|
FreshlyShaven posted:
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
I don't think that's actually how anyone thinks. It probably comes down more to the moral outrage of western governments (ie, the representatives of the boycotters) providing so much support to Israel. This also means that a change of policy from our own governments could have a huge effect on the situation, making it a cause that is more likely to succeed than boycotting some random rogue state that won't care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:If a policy has a disparate impact towards Jews, it's functionally anti-Semitic even if that's not the hypothetical intent - per that reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:I don't think that's actually how anyone thinks. It probably comes down more to the moral outrage of western governments (ie, the representatives of the boycotters) providing so much support to Israel. This also means that a change of policy from our own governments could have a huge effect on the situation, making it a cause that is more likely to succeed than boycotting some random rogue state that won't care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's de facto, functional anti-Semitism using the logic of progressivism. If a policy has a disparate impact towards Jews, it's functionally anti-Semitic even if that's not the hypothetical intent - per that reasoning. So do you think the South Africa boycott movement was racist against Afrikaners?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So do you think the South Africa boycott movement was racist against Afrikaners? The problem with KJI's logic here is that (most) people aren't against certain policies just because they "have a disparate effect on a group". It is because 1. certain policies have a disparate net negative impact on a disadvantaged group and 2. these policies do not have any other significant benefit. So in the case of a boycott against Israel, there are a few things that make it different from, say, policies that disproportionately effect African Americans: 1. They only affect Jews in Israel, rather than Jews in general. So effectively a disproportionate effect on Jews is just a necessary side-effect of the fact that the majority of Israeli citizens are Jewish. 2. Israeli Jews are in a position of power and authority in Israel. They are not a disadvantaged group that is at the mercy of another demographic. (This is probably the most important point.) 3. The boycott's intended goal* is definitely a positive. Israel does many bad things, and if they stopped doing them it would be good. Stuff like the war on drugs that are implemented in a way disproportionately affecting blacks accomplish very little good and cause much harm. Basically comparing the two is analogous to saying that "progressive logic" implies sanctions against North Korea are bigoted towards Koreans. The situations are similar; in both cases a particular ethnic group is disproportionately affected, and in both cases only a subset of that ethnic group within a specific country is affected. (I feel silly explaining all of this stuff. How is all of this not immediately obvious?) *I should clarify that I don't really support or oppose the BDS movement. I don't really know if boycotts would actually have any net positive impact on Israel. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:What rogue state besides North Korea would not care about a US boycott? Where's the moral outrage about the support for China and Saudi Arabia? If there were even a prayer of a chance that a boycott of Saudi Arabia could occur, I'd be all over that in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's de facto, functional anti-Semitism using the logic of progressivism. If a policy has a disparate impact towards Jews, it's functionally anti-Semitic even if that's not the hypothetical intent - per that reasoning. If a policy has a disparate impact towards an dispossessed native population, it's functionally colonialism even if that's not the hypothetical intent. If a policy has a disparate impact towards an entire ethnic group, it's functionally racism even if that's not the hypothetical intent. Defending the existence of Israel is, de facto, functional colonialism and racism using the logic of progressivisim. Weeeee!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:It's de facto, functional anti-Semitism using the logic of progressivism. If a policy has a disparate impact towards Jews, it's functionally anti-Semitic even if that's not the hypothetical intent - per that reasoning. I notice that you make this claim without actually explaining what the italicised logic of progressivism actually is, which makes sense because this is a completely ridiculous claim that has no logic behind it. You're making up a definition of "anti-semetic" that's so tortuously bent and broken that it's irrelevant. By your logic it's racist for countries to sanction Hamas for being a terrorist group. After all, despite it being based on their actions, it is a policy that has a disparate impact towards Arabs and Muslims (as hamas is mostly composed of arabs and muslims) and as that's you're only criteria it's therefore racist and wrong. I expect realising this, in your very next post you'll call out against this unfair racist treatment of Hamas. I'll stick to judging and treating people based off their actions and not giving countries immunity from punishment for committing war crimes just because they're a different culture and religion to me. No-one thinks like you do or uses those kind of definitions and it just shows how your argument is out of touch with basic notions of anti-semitism and racism. Although it's not the only argument for BDS, if anything I'd say it's racist not to boycott because boycotts correct the racist imbalance already present in how nations treat Israel. If the Israel/Palestine conflict was basically the same but between Sunni and Shia muslim then Israel would be sanctioned to hell and back after the decades of war crimes, human rights abuses and aggression that have been omitted against the Palestinians. Look at Syria, there are loads of sanctions in place against them so there is no need for an activist group to come together and demand a boycott. The effect is already in place so there's be no point in Syrian BDS movement. Even Russia, a major international power and UNSC member, got some sanctions against it after it's involvement in the Crimea. There is a clear difference between how Israel and basically every other country on the face of the earth gets treated and Israel is uniquely privileged. If any other country were in Israel's position of being a regional power with no key exports like oil and no UNSC membership that's been committing war crimes and oppressing and killing minorities for decades, causing major geo-political problems for western nations, etc then they'd have already had their rear end sanctioned off (if not actively couped with western assistance) so there would be no need for a boycott. A boycott is therefore necessary to address this imbalance, to counteract the racist preference that states like the USA show for Israel where they reward them for war crimes with uniquely massive amounts of military and economic aid rather than punishing them with sanctions. It's just attempting to push the treatment of Israel somewhere towards the norm. That's of course putting aside the fact that Israel is pretty unique conflict in a whole variety of ways. Not all conflicts are the same and there aren't the same reasons to boycott all countries involved in boycotts. That's both in terms of how much the country deserves to be boycotted, like say after decades of conflict and human rights abuses, and how practical it is. Like someone could try and get a boycott going against all those human-rights abusing oil-producing Arab countries, buy how likely is it to actually put together a mass movement of people who no longer use oil? People who don't drive their cars or use any public transport that relies on oil? So unlikely it's not worth bothering with. it's obviously better to work as an activist and critic against Saudi Arabia and other countries in a different manner. Israel though? Boycott is dead easy. Don't buy Sodastream, check what the country of origin is for your oranges and try to make sure any investments you have don't go towards Israeli companies.. coyo7e posted:I'm sorry but what does "disparate impact towards Jews" actually mean in practise? I mean, I thought disparate meant "so different there is no basis for comparison" so either this just seems to be word salad, or there is something else you meant to be driving at, I think? He's trying to say that because Israel is predominantly Jewish, any negative actions against Israel are inherently racist because they will predominantly effect Jews. So even if it has noting to do with the fact that Israel is a predominantly Jewish state and it's a race-blind and religion-blind response that is identical to the response that would be used in the same situation with a non-Jewish country, it's still magically racist despite being the exact opposite of what racist means to ordinary people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Where's the moral outrage about the support for China and Saudi Arabia? There's a bit of a stir in Canada about supporting Saudi Arabia, and the Netherlands recently banned weapons exports to the Saudis as well. "Why are you mad at Israel when X is also bad!" is such a tired argument, especially in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
No, it's a perfectly logical and valid argument, in the same way that arson, theft, and rape are not prosecuted as long as murder exists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
I wish sometimes that arguments solely based on criticism of or actions against the Israeli state being automatically anti-Semitic would be bannable or at least probateable ITT but I guess that would shut down too many of the posters. It's so goddamn tiresome though and I started to feel we were past that in the public discourse too but it's back in full force recently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:That seems like a nonsensical argument. Of course people directly concerned with the issue – Palestinians, black South Africans etc – are choosing the boycott as tactic in a struggle in which they are already engaged.But most of the people participating in the boycott, whose presence you mostly elide choose to participate based on a logic that is… fairly similar to "which cause is most worthy of my attention" or, in fact, "who are the worst people that I can boycott". No, people generally join the boycott because they are disgusted with Israel's actions and have chosen to join the Palestinian community's call to boycott, namely due to the tireless activism of BDS supporters. Your argument is nonsensical; for one thing, it could be used to attack supporters of any boycott. You're also ignoring the possibility that people join the boycott because they're informed on the issue and feel sympathy for the Palestinian cause(as a BDSer myself, I can tell you this is the motivation for every BDS supporter I've ever met; people who hate the Jewish state out of a hatred of Judaism generally hate Arabs and Palestinians even more.) For another, just because you believe that the I/P issue is worthy of your attention doesn't mean that other causes aren't just or that a hatred of Jews lies behind a person choosing to focus on Palestine more than, say, Western New Guinea. quote:What rogue state besides North Korea would not care about a US boycott? Where's the moral outrage about the support for China and Saudi Arabia? For one thing, the groups most oppressed by these two regimes(in China, the Uighurs and Tibetans; in KSA, dissidents, Shia and women) have not called for a boycott; in fact, most of the major Tibetan rights organizations have explicitly advocated against one. For a well-meaning Westerner to ignore the wishes of the people they're ostensibly helping because he/she knows better would be the height of Western Savior Syndrome. If these organizations were to change their mind and issue an international call for boycott, I would seriously consider it as would many people who support BDS. But there are clear logistical problems to a boycott that would have to be overcome: KSA's exports are almost entirely crude oil, a fungible commodity that is notoriously difficult to boycott. China, on the other hand, is the world's second largest economy and the world's largest manufacturing economy; a boycott would have a very difficult time putting a noticeable dent in an economy like that and if it did succeed, could easily trigger another Great Recession, spreading misery around the globe. It's also important to remember that the West tried sanctioning and isolating China for decades and during that period, China committed its gravest human rights abuses without coming any closer to becoming democratic or respecting human rights. Israel's economy, on the other hand, is export-dependent and much, much smaller than China's, making it, like South Africa, a perfect candidate for a successful boycott. quote:Of all the human rights offenders, they're only targeting the Jewish one, the same people who have been systematically targeted by (in those cases clearly and explicitly) anti-Semitic boycotts throughout history. It's literally thousands of people spending 100% of their energy on Israeli and not uttering a peep about worst offenders, or in cases like Syria, in some cases actively apologizing for them. Thank you for illustrating the kind of idiotic argument I was talking about. Supporting BDS doesn't mean you support Assad or Saudi Arabia or North Korea any more than supporting a boycott of apartheid South Africa meant you were supporting Idi Amin or Mobutu Seko.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:That seems like a nonsensical argument. Of course people directly concerned with the issue – Palestinians, black South Africans etc – are choosing the boycott as tactic in a struggle in which they are already engaged. But most of the people participating in the boycott, whose presence you mostly elide choose to participate based on a logic that is… fairly similar to "which cause is most worthy of my attention" or, in fact, "who are the worst people that I can boycott". Where does this argument go? For the sake of argument, let's just grant that every single BDS supporter is a hypocrite motivated by nothing more than hated of Jews in general. Then what? We're no closer to any conclusion about whether Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank are justified, or whether the US should continue to support that state. And if you have other arguments sufficient to establish those things, then it's not obvious why you would even need to call your opponents' character into question - that they're wrong should be enough. It just seems like an attempt at a rhetorical end-run. Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
http://youtu.be/S8WK2TgruMo Earlier today, another summary execution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
I am in favor of a universal, integral boycott of every single country on Earth until Israel stops mistreating Palestinians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Thanks, this is extremely well-stated and laid out, and I will try to keep it in mind the next time I run into the same strain of logic being used to denote someone anti-semite/whatever simply because they're pro-downtrodden. It basically seems to be the "reverse racism!  " card often used by whites, except with a more volatile label that everybody's afraid to counter because hey, Jewish people had a rough time once a while back (except they actually got reparations from most western nations, in the form of their own sovereign state, where they chose to pick it.. Or am I missing a point in there?)quote:He's trying to say that because Israel is predominantly Jewish, any negative actions against Israel are inherently racist because they will predominantly effect Jews. So even if it has noting to do with the fact that Israel is a predominantly Jewish state and it's a race-blind and religion-blind response that is identical to the response that would be used in the same situation with a non-Jewish country, it's still magically racist despite being the exact opposite of what racist means to ordinary people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:everybody's afraid to counter because hey, Jewish people had a rough time once a while back (except they actually got reparations from most western nations, in the form of their own sovereign state, where they chose to pick it.. Or am I missing a point in there?) This is kinda a hosed up thing to say, but it also illustrates my point: simply pointing out latent anti-Semitic animus doesn't establish anything substantive about the justifiability of Israel's actions or US foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
I'm sure that, as a mid-30s white male American, I have some underlying anti-semitism that I grew up with, just like I grew up thinking black people were scary monsters because in the PNW in the 80s-90s, it was whiter than a bleached doily. I'm trying to learn what the difference is between valid criticism and "that's hosed up." Thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
NLJP posted:I wish sometimes that arguments solely based on criticism of or actions against the Israeli state being automatically anti-Semitic would be bannable or at least probateable ITT but I guess that would shut down too many of the posters. It's so goddamn tiresome though and I started to feel we were past that in the public discourse too but it's back in full force recently. It's the prevailing opinion of 90% of the Western political establishment, so banning it here would be sort of useless I do feel like the public discourse is progressing though, albeit slowly. The reason the pro-apartheid lashing out has been so intense lately is because of BDS clawing its way onto the political scene. Even if very slow and relatively low-key, it's progress, and the pro-Israel people know it icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:http://youtu.be/S8WK2TgruMo The Guardian article.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/palestinians-killed-alleged-attacks-israelis-160324133329293.html Lookin' Good IDF. Summary executions on camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Hopefully he dies in prison. Do police/paramedics/soldiers from other countries usually stand around ignoring wounded criminals instead of giving them medical attention?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Hopefully he dies in prison. A police officer in New York accidentally shot a random unarmed civilian in a stairwell and texted his union rep instead of helping the man who bled to death. He was found guilty of manslaughter and will not spend a single day in prison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
That soldier might get a slap on the wrist for doing it on camera but he's gonna get a rudimentary prison sentence, if any. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypHkx4KHmM
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:hey, Jewish people had a rough time once a while back (except they actually got reparations from most western nations, in the form of their own sovereign state, where they chose to pick it.. Or am I missing a point in there?) The point is that if you don't want to be accused of holding anti-semitic positions(or see Zionists ready to leap out and accuse you of it lurking in every shadow) then you probably shouldn't write things like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:The point is that if you don't want to be accused of holding anti-semitic positions(or see Zionists ready to leap out and accuse you of it lurking in every shadow) then you probably shouldn't write things like that. So it's anti-Semitic to suggest that Jews do not, in fact, have the right to commit atrocities and crimes against humanity, no matter how hard you pull on capital-H History as justification? Sorry, the Holocaust doesn't make it OK for Jews to set up a fascist apartheid state and commit slow genocide. The anti-Semite thing is honestly in my opinion some of the most blatant projectionism you can find in all of politics, because the argument for Israel depends on a racist, ethnic supremacist notion that Jews have more rights than other ethnic groups. Remember the idea that corporate groups have rights is an extremely suspect idea to begin with; individuals have rights, ethnic groups do not have rights, states do not have rights. Zionism is the only case in which that illiberal idea is tolerated. And Israel defends are open about this, it's not a secret people are trying to hide. And yet, calling those racist, supremacist assumptions into question gets the full weight of even the liberal establishment crashing down on you as ANTI-SEMITE!!!!! icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
I think ti's also the case with BDS that most ppl in the the EU and US consider Israel a "Western" state, like South Africa was as well, and are therefore more invested in it acting in a certain way. You can call that a form of ethno centrism I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So it's anti-Semitic to suggest that Jews do not, in fact, have the right to commit atrocities and crimes against humanity, no matter how hard you pull on capital-H History as justification? Sorry, the Holocaust doesn't make it OK for Jews to set up a fascist apartheid state and commit slow genocide. The anti-Semite thing is honestly in my opinion some of the most blatant projectionism you can find in all of politics, because the argument for Israel depends on a racist, ethnic supremacist notion that Jews have more rights than other ethnic groups. Most Israel defends are even open about this, it's not a secret people are trying to hide. And yet, calling those racist, supremacist assumptions into question gets the full weight of even the liberal FP establishment crashing down on you as ANTI-SEMITE!!!!! Is there something literally wrong with you? Here, once again, is the coyo7e post I was responding to: coyo7e posted:hey, Jewish people had a rough time once a while back (except they actually got reparations from most western nations, in the form of their own sovereign state, where they chose to pick it.. Or am I missing a point in there?) Maybe I'm falling afoul of Poe's Law here, but you are the poster who insisted in the Middle East thread that everything wrong with the modern Middle East was the fault of Israel so I'm assuming your response wasn't meant to be taken as sarcasm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Is there something literally wrong with you? Here, once again, is the coyo7e post I was responding to: Do you think that the past experience of the Jewish people affords them more rights and more leeway in conduct as a group?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
The kind of views propagated by people such as The Insect Court, Kim Jong Il, etc. are in their own way even more fundamentally antisemitic. That is, the justification for Israel's treatment of Palestinians is via saying that the Palestinians are morally suspect. Thus, if Alfred Dreyfus actually had been a traitor, if someone had intended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion seriously, instead of it being a forgery- if those things were true, in the worldview they lay out through their posts, then antisemitism would be justified. To contrast, I view racism to always be evil, regardless of whether someone considered to be of a particular race is immoral or not.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So do you think the South Africa boycott movement was racist against Afrikaners? I haven't argued that it was or BDS is, just that the logic of identity politics is really what's at fault. Afrikaners also don't have a long history of being scapegoated, and South African apartheid is very different than what's being alleged against Israel, which is land occupation and war crimes. Ytlaya posted:1. They only affect Jews in Israel, rather than Jews in general. So effectively a disproportionate effect on Jews is just a necessary side-effect of the fact that the majority of Israeli citizens are Jewish. 1. The voting rights laws in Arizona only affect certain Hispanics, not all Hispanics everywhere. Perfectly ok then? They affect a gigantic plurality of world Jewry, so the impact test is passed. 2. African Americans are in a position of power in certain towns in North Carolina. Does that make it okay that the NC state legislature restricts their ability to vote? Would you dare argue that if Ferguson has a black mayor, everything's peachy even though the county and state government are very different? In fact, nothing would magically be changed even if the entire levels of power were minorities. 3. You're conflating opinion with whether or not the analogy is valid. I think the goal of BDS is ethnic cleansing and would have horrific implications if it was remotely possible, realistic, or internally consistent. quote:Basically comparing the two is analogous to saying that "progressive logic" implies sanctions against North Korea are bigoted towards Koreans. Were sanctions against Iraq unfair to Iraqis? If we sanction North Korea, I think it's realistic to think that the people baring the brunt of that will be ordinary citizens. It'd be monstrous therefore on a humanitarian level, besides the fact that it would not be very likely to change the regime's behavior. I think the same of sanctions towards Israel, Iran, Cuba, pretty much everyone. They're humanitarianly and morally indefensible, and in addition don't loving work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The kind of views propagated by people such as The Insect Court, Kim Jong Il, etc. are in their own way even more fundamentally antisemitic. That is, the justification for Israel's treatment of Palestinians is via saying that the Palestinians are morally suspect. Thus, if Alfred Dreyfus actually had been a traitor, if someone had intended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion seriously, instead of it being a forgery- if those things were true, in the worldview they lay out through their posts, then antisemitism would be justified. Of course I've never said this and you're deliberately lying and making stuff up. Everyone who disagrees with your fringe view is a racist, got it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:12
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Of course I've never said this and you're deliberately lying and making stuff up. Everyone who disagrees with your fringe view is a racist, got it. You consistently point out support for Hamas or other such perfidies of Palestinians in response to people saying that Israel's actions are unjustified, when you can be bothered to have a conversation instead of conducting a verbal hit-and-run. Maybe you are a singular failure at the art of communication, or maybe you feel the need to operate at arm's length and through posturing because you recognize your logic is faulty, bordering on monstrous, but aren't able to break free from it. I hope you can, someday. But regardless, the logic that results from defending Israel's treatment of Palestinians by citing Palestinian immorality is as I've described it, without some antisemitic nonsense propping Jews up as inherently superior or whatever.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I haven't argued that it was or BDS is, just that the logic of identity politics is really what's at fault. Afrikaners also don't have a long history of being scapegoated, and South African apartheid is very different than what's being alleged against Israel, which is land occupation and war crimes. Arguably Israel is actually worse than SA apartheid, Israel has apartheid and war crimes and active ethnic cleansing. SA never engineered mass-scale ethnic cleansing nor was it founded on it like Israel quote:1. The voting rights laws in Arizona only affect certain Hispanics, not all Hispanics everywhere. Perfectly ok then? They affect a gigantic plurality of world Jewry, so the impact test is passed. If Hispanics or African-Americans were running brutal apartheid regimes in certain areas in which white people were a legally disenfranchised underclass and murdered by the regime daily, I would support sanctions on them as well. And  at the bolded crocodile tearsquote:Were sanctions against Iraq unfair to Iraqis? If we sanction North Korea, I think it's realistic to think that the people baring the brunt of that will be ordinary citizens. It'd be monstrous therefore on a humanitarian level, besides the fact that it would not be very likely to change the regime's behavior. I think the same of sanctions towards Israel, Iran, Cuba, pretty much everyone. They're humanitarianly and morally indefensible, and in addition don't loving work. So why do you think South Africa ended apartheid then? edit: Kim Jong Il posted:Of course I've never said this and you're deliberately lying and making stuff up. Everyone who disagrees with your fringe view is a racist, got it. See my comments about projection two posts ago
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
NLJP posted:I wish sometimes that arguments solely based on criticism of or actions against the Israeli state being automatically anti-Semitic would be bannable or at least probateable ITT but I guess that would shut down too many of the posters. It's so goddamn tiresome though and I started to feel we were past that in the public discourse too but it's back in full force recently. Yes, the fictional notion that Zionists drop accusations of anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat is ridiculous and really should stop. It's a complete chimera strawman that anti-Zionists invented and use to shut down debate at any and all opportunities. coyo7e posted:Yeah, I'm fairly sure I get what he was trying to say however, "disparate" is a somewhat absurd term to use in that context which could seem to indicate that he doesn't really understand what he was speaking of and is just throwing stuff until something sticks heavily enough that others stop going against his logic. Or you could spend two seconds on Google and learn that it's a commonly used term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Yes, the fictional notion that Zionists drop accusations of anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat is ridiculous and really should stop. It's a complete chimera strawman that anti-Zionists invented and use to shut down debate at any and all opportunities. Oh, I guess you have TIC blocked too, because otherwise you'd see a perfect example of a Zionist that drops accusations of anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat right here in this thread. Also, why do you waste so much effort writing minimally varied versions of "b-b-but the Palestinians are worse!!!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I haven't argued that it was or BDS is, just that the logic of identity politics is really what's at fault. Afrikaners also don't have a long history of being scapegoated, and South African apartheid is very different than what's being alleged against Israel, which is land occupation and war crimes. You didn't say it was racist? "It's de facto, functional anti-Semitism using the logic of progressivism." You claimed that it is racist under a certain logic which you didn't deign to explain beyond a ridiculous claim that everyone in this thread has pretty much already dealt with. Also you don't sem to understand what occupation actually is seeing as you've termed it "land occupation". It's not simply about the Israelis taking Palestinian land but about the subjugation of the Palestinian people and them living in oppression. quote:1. The voting rights laws in Arizona only affect certain Hispanics, not all Hispanics everywhere. Perfectly ok then? They affect a gigantic plurality of world Jewry, so the impact test is passed. The voting laws aren't a reaction to human rights abuses and war crimes which should justly be applied based on international standard to any populace of any ethnicity. It's like someone has explained the difference between self-defence and attackign someone to you and you've used this argument to advocate stabbing a toddler in the face if they kick you in the shin. You've taken the argument and applied it to an obviously inapplicable context Your examples are those where the issue is whether the action in question is good or bad at all, not about the nuances of how it is carried out. Surprise surprise, if an action is inherently lovely, it's not good regardless of the specific circumstances. Trying to stop war crimes is something we can hopefully all view as a good thing. You can analyse the specifics as Ytlaya tried to, to see if there are racist implications behind why this is being pushed - but your comparisons simply don't work. Trying to deny people the ability to vote based on their race is hopefully something we can all view as a bad thing. There is therefore no need to analyse the specific to see if there are racist implications behind it, because the it's existence is explicitly racist with no analyse required. quote:3. You're conflating opinion with whether or not the analogy is valid. I think the goal of BDS is ethnic cleansing and would have horrific implications if it was remotely possible, realistic, or internally consistent. Your conflating your personal conspiracy theories about a humanitarian organisation's secret evil goals with an actual valid evidenced point. You can think whatever bizarre completely unevidenced and unlikely thing you want, but that doesn't mean anyone else needs to pay attention to your opinion unless you actually have any evidence to back it up with. quote:Were sanctions against Iraq unfair to Iraqis? If we sanction North Korea, I think it's realistic to think that the people baring the brunt of that will be ordinary citizens. It'd be monstrous therefore on a humanitarian level, besides the fact that it would not be very likely to change the regime's behavior. I think the same of sanctions towards Israel, Iran, Cuba, pretty much everyone. They're humanitarianly and morally indefensible, and in addition don't loving work. This is a really childish and simplistic argument. There is no solution where ordinary people don't suffer, whether that be the Palestinians, the Israelis or both. Whatever is chosen, including sitting on our hands and doing nothing, will result in ordinary people suffering in some way. Your argument is therefore irrelevant because there is no perfect option where no civilians affected available and it's about choosing the option which best reaches our objectives while minimising harm. If you find a solution which stops the Palestinians civilians from suffering under Israeli repression without causing any suffering to Israeli civilians, feel free to share it with us. Until then a short-term economic downturn for Israel until they concede is obviously preferable to most people's personal morals in comparison to continuing the decades long oppression and suffering of the Palestinians and there is a good case for BDS being the most humane and moral option available. quote:Yes, the fictional notion that Zionists drop accusations of anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat is ridiculous and really should stop. It's a complete chimera strawman that anti-Zionists invented and use to shut down debate at any and all opportunities. Not all Zionist do, but you have done so in the conversation using unexplained logic that you've only vaguely referenced but which seems contradictory and unsustainable. You have literally put forward the argument that it is logical for any action which negatively effects Israel to be inherently anti-semitic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Or you could spend two seconds on Google and learn that it's a commonly used term. It's commonly used but you aren't really using it well. Disparate impact only matters in certain situations and BDS isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:49 |
|
|
quote:It basically seems to be the "reverse racism! " card often used by whites, except with a more volatile label that everybody's afraid to counter because hey, Jewish people had a rough time once a while back (except they actually got reparations from most western nations, in the form of their own sovereign state, where they chose to pick it.. Or am I missing a point in there?) As TIC pointed out, it's pretty hosed up to be flippant about the Holocaust and anti-semitism. Also, anti-semitism wasn't "once a while back": anti-semitism was endemic in the West from the Middle Ages to the mid to late 20th century and led to enormous amounts of Jewish suffering. Also, the West didn't "give" Jews Israel after the Holocaust; the colonization of Palestine by Zionist settlers began decades earlier. It's true that the Holocaust allowed the Zionists to take control, ethnically cleanse the indigenous Palestinians and declare Israel's founding, but that's more because a) the Holocaust and WW2 sent many, including many with military experience, fleeing to Palestine, inflating the ranks of the Zionist colonists and b) a combination of Western guilt for the Holocaust and simple war-weariness made the international reaction to the Nakba much more muted than it otherwise would have been; Ben-Gurion for instance realized Israel wouldn't be able to get away with another Nakba in the 60s, hence a major reason for his opposition to the land conquests of '67. But yes, it is really disturbing how reactionaries have twisted the language of anti-racism and tolerance to censor those who challenge fundamentally racist policies and beliefs. quote:I haven't argued that it was or BDS is, just that the logic of identity politics is really what's at fault. Yes, reactionaries have shown that they're able to easily twist the language of identity politics and anti-racism for fundamentally racist ends, just like Phyllis Schafly was able to use a bastardized version of feminist language and logic to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. And maybe that does point to serious deficiencies in identity politics that it can be subverted to racist ends so easily. quote:I think the goal of BDS is ethnic cleansing and would have horrific implications if it was remotely possible, realistic, or internally consistent. You honestly can't tell the difference between "equal rights for all" and "crime against humanity"? quote:I think it's realistic to think that the people baring the brunt of that will be ordinary citizens. Man, the irony of an Israel supporter worried about collective punishment. quote:. I think the same of sanctions towards Israel, Iran, Cuba, pretty much everyone. They're humanitarianly and morally indefensible, and in addition don't loving work. I assume you felt the same way towards South Africa, right? quote:Yes, the fictional notion that Zionists drop accusations of anti-Semitism at the drop of a hat is ridiculous and really should stop. It's a complete chimera strawman that anti-Zionists invented and use to shut down debate at any and all opportunities. Edward Said was smeared as an anti-semite. So was Tony Kushner. And Judith Butler. And Norman Finkelstein. And Steven Salaita. Politicians and demagogues like Foxman regularly smear pro-Palestinian activists and academics as anti-semites. The head of a CUNY branch of SJP was recently brought before an Inquisition to answer a series of libelous accusations of anti-semitism lobbed by the same people who've been subjecting her to racist harassment on and offline. She was even smeared in the NY Daily News. The University of California, the country's largest public university system, just passed a resolution that, while nonbinding, explicitly equates anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. University administrations around the country have reacted to democratic BDS initiatives by publicly calling the motion anti-semitic. Valls, Hollande's second in command, spoke before CRIF and said that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism and will be pursued by the French courts as such(people in France are subject to criminal penalties for expressing support for an Israeli boycott.) Smearing the pro-Palestinian left as anti-semites has basically become its own cottage industry; read Roger Cohen's recent screed or Nick Cohen's in the Guardian(and this was just within the past couple of weeks.) And let's not forget things like the Canary Initiative, which keep a McCarthy-inspired list of anti-Zionist activists and intellectuals in academia and smear those on the list as anti-semites. Or we could just go back to your own post where you heavily implied that pro-Palestinian activism is indicative of anti-semitic attitudes: quote:Of all the human rights offenders, they're only targeting the Jewish one, the same people who have been systematically targeted by (in those cases clearly and explicitly) anti-Semitic boycotts throughout history. It's literally thousands of people spending 100% of their energy on Israeli and not uttering a peep about worst offenders, or in cases like Syria, in some cases actively apologizing for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 14:17
|
|