Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinians?
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(2)
Message 21 of 68 (815965)
07-27-2017 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 9:09 PM


Arab league is irrelevant.
I'll bite since I cheered the op.
It's not about individual citizens "calling" for a boycott, it's about companies officially participating in a boycott against one of our allies. Especially because the boycott in question spawned from a group that is against us.
So, as opposed to looking at the reasons people/companies in America might want to boycott Israel and whether they might be justified, the fact alone that the Arab league would like them to do it is enough to justify laws against it? Isn't boycotting a fundamental tenet of capitalism?
I thought I'd read this bill and find little to criticise, it's a laughing stock.
The United Nations Human Rights Council (in this section referred to as the UNHRC) has long targeted Israel with systematic, politically motivated, assaults on its legitimacy designed to stigmatize and isolate Israel internationally.
The first of the 'findings' paints the UNHRC as a group conspiring to 'stigmatize and isolate Israel' with 'systemic, politically motivated assaults on its legitimacy' and you're nit-picking Dro's hyperbole?
(3) POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.The term politically motivated means actions to impede or constrain commerce with Israel that are intended to coerce political action from or impose policy positions on Israel
So the term 'politically motivated' is used redundantly rather than representing some observation of nefarious intent. The very act of a boycott is intended to induce change in the recipient, boycotting a nation is necessarily 'politically motivated'.
(2) The UNHRC maintains a permanent agenda item known as Item 7 to ensure that Israel will be criticized at every gathering of the UNHRC.
(3) At its 31st session on March 24, 2016, the UNHRC targeted Israel with a commercial boycott, calling for the establishment of a database, such as a blacklist, of companies that operate, or have business relations with entities that operate, beyond Israel’s 1949 Armistice lines, including East Jerusalem.
(2) Add the US and Saudi Arabia to that list!
(3) A list of companies who manufacture, or have business relations with entities that manufacture the machines of war would be good too. I'm guessing that would largely target the US.
They aren't attacking Israels legitimacy, they're attacking its human rights violations beyond its legitimate borders.
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking which have the effect and all the follows and inserting the following: which have the effect of furthering or supporting
(i) restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any foreign country, or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any foreign country, against a country friendly to the United States or against any United States person; and
(ii) restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any international governmental organization against Israel; and.
Is it noble to unconditionally support your allies against boycotts all the time or immoral depending on the reasons for the boycott? Secondly, all Allies are protected from state boycotts but Israel is so (special?) that it gets protection even from intergovernmental intervention.
Further 'which will have the effect of furthering or supporting' doesn't say anything about official and neither does this:
(ii) by inserting , or support any boycott fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or request to impose any boycott by any international governmental organization against Israel after pursuant to United States law or regulation
So it's seems this 'official' interpretation isn't really supported and could at least potentially see companies fined for divesting from Israel regardless of their 'official' stance. Not only that but it does seek to punish free expression of political will.
Now here's my hyperbolic take on it. The US govt is a greedy, genocidal maniac. The Israeli govt is a greedy genocidal maniac. Therefore the US supports Israel. Human rights be damned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 9:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2017 4:52 PM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 29 of 68 (816015)
07-27-2017 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
07-27-2017 4:52 PM


Re: Arab league is irrelevant.
Thanks, stiff bodied one. I don't see how your point can be missed. Boycotts are a legitimate expression of speech for the express purpose of applying political pressure. I understand that people who don't appreciate or agree with the cause of the boycotters or who hate the boycotter don't like the idea, but government sanctions targeting boycotts directly target free speech.
Agreed, it's not a question of if this bill seeks to limit free speech but how much and why.
And although I have not found the applicable text in the proposed bill, the comments provided by the sponsors suggest that the Bill applies not just to Israel, but other US allies.
It would seem odd that Israel is mentioned specifically in the absence of any reason for it, nevertheless there is still the issue of free speech and the morality of unconditional support for allies despite human rights violations. I'm yet to grasp the rationale behind holding our nations and governments to a lower standard of morality than we hold ourselves.
I can understand when fundies don't get this. They are afraid that any criticism of Israel will bring about the end times. But I had thought that other folks were able to distinguish between anti-Semitism, and criticism of Isreal. Apparently, such distinctions are more subtle than I thought.
I'm not aware of Dro's entire posting history so I'm not sure if CatsEyes charge of antismeitism is based on some genuine antisemitic views he holds or not. I can't however see any antisemitism in the OP, so in this case at least, the charge appears to be a cop out. Israel=/=Judaism. Atrocities committed by Israel are not a reflection of Judaism but the geopolitical situation.
Yikes. I guess we cannot agree on everything.
Hyperbole is never intended to be agreed with literally. It's used to dramatise a message. I'll be back later to defend the underlying message of both my hyperbole and Dro's. For now I must return to work. ABE - more important things to argue.
Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2017 4:52 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(2)
Message 30 of 68 (816030)
07-28-2017 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
07-27-2017 6:32 PM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
I read a few of front page mags articles. Do you think they aren't propaganda? The main message I got from those articles was that extremist Muslims are an existential threat to western civilisation. That we should all be terrified. Fear mongering nonsense with a few quotes and claims about faked pictures and such.
Here's the introduction from the Amnesty International annual report 16/17;
Israeli forces unlawfully killed Palestinian civilians, including children, in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), and detained thousands of Palestinians from the OPT who opposed Israel’s continuing military occupation, holding hundreds in administrative detention. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees remained rife and was committed with impunity. The authorities continued to promote illegal settlements in the West Bank, including by attempting to retroactively legalize settlements built on private Palestinian land, and severely restricted Palestinians’ freedom of movement, closing some areas after attacks by Palestinians on Israelis. Israeli forces continued to blockade the Gaza Strip, subjecting its population of 1.9 million to collective punishment, and to demolish homes of Palestinians in the West Bank and of Bedouin villagers in Israel’s Negev/Naqab region, forcibly evicting residents. The authorities imprisoned conscientious objectors to military service and detained and deported thousands of asylum-seekers from Africa.
It's a long report, plenty of juicy bits.
In September the government of the USA agreed to increase its military aid to Israel to $3.8 billion annually for 10 years from 2019.
Oh to be a US tax payer, I truly do feel sorry for all of you.
The year saw stabbing, car-ramming, shooting and other attacks by Palestinians on Israelis in the West Bank and in Israel. The attacks, mostly carried out by Palestinians unaffiliated to armed groups, killed 16 Israelis and one foreign national, mostly civilians. Israeli forces killed 110 Palestinians and two foreign nationals during the year. Some were killed unlawfully while posing no threat to life.
So do you look at this as Israel 'winning' or something?
Palestinian armed groups in Gaza periodically fired indiscriminate rockets and mortars into Israel, without causing deaths or serious injuries. Israeli forces responded with air strikes and artillery fire, killing three Palestinian civilians, including two children, in Gaza.
The 'measured response' to small arms fire is to kill children with air strikes and artillery.
On 11 July the Knesset passed the so-called Transparency Law, which imposed new reporting requirements on organizations that receive more than 50% of their funding from foreign governments, almost all of which were human rights groups or other NGOs critical of the Israeli government.
One of the key points in one of front page mags articles was that free speech is suppressed by Islam, go figure. We're in a thread specifically related to a bill which restricts the free speech of Americans, go figure. Any 'free speech' of a company is necessarily derived from people, either the people who own it or the people who work there. Irony brings me to my next point.
Here are the sources, from history learning site, a U.K based site that claims to be and seems unbiased to me.
Palestine 1918-1948
McMahon Agreement 1915
The Balfour Declaration 1918
To summarise the history -
1517. The territory known as Palestine is incorporated into the Ottoman Empire.
1915. The British convinced the Palestinians to fight with them in WW2 based on the understanding they would be freed from foriegn rule. The Brits deny this. Fight your rulers to be ruled by us is not a compelling argument, so I am inclined to believe that the Palestinians certainly thought they were getting their land in return.
1917. The Balfour Declaration is a three paragraph letter in which the UK pledged its support for the creation of Israel in direct conflict with its promise to the Palestinians.
1920-1948. Under British rule as mandated by the League of Nations, Jews begin migrating to Palestine. The percentage of Jews in Palestine went from around 10% to more than 30%. Jews and Arabs alike used terrorism to put pressure on British rule.
1948. With the added 'justification' of having been persecuted in Germany the Jews get Israel and the rest is history.
So what I find rather funny here is that the Jews are basically guilty of doing exactly that which you're terrified of Muslims doing and that you subsequently hold apparently unwavering support for Israel.
Here's the Balfour Declaration, for a bit of historical context.
quote:
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved, by the Cabinet:
His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours,
Arthur James Balfour

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 07-27-2017 6:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 07-28-2017 9:53 AM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 36 of 68 (816058)
07-28-2017 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
07-28-2017 9:53 AM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
Ok Faith, every human rights organisation in the world condemns Israel as part of the greater Muslim conspiracy to take over the world, is that about right? From now on I'll keep in mind that when you use the term propaganda, you really mean things with which you disagree. Your source provided very little to support its claims beyond random quotes from alleged authority figures. Further, the existence of some photos released by vested interests in the conflict that are illegitimate do not constitute evidence of Amnesty International being involved in the distribution of propaganda.
Even so, Israel takes pains to avoid civilian casualties.
In illegally occupied territory? I'm sure you'd say the same thing about your own military, it's not a compelling excuse to continue the murder and subjugation of Muslims in their own homelands, however. Let's see what amnesty has to say about Israel demolishing houses.
Housing rights — forced evictions and demolitions
In the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Israeli authorities demolished 1,089 homes and other structures built without Israeli permits, an unprecedentedly high number of demolitions, forcibly evicting more than 1,593 people. Permits remained virtually impossible for Palestinians to obtain. Many of the demolitions were in Bedouin and herding communities which the Israeli authorities planned to transfer against the residents’ wishes. The authorities also collectively punished the families of Palestinians who carried out attacks on Israelis by demolishing or making uninhabitable 25 family homes, thereby forcibly evicting their inhabitants.
The authorities also demolished hundreds of Palestinian homes and other structures inside Israel that they said were built without permits, mostly in Bedouin villages in the Negev/Naqab region. Many of the villages were officially unrecognized.
Now, what does Israel do to prevent abuses?
Impunity
More than two years after the end of the 2014 Gaza-Israel conflict, in which some 1,460 Palestinian civilians were killed, many in evidently unlawful attacks including war crimes, the Israeli authorities had indicted only three soldiers for looting and obstructing an investigation. In August the Military Advocate General announced the closure of investigations into 12 incidents, despite evidence that some should be investigated as war crimes. Israel’s military investigations were not independent or impartial, and failed to deliver justice.
In a rare move, the Israeli military investigated, indicted and tried Elor Azaria, a soldier whose extrajudicial execution by shooting of a wounded Palestinian in Hebron was captured on film. The verdict in his case was expected to be delivered in January 2017. Most members of the Israeli forces who committed unlawful killings of Palestinians faced no repercussions. The Israeli army, Ministry of Justice and police also did not investigate, failed to investigate adequately, or closed investigations into cases of alleged unlawful killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces in both Israel and the OPT.
The authorities prosecuted several Jewish settlers for carrying out lethal attacks on Palestinians. In January, they charged two Israelis with committing an arson attack in July 2015 that killed three members of the Dawabsheh family, including a child aged 18 months. In May, a Jerusalem court sentenced Yosef Ben David to life imprisonment plus 20 years after convicting him of the abduction and murder of 16-year-old Palestinian Mohammed Abu Khdeir in July 2014.
The prosecutor of the ICC continued her preliminary examination of allegations of crimes under international law carried out by Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups since 13 June 2014. The Israeli government allowed an ICC delegation to visit Israel and the West Bank in October.
Israel is enforcing permit requirements on territory it occupies against the wishes of the inhabitants and the majority of nations on earth. I note that no war crimes have been prosecuted. Israeli 'settlers' have been prosecuted for crimes against Palestinians but its military remains mostly unaccountable.
Your view and source on the matter is so transparently based on the idea that Israel=good and Muslims=bad that it's impossible to understand how you yourself can be so blind to the fact. What if a leftist Israeli soldier murdered a Palestinian, would your biases then allow you to see it as murder?
Why doesn't the fact that the Arabs were promised Palestine for fighting in WW1 prior to the zionists being promised Israel for no real reason allow you to see why the Palestinians are rightfully angry. Britain allowed mass immigration of Jewish people to Palestine under its rule, after the League of Nations gave Palestine to them post-WW1. It then used the excuse that territories that could not be said to be purely Arab were not part of the McMahon agreement, from an earlier source;
The confusion arose from one small phrase in the correspondence between McMahon and Hussein. Land that cannot be said to be purely Arab was excluded from the agreement — as far as the British were concerned. Hussein, and very many Arab people, considered Palestine to be purely Arab. The British saw Palestine differently as the Turks, while they had been masters over Palestine, had allowed other religious groups to exist in Jerusalem — hence their belief that Palestine cannot be said to be purely Arab.
The state of Israel was created out of dishonour, deception and bloodshed. A legacy that continues to this day.
Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 07-28-2017 9:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 07-28-2017 6:22 PM Riggamortis has not replied
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 07-28-2017 8:47 PM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 38 of 68 (816060)
07-28-2017 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
07-28-2017 11:42 AM


Re: We may learn that we have totally misunderstood the Constitution.
...doing the one thing that would assure their power base for generations.
Which is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 07-28-2017 11:42 AM jar has not replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 42 of 68 (816079)
07-29-2017 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
07-28-2017 8:47 PM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
I did admit implicitly that bogus photos and stories exist when I said "Further, the existence of some photos released by vested interests in the conflict that are illegitimate do not constitute evidence of Amnesty International being involved in the distribution of propaganda."
You claim that some fraudulent photos exist, I agree. Does that in any way justify or reduce the impact of the things that are really happening? No. That is the point.
And I gave another quote which referred to a common practice of the Palestinian leaders of keeping the civilian population exposed to danger even when Israel has given warning of their intent to strike what they know to be a weapons stronghold which was planted among civilians in typical Hamas style. This kind of tactic has been known for decades, obviously designed to discourage Israelis from attacking, precisely BECAUSE they know Israelis do not want to endanger civilians, contrary to the propaganda.
It's not ALL propaganda. Secondly 'evacuate your land and dwellings before we demolish them in illegally occupied territory and build our own settlements' is not really a demand I can sympathise with.
Based on what? Nothing I've said, that's for sure. I showed that there is definitely propaganda against Israel by the Palestinian leaders, propaganda that is presented by people here as the truth. Shouldn't you instead be realizing you've been deceived by those photos and other deceits by Hamas?
The rampant islamaphobia expressed in the articles you cite degrades their credibility. If you're pushing an agenda, best not push it so openly as to be completely transparent. I have agreed that some photos are released deceitfully by Hamas etc..
Your position seems to be if some are, all are. Also that if some propaganda against Israel exists then even human rights organisations are simply spreading it rather than doing any real investigation into violations. Both positions seem indefensible to me. You want people to 'look at both sides' but in reality you are simply claiming one side is propaganda and the other not. How am I to respect that?
The evidence is quite clear yet you dismiss it with a few absurd comments about "authority figures" and "vested interests?" What? The vested interests in this case are the Palestinian propagandists, but here you are joining in their propaganda efforts to smear Israel. Why? What is this determination to demonize Israel? Where is it coming from? What possesses you to take such an absurd position?
I dismiss a few false or misleading news stories and pictures as being evidence that human rights orgs are all lying about Israels violations of international treaties and laws. The determination to demonise Israel comes from the same place my determination to demonise the US and my own country comes from, namely the place where they murder Muslims in their homes, among other things.
"The vested interests in this case.." in the specific case of the fraudulent photos, yes. In the greater context, both sides have vested interests, an observable fact you seemingly choose to ignore.
The rest of your post brings up other subjects. Which would be fine except that in this case they serve only to ignore the facts I've already given that demonstrate that there is a smear campaign against Israel.
Demonstrating that there have been hundreds of instances of misleading pictures and news stories doesn't demonstrate that Israel is not guilty of all charges. That human rights orgs and intergovernmental agencies are saying they are illegally occupying territory and committing war crimes is pretty solid evidence that their is at least some truth to the claims. Smear campaign or not, they are committing atrocities.
I brought up other things that I thought are relevant background knowledge in the conflict and making judgments about who is right or wrong from an overall perspective because I wondered how you rationalise those historical facts with your support for Israel now.
ABE
Meanwhile what you really ought to do is consider that your post misrepresented my points and maligned me as well as Israel. You might apologize.
Thanks for the chuckle. Perhaps if you had comprehended my points properly you'd have realised I did acknowledge your point as I have demonstrated in this post. I'd apologise if I had posted anything misleading but not for being a priori anti-war or critical of warmongers.
Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 07-28-2017 8:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 1:13 AM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 44 of 68 (816087)
07-29-2017 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
07-29-2017 1:13 AM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
Perhaps I should accuse you of anti-Semitism then-- because if my political views of the Israel-Palestinian situation are to be dismissed as a personal irrational attitude rather than an objective argument, those on the other side certainly deserve to be accused of anti-Semitism. Let me put it this way: If you continue to call me an Islamophobe I will certainly answer by calling you an anti-Semite. Just so the conversation can be kept on the same level.
Great I encourage you to do so, I would also encourage you to specifically quote where I have judged Israel or its Jewish inhabitants based on their religion as opposed to their actions alongside your charge. Let me put it this way: If you don't, (insert pathetic childish threat). Let me help you with some examples of anti-Semitic statements and some that aren't.
Are
'All Jews are scum'
'Jews are the main problem in the world'
'Jewish people represent a grave threat to the world'
Aren't
'Jewish people/Israel committed x atrocity'
'Jews immigrated to Palestine in large numbers under British rule in what appears to have been a coordinated effort to undermine the Palestinian claim to the land'
If you can quote a statement made by me that fits into the former category I will retract it with my sincerest apologies. If you cannot but proceed with the charge anyway, then may your god have mercy on your soul.
That's utterly ridiculous. Since the propaganda is intended to bring those charges in the first place of course it shows them not guilty of those invented by the propaganda.
Yes, those specific charges. Not all charges levelled by all parties. That's the fact you keep ignoring. Yet my completely self evident point is 'utterly ridiculous'.
All I've argued so far concerns quite provable propaganda against Israel and you reduce that to "Islamophobia?"
As with your potential charge of anti-semitism, if you can quote me charging you specifically with islamaphobia I will consider whether it was justified based its context then retract and apologise for it or stand by it as I see fit. I have claimed that your sources contain obviously islamaphobic undertones which I guess I should now substantiate. From the unbiased-not-propaganda front page mag-
There is a gaping fallacy in this inventory of fault-finding: it is Hamas which is the prime user of collective punishment in Gaza; it is Hamas, which abuses and exploits its own people for the sake of maintaining power; like any and all other dictatorial regimes, it is the real cause of suffering of its people. Truly innocent sacrifices among the Hamas victims are Palestinian children.
From your second link, not blatant islamaphobia yet, I'll get to that. This link first compares Hamas to Stalins regime before 'conceding' that Hamas was democratically elected so are more analogous to the nazis. It rants about the fake pictures and such and then concludes with the quoted text. It ultimately rationalises the justification for Israels violent, oppressive actions by blaming Hamas violent, oppressive actions. Deaths caused directly by Israel are Hamas fault therefore Israel is good and Hamas evil. Nice way to be able to make it so black and white huh?
This is the hypocritical, islamaphobic article I was referring to before. I had clicked it from your page of headlines link. The following is offered as the 'solution - free speech'
One of the biggest challenges facing the free world today is protecting Free Speech. This freedom is widely trampled by Muslim dictatorships who control their populations by eliminating free speech. They justify harsh actions against dissenting voices by labeling them "traitors, collaborators, thieves," etc.
To make matters worse, Western society — under the guise of political correctness — is silencing itself. The rules of political correctness make it increasingly difficult to condemn Radical Islam and its goal of violent conquest.
Encouraging open dialogue is the best chance for wisdom and truth to prevail.
For the free world, the response to these abuses of free speech should be even more speech — clear, factual speech that enables thinking individuals to understand the reality. Encouraging open dialogue is the best chance for wisdom and truth to prevail.
Israel also imprisons people who refuse military service and has passed legislation to silence NGO's who speak against its HR violations. The first paragraph claims ironically in the context of this thread, that Muslim dictatorships are the primary threat to free speech. The second clearly promotes the fallacious idea that extreme Islam is some fundamental, existential threat to western society. This is islamaphobia, being an irrational fear.
The truth of the matter is that if you look at it objectively, there's no real difference between Hamas or the Taliban or the Israeli and US militaries outside the 'legitimacy' of the state. Both sides kill people in order to further their geo-political aims. Western militaries are not immune from committing atrocities not disimilar to the Islamic militants. When a suicide bomber attacks the west, its no different to a US drone strike at a wedding. Remove all the fluff and you're just picking a side and rationalising murder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 1:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 4:07 AM Riggamortis has not replied
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 5:46 AM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 47 of 68 (816110)
07-29-2017 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
07-29-2017 5:46 AM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
I would also predict that your quote from Amnesty International is basically propaganda, taken out of context. I will have to see if I can track down some evidence for that.
quote:
The ONLY charges I was discussing were the ones created by propaganda.
You brought up a couple of examples and I countered with a comprehensive report by amnesty international which you obviously didn't read at all and simply dismissed the introduction I provided in full as most likely propaganda, taken out of context. How honourable a debater you are.
I have considered that there is some propaganda, in fact I know it, I know both sides of every conflict distribute propaganda. Amnesty International isn't a side in the conflict, however. NoNukes and Taq have pointed out a couple of examples of Israels wrongdoing that aren't controversial at all too. It is therefore impossible to accept that some significant amount of the HR violations we hear about are fabrications. Once you accept that not all of them are fabrications then you're stuck trying to justify the ones that are true. A futile excercise from any moral standpoint. Is this why you refuse to allow the discussion to progress?
Then you supposedly acknowledge it and dismiss it as a big nothing. Sorry, that's a debate foul.
You're the expert. I have acknowledged it and dismissed it on the basis that it is not a reason for me to cease criticising Israels genuine war crimes.
But this is a common strategy of Hamas and it does make them guilty of putting their own people in harm's way. Intentionally, for the usual purpose of propaganda against Israel that for some reason you and so many others don't question. Otherwise Israel is within its rights to defend itself militarily against its enemies.
So what do you expect them to do exactly? March all the women and children off to a safe distance and put a big x on the roof? Like seriously, what?
Perhaps Israel shouldn't be illegally occupying land in the first place.
The article makes factual statements, which in defending against anti-Semitism you say are exempt from such a charge. In fact your statements about Israel are false...
quote:
"Aren't {anti-Semitic}
'Jewish people/Israel committed x atrocity'
'Jews immigrated to Palestine in large numbers under British rule in what appears to have been a coordinated effort to undermine the Palestinian claim to the land'" *
...so if the statements about Hamas are also false that shouldn't make a difference to their not deserving to be called Islamophobia. In fact I can't grasp what you think deserves that term in any case. It makes no sense.
The statement you asterisked is true, it's a genuine opinion on what happened based on the facts as I'm aware of them. It is also not anti-Semitic being that it makes no judgments based on religion. It may well convey the opinion that the zionists, LoN and Britain were all in the wrong and screwed the Palestinians, but it is not anti-Semitic.
A phobia is an irrational fear of something, so in the case of Islam, if one were to hold irrational fears of it, one would be rightfully considered 'Islamaphobic'.
So "Islamophobia" is just the usual Leftist lie since it is not at all irrational to point out that Islam is an ideology that seeks to take the world for Allah under a universal caliphate. It's stated in their holy books and it's stated by all their leaders and yet the Left objects when someone points it out. What's irrational is the blindness and deafness of the Left to the truth about Islam.
It's not irrational to point things out which are facts, it is irrational to hold fear of an outcome that is not proportional to the real risk of the outcomes occurrence. Since Muslims kill extremist Muslims and vice versa it is pretty safe to say they aren't all on the same side. Likewise since the two major sects are divided. Given these things and the current dominance of the west I find the liklehood of an extremist Muslim world takeover highly unlikely. I therefore conclude that any fear beyond a tiny amount a person holds of such an outcome is not proportional and therefore irrational. Since it is related to Islam, it constitutes an example of islamaphobia.
Secondly, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all horrific ideologies if followed to the letter. Most people don't follow their books to the letter, people of any religion. Including you. Thankfully.
That's a lot of accusations without a shred of evidence. How you can say such things without feeling the need to try to make a case for it is astonishing. Even if I agreed that western military interventions are often wrong it would not be the same thing as suicide bombing, which is decreed by the religion of Islam. That false equivalence alone disqualifies your whole argument. But it's also irrelevant, just changing the subject again. There is no such thing as Islamophobia, that's just Leftist PC to smear people who tell the truth about Islam.
I did make all the case for it necessary but I'll elaborate. When people are bombed and killed, objectively, it matters not by whom, how or what justification was used. When you remove all the subjective interpretations on who was more justified, all you have is death and murderers. This is what I meant by removing all the fluff and look at it objectively. I don't need evidence this, it is self evident.
I'm not sure what time period you are talking about here, but there was in fact no such thing as a Palestinian people when Israel started settling the region, so there would have been no reason to undermine any supposed Palestinian claim to the land.
The time period I researched and summarised earlier in this thread. The part that refutes all the nonsense you dribbled at the end there.
Rigga writes:
1915. The British convinced the Palestinians to fight with them in WW1 based on the understanding they would be freed from foriegn rule. The Brits deny this. Fight your rulers to be ruled by us is not a compelling argument, so I am inclined to believe that the Palestinians certainly thought they were getting their land in return.
1917. The Balfour Declaration is a three paragraph letter in which the UK pledged its support for the creation of Israel in direct conflict with its promise to the Palestinians.
1920-1948. Under British rule as mandated by the League of Nations, Jews begin migrating to Palestine. The percentage of Jews in Palestine went from around 10% to more than 30%. Jews and Arabs alike used terrorism to put pressure on British rule.
1948. With the added 'justification' of having been persecuted in Germany the Jews get Israel and the rest is history.
The Palestinian people you claim didn't exist were promised their land in return for fighting on the allies side in WW1 prior to the British commitment to grant Israel to the Jewish people. Post WW1 the Palestinians were denied their land by League of Nations mandate and the Jews began migrating to the area that had been known as Palestine for hundreds of years under Ottoman rule.
Your assertion that Palestinians didn't exist or that they have no legitimate claim to the land is patently false.
Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 5:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 5:31 PM Riggamortis has replied
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 8:18 PM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 51 of 68 (816130)
07-29-2017 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Faith
07-29-2017 5:31 PM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
Here is the McMahon agreement of 1915 a very detailed promise which offers all of Israel to the Arabs except the shaded area in the following map:
British support for an independent Arab state including all but the shaded area is explicitly granted in the letter. It was to be part of Syria, however, so I'll grant you that the specifically Palestinian nationalist movement is post-hoc. That doesn't detract from the fact that the Arab people of the area known as Palestine were promised an independent Arab state, however.
Here is the letter in which Israel was promised to the zionists two years later, reproduced in full because it isn't nearly as comprehensive a promise as the one offered to the Arabs.
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours,
Arthur James Balfour
Faith writes:
If they had any other legal right to it is something to consider, but at least it isn't based on having lived there "from time immemorial" as is so often claimed.
Yeah, that is not my claim. That the Arabs in Palestine do have a legitimate claim to an Arab state is. At least they did back then, I've no idea what the real solution is to the current mess. I doubt it involves restricting free speech and criticism of Israel, however. Anyway, here is a Jewish source for the population of Palestine. Here is a regular source for world population growth, I will compare the average growth of world populations to the demographic growth of the populations in Palestine. Should excessive migration have occurred by either Arabs or Jews it should show up as growth beyond global averages at the time. So, what does the Jewish data show;
Population of Palestine by year and religion (figures rounded)
1800 - Jewish 24k, Christian 22k, Muslim 246k (84%)
1915 - Jewish 83k, Christian 17k, Muslim 590k (85%)
World pop growth over the same period had almost doubled. The Jewish population more than tripled. The Muslim population doubled approximately in line with world data. The data suggests that if anyone migrated to the area in larger than usual numbers during this period, it was the Jews.
1922 - Jewish 84k, Christian 82k, Muslim 590k (78%)
In seven years the Jewish and Muslim populations remained stable while there was clearly a huge influx of Christians. The next 23 years are under British rule, having failed to deliver on their explicit promise to grant an Arab state.
1945 - Jewish 554k (31.5%), Christian 150k (8.5%), Muslim 1060k (60%)
In the space of a generation Muslims went from a strong majority to a weak one while the Jews tripled their share of the population. The world population had grown by around 25% over the same period. The Muslim and Christian populations had both almost doubled, well ahead of the global average. Meanwhile the Jewish population had risen by around 600%. Clearly there was a lot of immigration to the area during this period, much of it Jewish.
In the century prior to WW1 the data shows that the Muslim population in Palestine grew inline with the global average. It shows that the Jewish population grew in excess of the average. The expected Christian growth did not show up however so it is inconclusive whether Christians were converting or leaving and being replaced by Jews. The McMahon agreement of 1915 was established before any promise to the zionists and prior to the mass arrival of Christians and Jews between WW1 and WW2. The Brits are then alleged to have used the post hoc excuse that the land that was not 'purely Arab' to deny the Arabs their claim.
In 1948, the duck looks, quacks and walks like the Palestinian Arabs got shafted. I don't know by what logic being persecuted in Germany gives Jews the right to displace an existing population elsewhere. Given the history, it is little wonder violence has reigned since.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 5:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:11 AM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 52 of 68 (816131)
07-29-2017 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
07-29-2017 8:18 PM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
The first waves were from Russia, then one from Poland and Hungary, and then just before WWII those fleeing Nazism began to enter. About this time the Palestinian Arabs began to complain and become violent, and the British laid restrictions on Jewish immigration as a result.
Yeah they did but the promises that were made weren't about limiting Jewish immigration.
I don't get any impression that any of it was motivated by the desire to displace the Arabs, but entirely by persecution in their countries of origin.
If I'm fleeing someone who wants to persecute me for my atheism and I come across your house and forcibly occupy it against your wishes, I'm sure you'd be upset about it. My motive doesn't justify it. Funnily enough, anti-semitism was actually a worldwide thing, here's what wiki has to say on US anti-semitism -
quote:
Antisemitism in the United States was also indicated by national public opinion polls taken from the mid nineteen thirties to the late nineteen forties. The results showed that over half the American population saw Jews as greedy and dishonest. These polls also found that many Americans believed that Jews were too powerful in the United States. Similar polls were also taken, one of which posed that 35—40 percent of the population was prepared to accept an anti-Jewish campaign.
In a 1938 poll, approximately 60 percent of the respondents held a low opinion of Jews, labeling them "greedy," "dishonest," and "pushy."[24] 41 percent of respondents agreed that Jews had "too much power in the United States," and this figure rose to 58 percent by 1945. In 1939 a Roper poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported.[25] Several surveys taken from 1940 to 1946 found that Jews were seen as a greater threat to the welfare of the United States than any other national, religious, or racial group.[26]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 8:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:28 AM Riggamortis has not replied
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:43 AM Riggamortis has not replied
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:49 AM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 53 of 68 (816132)
07-29-2017 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
07-28-2017 8:56 AM


Legalese question.
I questioned the 'official' interpretation based on a plain reading of the bill. Upon further consideration and the mention of legalese I have a question. If the bill applies to companies, what is the legalese definition of companies and their actions?
If the actions of companies recognised under the law are those that stem from official policies then the Cat has a point. Theoretically restoring the rights of individuals to participate in boycotts unofficially but preventing companies in the US participating officially.
Not sure if that would change the constitutional situation though.
Overturn citizens united and we'll talk about restricting companies ability to influence politics via boycotts lol.
Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 07-28-2017 8:56 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 07-30-2017 4:36 AM Riggamortis has not replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 58 of 68 (816138)
07-30-2017 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Faith
07-30-2017 1:11 AM


Re: The question of the right to the land
My reason for bringing up the population of the area was to show that there is no justification for Arabs in Palestine to claim a right to the land based on inhabiting it for many generations, and you DID say something to that effect though now you are saying something different.
All I have done is argue against the idea that the Jews somehow have more right to the land in any context you have claimed they do. It had been under majority Muslim control for centuries prior to the immigration of the Jews in the early 20th century. You had claimed that Arabs migrated in large numbers to the area, based on the data I looked at, that may be true from 1922-1945 but it was alongside much higher Jewish immigration. It begs the question, were they responding to Jewish immigration to maintain their majority?
And your basis for this opinion is what, the McMahon letters to Hussein? Please let's keep the argument as clear as possible. If you are not basing the Arab claim to the land on ancient occupation of it, then is the McMahon letter or letters the reason for the claim?
Yes. Alongside the fact that Jewish claim to the land is based on nothing. The Balfour Declaration was fraudulent, the land wasn't Britains to promise to the zionists, as per the existing agreement with the Arabs.
That is, the Arab Palestinians DO claim to have occupied the land "from time immemorial." That has been shown to be false, so that much at least should be eliminated from the discussion.
You brought that line up, not me. I looked at population data from a Jewish source to see what could be inferred regarding immigration to the area. I don't see the point in going back much further than a few generations when considering who has more claim to the land. The reason why I don't see Jewish claim as all that strong in '18-'45 but more complicated now. Consider that if we did go back further, in order to be logically consistent we would have to grant our countries back to the people we stole them from.
Hope this clarifies my position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:11 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 4:22 AM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 59 of 68 (816140)
07-30-2017 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
07-30-2017 1:49 AM


Re: Anti-semitism
What is your point here?
That Jews were commonly hated worldwide at the time. They didn't have anywhere to run, only the Zionist goal to achieve a recognised homeland. A goal that wasn't even that popular among Jews.
Would you agree that if it was worldwide in that earlier period, it is likely it is still a big part of the attitude toward Israel that we see in the various international condemnations?
Not at all. Go post on social media how much you hate Muslims and a decent percentage of people will love you, try it with Jews and you'll be called all sorts of unpleasant things. Despite claims of PC suppression of criticism of Islam, it is rampant on social media. Anti-semitism is much rarer and heavily condemned.
The Wikipedia article on the McMahon agreement seems to reveal that the Arabs were indeed mislead and lied to initially and to pacify them afterwards.
Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 1:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 3:51 AM Riggamortis has replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 63 of 68 (816149)
07-30-2017 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
07-30-2017 3:51 AM


Re: Anti-semitism
I don't do social media...
Well I can assure you, Islamaphobia gets plenty of pats on the back. Evc is a small world compared to SM.
But as I said it also keeps people from saying anything about the religion of Islam.
Patently false. Your existence is a counter example. As is the existence of front page rag. As is my experience on social media,
SomeRandomDude writes:
These aren't muslim extremists! They are just 'good' muslims following the quran which instructs them to KILL us!
The top comment from a story about a foiled terror plot today. Followed by a backup.
SomeRandomDude writes:
Ali Yousef Quran 8:12 Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Quran.
Quran 8:65 The unbelievers are stupid, urge the muslims to fight them.
Quran 2:191 Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them
Quran 8:60 Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels
Quran 9:5 When opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you find them
Quran 9:123 Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood
Quran 47:4 Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them
Quran 5:33 Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam
There's plenty of it out there Faith and they aren't being deleted or otherwise suppressed. People disagree with them but that isn't suppression. They also get support from people who like their posts and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 3:51 AM Faith has not replied

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 2390 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


Message 64 of 68 (816151)
07-30-2017 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
07-30-2017 4:22 AM


Re: The question of the right to the land, and a suggestion
I showed it I didn't just claim it. The statistics are indisputable that Arabs moved into the area in great numbers in the mid-19th century.
I assume you mean this?
FrontPageMag writes:
Turkish and British records are clear that Palestine was flooded with Arab immigrants from the late 1850’s onward due to the salutary effects of British colonial and Zionist developments from the mid-19th century onward. Groundbreaking work on the Arab historical demography of Palestine during the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries has been done by Professor Justin McCarthy in his book The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate (Institute for Palestine Studies Series), summarized here. McCarthy, not a Jew nor an Israeli nor a Zionist, writing for a Palestinian institute, demonstrates that the Arab population of Palestine almost quadrupled from c. 1855 to 1947. Only a tiny minority of Arabs can claim ancestral attachment to this territory, and even those claims are based solely on anecdotal accounts for which there is no empirical evidence.
Britain didn't control Palestine until most of the way through the time frame given. Are we to believe that Zionist developments there caused hundreds of thousands of Arabs to flock there prior to British rule?
Demonstrating that the growth is from immigration is a different thing than demonstrating that growth occurred. You can't ignore that this was a period of increasing trade and population growth when looking at the data. And given the Jewish data I looked at, the Jewish population over the same period rose by around 12x. Your biased source didn't mention that though. The last line of that quote is evidence of just how desperately they're trying to convince people that the Arabs have no claim to the land. I don't care about ancestry though, I showed that Palestine was more immigrant Jew than Arab anyway.
Now you are raising a new subject and I have to wonder just how valid your opinion is. It could be argued for instance that a second agreement would supersede and nullify the first. I certainly agree, however, that it looks to me like Britain made a huge goof-up if nothing more malicious than that, and that the Arabs were defrauded in the process.
It's the same point I've been making all along, I just explicitly added the word fraudulent this time. One is a letter of support and one is a detailed agreement. One was signed after the other. One doesn't appear to have been based on anything and the other was a quid-pro-quo agreement, fight and have your land. You can argue that all you like but it doesn't make sense to me, especially in light of the other facts.
Try signing a contract to sell your house and then 3 months later deciding you're changing realtors. Unless you have a means to break the contract legally, you're stuck.
Perhaps it's irrelevant to you but shouldn't it also be taken into account that Palestine is a tiny bit of land in comparison with the enormous extent of the Arab lands in general, so that there was no real Arab need for it though there was clearly a great need for the Jews to have a homeland?
Given the shitstorm it has created, do you really think it was that great an idea? I'm sure the US won't mind continuing to allow plenty of Mexicans in every year, there's a bunch of jobs Americans won't do and plenty of room. Besides they're escaping violence. I don't really think that a group of people who believe in the same magic sky daddy are justified in taking others land because of persecution. That they are now subjugating and murdering the Arabs they took the land from they get even less sympathy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 4:22 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Faith, posted 07-30-2017 11:03 AM Riggamortis has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024