aleflamedyud wrote:To raise the more important point than abstract theories of what constitutes racism, sexism, or antisemitism, whenever demonization of Israel has created widespread rises in "anti-Zionist" sentiment as measured by opinion polls, internet traffic, published opinion pieces, etc., physical attacks on Jews and Jewish communities - both in Israel and in the Diaspora - have risen in direct correlation.
Don't you find it ironic that in order silence criticism of violence, persecution, and oppression of minorities by Israel, you are holding up as a shield the threat of anti-Semitic attacks in the Diaspora? I believe the original idea was to use Israel to defend Jews from anti-Semitism, rather than the other way around.
Intent does indeed matter much of the time, but quite frankly the portion of the anti-Zionist movement with antisemitic intent seems non-trivial.
It's unsurprising that it seems that way to you -- elsewhere you have claimed that you have never heard reasonable criticism of Israel from abroad; it's all unfair. I think you may need to consider the possibility that you're not entirely objective about the matter.
I would argue that it is exactly trivial; of course, if you give anti-Semites juicy red meat like Jewish settlers burning mosques (4), the IDF shooting old women waving white flags, and rabbis endorsing murdering "gentile babies" (5), anti-Semites are going to make use of those things. But the characteristic behavior of the racist -- as you can observe around you in the broad-based anti-Arab racism of Israeli Jews (1,2,3) -- is that they will use whatever materials are at hand to justify their hatred. If you give them evidence of cruelty and evil (suicide bombings), of course they will use it. If there isn't any, they will conjure up something ("They won't endorse our right to a Jewish state!").
Remember how the "anti-Zionist" movement reacted last summer when they learned about Brooklyn rabbis trafficking kidneys?
There's no such thing as the "anti-Zionist movement" (it'd be nice if there were). There are a lot of people who don't like racist violence, colonialism, land theft, and so on. They naturally, unless they have some compelling political programming to the contrary, become anti-Zionist. But they don't necessarily like each other or work together. You don't like it when the more lurid and evil acts of your fellow Zionists are attributed to you, so why try and paint "anti-Zionists" with one brush?
EMTP, yoni reasoned parts of the article are questionable, and he made sense.
Yoni made a variety of unsupported assertions, and went on to pompously demand that the people he made them too prove him wrong. It was classic fallacious reasoning heavily seasoned with obnoxiousness, and once called out, he was completely unable to support any of the garbage he spouted. End of story.
Telchar wrote:Please respond to numbers, rather than parsing sentence fragments and quote-sniping. It's against forum rules iirc and it's fucking annoying
to read when you shred my "argument" in a few short sentences.
I pointed out that Americans throw rock throwers in jail, but that doesn't mean we would pursue them for years. In case you aren't aware, that's what your sentence implies.
Nope, you're wrong again. Now your credibility is zero on Israel-Palestine, and English grammar.
2. Putting things like obvious in "" and saying "sweet little Israel" just illustrates your complete lack of objectivity and therefore credibility. Please provide citations for everything you say starting now or I won't respond.
Now who's quote sniping? A) You haven't made a point here, just another meaningless assertion about rhetoric. B) You not responding to me is not a bug, it's a feature.
You demand proof, but you provide no proof. You demand numbers, but you provide no numbers. You complain about quote sniping three sentences before you engage in it. In essence, you have written an essay denouncing itself. And whilst demanding citations, your entire post doesn't include a single citation, so I'm going to take your advice, rather than follow your example, and not waste any more time on it.
1) http://www.handinhand12.org/index.cfm?c ... pageID=167
2) "Israeli anti-Arab racism 'rises'" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7136068.stm
3) "‘Marriage to an Arab is national treason’" http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/ ... 78,00.html
4) In the spirit of the season, let's give props to Israel's chief rabbi, who went to the site and had the guts to compare the arson to the Kristallnacht, as it deserved (http://www.vosizneias.com/44833/2009/12 ... stallnacht
). Other rabbis and the prime minister denounced the attack as well.
5) This guy, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, has fallen afoul of Israel's anti-incitement laws in the past, but the Israeli government continues to fund his radical yeshiva.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"