Israel, Palestine and Iran

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The thing is, I wanted to write something sarcastic about needing living space.

Something just made me pause and think, 'isn't there something sinister about the term living space?'.

Sure enough, under the new rules we are all to adopt, it would be racist to use the term living space.

So we have to stick with murder, theft and ethnic cleansing by the state Israel and those that vote for its government.

Maybe translate into a foreign language such as Ger.... ah! Perhaps not. I see your difficulty. OK, change your name to Jeremy, that should cover you.

[peterms]

7 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

 

I couldn't watch it to the end, it was too depressing.

I thought the Israelis taught their children about Nazi Germany?  As in, why it was a bad thing, not how to replay it?

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

I couldn't watch it to the end, it was too depressing.

I thought the Israelis taught their children about Nazi Germany?  As in, why it was a bad thing, not how to replay it?

I don't think you're allowed to say that.

 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I don't think you're allowed to say that.

 

He's not, it's definitely anti-semitic to compare Israel to Nazi Germany. The definition specifically says this. Peter is naughty

[peterms]

I struggle with this, I admit.

It's allowed to replicate the sentiments and actions of Nazi Germany, but verboten to comment on this?

I must report myself for re-education.

[chrisp65]

Here's a handy tip, before you post, just think, 'am I criticising Israel?', if the answer is yes, then you have a problem and you're probably a racist, senselessly opposed to legitimate democratic ethnic cleansing.

[Chindie]

It's almost like having a nation founded on a single characteristic, one that is implicitly racist, isn't a good thing.

[bickster]

27 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's almost like having a nation founded on a single characteristic, one that is implicitly racist, isn't a good thing.

Naughty step for you too

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Naughty step for you too

It's a step I'd proudly sit on.

Israel is a vile regime.

[villakram]

and the funniest thing of all is that we've gotten to a stage where a flavor of belief in a particular version of sky fairy is now equivalent and interchangeable to/with a genetic sub-group of humans.

 Completely and utterly depressingly mental.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I don't think you're allowed to say that.

This ( not you) is really depressing, because it’s utter tosh. Yes there is undoubtedly elements of the Israel state that seeks to deflect, deny, distract, twist etc criticism of Israeli state actions, vile actions, using the horrors of the genocide, murder and victimisation of millions of Jewish people 70+ years ago to “ legitimise” their horrible acts today. Is is absolutely not “disallowed” to say that this vile slaughter and oppression is wrong and inhuman.  There are powerful lobbyists and interests that “defend the worst acts of the IDF and etc.

The massive problem I feel with this is that the Israeli state actors that perpetrate these atrocities, the individual soldiers and even the seeming ingrained racism within some sections of the Israeli society, particularly the IDF, is NOT the same as “Jews” or even “Zionists”.

I’m aghast at how normal, civilised, peaceful, humans are being via distorted revulsion about some other human’s actions tarred with the same brush, and how ingrained it’s got.

Even if (hypothetically) it got to the point where chunks of Israeli society were blinded to the inhumanity of what Sections of the security forces were up to, it’s still not “Jews”. It’s “some people”.

its ok to voice, shout, scream,  abhorrence and repulsion and anger at all the wrongs. No one ( except the aforementioned lobbyists) claims it’s “not allowed”.

so, so, lazy.  So, so, unthinking, so Corbyn.  I loathe it.

 No offence Chris , it was just that your post allowed me to vent this. You’re not the target of my ire.

[chrisp65]

Just now, blandy said:

 No offence Chris 

None taken, this is discussion and I'm here to be educated!

I've just been on the Holocaust Remembrance site,  here their IHRA working definitions includes example 10:

Quote

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Earlier today, I genuinely had the thought 'living space' but Knew that in some way, i had to self censor. It strikes me, that to use that phrase would be to draw comparison and therefore I would be anti semitic. I genuinely believe that I am not.

Similarly, Peterms has said that Israel replicates the actions of that murderous racist regime. I don't think I'm ratting anyone up here, but to me, that falls foul of example 10.

If I can't work out a difference that you believe you can, then either this is a poor piece of work, or deliberately open to interpretation as a weapon, or I am deliberately dancing on the edge of racism.

 

[blandy]

8 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

None taken, this is discussion and I'm here to be educated!

I've just been on the Holocaust Remembrance site,  here their IHRA working definitions includes example 10:

Earlier today, I genuinely had the thought 'living space' but Knew that in some way, i had to self censor. It strikes me, that to use that phrase would be to draw comparison and therefore I would be anti semitic. I genuinely believe that I am not.

Similarly, Peterms has said that Israel replicates the actions of that murderous racist regime. I don't think I'm ratting anyone up here, but to me, that falls foul of example 10.

If I can't work out a difference that you believe you can, then either this is a poor piece of work, or deliberately open to interpretation as a weapon, or I am deliberately dancing on the edge of racism.

Look, I claim no expertise in any of this, and as you say we’re just discussing. In a way there are parallels with debate about “political correctness”. There will never be a universally admired set of rules. However we can all think of examples of people using the “you can’t say anything these days” and then uttering some offensive tripe.

Like I say I’m no expert, but the actions of the Nazis led to the murder of millions in gas chambers, human experiments, branding with stars and a realm of other grotesque acts on not just Jewish people, but other minorities too. Then obviously there’s the whole world war business...

Now as cruel and oppressive as Israel’s actions have been, surely critics of those acts are wise enough that they can avoid comparing Israel to the Nazis, not only because  it’s ludicrous, but also because such hyperbole signals a tendency towards anti-Semitic tropes as defined by the IHRA.  Like I said, as with political correctness, there are things you genuinely shouldn’t say and there are people (usually ~ists) who use that to make themselves out as some kind of free speech martyrs.

Whats wrong with Labour, or me or anyone else going “ok, the IHRA definition isn’t one I wholly agree with, but I recognise that it was drawn up by people wiser than us in these things, is widely accepted and doesn’t prevent me from criticising what is going on with Israel, sure I can’t call Israel or Israelis “nazis”, but actually, yeah that’s a real life Godwin’s law thing anyway and it is wildly inappropriate, so I’ll pick some different words” 

Or in rather shorter terminology “let’s not be a dick”.

[bickster]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

Look, I claim no expertise in any of this, and as you say we’re just discussing. In a way there are parallels with debate about “political correctness”. There will never be a universally admired set of rules. However we can all think of examples of people using the “you can’t say anything these days” and then uttering some offensive tripe.

Like I say I’m no expert, but the actions of the Nazis led to the murder of millions in gas chambers, human experiments, branding with stars and a realm of other grotesque acts on not just Jewish people, but other minorities too. Then obviously there’s the whole world war business...

Now as cruel and oppressive as Israel’s actions have been, surely critics of those acts are wise enough that they can avoid comparing Israel to the Nazis, not only because  it’s ludicrous, but also because such hyperbole signals a tendency towards anti-Semitic tropes as defined by the IHRA.  Like I said, as with political correctness, there are things you genuinely shouldn’t say and there are people (usually ~ists) who use that to make themselves out as some kind of free speech martyrs.

Whats wrong with Labour, or me or anyone else going “ok, the IHRA definition isn’t one I wholly agree with, but I recognise that it was drawn up by people wiser than us in these things, is widely accepted and doesn’t prevent me from criticising what is going on with Israel, sure I can’t call Israel or Israelis “nazis”, but actually, yeah that’s a real life Godwin’s law thing anyway and it is wildly inappropriate, so I’ll pick some different words” 

Or in rather shorter terminology “let’s not be a dick”.

You see, I just can't agree simply because there are parallels to be drawn AND given that the state of Israel exists as a direct result of WWII it's almost impossible not to draw them. You want to scream... Did you learn nothing as a religious group!

The parallels with Nazi Germany are there, they aren't hard to see, they aren't with the Nazi's end game as it were, they are currently in the ghettoisation and demonisation of groups of people phase.

But ignoring the Nazi Germany one for a brief moment...

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Israel is quite plainly a racist state but you can't say that because it's considered anti-semitic by the definition. I don't see how any rational clear thinking person would agree to that being part of a good definition of anti-semitism

 

[chrisp65]

Yes, I can agree with the whole sentiment there @blandy

I can come up with a couple of counter points too. I end up stuck between two points. But to endlessly chatter on does cheapen and distract the debate and allow criminals to get away, quite literally, with murder. Whilst we all debate example 10.

I'm opposed to the exceptionalism being offered the Israeli state. But I'm also opposed to becoming part of the distraction that allows child murder in occupied territory.

 

[VILLAMARV]

I still feel most people understand the difference between an individual, a race of people, a religion and a state.

I feel I cannot comment too much on the whole corbyn/zionism/what has or hasn't been said issue purely from a position of not knowing what's been said exactly and as Chrisp alludes to I'm here to be educated as much as the next man.

What upsets me more than the rhetoric or indeed the pigeon holing of whole sections of society (Something you'd all probably be able to identify as something that usually grinds my gears!) is seeing news reports of Palestinians being shot in the head across a wire fence. Or the IDF shirts that suggests shooting pregnant women so they count as 2 kills. And that that is deemed worthy of MAYBE a mention on the news while he said/she said seemingly dominates the news cycle. Disingenuous at best.

Unfortunately for any hard done by Jewish persons caught up in the middle of all this getting called a name is pretty small beans, however important the overall message may be about a slippery slope and it will fall on deaf ears until the indiscriminate slaughter and oppression of an entire section of society stops.

Basically, I'm sure there were some nice white people in South Africa during the apartheid years only that is so massively not the point there is it?

[peterms]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

The parallels with Nazi Germany are there, they aren't hard to see, they aren't with the Nazi's end game as it were, they are currently in the ghettoisation and demonisation of groups of people phase.

I think the closest parallel with Israel is apartheid South Africa: expelling people from their own land, tightly limiting movement within the country for the expropriated group, establishing in law a racist priority of one ethnic group over another, with very different rights.

Similarities with Nazi Germany would include things like comparisons between the way Jewish shopkeepers had their shops trashed and the way settlers terrorise Palestinian farmers, cut down their olive trees etc, with impunity and utter lack of redress; theft of property upheld by the state; the resources and prominence given to state propaganda (though Germany's was more inward-facing and Israel's is more external); the emphasis on ethnic purity, not mixing with the oppressed people, viewing them with contempt and seeking to erase their history (see also the US and Australia, for this attitude towards indigenous people).  And certainly establishing ghettoes, enforced by armed repression.

However, when any comparison with Nazi Germany is made, it is assumed the comparison must be to the whole machinery of the holocaust, even if a much more limited comparison is intended.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

there are parallels to be drawn AND given that the state of Israel exists as a direct result of WWII it's almost impossible not to draw them. You want to scream... Did you learn nothing as a religious group!

The parallels with Nazi Germany are there, they aren't hard to see, they aren't with the Nazi's end game as it were, they are currently in the ghettoisation and demonisation of groups of people phase.

But ignoring the Nazi Germany one for a brief moment...

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Israel is quite plainly a racist state but you can't say that because it's considered anti-semitic by the definition. I don't see how any rational clear thinking person would agree to that being part of a good definition of anti-semitism

No. partly, No and No.

There are no (sensible) parallels to be drawn between the Nazis and Israel. It's beyond ludicrous.

Sure the modern State of Israel came about following WWII, but not solely just because of WWII or because of the Holocaust, though those events clearly and undeniably had a massive influence on the situation.

The state of Israel is not a racist endeavour, it's almost the opposite.

I agree that the current Government of Israel has enacted a recent law that appears to me to be racist. Some IDF soldiers and other individuals are undoubtedly racist. I suspect there is institutional racism in parts of Israeli (and Palestinian and British and American and German and French and. Italian and Malaysian....any where else there are humans.. .etc). society. None of that however means that the existence of the state of Palestine, Britain, America, Germany...etc. is " a racist endeavour. The IHRA is right with their example.

It's OK and allowable to criticise and condemn the Israeli Gov't for implementing a discriminatory and racist law. It is not OK to say that Israel as a nation is somehow fundamentally in just existing "racist" (despite or because of the good or bad actions or laws of it's democratically elected Gov't).

[villakram]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

No. partly, No and No.

There are no (sensible) parallels to be drawn between the Nazis and Israel. It's beyond ludicrous.

Sure the modern State of Israel came about following WWII, but not solely just because of WWII or because of the Holocaust, though those events clearly and undeniably had a massive influence on the situation.

The state of Israel is not a racist endeavour, it's almost the opposite.

I agree that the current Government of Israel has enacted a recent law that appears to me to be racist. Some IDF soldiers and other individuals are undoubtedly racist. I suspect there is institutional racism in parts of Israeli (and Palestinian and British and American and German and French and. Italian and Malaysian....any where else there are humans.. .etc). society. None of that however means that the existence of the state of Palestine, Britain, America, Germany...etc. is " a racist endeavour. The IHRA is right with their example.

It's OK and allowable to criticise and condemn the Israeli Gov't for implementing a discriminatory and racist law. It is not OK to say that Israel as a nation is somehow fundamentally in just existing "racist" (despite or because of the good or bad actions or laws of it's democratically elected Gov't).

Why is it not OK to say that? 

Who gave you this authority to determine what I may say?

Simile and hyperbole are long established narrative devices. 

...and, I note how in a none too subtle way you have changed what was said and hence the argument you try to shut down (channeling Mark Regev par excellence). The existence per say of a specific nation is not what is under discussion but the establishment of a very specific state with a long documented and very specific set of founding principles which have been followed to this day.

[villakram]

4 hours ago, peterms said:

I think the closest parallel with Israel is apartheid South Africa: expelling people from their own land, tightly limiting movement within the country for the expropriated group, establishing in law a racist priority of one ethnic group over another, with very different rights.

Similarities with Nazi Germany would include things like comparisons between the way Jewish shopkeepers had their shops trashed and the way settlers terrorise Palestinian farmers, cut down their olive trees etc, with impunity and utter lack of redress; theft of property upheld by the state; the resources and prominence given to state propaganda (though Germany's was more inward-facing and Israel's is more external); the emphasis on ethnic purity, not mixing with the oppressed people, viewing them with contempt and seeking to erase their history (see also the US and Australia, for this attitude towards indigenous people).  And certainly establishing ghettoes, enforced by armed repression.

However, when any comparison with Nazi Germany is made, it is assumed the comparison must be to the whole machinery of the holocaust, even if a much more limited comparison is intended.

I would suggest that the treatment of the "Indians" or "Natives" in this fair land is also worth considering.

However, apartheid is an apt description of things.