadnavian flags. I find them to be, given the current situation in Europe vis a vis Christianity losing its support, ironic anachronisms.

DR

But the state funding of Christian churches and state sponsorship of Christian holidays is much more concrete than the use of anachronistic symbols.

The real point is you cannot say the label alone makes it discriminatory without showing how.

[Cleon]

Cleon draws a parallel to apartheid South Africa and Israel.

This is simply not true, and a complete fabrication on your part. At no point in this discussion have I drawn a parallel between apartheid South Africa and Israel.

I find it interesting--and very telling--that those who feel compelled to defend Israel so vehemently have so little regard for accuracy and honesty.

[zenith-nadir]

This is simply not true, and a complete fabrication on your part. At no point in this discussion have I drawn a parallel between apartheid South Africa and Israel.

Post 2172834:

It's beyond "is there discrimination in Israel." Of course there is--as you pointed out, there's discrimination everywhere. Yes, just as there is discrimination against Blacks in the US. Yet there is still a difference between the status of Black Americans in, say, Atlanta, GA and in apartheid-era South Africa.

You are drawing a parallel between the subject, "discrimination in Israel" and the status of blacks in "apartheid-era South Africa."

I find it interesting--and very telling--that those who feel compelled to defend Israel so vehemently have so little regard for accuracy and honesty.I have said there is discrimination in Israel about a hundred times in this thread. At no point did I "defend" it. In fact I praised work being done by Jewish Americans to do something about it as "a positive step". Your claim that I have "little regard for accuracy and honesty" is absurd.

[Darth Rotor]

But the state funding of Christian churches and state sponsorship of Christian holidays is much more concrete than the use of anachronistic symbols.

The real point is you cannot say the label alone makes it discriminatory without showing how.
Last point acknowledged, first point is tied to state tourism revenues, and agreed social/cultural programs. In Italy, the cities and regiones know where the money comes from. It's a win-win.

DR

[senorpogo]

Sacha Baron Cohen on learning that he had been nominated for a Golden Globe for his performance in Borat....

"I have been trying to let Borat know this great news but for the last four hours both of Kazakhstan's telephones have been engaged," Cohen said in a statement. "Eventually, Premier Nazarbayev answered and said he would pass on the message as soon as Borat returned from Iran, where he is guest of honor at the Holocaust Denial Conference."

[Cleon]

Post 2172834:



You are drawing a parallel between the subject, "discrimination in Israel" and the status of blacks in "apartheid-era South Africa."

No, I was not, as is obvious from the words I actually used--such as "the status of Black Americans in, say, Atlanta, GA and apartheid-era South Africa." See, that's a comparison between Blacks in Atlanta and Blacks in South Africa, not Blacks in South Africa with Arabs in Jews. The hint there should've been the words "Atlanta" and "South Africa," and the absence of the word "Israel" in that particular sentence.

I was pointing out that just saying "there's discrimination everywhere" doesn't mean that some forms are more severe than others. I could have easily done the same by comparing "Gentleman's Agreement"-style discrimination versus the Nuremberg Laws. Again, not a comparison between the Nuremberg Laws and Israel, but between 1950s-era United States and 1930s-era Germany. You see the difference? When I list the two situations I am comparing, I am comparing those two situations. If I wanted to compare apartheid South Africa with Israel, I would say "Israeli policies are like apartheid South Africa, in that they both ...." and so on.

You see, if you read the words I actually post, it might make things a little easier. Or you can assign me positions and motives, like "Skeptic" and Mycroft so enjoy doing, and hope that one of them sticks.

[Merko]

Cleon draws a parallel to apartheid South Africa and Israel. You draw a parallel to Nazi Germany and Israel.

I'm sorry, but you're sinking to lower levels than I find worth debating.

You say that Palestinians are not second class citizens because they are not 'officially' designated as such, and cites the Israeli constitution as 'evidence'. I then cite the Nazi constitution, showing that the same reasoning, if applied to the Third Reich, would prove that Jews were not second class citizens in the Third Reich. That is not a parallel between Nazi Germany and Israel. It is an illustration that your reasoning is so absurd that you end up on the same side as Ahmadinejad.

[Polaris]

In WWII there were still segregated regiments, IIRC. I am trying to work Ahmenijad out. He seems to vacilate between saying there was a holocaust, and there wasn't.

One of the drivers for the creation of the state of Israel from the UN was the Australian politician HV Evatt.



http://www.meforum.org/article/954

This is similar to his MO on Iran's nuclear program. He swears up and down it's for peaceful purposes, but he also says the West has no right to say they can't build nukes. Illogic and contradiction doesn't phase religious fanatics.

[Polaris]

foil alert. They're not a threat against "the west". They're a thread against "the world", including transparently, many secular muslim societies and individuals. By the way, those who want to construct a "west vs. islamic world" narrative seem to be playing more on Ahmenidajad's team than on the team of the rest of us, who are looking to increase cross-cultural connections between classic liberals regardless of geographic location.

Let's all befriend at least one Iranian (in Iran) and invite him/her to the forums. It'd be a small but positive step toward bridging the gap Ahmadinnerjacket wants to widen, and any influx of new ideas is good in the long run. There are a lot of woo beliefs in Iran, and some of them may be debunked here to the betterment of the world. Iranians usually know at least some English, so Farsi is not required.

[gtc]

That would make affirmative action, set-asides and reparations illegal, wouldn't it? That would make it tremendously difficult to do anything to mitigate the damage done to aboriginals for your 100+ years of genocidal policies, wouldn’t it?

Do you support that principle?

You shouldn't actually follow what TF said to its logical conclusion.

Australia has numerous laws and court decisions which differentiate on the basis of race and or religion.

Aboriginal customary law has been used in criminal cases
Aboriginal land rights
Various consultative bodies
Government agencies and programs tailored for aboriginal people
Land councils for aboriginals
Large tracts of land provided to the Church of England
Australia's head of state has to be Anglican (i.e. the Queen)

Unlike France, our census actually collects all sorts of information on cultural backgrounds etc.

[gtc]

It quite clearly states it is not 'all' Jews.

When I tracked that quote down, I found a reference to what seemed to be a previous version which included the phrase 'throw the Jews into the ocean', but couldn't find the previous version.

Does anyone know the origin of this phrase?

[gtc]

Hmm, he has a blog.



http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/

The translation is not great, but you can get the intent.

As an outsider to the holocaust, he wonders why no-one can question it. Forum members who are pro-Israeli, IIRC, have wondered if this is the best approach. I can understand why European countries outlaw holocaust revisionism, but in this case, it does appear to be counter productive. However, at the same time, his conference doesn't appear to have any pro-holocaust attendees. Any one feel like posting on his blog?

Some European countries ban Holocaust denial because they are worried about the re-emergence of Nazism in their own countries. As such, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Israel or the Jews.

If Ahmadinejad has a problem with Europe's approach, he should take it up with them. He shouldn't be using it to beat up on Israel or the Jews.

I don't think there is much ambiguity about his intentions. He is talking about ending Israel in a conference he has organised about the last time someone aimed to wipe out the Jews and he is talking about building a nuclear bomb.

You don't have to be paranoid to be alarmed by his actions. Is he trying to provoke the Israelis or the Jews to over-react to his actions or is he trying to get greater support among Arabs and Muslims or is he simply telegraphing his plans to wipe out Israel? I don't know.

[DanishDynamite]

I don't think there is much ambiguity about his intentions. He is talking about ending Israel in a conference he has organised about the last time someone aimed to wipe out the Jews and he is talking about building a nuclear bomb.

You don't have to be paranoid to be alarmed by his actions. Is he trying to provoke the Israelis or the Jews to over-react to his actions or is he trying to get greater support among Arabs and Muslims or is he simply telegraphing his plans to wipe out Israel? I don't know.
No one knows, perhaps including himself. He is a puppet (effectively) elected and certainly controlled by the religious Iranian Board of the Insane. He has no support among the young in Iran.

[Thunder]

ahmenijad is a complete moron and is greatly endangering his people. i dont know why he goes on about israel...it only increases the likelyhood of an attack by israel or the usa. but maybe thats exactly what he wants....an apocolyptic war between the great satan, the jews, and islam.

[qayak]

I don't have anything against those denying the Holocaust (except that they are wrong), I think they should be allowed to express their opinion. I firmly believe that the best counter to a denier is a better argument. I would prefer they be allowed to spout their beliefs in public, in the light of day, instead of being forced to do it underground where they have a sympathetic audience who will never get to hear why the denials are false.

This meeting in Iran however, doesn't fit the definition of simple Holocaust denial. It is a blatant attempt to rewrite history to further the political aims of some very sick people. If you want to re-examine the Holocaust, at least bring in people from all points of view. Better yet, bring in experts who have actually examined the evidence and allow them to express the conclusions they have drawn, for or against, with the evidence to support those conclusions.

It would seem a simple matter to allow real Holocaust experts the opportunity to rebutt the conclusions of the people attending the meeting. In short, make the meeting and its attendees out to be as ridiculous as possible in the eyes of the world.

This would, in turn, bring the truth about the Holocaust to life for a whole new generation.

[a_unique_person]

You don't have to be paranoid to be alarmed by his actions. Is he trying to provoke the Israelis or the Jews to over-react to his actions or is he trying to get greater support among Arabs and Muslims or is he simply telegraphing his plans to wipe out Israel? I don't know.

He worries me, for sure.