Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

@HarlanEiffler
I think when the equation of Israel and Jews is done by mainstream groups and Israel itself so repeatedly, it spreads into the wider culture. That is the link between the two.

From my original post:
This tacit or open equation of Jewishness and Israel can be done constantly by pro-Israeli politicians and organisations, and the expectation is that it will never percolate to the wider population?
Click to expand...

HarlanEiffler said:
So, in a nutshell: If the first thing you think about when you hear about a club with a Jewish history (or talk with a Jew) is the state of Israel and that is the reason why you are happy that that specific club lost (or you think that that specific person has to make a stand on Israel or engage in a discussion on Israel) - this is antisemitic. Because you are not able to understand Jewishness in any other sense as in your position towards the Israeli state.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a fact that the fans themselves have embraced the connection?
I watched a decent number of Ajax games where I saw it, and have also seen it at Spurs and sometimes Rangers - the Israeli flag flown by fans. The way I learnt about the "Jewish connection" of Spurs is more than a decade ago when the TV camera showed the Israeli flag in the middle of a match. Sometime later I read that West Ham supporters repeatedly have anti-semitic chants in their games.

As I said in the first post:
Now I personally believe that Israel's foreign policy actions and allies make it clear that they do not have a problem with anti-semitic countries and leaders, from Saudi Arabia, to Orban, to cosying up tight with the GOP of Steve King.
Click to expand...
Obviously this means I don't agree with the equation of the two. What I'm saying is that major political forces repeatedly make or imply the connection themselves, not just fans.


@Synco
About it being done positively vs negatively - that is precisely the issue. I'm not sure how it is possible to make the connection as a good thing and then expect it never to be brought up in any other situation.
 
berbatrick said:
@HarlanEiffler
I think when the equation of Israel and Jews is done by mainstream groups and Israel itself so repeatedly, it spreads into the wider culture. That is the link between the two.

From my original post:




Isn't it a fact that the fans themselves have embraced the connection?
I watched a decent number of Ajax games where I saw it, and have also seen it at Spurs and sometimes Rangers - the Israeli flag flown by fans. The way I learnt about the "Jewish connection" of Spurs is more than a decade ago when the TV camera showed the Israeli flag in the middle of a match. Sometime later I read that West Ham supporters repeatedly have anti-semitic chants in their games.

As I said in the first post:

Obviously this means I don't agree with the equation of the two. What I'm saying is that major political forces repeatedly make or imply the connection themselves, not just fans.


@Synco
About it being done positively vs negatively - that is precisely the issue. I'm not sure how it is possible to make the connection as a good thing and then expect it never to be brought up in any other situation.
Click to expand...

The fans embraced it because they were subject to antisemitic abuse. So, again, the antisemitism was first, the positive embrace of the abuse came second.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is this the same for other groups in your view? For example, is the positive inclusion and support for the struggle of marginalised communities such as PoCs or LGBTQI by their peers the same as the exclusion of these groups by hate groups or oppressive/backwards regimes, or does it explain abuse hurled at them that they are positively embraced by their allies? This is about inclusion (Israel of Jews worldwide) and exclusion (people equating Jews with Israel, thereby implying that they are not part of 'their' group).
I really can't wrap my head around that statement.
 
HarlanEiffler said:
The fans embraced it because they were subject to antisemitic abuse. So, again, the antisemitism was first, the positive embrace of the abuse came second.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is this the same for other groups in your view? For example, is the positive inclusion and support for the struggle of marginalised communities such as PoCs or LGBTQI by their peers the same as the exclusion of these groups by hate groups or oppressive/backwards regimes, or does it explain abuse hurled at them that they are positively embraced by their allies? This is about inclusion (Israel of Jews worldwide) and exclusion (people equating Jews with Israel, thereby implying that they are not part of 'their' group).
I really can't wrap my head around that statement.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't get it - what is the analog of Israel in the other movements?
anti-semitism vs jews, or homphobia vs lgbt, or racism v blacks, i can understand - but this whole thing was about how israel is equated with jews both by israel and its supporters and by people like the football fans and then galloway. i dont see what is similar to israel in the other movements.
 
berbatrick said:
I'm sorry, I don't get it - what is the analog of Israel in the other movements?
anti-semitism vs jews, or homphobia vs lgbt, or racism v blacks, i can understand - but this whole thing was about how israel is equated with jews both by israel and its supporters and by people like the football fans and then galloway. i dont see what is similar to israel in the other movements.
Click to expand...
At least the crunchpoint is clear by now, methinks. From my first reply:
There's obviously a categorial difference regarding the kind of equation between Jewishness and Israel we're talking of - if it's made in a hostile or a self-identifying way. The former is exclusively anti-Jewish and made by non-Jews, while the other is in its essence a standpoint from a Jewish perspective. (Although it's certainly not the only Jewish standpoint on that matter, and it can also be made by non-Jews.)

It's also plain obvious that @HarlanEiffler spoke of the first variant, which led you to attack the second one. (...)
the conflation is pretty much central to your post. (And I'd say your general stance on that subject.)
Click to expand...

(Edited for clarity)
 
Last edited:
I hope for the sake of Palestinian and Israeli civilians that this is the most important sentence:
"He has made similar statements in the past and not implemented them."
 
HarlanEiffler said:
I hope for the sake of Palestinian and Israeli civilians that this is the most important sentence:
"He has made similar statements in the past and not implemented them."
Click to expand...
Palestinian civilians? Like those that had their homes demolished the other day? Or the next ones to inevitably have their home demolished? Or the 9 year old with 100 bullet fragments in his brain? Who don’t have even the most basic human right of freedom of movement within their own country? Not sure the status quo is all that desirable for Palestinian civilians.
 
Super Hans said:
Palestinian civilians? Like those that had their homes demolished the other day? Or the next ones to inevitably have their home demolished? Or the 9 year old with 100 bullet fragments in his brain? Who don’t have even the most basic human right of freedom of movement within their own country? Not sure the status quo is all that desirable for Palestinian civilians.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like I said, civilians on both side would suffer a hell of a lot more if the conflict escalates. Not sure if anyone desires that besides you and groups that have an interest in violence as it is their only way to stay relevant and remain in power.
 
Super Hans said:
Palestinian civilians? Like those that had their homes demolished the other day? Or the next ones to inevitably have their home demolished? Or the 9 year old with 100 bullet fragments in his brain? Who don’t have even the most basic human right of freedom of movement within their own country? Not sure the status quo is all that desirable for Palestinian civilians.
Click to expand...

Ah come off it. Its not as though this was how Nazi Germany st.....
 
HarlanEiffler said:
Yeah, like I said, civilians on both side would suffer a hell of a lot more if the conflict escalates. Not sure if anyone desires that besides you and groups that have an interest in violence as it is their only way to stay relevant and remain in power.
Click to expand...
I didn't say I desire violence. But a change in the status quo is essential for Palestinians. Israel's occupation is essentially cost-free, in fact, it is enormously profitable. They have the PA security forces doing the dirty work, keeping the population tranquil. And they just carry on with their war crimes every day with impunity.

Perhaps Abbas won't follow through, but if he doesn't do something then he is complicit in Israel's crimes.
 
Super Hans said:
I didn't say I desire violence. But a change in the status quo is essential for Palestinians. Israel's occupation is essentially cost-free, in fact, it is enormously profitable. They have the PA security forces doing the dirty work, keeping the population tranquil. And they just carry on with their war crimes every day with impunity.

Perhaps Abbas won't follow through, but if he doesn't do something then he is complicit in Israel's crimes.
Click to expand...

Must be wonderful to live in a nice black-and-white world...
Just FYI: I have no desire to discuss the depths and layers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with you. I had these discussions a thousand times already. It becomes frustrating.
 
The problem is that neither would Israel give them back their land but also they would not take over the land and make it Israeli and citizens. Then it means one person one vote. It is a sort of apartheid like in SA where the blacks were citizens yet cannot vote.
 
HarlanEiffler said:
I hope for the sake of Palestinian and Israeli civilians that this is the most important sentence:
"He has made similar statements in the past and not implemented them."
Click to expand...

Abbas knows the Palestinian Authority are in no position to implement his threat. Some of those agreements are integral to the Palestinian Authority and any autonomy it has in the West Bank.
 
Chairman Woodie said:
Israel is not threatening genocide. Danny Danon argues the PA should surrender its current political and economic policies in favour of Trump's economic plan and negotiations with Israel.

What’s Wrong With Palestinian Surrender?
(New York Times)
Click to expand...
Odd that Mr Danon doesn't mention the fact that neither one state nor two states is acceptable to Israel, at least not under the current leadership. One wonders then what sort of settlement they do want? Because of course, surely nobody seriously believes this plan hasn't been approved by Israel.
 

Super Hans said:
Odd that Mr Danon doesn't mention the fact that neither one state nor two states is acceptable to Israel, at least not under the current leadership. One wonders then what sort of settlement they do want? Because of course, surely nobody seriously believes this plan hasn't been approved by Israel.
Click to expand...

Danon has no need. Under the Oslo Accords the Palestinian Authority have autonomy. A one-state solution would, among other issues, end Israel as a Jewish State. An unlikely Likud policy! Only remaining option is a two-state solution. Although at present even realising a two-state solution has many hurdles.
 
Last edited:
Chairman Woodie said:



Danon has no need. Under the Oslo Accords the Palestinian Authority have autonomy. A one-state solution would, among other issues, end Israel as a Jewish State. An unlikely Likud policy! Only remaining option is a two-state solution. Although at present even realising a two-state solution has many hurdles.
Click to expand...

You're right there. I can think of a few hundred thousand of them straight off the top of my head.
 
You see the Arabs do not want a Palestinian State. This is why there is no Palestinian State. It is all empty words. If they had wanted one there would have been one. I mean the Arabs like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf governments. Forget about Jordan as they are too poor.
 
Foxbatt said:
You see the Arabs do not want a Palestinian State. This is why there is no Palestinian State. It is all empty words. If they had wanted one there would have been one. I mean the Arabs like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf governments. Forget about Jordan as they are too poor.
Click to expand...

Why is that so?
 
4bars said:
Why is that so?
Click to expand...

You look at what Jared Kushner proposed in the Middle east in the presence of the Gulf countries. It is not a two state solution that any Palestinian can accept. Yet the Saudi and Gulf states are pushing it. Have they ever pressured the USA to solve the Palestinian issue? No.
 
Foxbatt said:
You look at what Jared Kushner proposed in the Middle east in the presence of the Gulf countries. It is not a two state solution that any Palestinian can accept. Yet the Saudi and Gulf states are pushing it. Have they ever pressured the USA to solve the Palestinian issue? No.
Click to expand...

But I don't want to know the behaviour (that it can be biased on personal perspective and we don't have much information on the strategy). You said they DON'T WANT, but it could be they can't be bothered, or the risk on pushing it doesn't worth it. Saudi Arabia might not give a damn about palestina, but I am of the opinion that they would rather prefer Israel to not be there
 
That is what you think. The Saudis now especially need Israel because of their hatred of Iran. Yes you may right it that they can't be arsed about pushing it. But They have better relations with Israel than they have with Iran and Qatar.
 
Foxbatt said:
That is what you think. The Saudis now especially need Israel because of their hatred of Iran. Yes you may right it that they can't be arsed about pushing it. But They have better relations with Israel than they have with Iran and Qatar.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know that. BUt Saudi Arabia is not all middle east. And is something relatively new. And being frenemies it doesn't mean that they would not want a Palestinian country, just they can't get bothered
 
'The only Democratic state in the Middle East' bars Omar and Tlaib from entering Israel.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-bars-ilhan-omar-rashida-tlaib_n_5d553e3be4b056fafd07f1bb

The two congresswomen have been criticized roundly by Republicans, as well as some members of their own party, for speaking out against America’s relationship with Israel. Some Republicans, including Trump, have accused them of being anti-Semitic, though Omar and Tlaib have made clear they take issue with the Israeli government ― not with Jewish people.
 
They’re losing it. Why on earth they think this could be good for Israel in the long run is anybody’s guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.