But they are questioned.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
But they are questioned.
Ok, that's a bit better. At least you're drawing a bit of context for your position.
The anti-anti Semite card is also a bit tedious.
And rightly so
Absolutely correct.
There was no ethnic relocation, ethnically pakistanis are Indians only (but dont tell them, they like to pretend to be arabs,persians,mongols,turks depending on there mood)
In partition a vast majority of the population stayed in pakistan and Indian. Only a small minority migrated and that was on religious lines. pakistan is a bastard child of imperialism and religious extreism, the results are there for all to see. Both israel and pakistan are creations of the british and both these countries are the causes of unrest and terrorism in west asia and the world.
true, i participated in a national geographic genographic study and my y haplogroup is way more common in pakistan/sindh province than it is where my ancestors of the past 100 years come from....madras.
Syria is a civil war where the 'victims' are being funded, armed and being diplomatically supported by more or less every Arab state, the US, the EU, and seem to be killing just as much of their enemies as losing their own.
This on the other hand isn't a war by any means - its a conflict where one of the most powerful militaries in the world - backed by the most powerful nation on earth, is currently bombarding the shit out of an impoverished, sealed up piece of land called the Gaza strip. 99% of the casualties of this conflict belong to one side, many of which are women and children. I'd say thats a perfectly good enough reason to be outraged.
You have a peculiar lack of interest in atrocities when they are being committed by Shi'a.
naturally....it isn't called the jewnited states for nothing now is it?
I think that makes you anti-usametic?
The whole 'why aren't aren't you posting about Syria?' has to be one of the stupidest things posted in this thread - along with the claims Israel are acting in self defence
So to clarify:
Jews who support the actions of the Israeli government - Kosher.
Jews who object to the actions of the Israeli government - anti-Semites.
Am I reading this right?
Good rebuke.
Sorry guys, had to go put on my new ss uniform, as I'm now technically a Nazi.
Anything else I should learn about hating jews? because this is news to me.
Anything else I should learn about hating jews? because this is news to me.
Bit vague, but in this instance you are correct.
Its not a typo. I would mention them if it killed more people than peanut allergies did. If the Palestinians had access to the some of the firepower the Syrian 'rebels' did then I'd say this conflict could be dignified as a war.
Name one.
Hope it fits over your berkah.
Syria - Consistently underplaying Assad's complicity for most of the deaths that have taken place there.
Care to explain the Cuntastine, and the sly remarks made about Arabs?
Hence the blockade. And boy is that gonna stay.
The fact that Israeli's have air raid bunkers, early warning systems and Iron Dome while Gazans (is that what they're called now?) have nothing of the sort may explain some disparity.
But hey - lets make it fair.
How about Israel lets off it's rockets indiscriminately.
fao plech and resident forum jewish peoples...do you think the jews that moved to the US made a better choice for themselves and their families post holocaust than the zionists who ran to israel?
Serious question like.
Serious question like.
Not at all. Unlike many, I acknowledge that Syria is a civil war as opposed to a one-sided butchery. I'm not an apologist for Assad but rather a defender of the secular fabric which has helped ethnically-diverse nations like Syria together in the region. If you can be bothered to look back earlier in the thread (or the Egypt thread, can't remember which) you'll see that I was very critical of Assad during the early parts of the 'uprising'.
And even if I was some kind of Assad apologist, I don't know why that dignifies me as having a sectarian blindspot. His government is a secular one, as is the constitution he embraces. Furthermore I've always been opposed to the Shia government of Iraq as well as the Iranian regime - the latter of which I've supported uprisings against. I consider it offensive when someone labels me a Shia apologist.
Well it was a retarded thing to say, particularly given the patronising way you went about it.
One is a civil war, with a brutal dictator resorting to bombing its own people in order to cling to power. No matter who wins, for all intensive purposes the nation remains Syria.
Palestine is not and never will be a part of Israel. The Palestinian people are far poorer, less equipped and has already had land taken over, broken up and occupied and its outraged civilian population is now in danger of being reduced further.
Is that not an important distinction?
As for the self defense remarks, yes its hilarious. If a grown man beats a 8 year old boy to death, he still has to defend himself against the boy kicking out against him.
JakeC - I'm off home now. Please give this a read.
Israel and the Jewish Left
By DAVID RUBINSTEIN
21/08/2012
Jewish support for the enemies of Israel represents the triumph of leftism over Jewishness.
Among its many critics, there is a startling number of Jews who calumniate Israel and, in some cases, champion those threatening its existence.
Noam Chomsky heads this list, but he is hardly alone. Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Richard Falk, Tony Judt, Howard Zinn, Eric Hobsbawm and many other Jews have joined in this project. Neve Gordon, head of the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University, claims that “Israel resembles Nazi Germany.”
Gabriel Schoenfeld’s explanation of this in The Return of Anti-Semitism is straightforward: amid a rising tide of anti-Semitism, Jewish enemies of Israel are out to save their own skins, aiming “to deflect the poisonous arrows coming at their fellow Jews.”
In The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege Kenneth Levin asks: “Why are Jews so self-destructive? So suicidal?” He argues that constant oppression can lead to a variant of the Stockholm Syndrome: “empathy for and emotional bonding with the aggressor.” The logic of this “embrace by members of an abused community of the indictments of their abusers” is that this allows the possibility of “salvation [through] self-reform and concessions.”
In Jews and Power Ruth Wisse argues that self-blame is a Jewish tradition: “the very nature of Talmudic debate turns the political focus inward, away from the enemy and towards its own constituency.” She describes a Jewish tendency to respond to military defeat as “a consequence of God’s dissatisfactions with his people.”
In The War Against the Jews Lucy Dawidowicz cites Orthodox rabbis who saw the Holocaust as God’s punishment and called for repentance – teshuva – not resistance, in the belief that “because of our sins we have been punished.”
In addition to these psychological and cultural factors, it is essential to recognize that hostility to Israel and support for Islamic radicalism is mainly a phenomenon of the hard left. Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega have pledged solidarity with radical Islam, the latter proclaiming that “the revolutions of Iran and Nicaragua are almost twin revolutions.”
THIS SENTIMENT can be found on the social-democratic left. Yasser Arafat was embraced by Austria’s Social-Democratic Chancellor Bruno Kreisky and West Germany’s Willy Brandt. Ken Livingston, former Labour Mayor of London, has defended Palestinian terrorism: “in an unfair balance that’s what people do.”
Those who are surprised by these examples, in the belief that secular leftists and fascist theocrats are natural enemies, do not know the long history of to-ing and fro-ing between socialism and fascism. Benito Mussolini, Oswald Moseley (head of the British Union of Fascism), and Vidkun Quisling began their political lives as socialists.
According to Tom Weber’s Hitler’s First War, Hitler flirted with German communists in the 1920s and this affinity endured. French historian Francois Furet cites Hitler’s assertion that “there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it... the petit bourgeois Social Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.”
This sentiment was reciprocated by the German Communist Party which “sought to dissociate the Nazi voters from the leaders of the movement so as to regain them for the Communist Revolution.” The Hitler-Stalin pact was not an anomaly.
The collaboration between the radical left and the radical right has included radical Islam. Amin al-Husseini, despite his virulent anti-Semitism, was supported by the Palestine Communist Party until he joined the Nazi cause. The Muslim Brotherhood was funded by the Nazis. Arafat was sponsored by the Soviets and the Iranian Communist Party supported the Khomeini revolution that soon devoured it.
This intertwining of communists, fascists and Islamists explains why “in Germany, neo-Nazis and radical leftists wearing kaffiyas march together in anti-American demonstrations and chant the same slogans against globalization and waving the same Hezbollah flags.”
Redmond O’Neill, a senior aide to “Red Ken” Livingstone, suggested that: “Muslims and the left must and can come together because we have the same enemies – imperialism, colonialism, and racism.”
This outreach has been reciprocated. Recommending the writings of Noam Chomsky, Osama bin Laden has said: “The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders.”
Paul Berman argues in Terror and Liberalism that the radical left and right are drawn together by millennialism, the belief that that “the war of Armageddon – the all-exterminating bloodbath” is the path to utopia. The holy warriors of radical Islam strike a chord with these impulses.
Anti-Semitism – “the socialism of fools” – also draws elements of the radical left to Islamofascism.
Racial and religious anti-Semitism is anathema to the left. But Islamic radicalism offers a new wineskin for some very old wine.
The radical left and right also share disdain for the materialism and competitive individualism of capitalist society. Echoing the left, Hitler decried America’s “grasping materialism and indifference to any of the loftiest expressions of the human spirit.”
Sayeed Qutb, a theorist of the Muslim Brotherhood, was similarly appalled by America’s “mixture of materialism, lust, and egoistic individualism” and denounced “the maldistribution of capitalist societies.” Articulating themes that the left calls alienation, he decried “the miserable split between material excellence and spiritual fulfillment.”
IF WE add to these affinities the aim to empower a privileged elite – the vanguard of the proletariat, the Aryan race, or Islamist theocrats – the left-Islamist alliance is not the anomaly it appears; they are brothers under their rhetorical skin.
Mussolini et al. moved from socialism to fascism and Chomsky has moved from support for Pol Pot to advocating for Hassan Nasrallah, head of Hezbollah. Carlos the Jackal, imprisoned for political murders as a Marxist, became a Muslim in prison in the belief that revolutionary Islam “attacks the ruling classes in order to achieve a more equitable redistribution of wealth.”
The legacy of oppression and the tradition of self-blame described by Levin and Wisse have eroded the barrier that being Jewish ought to have created against joining their comrades in assaulting the Jewish state. In some cases, like Chomsky’s collaboration with holocaust deniers, what Schoenfeld describes as “the murky waters of the psychosocial” must play a role.
But the core of Jewish animus towards Israel emerges from the left. As much as the fear of anti-Semitism adduced by Schoenfeld, Jewish enemies of Israel fear the opprobrium of their comrades. As Robert Wistrich has put it, on the left: “Israel-bashing is clearly the contemporary key to acceptance.”
The peculiarities of Jewish history and culture have combined with the left’s attraction to totalitarianism – left or right, secular or sacred – that has now been stripped of the veneer of progressive values. Jewish support for the enemies of Israel represents the triumph of leftism over Jewishness.
The author is professor emeritus at the Department of Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago.
I wish you seek serenity above all that hatred amassing inside of you.
Didn't Professor Emeritus call Obama a terrorist?
Thing about Fearless is...there is nothing sly about him, no half measures. He's quite upfront about the situation and his thoughts. I obviously don't agree with some of his characterizations of Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians - but at least you know where he stands.
Funnily enough, the closest the Palestinians have come to fulfilling their dreams was when there was a 'hawk' in office in Israel. I know Bibi isn't the nicest guy around if you're a Palestinian, but I think they have a better chance of moving forward with people like him, than the soft cock losers.
*Sarcasm detector goes off*
What a fecking douche. Chomsky's 'collaboration' with holocaust deniers begins and ends where his views on free speech collide with western governments.
The article is very likely to just be one long quotemine fest, given that this was ridiculously taken out of context.
He liberally chucks in Norman Finkelstein and Howard Zinn too. Those pesky sons of holocaust survivors, maybe its their parents feeding them all that anti-semitic tripe.
They're probably rebelling against their parents. It's just a phase.
nsfw
Thats what they seem to be doing
It's not anti-semetic in the slightest, as you know. Fearless seems to take every comment that isn't full of unconditional praise and support for Israel, and it's actions, and turn it into anti-semetism.