I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

My Imaginary GF posted:

I had a longer post and lost it while looking for citations.

Let's use the case of polygamy in Israel. Is it OK for Israel to outlaw polygamy, even though it discriminates against some religious, racial, and ethnic groups? Of loving course; if you want to live in a state, you have to give up a bit of freedom in order to adhere to that state's social contract. If you refuse to adhere to that state's social contract, go somewhere else or organize to change the social contract while remaining in accord with the state's sovreign right to rule by law.

In my opinion, it depends on if the state in question enforces social laws within the context of a democratic, fair system, and is not an actively racist apartheid state which is currently brutally and illegally occupying land.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 08:24

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

My Imaginary GF posted:

I had a longer post and lost it while looking for citations.

Let's use the case of polygamy in Israel. Is it OK for Israel to outlaw polygamy, even though it discriminates against some religious, racial, and ethnic groups? Of loving course; if you want to live in a state, you have to give up a bit of freedom in order to adhere to that state's social contract. If you refuse to adhere to that state's social contract, go somewhere else or organize to change the social contract while remaining in accord with the state's sovreign right to rule by law.

What's with your goddamn weirdo obsession with polygamy, anyway while polygamy is officially illegal in Israel it is actually tolerated when practiced by the Bedouin minority. Read about it here: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4...%A8%D7%90%D7%9C

Can't find non-hebrew sources sorry, it's time you brushed up on your alef bet anyhow.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:46

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

emanresu tnuocca posted:

I never said 'horsefaced' was antisemitic, I said that the automatic labeling of 'any random Israeli' (i.e Doron Matalon, some model he knows absolutely nothing about) as a murderer reeks of bigotry and anti-semitism, coming from a person with his track record of weird misogynistic comments directed particularly at Israeli women I do not feel like making any excuses for him.

Now for actually interesting posts:

Interesting.

I found this also: http://www.newjerseysolidarity.org/resources/kanafani/kanafani4c.html which seems to be a rather thorough review, it seems odd though that for the focus given to the effects of the Zionist invasion this particular paragraph receives such little focus:

I will want to review some of the primary sources for that pamphlet at some point but for the moment it seems sufficiently researched, there is no doubt that the JNF evicted a portion of the palestinian peasantry from their lands and that this contributed a lot to the rising tensions, however it's worth noting that the zionists themselves were not the only ones complicit in this process of land appropriation and that they were in many ways taking advantage of the broken rear end class system left in place by the Ottomans being further broken down by the brits, it does seem to me though that Palestine was undergoing a lot of changes that contributed to making life worse for the Palestinian lower classes that were not all fair to lay upon the zionist advent, for instance, the rapid population growth and the fact that the majority of lands were in the first place not owned by the peasants themselves.

As to our original disagreement as far as 'the initiation of hostilities' were concerned, I do agree that there was definitely cause for anger against the zionists by the time the brits started running the show, this does not prove either way that the zionists were indeed constantly working on a masterplan for the ethnic cleansing of the entirety of mandatory palestine though and given the actual state of things at the eve of the nakba I still believe that the nakba can plausibly be viewed as born out of opportunism rather than of a historical plan laid out back in the late 19th century.

Anyway it's late and I'm starting to feel like this post is barely coherent, I'll see if I have anything more meaningful to say tomorrow.

Seems like an interesting thing to do would be to compare JNF agricultural practices with other practices in the region. What matters isn't that JNF leased land and evicted those who were unable to repay the terms of their loans, what matters is whether the rate at which JNF engaged in these practices is comprible to similar regional, and global, practices.

Much has been written about the social impacts of zionism and agricultural practices in Palestine during the Ottoman and Mandate periods. Has this subject been explored through the framework of business history?

emanresu tnuocca posted:

What's with your goddamn weirdo obsession with polygamy, anyway while polygamy is officially illegal in Israel it is actually tolerated when practiced by the Bedouin minority. Read about it here: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4...%A8%D7%90%D7%9C

Can't find non-hebrew sources sorry, it's time you brushed up on your alef bet anyhow.

Its a business practice which is best banned and actively repressed by state institutions.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:51

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

My Imaginary GF posted:

I had a longer post and lost it while looking for citations.

Let's use the case of polygamy in Israel. Is it OK for Israel to outlaw polygamy, even though it discriminates against some religious, racial, and ethnic groups? Of loving course; if you want to live in a state, you have to give up a bit of freedom in order to adhere to that state's social contract. If you refuse to adhere to that state's social contract, go somewhere else or organize to change the social contract while remaining in accord with the state's sovreign right to rule by law.

Outlawing polygamy applies to all groups. False comparison. We don't need to make those, because the laws that discriminate others and don't touch Jews in Israel are wide and varied.

Israel's social contract is that if you aren't a Jew, ethnically or religiously, you have less rights then others, in most sectors of life. Should black South Africans just have moved elsewhere in apartheid South Africa? Blacks under Jim Crow? Answer this question. Why do you think racial and religious discrimination is permissible?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:52

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

DarkCrawler posted:

Outlawing polygamy applies to all groups. False comparison. We don't need to make those, because the laws that discriminate others and don't touch Jews in Israel are wide and varied.

Israel's social contract is that if you aren't a Jew, ethnically or religiously, you have less rights then others, in most sectors of life. Should black South Africans just have moved elsewhere in apartheid South Africa? Blacks under Jim Crow? Answer this question. Why do you think racial and religious discrimination is permissible?

If you aren't a Jew and wish to be regarded as a Jew, the simplest solution is to become a Jew. The process for an individual to become a Jew applies to all groups, thus making your example a false comparison.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:54

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

My Imaginary GF posted:

If you aren't a Jew and wish to be regarded as a Jew, the simplest solution is to become a Jew. The process for an individual to become a Jew applies to all groups, thus making your example a false comparison.

Quite a post you have here.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:55

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

My Imaginary GF posted:

If you aren't a Jew and wish to be regarded as a Jew, the simplest solution is to become a Jew. The process for an individual to become a Jew applies to all groups, thus making your example a false comparison.

That's not a solution for Palestinian Arabs in Israel, as has been pointed out to you before, by several Israeli Jews. Again, stop dodging the question. Why do you think its OK for a state to demand you are of a certain religious or racial group before getting your civil rights, even as a native? Converting to Islam is lot easier, should all the Jews in Arab countries have done that?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 01:58

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

DarkCrawler posted:

That's not a solution for Palestinian Arabs in Israel, as has been pointed out to you before, by several Israeli Jews. Again, stop dodging the question. Why do you think its OK for a state to demand you are of a certain religious or racial group before getting your civil rights, even as a native? Converting to Islam is lot easier, should all the Jews in Arab countries have done that?

It depends upon the process used by which a state determines how to best implement policy in accord with the state's commonly understood constitutional values. Were all Jews in Arab countries given the option to convert to Islam an implementational effect of democratically-derived policy?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:05

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

My Imaginary GF posted:

It depends upon the process used by which a state determines how to best implement policy in accord with the state's commonly understood constitutional values. Were all Jews in Arab countries given the option to convert to Islam an implementational effect of democratically-derived policy?

But isn't it wrong for a state to hold one ethnic or religious group on a higher level than those not of said ethnic or religious group, if that state has the same legal power over all groups?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:08

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

DarkCrawler posted:

Why do you think its OK for a state to demand you are of a certain religious or racial group before getting your civil rights, even as a native?

My Imaginary GF posted:

It depends...

That's a pretty absurd and fringe position you've got there but it's probably required of people who defend Israeli policies.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:09

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

My Imaginary GF posted:

It depends upon the process used by which a state determines how to best implement policy in accord with the state's commonly understood constitutional values. Were all Jews in Arab countries given the option to convert to Islam an implementational effect of democratically-derived policy?

Everyone is given the option to become a Muslim everywhere, so yes.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Islam_from_Judaism

Arab Israelis don't have that option, and religious and racial discrimination is not a commonly understood constitutional value either way. So again, why do you think religious and racial discrimination is OK in any condition? What is the positive result or value? Stop dodging the question.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:10

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

TEAYCHES posted:

But isn't it wrong for a state to hold one ethnic or religious group on a higher level than those not of said ethnic or religious group, if that state has the same legal power over all groups?

Jizya is a discriminatory practice which cannot be justified in the modern world, and for which reparations should be owed.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:11

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

My Imaginary GF posted:

Jizya is a discriminatory practice which cannot be justified in the modern world, and for which reparations should be owed.

I do not believe anyone here would seriously defend state implementation of the Jizya as just government.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:12

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

My Imaginary GF posted:

Jizya is a discriminatory practice which cannot be justified in the modern world, and for which reparations should be owed.

My Imaginary GF posted:

With religion, its an acceptable practice for state institutions to incentivize participation in the state religion.

Try to make up your mind. It's hard to understand why you think religious and racial discrimination is OK when you disapprove it being done by non-Jews.

DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Mar 8, 2015

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:15

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

State Religion.

The Middle East's greatest western democracy.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:17

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

This is where I have a difficult time sussing out why the United States shouldn't be allied with the other pseudo-Republican theocracy, Iran.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:20

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

DarkCrawler posted:

Try to make up your mind. It's hard to understand why you think religious and racial discrimination is OK when you disapprove it being done by non-Jews.

Jizya violates an individual's fundamental human right for property ownership by seizing the property of minority groups. Israeli policies do not discriminate in the processes through which they appropriate property. What matters is the process through which policy is implemented, not necessarily the affects of the policies implemented through those processes.

TEAYCHES posted:

This is where I have a difficult time sussing out why the United States shouldn't be allied with the other pseudo-Republican theocracy, Iran.

Iran commits acts of terrorism against Americans and American allies. Before the 9/11 attack, Iranian state policy resulted in the greatest American loss of life to terrorism.

If Iran were to return to a constitutional monarchy in accord with American standards of acceptable state conduct, then Iran would be a stalwart ally of America.

My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Mar 8, 2015

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:21

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

My Imaginary GF posted:

Israeli policies do not discriminate in the processes through which they appropriate property.

Oh word?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:22

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

My Imaginary GF posted:

Jizya violates an individual's fundamental human right for property ownership by seizing the property of minority groups. Israeli policies do not discriminate in the processes through which they appropriate property. What matters is the process through which policy is implemented, not necessarily the affects of the policies implemented through those processes.

Only civil wars can truly justifiably change policy. In civil wars, the mettle of every opposing position is pushed to the limit. Elections are shams, and peaceful transitions of power destroy countries.

Civil wars and the purges that follow are the only way forward, only then can men of mettle and character enact policy, which is justified as spoils of war.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:24

Avshalom: Feb 14, 2012; by Lowtax

Ariel Sharon was a great man.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:24

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

My Imaginary GF posted:

If Iran were to return to a constitutional monarchy

Oh word?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:25

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Avshalom posted:

Ariel Sharon was a great man.

As was Lenin.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 02:25

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

My Imaginary GF posted:

Jizya violates an individual's fundamental human right for property ownership by seizing the property of minority groups. Israeli policies do not discriminate in the processes through which they appropriate property. What matters is the process through which policy is implemented, not necessarily the affects of the policies implemented through those processes.

And you keep dodging the question. Let's try to narrow this down. You think that religious and racial discrimination is okay if it is done by a process that is in your opinion suitable. Is this correct? You're not opposed to apartheid as a concept, just in the methods it has been achieved in some cases.

So when Israel gives greater government subsidies and support to Jews by seizing the property of Arab Israelis through taxation, this is not wrong? Israeli policies discriminate in the processes through which they dole out property - Jews receive the unequal share of taxation that is applied equally. If Jews automatically receive more money from the state because of their ethnic background, should Arabs then not pay less taxes?

DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Mar 8, 2015

# ? Mar 8, 2015 03:08

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

If Jews and Arabs are subject to the same law within the same state, then any discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and religion is inherently wrong.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 03:12

Duckbox: Sep 7, 2007

My Imaginary GF posted:

Race and religion? With religion, its an acceptable practice for state institutions to incentivize participation in the state religion. Would you call it discrimination that the Sovreign of Vatican State must be Catholic, or that the Head of the Commonwealth can only belong to the Church of England?

There have been multiple civil wars fought over this very issue. In fact, the 17th century wars of religion are one of the main reasons that the British monarchy lost almost all of its political power. That MIGF would use it as example of an "acceptable practice" is one of one the funniest things I've seen in ages. In any case, there's currently a real movement in Britain to abolish the laws that say that monarchs must belong to the Church of England (A few years ago they gained the right to marry non-Anglicans). The issue of Prime Ministers is a little more ambiguous (constitutional law in Britain is like that), but there have been several non-CoE Protestants as PM, most recently Gordon Brown. There's also Tony Blair, who was well known to be Catholic, but held off on making it official until he left office because he didn't feel like courting controversy by fighting a 300-year-old anti-Catholic law. Most Britons seem to either have no idea that law is still on the books or consider it an embarrassing anachronism. It's not clear if the Catholic ban would survive any sort of serious legal challenge.

As for the Vatican, there's a reason the Papal State now controls a single city block rather than most of Central Italy. So, pretty terrible examples all-in-all, but what else is new?

# ? Mar 8, 2015 03:26

Zulily Zoetrope: Jun 1, 2011; Muldoon

420 Gank Mid posted:

Do you think the reason Italians aren't pressing for their 208 CE borders is because they aren't the 'legitimate' ethnic heirs to the Romans?

I'm saying you could be a direct descendant of Charlemagne, Kublai Khan, Huitzilihuitl and Shaka Zulu, and it still wouldn't justify colonialism. I don't think any poster in this thread would genuinely argue that Jews have a divine right to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and would suddenly be deflated if it could be proven that most of of Jewish Israel didn't have ancestors who wandered the desert with Moses.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 04:25

Lustful Man Hugs: Jul 18, 2010

TEAYCHES posted:

I do not believe anyone here would seriously defend state implementation of the Jizya as just government.

What is it with various dissenting posters (not just in this thread - you also see it occasionally in the generic ME thread and the Eastern Europe thread as well) and defending their position by stating the superiority of those positions to things that everyone here agrees is awful and nobody here would ever defend? I had the same thought earlier when TIC was accusing people of supporting ISIS for... reasons.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 06:43

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Lustful Man Hugs posted:

What is it with various dissenting posters (not just in this thread - you also see it occasionally in the generic ME thread and the Eastern Europe thread as well) and defending their position by stating the superiority of those positions to things that everyone here agrees is awful and nobody here would ever defend? I had the same thought earlier when TIC was accusing people of supporting ISIS for... reasons.

it's called a strawman. people use them alot everywhere.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 07:20

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Regarding My Imaginary GF's posts, I have a feeling that he may not understand the difference between "is" and "ought", so it might be worth keeping that in mind. That is, he seems to believe that "a nation has laws saying ______ " is actually a valid argument against "I believe it is wrong for a nation to have laws saying ______". In the context of Israel and this discussion, you might notice that he's basically been saying "this is the way the nation of Israel is" in response to people saying "I don't think Israel should be this way." If your response to that is "wait, what?", join the crowd, but I'm not kidding - the difference between "______ is" and "______ ought to be" is something that many people really don't understand.

Lustful Man Hugs posted:

What is it with various dissenting posters (not just in this thread - you also see it occasionally in the generic ME thread and the Eastern Europe thread as well) and defending their position by stating the superiority of those positions to things that everyone here agrees is awful and nobody here would ever defend? I had the same thought earlier when TIC was accusing people of supporting ISIS for... reasons.

Well, in TIC's case I think it was more purposeful hyperbole/exaggeration. He believes that most of the posters in this thread who are heavily critical of Israel are also hugely antisemitic, so he thought it would be funny to compare them with ISIS, because ISIS is also antisemitic.

The weird thing about TIC is that, contrary to what I've seen some posters suggest, he is not right-wing. If you look at his posts in other threads, his views generally align with those of a typical American liberal. Granted, most American liberals also support Israel so I guess his posting here isn't that uncharacteristic.

I'm interested in hearing the continuation of emanresu tnuocca and Miltank's debate/discussion. From reading what they've both had to say, I'm not really sure whether it's accurate to say that 1. the Nakba and general widespread ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was planned long beforehand and 2. that people had good reason to believe Zionists planned to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and were capable of doing so on a large scale. Before reading emanresu tnuocca's posts, I was under the impression that the Nakba was an undertaking decades in the making and that native Arab Palestinians had cause for acting in response, but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't really change anything that's happened in Israel from the Nakba onwards of course, but I'm still interested in the earlier conflict surrounding Zionism.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 09:24

MeLKoR: Dec 23, 2004; by FactsAreUseless

Volkerball posted:

it's called a strawman. people use them alot everywhere.

I think you mean a straw golem.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 09:27

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

My Imaginary GF posted:

Race and religion? With religion, its an acceptable practice for state institutions to incentivize participation in the state religion. Would you call it discrimination that the Sovreign of Vatican State must be Catholic, or that the Head of the Commonwealth can only belong to the Church of England?

In the case of individuals demanding that the "right of return" apply to non-Jews, there is a process for non-Jews to immigrate to Israel. Is the complaint with the process, or that Israel is a Jewish state? Migration to Israel would be, for most, a choice; for plenty of Israeli Jews, there wasn't a choice to migrate.

The Vatican is not a state and does not have its own sovereign. It's just a piece of land that was given to the Holy See by the Lateran Treaty. But even if we allow for the confusion between Vatican City and the Holy See, it's not a country. It has no native population.

Furthermore, making a comparison between "needs to belong to X religion to be head of state" and "needs to belong to X religion to be allowed to immigrate" are extremely different things. We're not asking for Palestinians to collectively become Monarchs of Israel here.

My Imaginary GF posted:

I had a longer post and lost it while looking for citations.

Let's use the case of polygamy in Israel. Is it OK for Israel to outlaw polygamy, even though it discriminates against some religious, racial, and ethnic groups? Of loving course; if you want to live in a state, you have to give up a bit of freedom in order to adhere to that state's social contract. If you refuse to adhere to that state's social contract, go somewhere else or organize to change the social contract while remaining in accord with the state's sovreign right to rule by law.

See, the thing is that a social contract that does not respect human rights is one that should be changed. A ban on polygyny is acceptable because this practice goes against the equality of men and women, and is therefore against human rights. However, a social contract that states "you must convert to official state religion" is a blatant violation of human rights. Palestinians should be allowed to keep whatever faith they have.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 10:22

emanresu tnuocca: Sep 2, 2011; by Athanatos

MIGF doesn't even know how to do Hasbara right, by this point he should have clearly started talking about freedom of religion in the surrounding arab countries and called you all hypocrites for not criticizing those, that's my problem with MIGF really, tons of word salads but at the end of the day it really feels like he's half assing it, read the freaking Hasbara manual MIGF, we all got a copy.

Ytlaya posted:

I'm interested in hearing the continuation of emanresu tnuocca and Miltank's debate/discussion. From reading what they've both had to say, I'm not really sure whether it's accurate to say that 1. the Nakba and general widespread ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was planned long beforehand and 2. that people had good reason to believe Zionists planned to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and were capable of doing so on a large scale. Before reading emanresu tnuocca's posts, I was under the impression that the Nakba was an undertaking decades in the making and that native Arab Palestinians had cause for acting in response, but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't really change anything that's happened in Israel from the Nakba onwards of course, but I'm still interested in the earlier conflict surrounding Zionism.

Yes I think it's an interesting subject but I definitely sperged hard yesterday and not sure I'll keep looking into it today as I have an exam to get ready for, I think it's pretty funny but should be pointed out that were I to have this discussion with a fellow Israeli I would have more or less argued the same view point but had to have provided completely different citations to try to demonstrate that the Palestinians weren't acting out of cosmically anti-semitic motivations and that the Zionists weren't entirely innocent, personal bias is a hell of a thing what can I say. Anyway I hope we can get back to delving into this subject in a couple of days, it was very informative for me.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 10:34

The Insect Court: Nov 22, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

Lustful Man Hugs posted:

What is it with various dissenting posters (not just in this thread - you also see it occasionally in the generic ME thread and the Eastern Europe thread as well) and defending their position by stating the superiority of those positions to things that everyone here agrees is awful and nobody here would ever defend? I had the same thought earlier when TIC was accusing people of supporting ISIS for... reasons.

It's amusing(and psychologically illustrative) when you engage in the fallacy you accuse me of, all in the very same sentence.

My point, which you seem understandably reluctant to address, is that certain people seem to have a visceral loathing for Israel that far exceeds their disapproval of ISIS.

Or maybe you can point me to half a dozen pages in the ME thread where a debate over how young the children of ISIS supporters could be before it was no longer acceptable to kill them. Do you really want me to go dig up that discussion in the last I/P thread so we can see who was in the "kill the infants too" camp and who thought Jewish settlers in the West Bank should be spared slaughter unless they were at least into their teens? Because I'd just as soon spare the posters involved the shame of dredging them up in the hopes it was just a spasm of hatred rather than a serious consideration of the issue.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 10:52

Duckbox: Sep 7, 2007

Ytlaya posted:

I'm interested in hearing the continuation of emanresu tnuocca and Miltank's debate/discussion. From reading what they've both had to say, I'm not really sure whether it's accurate to say that 1. the Nakba and general widespread ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was planned long beforehand and 2. that people had good reason to believe Zionists planned to ethnically cleanse Palestinians and were capable of doing so on a large scale. Before reading emanresu tnuocca's posts, I was under the impression that the Nakba was an undertaking decades in the making and that native Arab Palestinians had cause for acting in response, but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't really change anything that's happened in Israel from the Nakba onwards of course, but I'm still interested in the earlier conflict surrounding Zionism.

There have always been three versions of the Nakba. There's the version where the Zionists spent decades scheming to get rid of the Palestinians and as soon as the British were out of their hair they executed that plan in a sudden burst of violence orchestrated by figures at the very top of the Israeli hierarchy (this version of events is seen a lot in Arab sources). There's the version where the end of the Mandate, Israeli independence, and the Arab invasion ignited a powder keg of ethnic tension and led to atrocities that Israel's leaders neither intended nor desired (this is more or less the mainstream position). The last version (the one told to me by more than one earnest young American Jew) is that the Nakba either wasn't violent at all, or it was violent, but the Arabs started it. Either way, it is often claimed that the Palestinians left on their own because their Arab allies ordered them to and therefor gave up their right to the land.

The first two versions both contain elements of truth, the early Zionists appear to have been divided on how to deal with the Palestinians and some of them had not ruled out forced removal, but there isn't much evidence that the Nakba, as such, was any sort of established plan. The massacres, expulsions, and terror campaigns were very real, however, and there is strong evidence that elements of the Israeli state and military were directly involved. The third explanation, the one that either denies the Nakba outright, or blames it all on the Arabs, appears to have gotten its start as post-war Israeli propaganda and is blatantly contradicted by the historical record, yet a simple web search will show you that it is still widely believed in Zionist circles. Since the '80s, third party scholarship has done a lot to shine light on the Nakba, but many rightwingers in Israel and the US (and not just Jews, either) simply don't want to hear it.

Anyway, I've been meaning to do some more reading on that era in Israel's history, and I'll try to post anything interesting I find. In any case, I'm sure others in the thread know far more about the precise historical details than I do. My point was more to talk about the different perspectives I've seen as an outsider. Discussion of the Nakba, like many I/P issues, is rife with revisionism and people in different camps often seem to have different facts. Let me know if I said anything stupid or wrong, guys.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 10:57

Cefte: Sep 18, 2004; tranquil consciousness

Ferrand Martinez posted:

If you aren't a Christian and wish to be regarded as a Christian, the simplest solution is to become a Christian. The process for an individual to become a Christian applies to all groups, thus making your example a false comparison.

Party like it's 1391, and forced conversion to maintain your basic civic rights is a thing!

# ? Mar 8, 2015 13:20

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

From the Brookings Institution.

Looking awfully partisan, that. :getin:

# ? Mar 8, 2015 14:36

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

The Insect Court posted:

It's amusing(and psychologically illustrative) when you engage in the fallacy you accuse me of, all in the very same sentence.

My point, which you seem understandably reluctant to address, is that certain people seem to have a visceral loathing for Israel that far exceeds their disapproval of ISIS.

Or maybe you can point me to half a dozen pages in the ME thread where a debate over how young the children of ISIS supporters could be before it was no longer acceptable to kill them. Do you really want me to go dig up that discussion in the last I/P thread so we can see who was in the "kill the infants too" camp and who thought Jewish settlers in the West Bank should be spared slaughter unless they were at least into their teens? Because I'd just as soon spare the posters involved the shame of dredging them up in the hopes it was just a spasm of hatred rather than a serious consideration of the issue.

Yes. We all want you to name names instead of doing bullshit insinuations.

Here, I start. It was Tezzor (who was chased out of the thread) and...

Also, we need to talk about your deep-seared racist hatred against white people. Because it was kind of weird how you accused me of being white, kind of like when Tezzor accused me of being a Jew.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 16:19

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

50.000 Israelis show up for the wrong protest

quote:

Imagine if 50,000 Israelis marched on Qalandia to demand an end to Israel�s undemocratic military rule over Palestinians, an end to the checkpoints that restrict Palestinian freedom of movement while allowing Israelis to drive through unhindered, an end to separate laws and permit regimes that do indeed bring up images of South African apartheid.

Imagine if all of those people who are angry enough about Netanyahu�s lack of vision on the Palestinian issue directed their anger at the occupation itself instead of the leader who administers it, conveniently ignoring that their leader has no vision for ending it either.

Imagine all the people, living for today...

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Mar 8, 2015

# ? Mar 8, 2015 19:19

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

fade5 posted:

If this comes to pass, then Netanyahu will go down in history as the guy who pushed too far and finally got the US to stop unilaterally supporting Israel. I really hope Obama goes through with this, and I'm almost hoping Bibi ends up re-elected just so that Obama doesn't feel the need to pull his punches like he might with a new guy in charge.

Max Fischer at Vox seems to think that this isn't going to happen, as Netanyahu has all but declared the two-state solution dead to get the right-wing vote.

# ? Mar 8, 2015 22:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 08:24

Cat Mattress: Jul 14, 2012; by Cyrano4747

quote:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that [in light of] the situation that has arisen in the Middle East, any evacuated territory would fall into the hands of Islamic extremism and terror organizations supported by Iran. Therefore, there will be no concessions or withdrawals; they are simply irrelevant.

"Given that Islamic terrorism has arisen in reaction to oppression and occupation, it is my deepest conviction that oppression and occupation must continue." --Bibi Netanyahu

Netanyahu is to Palestine what Putin is to Ukraine.

Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Mar 8, 2015

# ? Mar 8, 2015 22:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > I/P: post-semitism in the desert of the deal

«‹›260 »