Why do some leftists dislike jews?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Same reason right-wingers dislike Jewish people (accepted vernacular).
Same reason some red-necks hate Jewish people.
Same reason ANYONE would hate someone just because they are Jewish.
Because they are racist.

Captcha: Start saving today. Sorry Progressive, I pay very little for a shit ton of coverage with USAA.

Nobody I've ever met, regardless of political leaning, has ever hated Jews because of their Jewish-ness. Several people I know do however have strong feelings about Israel as state. Mostly it's tied to the settlement expansions into 'Palestinian' areas and the knock on effects of this to the peace talks.

Nobody (bar absolute arseholes) hates Jews because 'Jew' - most people would struggle to point out a Jewish person without the religious garb. What a lot of people do have issues with is the image we get of Israel when it comes to things like Gaza/Palestine.

The problem with this is like criticising Vatican City's politics - does that mean you hate Catholics? Or just disagree with the guys running the country? People seem to miss the 'State' part of Jewish state and assume you have a problem with Jews in general, it's a misunderstanding more than anything else.

Helmholtz Watson:

Sleekit:

that and if someone turned up in my country and tried to claim ownership to of it off the back of a thousands of years old religious book

What? Jewish claims for Israel are not just "off the back of a thousands of years old religious book". You do realize that there is credible historical proof that Jews lived in modern day Israel prior to the 1940s and that it is the place where Jews lived in ancient times, yes? Just look at the Arch of Titus to see proof that Jews lived in Jerusalem(and the surrounding area) in ancient times.

yes and "Vikings" and "Romans" lived in parts of Britain...doesn't mean it'd be alright for Norwegians or Italians to try and annex parts of it in the modern day...

what ? that's not the same ? why's that then ? oh yes because a thousands of years old religious book says they should own that part of the world...i think i covered that...

i'm very well aware Jews lived there in "ancient times"...but so did all the others.

and lets be completely frank: you're really stretching things and cherry picking history if you wish to assert the idea that the Jews were dominant and running the show for the majority of the local history...Jerusalem has changed hands more times than coin in a whorehouse...something even your own post highlights.

i am not against the idea of Jews living in or moving to their "holy land" but if i could wave my hand and change the world it would be peaceful mixed, integrated and truly secular state and Jerusalem would be some kind of international protectorate/world heritage site...but no...because God "promised"...so supposedly it's alright to throw people off their land (even when they have legal deeds and claims going back centuries) because "Bible, God, Jewish...get out"...

it was not an empty "unowned" place when people started arriving in the 40s.
that's basically what it comes down to.

and personally i think taking it by force of arms and putting other people into de facto "camps" shames Jewish history...some of them view "Arabs" now in a manner...well...do i have to say it ?...let's just say akin to how certain others viewed them in their own recent past...near "subhuman" and thus supposedly ok to take from by force and herd away for your own benefit...

"Man hands on misery to man" is a line from one of my favourite poems and in this case "the Jews" haven't been "the better man" and sought to break the chain...

they could have...but that was never really the aim going in...because of "a thousands of years old religious book"...and as a citizen of a country that fought WW2 against the principal that "might is right" i object to many of the actions committed in the process.

and although some of them may view the day they finally expunge all traces of "Palestinians" from their preferred national map as moment of triumph imho the day the rest of the peoples of the region are uninvested in "Palestine" will be a very, very dangerous dawn for "Israel"...

Leftists do not, generally, dislike Jews.

Leftists often dislike Israel. They dislike Israel for several reasons. Those being chiefly that:
1) they are opposed to Western colonialisation and imperialism. Israel is arguably a European colony maintained at the expense of the native population.
2) they are opposed to capitalism. Israel is capitalist, for a start. Perhaps more, Israel is heavily associated with and backed by the great bastions of Western capitalism and there's an ugly, tribalist fudge here: if your enemy supports something, you are inclined to oppose it.
3) I often perceive leftists like to stick up for the weak and oppressed. This means the Palestinians over the Israelis.

As is often the case, many people get sucked into guilt by association. Some leftists may not maintain cognitive boundaries between "Israel" and "Israeli" and "Jew", and so end up hating Jews from the start point of hating Israel.

Charles_Martel:

RhombusHatesYou:

Charles_Martel:
The Palestinian population has exploded since the founding of Israel.

For certain Palestinians that's not a metaphor.

Sometimes I think Israel places a higher value on a Palestinian life than Palestinians do.

Which is why Israel says they will stop using white phosphorus shells.
Because it doesn't photograph well*.
Which they never used anyway.

*not 100% certain of how good a source second link is

Captcha: Do it now!

edit-
extra links for denials
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-palestine-munitions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7823078.stm

nyysjan:

Charles_Martel:

RhombusHatesYou:

For certain Palestinians that's not a metaphor.

Sometimes I think Israel places a higher value on a Palestinian life than Palestinians do.

Which is why Israel says they will stop using white phosphorus shells.
Because it doesn't photograph well*.
Which they never used anyway.

*not 100% certain of how good a source second link is

Captcha: Do it now!

Your going to have to quote the las link because it is a pay site and I can see nothing beyond the title.

Agema:
Leftists do not, generally, dislike Jews.

Leftists often dislike Israel. They dislike Israel for several reasons. Those being chiefly that:
1) they are opposed to Western colonialisation and imperialism. Israel is arguably a European colony maintained at the expense of the native population.
2) they are opposed to capitalism. Israel is capitalist, for a start. Perhaps more, Israel is heavily associated with and backed by the great bastions of Western capitalism and there's an ugly, tribalist fudge here: if your enemy supports something, you are inclined to oppose it.
3) I often perceive leftists like to stick up for the weak and oppressed. This means the Palestinians over the Israelis.

As is often the case, many people get sucked into guilt by association. Some leftists may not maintain cognitive boundaries between "Israel" and "Israeli" and "Jew", and so end up hating Jews from the start point uof hating Israel.

.
Israel was a socialist left country from its founding, with the shift coming in the 80s.

nyysjan:
Which is why Israel says they will stop using white phosphorus shells.
Because it doesn't photograph well*.
Which they never used anyway.

*not 100% certain of how good a source second link is

Captcha: Do it now!

Yeah...WP gets an unfairly bad rap, IMHO.

Now, it is very nasty, and like the first link you gave says, using it on civilians is prohibited.

However, using any weapon on civilians is prohibited. If your soldiers are using weapons on civilians, changing their weapons isn't going to fix the problem.

WP can be used for a variety of things. It can be used to attack enemies, as a smoke screen, or as a smoke marker. It's only a problem when being used in a way it shouldn't be, same as anything else the Israelis have.

Sleekit:
yes and "Vikings" and "Romans" lived in parts of Britain...doesn't mean it'd be alright for Norwegians or Italians to try and annex parts of it in the modern day...

what ? that's not the same ? why's that then ? oh yes because a thousands of years old religious book says they should own that part of the world...i think i covered that...

Wrong.
The point of my comment was that, the claim that Jews place on the Israeli area isn't solely based off of "a thousands of years old religious book"[1], but also based off of historical proof that Jews once had a country there.

Sleekit:
i'm very well aware Jews lived there in "ancient times"...but so did all the others.

True, but I never denied the fact that other people lived in the are during the time ancient times.

Sleekit:
and lets be completely frank: you're really stretching things and cherry picking history if you wish to assert the idea that the Jews were dominant and running the show for the majority of the local history...Jerusalem has changed hands more times than coin in a whorehouse...something even your own post highlights.

Again, I never said that. I said that Jews have credible historical claims to Jerusalem that exist outside of "a thousands of years old religious book".

Sleekit:
i am not against the idea of Jews living in or moving to their "holy land" but if i could wave my hand and change the world it would be peaceful mixed, integrated and truly secular state and Jerusalem would be some kind of international protectorate/world heritage site...but no...because God "promised"...so supposedly it's alright to throw people off their land (even when they have legal deeds and claims going back centuries) because "Bible, God, Jewish...get out"...

....Or you could use that hypothetical magic "hand waving" of yours to change history and make it that the Roman Empire never bothered the Jews in the first place, which in turn would save a lot of innocent Jewish people from having to live in exile for the next millennia, in which during that time they would be victims of antisemitism from both European and Arabian society alike.

Sleekit:
it was not an empty "unowned" place when people started arriving in the 40s.
that's basically what it comes down to.

Never claimed it was.

Sleekit:
and personally i think taking it by force of arms and putting other people into de facto "camps" shames Jewish history...some of them view "Arabs" now in a manner...well...do i have to say it ?...let's just say akin to how certain others viewed them in their own recent past...near "subhuman" and thus supposedly ok to take from by force and herd away for your own benefit...

You won't hear an argument from me on the subject of how some Arab people have been treated by the Israeli government. That said, the fact that "leaders" like Haj Amin al-Husseini were quite eager to work with those who viewed Jews as sub-human, and that events like the 1929 Palestine riots occurred because Jews had "the audacity" to think that they could lay claim to (basically) a crumbling wall, while other people get an entire building, reminds me that this entire conflict is hardly something that Israel and/or Jews started.

Sleekit:
"Man hands on misery to man" is a line from one of my favourite poems and in this case "the Jews" haven't been "the better man" and sought to break the chain...

Again, I never claimed that Jews were trying to win morality points from the West and get told by them that they are "the better man".

Sleekit:
they could have...but that was never really the aim going in...because of "a thousands of years old religious book"...and as a citizen of a country that fought WW2 against the principal that "might is right" i object to many of the actions committed in the process.

image
Right....

because it clearly wouldn't be the pot calling the kettle black for Europe to judge and berate Israel for their conduct as a country towards others, given how Europe[2] is infamous for how it treated every other part of the world that had the "misfortune" to not be born a White European[3].

Sleekit:
and although some of them may view the day they finally expunge all traces of "Palestinians" from their preferred national map as moment of triumph imho the day the rest of the peoples of the region are uninvested in "Palestine" will be a very, very dangerous dawn for "Israel"...

"Expunge"? As in mass genocide or as in move from a group of people from point A to point B? I think you need to tone down the nazi comparison and also read up on how France has pretty much guaranteed that such a "dangerous dawn" could result in result in a Israeli retaliation of "biblical" proportions.[4] ,

[1] As a side note, its a bit of a stretch to say that the claim is based solely off of writing in the Tanakh considering how "extreme" right-wing Judaism is well known for its disapproval over the existence of modern day Israel.
[2] Please note that I am referring primary to the previous governments of Europe, and that I am not trying to badmouth everybody who is an ethnic-European.
[3] And that's not even getting at how various European people have treated each other throughout history.
[4] Just to clarify something, my acknowledgement of Israel's nuclear policy should not be interpreted as a sign of support for such a policy. It should go without saying that I don't wish/encourage/hope nor want Israel to every employ such a globally dangerous plan- not only would it result in the death of millions of innocent people, but I would worry that it would severely damage the overall environment on earth.

thaluikhain:

WP can be used for a variety of things. It can be used to attack enemies, as a smoke screen, or as a smoke marker. It's only a problem when being used in a way it shouldn't be, same as anything else the Israelis have.

And technically speaking, it should only be used to mark, screen, or destroy equipment. Like the equipment the personnel are wearing. Not shitting you, that's an excuse I've heard for its use against personnel.

LetalisK:

thaluikhain:

WP can be used for a variety of things. It can be used to attack enemies, as a smoke screen, or as a smoke marker. It's only a problem when being used in a way it shouldn't be, same as anything else the Israelis have.

And technically speaking, it should only be used to mark, screen, or destroy equipment. Like the equipment the personnel are wearing. Not shitting you, that's an excuse I've heard for its use against personnel.

Yeah, that sounds familiar.

OTOH, according to who? Lots of nation use it, and there's no international treaty banning incendiaries, they just make for very bad press.

Helmholtz Watson:

image
Right....

etc

thanks for that.

sometimes i need to be reminded of the way...of certain things...

there's so much low hanging fruit in that post ("especially from an American") and this subject in general we could go at it tit for tat for days putting forward and chipping away at historical equivalences ...but i don't represent a continent or the sins of my fathers...and neither do you...and i can't be bothered with all of this *gestures to the forums* any more...i've been buffeting back and forth for while...and your choice gif hit a cord perhaps even more than you intended...that and "November" probably...

tbth my only real modicum of concern involving Israel/Palestine relates to IronRulers wellbeing...because he borders on my "monkeysphere" and i think, from what i've read of him, that he's a good man...regardless of how some might care to view or frame my personal opinion on such matters...i hope that Israel/Palestine has many more and that they serve future history well...which is no doubt hopelessly condescending of me or something...whatever...when all's said and done i can't "fix it"...imo only "good men" there can possibly do that...and i'm more than used to people having an often deservedly low opinion of me back irl...the dichotomy between who i am to some people and how i post here would blow some peoples minds...

but aside from that "hope" it could be turned to radioactive glass for the next few millennia and in all honestly it likely wouldn't affect me, my life or the life of my nation at all...such is life at this particular part of "the ends of the Earth"...i have probably have more to legitimately fear from the collapse of containment at Chernobyl than "conflict in the Middle East"...but slowly wasting concrete doesn't make for interesting press i guess...

i should have heeded my instincts and stayed out of the thread after my first post...i'm just not up for the game any more...so i'm heading back to the showers.

čisd ri gaoth nam beann gus an traogh na h-uisgeachan.

sląinte mhath...ALL of you. past and present.

goodbye.

Because they can't tell the difference between Israel the Jewish state, Judaism, and being Jewish and thus think everyone Jewish and/or follower of Judaism is associated with/responsible for the actions of Israel.

thaluikhain:

nyysjan:
Which is why Israel says they will stop using white phosphorus shells.
Because it doesn't photograph well*.
Which they never used anyway.

*not 100% certain of how good a source second link is

Captcha: Do it now!

Yeah...WP gets an unfairly bad rap, IMHO.

Now, it is very nasty, and like the first link you gave says, using it on civilians is prohibited.

However, using any weapon on civilians is prohibited. If your soldiers are using weapons on civilians, changing their weapons isn't going to fix the problem.

WP can be used for a variety of things. It can be used to attack enemies, as a smoke screen, or as a smoke marker. It's only a problem when being used in a way it shouldn't be, same as anything else the Israelis have.

On civilians or civilian occupied areas.
WP is banned for same reason Chemical and Biological weapons are banned, inhumane, and too easy to mess up with.

Boris Goodenough:
Because they can't tell the difference between Israel the Jewish state, Judaism, and being Jewish and thus think everyone Jewish and/or follower of Judaism is associated with/responsible for the actions of Israel.

Often we are not allowed to differentiate between Israel and Jews in general, anytime someone criticizes Israel, there is a god change of being called an anti semite, and the american Jewish lobby (note: not American Jews, just a small subset of the politically motivated subset of the American jews) seems to often work double shifts to ensure that this remains so.

It's been said before but I'll say it again (mostly out of boredom and waiting for my day to start), you're confusing Israel and Jews as being the same thing.

As home-slice mentions above, criticizing Israel is often the first step to being called an anti-semite, even if you are just criticizing Israel, not the ethnicity of Hebrews itself, or the jewish religion.

Every ethnic group on the surface of the planet probably has some claim to some region they are not currently inhabiting. In fact, I can legally prove that my own family were forced into exile for dubious at best reasons in the french revolution. Does that mean I can go to Paris and demand the money that was stolen and the building that was taken?

Fuck no it doesn't. The Israelite claim is based on the diaspora, which is not unique to them ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diasporas ) backed by the fact that yes, their ancestors did live in that area.

Israel exist for, let's simplify it down to two reasons. The 'nice' reason and the 'probably realistic' reason.

1. The jews got the shit kicked out of them during the reign of nazi-ism and facism to the point that even the traditionalist anti-Jewish nations said it had gone to far.

2. The middle east was already beginning to show heavy signs of anti-colonialism and anti-westernism, and the nations wanted someone in the region who was beholden to them.

Were there individuals in the nations who genuinely wanted the jewish people to finally have a nation, for whatever reasons? I have no doubt. No doubt at all. But this is a game of politics and reason #2 seems more likely.

nyysjan:

Often we are not allowed to differentiate between Israel and Jews in general, anytime someone criticizes Israel, there is a god change of being called an anti semite, and the american Jewish lobby (note: not American Jews, just a small subset of the politically motivated subset of the American jews) seems to often work double shifts to ensure that this remains so.

I've seen the documentary Defamation, so yes that rings true.

I don't know anybody, left right or center, who hates Jews.
I know a lot of people who hate Zionists, though, for the same reason people dislike other supremacy groups.

ShipofFools:
I don't know anybody, left right or center, who hates Jews.
I know a lot of people who hate Zionists, though, for the same reason people dislike other supremacy groups.

.
Nationalism must be a dirty word in your dictionary then...

nyysjan:

Charles_Martel:

RhombusHatesYou:

For certain Palestinians that's not a metaphor.

Sometimes I think Israel places a higher value on a Palestinian life than Palestinians do.

Which is why Israel says they will stop using white phosphorus shells.
Because it doesn't photograph well*.
Which they never used anyway.

*not 100% certain of how good a source second link is

Captcha: Do it now!

edit-
extra links for denials
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-palestine-munitions
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7823078.stm

.
All right, this is how it worked : There was no coordination between the three different entities responsible for speaking officially for the army. Those types of munitions are illegal but some treaties Israel didn't sign. In reality, the ministry of foreign affairs and hasbara orgs got into a state of shock. They fired back without checking. There was a committee, a few names were changed and Israel got into a political blunder. I can't say some things, but lets just say I know they're not out of use. That and some dozens of people felt the injuries stemming from phosphorous burns. They're horrible fourth degree burns.

TheIronRuler:

ShipofFools:
I don't know anybody, left right or center, who hates Jews.
I know a lot of people who hate Zionists, though, for the same reason people dislike other supremacy groups.

.
Nationalism must be a dirty word in your dictionary then...

Hehe, it actually is in mine. Well, not dirty exactly, but carrying very bad connotations, yeah.

I don't hate Jews. I hate the state of Israel. Totally different thing! There's Jews that hate Israel and what it's doing too.

It's the equivalent of the USA attacking and taking over Africa. "Our ancestors came from there so it's ours!" Isn't a valid excuse for treating people less than cattle, taking their land and shooting up their children.

Sure, some Palestinians are creating makeshift rockets to launch and Israeli households, but the retaliation for these acts that rarely ever kill people because the explosives are so shoddily made, is to slaughter with assault rifles and tanks so many more people with nothing to do with it.

Hell, if it wasn't for the Israel/Palestine conflict we might not even have a War on Terror right now. Think about it!

Brainpaint:

Hell, if it wasn't for the Israel/Palestine conflict we might not even have a War on Terror right now. Think about it!

I think you might want to look at what you just typed, because I don't recall Osama Bin Laden claiming that the entire reason for 9/11 was the existence of/conflict with Israel.

Here's a thing I never understood. Why do so many people question Israel's right to exist and legitimacy, but not a single person, not even one, questions Syria, Lebanon, Iraq or Jordan? All five countries were created from territory belonging to the Ottoman Empire, all were created by mandates and every one of them was wholly agreed on by the League of Nations. The League of Nations which was *everybody*. Everybody agreed to create these 5 countries, including Israel, but I've never heard anyone question whether Jordan should belong to someone else, nor whether Iraq and everyone in it has no right to be there or exist.

This was in 1920, less than a hundred years ago. People should stop pulling out biblical references and check history. Every nation, including arab ones, agreed to Israel being created. One cannot question Israel's legitimacy without questioning the others created at the same time, by the same people in the same way. People feel terrible for displaced Arab refugees in Gaza and the West Bank, but not a single person bats an eyelid at the equal number (at the time) of Jewish refugees whose homes, businesses, wealth and sometimes their lives were taken as they were forced out of Arab lands. Not one person will condemn Arab nations for it, but they'll condemn Israel because it exists.

KingsGambit:
Here's a thing I never understood. Why do so many people question Israel's right to exist and legitimacy, but not a single person, not even one, questions Syria, Lebanon, Iraq or Jordan? All five countries were created from territory belonging to the Ottoman Empire, all were created by mandates and every one of them was wholly agreed on by the League of Nations. The League of Nations which was *everybody*. Everybody agreed to create these 5 countries, including Israel, but I've never heard anyone question whether Jordan should belong to someone else, nor whether Iraq and everyone in it has no right to be there or exist.

Very few people contest Israel's right to exist and legitimacy. They mostly question it having quite so much territory.

Israel is also arguably different from the others in the sense that it was given very large districts where the majority resident population rejected the mandate. Jews owned under 10% of the land in Palestine, but Israel was to comprise 56%.

This was in 1920, less than a hundred years ago. People should stop pulling out biblical references and check history. Every nation, including arab ones, agreed to Israel being created.

Yes and no. Nearly all Arab nations (and a few other countries) rejected the UN Palestine partition plan: they were outvoted.

Agema:

Very few people contest Israel's right to exist and legitimacy. They mostly question it having quite so much territory.

I think that its a bit naive at best and intellectual dishonest at worst to make that claim. Hamas and Fatah have both claimed that they don't recognize Israel's right to exist.

Agema:

Yes and no. Nearly all Arab nations (and a few other countries) rejected the UN Palestine partition plan: they were outvoted.

Sounds like Israel and Kosovo has something in common then.

Helmholtz Watson:

Brainpaint:

Hell, if it wasn't for the Israel/Palestine conflict we might not even have a War on Terror right now. Think about it!

I think you might want to look at what you just typed, because I don't recall Osama Bin Laden claiming that the entire reason for 9/11 was the existence of/conflict with Israel.

There were more people than him involved. There are also many different factions within Al-Quaeda and affiliates with their own internal motivations.

It's not hard to find information and discussions regarding The Israel-Palestine conflict and Al-Quaeda either using it as an excuse/reason for attacks or as a way of recruiting new members and gaining more support with local and foreign communities. Some of the recruited British and North American members that have been recorded even explicitly state that their reasons for joining was because of anger directed at Israel for the treatment of Palestinians.

There's an entire 12 years worth of stuff to read/watch/listen to and you seem to have missed all of it!

Skeleon:

TheIronRuler:

ShipofFools:
I don't know anybody, left right or center, who hates Jews.
I know a lot of people who hate Zionists, though, for the same reason people dislike other supremacy groups.

.
Nationalism must be a dirty word in your dictionary then...

Hehe, it actually is in mine. Well, not dirty exactly, but carrying very bad connotations, yeah.

.
To Germans the trauma from the great war created the opposite effect from the Jews. What right does a person have to disqualify a type of identity his history embraced not too long ago?
.

Agema:

KingsGambit:
Here's a thing I never understood. Why do so many people question Israel's right to exist and legitimacy, but not a single person, not even one, questions Syria, Lebanon, Iraq or Jordan? All five countries were created from territory belonging to the Ottoman Empire, all were created by mandates and every one of them was wholly agreed on by the League of Nations. The League of Nations which was *everybody*. Everybody agreed to create these 5 countries, including Israel, but I've never heard anyone question whether Jordan should belong to someone else, nor whether Iraq and everyone in it has no right to be there or exist.

Very few people contest Israel's right to exist and legitimacy. They mostly question it having quite so much territory.

Israel is also arguably different from the others in the sense that it was given very large districts where the majority resident population rejected the mandate. Jews owned under 10% of the land in Palestine, but Israel was to comprise 56%.

This was in 1920, less than a hundred years ago. People should stop pulling out biblical references and check history. Every nation, including arab ones, agreed to Israel being created.

Yes and no. Nearly all Arab nations (and a few other countries) rejected the UN Palestine partition plan: they were outvoted.

.
Its territory was never defined past the mandate if palestine which it had to share with a neighboring arab country. At the end of 49 it shared the territory with 2 other arab countries. The israeli founders themselves didn't define the borders of the state. "The majority resident" (on the proposed territory) - the number of jews on that territory was nearly the same as the arab. You however are conviniently omitting a crucial fact - they were taking in account the hundreds if thousands of refugee jews in europe and the ptison island of cyprus to flood the new nation, which they did... only to die in the war right after.

He didn't talk about the un partition plan but the independence or mandate in the early 20s... Syria and Lebanon went through hardships, French assaults and shaky politics in their founding, not really going through the same path as Israel.

Brainpaint:

There's an entire 12 years worth of stuff to read/watch/listen to and you seem to have missed all of it!

Probably because I don't listen to people who try to tell me that "the Jews" are responsible for 9/11. I would have hoped that people had moved past blaming Jews for things like conspiracy theories, regardless of whether those theories involve poisoning wells or causing 9/11.

thaluikhain:

LetalisK:

thaluikhain:

WP can be used for a variety of things. It can be used to attack enemies, as a smoke screen, or as a smoke marker. It's only a problem when being used in a way it shouldn't be, same as anything else the Israelis have.

And technically speaking, it should only be used to mark, screen, or destroy equipment. Like the equipment the personnel are wearing. Not shitting you, that's an excuse I've heard for its use against personnel.

Yeah, that sounds familiar.

OTOH, according to who? Lots of nation use it, and there's no international treaty banning incendiaries, they just make for very bad press.

Sorry for the delayed response time, my internet is total shit in my new place. Anyway, it seems nations and organizations are kind of wishy washy when it comes to WP. "WP is a chemical weapon, so I guess would should LOOK A SQUIRREL!" At least in the US armed forces, we're not supposed to use WP for anti-personnel purposes, but it's not really enforced.

TheIronRuler:

ShipofFools:
I don't know anybody, left right or center, who hates Jews.
I know a lot of people who hate Zionists, though, for the same reason people dislike other supremacy groups.

Nationalism must be a dirty word in your dictionary then...

Yes.
It's not like nationalism has done the world a lot of good now, has it?

Also I am one of those assholes who do believe Israel is trying their gosh darn hardest to do horrible things to the Palestine guys.
When is Israel going to start their final solution to the Palestine problem?

@TheIronRuler

To Germans the trauma from the great war created the opposite effect from the Jews.

Perhaps, but it's not like there's much positive about nationalism I perceive when other nations engage in it, either. It usually leads to increased tribalism, ignorance, inability towards self-criticism, dislike or even hatred of others. It blinkers and blinds people. It's no coincidence the image of the flag-waving ultranationalist American (as an example) carries negative connotations, too, so it's really not just about Germans.

What right does a person have to disqualify a type of identity his history embraced not too long ago?

Well, realizing that embracing this type of identity was a big mistake, for one thing. Learning from the mistakes of my ancestors. In fact: I'm not my ancestors. So the fact that they embraced such harmful nonsense does not mean I can't criticize them (or other nationalists) for it. In fact, why in the world would you think I wouldn't have the right to criticize nationalism just because previous Germans embraced it in some of its most extreme forms, like that implies some complicity of mine?

Helmholtz Watson:

Agema:

Very few people contest Israel's right to exist and legitimacy. They mostly question it having quite so much territory.

I think that its a bit naive at best and intellectual dishonest at worst to make that claim. Hamas and Fatah have both claimed that they don't recognize Israel's right to exist.

Can you tell us what percentage of the 7+ billion world population HAMAS and Fatah comprise?

TheIronRuler:

Its territory was never defined past the mandate if palestine which it had to share with a neighboring arab country. At the end of 49 it shared the territory with 2 other arab countries. The israeli founders themselves didn't define the borders of the state. "The majority resident" (on the proposed territory) - the number of jews on that territory was nearly the same as the arab.

If you take the entire allotted Jewish land according to the the UN partition plan, the Jews were a majority. However, this involves a fair bit of arranging. For instance, take a city with 50,000 Jews and 10,000 Muslims, and attach to it a rural area a hundred times larger with 35,000 Muslims and 1,000 Jews, you can indeed say the district has a Jewish majority. I am not sure those rural Muslims need think that districting fair or valid.

You however are conviniently omitting a crucial fact - they were taking in account the hundreds if thousands of refugee jews in europe and the ptison island of cyprus to flood the new nation, which they did... only to die in the war right after.

From the P.O.V. of Arab Palestinians, I think they might justifiably be outraged at the prospect of their land being handed to a Jewish state on behalf of a load of people who didn't live there and never had, and so reject such a proposal. I think anyone could and should easily be able to understand why the Arabs would be so upset, even if they did not agree.

He didn't talk about the un partition plan but the independence or mandate in the early 20s... Syria and Lebanon went through hardships, French assaults and shaky politics in their founding, not really going through the same path as Israel.

This is pretty much irrelevant to any point I made.

Yes but I have to wonder, how are any of the people there who claim to be Jews, related to the Jews of the scriptures?

That's like saying if a group of Caucasian traveled to Nigeria and learned and practiced Yoruba , that means that Caucasians were the original people of the Yoruba .

Its a flawed logic, since history shows, that the people of modern day Israel control, are from Europe not east Africa. Modern day Israel is the aftermath of political movement. Not religion.

Agema:

Helmholtz Watson:

Agema:

Very few people contest Israel's right to exist and legitimacy. They mostly question it having quite so much territory.

I think that its a bit naive at best and intellectual dishonest at worst to make that claim. Hamas and Fatah have both claimed that they don't recognize Israel's right to exist.

Can you tell us what percentage of the 7+ billion world population HAMAS and Fatah comprise?

Can you tell me why your trying to move the goal post and not just acknowledge that it isn't just a "few people" that don't recognize Israel's right to exist? Or do you seriously think that when discussing Israel right to exist, the debate should include all of humanity?
If that is the case, then I must say that I can't fathom a reason why its relevant to this conversation as to what tribal people in places like Papua New Genia think about Israels foundation, and I really don't understand why you think that the opinions of isolated tribes are some how important enough to consider when discussing who disagrees with Israels existence.

As I said, I think you are shift the goal post because while you can include the opinions of obscure tribes throughout the world, you are the only person I've ever met that seems to want to include their opinion when claiming that "very few people contest Israel's right to exist and legitimacy".

For the record though, it isn't just Hamas and Fatah that don't recognize Israels right to exist. Granted, the total number of people that live in these countries don't make up the majority of the worlds population, they certainly demonstrate that its more than just a "few people" that don't recognize Israels existence.

ShipofFools:

TheIronRuler:

ShipofFools:
I don't know anybody, left right or center, who hates Jews.
I know a lot of people who hate Zionists, though, for the same reason people dislike other supremacy groups.

Nationalism must be a dirty word in your dictionary then...

Yes.
It's not like nationalism has done the world a lot of good now, has it?

Also I am one of those assholes who do believe Israel is trying their gosh darn hardest to do horrible things to the Palestine guys.
When is Israel going to start their final solution to the Palestine problem?

.
This ought to be ignored, but I'm replying to this just to tell you that I'm appalled at what you perceive as a clever pun and deeply saddened some people have those kinds of thoughts. I'm also annoyed at what you said, which meant only to personally provoke me and not provoke any type of conversation, since this didn't carry much content.
.

Skeleon:
@TheIronRuler

To Germans the trauma from the great war created the opposite effect from the Jews.

Perhaps, but it's not like there's much positive about nationalism I perceive when other nations engage in it, either. It usually leads to increased tribalism, ignorance, inability towards self-criticism, dislike or even hatred of others. It blinkers and blinds people. It's no coincidence the image of the flag-waving ultranationalist American (as an example) carries negative connotations, too, so it's really not just about Germans.

What right does a person have to disqualify a type of identity his history embraced not too long ago?

Well, realizing that embracing this type of identity was a big mistake, for one thing. Learning from the mistakes of my ancestors. In fact: I'm not my ancestors. So the fact that they embraced such harmful nonsense does not mean I can't criticize them (or other nationalists) for it. In fact, why in the world would you think I wouldn't have the right to criticize nationalism just because previous Germans embraced it in some of its most extreme forms, like that implies some complicity of mine?

.
Nationalism is a structure for building a group. Any group (except for all-inclusive 'human', which also rejects some deemed 'inhuman') denies other people as a definition - to create a group, a bond between people, you would have to differentiate themselves from others. In this occasion, it's the construct of "nationality". The modern era carries with it the old of the nationalistic era, yet it doesn't provide a different alternative. Creating a nation state, a political entity, entails benefits for the people governed by it - protection was the most important thing at the time, followed by allowing them to preserve their group identities. You may support the mixture of cultures, but that was what happened and is still happening in Israel at the time, even though it may seem so nationalistic to some.

The embrace of this type of identity created something Germans and French and any others like them took for granted, which was a place to call home and feel safe in. Racism was and still is a great factor for the reason why Jews wouldn't integrate into other groups, and why they couldn't be safe living among others.
.

Agema:

Helmholtz Watson:

Agema:

Very few people contest Israel's right to exist and legitimacy. They mostly question it having quite so much territory.

I think that its a bit naive at best and intellectual dishonest at worst to make that claim. Hamas and Fatah have both claimed that they don't recognize Israel's right to exist.

Can you tell us what percentage of the 7+ billion world population HAMAS and Fatah comprise?

TheIronRuler:

Its territory was never defined past the mandate if palestine which it had to share with a neighboring arab country. At the end of 49 it shared the territory with 2 other arab countries. The israeli founders themselves didn't define the borders of the state. "The majority resident" (on the proposed territory) - the number of jews on that territory was nearly the same as the arab.

If you take the entire allotted Jewish land according to the the UN partition plan, the Jews were a majority. However, this involves a fair bit of arranging. For instance, take a city with 50,000 Jews and 10,000 Muslims, and attach to it a rural area a hundred times larger with 35,000 Muslims and 1,000 Jews, you can indeed say the district has a Jewish majority. I am not sure those rural Muslims need think that districting fair or valid.

You however are conviniently omitting a crucial fact - they were taking in account the hundreds if thousands of refugee jews in europe and the ptison island of cyprus to flood the new nation, which they did... only to die in the war right after.

From the P.O.V. of Arab Palestinians, I think they might justifiably be outraged at the prospect of their land being handed to a Jewish state on behalf of a load of people who didn't live there and never had, and so reject such a proposal. I think anyone could and should easily be able to understand why the Arabs would be so upset, even if they did not agree.

He didn't talk about the un partition plan but the independence or mandate in the early 20s... Syria and Lebanon went through hardships, French assaults and shaky politics in their founding, not really going through the same path as Israel.

This is pretty much irrelevant to any point I made.

.
Not using that method would cause unfeasible borders for any country to exist in.

At the end of the day I understand why the local arab leadership fought the Jews at the eve of the UN declaration. Yo are arranging statistics in a manner that seems as if Jews owned little land and were a minority in what parcel of land their were supposed to receive, which would serve to justify the actions of the Arabs in their unilateral declaration of war on the Jewish population there.

The last bit was a mixu-p of you referring to the creation of Israel and the person you responded to speaking of its legitimacy and comparing it to the other nations forged at the same time - not the late 40s, but the early 20s.

Grandcrusader:
Yes but I have to wonder, how are any of the people there who claim to be Jews, related to the Jews of the scriptures?

They are related biologically to one another. IMO the reason being is that Judaism doesn't encourage proselytizing, and makes it very difficult for non-Jews to convert, while at the same time requiring Jews to only marry other Jews. From what I've heard, in the past this sometimes was taken to extremes and meant that parents would rather their kids "in the family" than marry a non-Jew- personally I think this is only a rumor and I've never seen it backed up with proof.

That said, while I don't doubt that there have been Jews that married out in the past, its generally been frowned upon.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked