|
Nobody cares about the length of the probation; the fact that a mod for the subforum that's explicitly about lengthy debates and hair-splitting probated someone who disagreed with them is what people are taking exception with. How are the jewish people a nation? That was the main thrust of al-saqr's post. Tone policing is really stupid, this is a very divisive subject and emotions get a little heated when people are talking about this. I agree with people like mainframe and, AA, when they say accuracy is preferable but you can't just probate people who challenge you on a talking point and maintain any degree of legitimacy because you have a physics test you're studying for or whatever dumb reason AA put as his excuse for a probate.
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
Claiming tone-argument suggests that I'm claiming that he is wrong because of the tone of the argument, or that his argument is invalidated to the general public because of his tone. I said that he has some truth in his argument, while also saying that the quarter-day probation was fine because AA has made it clear that he wants a more civil thread. Yes, emotions can get heated regarding this subject, but that's still no excuse to lash out at someone who generally agrees with your opinions and is discussing specific nuances with you in a very civil manner. This isn't a real-time debate room, take a deep breath before writing your john-galt-esque response.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
FNL were racist as hell. I don't know why that was controversial. There probably hasn't been a national liberation movement in history that wasn't - if you fight against the someone for decades or centuries you probably develop pretty severe attitudes towards them as a whole. Don't mean they weren't right in liberating Algeria. Zionism isn't or wasn't a national liberation movement. It was a nationalist movement, but creating a Jewish state had very little to do with liberating Jews. Protecting them, giving them more power, sure, but liberating them in Palestine? When most of them came from somewhere else? Nah. Ultramega posted:How are the jewish people a nation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism The problem is that they try to conflate the cultural concept of Jewish nation with the actual physical and geographic state of Israel/Greater Israel, to which other races (mainly Arabic) are native to and have equal claim to and where most Jews don't actually live and to which most Jews can't trace their ancestry to (because if you go by ancestry in the terms of thousands of years I can equally convincingly trace mine to like twenty countries). Jews can be a nation all they want, Israel isn't the same thing and a Jew that isn't born there has zero claim to it. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 16:04 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:53
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Claiming tone-argument suggests that I'm claiming that he is wrong because of the tone of the argument, or that his argument is invalidated to the general public because of his tone. I said that he has some truth in his argument, while also saying that the quarter-day probation was fine because AA has made it clear that he wants a more civil thread. You are actually making a tone argument. Al-Saqr's post was not that uncivil in the scheme of things and probating for it is frankly ludicrous.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:I think it's kind of hosed up that instead of arguing any of al-saqr's points, some of which I agree with, you probated him. Classy. Al-Saqr was waaaay too heated up and letting his anger take priority over little things like "facts". He didn't quite know what he was talking about in a lot of ways, but he was so obviously worked up about it that I had the chance to correct him but didn't because I didn't want to get caught up in refuting angry rant after angry rant. I know we're all used to berating pro-Israel people with dismissive comments and personal attacks because most of them were trolls that we hated, but the message being sent is that that poo poo won't fly anymore - we need to keep it grounded and the moderation will take care of the lovely posts...from either side. And frankly, I'm really happy about that. Not all the posters that were aggressively wrong about things and had a tendency to be dismissive about the other side's posts while accusing them of being racists were on the pro-Israel side. Since people are showing interest in what Al-Saqr had to say, though, I'll go ahead and respond to his points for you. I'm not normally one to argue with a probated person, but apparently there's a lot of people being misled by him. Al-Saqr posted:I want you to think long and hard at what you're saying here:- He was talking about Haganah, for which the term "militant asylum seekers" is actually pretty accurate for the first two and a half decades of its existence. You've already been called out on that one, in fact, and claimed to have informed yourself on it, so it's a bit alarming that you're still saying that. quote:it's through looking at facts, demographics, and history that you arrive at the objectively precise conclusion that Hagana, Irgun, Hippugram (sp?) etc. were a DIRECT COLONIALIST INVASION, you'd have to really be so revisionist to assume that it wasn't otherwise. because it was pretty clear from the day Theodore Hertzl placed pen on paper that this was the plan from the start. yet here you are, saying that precision is propagandistic non-terms like 'Militant Asylum seeker.' yeah man, so is every other invading army looking for Lebensraum. Haganah was nothing of the sort, and you've already been corrected on this and told to go look it up so you'd have some clue about what you're talking about. The story of the Jewish population in the Mandate of Palestine was far more complex and nuanced than "Jewish terrorists rise up in late 40s, expel Arabs, unilaterally declare country" - while all of those things did happen, they were in the context of decades of Jewish settlement and significant differences of opinion that led to things like Haganah helping the British round up and arrest Irgun members. Implying that the two groups are in any way comparable in the face of events like that borders on dishonest; they got along in their last couple if years, but that's after nearly thirty years of being fundamentally at odds. quote:But leaving aside all that, lets get to the part really, really disgusts me:- You really need to chill out. You're way off here, all because you made one simple misunderstanding and then proceeded to go on a massive angry rant based on a very basic mistake: one major meaning of the word "nation" is "ethnic group". It's not commonly used that way in basic discourse, at least in the US, but it's a major usage of the term in more academic contexts. That's where the term "nation-state" comes from: when you talk about the nation-state of France, for example, the "state" refers to the political entity called "France" while the "nation" refers to the cultural and ethnic entity that is "French". As a modern term, it mostly arose with nationalism, but the basic distinction predates it considerably and was occasionally demonstrated by, for example, certain French monarchs during the Revolutionary era calling themselves "King of the French" rather than "King of France" - emphasizing their ties to the people, the culture, and the main ethnic group (i.e., the nation) rather than to a chunk of territory and a political entity that might cast its aegis over numerous peoples (i.e., the state). Nationalism was basically the belief that your nation (or ethnic group) should have its own independent state, instead of your nation (again, read it as "ethnic group") being subjugated to the rule of another nation-state (that is, a political state ruled by a different ethnic nation). Once placed in that proper context, you can see that Absurd Alhazred was not saying that people of the Jewish faith have some overriding obligation to a worldwide Zionist shadow government, but rather that some people who considered themselves ethnically Jewish rather than ethnically French or whatever believed that they had as much right to have a state for their nation as any other ethnic group chafing under the yoke of being a minority where ever they went, and that residents of France who considered themselves ethnic Jews owed no more loyalty to the French state than Serbian nationalists owed to the Austro-Hungarian state. Needless to say, I'm simplifying a bit, and probably over-simplifying to the point of making mistakes myself since I'm not a philosopher and the rhetorical frames of nationalism are complicated fuckery, but I hope this can at least point toward the fundamental misunderstanding that was going on here. quote:oh wow, it was the Zionist movement being oppressed? wow please, enlighten me on how the Palestinians were the threat, I'm dying for a good laugh. Or are you saying that Palestinians reading Zionist literature and plans, then seeing that plan coming to action and trying to stop the flow of foreigners coming in the same thing to you as 'elimination of a whole people'?! I'm sorry, if you actually READ the Zionist founders, everything they said was in pure racialist worldviews, so yes, racist is a really good way to describe them since the actions and policies they carried out were what is commonly known as racism. it's entirely useful because it explains why Israel today is a racist country with racist laws that practices apartheid, it's because the people who founded it thought like that and built it like that. In the 1920s, the Jewish minority in the Mandate of Palestine was in fact vulnerable to anti-semitic attacks and often came off worse in the occasional outbreak of ethnic strife. Arab nationalism was also on the rise during that period, and Western meddling in the region did much to increase ethnic tensions all around. And while many Zionist thinkers did envision the deportation or relocation of Palestinian non-Jews, many others advocated living in peaceful coexistence with Palestinians or founding a Zionist state somewhere else altogether. There were many schools of Zionism, covering a wide swath of positions.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
That post is a vindication of not probating people and responding instead, whether you found it tiresome or not. Although to be honest you are definitely too flatly conflating ethnic groups and nationality, paineframe. Nationality can be regarded as form of civic identity. In fact, Al Saqr is alluding to exactly the Edwin Montagu line of criticism: quote:"...I assume that it means that Mahommedans [Muslims] and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test." In any event, Al Saqr is in fact disputing that pre-Israeli jews can meaningfully be thought of as a nation, which is perfectly valid: quote:I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race. The Prime Minister and M. Briand are, I suppose, related through the ages, one as a Welshman and the other as a Breton, but they certainly do not belong to the same nation. And in fact, the idea of the nation can precede ethnicity and create it, as it has in many places; that's why there is a necessity for the messy process of what is sometimes called 'nation building'. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 17:04 on May 21, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
In fact, quite clearly involving the concept of ethnicity is actively unhelpful to the argument that the Jewish diaspora was a nation, given it was much closer to being an 'imagined community' than it was to a coherent linguistic community, or one joint by common custom and shared experience.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
It is exactly because this topic brings up so many emotions that maintaining civility and, yes, tone, is vital to making sure this thread doesn't again devolve into a poo poo-show like it has been and like so many before it did. If Al-Saqr is willing to learn from Main Paineframe's example and respond either point by point or just on one point and clarifying and sourcing his disagreements, much like if MIGF is willing to actually engage with real history and not substitute his own, then they are welcome to take part. I do believe that they have something to contribute. If, instead, we have Al-Saqr coming in here to take ranting, overgeneralized, bigoted scatter-shots every few weeks, and MIGF retreating to a convenient fantasy world and dragging other people with him until he gets probated for doing the same in another thread, or if we have similarly disruptive behavior from others go unaddressed, then this thread will eventually get gassed. Because I care a great deal about this subject and am personally invested in it, I am going to keep a close eye on this discussion and make sure that as many viewpoints as possible can be debated and discussed here, including ones I disagree with, which are most of them, including ones I have occasionally brought up for examination. Read the OP again and argue well, and you should have nothing to worry about.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
I'd love to say that the community didn't really exist and was 'imagined' in the sense that while many members of it believed themselves part of a single nation/identity they also didn't realise that the belief in a shared community was about all they shared, it's also at this stage a pretty undeniable fact that a significant number of that imagined communtiy has managed to forge it into a real national identity. Arguing about the artificiality of that identity at this stage is pretty loving pointless. I think the real nub of AS's point was whether simple shared ethnicity provides some moral claim to a geographical region. This is, I feel, complicated by the historical and religious claim the 'nation' (not meant to be pejorative ' ' here, just highlighting that the term is being used in a non-typical layman sense) of Israel has made to the area. Calling the initial immigration colonialism is mischaracterising it hugely, colonialism involves creating colonies subordinate to a centre, Imperialism would be out for the same reason. Honestly I don't think there's any accurate label we have for the early Zionists beyond Zionists, the situation is far from typical, it could be compared to the migration of barbarian tribes like the Huns, who people might not have many nice things to say about but noone has ever accused of colonialism. The end result of a significant number of Jewish people moving to the area of Israel isn't something to now be remedied, any more than all white people in South Africa should be deported back to Holland and their property reclaimed. It's part of the reality now and needs to be accepted and dealt with by all sides. By that I'm thinking more a truth and reconciliation sense than 'welp guess we win. Bend over brown people'. Israelis need to publicly accept the injustice in how they achieved their current position and specific crimes need to be admitted and accepted and Palestinians need to equally own the immoral acts committed in the name of resistance, with both sides also owning up to the current power imbalance. Then everyone gets a pony and can ride that to the Holy Land.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:26
|
|
MrNemo posted:I'd love to say that the community didn't really exist and was 'imagined' in the sense that while many members of it believed themselves part of a single nation/identity they also didn't realise that the belief in a shared community was about all they shared, it's also at this stage a pretty undeniable fact that a significant number of that imagined communtiy has managed to forge it into a real national identity. Arguing about the artificiality of that identity at this stage is pretty loving pointless. Yes but how and at what point.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Read the OP again and argue well, and you should have nothing to worry about. OP posted:1) You should probably not engage with My Imaginary GF. He is just trolling. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That post is a vindication of not probating people and responding instead, whether you found it tiresome or not. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Yes but how and at what point. Well yes, thats kind of the rub. At what point does a pile become a heap? At some point it's clear that a state change has occurred but it's difficult to really draw a clear line where that happens. I mean you could argue that at some point there was no such thing as a 'French' nation but anyone who wanted to argue that now and wanted to base national policy in the EU off it would not get very far. You can easily find people who will dispute the idea of an Italian nation as anything more than an imagined community into the early 20th century, aside from geopgrahic localism it might be difficult to make a meaningful distinction between that and the Jewish 'nation'. That said looking at the current situation it's definitely easy to identify a current nation-state of Israel, though I would still dispute the idea of a true Jewish 'nation' as much as that of a Muslim or Catholic nation. Although Al Saqr's argument about leftist not recognising any greater source of expected authority than the national state is so much bullshit that I'll just stick with my previous argument against it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:44
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The fact that one member of an ethnic group decided to give up that cultural identity and assimilate does not magically render that entire ethnic group nonexistent. In fact, refusal to assimilate is practically what defines an ethnic group. If Montagu chose to put his Britishness above his Jewishness, that was his choice to make, but he has no grounds to deny the Jewishness of the entire Jewish people. Besides, he might well have thought differently if he had grown up across the Channel. Albert Dreyfus seems to have thought of himself as French rather than Jewish, but apparently the French disagreed! In fact, that affair was one of the major inspirations for Herzl's feelings that assimilation was impossible and that only Zionism could ever lead to fair treatment for people of the Jewish faith. Nope of this really addresses what I said. Will have to come back to this though as phone posting.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
At the risk of overposting, Jewish identity is necessarily going to differ from Christian or Jewish identity in terms of its origins as a proto-national identity (back in the days when cultural identity and geographica unity/control were pretty interchangeable) and its maintenance on and off of ethnic and cultural exclusivity. The same things that Al-Saqr himself references as fuel for anti-semitic conspiracy fires aren't untrue just because anti-semitic conspiracy theorists are wrong. Jewish peoples in many countries did hold themselves deliberately apart and maintained a separate identity that they saw coinciding with the identity other Jewish people in other countries maintained. This is what I would imagine you mean by 'imagined' nation, they all had an idea of a shared nationhood maintained in part because they were unaware of the cultural and linguistic differences that had developed. The fact that those differences have been overcome is, I think, a sign that the imagined part is the ' ' worthy element rather than the nation part.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Nope of this really addresses what I said. Will have to come back to this though as phone posting. Well, I was assuming that you (and apparently others) weren't literally completely denying the existence of a widely held Jewish cultural and ethnic identity prior to 1948. If that is actually what you're doing, then I'd rather leave it to someone else to address, because I'm phoneposting too. If you're talking about whether membership in another ethnic group overrides Jewishness, then events like the Dreyfus Affair and various pogroms made it quite clear to European Jews which ethnic identity their neighbors thought was the overriding one. If you're saying that Jewish culture ceased to exist because of cultural divergence between Jews in different areas, well, that's misguided too. A Sephardic Jew doesn't stop being a Jew any more than a Bavarian stops being a German, a Serbian stops being a Slav, or a Texan stops being an American. Culture and ethnicity are more complicated than that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Is the idea of an ethnic nation really that controversial? The Romani are one other pretty good example. Doesn't mean they get to claim a patch of land where another unrelated group has resided for centuries and conflate the geographic location with their ethnic nation.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
A:- "hey al-saqr, you should talk to and debate Israelis, stop being so bigoted!" B:-"ok, let me give it a shot, here's why your talking points, historical terminology and claims that you're making is fundamentally wrong and stupid, because A, I find B disgusting, and you're wrong about the FLN because C." A:- "...." *PROBATION* A:- "I don't like the tone of your voice." Thanks. That teaches me a lesson, whether I was right or wrong didn't matter, I don’t know what kind of ‘civility’ you’re after in a political discussion, but it’s clear that the stick is what kind of terms we're on. I no longer see any reason to debate anything you say if that's the case. Kind of Ironic, really. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 19:58 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:A:- "hey al-saqr, you should talk to and debate Israelis, stop being so bigoted!" You have very good examples in this very thread, Al-Saqr, of how to productively engage ideas and opinions you disagree with. You are welcome not to engage with me at all, but there are other people in this thread who have actually responded to you in a civil manner, and I encourage you to at least return them the favor.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You have very good examples in this very thread, Al-Saqr, of how to productively engage ideas and opinions you disagree with. It's a pity, this is the last thread I found even slightly interesting in D&D. Maybe it's rose-tinted glasses, but I remember mods making a point of not moderating the topics they argued in.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Cefte posted:Given that you left the thread in a huff last time you were proven wrong on a factual basis, you're not really in a position to say that.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Cefte posted:Given that you left the thread in a huff last time you were proven wrong on a factual basis, you're not really in a position to say that. I hope that you will continue to find it interesting despite the removal of unnecessary rancor.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Meanwhile, Lieberman actually apologizes for something. Write this one down for the history books. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Liberman-apologizes-for-using-the-word-autism-as-an-insult-403804 DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 20:35 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Cefte posted:It's a pity, this is the last thread I found even slightly interesting in D&D. Maybe it's rose-tinted glasses, but I remember mods making a point of not moderating the topics they argued in. Definitely rose-colored glasses. I used ti make a point of quietly bailing out of a thread when certain mods (not all mods, just a couple specific ones) started posting opinions because it always seemed to end up with one entire side of the argument being probated. On the other hand, this thread badly needed some enforced civility, because if there isn't an iron fist of moderation hanging over an I/P discussion then all the participants let the first low-effort troll they see work them into a frothing rage, and then when someone comes in and tries to actually discuss things from a different perspective they get chased out with dismissive sarcasm or furious diatribes implying that no sane person could possibly hold any position that does not include the destruction of Israel. So far, the probation score is pretty even, anyway: 1) one of the most prolific and lowest-effort pro-Israel trolls in this thread 2) someone who came disturbingly close to implicitly endorsing anti-Jewish pogroms because some Zionist writers were racist. Doesn't look like one viewpoint is being unfairly favored, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Okay, discussions about modding are getting out of hand here. I would suggest that if you have any specific issues you take them up either with me through PM's and email, or with XyloJW if you are not comfortable discussing them with me. This thread over in QCS may also be a place to have this conversation if you're looking for a more public environment.DarkCrawler posted:Meanwhile, Lieberman actually apologizes for something. Write this one down for the history books. What a non-apology: "Of course I didn't mean in any way to offend autistic people, but wanted to illustrate the unwillingness of some people to accept certain realities about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I apologize if anyone was hurt," Liberman stated in his apology." 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
Yes, but it's a minority viewpoint, and external events had a way of hammering home the point that bundism wasn't going to work. Europe made crystal clear that they were outsiders and not welcome under any circumstances.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Cefte posted:Given that you left the thread in a huff last time you were proven wrong on a factual basis, you're not really in a position to say that. Sorry, what is this referring to?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:Sorry, what is this referring to? It's a discussion starting roughly here: Absurd Alhazred posted:Kicking out the Palestinians was bad. Kicking out the Jews exacerbated it and pretty much guaranteed that this kicking out would be permanent, and Arab insistence on "helping" Palestinians by refusing to allow them to even have work visas made sure that they would spend all that permanent time in "temporary" refugee camps. It's bad all over. Cefte posted:No, you don't get to do that. You know it to be false, and it's beneath you to argue it. You can start talking about the Lavon affair if you want to pretend that there was any potential set of circumstances where the early Israeli state would have gone 'oh, we don't have enough Jews to till the land? Hey, let's let all the Arabs back in, so we don't have to pay loving spare bedroom tax'. I am not proud in how I ended that one. In fact, "leaving this thread in a huff" were my words to describe it when I came back here after becoming mod.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
You've got true grit, AA.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Newly released World Bank report on Gaza. It is very short so worth a look. Some of the key quotes:quote:"Despite surprisingly strong economic growth in the West Bank in 2014, the war in Gaza has had a devastating impact on the Palestinian economy, resulting in overall negative growth. ... the closure of tunnels with Egypt and in particular the 2014 summer war shaved some USD460 million off Gaza’s economy, leading to a 15 percent contraction of its GDP. Overall the Palestinian economy contracted three percent in 2014 on a per capita basis "
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
Cefte posted:You can start talking about the Lavon affair Oh geez, not this again. I'll give you credit, it's slightly more uncommon than USS Liberty/Israeli art students/other shadowy Zionist conspiracy. But it's just as absurd. The fact that the second Google result for "Lavon affair" (after wikipedia) is a link to whatreallyhappened.com gives a pretty good sense of the sort of conspiracy theorists obsessed by it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Oh geez, not this again. I'll give you credit, it's slightly more uncommon than USS Liberty/Israeli art students/other shadowy Zionist conspiracy. But it's just as absurd. The fact that the second Google result for "Lavon affair" (after wikipedia) is a link to whatreallyhappened.com gives a pretty good sense of the sort of conspiracy theorists obsessed by it. Conspiracy theorists love talking about known real conspiracies and using them to justify their view that there are unrevealed conspiracies that they claim to know. Because they are speaking nonsense about the latter, the former should also be dismissed as nonsense, therefore the Lavon affair and the USS Liberty attack never happened.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
Israel's new Deputy Foreign Minister came out and basically said what they are actually thinking:quote:
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
I'm sorry, what? please don't be a liar about people whose opinions you don't like and who cant fight back. This is Libel and very uncivil of you to say. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 16:13 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Oh geez, not this again. I'll give you credit, it's slightly more uncommon than USS Liberty/Israeli art students/other shadowy Zionist conspiracy. But it's just as absurd. The fact that the second Google result for "Lavon affair" (after wikipedia) is a link to whatreallyhappened.com gives a pretty good sense of the sort of conspiracy theorists obsessed by it. Cat Mattress posted:Conspiracy theorists love talking about known real conspiracies and using them to justify their view that there are unrevealed conspiracies that they claim to know. There is no reason for a sarcastic response here, when the citations are so easy to find. The Lavon Affair is a well-known, and well documented. There has even been more information about it revealed recently. I can also share that as an Israeli it is a well-known affair you learn about in high-school. Why are you calling it a conspiracy theory, TIC? Al-Saqr posted:I'm sorry, what? please don't be a liar about people whose opinions you don't like and who cant fight back. This is Libel and very uncivil of you to say. I am terribly sorry that I gave you the impression that you cannot defend yourself from what you believe to be slander in this thread. Main Paineframe, please cite explicitly what you are referring to.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I'm sorry, what? please don't be a liar about people whose opinions you don't like and who cant fight back. This is Libel and very uncivil of you to say. When talking about Haganah, a group formed to defend the Jews in Palestine from riots, pogroms, and terrorism, you said this: quote:oh wow, it was the Zionist movement being oppressed? wow please, enlighten me on how the Palestinians were the threat, I'm dying for a good laugh. Or are you saying that Palestinians reading Zionist literature and plans, then seeing that plan coming to action and trying to stop the flow of foreigners coming in the same thing to you as 'elimination of a whole people'?! As I read it, you strongly suggested that the genuine oppression and violence Jewish migrants to Palestine sometimes faced was justified because the existence of racist Zionist writings gave Palestinians the right to expel the Jews by any means they could.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Can you guys please stop shadow-boxing an imaginary version of what you think Al-Saqr is implying and just reply to the substance of his posts
|
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Re: Nationhood, I was replying to the general idea that ethnic groups are coterminus with nations when that is obviously not true. In many cases the idea of the nation has come before what we could commonly regard as ethnic similarity, particularly outside of genetics. Look at the Han, or even a number of European countries, some of which had regions speaking mutually somewhat incomprehensible dialects and living very different lives. The national concept is the thing that - in every sense of the word - forges the ethnic identity, the universal language and cultural and political institutions, etc. This is partly important because ethnic identity is a less subjective category than nationality. Nationality only requires belief; ethnicity requires concrete social realities. It's also not necessarily the case that ethnic groups have to simply regard themselves as in a 'one or the other' situation in terms of national or ethnic identity, and moreover 'diasporic' is in many ways its own category of identity, not simply an alienated form of non-identity. Also, everyone keeps banging on about Herzl in a way that kind of overstates his significance. You have to remember that Herzl was writing in a time mostly when the idea of Israel was still very far away. Lastly, I wasn't engaged in a narrative about Israel's right to exist, as if there was any significance of any of this to that. There isn't. It has a right to exist like any other nation.
|
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:There is no reason for a sarcastic response here, when the citations are so easy to find. The Lavon Affair is a well-known, and well documented. There has even been more information about it revealed recently. I can also share that as an Israeli it is a well-known affair you learn about in high-school. Why are you calling it a conspiracy theory, TIC? The "Lavon Affair" involved a handful of Egyptian Jews taking part in some half-assed scheme by some rogue corner of Israeli military intelligence to plant a few bombs that caused minor property damage. It was about cleaving the US from Egypt and creating support for a British presence in the Sinai. Acknowledging the basic facts is not engaging in conspiracy theorizing. Trying to insinuate it was some part of a sinister Israeli plot to stage false flag attacks to drive Jewish emigration to Israel is a conspiracy theory. A particularly grotesque one given that there were actual bombings that killed Egyptian Jews in 1948. It's the difference between saying "JFK was assassinated by a sniper" and "JFK was assassinated by a sniper on the grassy knoll secretly working for the Illuminati".
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:27 |
|
|
The Insect Court posted:The "Lavon Affair" involved a handful of Egyptian Jews taking part in some half-assed scheme by some rogue corner of Israeli military intelligence to plant a few bombs that caused minor property damage. It was about cleaving the US from Egypt and creating support for a British presence in the Sinai. Acknowledging the basic facts is not engaging in conspiracy theorizing. Hey, how about loving off with this poo poo? These words have no meaning, and it looks like you might be trying to minimize the impact of the statements you are attaching them to. Particularly when you later refer to the "actual" bombing of Egyptian Jews, which might be seen as an implication that bombings aren't real unless they impact Jewish folk. It's kind of like the difference between saying "JFK was assassinated by a sniper" and "JFK experienced a bout of lead poisoning from a poorly though-out gift." Plek fucked around with this message at 21:55 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 21:51
|
|
