Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

A lot of American Jews are anti-Zionist by the standard our criteria have gotten to.

UCLA and UC Davis are two examples with nationally acknowledged instances.

Weird because you are talking about campuses in the midst of one of the world's largest Jewish community.  Meanwhile I went to campus in an extremely conservative backwater town (hard to tell if there were more churches or liquor stores) and the jewish guy I hung out with for two years never mentioned once feeling unwelcome on campus and I never saw any prejudice towards him.  You'd think that if he was unwelcome in LA they would chase him out of town in Appalachia.

[Rez]

How delightfully bigoted of you mainiac!  Clearly Christian conservatives must hate Jews, because NARRATIVE.

[mainiac]

I wonder if that is a better example of the tu quoque fallacy or the ad hominem.  Because it sure as hell isn't an example of someone offering evidence to support the extremely controversial assertion they made.

[Rez]

It's controversial to say that UCLA and UC Davis have anti-Semites? 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/ucla-jewish-student-video_n_6817918.html
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/02/05/campus-incitement-proves-anti-zionism-still-equals-anti-semitism-bds-uc-davis/

Now, care to explain why you think anti-Semitism is a conservative only belief and that liberals are immune?

ed: Lol, I didn't even pull that commentary article for the BDS folks chanting God is great. I was going for people spray painting swastikas on the Jewish fraternity.

eded: At the freebeacon article, you see one of the pro-BDS student senators claiming that "Hamas and Shariah law have taken over UC Davis" and "Israel will fall insha'Allah".  I don't even know if she is trying to satirize intolerant Christians or if she is for serious.  I kind of think she's for serious.

[Reelya]

Hezbollah was created specifically because of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. So, as a specific example of that principle, it fails. Basically it's saying if you invade someone and they fight back, that gives you the right to further oppress them.

I merely listed them as an example of a non-state actor that is capable of waging war, Reelya. History doesn't come into what I said.

Let me quote you directly:

*This 'wherever' occasionally comes into conflict with the (outdated) concept of sovereignity, like during Operation Entebbe, in Western Pakistan, and in Israel's various clashes with Hezbollah. That's another debate however: I'd be inclined to say that anyone who shelters my enemy must either allow me to pursue him or be considered my enemy as well.

This is saying that Israel has the right to attack Lebanon because Hezbollah is there and Hezbollah are enemies of Israel. And as I noted, Hezbollah exists in the first place for the reasons I mentioned, because of previous Israeli aggressions. So this is exactly in line with what I said. You wrote those two things back-to-back sentences, so it's not a big stretch to say you were linking the ideas.

But, the big question is why we are choosing who is in the "right". Israel are Hezbollah's enemies just as Hezbollah are Israel's enemy. By the original logic, both have the right to attack each other. Some people count bombing campaigns as terrorism too. But, they're just not referred to as such because the perpetrators are state actors. Same thing, just you've got a badge which makes it OK. Israel has bombed Lebanon much more than the reverse.

[nenjin]

It comes down to your definition of anti-Zionism, which you seem to take a broad interpretation of.

I suppose if you agree a nation-state that has the right to exist, supporting that belief requires the nation-sate has room to grow. So if you oppose Israel's settlement expansion plans, that would technically make one anti-Zionist under the broadest definition.

Then again, putting the Palestinians in a shoebox and cutting off every means both of expanding and receiving external support, is pretty much the exact same thing. Which is why criticisms of being anti-Zionist hold little sway with me.

And I would compare the Huffington Post are you linked to the propensity to call out anyone who doesn't have an overwhelming positive view of Israel or what they do as being either anti-Semitic or Anti-Zionist. Especially given the loaded article that follows it. Anyone with an ultra-strong agenda makes me want to ask if they can be unbiased. It doesn't matter to me if you're Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Gay, Straight or what have you.

And I'm not saying that similar things haven't been asked with ill-intent before too, disguised under the same language of trying to be neutral. But it's a sign of the issue that you really can't criticize or in some cases even disagree with Israel without getting labels thrown at you.

I guess I'd ask this: can someone be an outspoken supporter of Israel, and/or a Jew, and have a biased point of view?

[Reelya]

I just want the US to stop Vetoing UN Resolutions on Israel. Here's a list. Remember, these are resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly, then Vetoed by the USA due to their Security Council special veto. This happened 42 times between 1972-2011. Israel is doing stuff, but it's the USA preventing the rest of the world using legal sanctions against them.

This is my main gripe, I just want international law to apply the same to everyone, and nobody getting a free pass because they have powerful friends. Actually, I think this might be a big part of the problem. It's literally impossible to go through official UN channels if you have a gripe with Israel. Every time it's vetoed by the USA. If another country has a dispute with Israel, armed force is literally the only way to get them to listen.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

[Helgoland]

Okay, let me explain more clearly:
What I was trying to discuss were the rules of counducting war. Among the traditional and almost universally agreed-upon ones are not using poison gas, not killing prisoners and emissaries, not indulging in cruelty that has no military effect etc. These rules are independent of who started the war, who fired the first shot, who's right and who's wrong, who's better equipped and who's the underdog. Nowadays war can be waged by non-state actors - such as Hezbollah - as opposed to sovereign nation states, and the present rules of warfare are insufficient to regulate these conflicts. If we want international law to continue mattering, we need to change this.
At no point have I made any statement about who's right and who's wrong in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, nor have I claimed that any of the two parties has the 'right' to attack the other. I'm actually trying very hard not to discuss Middle Eastern politics here - I'd appreciate if you joined in the effort, because these derails usually end like most violent conflicts in the region: With a lot of pain and no actual change.

But, the big question is why we are choosing who is in the "right". Israel are Hezbollah's enemies just as Hezbollah are Israel's enemy. By the original logic, both have the right to attack each other. Some people count bombing campaigns as terrorism too. But, they're just not referred to as such because the perpetrators are state actors. Same thing, just you've got a badge which makes it OK. Israel has bombed Lebanon much more than the reverse.

Precisely! This is why we need to update our definition of 'war', along with the rules for conducting military operations. Ultimately I believe that we need to treat the troops of non-state actors the same way legally that we treat the troops of sovereign states, since in the field there is no difference between the two.

Edit: If we're gonna talk about UN resolution: Have you ever compared the number of resolutions (successful and failed) against Israel to that against pretty much any state except maybe for North Korea? You should, it's very educational.

[Reelya]

Maybe you can cite your case rather than just saying "look it up", I guess I have to infer that your position is that there are a lot of UN resolutions against Israel. Two ways that could be interpreted: either everyone at the UN is a big meanie picking on Israel all the time, or Israel does a lot of stuff that pisses other countries off. I'm siding with "Israel pissed people off".

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/study-israel-leads-in-ignoring-security-council-resolutions-1.31971

Study: Israel leads in ignoring Security Council resolutions NEW YORK - Israel holds the record for ignoring United Nations Security Council resolutions, according to a study by San Francisco University political science professor Steven Zunes.

Israel is the world leader at ignoring the UN. If it was another country, even one breached UN resolution is held up as a valid pretext for bombing or invading that country. Israel gets a free pass on ignoring the UN I guess.

[Helgoland]

Okay, plunging into this derail.

If it was another country, even one breached UN resolution is held up as a valid pretext for bombing or invading that country.

And surely you can give me a citation for that, right? Hm, lemme think - how many resolutions are there against Assad? Against the various African states slaughtering their own citizens? Against Egypt and its new dictator Al-Sissi, who hands out death sentences like others hand out pamphlets? Against Russia waging a covert war against Ukraine? Against the US for all the horrible shit it's pulled around the world? Against Pakistan for its continued support for the Taliban? Against China for occupying Tibet, or against Morocco for occupying Western Sahara? Against my own home country Germany for exporting arms to various conflict zones around the world? Against Mexico for the crimes committed by its police and army in the war against the drug cartels?

I'm not saying that the resolutions against Israel are unsubstantiated; I'm just saying that Israel's held to a much, much higher standard than literally everyone else. And given that situation, I find it hard to muster indignation at Israel's disregard for those resolutions.

[mainiac]

Do you think what Reelya said differs from mainstream liberal opinion?  Anti-zionism is rampant in the US; Israeli students are made unwelcome on our campuses and expected to denounce their country to fit into the anti-Israel culture there.

It's controversial to say that UCLA and UC Davis have anti-Semites? 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

[smjjames]

I don't get the whole Zionism thing, is it a sect within Judaism? I'm not anti-zionism, just no-clue-what-zionism-is.

[mainiac]

Zionism is the movement for Israel as a nation to exist.  The heated rhetoric coming from the middle east has caused that to drift into support or opposition for Israeli foreign policy.

[wierd]

Zionism (in my personal, faulted view), is what you get when you mix a religious ideology with political policy, and blend generously with nationalism.

It is the kind of religious exceptionalism you would expect from a religion that feels that represents 'God's chosen people', supported by state powers, reinforcing a religious dogma that THEY are the rightful owners of that parcel of property.

Wikipedia says it is THIS however:

Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).[1][2][3][4] Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement, and soon after this most leaders of the movement associated the main goal with creating the desired state in Palestine, then an area controlled by the Ottoman Empire.[5][6][7] A religious variety of Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity, opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies and has advocated the 'return' of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be a majority in their own nation, and to be liberated from antisemitic discrimination, exclusion, and persecution that had historically occurred in the diaspora.[1] Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of Israel and address threats to its continued existence and security. In a less common usage, the term may also refer to non-political, cultural Zionism, founded and represented most prominently by Ahad Ha'am; and political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews, as in Christian Zionism.

Supporters of Zionism say it is a national liberation movement for the repatriation of a dispersed socio-religious group to what they see as an abandoned homeland millennia before.[8][9][10] Critics of Zionism see it as a colonialist[11] or racist[12] ideology that led to the denial of rights, dispossession and expulsion of the indigenous population of Palestine.[13][14][15][16]

Essentially, regardless of who is living there right now, the zionists feel that their claim to the territory is superior, and that they are just satisfying god's gift of that land to them by taking back what they feel is their literally god-given property.

Naturally, the people currently living there feel otherwise.

[4maskwolf]

Do you think what Reelya said differs from mainstream liberal opinion?  Anti-zionism is rampant in the US; Israeli students are made unwelcome on our campuses and expected to denounce their country to fit into the anti-Israel culture there.

It's controversial to say that UCLA and UC Davis have anti-Semites? 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

Reading the context, this isn't special pleading at all, he's backing up a point that you challenged.  I also found a couple that I believe apply to your arguments to some extent, if we're going to be linking.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
Edit: edited out one that didn't fit upon closer reading.