|
Xander77 posted:Can someone explain the similarities / differences between the BDS movement and the Palestinian Authority's boycott of products made beyond the green line? Differences / similarities in causes / aims? Capital B BDS is all Israeli products, and they formally seek dissolving the Israeli state. The Palestinian Authority in theory wants peace, although in actuality all they care about are their vacation homes in Cyprus. Anyway, Israel and Turkey's reapproachment is interesting, and also disappointing in the sense that Erdogan has said wildly anti-Semitic things and faced zero consequences for them from either Israel or the US because Turkey's too important. In addition to massacring Kurds. It'll be curious to see though if this in turn leads to a more serious US push against Assad or worsening US ties with Iran.
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
team overhead smash posted:No, they don't. That's the thing people accuse them of constantly so I can understand the confusion their actual stated goals are very different. They want a one state solution, so your statement is false. A right of return and annexing Gaza and the West Bank means it's no longer Israel. You're arguing the equivalent of Ariel Sharon didn't slaughter those refugees, he just gave free passage, so there's no relationship whatsoever. captainblastum posted:Is there a definition of a Palestinian Right of Return that would lead to Israel no longer existing? Because that seems to be the point in contention - whether or not BDS seeks to end the Israeli state. Some people claim most wouldn't come back and would just take compensation. The other use is that some people say "BDS" but don't support Barghouti's ends or even just want to boycott settlements only, they don't realize what loaded language they're using. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The problem with interacting with Israel's defenders is that they treat other people as if they were themselves, so naturally being "pro-Palestinian" means that you are secretly working to annihilate Israel and Judaism. After all, they are secretly working to annihilate Palestinians. It would require a great deal of psychological and psychiatric intervention to get them capable of having a meaningful conversation. AA, how is this not worthy of probation? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:People are stabbed, shot, murdered in all sorts of different ways for all sorts of different and stupid reasons, all of the world everyday. Its a Bad Thing(tm) It's loving horrible, the same way that celebrating the knife attacks was horrible. The difference is that as reprehensible as Netanyahu is, he at least is coy enough to condemn price tag attacks. Abbas of all people held press conferences declaring that Al Aqsa is under attack, and Fatah just held a public mourning for Samir Kuntar in Ramallah, so there's still a bit of a difference.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 11:05
|
|
|
Nah, the Ferguson police are more like Hamas in that the latter too believes in executing civilians without a trial or due process.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Paine is right in the sense that pretty much every conceivable option is checked. Violence hasn't accomplished anything beyond hurting their standard of living and creating a permanent Likud ruling coalition. Europe and the rest of the region ultimately won't do anything, mostly because the Gulf hates Iran more than they hate Israel, which is quite a lot on both fronts. The peace process is sufficiently derailed, with Likud's settlement strategy unlikely to be reversed. There are no viable options, and the status quo is unlikely to change.Ytlaya posted:But Israelis are not black people in this analogy; they are the cops/white people. It makes literally zero sense to equate them with a racial minority, especially when the other group in question actually is a discriminated against minority within their country's borders. Israelis are not a victim in any sense of the word here; they have far, far more power and control over their society than Palestinians do. They're an ethnic minority within the space of mandate Palestine, and will be moreso if some posters have their wish and flood the region with hostile refugees. They're certainly a minority in the overall Middle East, with their neighbors teaching children to hate Jews from an early age in a way that far surpasses the horrible incidents of state propaganda within Israel.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Terrorizing Israel as a strategy is a lot larger than Hamas. The onus comes down on Israel to change its policies if your goal is to cut support for that type of act. As it is, Israel embargoes Palestine so basic living materials have to be smuggled, they build giant fuckoff walls inside the borders of Palestinian territory claiming what's on their side of the wall as their own, to include farming land that many Palestinians relied on to make a living, and in the process, make Palestinians second class citizens in their own country. Find me a demographic of people who supported something other than the leaders who are the best at doing violence in that environment. If you're upset that people are reacting violently against your oppression, there's a very easy fix for that. These actions predate the settlements though, Fedayeen attacks were going on in the 50s. PLO predates 1967 too. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jan 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yeah, you're right, there's no reason for Israel to change anything. Eventually this strategy will work. One of these decades. Not what I said. Removing settlements isn't going to be a panacea to end violence because that doesn't change a giant plurality of people not accepting the 1948 under any circumstances, or even any presence for some. Main Paineframe posted:Yeah, it's not like Israel ever stole Palestinian land prior to 1967. Sure, just like Palestinians stole land in East Jerusalem and Hebron. Nevvy Z posted:Generally when one side has the majority of power you assign them the majority of responsibility. But they're a democracy. Abbas and Hamas have the power to unilaterally impose change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
No one has a monopoly on suffering! Hamas deliberately killed civilians to aid Likud's rise and escalate the conflict. Israeli voters are scarred and radicalized by violence. Due to non-Zionist parties refusing to be in coalitions with Zionist parties, Likud currently has a monopoly on the premiership. Therefore, any concessions are unrealistic from the Israeli side as it would cause a Likud government to fall. Meanwhile, there hasn't been a Palestinian election in a decade and that one was instantly ignored. Hamas and Fatah rule by fiat. As a descriptive statement, the only way there's going to be any movement on peace in the near future is from their side. I don't see why that's controversial. Hamas is clearly angling to open up Gaza and offering concessions. You would probably freely admit that Likud isn't currently interested in peace were we dealing with another context. Therefore, the notion that the onus is on Israel to move the conflict along is false. That bad argument also directly leads to "X is worse than Y, therefore Y should never do anything ever," and you clearly don't agree with that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Hezbollah's body count dwarfs Israel's.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Because in real life you have to prioritize which acts to devote the most attention and energy towards preventing. Otherwise, you'd end up coming to ridiculous conclusions like "well, Native Americans also killed some European civilians so really they're both wrong." Sure, I guess it's technically correct, but it's not a useful conclusion. I agree, so the disproportionate focus on Israel is insane when Syria/Iran/Saudi Arabia/China/etc... still exist. quote:Even if the act of killing civilians is inherently immoral, the circumstances that lead to that immoral action are still important. Hell, even in Actual Law, the circumstances that cause someone to commit a murder are considered. It's generally accepted that a crime committed for no reason (or a malicious reason) is worse than the same crime committed with some excuse. It's still a crime, but its punishment is not as harsh. You just said you care about consequences, but now you don't. If that's the standard, then Israel prevails because Hamas has genocide written into its charter, and in many periods, its actions have been to deliberately maximize civilian casualties. quote:Also, on a societal level, some level of violent resistance is historically the natural result of the sort of behavior Israel subjects Palestinians to. This does not excuse the individuals and groups that commit this violence, but it is ineffective at best (and at worst can lead towards the societal equivalent of victim blaming) to devote equal attention to condemning that behavior. By this logic, Hamas's attacks radicalizing Israelis justifies the hilltop youth.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Also Israel is heavily dependent on Western aid, so it's not unreasonable for Westerners to hold Israel to more scrutiny than say, North Korea, since their tax dollars are actually playing a role in Israeli policy. It's much more of a domestic issue here at home than something like the DPRK's human rights abuses that we're far removed from and play no role in. But he said we're being utilitarians (before he didn't, because he doesn't have an argument so much as he's frantically grasping at straws), so the point is more how his argument falls apart using that standard.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
There's widespread tension among the security establishment and Netanyahu on matters like this, that's not a new development at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Nope, you're absolutely wrong about that. The security services very much want peace and de-escalation, and have been engaged in constant backchannel talks with Hamas.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Nope
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:
If you actually read it, it's a documentary about how all the living heads of Shin Bet want peace and radically disagree with current policy, which is also verified by hundreds of thousands of links if you do a basic Google search. Otherwise, you'll get radically different results depending on who exactly you're referring to, just as if you would if were to ask the question whether or not Palestine wants peace. If you're going to talk about the current government, Netanyahu wouldn't be in office if the Joint List could have held their nose and coalitioned with Zionist parties. I'd argue that whatever metric you choose, Zionists are more likely to agree with a two state solution, where supposedly peace-oriented anti-Zionists like Barghouti and Abunimah are strongly opposed to a two state solution, and many of those who do agree with a two state solution in theory would not stop with going back to 1967, and want to re-litigate 1948.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
He supported Zionism just like Gandhi opposed it. You can argue all you want about the facts on the ground changing, but then that'd apply to Gandhi as well. His quote was after the Six Day War but before settlements started in earnest. I feel like he'd probably be a J Streeter, but Gandhi would also be probably shamed into giving up his voluntary self-genocide is great theory too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Yes Ghandi, famously vulnerable to being socially shamed into renouncing pacifism. I'm sure if enough people made pointed comments about anti-semitism he would have said Israel should continue the shellings until Palestinian morale improves. All of that predate Gandhi, who thought Jews should have willingly walked into the gas chambers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Awesome, let's quote the Likud institute for Likud studies when there are millions of polls that disagree with it. Not that the rest of your post is any less horrific.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
When people jumped on Ya'alon's comments about ISIS and Iran, they missed what was probably a much more telling speech at that same event from the IDF Chief of Staff. And again no, this is not novel at all. Shin Bet, Mossad, and the IDF leaderships are largely realists from the Sharon camp that oppose Netanyahu as being an insane Israeli neoconservative. http://forward.com/opinion/israel/331714/israels-top-general-praises-iran-deal-as-strategic-turning-point-in-slap-at quote:n fact, the 45-minute speech as a whole can be read as a point-by-point refutation of Bibi-ism. First, he said Israel faces no existential threats right now, because Obama’s Iran nuclear deal has removed the greatest threat to Israel’s existence; the Obama-Putin deal on Syrian chemical weapons removed the second; and the collapse of the Syrian state and its military removed the third. Second, the job of the IDF is to preserve the space that makes Israeli democracy possible and to guarantee a normal life to Israeli and Palestinian civilians. Third, in a little-noticed jab, he said that a worldview that always assumes “the worst-case scenario” is “no less dangerous” than excess optimism. quote:Eisenkot named two other threats that he described as “rising.” Neither is an existential threat, although both are causes for concern. That is, they threaten the lives of Israelis, but not the existence of Israel. One is the threat from “subnational” forces, mainly Hezbollah, Hamas and the Islamic State group. The other is the threat of cyber warfare. quote:Eisenkot devoted most of his talk to conditions in the Palestinian territories. He drew a sharp distinction between the West Bank and Gaza. In the year and a half since Operation Protective Edge in 2014, he said, Hamas has rehabilitated its military capacity in order to challenge Israel. “Nonetheless, 2015 was the quietest year since the 1970s,” he said. “Not one Israeli civilian was killed, not one Israeli soldier was killed on the Gaza front.” quote:That responsibility goes in two directions, he said. In facing the Palestinian population “we insist on distinguishing between terrorists and the broad civilian population that goes to work every day in Israeli cities and West Bank industrial zones — 120,000 Palestinian workers who support 600,000 family members.”
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
If North Carolina says you need a driver's license to vote, is the law having a disparate impact on minorities? If Ted Cruz says cut entitlements like TANF and S-CHIP, is the proposal having a disparate impact on minorities? If the answer is yes, then by the same reasoning any proposal directed at Israel, regardless of merit or lack thereof, has a disparate impact on Jews. When groups like the United Nations are spending disproportionate time criticizing Israel as compared to say, Russia, or China, or the United States, much less regional hegemons and horrific human rights abusers such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran; and coupled with the historical reality that Jews tend to get scapegoated very often; coupled with the historical reality that there are clearly political reasons why this happens as no one wants to cross big human rights abusers, and other regional abusers largely get a free pass due to idiotic third wordlist anti-imperialist contortions. It's almost certain that the disproportionate focus on I/P happens for these political reasons, than the pure anti-Semitism of say, the Free Gaza movement, but the fact that it ends up echoing and magnifying what has historically been one of the most unjust and horrific power dynamics that is a loving disgusting blemish on the human race should generate a bit more pause than it does. That, and movements like BDS are both ineffective and effectively poor gasoline on the fire by enabling the far right in Israel. Accelerationism is a dumb doctrine that has no possible good end for Palestinians.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Israel, unlike most other states that abuse human rights, is abusing the human rights of people outside the borders of its state! This is empirically false. Every single example I gave is abusing human rights outside of its borders, and all but Syria (who is currently incapable of projecting much abroad due to civil war) are doing so at a higher volume and severity than Israel. emanresu tnuocca posted:The idea that Israel can control the territory and every aspect of their lives while not granting them equal rights is known as 'apartheid'. And besides, Israel already has 2 million palestinian citizens, that's a rather significant number. You very well know the idea of Palestinian nationalism is extremely controversial among Arabs/Muslims in Israel, and many groups such as the Druze would largely virulently disagree with you on this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:Israel's abuses of people outside it's borders are well documented. Consider the downing of a libyan civilian airliner during i think 1973-74 during its military adventures with egypt. Or the arresting and transfer of virtually the entire male population of Sidon and surrounding palestinian refugee camps/villages during the 1982 lebanon invasion. Consider also it's brutal treatment of both lebanese civilians and palestinians under israeli custody, before and during the push into west beirut. Consider also Operation Wrath of God, although targetted killings of suspected terrorists in a country you have no right to in isn't torture and humiliation per se but certainly illegal as gently caress. That's not what's being disputed. He was saying that while Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc... are horrific human rights abusers, they keep it within their borders which is demonstrably false. emanresu tnuocca posted:Druze are a tiny minority, the majority of Druze in Israel consider themselves to be Syrian, we're talking about less than 5% of the Israeli-Arab population here. And just like that you handwave away the Bedouin who don't fall under this classification. SurgicalOntologist posted:
While loyalty to Israel is an important objective for Birthright, it's massively, massively secondary to the intermarriage part. This basically applies to every other Jewish organization like Hillel, etc... Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jan 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
It's a weird thing to argue. Netanyahu would just as soon that the Ethiopians have tons of kids to better fight the Palestinians with. It's the Eritreans he wants to keep out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
It's less political than incoherent and colossally stupid. I was calling Friedman an idiot here for years before Taibbi started making fun of him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
It's amazing how hard the Clinton admin pushed for something like this, and now it's effectively a non-story. Strategically, I think it's probably a mistake due to the fundamental instability of most of these regimes. http://www.timesofisrael.com/time-to-publicize-secret-ties-with-arab-states-netanyahu-says/ quote:Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday said it was time for Israel to make public its covert ties with Arab states, hours after his defense minister touted the same secret relationships.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
There isn't really a distinction now between Herzog and 2005 Ariel Sharon, which I enjoy, but others may find distressing. Amir Peretz has rejoined the party in an attempt to ally with Yacimovich to take down Herzog, and now this. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Labor-MK-slams-fing-Herzog-for-delusional-diplomatic-plan-442860 quote:LMK Hilik Bar, issued surprisingly fierce criticism of his party head, Isaac Herzog, in an audio tape revealed Tuesday evening by Channel 2. Herzog's plan: finish the fence and use it to impose permanent borders, withdrawing from the rest of the West Bank. He wants to de-merge Arab villages beyond the Green Line annexed to Jerusalem in 1967, and put them beyond the fence. Logistically, the key challenge with this idea is you can't do it and then keep Ariel, it needs to be lopped off to reap the benefits from compact borders.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:http://www.salon.com/2016/02/18/pro...usly_decimated/ Except that if you actually read the article, he did not say that and explicitly argues against it. And you're really going to deny Cohen's point that anti-Zionist rhetoric is in some cases bleeding into, or used as a cover for anti-Semitism? This is the same Cohen who of course apologized for the second class treatment of Jews in Iran.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Harik posted:Imagine moving the US Embassy from Moscow to Simferopol, Crimea. It's not a US/Israel solidarity thing, it would be a flat-out acknowledgement that the annexation is accepted. No one disputes Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem besides BDSers. It's a temper tantrum over Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. Gobbeldygook posted:The most common argument is whataboutism. Since they are calling only for BDS of Israel instead of <other bad/worse/ countries>, it must actually just be a cloak for anti-semitism. 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. 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 Israel and not uttering a peep about worst offenders, or in cases like Syria, in some cases actively apologizing for them. coyo7e posted:I am definitely leaning toward pro-BDS Do you know what BDS as defined by Barghouti entails though? It's not boycott Israel until they stop they occupation. It's Israel must cease to exist, followed by the overwhelming likelihood of a civil war and waves of ethnic cleansing and human suffering. The idea that BDS is non-violent is absurd and laughable. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:The first sentence is not factual. While the US is in theory allied with both Israel and the PA, they're much closer to Israel, so it's an accurate reflection of the relationship between the three governments. US sentiment towards Palestinians has dropped dramatically in the past fifteen years per Pew and Gallup.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Why are you regularly reading a website that revels in anti-Semitic tropes?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Not what I said. Weiss is both a fantastic writer and seriously mentally ill. He's obsessed with the notion of supposed Jewish power.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
No I really think Weiss is truly sick and not in a pejorative way, read his reporting about the Clintons from the 90s. What you're alleging though is the opposite of a Soviet belief. It's not about right and wrong. Stormfronters are sick and need help.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/my-response-to-dailykos-smear/ http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2014/03/16/is-anti-semitism-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-219278 http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2014/03/16/is-anti-semitism-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-218944 http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/forgiving-anti-semites/ http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/response-washington-blogger/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-reminder-that-anti-semitism-has-no-place-in-debates-over-israel/259830/ Weiss is up there with Alison Weir, Gilad Atzmon, and Greta Berlin in being widely discredited by the anti-Zionist crowd.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
That's extremely difficult to prove. The Israel lobby is so powerful that Bush I laughed at them, and they couldn't get support for Obama's Syria resolution. The fact is that they were never really that powerful, they just had two presidents in Clinton and Bush II who were very amenable to their position, and it looks like a third in Clinton II. Therefore, any claims like the ones from Mearsheimer or Weiss are so self-evidently false as to be laughable. And given the subject matter, that this is a gigantic trope that has existed throughout the ages, the subject is a loving third rail and should not be approached without the utmost care.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Ultramega posted:At least he provided some significant examples? I think it was disingenuous to watch the immediate recoil from "nuhh oh uh no not THAT antisemitism it's just a suspect reaction to jews with power" but, the examples withstand. I'm not at fault for anyone's misreading. My intentions and definition never changed. Anti-Semitism is a spectrum just like Zionism is a spectrum. You don't have to be Adolf Hitler to be an anti-Semite, ranting about Jewish power structures and international bankers will suffice. I was clearly accusing Weiss of the latter and not actually wanting to murder anyone. Just like anyone who doesn't think Israel should be immediately destroyed is a Zionist. Chomsky and Finkelstein are Zionists. SyHopeful posted:Stormfronters are sick, it's BDS who are the real antisemites amirite Anyone who holds prejudiced beliefs is sick. Stormfronters are essentially a non-entity though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
Your voluminous womb pumping out thousands of mini-Ariels is good for the Jews.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 02:41
|
|