German Nobel Prize winner deemed "persona non grata" by Israel [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

German Nobel Prize winner deemed "persona non grata" by Israel

abraxas21
04-09-2012, 04:52 AM
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/04/2012492439478197.html

if israel is so convinced about the rightfulness of their cause, then why the strong intolerance and discrimination towards the ones who think differently?

Time Violation
04-09-2012, 08:30 AM
Wasn't there some controversy with him that goes back to WW2 or something?

Aloimeh
04-09-2012, 08:33 AM
Wasn't there some controversy with him that goes back to WW2 or something?

Obican SS-ovac.

arm
04-09-2012, 08:36 AM
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/04/2012492439478197.html

if israel is so convinced about the rightfulness of their cause, then why the strong intolerance and discrimination towards the ones who think differently?

TBH, who writes a poem like that and a few days later tries to enter the country? :facepalm: both parties :facepalm:

vucina
04-09-2012, 09:58 AM
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/04/2012492439478197.html

if israel is so convinced about the rightfulness of their cause, then why the strong intolerance and discrimination towards the ones who think differently?

So, they should tolerate those who don't tolerate them and their country? Only an idiot would allow that nazi scum to enter Israel. If Serbia had normal government, he would be "persona non grata" here as well, for his support of NATO aggression of '99.

Or Levy
04-09-2012, 10:34 AM
Former SS member, who hid it all his life, and as far as I know (and I can be wrong) wasn't in Israel before, tries to enter it days after an antisemetic poem (and it wasn't Israel criticism, it was just Antisemitic). It's nothing but a provocation.

If it was me making the decisions, he would have entered, but I don't think forbidding his entrance is particularly undemocratic.

abraxas21
04-09-2012, 02:08 PM
TBH, who writes a poem like that and a few days later tries to enter the country? :facepalm: both parties :facepalm:

tries to enter it days after an antisemetic poem

what makes you think he tried to enter israel right after writing the poem?

my understanding is that israel decided to declare him "persona non-grata" right away, without gunter trying to enter israel.

abraxas21
04-09-2012, 02:15 PM
it wasn't Israel criticism, it was just Antisemitic.

i've read the poem and it's not antisemitic at all. it's merely political.

the idea of accusing everyone that criticizes israel of being racist/antisemitic is getting pretty old... then again, it's always expected.

arm
04-09-2012, 02:28 PM
The article you posted says the poem was published Wednesday.....

abraxas21
04-09-2012, 02:50 PM
And?

Tommy_Vercetti
04-09-2012, 03:03 PM
The non-scientific Nobel Prizes have been a complete joke for a very long time. Him winning one shouldn't mean he has some sort of special standing.

Har-Tru
04-09-2012, 03:24 PM
Uh? Grass hasn't tried to enter Israel. Where do you guys get that from?

Israel's reaction is exaggerated, childish and populistic. Unproper of a serious, mature state.

Voices are rising against it even from within Israel.

(in German)
http://de.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idDEBEE83804320120409

http://www.talmud.li/2012/04/09/israels-ex-botschafter-kritisiert-einreiseverbot-fuer-grass-berliner-morgenpost/

And it is indeed annoying how any criticism of Israel is immediately labelled antisemitic...

swisht4u
04-09-2012, 03:36 PM
i've read the poem and it's not antisemitic at all. it's merely political.

the idea of accusing everyone that criticizes israel of being racist/antisemitic is getting pretty old... then again, it's always expected.

Part of that problem is that the jewish community share in an agenda outside of their religion.

When a religion tries to attach agendas to the religion they are open to criticism as any group with an agenda.

Why should everyone like jewish people?
Some don't believe in their religion and how it affects the people's actions of that religion.

Antisemitism is not bad at all when you look at it this way, it's just an opinion and there is nothing wrong with expressing it.

peribsen
04-09-2012, 04:49 PM
Because the present Israeli leadership simply can't swallow people voicing opinions that deviate from their established dogma. I know it's difficult to believe, that they would want us believe that occupying a foreign land for 45 years now, with no end in sight, and against overwhelming international opinion, is the reasonable act of a resonable, 'democratic' (:confused:) government (maybe they mean 'democratic' in the sense the word was used in Alabama until the 50s and in South Africa until the 90s.... meaning glaringly undemocratic for anybody who hasn't been brainwashed by Orwelian level "newspeak").

Former SS member, who hid it all his life,

Wonderful and constructive way to refer to a 17 year old teen who, when drafted as all German kids were, chose to serve in an elite tank unit while his country was fighting a losing war. You make it sound like if he had eagerly volunteered for the cause of Ahnenerbe.

and as far as I know (and I can be wrong) wasn't in Israel before,

Yes, you are wrong. Grass has been in Israel repeatedly these last decades, at least three of them invited to lecture in Israeli Universities. He has spoken in favour of Israel, many times, and has been for years one of the most outspoken voices in Germany against forgetfulness or down-playing of the Nazi horror. That is precisely what the hardliners in Israel can't fathom, that this is a moral leader against Nazism expressing dissent. If he was a far right freak, he would mostly have been ignored.

tries to enter it days after

No, Grass hasn't tried to enter Israel. No need for someone to be on your doorstep for a country to issue a 'persona nongrata' statement. Those things don't work that way.

an antisemetic poem (and it wasn't Israel criticism, it was just Antisemitic). It's nothing but a provocation.

The resource to labeling as Antisemitic anyone who dares critizice the established dogma of the Israeli intelligentsia is so expected, so weak an argument, that Grass actually included it in his poem. The automatic, kneejerk, manner in which that accusation is brougth out, actually is solid proof that Grass is onto something. Now, if he hadn't immediately been accused of Antisemitism, if his opinion had been received as just that, a freely expressed critical view on Netanyahu's policies, you would have an argument that maybe Grass had exaggerated. On the contrary, your reaction mostly proves his point.

In the end, the lie to accusations of Antisemitism has been given by Israelis themselves. People like Gideon Levy, on the pages of Haaretz, and several other well known Israeli writers and intellectuals, have come out in defence of Grass. But, of course, those truly democratic citizens of Israel who really want to move things forward with peace and justice for all, they are only self-hating Jews, aren't they?

Just a few weeks ago, David Grossman, who is obviously just another Antisemite, published an opinion column on several of Europe's main newspapers. The details were different, but its core idea was very much online with Grass's poems.

Evil always tries to thrive on the silence of the just. Read Hannah Arendt on that.

Time Violation
04-09-2012, 05:05 PM
Why should everyone like jewish people?
Some don't believe in their religion and how it affects the people's actions of that religion.

Antisemitism is not bad at all when you look at it this way, it's just an opinion and there is nothing wrong with expressing it.

Who said you have to like them? There's a wee bit difference between "I'm indifferent" and "I hate their guts".

Kiedis
04-09-2012, 05:37 PM
Former SS member, who hid it all his life, and as far as I know (and I can be wrong) wasn't in Israel before, tries to enter it days after an antisemetic poem (and it wasn't Israel criticism, it was just Antisemitic). It's nothing but a provocation.

If it was me making the decisions, he would have entered, but I don't think forbidding his entrance is particularly undemocratic.

First at all, Günter Grass always has been a implicated leftist intellectual and a active supporter of Human Rigths, not a fascist or a Nazi

Second, was Grass himself who showed his past voluntarily. In 1943 shortly after his seventeenth birthday was drafted into the 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg. He was a minor and was forced. With the Panzer Division he saw active combat from February 1945 until he was wounded on 20 April 1945, captured in Marienbad and sent to an American prisoner-of-war camp.

Third, he writes several novels attacking Nazism harshly. He also wrote an essay, Writing after Auschwitz, where he criticized German intellectuals for their amnesia about Nazism.

Forth, to criticize the government of your country for his lack of respect for human rights is not Antisemitic.

Five, don't lie man, Günter Grass has not attempted to travel to Israel this year.

Stensland
04-09-2012, 05:43 PM
some of the critics may have exaggerated, nonetheless most parts of the poem are flat out wrong. in a nutshell, he makes israel the aggressor suppressing iran. you wouldn't expect a guy like grass to come up with such a lopsided storyline.

in the end, that very submarine he mentioned might be the one weapon israel could bank on, once wiped out. there's no israeli hinterland. one nuclear strike and it's gone.

buddyholly
04-09-2012, 05:59 PM
I just had a bonfire and burned my copy of "The Tin Drum.''

buddyholly
04-09-2012, 06:01 PM
if israel is so convinced about the rightfulness of their cause, then why the strong intolerance and discrimination towards the ones who think differently?

I don't know. They are acting very Islam-like over this.

arm
04-09-2012, 06:05 PM
My bad, after I read this thread's title my reading of the article was already manipulated and I understood that he tried to enter the country. :o

Once again, we see (read) what we want and expect to see (read). :facepalm:

And I think the same happened to a few other posters here.

Kiedis
04-09-2012, 06:06 PM
I just had a bonfire and burned my copy of "The Tin Drum.''

Art should not understand about ad-hominens :o

arm
04-09-2012, 06:09 PM
This thread title should be changed, it's misleading. He wasn't denied entry, was he?

Kiedis
04-09-2012, 06:19 PM
This thread title should be changed, it's misleading. He wasn't denied entry, was he?

Well, he is a Persona non grata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona_non_grata) for Israel, so if he hypothetically someday wanted to enter to the country he couldn't.

arm
04-09-2012, 06:23 PM
Well, he is a Persona non grata for Israel, so if he hypothetically someday wanted to enter to the country he couldn't.

I'm just saying it's very misleading... it mislead other people besides me.

Now I really wish I could read this poem, is there somewhere where I could find a translated version?

arm
04-09-2012, 06:26 PM
And the title was changed. Thanks :hatoff:

abraxas21
04-09-2012, 06:27 PM
Now I really wish I could read this poem, is there somewhere where I could find a translated version?

here it's an unofficial translation made by the washington post

What is obvious and has been

Practiced in war games, at the end of which we as survivors

Are at best footnotes.

It is the alleged right to the first strike

That could annihilate the Iranian people—

Subjugated by a loud-mouth

And guided to organized jubilation—

Because in their sphere of power,

It is suspected, a nuclear bomb is being built.

Yet why do I forbid myself

To name that other country

In which, for years, even if secretly,

There has been a growing nuclear potential at hand

But beyond control, because not accessible to inspections?

The universal concealment of these facts,

To which my silence subordinated itself,

I sense as an incriminating lie

And coercion--the punishment is promised

As soon as it is ignored;

The verdict of “anti-Semitism” is familiar.

Now, though, because in my country

Which time and again has sought and confronted

Its very own crimes

That is without comparison

In turn on a purely commercial basis, if also

With nimble lips calling it a reparation, declares

A further U-boat should be delivered to Israel,

Whose specialty consists of guiding all-destroying warheads to where the existence

Of a single atomic bomb is unproven,

But fear wishes to be of conclusive evidence,

I say what must be said.

But why have I stayed silent until now?

Because I thought my origin,

Afflicted by a stain never to be expunged

Forbade this fact as pronounced truth

To be told to the nation of Israel, to which I am bound

And wish to stay bound.

Why do I say only now,

Aged and with my last ink,

The nuclear power Israel endangers

The already fragile world peace?

Because it must be said

What even tomorrow may be too late to say;

Also because we--as Germans burdened enough--

Could become suppliers to a crime

That is foreseeable, wherefore our complicity

Could not be redeemed through any of the usual excuses.

And granted: I am silent no longer

Because I am tired of the West’s hypocrisy;

In addition to which it is to be hoped

That this will free many from silence,

Appeal to the perpetrator of the recognizable danger

To renounce violence and

Likewise insist

That an unhindered and permanent control

Of the Israeli nuclear potential

And the Iranian nuclear sites

Be authorized through an international agency

By the governments of both countries.

Only this way are all, the Israelis and Palestinians,

Even more, all people, that in this

Region occupied by mania

Live cheek by jowl among enemies,

And also us, to be helped.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/translation-of-controversial-guenter-grass-poem-what-must-be-said/2012/04/08/gIQAI2YD4S_story.html

arm
04-09-2012, 06:37 PM
Well, I don't know if the guy had or has nazi and or antisemitic beliefs, but if he doesn't, I don't think there's anything wrong with the poem. He is just being brutally honest and speaking up while other remain quiet.

Obviously I can understand the whole response from the Israeli government, they are only being coherent considering they were attacked... the problem here is not this move, is all the other moves that lead Grass to write the poem in the first place.

That being said, and now on a less serious and very biased note... writing all that in a poem? Really? :facepalm: Just speak up and write a whole dissertation, no need to be romantic about it. :o (Sorry, I am just not a fan poetry at all.)

PS: Thanks for posting the poem and changing the title. :aplot:

abraxas21
04-09-2012, 06:38 PM
I don't know. They are acting very Islam-like over this.

there's no need to be surprised, though. this is what israel usually does with the ones who think differently. even if they're jews themselves.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/noam-chomsky-denied-entry-into-israel-and-west-bank-1.290701

Kiedis
04-09-2012, 06:39 PM
Here a Spanish version from El Pais (Streisand Effect for the win! :devil:)

Por qué guardo silencio, demasiado tiempo,

sobre lo que es manifiesto y se utilizaba

en juegos de guerra a cuyo final, supervivientes,

solo acabamos como notas a pie de página.

Es el supuesto derecho a un ataque preventivo

el que podría exterminar al pueblo iraní,

subyugado y conducido al júbilo organizado

por un fanfarrón,

porque en su jurisdicción se sospecha

la fabricación de una bomba atómica.

Pero ¿por qué me prohíbo nombrar

a ese otro país en el que

desde hace años —aunque mantenido en secreto—

se dispone de un creciente potencial nuclear,

fuera de control, ya que

es inaccesible a toda inspección?

El silencio general sobre ese hecho,

al que se ha sometido mi propio silencio,

lo siento como gravosa mentira

y coacción que amenaza castigar

en cuanto no se respeta;

“antisemitismo” se llama la condena.

Ahora, sin embargo, porque mi país,

alcanzado y llamado a capítulo una y otra vez

por crímenes muy propios

sin parangón alguno,

de nuevo y de forma rutinaria, aunque

enseguida calificada de reparación,

va a entregar a Israel otro submarino cuya especialidad

es dirigir ojivas aniquiladoras

hacia donde no se ha probado

la existencia de una sola bomba,

aunque se quiera aportar como prueba el temor...

digo lo que hay que decir.

¿Por qué he callado hasta ahora?

Porque creía que mi origen,

marcado por un estigma imborrable,

me prohibía atribuir ese hecho, como evidente,

al país de Israel, al que estoy unido

y quiero seguir estándolo.

¿Por qué solo ahora lo digo,

envejecido y con mi última tinta:

Israel, potencia nuclear, pone en peligro

una paz mundial ya de por sí quebradiza?

Porque hay que decir

lo que mañana podría ser demasiado tarde,

y porque —suficientemente incriminados como alemanes—

podríamos ser cómplices de un crimen

que es previsible, por lo que nuestra parte de culpa

no podría extinguirse

con ninguna de las excusas habituales.

Lo admito: no sigo callando

porque estoy harto

de la hipocresía de Occidente; cabe esperar además

que muchos se liberen del silencio, exijan

al causante de ese peligro visible que renuncie

al uso de la fuerza e insistan también

en que los gobiernos de ambos países permitan

el control permanente y sin trabas

por una instancia internacional

del potencial nuclear israelí

y de las instalaciones nucleares iraníes.

Solo así podremos ayudar a todos, israelíes y palestinos,

más aún, a todos los seres humanos que en esa región

ocupada por la demencia

viven enemistados codo con codo,

odiándose mutuamente,

y en definitiva también ayudarnos.

swisht4u
04-09-2012, 08:18 PM
Who said you have to like them? There's a wee bit difference between "I'm indifferent" and "I hate their guts".

I agree, hating is a different level and isn't condoned.

Few are against people practicing their religion, personally I could care less who anyone of any religion prays to.

The jewish have two areas to look at.
Their religion which few care about.
Supporting such a regime as Israel and the primitive actions of Israel.

Antisemitic is really the wrong term to those who say bad things about jews, it's the agendas they don't really like and not the religion in its pure form.

Roger the Dodger
04-09-2012, 08:23 PM
He has already made it clear in his poem that 'the verdict of anti-semitism is familiar' and also made some allowance over his own history. I can't see why Israel should create a fuzz over this? Grass speaks for all here, as he clearly says in the last few lines.

peribsen
04-09-2012, 09:19 PM
I just had a bonfire and burned my copy of "The Tin Drum.''

Hope you are being ironic here, or else up in smoke went your idea of yourself as a champion of free speech.

So, one of the leading anti-Nazi writers in Germany writes something you don't like, something which quite a few Israeli intellectuals are also saying (plus a sizeable part of Westerners, including US Jews like the late and much missed Tony Judt), if maybe not with the same words, and you blackball him?

Like a Jewish writer has just said yesterday, denying entry to someone for his political opinions (which are very clearly not Antisemitic) is nothing but blatant censorship.

abraxas21
04-09-2012, 09:27 PM
Hope you are being ironic here, or else up in smoke went your idea of yourself as a champion of free speech.

So, one of the leading anti-Nazi writers in Germany writes something you don't like, something which quite a few Israeli intellectuals are also saying (plus a sizeable part of Westerners, including US Jews like the late and much missed Tony Judt), if maybe not with the same words, and you blackball him?

Like a Jewish writer has just said yesterday, denying entry to someone for his political opinions (which are very clearly not Antisemitic) is nothing but blatant censorship.

he's being ironic.

but he's never been a champion of free speech anyway

peribsen
04-09-2012, 09:29 PM
Here you have the article I mentioned in a previous post. Wonder if it is also Antisemitic? ... wait, the author is an Israeli Jew, is he just a self-hater? I wonder if they plan to declare him persona nongrata too.

David Grossman
The Guardian, March 12th 2012(also published in several other European papers, including El País)
(All versions translated from the original in Hebrew).

It is Israel's fears, not a nuclear Iran, that we must tame

Israelis must resist Netanyahu's rhetoric. An attack on Iran will bring certain disaster, to forestall one that might never come,

In his speeches, Binyamin Netanyahu likes to fire up his audiences with frequent references to the Holocaust, Jewish destiny and the fate of future generations. In light of this doomsday rhetoric, one wonders if Israel's prime minister can always distinguish between the real dangers confronting the country and shadows of past traumas. This question is crucial, because to confuse one with the other could sentence Israel to relive those echoes and shadows.

If all that – the tough talk, the big bellows of catastrophe –, is no more than a tactic meant to enlist the world to tighten the screws on Iran, and if the tactic were to succeed without an Israeli attack, then we would happily acknowledge, of course, that the prime minister had done an excellent job, for which he deserves due credit and kudos. But if he indeed thinks and operates within a hermetic worldview that swings between poles of disaster and salvation, we are in a very different universe of discourse.

Instead of a one-dimensional translation of the Israel of 2012 into the Holocaust of European Jewry, one question needs to be asked: is it advisable for Israel, on its own, to enter into a war with Iran, a war whose consequences cannot be foreseen, in order to prevent a future situation that is dangerous indeed but that no one can be sure will ever come to pass? In other words, in order to block a possible disaster in the future, will Israel be driven to initiate a certain disaster in the present?

It's very hard to decide at a moment like this. It would be hard for any Israeli leader, not least Netanyahu, to make a level-headed decision in a situation heavily freighted with the trauma that occurred in the past and another that may occur in the future. Can Netanyahu, amid the tangle of pressures that he creates and inflames, find his way to a practical, clear-minded present? A present reality that need not be part of a tragic, apocalyptic myth that somehow strives for fulfilment again and again, in every Jewish generation?

Because this too is the present reality: there is already a balance of terror in place between Israel and Iran. The Iranians have announced that hundreds of their missiles are aimed at Israeli cities, and it is safe to assume that Israel is not sitting idly by. This balance of terror, say the experts, includes unconventional weapons, biological and chemical. To date, this balance of terror has never been violated.

No one can know for sure that the balance of terror will last. Nor can anyone be certain that it will not. No one can know whether nuclear weapons or knowhow might "trickle" from Iran to terrorist organisations, just as no one can rule out the possibility that the current regime in Iran might be replaced by a more moderate one. Politicians are currently working mainly on the basis of guesswork and fear. One must not belittle the gravity of such conjectures, but can they provide a solid basis for actions that might bring about irreparable damage?

No one in Israel can be absolutely certain that all Iran's nuclear potential would be demolished by an Israeli attack. Nor has anyone precise knowledge of the extent of the death and destruction that an Iranian response would sow in Israeli cities. It is worth remembering the overblown confidence of Israel's leaders and their illusions of accurate military intelligence at the start of the second Lebanon war, or the failures of prediction in the first Lebanon war, which entangled Israel in an 18-year occupation.

Even if the infrastructure of Iran's nuclear project were destroyed, it is impossible to destroy Iranian knowledge. And knowledge, and those who possess it, will rise from the dust – and this time fuelled by the insult of humiliation, and unbridled hatred, and a thirst for vengeance on the part of the whole Iranian people.

Iran, as we know, is not just a radical fundamentalist state. There are wide sectors of the population that are secular, educated and enlightened. There is a broad middle class, including many people who risked their lives in brave demonstrations against the dictatorial religious regime they despise. I am not claiming that the Iranian nation feels any sympathy for Israel, but that same part of the Iranian public, at some point in the future, might be the ones who will lead Iran, and might even warm to Israel. An Israeli attack on Iran would eliminate that possibility for many years; in the eyes even of moderate Iranians, Israel will be permanently perceived as a haughty, megalomaniacal nation, a historic enemy to be fought indefinitely. Is this possibility more or less dangerous than a nuclear Iran?

And what will Israel do if Saudi Arabia decides it wants a nuclear weapon? Attack it too? And if Egypt, under its new regime, heads down that path? Will Israel bomb it? And for ever stay the only country in the region allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Even if these questions have already been voiced, they must be repeated before ears go deaf in the din of battle: will war bring any real gain, any assurance of peaceful life for Israel? Anything that would create the willingness to accept Israel as a partner and neighbour, a willingness that in the long run can render all forms of nuclear arms – Israel's, and those of others – superfluous?

A legitimate answer to these questions, an answer hard to swallow but worthy of public discussion, is this: if economic sanctions do not cause Iran to halt uranium enrichment, and if the United States, for reasons of its own, does not attack it – even then, it would be better for Israel not to attack, even if this means that Israel, gnashing its teeth, would have to live with a nuclear Iran. It is very hard to accept that, and one hopes that international pressure will eliminate this eventuality, but an Israeli attack might be no less painful and bitter. And because there is no way to ascertain that Iran would indeed attack Israel if it had nuclear weapons at its disposal, Israel must not attack Iran. Such an attack would be a rash, wild bet, likely to disfigure our future in ways I dare not even imagine. No, I can imagine it, but my hand refuses to write it.

I do not envy the prime minister, the defence minister and members of the cabinet. Immense responsibility lies upon their shoulders. I think about the fact that in a situation mainly made up of doubt and uncertainty, the one certain thing is often fear. It is tempting for us Israelis to cling to such fears, to let them counsel and guide us, to feel their familiar, reassuring ring. I am sure that those who support an attack on Iran justify it on the grounds that it would be done to forestall the possibility of a bigger nightmare in the future.

But has any person the right to sentence so many people to death, only in the name of a fear of a possibility that might never come to pass?

vucina
04-09-2012, 10:49 PM
Here you have the article I mentioned in a previous post. Wonder if it is also Antisemitic? ... wait, the author is an Israeli Jew, is he just a self-hater? I wonder if they plan to declare him persona nongrata too.

David Grossman
The Guardian, March 12th 2012(also published in several other European papers, including El País)
(All versions translated from the original in Hebrew).

It is Israel's fears, not a nuclear Iran, that we must tame

Israelis must resist Netanyahu's rhetoric. An attack on Iran will bring certain disaster, to forestall one that might never come,

In his speeches, Binyamin Netanyahu likes to fire up his audiences with frequent references to the Holocaust, Jewish destiny and the fate of future generations. In light of this doomsday rhetoric, one wonders if Israel's prime minister can always distinguish between the real dangers confronting the country and shadows of past traumas. This question is crucial, because to confuse one with the other could sentence Israel to relive those echoes and shadows.

If all that – the tough talk, the big bellows of catastrophe –, is no more than a tactic meant to enlist the world to tighten the screws on Iran, and if the tactic were to succeed without an Israeli attack, then we would happily acknowledge, of course, that the prime minister had done an excellent job, for which he deserves due credit and kudos. But if he indeed thinks and operates within a hermetic worldview that swings between poles of disaster and salvation, we are in a very different universe of discourse.

Instead of a one-dimensional translation of the Israel of 2012 into the Holocaust of European Jewry, one question needs to be asked: is it advisable for Israel, on its own, to enter into a war with Iran, a war whose consequences cannot be foreseen, in order to prevent a future situation that is dangerous indeed but that no one can be sure will ever come to pass? In other words, in order to block a possible disaster in the future, will Israel be driven to initiate a certain disaster in the present?

It's very hard to decide at a moment like this. It would be hard for any Israeli leader, not least Netanyahu, to make a level-headed decision in a situation heavily freighted with the trauma that occurred in the past and another that may occur in the future. Can Netanyahu, amid the tangle of pressures that he creates and inflames, find his way to a practical, clear-minded present? A present reality that need not be part of a tragic, apocalyptic myth that somehow strives for fulfilment again and again, in every Jewish generation?

Because this too is the present reality: there is already a balance of terror in place between Israel and Iran. The Iranians have announced that hundreds of their missiles are aimed at Israeli cities, and it is safe to assume that Israel is not sitting idly by. This balance of terror, say the experts, includes unconventional weapons, biological and chemical. To date, this balance of terror has never been violated.

No one can know for sure that the balance of terror will last. Nor can anyone be certain that it will not. No one can know whether nuclear weapons or knowhow might "trickle" from Iran to terrorist organisations, just as no one can rule out the possibility that the current regime in Iran might be replaced by a more moderate one. Politicians are currently working mainly on the basis of guesswork and fear. One must not belittle the gravity of such conjectures, but can they provide a solid basis for actions that might bring about irreparable damage?

No one in Israel can be absolutely certain that all Iran's nuclear potential would be demolished by an Israeli attack. Nor has anyone precise knowledge of the extent of the death and destruction that an Iranian response would sow in Israeli cities. It is worth remembering the overblown confidence of Israel's leaders and their illusions of accurate military intelligence at the start of the second Lebanon war, or the failures of prediction in the first Lebanon war, which entangled Israel in an 18-year occupation.

Even if the infrastructure of Iran's nuclear project were destroyed, it is impossible to destroy Iranian knowledge. And knowledge, and those who possess it, will rise from the dust – and this time fuelled by the insult of humiliation, and unbridled hatred, and a thirst for vengeance on the part of the whole Iranian people.

Iran, as we know, is not just a radical fundamentalist state. There are wide sectors of the population that are secular, educated and enlightened. There is a broad middle class, including many people who risked their lives in brave demonstrations against the dictatorial religious regime they despise. I am not claiming that the Iranian nation feels any sympathy for Israel, but that same part of the Iranian public, at some point in the future, might be the ones who will lead Iran, and might even warm to Israel. An Israeli attack on Iran would eliminate that possibility for many years; in the eyes even of moderate Iranians, Israel will be permanently perceived as a haughty, megalomaniacal nation, a historic enemy to be fought indefinitely. Is this possibility more or less dangerous than a nuclear Iran?

And what will Israel do if Saudi Arabia decides it wants a nuclear weapon? Attack it too? And if Egypt, under its new regime, heads down that path? Will Israel bomb it? And for ever stay the only country in the region allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Even if these questions have already been voiced, they must be repeated before ears go deaf in the din of battle: will war bring any real gain, any assurance of peaceful life for Israel? Anything that would create the willingness to accept Israel as a partner and neighbour, a willingness that in the long run can render all forms of nuclear arms – Israel's, and those of others – superfluous?

A legitimate answer to these questions, an answer hard to swallow but worthy of public discussion, is this: if economic sanctions do not cause Iran to halt uranium enrichment, and if the United States, for reasons of its own, does not attack it – even then, it would be better for Israel not to attack, even if this means that Israel, gnashing its teeth, would have to live with a nuclear Iran. It is very hard to accept that, and one hopes that international pressure will eliminate this eventuality, but an Israeli attack might be no less painful and bitter. And because there is no way to ascertain that Iran would indeed attack Israel if it had nuclear weapons at its disposal, Israel must not attack Iran. Such an attack would be a rash, wild bet, likely to disfigure our future in ways I dare not even imagine. No, I can imagine it, but my hand refuses to write it.

I do not envy the prime minister, the defence minister and members of the cabinet. Immense responsibility lies upon their shoulders. I think about the fact that in a situation mainly made up of doubt and uncertainty, the one certain thing is often fear. It is tempting for us Israelis to cling to such fears, to let them counsel and guide us, to feel their familiar, reassuring ring. I am sure that those who support an attack on Iran justify it on the grounds that it would be done to forestall the possibility of a bigger nightmare in the future.

But has any person the right to sentence so many people to death, only in the name of a fear of a possibility that might never come to pass?
Of course he is, just another Judenrat kapo.

buddyholly
04-10-2012, 03:07 AM
Hope you are being ironic here, or else up in smoke went your idea of yourself as a champion of free speech.


Burning my own copy of The Tin Drum is an excellent example of practising free speech. Someone else burning my copy is not.

You seem to be unaware that free speech means saying what I want to say, but does not mean saying what you want to hear.

buddyholly
04-10-2012, 12:01 PM
he's being ironic.

but he's never been a champion of free speech anyway

This is where I ask you to stop your lying posts or produce evidence that I am not a champion of free speech - and the thread dies when you flee.

Har-Tru
04-10-2012, 12:35 PM
Reconsider, though. The Tin Drum is a wonderful novel.

habibko
04-10-2012, 01:55 PM
And it is indeed annoying how any criticism of Israel is immediately labelled antisemitic...

:yawn: expect no less from that pariah state's people and supporters

Grass spoke the obvious truth and exposed the hypocrisy in much of the western politics, and the reaction was never in doubt

abraxas21
04-10-2012, 01:58 PM
This is where I ask you to stop your lying posts or produce evidence that I am not a champion of free speech - and the thread dies when you flee.

i must recognize that me not having the patience or the will to keep up with your ramblings has become somewhat usual lately. but perhaps you, much like a certain 15 year old kid from scotland who posts here as well, feel that the fact that you have the final word automatically makes you a winner of the argument. if that's so, then by all means keep posting. i'd hate to burst your bubble.

buddyholly
04-10-2012, 06:39 PM
i must recognize that me not having the patience or the will to keep up with your ramblings has become somewhat usual lately. but perhaps you, much like a certain 15 year old kid from scotland who posts here as well, feel that the fact that you have the final word automatically makes you a winner of the argument. if that's so, then by all means keep posting. i'd hate to burst your bubble.

I was being very succinct, not rambling. ''Rambling'' would be trying to introduce a red herring by irrelevantly writing about some 15 year old Scottish kid .

What argument? You have no argument. You knowingly lied and are too much of a coward to admit it.

buddyholly
04-10-2012, 06:45 PM
Reconsider, though. The Tin Drum is a wonderful novel.

Surely you did not take me literally.

Grass does, after all, begin his poem with a condemnation of Iran.

I was making reference to Nazi book burnings, Salman Rushdie fatwahs, Ulysses bannings etc. etc.

But if I had said that I burned my copy of The Flounder, then people might really have thought I was serious.

Har-Tru
04-10-2012, 07:36 PM
Surely you did not take me literally.

Grass does, after all, begin his poem with a condemnation of Iran.

I was making reference to Nazi book burnings, Salman Rushdie fatwahs, Ulysses bannings etc. etc.

But if I had said that I burned my copy of The Flounder, then people might really have thought I was serious.

Don't call me Shirley!

Nobody familiar with your style would have taken you seriously, but I must admit I thought you were having a go at the recent Quran burnings. Didn't seem to fit that well...

Roger the Dodger
04-10-2012, 08:32 PM
Why does Israel pride itself on being a modern nation? Its as absurdly conservative as the rest of the middle-east with such intellectual fatwahs and all.

buddyholly
04-11-2012, 12:34 AM
No Israeli government official has offered money to any Jew that succeeds in killing Grass.

abraxas21
04-12-2012, 04:03 AM
I was being very succinct, not rambling. ''Rambling'' would be trying to introduce a red herring by irrelevantly writing about some 15 year old Scottish kid .

What argument? You have no argument. You knowingly lied and are too much of a coward to admit it.

right... carry on

abraxas21
04-12-2012, 05:49 AM
canada under harper

"When Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand. Demonization, double standards, de-legitimization, the three D's, it is the responsibility of us all to stand up to them," Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in 2010 at the Ottawa Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, which was supported by the CPCCA. Harper added:

"Harnessing disparate anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Western ideologies, it targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so. We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is."


Under Harper, Canada has routinely defended Israeli intransigence and disregard for international law and the human rights of the Palestinian people under its control. In return, trade cooperation and military and security technologies ties have been strengthened between the two states.

In May of this year, it was reported that Harper was adamantly opposed to making any reference to the 1967 borders in a G8 summit statement calling for renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Far-right Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman thanked Harper for his position, and stated, "Canada is a true friend of Israel".

In 2010, Canada announced it would discontinue its financial contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the organization that provides support and resources to approximately 4.7m registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the occupied Palestinian territories, and funnel the money into greater policing and security institutions run by the un-elected and corrupt Palestinian Authority leadership instead.

In January 2009, as the Israeli army continued its disproportionate attack on the besieged civilian population in Gaza that left 1,400 Palestinians dead in the span of three weeks, Canada was the only country out of 47 that voted against a motion at the United Nations Human Rights Council condemning the Israeli violence.
In addition to providing diplomatic cover for Israel, the Canadian government has attacked and cut funding to various non-governmental organizations working on issues related to Israel/Palestine, including Kairos Churches and Alternatives International.

Canadian Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney, who led the formation of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) and is an ex-officio member, has also repeatedly alleged that the Canadian Arab Federation promotes anti-Semitism and hatred. While Kenney never backed up these claims, the Canadian Arab Federation's contracts with the government - which helped finance language programs for Toronto-area immigrants (the majority of whom are of Chinese origin) - were not renewed in 2009.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117206368409551.html

also, mods should stop with the censorship. it's a proven fact that israel does send its spies illegally to foreign nations to kill scientists and politicians and to recruit terrorirst to do their dirty work for them.

MTF's job in this space should be to encourage discussion withing the website rules instead of acting like a nanny site.

buddyholly
04-12-2012, 03:11 PM
You neglected to mention that the above is an opinion piece by a Palestinian activist living in Jerusalem and that Al Jazeera notes that the opinions expressed are not to be assumed as Al Jazeera's.

Maybe you could balance this with an opinion piece by an Israeli activist living in Gaza.

buddyholly
04-12-2012, 03:26 PM
right... carry on

Thank you.

Aloimeh
04-12-2012, 04:01 PM
Nazi dog.

peribsen
04-12-2012, 04:33 PM
Nazi dog.

Who?

Why?

(Just in case you are serious:)
Let's face it Aloimeh, you don't know much about this issue, do you? Because nobody in his right mind can say Grass is Nazi, a clearer voice against Nazism during the past 4 decades is very difficult to find.

abraxas21
04-12-2012, 10:18 PM
You neglected to mention that the above is an opinion piece by a Palestinian activist living in Jerusalem

it cointains mostly quotes and facts. if you disagree with something in particular, you're free to do so and even to ackonowledge your points if so you wish. disregarding it as merely the work of "a palestinian activist living in Jerusalem" without analizing the real contents exposed gives a hint of your bias.

abraxas21
04-12-2012, 10:20 PM
Nazi dog.

there was a time not to long ago when ultra conservative americans such as yourself used to hate the Jews as well.

Aloimeh
04-13-2012, 05:08 AM
there was a time not to long ago when ultra conservative americans such as yourself used to hate the Jews as well.

I am not an ultraconservative by any stretch of the imagination. How many ultraconservatives do you know who oppose the death penalty, support having social security and medicare/safety net programs, and oppose all US wars since WWII?

You don't know me, and so you don't "get me."

And I neither "love" nor "hate" the Jews. They are people like any other. There are "good" people and "bad" people among them, and I take them as individuals first. As a nation, I disagree with the behavior of some of their prominent politicians and cultural icons/movers-and-shakers, but obviously consider them to be God's chosen people, who will be blessed beyond all other nations when Messiah returns.

Aloimeh
04-13-2012, 05:14 AM
Who?

Why?

(Just in case you are serious:)
Let's face it Aloimeh, you don't know much about this issue, do you? Because nobody in his right mind can say Grass is Nazi, a clearer voice against Nazism during the past 4 decades is very difficult to find.

I stand by this. Grass was a member of the SS.

I am not convinced by these ex-Nazis expressing contrition for Germany's wrongs. I believe that Germany has had a pseudo-cathartic experience since World War II. Rather than dealing with issues in a practical manner (i.e. there were rational reasons, if entirely morally repugnant ones, why Germany directed itself towards its genocidal program), they wallow in false abjection.

This is seen by the fact that contrition is really only expressed and widely felt for the Jews, Germany's biggest BUT FAR FROM ONLY victim. Attitudes towards "others" (those "others" we always see in victims lists) are fossilized in the mindset of 1939. Russians are to be feared. Poles are inferior. The Balkans is a playground for Germany and her Nazi-stooge-sidekicks (Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Albanians, and Turks). No remorse is to be felt with respect to THOSE victims (Russians, Poles, Serbs, Gypsies, Greeks, etc.).

These attitudes remain engrained in the German elite (I don't speak of common people). But the elite address only the Jewish question because they lost the war, because Jews are no longer an obstruction (real or perceived) to Germany's agenda, and because Jews had a powerful lobby pushing for recognition, compensation, and apology.

Gypsies and Slavs had none of that. For one, they're still around and annoying as ever. For another, they don't have a strong lobby.

Germany's policy-makers continue their attempts to make Germany hegemon in Europe, but they do it with money rather than with guns.

abraxas21
04-13-2012, 05:14 AM
I am not an ultraconservative by any stretch of the imagination. How many ultraconservatives do you know who oppose the death penalty, support having social security and medicare/safety net programs, and oppose all US wars since WWII?

You don't know me, and so you don't "get me."

And I neither "love" nor "hate" the Jews. They are people like any other. There are "good" people and "bad" people among them, and I take them as individuals first. As a nation, I disagree with the behavior of some of their prominent politicians and cultural icons/movers-and-shakers,

to this point this was a surprisignly reasonable and dare i say enlightening post coming from you.

then again, there was finally this:

but obviously consider them to be God's chosen people, who will be blessed beyond all other nations when Messiah returns.

Theistic argument aside, if you say that "the Jews are people like any other", what makes you think God will/should treat them better than others when He returns?

Aloimeh
04-13-2012, 05:21 AM
to this point this was a surprisignly reasonable and dare i say enlightening post coming from you.

then again, there was finally this:



Theistic argument aside, if you say that "the Jews are people like any other", what makes you think God will/should treat them better than others when He returns?

First of all, it is a joke to say God has treated them "better." The Holocaust was obviously God's judgment on them for reasons unclear both to them and me. I am not saying that humans/Satan didn't play a major role, but obviously God allowed it.

Second, distinguish between personal and national matters. Jews are chosen as a nation before God, in the same way that Chinese are the most numerous nation on the planet and one of the oldest.

While these things may be true of the nations, they mean nothing on the individual level. A Chinese man or woman is no "bigger" or "older" than a Belgian man or woman, even though China is much bigger population-wise and a much older culture/people than Belgium.

Likewise, whereas the Jewish nation is chosen by God for His purposes, Jewish individuals are intrinsically no better or worse than non-Jewish individuals. They are susceptible to the same graces and faults as anyone else.

God will elevate His chosen nation to have a central place in His millennial kingdom, but this says nothing about the spiritual fates of all the Jewish individuals who have died or will die before Christ's second coming. In fact, the majority (like the majority of Gentiles as well), will end up in eternal damnation.

peribsen
04-14-2012, 01:58 AM
I stand by this. Grass was a member of the SS.
I am not convinced by these ex-Nazis ....

You're talking through your hat. You are extremely ill informed if you think Grass was a Nazi.

peribsen
04-14-2012, 01:59 AM
I do hope both these bans are short lived.

Aloimeh
04-14-2012, 03:03 AM
Oh please, come off it.

Grass is not some maverick.

He's a part and parcel of the German cultural establishment, which is reflected by his Nobel prize.

He's also an ex-Nazi like oh so many other key figures in the German political and cultural establishment post-WWII.

Let's talk about a real renegade German writer: Peter Handke. Even Elfriede Jelinek, who very questionably received the Nobel, stated that Handke deserved it more.

He didn't get it because he refused to toe the German/Austrian political line and was thus shunned by all the French, German, and Austrian theatrical circles.

That's the real scandal here. Not the fact that some ex-SS closeted Nazi fraud who made his money off false contrition about German Jewry starts spouting anti-Israeli nonsense when his cover's been blown and Israel, understandably, tells him he's not welcome to sling sh!t in their own country.

peribsen
04-14-2012, 11:45 AM
some ex-SS closeted Nazi fraud

The moment you wrote this, you lost all credibility. Your argument is that any German teen who was drafted in WW2 is a closet Nazi, which is extremely ridiculous. The Waffen SS, unlike the Allgemaine SS (which were all hardcore Nazis), was an elite combat force. A teen asking to serve in them, very especially at the end of the war, is only guilty of being foolish enough to want to serve in a high risk rather than in a low risk unit. Like all Germans his age, Grass had known nothing but war (he was 13 when it started). His country was falling all around him and he wanted to put in his share in its defence, like millions of young men did in so many countries. To suggest that a teenager growing up in such circumstances is moved by an articulated ideology is simply foolish, political views must have been about the last thing that crossed his mind.

Please stop making things up.

Topspindoctor
04-15-2012, 04:22 AM
He's right though - Israel is nothing but a yank puppet state created on a land taken by force from its rightful owners.

abraxas21
04-30-2012, 02:53 AM
I stand by this. Grass was a member of the SS.

I am not convinced by these ex-Nazis expressing contrition for Germany's wrongs. I believe that Germany has had a pseudo-cathartic experience since World War II. Rather than dealing with issues in a practical manner (i.e. there were rational reasons, if entirely morally repugnant ones, why Germany directed itself towards its genocidal program), they wallow in false abjection.

This is seen by the fact that contrition is really only expressed and widely felt for the Jews, Germany's biggest BUT FAR FROM ONLY victim. Attitudes towards "others" (those "others" we always see in victims lists) are fossilized in the mindset of 1939. Russians are to be feared. Poles are inferior. The Balkans is a playground for Germany and her Nazi-stooge-sidekicks (Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Albanians, and Turks). No remorse is to be felt with respect to THOSE victims (Russians, Poles, Serbs, Gypsies, Greeks, etc.).

These attitudes remain engrained in the German elite (I don't speak of common people). But the elite address only the Jewish question because they lost the war, because Jews are no longer an obstruction (real or perceived) to Germany's agenda, and because Jews had a powerful lobby pushing for recognition, compensation, and apology.

Gypsies and Slavs had none of that. For one, they're still around and annoying as ever. For another, they don't have a strong lobby.

Germany's policy-makers continue their attempts to make Germany hegemon in Europe, but they do it with money rather than with guns.

i was going to reply to this a few weeks ago but suddenly the mods (or should i say "one mod") decided to ban me so....

barring the bolded sentences, i agree with everything you've said here. then again, when you try to link that with grass' nazism, as you claim he's in fact a "nazi dog", there's not much that adds up.

peribsen
04-30-2012, 07:02 PM
.

Good to see you back, Abrax, sort of missed you.

peribsen
06-01-2012, 07:35 PM
Israel in Peril
New York Review of Books, June 7th 2012

Highly readable and informative review by David Shulman of Peter Beinart's new book, The Crisis of Zionism.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/07/israel-in-peril/

Excerpta:

Those who recoil at the term “apartheid” are invited to offer a better one; but note that one of the main architects of this system, Ariel Sharon, himself reportedly adopted South African terminology, referring to the noncontiguous Palestinian enclaves he envisaged for the West Bank as “Bantustans.”

How did we reach this point? Why do Israelis cling to a policy so evidently irrational, indeed suicidal? The simple—too simple—answer is: we’re afraid.

As Ali Abu Awwad, one of the leaders of the new generation of Palestinian nonviolent resisters, often says: “The Jews are not my enemy; their fear is my enemy. We must help them to stop being so afraid—their whole history has terrified them—but I refuse to be a victim of Jewish fear anymore.”

To prolong the occupation is to ensure the emergence of a single polity west of the Jordan; every passing day makes a South African trajectory more likely, including the eventual, necessary progression to a system of one person, one vote. Thus the likelihood must be faced that unless the Occupation ends, there will also, in the not so distant future, be no Jewish state.

GugaF1
06-04-2012, 02:41 AM
Can anyone enlight me on this, why are people from Serbia so Pro-Israel and usually Pro-Zionist it seems? A few years whenever I read something in regards to Israel, I have noticed a pattern of seeing Serbians acting almost like Israel's dogs. Is there some link or some historical reason for this that I am missing? The only thing I can come up with and is problably it, is they both had serious conflicts with muslims, is that it? Thanks

It is amazing how you need to analyze country's Psychology and historical conditioning biased, you can usually see where people are coming from to get the whole picture and how little you see people deviating from that. For example, is refreshing to see an Israeli being able to be critical of their own country's policies although it doesn't happen as often as it could. Like you see in the US, descendents of jews can be quite biased Pro Israel. When you read a newspaper article or a story, you got to check the source to see if they are really biased or not. For example, I like the NYT, it is a jewish formed newspaper it is balanced and extensive in its reporting and articles, one of my favorite news sources from the US. But even with them you can notice patterns, in how they are over alarming about Iran, for example.

Unfortunetely, in this world, you got to check the source of what you are reading. I long for the day where people can honestly look at themselves in the mirror, give opinions forgeting about their cultural conditioning or historical biased and just be honest and straight forward.

JolánGagó
06-04-2012, 01:35 PM
Israel, what a beacon of human rights.

Aloimeh
06-04-2012, 03:51 PM
Can anyone enlight me on this, why are people from Serbia so Pro-Israel and usually Pro-Zionist it seems? A few years whenever I read something in regards to Israel, I have noticed a pattern of seeing Serbians acting almost like Israel's dogs. Is there some link or some historical reason for this that I am missing? The only thing I can come up with and is problably it, is they both had serious conflicts with muslims, is that it? Thanks

It is amazing how you need to analyze country's Psychology and historical conditioning biased, you can usually see where people are coming from to get the whole picture and how little you see people deviating from that. For example, is refreshing to see an Israeli being able to be critical of their own country's policies although it doesn't happen as often as it could. Like you see in the US, descendents of jews can be quite biased Pro Israel. When you read a newspaper article or a story, you got to check the source to see if they are really biased or not. For example, I like the NYT, it is a jewish formed newspaper it is balanced and extensive in its reporting and articles, one of my favorite news sources from the US. But even with them you can notice patterns, in how they are over alarming about Iran, for example.

Unfortunetely, in this world, you got to check the source of what you are reading. I long for the day where people can honestly look at themselves in the mirror, give opinions forgeting about their cultural conditioning or historical biased and just be honest and straight forward.

I don't know where you got this idea, but it's quite incorrect. Today in Serbia and in the Serbian diaspora there is a mix of pro-Israel and anti-Israel people (some of whom are also antisemitic/anti-Jewish).

Reasons why there is a substantial pro-Jewish/pro-Israeli strain in some elements of Serbian culture:

1.) A sense of shared history as victims of genocide in the Croatian-Bosnian death camps during WWII
2.) A sense of common historical experience as victims of Muslim oppression (under Ottoman, Arab, etc.) rule AND victimization at the hands of Germany and other central European societies (notably Austria) where fascism found such a warm and friendly home.
3.) Lack of a history of violent antisemitism in Serbia. As far as I know, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albania are some of the few European countries in which antisemitism was at a relatively low level and never exploded into pogroms - as it did in places like Germany, Poland, Austria-Hungary, Romania, and Russia.
4.) A common way of thinking vis-a-vis Kosovo and Jerusalem. Kosovo is Serbia's Jerusalem and the fact that the demographics are so skewed in favor of the Albanians (and this is a recent phenomenon and due to historical injustices) is not taken to be a strong argument against Kosovo's still being part of Serbia. Likewise, Jews may have been exiled from Jerusalem for ~2000 years but that cannot take away their historic right to their own land, even if it had been inhabited mostly by Arabs for centuries until the mid-20th century.

Reasons why there is a substantial antisemitic strain in some elements of Serbian cutlure:
1.) Some of the usual "Jews rule the world" conspiracy theory notions. Usually more on a political/media basis rather than an economic/Rothschilds-type basis. I suppose this would be classic antisemitism.
2.) A generic anger at Jewish exclusivity and unique victimhood, i.e. a tendency to sweep other victims of WWII (including Serbs but also other Slavic peoples like Russians and Poles) under the rug as "others" while talking about the Holocaust with pause. Also a tendency or suppress other genocides, e.g. the Armenian genocide, out of political interests (Israel's alliance with Turkey) or to keep the Holocaust unique.
3.) A prominent sort of neo-antisemitism rooted in events of the 1990s. Jewish politicians, thinkers, and journalists were deeply involved in many of the events that transpired in the 1990s destruction of Yugoslavia, whether it was the pathologically Serbophobic Madeleine Albright and her colleagues during the 1999 bombing, Wesley Clark, Sandy Berger, and William Cohen; or Jewish journalists and thinkers like Roy Gutman and Roger Cohen and Tim Judah or Deborah Sontag and Bernard Henri-Levi advancing their careers by making it a job of villifying Serbs; or Eli Wiesel begging Clinton to bomb; or Alija Izetbegovic and Franjo Tudjman invited to the USHMM in Washington D.C. with various Bosnia exhibits at that museum and not a single proper one on the genocide of Serbs in WWII, etc.

vucina
06-04-2012, 05:29 PM
Good post by Alo. And Guga, we are nobody's dogs. We just support those who are right. We know what and who they are facing.
Serbs who show anti-Jewish tendencies are full of shit and usually ignorant. There is also some classic Christian intolerance although it's not rooted in Serbian history and is of quite modern origin. Yes, there were Jews who made a career out of vilifying Serbs, but those are exclusively leftists who hate their own people as well and piss on Israel every chance they get. Israelis during the '90s were neutral or holding our side.

peribsen
06-04-2012, 06:49 PM
We just support those who are right.

And just who are "right" in the Palestine-Israel issue, I beg to ask? Or do you believe the world is about a struggle between absolute right and absolute wrong? In a very long necklace where each bead is a crime, how can you tell what bead comes before the next, what atrocity is a "legitimate" answer to the one that preceded it? (BTW, if you think that is easy because guilt falls on whoever placed the first bead, then in this particular conflict you've already lost your case, have't you? Because if one thing is indeed crystal clear, is that Palestinians didn't start this row).

Maybe you should read a bit more about the history of this conflict, as well as about the realities on the ground. And I'm sure that, if you did, you wouldn't be so damned certain about what side "righteousness" falls.

vucina
06-04-2012, 08:00 PM
I know about it everything I need to know. And it's obvious who I think (know) is right.
And how did Jews begin this? By returning to their land?

peribsen
06-04-2012, 09:21 PM
I know about it everything I need to know.

Nobody ever knows everything he/she needs to know about anything. If one thing is beyond doubt, it is that people saying the above are only revealing their ignorance. Nobody who really knows much is so arrogant.

And how did Jews begin this? By returning to their land?

Two points:

- Their land? You do understand that they have been out of that land since before the great Slav migration, don't you? Do you Serbs still consider the pre-proto-Slavic lands as your own? Or do you think Anglo-saxons still have a legitimate claim to Northern Germany?

- They didn't just return to Palestine, like in saying 'we want to live with you'. They came with all the European idea of superiority, saying 'we are coming in, like it or not, and we are going to rule you, because we are better than you, like it or not'. No people, of any race nor time, can be expected not to try to avoid that. Only Palestinians, it seems, are guilty for defending themselves.

To make matters worse, fact is that a very large part of the original Jewish population of Testament times never migrated anywhere. They stayed, and gradually lost their religion and mingled. Ironically, it may be that present day Palestinians have larger original Jewish gene pools than many Ashkenzi Jews.

vucina
06-04-2012, 10:34 PM
Nobody ever knows everything he/she needs to know about anything. If one thing is beyond doubt, it is that people saying the above are only revealing their ignorance. Nobody who really knows much is so arrogant.
"Nobody ever knows everything he/she needs to know about anything" doesn't stop you from arrogantly claiming Jews are wrong.

Two points:

- Their land? You do understand that they have been out of that land since before the great Slav migration, don't you? Do you Serbs still consider the pre-proto-Slavic lands as your own? Or do you think Anglo-saxons still have a legitimate claim to Northern Germany?
They've not "been out of that land", they've been expelled by European conquerors and slavers. We Serbs don't know exactly where we are coming from. We moved on our own, and this is our land now. Unlike us, Jews knew what is their land and it was the only land they always wanted.

- They didn't just return to Palestine, like in saying 'we want to live with you'. They came with all the European idea of superiority, saying 'we are coming in, like it or not, and we are going to rule you, because we are better than you, like it or not'. No people, of any race nor time, can be expected not to try to avoid that. Only Palestinians, it seems, are guilty for defending themselves.
Actually, at first, they did want to live with Arabs and didn't think it was possible to establish a Jewish state. They just couldn't endure European hospitality anymore. European Jews who didn't feel Israel as their home perished in the ovens. The "Palestinians" didn't exist back then. Most of them were Arabs from neighboring countries migrating to a land which was a desert before Jews started transforming it to a garden. Then the pogroms started (that was many years before Israel was founded). Of course, it's "defending" for you.
To make matters worse, fact is that a very large part of the original Jewish population of Testament times never migrated anywhere. They stayed, and gradually lost their religion and mingled. Ironically, it may be that present day Palestinians have larger original Jewish gene pools than many Ashkenzi Jews.
That's anti-semitic BS. Like I said, the "Palestinians" are Arabs from neighboring countries. Yes, there was always a Jewish presence in the area, and they hardly mixed. Genetic research shows that Ashkenazim are very close to Sefardim, who are the majority in Israel anyway. Are they tanned enough for you?
I really don't understand Europeans who persecuted and expelled the Jews from their countries for centuries and now yell "Go back to Poland and leave the poor Arabs alone!" Make up your mind.

peribsen
06-04-2012, 11:34 PM
"Nobody ever knows everything he/she needs to know about anything" doesn't stop you from arrogantly claiming Jews are wrong.

Wrong, because I don't say that. I see all this basically as a huge tragedy between two victims. It is you who claim one side is "right". Kindly stop telling me what I think and accusing me of being as biased as you are.

And, by the way, I'm speaking of the State of Israel, not of Jews. They are not the same thing.

They've not "been out of that land", they've been expelled by European conquerors and slavers. We Serbs don't know exactly where we are coming from. We moved on our own, and this is our land now. Unlike us, Jews knew what is their land and it was the only land they always wanted.

No. "They" haven't been expelled by anyone. Their far distant ancestors had been. This point is vital. If people, of any race, nationality or condition, feel they have the right, today, to avenge all of the wrongs their ancestors may have suffered 20 centuries ago, then peace is impossible. No innocent should suffer, far less 'legitimately', for anything that may have happened centuries ago. For civilization to exist, living individuals have to come first over national grievances. Whoever doesn't agree with this is medieval. This case is really far worse, since Palestinians are totally unrelated to the peoples who expelled Jews.

Actually, at first, they did want to live with Arabs and didn't think it was possible to establish a Jewish state.

The very early few arrivals, before WW1, may indeed have thought that. Guess what, they were never really the problem. But things changed soon. If you have a look at what Zionists were saying by the 1930s, you will find that they had very clear ideas about what fate awaited the Palestinians. There are about a dozen Israeli Jewish historians who have written abundantly on this issue. Maybe you should include some of them into your readings, if you really want the truth.

That's anti-semitic BS.

That simply doesn't make sense. And the way you use the term antisemitic here is telling, since both sides of this conflict happen to be Semitic.

Like I said, the "Palestinians" are Arabs from neighboring countries.

The Palestinians are the people living in Palestine for generations, period. The fact you deny them standing as a people is really nothing new. Countless times, European colonialists have 'proccessed' entire peoples with the argument that they didn't really exist. You know, the existence of a people does not depend of others willingness to acknowledge them. They simply are.

And the fact you speak of 'neighbouring countries' reveals you don't understand much about the Middle East. There were no countries there before European colonialists created them. Saying the Palestinians should simply go join other countries implies quite a lot of Eurocentrism. Imagine if the Chinese one day become the top dog and talk about all Slavs or Scandinavians or whatever in such a cavalier way in which you speak of Arabs.

Are they tanned enough for you?

What on earth has race got to do with this? I was stating that Palestinians have been settled there for very long, long enough to have incorporated older traits. White or tanned is irrelevant.

I really don't understand Europeans who persecuted and expelled the Jews from their countries for centuries and now yell "Go back to Poland and leave the poor Arabs alone!" Make up your mind.

And just who is asking for the Jews to return to Poland or elsewhere, if I may ask? You really should stop telling others what they believe.

And has it never struck you as somewhat odd, since Europeans are ultimately the guilty party of Jewish historical suffering (I'm all with you there), why it is the Palestinians who are being asked to pay the price?

The end analysis is whether Palestinians, men, women and children, are to be allowed to have their own country within their own land. You seem to think they should not.

vucina
06-05-2012, 12:47 AM
Wrong, because I don't say that. I see all this basically as a huge tragedy between two victims. It is you who claim one side is "right". Kindly stop telling me what I think and accusing me of being as biased as you are.

And, by the way, I'm speaking of the State of Israel, not of Jews. They are not the same thing.
Because if one thing is indeed crystal clear, is that Palestinians didn't start this row).
This is a crystal clear opinion, no?
Oh, and I love this: "I'm against Israel, not Jews". Battle cry of the 21. century Jew hater.


No. "They" haven't been expelled by anyone. Their far distant ancestors had been. This point is vital. If people, of any race, nationality or condition, feel they have the right, today, to avenge all of the wrongs their ancestors may have suffered 20 centuries ago, then peace is impossible. No innocent should suffer, far less 'legitimately', for anything that may have happened centuries ago. For civilization to exist, living individuals have to come first over national grievances. Whoever doesn't agree with this is medieval. This case is really far worse, since Palestinians are totally unrelated to the peoples who expelled Jews.
Then Palestinians weren't expelled either, their grandfathers were. And I wonder who is really medieval in the Middle East.



The very early few arrivals, before WW1, may indeed have thought that. Guess what, they were never really the problem. But things changed soon. If you have a look at what Zionists were saying by the 1930s, you will find that they had very clear ideas about what fate awaited the Palestinians. There are about a dozen Israeli Jewish historians who have written abundantly on this issue. Maybe you should include some of them into your readings, if you really want the truth.
What changed? Maybe the fact they had to escape from Europe with their life, and no country allowed them to. By 1930 Arabs conducted many pogroms, so of course Jews saw coexistence with them is impossible. And yet, there are millions of them in Israel even today. Would Arabs allow Jews that if they ruled the country?


The Palestinians are the people living in Palestine for generations, period. The fact you deny them standing as a people is really nothing new. Countless times, European colonialists have 'proccessed' entire peoples with the argument that they didn't really exist. You know, the existence of a people does not depend of others willingness to acknowledge them. They simply are.
They started calling themselves "Palestinians" in the seventies, I believe. Before then, they didn't even hear the expression.


And the fact you speak of 'neighbouring countries' reveals you don't understand much about the Middle East. There were no countries there before European colonialists created them. Saying the Palestinians should simply go join other countries implies quite a lot of Eurocentrism. Imagine if the Chinese one day become the top dog and talk about all Slavs or Scandinavians or whatever in such a cavalier way in which you speak of Arabs.
You very well know what I said. They came from what is NOW Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Syria... And first you say there weren't any countries, and then complain because I group them all as Arabs?



What on earth has race got to do with this? I was stating that Palestinians have been settled there for very long, long enough to have incorporated older traits. White or tanned is irrelevant.
I've heard many times that "white" Jews don't belong in the Middle East. Well, most of them are brown. Palestinians have not been settled there for "very long". Most of them came after the first wave of Jews in 19th century. The land was almost desolate.



And just who is asking for the Jews to return to Poland or elsewhere, if I may ask? You really should stop telling others what they believe.

And has it never struck you as somewhat odd, since Europeans are ultimately the guilty party of Jewish historical suffering (I'm all with you there), why it is the Palestinians who are being asked to pay the price?

The end analysis is whether Palestinians, men, women and children, are to be allowed to have their own country within their own land. You seem to think they should not.
Jews have no choice. They can't go back to Europe, and under Arab Muslim rule they can choose between death and expulsion. Jews could only wish the so called "second grade citizen status" they give to Arabs. And no, I don't think they should be given a country from which they can fire rockets to anywhere in Israel.

Aloimeh
06-05-2012, 03:58 AM
Peribsen, the problem with your notions is that they give all power to the aggressor, the invader, the population expander, and the end result is population replacement.

The fact is that the Jews did not voluntarily leave Israel. They were dislocated out of their land in a variety of violent political manoeuvres. First there was the invasion by the Assyrians, which extinguished 5/6th of the Hebrew tribes. Then there was the Babylonian sack of Judah and taking of the Jews into captivity. When they returned under Persian rule, they were again to face persecution under the Seleucids of Syria (persecution in their own land, mind you), and then again by Rome. In the end, they were expelled, Jerusalem was sacked, and the temple was razed.

The Jews spread to whatever lands would have them. Since then theirs was a history of frequent migration, buying off rulers and avoiding riots, pogroms, and discriminatory laws. They were persecuted in the a majority of European countries at one point or another. Despite this, they were eventually emancipated in the 18th and 19th centuries and had their own enlightenment and came to contribute a great deal to European society.

In the 20th century the centerpiece of European culture - Germany - decided to do away with them, and found many willing accomplices throughout Europe. These people had no where to go back to. In Kielce there was a pogrom AFTER WWII, which tells you well that Poland was not a friendly place even after the Holocaust. The Nazis weren't the first in Germany to persecute the Jews. There were the 19th century Hep-Hep riots, too. What I'm saying is that Europe failed to provide security for these people. In WWII they persecuted them on the basis of their blood/origin - not just their religion or socioeconomic status or culture. The Jews had no choice but to say "All right, as you've tried to kill every last one of us for no good reason, we will have to provide our own security and we will have to do it in the land from which we originally came - Israel."

This "the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany" stuff is rubbish of the highest order. You say that Arabs should have precedence. Why? When did they come there and how? Did they enter an empty land? Or did they invade a Byzantine territory inhabited by Christians and Jews and persecute the hell out of non-Arabs and non-Muslims and breed their way to a majority Arab Muslim territory, only to leave it a dump full of mosques and desert sand?

To say that Arabs have a greater right to Israel than Jews is to reward the wrong actions of the past: the Roman expulsion, the Arab invasion, and the German-engineered genocide. There's a time to say: Stop, let's rewind and set things right to the way they were meant to be.

Istanbul has over 10 million Turks in it today. Its Turkish history is negligible and a mere 500 years. Its Greek history is more than 2500 years and a grand one. Do I advocate the Greeks getting it back and the Turks being sent packing? Today, no. But that's just because Greeks DO have a homeland in which they can freely reside. Even though a historical injustice was done to them with the destruction of the Greeks of Asia Minor and their historical legacy, they still have a place where they can live without persecution. There is no "greater evil" that would merit a substantial evil of expelling the Turks.

But if the Greece of today was ruled by Turks (much as they stole Anatolia and murdered every Christian they could) and the Greeks had all been expelled into God knows where, and they were suffering relentless persecution, of course I would say that they should receive their land in Greece back and the Turkish newcomers should move out. That is only fair.

Do you think Turkey has a right to eastern Anatolia and why? Isn't that rewarding the Armenian genocide? And yet, according to you, having Armenians resettle the area and Turks move out is a greater evil than the fact that the homeland of the Armenians has been stolen from them, their graveyards smashed, their 8th century churches burnt, their people exterminated and driven into every corner of the world. Why? This happened in the 20th century, mind you, and by your logic regarding Jewish history, they have no right to go back to their own land. It's Turkish now. Why? Is it because the Turks did a good job of killing and have a stronger army?

Albanians have a right to Kosovo, even though they became a majority a mere 100 years ago and did so by invading, illegal immigration, assisting the brutal Turkish, Austrian, and Nazi German occupations, being stooges of NATO, and viciously expelling Serbs at any moment they could. Why? Where's their history in this land? Where's their homeland? How did they get this land? Why is their right to it greater than the right of the Serbs to live in their historic territory, replete with their monuments, their graveyards, their churches and monasteries, their battlefields, their victims?

buddyholly
06-05-2012, 12:06 PM
Israel, what a beacon of human rights.

It may not shine very brightly, but it sure does throw some light into neighbouring countries that want to extinguish it.

peribsen
06-24-2012, 05:34 PM
Alice Walker, the author of the award winning novel "The Color Purple" and a well known activist for black women rights, has denied permission for her book to be published in Israel. Her reasons are given in the letter below.

Letter from Alice Walker to Publishers at Yediot Books

This letter is published with author's permission.

June 9, 2012

Dear Publishers at Yediot Books,

Thank you so much for wishing to publish my novel THE COLOR PURPLE. It isn’t possible for me to permit this at this time for the following reason: As you may know, last Fall in South Africa the Russell Tribunal on Palestine met and determined that Israel is guilty of apartheid and persecution of the Palestinian people, both inside Israel and also in the Occupied Territories. The testimony we heard, both from Israelis and Palestinians (I was a jurist) was devastating. I grew up under American apartheid and this was far worse. Indeed, many South Africans who attended, including Desmond Tutu, felt the Israeli version of these crimes is worse even than what they suffered under the white supremacist regimes that dominated South Africa for so long.

It is my hope that the non-violent BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, of which I am part, will have enough of an impact on Israeli civilian society to change the situation.

In that regard, I offer an earlier example of THE COLOR PURPLE’s engagement in the world-wide effort to rid humanity of its self-destructive habit of dehumanizing whole populations. When the film of The Color Purple was finished, and all of us who made it decided we loved it, Steven Spielberg, the director, was faced with the decision of whether it should be permitted to travel to and be offered to the South African public. I lobbied against this idea because, as with Israel today, there was a civil society movement of BDS aimed at changing South Africa’s apartheid policies and, in fact, transforming the government.

It was not a particularly difficult position to hold on my part: I believe deeply in non-violent methods of social change though they sometimes seem to take forever, but I did regret not being able to share our movie, immediately, with (for instance) Winnie and Nelson Mandela and their children, and also with the widow and children of the brutally murdered, while in police custody, Steven Biko, the visionary journalist and defender of African integrity and freedom.

We decided to wait. How happy we all were when the apartheid regime was dismantled and Nelson Mandela became the first president of color of South Africa.

Only then did we send our beautiful movie! And to this day, when I am in South Africa, I can hold my head high and nothing obstructs the love that flows between me and the people of that country.

Which is to say, I would so like knowing my books are read by the people of your country, especially by the young, and by the brave Israeli activists (Jewish and Palestinian) for justice and peace I have had the joy of working beside. I am hopeful that one day, maybe soon, this may happen. But now is not the time.

We must continue to work on the issue, and to wait.

In faith that a just future can be fashioned from small acts,

Alice Walker

buddyholly
06-24-2012, 07:28 PM
If Alice Walker's daughter is to be believed, Walker is the mother from hell. She was almost completely ignored by her mother during childhood because her mother was much more interested in travelling the world and being famous. Her feminism demanded that having children just turned women into slaves, so when Walker's daughter finally had the son that she had longed for, Walker cut off all communication with her daughter and is completely uninterested in seeing the grandson.

So all the hand-wringing Walker does over the Palestinians seems to be just a sham, but a good way for her to be in the news.

The fact that Walker married the Jewish son of Holocaust survivors, then divorced him after she got pregnant and so, following her own twisted sister ideology, was enslaved by him, suggests to me that Walker's whole anti-Israeli thing is actually the manifestation of Walker's own hate for her ex-husband for impregnating and enslaving her.

Walker wrote a poem describing the birth of her daughter as a major calamity in her life as a feminist. After the birth of her grandson, Walker then cut her daughter out of her will, apparently for defying her ideology and being so disobedient as to have a son and deliberately deliver herself into the slavery of men.

One cold, bitter, cruel, crazy woman, if you ask me. A useful idiot for some.

peribsen
06-24-2012, 08:02 PM
If Alice Walker's daughter is to be believed, Walker is the mother from hell. She was almost completely ignored by her mother during childhood because her mother was much more interested in travelling the world and being famous. Her feminism demanded that having children just turned women into slaves, so when Walker's daughter finally had the son that she had longed for, Walker cut off all communication with her daughter and is completely uninterested in seeing the grandson.

So all the hand-wringing Walker does over the Palestinians seems to be just a sham, but a good way for her to be in the news.

The fact that Walker married the Jewish son of Holocaust survivors, then divorced him after she got pregnant and so, following her own twisted sister ideology, was enslaved by him, suggests to me that Walker's whole anti-Israeli thing is actually the manifestation of Walker's own hate for her ex-husband for impregnating and enslaving her.

Walker wrote a poem describing the birth of her daughter as a major calamity in her life as a feminist. After the birth of her grandson, Walker then cut her daughter out of her will, apparently for defying her ideology and being so disobedient as to have a son and deliberately deliver herself into the slavery of men.

One cold, bitter, cruel, crazy woman, if you ask me. A useful idiot for some.

Good example of murdering the messenger to avoid having to address the message.

buddyholly
06-24-2012, 08:10 PM
Thank you. But I don't think Walker is a messenger in this case. A messenger is not responsible for the views expressed in a message given to him to deliver by a third party. In this case Walker is delivering her own views, her own message.

In this instance I was not really interested in the Israeli-Palestine problem anyway, I was more interested in why would give any legitimacy to the views of this woman on humane issues, when she clearly has no humane feelings?

Do the majority of MTF posters know that the Russell tribunal is a self-nominated group of leftists whose only purpose is to promote themselves and their ideology? Is that the message? Set up a tribunal that you know will produce the result you want, and be confident that those who want to believe your message will immediately accept it without question? Walker is claiming here that ''there is apartheid in Israel because I said so.''

Tommy_Vercetti
06-24-2012, 08:20 PM
Alice Walker has always been just one more black bigot (and overrated writer) that is called a civil rights activist. You don't have to do much for the title.

peribsen
06-24-2012, 10:34 PM
Thank you. But I don't think Walker is a messenger in this case. A messenger is not responsible for the views expressed in a message given to him to deliver by a third party. In this case Walker is delivering her own views, her own message.

Do the majority of MTF posters know that the Russell tribunal is a self-nominated group of leftists whose only purpose is to promote themselves and their ideology? Is that the message? Set up a tribunal that you know will produce the result you want, and be confident that those who want to believe your message will immediately accept it without question? Walker is claiming here that ''there is apartheid in Israel because I said so.''

Of course. Now I see the light, anybody daring to speak out the truth in this issue is always suspect of leftist radicalism or of blatant antisemitism (even if Palestinians are also Semites).

What beats me is how someone intelligent like you can fall so easily for propaganda. I would expect you to have eyes in your head and be able to see clearly that, while so many, countless, rationalizations are hurled upon us, the fact is that the original owners of the land are still penned up in reservations (Ariel Sharon himself used the term batustans), deprived of most rights, abused right and left, often dying, and with no hope, and that this is happening well over 60years after the conflict erupted, and in full violation of international law.

Just how much can you take before you open your eyes?

buddyholly
06-24-2012, 10:58 PM
Of course. Now I see the light, anybody daring to speak out the truth in this issue is always suspect of leftist radicalism or of blatant antisemitism (even if Palestinians are also Semites).

What beats me is how someone intelligent like you can fall so easily for propaganda.

I think Alice Walker would herself proudly say that she is a leftist radical, not a suspect one. And as for propaganda: Walker said she was denying publication because of Israeli apartheid. To justify this she cites the conclusion of apartheid which she herself reached as a participant in a tribunal which nobody in their right mind would ever doubt was pre-determined anyway. Most of the participants had claimed Israel practised apartheid BEFORE they even held their tribunal to decide if Israel practised apartheid. And you ask me how I can fall for propaganda? Hah! What in the world do you think that Walker and the disgraced Winnie Mandela were up to in Capetown? A fair and honest investigation or an exercise in propaganda?

My personal opinion is that I can not have sympathy for the people who elect as their representative, a man who claimed that Bin Laden was a holy warrior and great hero for killing innocents just like you and me. Did he claim that or did I fall for some propaganda? If that is not propaganda and he actually said that, then I do not think it makes sense to have sympathy for someone who would celebrate my being blown to bits as another laudable achievement of a holy war.

How about a humane solution? The Palestinians can go back when all the Jews can go back to the Islamic states they were expelled from and the land they owned there. Seems fair.

I always get a laugh when people ask how someone as intelligent as me can think differently from them. Could it be because of my intelligence?

Full violation of international law? What does that mean? As far as I know there is no law that says Israel can not defend itself from people who have vowed to destroy it.

Finally, if Walker is so concerned about Israeli policy, why would she want her writing to be unavailable to Israelis? Wouldn't it be better if more Israelis read her story? Which leads me to believe her own ego and desire for publicity for her tribunal's propaganda may have been the important factor in going public with her gesture. I mean, has she denied publication in Zimbabwe or Iran? Well, in the case of Iran she probably doesn't have to worry about her book being available.

peribsen
06-25-2012, 12:09 AM
I think Alice Walker would herself proudly say that she is a leftist radical, not a suspect one. And as for propaganda: Walker said she was denying publication because of Israeli apartheid. To justify this she cites the conclusion of apartheid which she herself reached as a participant in a tribunal which nobody in their right mind would ever doubt was pre-determined anyway. Most of the participants had claimed Israel practised apartheid BEFORE they even held their tribunal to decide if Israel practised apartheid. And you ask me how I can fall for propaganda? Hah! What in the world do you think that Walker and the disgraced Winnie Mandela were up to in Capetown? A fair and honest investigation or an exercise in propaganda?

You miss the point if you think this is about Alice Walker, and not about the growing number of people of all sorts who are growing more and more critical of the world leaders' incapacity to settle this conflict. I remind you that the thread was opened because another intellectual raised much the same issues. And then, likewise, the issue was not so much who did the talking, but the argument he tried to make.

My personal opinion is that I can not have sympathy for the people who elect as their representative, a man who claimed that Bin Laden was a great hero for killing innocents just like you and me. Did he claim that or did I fall for some propaganda?

Neither you nor I can tell what we would be feeling/voting/fighting for/proposing/hoping after living in a reservation and being deprived of basic rights and dignity for half a century. Anybody saying he does is a hypocrite, by definition, so don't even try that route. Europeans forced to live under those conditions have almost always lashed out even more brutally; what strikes me most about Palestinians is their patience.

And trying to use radical Islamist terror, that didn't almost exist prior to the late 1980s, as an excuse is a pretty obvious case of mistaking the causes for their results. Hamas would never have existed if the very secular PLO (that for decades had a sizeable number of Christians among its leaders) had been taken seriously. I'm sure that if a woman who had been ***** for years went wild and did unnaceptable things, whatever you did to control the woman, you would not react excusing the rapist.

How about a humane solution? The Palestinians can go back when all the Jews can go back to the Islamic states they were expelled from and the land they owned there. Seems fair.

That argument is full of holes. a) What came first? b) What about those Muslim countries that have never expelled the Jews (Morocco, Iran and Iraq do come to mind, but there are others) c) What makes you think many Arab countries would have a problem in accepting that if Israel acted with reciprocity? d) I hope you are aware that, if Jews lived and had properties -some times very considearble- in many Muslim countries, its because they were treated there far better than in many European nations. Zionism was an answer to Nazi death camps, Russian progroms and other nioceties in many other Western countries. If it had been up to Sephardic Jews living among Muslims in the ME and North Africa, there would probably never have been any such thing as Zionism.

On exactly what level of historical or moral grounds do people like you expect Arabs to pay for the guilt of Europeans? And until when? Oh, I get it, it's always easier to vilify the dark and swarthy.

I always get a laugh when people ask how someone as intelligent as me can think differently from them. Could it be because of my intelligence?

No, because there is not even the need to criticize your interpretation of the issue (where intelligence could play a role), since you consistently convey that you disregard the evidence. Its not your opinion that is suspect, its your prejudice.

Full violation of international law? What does that mean?

Like expanding the settlements in the West bank? Like changing the borders of an occupied territory to which the international community does not recognize them to have any right? Like failing to actively search a permanent solution to a military occupation that, by definition, should do its best to be temporary, yet is going on now for 45 years? Like doing whatever it takes to scuttle any way forward (that includes actually supporting the rise of Hamas in the late 80s and early 90s in the hope of weakening the PLO).

I truly believe you need to read a lot more about the history of this conflict, and look at the reality of the suffering in the ground with eyes that are open, and not shaded by propaganda. Happily, many Israelis (and even more non-Israeli Jews) are capable of doing so, so why not you? Why not, for a start, check out www.Haaretz.com, to see for yourself how many centrist Israelis diverge from the official line of their government? If you think that one of Israel's main newspapers is a radical outlet... I won't even suggest you visit Gush Shalom, whose pacifists actually work with and for the Palestinian cause.

I'm sure you think Israel is a democracy. So was South Africa.

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 12:22 AM
On exactly what level of historical or moral grounds do people like you expect Arabs to pay for the guilt of Europeans? And until when? Oh, I get it, it's always easier to vilify the dark and swarthy.



No, because there is not even the need to criticize your interpretation of the issue (where intelligence could play a role), since you consistently convey that you disregard the evidence. Its not your opinion that is suspect, its your prejudice.




I truly believe you need to read a lot more about the history of this conflict,


I know, I know, why can't we all be like you, because you know it all. The first line of this quote is pathetic, very juvenile. Whatever it means. Playing the race card when you can't think of anything else is not very intelligent.
Usually a desperate move.

If I wrote that ''your anti-Israeli stance is simply and clearly your prejudice'', I would be feeling pretty desperate.

Get over yourself. You are not qualified. On this issue you are just another one of those self-deluded posters who think the answer to everything is for everyone to think like yourself. Jeez!

The above quotes show you have tried to make this discussion personal, and as you surely know, trying that on the internet is a last resort.

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 01:04 AM
You miss the point if you think this is about Alice Walker,

I didn't miss the point, because I never thought this was about an apparently nasty individual like Ms Walker. You were the one that thought her opinion was relevant here. Now you seem to want to dissociate yourself from her, but seem to be annoyed at me for not quietly and obediently taking the words of Ms Walker as words of great wisdom.

peribsen
06-25-2012, 02:05 AM
I know, I know, why can't we all be like you, because you know it all. The first line of this quote is pathetic, very juvenile. Whatever it means. Playing the race card when you can't think of anything else is not very intelligent.
Usually a desperate move.

If I wrote that ''your anti-Israeli stance is simply and clearly your prejudice'', I would be feeling pretty desperate.

Get over yourself. You are not qualified. On this issue you are just another one of those self-deluded posters who think the answer to everything is for everyone to think like yourself. Jeez!

I didn't miss the point, because I never thought this was about an apparently nasty individual like Ms Walker. You were the one that thought her opinion was relevant here. Now you seem to want to dissociate yourself from her, but seem to be annoyed at me for not quietly and obediently taking the words of Alice Walker as absolute.

Curious, that you didn't find it fit to answer even one of my arguments. Getting personal is something I thought beneath you, hope I don't have to reasses that view.

Just accept my challenge and visit Haaretz once in a while. I'm not saying that everything you find there will support my views, far from it, they are very much pro-Israeli, as is logical. But they also are broad minded enough to look at all sides of the issue, Likud voters really hate them. Do you tonnes of good (sorry, I just couldn't refrain from poking fun with that last sentence, seeing you are getting angry only increases the temptation).

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 03:28 AM
Did you make an argument? I missed it.
Why do you think I was getting angry? I was just getting bored with yet another discussion sinking to the level of some young know-it-all thinking he can tell me what it is politically correct to read.

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 06:55 AM
Peribsen, the problem with your notions is that they give all power to the aggressor, the invader, the population expander, and the end result is population replacement.

The fact is that the Jews did not voluntarily leave Israel. They were dislocated out of their land in a variety of violent political manoeuvres. First there was the invasion by the Assyrians, which extinguished 5/6th of the Hebrew tribes. Then there was the Babylonian sack of Judah and taking of the Jews into captivity. When they returned under Persian rule, they were again to face persecution under the Seleucids of Syria (persecution in their own land, mind you), and then again by Rome. In the end, they were expelled, Jerusalem was sacked, and the temple was razed.

The Jews spread to whatever lands would have them. Since then theirs was a history of frequent migration, buying off rulers and avoiding riots, pogroms, and discriminatory laws. They were persecuted in the a majority of European countries at one point or another. Despite this, they were eventually emancipated in the 18th and 19th centuries and had their own enlightenment and came to contribute a great deal to European society.

In the 20th century the centerpiece of European culture - Germany - decided to do away with them, and found many willing accomplices throughout Europe. These people had no where to go back to. In Kielce there was a pogrom AFTER WWII, which tells you well that Poland was not a friendly place even after the Holocaust. The Nazis weren't the first in Germany to persecute the Jews. There were the 19th century Hep-Hep riots, too. What I'm saying is that Europe failed to provide security for these people. In WWII they persecuted them on the basis of their blood/origin - not just their religion or socioeconomic status or culture. The Jews had no choice but to say "All right, as you've tried to kill every last one of us for no good reason, we will have to provide our own security and we will have to do it in the land from which we originally came - Israel."

This "the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany" stuff is rubbish of the highest order. You say that Arabs should have precedence. Why? When did they come there and how? Did they enter an empty land? Or did they invade a Byzantine territory inhabited by Christians and Jews and persecute the hell out of non-Arabs and non-Muslims and breed their way to a majority Arab Muslim territory, only to leave it a dump full of mosques and desert sand?

To say that Arabs have a greater right to Israel than Jews is to reward the wrong actions of the past: the Roman expulsion, the Arab invasion, and the German-engineered genocide. There's a time to say: Stop, let's rewind and set things right to the way they were meant to be.

Istanbul has over 10 million Turks in it today. Its Turkish history is negligible and a mere 500 years. Its Greek history is more than 2500 years and a grand one. Do I advocate the Greeks getting it back and the Turks being sent packing? Today, no. But that's just because Greeks DO have a homeland in which they can freely reside. Even though a historical injustice was done to them with the destruction of the Greeks of Asia Minor and their historical legacy, they still have a place where they can live without persecution. There is no "greater evil" that would merit a substantial evil of expelling the Turks.

and tell me something aloimeh, where can the palestinians go now that they have no home (unless you consider the gaza strip and the west bank a "home")? I've noticed you loosely using the term "Arabs" at times but I can guarentee you, as much as they might all look as Arabs to many people in the west, Palestinans are a unique people with their own particular habits and costumes. In point of fact, many neighbour countries of Israel have refused to accept great numbers of Palestinians refugees and some of them virtually reside as second class citizens within, what some would call, "fellow Arab nations".

but you get the point, I hope. if the Jews shouldn't leave Israel because they don't have another place to go and call their home, where can the expelled Palestinians go to? Your bias is exposed in the way that your need-for-a-home argument and victims-of-terror-and-displacement sympathy are only used and felt towards the Jewish people whereas when it comes to the Palestinians, who in the last decades have also found themselves in need-for-a-home and as victims of displacement and terror, you only have words of contempt or complicit silence at best.

The situation described above gets even more delicate considering (1) the vast majority of today's jews haven't experienced opression and displacement while the vast majority of today's Palestinians have and (2) the Zionist Jews (with the help of their complicit allies of course) are precisely the ones who are responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians.

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 07:25 AM
I always get a laugh when people ask how someone as intelligent as me can think differently from them. Could it be because of my intelligence?

i think the answer to that question is definitely a resounding yes. i always thought low intelligence leads to erroneous political ideas... :yeah:

peribsen
06-25-2012, 08:58 AM
Why do you think I was getting angry?. I was just getting bored with yet another discussion sinking to the level of some young know-it-all thinking he can tell me what it is politically correct to read.

The above is self-explanatory, really. :rolleyes:

And, BTW:
- Young? Thank you, but a bit late for that. I'm sort of reaching that age where you don't want the nurse to tell you it's handsome, but benign.

- I didn't tell you what is PC to read (though it's you the one obsessed with PC in this issue, aka defending Israel no matter what). I just suggested you take a look at a major newspaper that may bring you in contact with other views (which are not necessarily mine). Do you find it boring that someone suggests you read something?

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 11:59 AM
- I didn't tell you what is PC to read (though it's you the one obsessed with PC in this issue, aka defending Israel no matter what). I just suggested you take a look at a major newspaper that may bring you in contact with other views (which are not necessarily mine). Do you find it boring that someone suggests you read something?

It would be easy for someone to say that you defend the Palestinians, no matter what. Easy, but it would also reveal their prejudice against views that differ from their own.

I find it boring that someone can be pompous enough to propose that because my views differ from theirs, the only reason this could be so is that I have not yet read the ''proper'' views (see the following post for the epitomy of self-delusion). It does not leave much room for discussion when someone keeps repeating, ''well if you read MY propaganda instead of YOUR OWN propaganda you would think like me.''

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 12:04 PM
i think the answer to that question is definitely a resounding yes. i always thought low intelligence leads to erroneous political ideas... :yeah:

Well, my own opinion, for what it is worth, is that anyone who can use a term like ''erroneous political ideas'' has already abandoned all attempts at intelligent thought. The next step from there is to propose the setting up of rehabilitation camps to ''correct'' the crime of having erroneous political ideas.

vucina
06-25-2012, 04:07 PM
Nigel, is that you? Must say I enjoy your rants against those apparatchiks in EU Parliament.

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 04:19 PM
Well, my own opinion, for what it is worth, is that anyone who can use a term like ''erroneous political ideas'' has already abandoned all attempts at intelligent thought. The next step from there is to propose the setting up of rehabilitation camps to ''correct'' the crime of having erroneous political ideas.

bit of a leap of "logic", wouldn't you say? Of course I think you have wrong political ideas and naturally you think the same about my own or otherwise we'd be in agreement.

but if you want to make an exaggeration out of it, you could even go as far as to claim i'd want to censor you, after all, that's what those evil inhumane lefty pinkos do, i'm i right?

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 04:27 PM
My personal opinion is that I can not have sympathy for the people who elect as their representative, a man who claimed that Bin Laden was a holy warrior and great hero for killing innocents just like you and me. Did he claim that or did I fall for some propaganda? If that is not propaganda and he actually said that, then I do not think it makes sense to have sympathy for someone who would celebrate my being blown to bits as another laudable achievement of a holy war.

How about a humane solution? The Palestinians can go back when all the Jews can go back to the Islamic states they were expelled from and the land they owned there. Seems fair.

Nevermind the fact that not all jews came from Islamic states. How about a realistic solution? One secular state in which both palestinians and jews can live as equal citizens with no special priviledges of one group over the other. That's actually the closest thing to justice at this point, and the solution I've always advocated in this particular conflict.

vucina
06-25-2012, 04:57 PM
Abraxas, why do you burden yourself with these issues? I have a feeling you're obsessing about something that is halfway across the world from you. And for what? Do you honestly believe Jews will just surrender their country because some bolshevik kid from Chile thinks they should?

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 05:15 PM
Abraxas, why do you burden yourself with these issues? I have a feeling you're obsessing about something that is halfway across the world from you. And for what? Do you honestly believe Jews will just surrender their country because some bolshevik kid from Chile thinks they should?

not sure where you get it's something that burdens me or something that i'm obsessed with. it's only a topic that interests me.

as for the bolded part, i suppose some would think it's kind of funny. Kind of like "hahaha, funny". a person would need a high degree of arragonce and delusion to believe they can change the world politics writing their political opinion in a tennis messageboard.

vucina
06-25-2012, 05:31 PM
Then why do you keep polluting these boards with bolshevik, islamist and Fakestinian propaganda? You're bored?

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 05:34 PM
bit of a leap of "logic", wouldn't you say? Of course I think you have wrong political ideas and naturally you think the same about my own or otherwise we'd be in agreement.

but if you want to make an exaggeration out of it, you could even go as far as to claim i'd want to censor you, after all, that's what those evil inhumane lefty pinkos do, i'm i right?

That is where you really, really don't get it.

I have always thought that you have DIFFERENT political views from me. There is no such thing as a wrong political idea. A political idea is not a fact or a non-fact, to be classed as right or wrong. You seem to have missed this elementary distinction from the start, so mired are you in the misconception that your thoughts are ''correct.'' The phrase ''politically correct'' was actually coined in mockery of people who think there is such a thing.

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 05:55 PM
Nevermind the fact that not all jews came from Islamic states. How about a realistic solution? One secular state in which both palestinians and jews can live as equal citizens with no special priviledges of one group over the other. That's actually the closest thing to justice at this point, and the solution I've always advocated in this particular conflict.

Brilliant! How come nobody ever thought of that before? There is just one problem. How will you get them to put your theory into practice?

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 07:50 PM
That is where you really, really don't get it.

I have always thought that you have DIFFERENT political views from me. There is no such thing as a wrong political idea. A political idea is not a fact or a non-fact, to be classed as right or wrong. You seem to have missed this elementary distinction from the start, so mired are you in the misconception that your thoughts are ''correct.''


you can name it whichever way you like but at the end of the day I wouldn't defend my stance unless I thought i were right. Deep down the same goes for you (unless you're just trolling which is a possibility I havent discounted) too because at the end of the day our political differences are born precisely on our own judgments of what's right and wrong.

The phrase ''politically correct'' was actually coined in mockery of people who think there is such a thing.

no, the term "politically correct" was coined in mockery of people who think some things shouldn't be said because the receptive audience might find it too shocking, irregardless of whether they're considered good or bad in their objetives.

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 07:58 PM
Brilliant! How come nobody ever thought of that before? There is just one problem. How will you get them to put your theory into practice?

lame sarcasm is lame, BH, but to answer your second question, it only takes will. And by that i mean the will to stop demonizing others and to agree to sit down and talk to make compromises. and I mean real compromises instead of empty promises. the day in which the jews and the palestinians can reconize each other as equals, it will be the day in which the conflict will end.

westeners have this idea that a lot of people in the east are intolerant people incapable of co-existing with others who might think differently forgetting the fact that many eastern nations are incredibly much more ethnically and culturally diverse than a lot of their so called cosmopolitan nations and that the westerners thsemvelves, the brits in particular, were the ones who initiated the "divide and rule" strategy in order to qualm the rebellions in their former colonies.

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 08:00 PM
Then why do you keep polluting these boards with bolshevik, islamist and Fakestinian propaganda? You're bored?

i'm happy

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 08:17 PM
westeners have this idea that a lot of people in the east are intolerant people incapable of co-existing with others who might think differently forgetting the fact that many eastern nations are incredibly much more ethnically and culturally diverse than a lot of their so called cosmopolitan nations

I thought we were discussing the Middle East here.

Or Levy
06-25-2012, 08:31 PM
Nevermind the fact that not all jews came from Islamic states. How about a realistic solution? One secular state in which both palestinians and jews can live as equal citizens with no special priviledges of one group over the other. That's actually the closest thing to justice at this point, and the solution I've always advocated in this particular conflict.

What makes you think that if the people of Palestine has a say, they'd choose a secular state? If Egypt is any example, they won't. True, some people in Palestine want one big secular state, but the vast majority are Muslims, and adhere to the Sharia. Women are discriminated again, honor killings happen monthly according to UN data, Gays are persecuted and severely abused.

You're not offering me to share a country with secular people who has a history of democracy and human rights. Quite the opposite. One what do you base your belief that any Palestinian state would be a secular one? If anything, our extremist and their extremist would unit against the secular. The Palestine you describe would be a nightmare.

Tell me who is the Palestinian leader who will sign up for one big secular Palestine, which doesn't adhere to Sharia law, and give full rights to women, gays, all minorities. It's not even on the table.

The solution is two countries for the two nations. So each country can advance in a suitable pace. The Palestinians aren't ready for a secular democracy.

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 08:47 PM
What makes you think that if the people of Palestine has a say, they'd choose a secular state? If Egypt is any example, they won't. True, some people in Palestine want one big secular state, but the vast majority are Muslims, and adhere to the Sharia. Women are discriminated again, honor killings happen monthly according to UN data, Gays are persecuted and severely abused.

You're not offering me to share a country with secular people who has a history of democracy and human rights. Quite the opposite. One what do you base your belief that any Palestinian state would be a secular one? If anything, our extremist and their extremist would unit against the secular. The Palestine you describe would be a nightmare.

Tell me who is the Palestinian leader who will sign up for one big secular Palestine, which doesn't adhere to Sharia law, and give full rights to women, gays, all minorities. It's not even on the table.

The solution is two countries for the two nations. So each country can advance in a suitable pace. The Palestinians aren't ready for a secular democracy.

I hold the hypothesis that the extreme positions of the palestinian society is due first and foremost to the oppression they have suffered in the past decades. Indeed, the sharia law and even Islam are relatively modern habits of the Palestinian society as a whole. Less than a century ago most Palestinians weren't even Muslims.

Jews themselves have also experienced this as I found hard to believe that some of the most pro zionist jews were as bigoted and intolerant before as they're right now.

A one state solution is indeed possible. Furthermore, it's at this point the most fair solution.

Or Levy
06-25-2012, 08:52 PM
I hold the hypothesis that the extreme positions of the palestinian society is due first and foremost to the oppression they have suffered in the past decades. Indeed, the sharia law and even Islam are relatively modern habits of the Palestinian society as a whole. Less than a century ago most Palestinians weren't even Muslims.

Jews themselves have also experienced this as I found hard to believe that some of the most pro zionist jews were as bigoted and intolerant before as they're right now.

A one state solution is indeed possible. Furthermore, it's at this point the most fair solution.

How do you explain that the rest of the Arab world is exactly the same, then? What's the explanation for the results of the Egyptian elections? Basically, all of the Arab countries found themselves in a none-democractic regimns. As Israel doesn't oppress all, or any of them, that's not really an explanation.

Plus, a Hypothesis is nice, but it doesn't really help with practical and informed desicion making.

Or Levy
06-25-2012, 09:33 PM
I hold the hypothesis that the extreme positions of the palestinian society is due first and foremost to the oppression they have suffered in the past decades. Indeed, the sharia law and even Islam are relatively modern habits of the Palestinian society as a whole. Less than a century ago most Palestinians weren't even Muslims.

Jews themselves have also experienced this as I found hard to believe that some of the most pro zionist jews were as bigoted and intolerant before as they're right now.

A one state solution is indeed possible. Furthermore, it's at this point the most fair solution.

How do you explain that the rest of the Arab world is exactly the same, then? What's the explanation for the results of the Egyptian elections? Basically, all of the Arab countries found themselves in a none-democractic regimns. As Israel doesn't oppress all, or any of them, that's not really an explanation.

peribsen
06-25-2012, 09:33 PM
It would be easy for someone to say that you defend the Palestinians, no matter what. Easy, but it would also reveal their prejudice against views that differ from their own.

I find it boring that someone can be pompous enough to propose that because my views differ from theirs, the only reason this could be so is that I have not yet read the ''proper'' views (see the following post for the epitomy of self-delusion). It does not leave much room for discussion when someone keeps repeating, ''well if you read MY propaganda instead of YOUR OWN propaganda you would think like me.''

If you wish to define your own sources as propaganda, it's fine with me. But my own are clearly not. It probably escaped your attention that I actually gave you a link to one of the main Israeli newspapers, in fact the oldest of them (1918). So I have proven myself to be someone who tries to hear both sides of the issue. Something that your attitude leads me to believe is not your case.

It possibly should trouble you to know that there are quite a few people in Israel who can discuss this issue in a far less Manichean way than you. Maybe you are of the sort who simply doesn't care, but I hope not.

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 09:52 PM
How do you explain that the rest of the Arab world is exactly the same, then?

they're not. :shrug:

What's the explanation for the results of the Egyptian elections?
people elected the government they wanted after decades of a brutal dictatorship. i won't pass judgments on the newly elected gvt. yet. After such a long time with the nation being a mess, i can only hope things will turn out for the best.

Basically, all of the Arab countries found themselves in a none-democractic regimns.
Egypt was in a dictatorship supported by the USA and with some approbal of Israel and now has its first free elected govt in decades. Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy. Syria works in a weird mixture of dictatorship and monarchy. Saudi Arabia works similarly to Syria but the main difference is that it has the support of the west, in spite of its many human rights violations. Yemen is a republic which holds free elections. Iraq works as a US protectorate after the yanks decided that Hussein wasn't useful in their fight against the soviets anymore. The United Arab Emirates virtually work as monarchies with the western support, again making a blind eye to their numerous human rights violations.

As Israel doesn't oppress all, or any of them, that's not really an explanation.
as i pointed out, not all the arab countries found themselvs in non democratic gvts in the near past. Plus, it's the system that's crooked. At the international level Israel is a rogue state that has taken care of its relations with the west, particularly with the USA, a nation in which there's quite a strong Zionist lobby. When you look at the history of the middle east, you see a history of exploitation and blood, caused in no small part by the western governments and israel. I'm not saying the countries would be perfect if it weren't for their interference; i'm simply pointing out the responsibilies in the western side.

Plus, a Hypothesis is nice, but it doesn't really help with practical and informed desicion making.

not that it makes any difference anyhow, eh?

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 10:18 PM
If you wish to define your own sources as propaganda, it's fine with me. But my own are clearly not. It probably escaped your attention that I actually gave you a link to one of the main Israeli newspapers, in fact the oldest of them (1918). So I have proven myself to be someone who tries to hear both sides of the issue. Something that your attitude leads me to believe is not your case.


Both sides of which issue? If you mean I should read Haaretz to get the Israeli side of the Israel-Palestine issue, why would you recommend a left-leaning newspaper with a relatively small readership?

peribsen
06-25-2012, 10:24 PM
Both sides of which issue? If you mean I should read Haaretz to get the Israeli side of the Israel-Palestine issue, why would you recommend a left-leaning newspaper with a relatively small readership?

Because it's the closest someone as biased as you may accept to approach anything vaguely resembling a fair account of the Palestinian side of the issue?

I won't waste my time asking you to read anything actually written by Palestinians, I know that would send you scurrying to find holy(spaghetti)water.

Maybe they could wean you, at least in part, from following the PC, never-to-be-doubted, sacrosant, established opinion of the main powers that be, which is what you are doing in this issue up to now.

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 10:55 PM
i personally used to read www.electronicintifada.net

in spite of the somewhat intimidating name, it generally has good articles and op-eds. fitting for a lefty pinko such as myself, i guess.

hareetz is decent as well.

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 11:04 PM
Because it's the closest someone as biased as you may accept to approach anything vaguely resembling a fair account of the Palestinian side of the issue?

I won't waste my time asking you to read anything actually written by Palestinians, I know that would send you scurrying to find holy(spaghetti)water.

Maybe they could wean you, at least in part, from following the PC, never-to-be-doubted, sacrosant, established opinion of the main powers that be, which is what you are doing in this issue up to now.

You don't seem to see any irony at all in the fact that you ask me to read an openly left-leaning publication for a fair and balanced view?

I think you are falling into the same abyss as abraxas here, by assuming correct opinions and your opinions are one and the same.

buddyholly
06-25-2012, 11:07 PM
i personally used to read www.electronicintifada.net



Today's headline reads "MADONNA SINGS FOR APARTHEID"

Maybe that is the one I should be reading if I ever want to get to the heart of this issue.

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 11:30 PM
Today's headline reads "MADONNA SINGS FOR APARTHEID"

Maybe that is the one I should be reading if I ever want to get to the heart of this issue.

i knew you'd focus on the tiny things instead of the center of the speech. however, i guess i should point out that (1) that isn't today's headline and (2) that's only a part of the headline.

abraxas21
06-25-2012, 11:32 PM
You don't seem to see any irony at all in the fact that you ask me to read an openly left-leaning publication for a fair and balanced view?

there's no such thing as a unique fair an balanced view.

what peribsen probably assumes (well, it's really what i assume anyway) is that your sources of information are already focused on right wing outlets so it's only fair to encourage you to read more left leaning publications in order to balance things out, so to speak.

in an ideal world, an informed person would try to approach to objetivity (objetivity in itself impossible) by trying to read all types of news sources, regardless of their editorial views.

vucina
06-26-2012, 12:41 AM
i personally used to read www.electronicintifada.net

in spite of the somewhat intimidating name, it generally has good articles and op-eds. fitting for a lefty pinko such as myself, i guess.

hareetz is decent as well.

Don't flatter yourself. Only rich celebrities can be pinkos. You're a plain old bolshevik.

Tommy_Vercetti
06-26-2012, 12:55 AM
I love the idea that there are less non-Muslim Palestinians now because of the Israelis rather than bigotry and violence directed at them by radical Muslims there.

It's the same situation in Lebanon right? The Muslims there have nothing to do with the greatly diminished (and soon enough extinct) Christian population.

buddyholly
06-26-2012, 03:29 AM
there's no such thing as a unique fair an balanced view.

what peribsen probably assumes (well, it's really what i assume anyway) is that your sources of information are already focused on right wing outlets so it's only fair to encourage you to read more left leaning publications in order to balance things out, so to speak.

in an ideal world, an informed person would try to approach to objetivity (objetivity in itself impossible) by trying to read all types of news sources, regardless of their editorial views.

Neither you nor peribsen have admitted to peeking at right wing publications to my knowledge. But peribsen tells me that the content of the recommended left leaning paper is clearly the truth. How does one know things like that?

Jimnik
06-26-2012, 03:38 AM
Plenty of left-leaning, right-leaning and even centrist-leaning media out there. With the internet it's easy to read stories from multiple sources. But at the end of the day, who has time to read multiple articles on the same topic? Unless it's a story that really interests me, one source is adequate and if you keep an open mind you should be able to read between the biased opinions.

abraxas21
06-26-2012, 04:32 AM
Neither you nor peribsen have admitted to peeking at right wing publications to my knowledge.

well, can't speak for peribsen obviously but at least i can say that i certainly do. most of the mass media outlets in my country have a rigth wing agenda and i do frequent it pretty much everyday

peribsen
06-26-2012, 04:52 PM
You don't seem to see any irony at all in the fact that you ask me to read an openly left-leaning publication for a fair and balanced view?

First of, Haaretz can only be described as leftist in a country as strongly schewed to the right such as today's Israel is (wasn't always, Israel is the product of the Labor party, almost all the great names in the making of Israel were secular liberal leftists; Likud and Shas came decades later). In any other Western country (bar the US, for much of the same reason), it would be described as liberal centre, or at most left-of-centre (something similar to Spain's El País).

But the elephant in this kitchen is not the above, it's a second issue:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about right and left, it's about Israelis and Palestinians. That should be obvious, yet you clearly fail to see it. A major Israeli newspaper, no matter what it's ideological leaning, is first and foremost Israeli. Truly wanting to hear the other side of the issue would demand your reading what the Palestinians themselves are saying. But seeing your reaction to the suggestion that you take up a newspaper from the very same side you are always defending (Israel), only because it is less radical in its views and is often capable of portraying a fairer interpretation of Palestinian opinions and demands, simply leaves no room for expecting you to actually go to Palestinian sources. The only irony here is that you are so biased on this, so bigoted, that you feel threatened by the more nuanced opinions of moderates on your own 'side', and react like if they were the 'other side'.

I think you are falling into the same abyss as abraxas here, by assuming correct opinions and your opinions are one and the same.

Or could it be that maybe we make the effort (imperfectly, but at least we try) to balance arguments from all sides, while you seem to go pale just at the idea of reading different opinions?

That is not merely rethoric in my case. I started life in a very conservative, monarchist, deeply religious setting. Right-wingers for me are not distant, menacing figures out to cheat the working classes, they are my grand-parents, parents, uncles, most of my sisters, cousins, and old school friends. I don't have to make a huge effort to understand what they are thinking, it comes quite naturally, I've been there. No, I do not believe they think that way because they are greedy monsters. And no, union trust leaders and Marxist ideologues are hardly 'my people'.

Reading, living and meeting people. That is what made me start drifting away from the right towards the centre at first, and then to the moderate left. I have never been Marxist, but I'm not prejudiced enough to fail to see that Marxism does have its valid arguments, and that many of the finest people I have ever come across are or had been Marxist (no, they don't have horns nor adore the devil, and I believe they never have served roasted child in any of the dinners I've shared with them... or at least I hope so!).

But my own history is irrelevant here. I only bring it up because, you are right, there is indeed irony in all of this, and it is that, if I hadn't made the effort to explore what others were thinking, I'd be far closer to at least some of your own ideas. So that I find it quite funny that you choose to attack me for hearing only 'my own propaganda'.

Of course, it's perfectly possible that you have also changed your own views during your lifetime. But somehow I doubt it. People with the capacity to change may or may not do so -it's perfectly acceptable to fail to be convinced by the ideas of others, no sense in 'changing' just for the heck of it-. But those people would never react to the possibility of finding out what others are saying in the way you do. Whether one takes that road or doesn't, for ideas to evolve curiosity must prevail over prejudice. And, sorry, but until proven wrong, I think I have grounds to believe that that is not your case. Would be delighted to be proven wrong.

buddyholly
06-26-2012, 10:14 PM
Or could it be that maybe we make the effort (imperfectly, but at least we try) to balance arguments from all sides, while you seem to go pale just at the idea of reading different opinions?


Reading, living and meeting people. That is what made me start drifting away from the right towards the centre at first, and then to the moderate left. I have never been Marxist, but I'm not prejudiced enough to fail to see that Marxism does have its valid arguments, and that many of the finest people I have ever come across are or had been Marxist


Of course, it's perfectly possible that you have also changed your own views during your lifetime. But somehow I doubt it. People with the capacity to change may or may not do so -it's perfectly acceptable to fail to be convinced by the ideas of others, no sense in 'changing' just for the heck of it-. But those people would never react to the possibility of finding out what others are saying in the way you do. Whether one takes that road or doesn't, for ideas to evolve curiosity must prevail over prejudice. And, sorry, but until proven wrong, I think I have grounds to believe that that is not your case. Would be delighted to be proven wrong.

Well if you want to go that route - i.e., reading, living and meeting people. Although why you want to get personal on an anonymous internet forum beats me. But your own autobiography has forced my hand.

I am fairly certain I have more university degrees than you, and am doubly certain I have seen a lot more of the world than you, including ten years of first hand experience in one of the last remnants of Communism, working with Party officials. So why don't I tell you that you have to read more, travel more, meet more people, live more, if you want to broaden your horizons?
Because I am not a pompous prick who believes that everyone will think like me if they just open their minds to the truth as I perceive it, that's why.

So that just about leaves you no option but to declare that all those degrees and 50 years of exposure to an assortment of other cultures were wasted on me, because I clearly didn't learn anything.

You seem to be stating that your personal change is a sign of your enlightement, but at the same time suggest that if you had started out as a Marxist and ended up as a deeply conservative monarchist, then that would not be enlightenment at all, that would just be wrong.

peribsen
06-26-2012, 11:03 PM
Well if you want to go that route - i.e., reading, living and meeting people. Although why you want to get personal on an anonymous internet forum beats me. But your own autobiography has forced my hand.

I am fairly certain I have more university degrees than you, and am doubly certain I have seen a lot more of the world than you, including ten years of first hand experience in one of the last remnants of Communism, working with Party officials. So why don't I tell you that you have to read more, travel more, meet more people, live more, if you want to broaden your horizons?
Because I am not a pompous prick who believes that everyone will think like me if they just open their minds to the truth as I perceive it, that's why.

So that just about leaves you no option but to declare that all those degrees and 50 years of exposure to an assortment of other cultures were wasted on me, because I clearly didn't learn anything.

Much of the sort of answer I expected from you. You've done it again, just as you did the first time we met. You start getting personal with whoever doesn't agree with you (how he hasn't travelled farther than Barcelona, how he only listens to his own propaganda), and then, when that person answers about his real life to prove you wrong (that yes he has travelled -not necessarily more than you, this isn't a mileage contest, but certainly way beyond the town next door-, or that yes, he has looked at things from different perspectives -which doesn't mean he is right, nobody owns the truth, but fact is there is a contrast between that and your apparent allergy to open a newspaper that may tell a different story from what you want to hear-), you attack him for giving himself airs. Same old trick. Really my fault, for taking you seriously.

A pity, though. If all you say about yourself is true (no reason to think it isn't), you could enrich the thread by drawing on your experiences, maybe there could be some really interesting conversations here. Saddly, you prefer to make fun of others and end up getting personal. A real pity.

You seem to be stating that your personal change is a sign of your enlightement, but at the same time suggest that if you had started out as a Marxist and ended up as a deeply conservative monarchist, then that would not be enlightenment at all, that would just be wrong.

Talk of missing the point. In bold is the part where you always go wrong,attributing others twice as much as they have actually said. I was talking about curiosity trumping prejudice. You are going off in a wild goose chase about whether the road always has to be in a particular direction, which is something I certainly hadn't even mentioned (in fact, I had said that there isn't any obligation to take the road at all, unless one stays put because of prejudice). It seems you have a knack for classifying people into subtypes (if someone is pro-Palestinian, then he must be leftist, Marxist, anti-American, proabortion and obsessed with PC, or viceversa). Truth is, many people are far more varied and surprising.

And all this, why? Because you refuse to have a look for yourself at different arguments? Now just who is so haughtily convinced that he is in possesion of absolute truth?

buddyholly
06-26-2012, 11:34 PM
You keep insisting on telling me I refuse to look at different arguments, but just can't seem to consider the possibility that I did, and came to a conclusion that differs from yours. Why can you not accept that I looked at different arguments before reaching my conclusion? All I can think of is that it is still stuck in your head that if I don't think like you, then I can't have considered the arguments. There is no point in continuing going round in this circle.

And how you can say I made it personal is beyond me. Your whole approach has been about how I will change if I do more of what you do. I have no interest in suggesting something for you to read. You can do that for yourself. Where one has been and who one has talked to was something you introduced, not me.

You ask for me to draw on my experiences and enrich the thread. Well, after 10 years in Cuba I found that most Cubans were almost incapable of doing something for themselves and had given up hope for a decent life. Fidel was so afraid of the people taking an initiative to improve their lot, that every time a sensible idea came along it was squashed. When the rural farmers came to town with their horses and carts to provide the locals with a way to get around town, they were branded "Little Rockefellers'' by Fidel and forbidden to help solve a transportation problem that the Marxists had caused. It was of no importance to him that there was no other way for people to get to work. Of course, that mattered little to him anyway, because he knew that at the places of work there was nothing to do, there were no tools.
It goes on and on, so I concluded that Marxism is one of the most inhumane ideologies ever concocted. It can only be practiced by total oppression. Why not everybody has seen this is beyond me. I guess they haven't looked at the different arguments.

peribsen
06-26-2012, 11:57 PM
You keep insisting on telling me I refuse to look at different arguments, but just can't seem to consider the possibility that I did, and came to a conclusion that differs from yours. Why can you not accept that I looked at different arguments before reaching my conclusion?

And why, pray, do you not just say so? And discuss the evidence that made you think as you do, instead of double-guessing others and going on (and on, and on, and on) about propaganda?

All I can think of is that it is still stuck in your head that if I don't think like you, then I can't have considered the arguments. There is no point in continuing going round in this circle.

Actually, what I face is somebody who is always certain that whatever I think is due to believing my own propaganda. I agree about the circle, but from my side it would seem it's you who keep drawing it.

And how you can say I made it personal is beyond me.

:rolleyes:

I have no interest in suggesting something for you to read.

A pity. Some of the best things I have read have been suggested to me by others. That includes others of all sizes, shapes and colours. People should try to share whatever they may find worthy of being considered in the debate.

Look here, I'm far from perfect. But I would much prefer to discuss the issues and cut out the catfights. I'm sure you share that view.

It's very late, I'm off to bed. Goodnight.


It's very late. I'm off to bed.

peribsen
06-27-2012, 12:24 AM
You ask for me to draw on my experiences and enrich the thread. Well, after 10 years in Cuba I found that most Cubans were almost incapable of doing something for themselves and had given up hope for a decent life. Fidel was so afraid of the people taking an initiative to improve their lot, that every time a sensible idea came along it was squashed. When the rural farmers came to town with their horses and carts to provide the locals with a way to get around town, they were branded "Little Rockefellers'' by Fidel and forbidden to help solve a transportation problem that the Marxists had caused. It was of no importance to him that there was no other way for people to get to work. Of course, that mattered little to him anyway, because he knew that at the places of work there was nothing to do, there were no tools.
It goes on and on, so I concluded that Marxism is one of the most inhumane ideologies ever concocted. It can only be practiced by total oppression. Why not everybody has seen this is beyond me. I guess they haven't looked at the different arguments.

Sorry, I answered before you added tis paragraph.

I've given up on Cuba (meaning the system, not the country and people of course, whose plight will always be very relevant, particularly for a Spaniard). It did take me a while, but there it is. It's sad, because I still believe that the revolution there did have it's strong points in the beginning, and that some of it's ideas still hold water. But I simply can't swallow the ideological sclerosis of it all. Any system that requires the same small group of people to hold on to power for over half a century is deeply sick. Ironically, the Castro's own personal success -their longevity in power- is the surest symptom that the system has failed. A political system that is incapable of renewing it's leadership and give way to another generation, after more than 60 years, is a corpse, and if they really have found no one they can trust, it means that it has also failed ideologically.

Quite another thing is whether I fear or not what may come after it all ends. With all its problems, Cuba does have a public health and education network that is worthy of being preserved (and heavily invested on, to save it from its present ruinous state). If US capitalism is simply copied in Cuba, the country will work better in many ways, but the people will suffer. And that would indeed by a pity.

Just one other thing: I would replace the word Marxism in your text for Communism. The latter has failed, totally, completely... and fortunately. The former still can be useful, not as a political system, but at least as one intelligent tool (among others) to analyze society. People whom I certainly find worthy of being read, like Hobsbawm, keep saying so(*). And in the present crisis of capitalism, who is to blame them.

(* There I go again, saying who should be read!!!)

buddyholly
06-27-2012, 01:55 AM
Quite another thing is whether I fear or not what may come after it all ends. With all its problems, Cuba does have a public health and education network that is worthy of being preserved (and heavily invested on, to save it from its present ruinous state). If US capitalism is simply copied in Cuba, the country will work better in many ways, but the people will suffer. And that would indeed by a pity.



The public health system, of which I have far too much personal experience, is one big horror. How could one have an education network (?) worthy of preservation when there are virtually no books in the country and citizens are denied newspapers and the internet? I would have thought that this denial of access to other views would horrify you. I think you try to differentiate between the idea and the reality, blaming the ruinous state on something other than the system itself. But I think the two are inseparable. Cuba did nothing good. The Communist system would not allow it.

I am afraid I come across this perception time and time again. "They have a good health and education system.'' That is a deception that so many people are willing to accept. The Cuban medical treatment that is available is much more discriminatory than in the US, but in Cuba it is based on Party affiliation, not ability to pay.

And for some reason you said that if US capitalism is introduced in Cuba, the people will suffer. They have suffered for over 50 years now, so I doubt they consider the risk of suffering to be a deterrent.

Tommy_Vercetti
06-27-2012, 04:27 AM
What I love most about the "national health care" debate is that the same people bitch about HMO's and don't realize that basically every proposal when it comes down to it is an even more bloated form of that bureaucracy with even less choice and long waits. There's a reason that the best doctors in Canada for instance come to the US.

buddyholly
07-06-2012, 03:54 PM
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about right and left, it's about Israelis and Palestinians. That should be obvious, yet you clearly fail to see it.



That is not obvious at all. If it was just about the Israelis and Palestinians, as you say, then they would not even necessarily be taking part. More accurately, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ''between'' Israelis and Palestinians, not ''about'' Israelis and Palestinians. That makes as much sense as saying WWII was about Germans and Allies.
But this still begs the question of what the conflict is actually about. I don't think I myself have ever considered it to be ''about'' right and left, but curiously enough, the leftist movements of the world seem to think it is, and have made the Palestinians a symbol of their cause. But I haven't seen the flotilla to Syria set sail yet. Or the caravan to Tibet, etc.

So it seems to me the leftist movements must be more anti-Israeli than pro the poor, oppressed Palestinians, to be so selective. They seem to sub-consciously want their conceived conflict between right and left to be about Israelis and Palestinians, which may be why you phrased it that way.

For myself, I have never thought it was about right and left, but about religion, like most conflicts.

Stensland
07-06-2012, 06:27 PM
But this still begs the question of what the conflict is actually about. I don't think I myself have ever considered it to be ''about'' right and left, but curiously enough, the leftist movements of the world seem to think it is, and have made the Palestinians a symbol of their cause. But I haven't seen the flotilla to Syria set sail yet. Or the caravan to Tibet, etc.


give the syria conflict a bit more time to unfold and you're gonna see just that. after all, the israeli-palestinian conflict has had a head start. i think tibet already is a big issue for the leftist movement, with dozens of groups focusing on tibet-related issues. the only reason you haven't seen anything close to the gaza-ships move is the distance to travel and the terrain.

buddyholly
07-06-2012, 06:56 PM
give the syria conflict a bit more time to unfold and you're gonna see just that..

What kinds of groups would organize the flotillas to Syria?

Toronto held its gay Pride parade last week, biggest in the world I think, with 1 million people on the main street ready to party and have fun. But for the last few years the parade has been hi-jacked by the leftist 'Queers Against Israeli Apartheid'' demanding to march and ruining the spirit of the parade. Whatever one thinks of so-called Israeli Apartheid, it is hardly relevant to a gay pride parade celebrating tolerance. Worse that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that tolerates gays, while the marchers openly support Palestine and Iran, where gays are likely to be killed. Such is the hatred of Israel that they will fawn over people and even governments who would not think twice of killing them.

But they always get their way from the, probably, leftist event committee. I would like to see a group called "Queers against Islamic Homophobia'' ask for permission. But no doubt they would be refused on the grounds of being offensive to some people.

But that is the way it is. Now the United Church of Canada is attempting to organize a boycott of Israeli goods across Canada. You would think a Christian organization might be interested in aiding persecuted Christians around the world, but no, there is no chance for anti-Israeli rhetoric there. They should be taxed.

abraxas21
09-29-2012, 05:07 PM
After drawing fire for criticizing Israel's stance on Iran in a controversial poem earlier this year, prominent German writer Gunter Grass confronts Israeli policy in a new poem, in which he lauds Mordechai Vanunu, a former nuclear technician imprisoned by Israel for years for revealing details of Israel's nuclear program to the British media.

keep on fighting the good fight.

Tommy_Vercetti
09-29-2012, 05:34 PM
You mean the jerk-off who wanted to keep Germany divided?

Nobel prize is absolutely meaningless. They are nothing but a joke now.

buddyholly
09-30-2012, 02:17 AM
keep on fighting the good fight.

If he was an Iranian nuclear tecnician who gave Iran's secrets to Israel, you would denounce him as a traitor, no doubt.

abraxas21
10-01-2012, 03:49 PM
I was referring to gunter, who keeps denouncing israel in spite of all to pressure he gets to keep his mouth shout.

buddyholly
10-02-2012, 03:56 AM
Well, he travels to the beat of a different drum.

abraxas21
10-02-2012, 03:59 AM
some puns are witty but others are just plain boring.