|
I've never seen that ad for the 3DS before.
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
The Insect Court posted:On that subject, can something be done about the more shameless cheerleading? It always ends up filling the thread with one-liner shitposts, which is presumably why there's the existing D&D rule against it. If you stopped posting in this thread the one-line shitposts would reduce drastically because it's mainly people styling on you. The BDS movement doesn't explicitly come out and say it, but like the finkelstein interview in the OP essentially says, you have to look at the subtext of the official BDS position. Or, in his words, "we have no stance on israel". Of course pretty soon after that aired, the more influential members of the organization stealth edited some poo poo on their website if I recall correctly.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Citation needed, where in the bds founding statement does it call for a single state solution? What exactly do you think the right of return entails?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:See? Aren't they bad enough on their own merits? Aren't the dangers clear enough without making the laziest comparison possible? Its the IRONY that the Nazi comparisons are made. This is a state that swears up and down they will maintain their independance and security to 'Prevent anything like the Holocaust from happening to Jews again' while at the same time slowing trudging down the path that lead directly to the Holocaust. Yes, they are bad enough on their own, but its with certain disgust and dismay that they slowly become the very thing they fear the most.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:What exactly do you think the right of return entails? The right of return is perfectly compatible with a two-state solution.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
If millions of refugees return then in the most charitable scenario they vote Israel out of existence and for a one state solution. So no, it is not possible.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:What do you think instantly flooding the state with every descendent of Palestinian refugees entails? That's the implicit goal of a one state solution. Any one state solution means hundreds of thousands dead in practice. The BDS movement's official material mentions the 1967 borders several times, they seem quite intent on a two-state solution, only the Palestinian state is an actual state and doesn't have to accept Israeli interference in its own affairs. Kim Jong Il posted:If millions of refugees return then in the most charitable scenario they vote Israel out of existence and for a one state solution. So no, it is not possible. You are literally saying that the Israel will be destroyed by insufficient racial purity. That's pretty hosed and you should seriously rethink this position. I am categorically against racially and religiously "pure" states, and thus I'm also against an Israel that can't accept the presence of non-Jews. If a state with a large Arab population is not Jewish enough to be the real Israel to you, 
Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 16:58 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:If millions of refugees return then in the most charitable scenario they vote Israel out of existence and for a one state solution. So no, it is not possible. If the Palestinian State is a real state they could just go over there.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Uh Finkelstein thinks a boycott movement could be a great idea but has repeatedly said he opposes the BDS Movement. His opposition to the BDS movement is because he thinks their stance on Israel is counter productive, mainly their refusal to acknowledge Israel. This is tied into how the co founders of BDS want secular states in the region so they do not acknowledge a specifically Jewish Israel. He doesn't support this because it isn't based on international law, whereas the boycott/sanctions etc are.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:You are literally saying that the Israel will be destroyed by insufficient racial purity. That's pretty hosed and you should seriously rethink this position. I am categorically against racially and religiously "pure" states, and thus I'm also against an Israel that can't accept the presence of non-Jews. If a state with a large Arab population is not Jewish enough to be the real Israel to you, The entire point of Israel is that it's a state with Jewish privilege coupled with democratic trappings. I am not defending that, merely stating that the status quo will cease to exist if a flood of refugees were to come in. Which is precisely why the standard Labor position is a two state solution with no right of return beyond a tiny symbolic number. If that happens then they have a sustainable Jewish majority state. This is why this also happens to be the international consensus, and the PA has agreed to this in various negotiations - with the caveats of not wanting to put it on paper because they know agreeing to it is a good way to get Sadat'd. It's a red line that Israel will not cross, without no refugees there is no possible deal. Therefore, insisting otherwise is either demagoguery or an insistence, as in the case of Hamas and the Electronic Intifada-types, of endless, perpetual war.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:If millions of refugees return then in the most charitable scenario they vote Israel out of existence and for a one state solution. So no, it is not possible. Based on 8.2 million Israelis with one fifth being arabs and 5 million refugees, if every single possible refugee returned and none of them chose to stay in their current countries of residence and take the payout they'd get instead and all of them return to Israel rather than to a new Palestinian state and all of them plus all of the current Arab inhabitants of Israel all voted to dissolve Israel then it would come down to the wire if they'd have a majority to dissolve the country. I wouldn't have a problem with this as I don't believe in stripping people of their fundamental rights and I simultaneously hold that refugees should be able to return home and people should be able to democratically decide the future of their country. If this is a problem for anyone then it's one that can easily be solved by a) Israel not trying to steal as much Palestinian land as possible so that when refugees can return home, they'll be returning to the Palestinian state rather than annexed land that is now part of the Israeli states and b) Not using the hypno ray that makes every single refugee decide to return to Israel and then vote for its dissolution which is obviously involved in this scenario for the numbers to make any sense. I think I read in one of the books on the Camp David peace process that about 60% of refugees would consider returning. That was obviously a while ago but I think any expectation that anywhere close to 100% of refugees would return is absurd. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 23:00 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
The entire premise of the "no right of return" argument is a denial of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, so I can feel perfectly at ease dismissing it out of hand. If the Israelis don't want "endless, perpetual war" maybe they can recognize the human rights of non-Jews. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:the G-word also kicks off excessive debates. There is no good-faith argument that Israel has not multiple times already attempted to perpetrate a genocide against Palestinians. That they have stretched it out over the better part of a century instead of trying to get it done in a single generation is not to be admired.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 00:00
|
|
computer parts posted:the G-word also kicks off excessive debates. Which is partly why people often stick with 'ethnic cleansing' in academic writing, but genocide has a legal definition which means you can approach it technically and not have as many problems.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:If millions of refugees return then in the most charitable scenario they vote Israel out of existence and for a one state solution. So no, it is not possible. Yeah, I remember when the South Aftican constitution was ratified, and the country immediately voted to kill all whites. Boy were the faces of the boycott proponents red.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Yeah, I remember when the South Aftican constitution was ratified, and the country immediately voted to kill all whites. Boy were the faces of the boycott proponents red. Because these two situations are exactly the same with no differences whatsoever between them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Because these two situations are exactly the same with no differences whatsoever between them. Apparently the anti-palestinian strategy is to repeatedly cry about how metaphors are inaccurate until the palestinian-israeli conflict can no longer be discussed.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Because these two situations are exactly the same with no differences whatsoever between them. Let's try to do a comparison with no differences. "ALL-PRO SEXMAN's posting is like the posting of ALL-PRO SEXMAN" The thing about comparisons is that if the two things you are contrasting are "exactly the same with no differences whatsoever between them" then it doesn't work because you're just comparing something to itself and that is really stupid. The entire point is that they're in some ways different but you want to draw attention to the particular ways in which they're similar despite any differences. Whether this is valid or not requires, y'know, critical analysis.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:See? Aren't they bad enough on their own merits? Aren't the dangers clear enough without making the laziest comparison possible? It's lazy because it is obvious. Though I would argue that a more deft comparison would be the peasant rhetoric of European anti-Semitic pogroms. e: Once people become "cancer" you officially have to stretch to avoid comparisons to the Nazis.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Based on 8.2 million Israelis with one fifth being arabs and 5 million refugees, if every single possible refugee returned and none of them chose to stay in their current countries of residence and take the payout they'd get instead and all of them return to Israel rather than to a new Palestinian state and all of them plus all of the current Arab inhabitants of Israel all voted to dissolve Israel then it would come down to the wire if they'd have a majority to dissolve the country. It's a charitable reading - they're a lot more likely to pick up arms than ballots in this hypothetical scenario that has 0% chance of coming to pass. Israel is not going to change their immigration policy because the PA will ultimately cave on that.The occupation is certainly untenable, but it's also a pretext for the fact that the goal of large segments (Hamas, BDS) of the Palestinian national movement is mass ethnic cleansing and genocide. Woolie Wool posted:The entire premise of the "no right of return" argument is a denial of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, so I can feel perfectly at ease dismissing it out of hand. If the Israelis don't want "endless, perpetual war" maybe they can recognize the human rights of non-Jews. But I thought this was about the occupation. If Israel withdraws from the West Bank and Gaza in accordance with an agreement with the Palestinian Authority, what right do other states have to attack it?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The entire point of Israel is that it's a state with Jewish privilege coupled with democratic trappings. I am not defending that, merely stating that the status quo will cease to exist if a flood of refugees were to come in. Which is precisely why the standard Labor position is a two state solution with no right of return beyond a tiny symbolic number. If that happens then they have a sustainable Jewish majority state. This is why this also happens to be the international consensus, and the PA has agreed to this in various negotiations - with the caveats of not wanting to put it on paper because they know agreeing to it is a good way to get Sadat'd. It's a red line that Israel will not cross, without no refugees there is no possible deal. Therefore, insisting otherwise is either demagoguery or an insistence, as in the case of Hamas and the Electronic Intifada-types, of endless, perpetual war. I'm still confused why right of return matters with two states. Would an independent Palestine have any control over Israeli policy, aside from what any sovereign state can do anyway (ie, warfare)? Are we assuming that the Palestinians that could return would be more war/bloodthirsty than the ones currently there? When we say two states, do we mean like Belgium?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Based on 8.2 million Israelis with one fifth being arabs and 5 million refugees, if every single possible refugee returned and none of them chose to stay in their current countries of residence and take the payout they'd get instead and all of them return to Israel rather than to a new Palestinian state and all of them plus all of the current Arab inhabitants of Israel all voted to dissolve Israel then it would come down to the wire if they'd have a majority to dissolve the country. So you're saying that currently there are 8.2 million Israelis, 80% of which are Jews (this is simplistic, but let's ignore outliers for now), so that's about 6.6 million Israeli Jews, and 1.6 million Israeli Arabs/Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Out of 5 million refugees, you say that during Camp David the rate was about 60%, which if it holds today, means 3 million come in. It seems to me that more would be looking into it today what with the deteriorating situation in many Palestinian refugee camps, and there may be other factors, but let's stick with that. So now the population of Israel is 6.6m Jews and 4.6m Arabs, for 11.2m total. So 59% Jews vs 41% Arabs. Regardless of whether you think that would be good or bad, just or not, it is a significant change in the balance of power, even if it doesn't lead to a full majority within the Green Line - and keep in mind that there would still, under this scenario, be a few million extra Arab Palestinians inside of adjacent Palestine, which I think would then lead to parity or even an Arab/Palestinian majority. That's the context within which people analyzing the ethnic balance of power are working. Kim Jong Il posted:The entire point of Israel is that it's a state with Jewish privilege coupled with democratic trappings. I am not defending that, merely stating that the status quo will cease to exist if a flood of refugees were to come in. Which is precisely why the standard Labor position is a two state solution with no right of return beyond a tiny symbolic number. If that happens then they have a sustainable Jewish majority state. This is why this also happens to be the international consensus, and the PA has agreed to this in various negotiations - with the caveats of not wanting to put it on paper because they know agreeing to it is a good way to get Sadat'd. It's a red line that Israel will not cross, without no refugees there is no possible deal. Therefore, insisting otherwise is either demagoguery or an insistence, as in the case of Hamas and the Electronic Intifada-types, of endless, perpetual war. Woolie Wool posted:The entire premise of the "no right of return" argument is a denial of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, so I can feel perfectly at ease dismissing it out of hand. If the Israelis don't want "endless, perpetual war" maybe they can recognize the human rights of non-Jews. My thinking may be muddled, but if I understand it correctly, the basic premise of the two-state solution, all the way back to the Partition Plan, was that in Palestine there were two ethnic groups who did not get along, and each of them needed its own separate state in which to be dominant in order to maintain the peace. If you do accept this premise, then you should not be supporting a policy that will make one of these States completely dominated by one ethnic group, and the other with close to parity between them; and therefore, you should oppose including accepting as a prerequisite for a sustainable solution the return of all or a majority of refugees. So no, you cannot simply dismiss it out of hand. It's okay if you are promoting a one-state solution, and oppose a two-state one, but please be up front with it, and accept that it's not within the framework of international law at this time. I think it will make for a better discussion. Generally, when people talk about "right of return" usually that means return to the specific ancestral homes inside of what is now Israel, not to Palestine. To my knowledge, no-one who accepts an actual two state solution opposes any number of Palestinians that the State of Palestine wants to let in coming in there, as setting immigration policies is one of the fundamental privileges of a sovereign state. As far as I know, however, promoters of BDS seem to assume a Return to inside the Green Line, and hence seems to ignore a fundamental premise behind the two-state solution, which is what I think causes a lot of Israelis to eye them very suspiciously - and their unwillingness to have an actual centralized organization with messaging control makes it extremely frustrating to get a straight answer out of any of them regarding any particular. So generally I would suggest that as this debate continues, you all make it clear what specifically you mean by terms like "right of return". Is it to Palestine, or to Israel? Or do you reject the two-state solution? Etc. Again, I think that teasing out these differences and the way all these issues tie together will make for a more productive discussion. SedanChair posted:It's lazy because it is obvious. Though I would argue that a more deft comparison would be the peasant rhetoric of European anti-Semitic pogroms. Hey! Welcome back from detention! That's an extremely valid comparison, Israeli leftists often describe settler violence as "pogroms", and at least it leads to a bit of variety. quote:e: Once people become "cancer" you officially have to stretch to avoid comparisons to the Nazis. Is this worth the repeated derails and the exacerbation of an already unmanageable emotional level of these arguments? I don't think it is.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Is this worth the repeated derails and the exacerbation of an already unmanageable emotional level of these arguments? I don't think it is. My whole problem with this reasoning is that it seems to come down to "the defense (pro Israel people) have no good response and thus revert to melting down, therefore we can't even talk about it." Why should we, as a thread, be prohibited from using a taking point because some posters can't handle it? If the holocaust comparisons are unwarranted then probate/restrict debate based on that, but if the comparisons are warranted (theoretically) and it is the opposition that melts down over the comparison itself shouldn't they be the ones restricted and not those making the argument? Oh sorry, some people get offended by genocide references, you can't call Gaza a genocide any more, problem solved!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Apparently the anti-palestinian strategy is to repeatedly cry about how metaphors are inaccurate until the palestinian-israeli conflict can no longer be discussed. Man, gently caress Likud and the Israeli extremists. They're awful people and if I could press a button and make them vanish from the Earth I would. But it's still a lovely analogy.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:My whole problem with this reasoning is that it seems to come down to "the defense (pro Israel people) have no good response and thus revert to melting down, therefore we can't even talk about it." Why should we, as a thread, be prohibited from using a taking point because some posters can't handle it? If the holocaust comparisons are unwarranted then probate/restrict debate based on that, but if the comparisons are warranted (theoretically) and it is the opposition that melts down over the comparison itself shouldn't they be the ones restricted and not those making the argument? I've given it some thought and I'm not going to probate people just for using Nazi comparisons. But I think it's just bad, lazy argumentation. I personally find poorly-thought-out comparisons to the Nazis to be frankly quite offensive, it takes a certain amount of nuance and understanding of the situation to get it right, and often pro-Palestinians and posters generally don't have that. But if you think we need to keep discussing this for yet another page, I'm not going to probate you, it just seems that frankly there's more important things to talk about, and less lazy ways of going about discussing them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I've given it some thought and I'm not going to probate people just for using Nazi comparisons. But I think it's just bad, lazy argumentation. I personally find poorly-thought-out comparisons to the Nazis to be frankly quite offensive, it takes a certain amount of nuance and understanding of the situation to get it right, and often pro-Palestinians and posters generally don't have that. But if you think we need to keep discussing this for yet another page, I'm not going to probate you, it just seems that frankly there's more important things to talk about, and less lazy ways of going about discussing them. I feel this is completely fair. Lazy argumentation deserves what it gets, but holocaust comparisons don't deserve probation purely due to the subject, but if they are lovely arguments I'm not going to defend it any more than you are.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:I feel this is completely fair. Lazy argumentation deserves what it gets, but holocaust comparisons don't deserve probation purely due to the subject, but if they are lovely arguments I'm not going to defend it any more than you are. Terrific!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:My whole problem with this reasoning is that it seems to come down to "the defense (pro Israel people) have no good response and thus revert to melting down, therefore we can't even talk about it." Why should we, as a thread, be prohibited from using a taking point because some posters can't handle it? If the holocaust comparisons are unwarranted then probate/restrict debate based on that, but if the comparisons are warranted (theoretically) and it is the opposition that melts down over the comparison itself shouldn't they be the ones restricted and not those making the argument? The only sensible response to the Nazi comparisons, namely pointing out how completely insane and detached from reality it is is that the only response to that from the anti-Zionists is to whine that what they meant was that they were comparing Israel to 30's era Germany and so of course they're not suggesting that Israel is breaking ground on neo-Auschwitz, right before going back to yelling that's exactly what's happening. Just like the fact that the hysterical shrieking at every new outbreak of violence about how this time it's really the big one and that the ZioNazis are going to start herding Palestinians into extermination camps is always shown up as absurdly wrong will never change the minds of those who get it wrong. It's like listening to  talk about how this time it's CWII/RAHOWA/SHTF for real. The dozens of times in the past they've said the exact same thing never seems to register with them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:The only sensible response to the Nazi comparisons, namely pointing out how completely insane and detached from reality it is is that the only response to that from the anti-Zionists is to whine that what they meant was that they were comparing Israel to 30's era Germany and so of course they're not suggesting that Israel is breaking ground on neo-Auschwitz, right before going back to yelling that's exactly what's happening. Just like the fact that the hysterical shrieking at every new outbreak of violence about how this time it's really the big one and that the ZioNazis are going to start herding Palestinians into extermination camps is always shown up as absurdly wrong will never change the minds of those who get it wrong. It's like listening to You're right, I think the "crying wolf" aspect also needs to be considered.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I've given it some thought and I'm not going to probate people just for using Nazi comparisons. But I think it's just bad, lazy argumentation. I personally find poorly-thought-out comparisons to the Nazis to be frankly quite offensive, it takes a certain amount of nuance and understanding of the situation to get it right, and often pro-Palestinians and posters generally don't have that. But if you think we need to keep discussing this for yet another page, I'm not going to probate you, it just seems that frankly there's more important things to talk about, and less lazy ways of going about discussing them. It's not a lazy argument, it just isn't actually an argument. An argument would be: 'here are some ways in which Israeli policy is similar to the holocaust. Extending the metaphor, that indicates that the proper response is to do xyz.' But nobody is saying that. When the comparison is made, nothing is asserted to follow from it. The Nazi comparison is both premise and conclusion. It is mere affect masquerading as serious policy critique.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:It's not a lazy argument, it just isn't actually an argument. An argument would be: 'here are some ways in which Israeli policy is similar to the holocaust. Extending the metaphor, that indicates that the proper response is to do xyz.' But nobody is saying that. When the comparison is made, nothing is asserted to follow from it. The Nazi comparison is both premise and conclusion. It is mere affect masquerading as serious policy critique. Maybe because opposing Nazis is an understood social convention in modern society.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Maybe because opposing Nazis is an understood social convention in modern society. I agree with you computer parts, Nazi analogies are not real attempts at argumentation but a way to express a hatred of Israelis and a rejection of Israel's existence. "Everybody hates Nazis, everybody should hate Israelis, so let's call Israelis Nazis" is the sort of argument that says more about the person who makes it than it does about anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:It's not a lazy argument, it just isn't actually an argument. An argument would be: 'here are some ways in which Israeli policy is similar to the holocaust. Extending the metaphor, that indicates that the proper response is to do xyz.' But nobody is saying that. When the comparison is made, nothing is asserted to follow from it. The Nazi comparison is both premise and conclusion. It is mere affect masquerading as serious policy critique. Well presumably the proper response would be "Stop sending money to the Israelis like Henry Ford would send money to Hitler in a birthday card."
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:I agree with you computer parts, Nazi analogies are not real attempts at argumentation but a way to express a hatred of Israelis and a rejection of Israel's existence. See, the point people disagree with you on is the bolded portion. Who are the Israelis everyone should hate? The people in the government. Why should everyone hate them? Because they act like* Nazis. *"Like" meaning "similar in many ways" and not "literally identical".
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
I was wondering are there any good sources about Shachar Berrin the soldier who is in big trouble for criticizing his fellows in arms for their racism to Palestinians in the occupied territories?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:The only sensible response to the Nazi comparisons, namely pointing out how completely insane and detached from reality it is is that the only response to that from the anti-Zionists is to whine that what they meant was that they were comparing Israel to 30's era Germany and so of course they're not suggesting that Israel is breaking ground on neo-Auschwitz, right before going back to yelling that's exactly what's happening. Just like the fact that the hysterical shrieking at every new outbreak of violence about how this time it's really the big one and that the ZioNazis are going to start herding Palestinians into extermination camps is always shown up as absurdly wrong will never change the minds of those who get it wrong. It's like listening to I don't think anyone is expecting actual Nazi-style death camps, but they are merely expressing their anger at injustice in a hyperbolic fashion. The issue is that this is actually a lovely thing for discussion. It derails and sidetracks the conversation. And, I think a lot of people simply want to continue being angry and aren't very interested in discourse. Like, what actually happened last summer was "The Big One." Thousands of people died and countless more were rendered homeless. But, I think the thread gets stuck on "was thing bad y/n," and never actually progresses past that into actual discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well presumably the proper response would be "Stop sending money to the Israelis like Henry Ford would send money to Hitler in a birthday card." But the Wehrmacht was not propped up by foreign military aid. They were not defeated by a boycott. Their cities were bombed to rubble and their homeland was carved up and subject to foreign occupation and forced population transfers. It strikes me as extremely odd to invoke such a powerful analogy to advocate for something as comparatively timid as divestment.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:But the Wehrmacht was not propped up by foreign military aid. They were not defeated by a boycott. Their cities were bombed to rubble and their homeland was carved up and subject to foreign occupation and forced population transfers. It strikes me as extremely odd to invoke such a powerful analogy to advocate for something as comparatively timid as divestment. I agree, I can't see why people would be hesitant to call for invading a country in the Middle East to bring about freedom.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I was wondering are there any good sources about Shachar Berrin the soldier who is in big trouble for criticizing his fellows in arms for their racism to Palestinians in the occupied territories? There's Mondoweiss's take, but let me reprint the paywalled Haaretz story, too: Soldier pays the price for criticizing the Israel army IDF soldier Shachar Berrin was sentenced to a week in prison after he attended the taping of an international TV program, during which he stood up and expressed his opinion of the occupation. --by Gideon Levy and Alex Levac  Berrin. 'We see every day how soldiers… look at these people not as human beings, not as someone who is equal, but someone who is less than them.' Courtesy of the Berrin family Corporal Shachar Berrin, an immigrant from Australia and a religiously observant lone soldier – he has no family in Israel – is waiting to be sent to military prison. Berrin is a member of the rescue unit of the Home Front Command, and is stationed in the Jordan Valley. The punishment, delayed for the time being, was meted out by his battalion commander. The charge: taking part in a political meeting and in an interview the media, without permission from the army. But Berrin did not take part in any sort of “political meeting,” nor did he give an interview. Last Thursday, the 19-year-old soldier was in the audience in the hall of the Mishkenot Sha’ananim conference center, in Jerusalem, for a taping of “The New Arab Debates” – a program of the German television network Deutsche Welle that’s broadcast around the world, moderated by former BBC interviewer Tim Sebastian. The proposition debated by the panel appearing on the show was: “The occupation is destroying Israel.” The speakers consisted of the settler-activist Dani Dayan and a member of the left-wing Meretz party, Uri Zaki. Berrin, who was in uniform, stood up to address Dayan. The settlers and right-wing activists in the audience filmed him, and in less than 12 hours he was ordered to return to his base, where he was tried and convicted – even before the program was broadcast. (It aired this week.) Berrin makes his comment at minute 43 of the hour-long show. This whole incident shows that when rapid, determined action is called for, the Israel Defense Forces knows how to act. When soldiers kill Palestinian children, the investigation is stretched out over years, gathering dust before usually going nowhere. When soldiers are filmed holding abusive slogans, or when they identify publicly with “David Hanahalawi” – the soldier from the Nahal Brigade who threatened a Palestinian youth with his rifle and roughed him up a year ago, prompting hundreds of soldiers to express solidarity with him on the social networks – no one considers putting them on trial. But if a soldier dares to attest publicly that his fellow soldiers are humiliating Palestinians, the IDF mobilizes rapidly to trample, punish and silence. That’s what happened to Shachar Berrin. In the question-and-answer segment, after Dayan remarked that the fact that Israel is in 11th place in the World Happiness Report demonstrated that the occupation is not destroying it, Berrin asked for the floor and said (in English): “My name is Shachar Berrin and my question is for Dani Dayan. It was mentioned that Israel is the 11th happiest country in the world… I propose that what makes a country good isn’t whether it is happy or not, it’s the ethics and morality of the country. When soldiers are conditioned and persuaded on a daily basis to subjugate and humiliate people and consider other human beings as less than human, I think that seeps in, and I think that when the soldiers go home… they bring that back with them.” Tim Sebastian asked Berrin whether he was speaking “from personal experience.” Berrin: “Sure. Definitely. Just the other week, when some Border Police soldiers were rough with Christian tourists, another soldier, a colleague, said she couldn’t believe what they were doing: ‘I mean, come on, they are people, not Palestinians.’ I think that resonates throughout the occupied territories. I serve in the Jordan Valley, and we see every day how soldiers… look at these people not as human beings, not as someone who is equal, but someone who is less than them. And to think that we can just leave the racism and the xenophobia – that they will only be racist when they humiliate Palestinians – of course not… I think that once you are conditioned to think something, you bring it back with you and that it deeply affects Israeli society and causes it, as our president says, to be more racist.” Murmurs were heard in the audience: “He’s a jobnik [derogatory term for noncombat soldier], he’s a liar.” Dayan also lashed out: “You’re not the only person who was in the army. I was in the army, I have a daughter in the army. It’s demagogy. I think the guy is lying.” Sebastian: “You think he’s lying? On the basis of what? Because you don’t like it?” Dayan: “I challenge him to bring one example in which a [commanding officer] gave him an order to treat Palestinians inhumanely.” Sebastian: “You’ve never seen the reports from [the organization] Breaking the Silence?” Dayan: “Breaking the Silence is also one of those groups that are part of an orchestrated effort against Israel.” Sebastian: “They’re all liars?” The event ended. The audience vote on whether to support the motion for the debate ended in a tie. But even before that, it was clear that some of those present would immediately report Cpl. Berrin’s subversive behavior to the IDF authorities. The program’s producer, Tanya Sakzewski, asked Berrin whether he wanted his face scrambled in the broadcast. But he told her he had nothing to hide. Berrin was born in Israel to Jewish-American parents and moved with them as an infant to Australia, where he lived approximately until bar-mitzvah age, when he moved back to Israel with his mother, brother and sister. His brother, Seraphya, told me this week from Melbourne, where he lives, that Shachar had agonized at length over whether to serve in the IDF, primarily because of the occupation. Seraphya, who served in the hesder yeshiva program (combining military service with religious studies), tried to persuade his brother to serve in order to become acquainted with the country’s reality and so that “more good people” would be in the army. Shachar attended the Shalom Hartman Institute’s high school for boys in Jerusalem, and worshiped regularly at Shira Hadasha, an egalitarian Orthodox congregation in the capital. His parents are separated and live abroad: His father is a businessman in Thailand; his mother teaches Judaism in Berlin. In the end, he decided to take his brother’s advice to serve in the IDF and to try to be a “good person.” He has served in the IDF for a year and a half. Berrin has been jolted more than once by what he has seen during his service. Last month, in a handwritten note (in Hebrew) to his brother, he described a conversation he had witnessed: “Being transported to this morning’s mission. The commander, Dvir Peretz, noted that sometimes Palestinian schoolchildren who visit the baptism site [on the Jordan River] want to be photographed with soldiers. He prohibited us from having our picture taken with them, claiming that ‘It comes out looking bad’ and that ‘left-wing groups like B’Tselem can make use of it against us.’ In response, Brit El-Har, a female soldier, said: ‘Too late. We’ve already been photographed. They insist and push to have their picture taken. What am I supposed to do?’ “Officer Dvir: ‘Just kick them.’ Brit: ‘I can’t kick them. They’re kids.’ Officer: ‘So what? Every one of them will throw a Molotov cocktail at you when he grows up.’ Brit: ‘Not every one.’ Officer: ‘Yes, every one.’ After that conversation, I spoke to Brit and she defended what she said: ‘I hate Arabs, but they’re just children.’” Seraphya told me his brother had received a citation for “outstanding performance in advanced training.” Shachar has never regretted entering the army. The day after the TV program was taped – last Friday morning – he received a text message ordering him to return immediately to the base. On Saturday evening, the battalion commander sentenced him to a week in prison. The IDF Spokesperson’s Unit stated this week, in response to a request for comment: “The soldier was tried for expressing himself in the media without authority or permission, as called for by army orders.” This week, Sebastian, who made many world leaders sweat during his long-running BBC program “Hard Talk,” returned to his home in London. From there he sent me this email: “I’m sorry the soldier got sentenced. I hope the IDF will come to respect him for what he said even if they don’t like the way he said it. It takes guts to speak out in public, knowing the consequences. Those who shouted the soldier down and called him a liar – with no evidence to support that accusation – should prove their charge or apologize. They need to show some guts as well.”
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 03:45 |
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:But the Wehrmacht was not propped up by foreign military aid. They were not defeated by a boycott. Their cities were bombed to rubble and their homeland was carved up and subject to foreign occupation and forced population transfers. It strikes me as extremely odd to invoke such a powerful analogy to advocate for something as comparatively timid as divestment. Well yes; different theaters, different geopolitical realities etc. etc. It's very strange to encounter certain subjects where the "power" of your analogies is all of a sudden subject to the most particular scrutiny. I mean if the Sunnis end up utterly erasing every Alawite from the Earth, we're all going to say "oh my god it's just like the Nazis." No Analogy Police are going to pop out of the ground like "how can you compare them to Nazis?"
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 06:33
|
|