This Tells Me Israel-Hatred is Fueled by Antisemitism (Palestinians, racist, politicians)

[ditchoc]

I thought they were both pretty much the same thing.

[jazzarama]

Originally Posted by shanv3

For a neutral third party looking at this map, what would they infer?

MSNBC used that Palestinian propaganda map a few years ago and ended up with egg on their faces:

MSNBC has admitted that highly controversial graphics aired on the network that depicted Israel as stealing land from the Palestinians were "factually wrong" and that the broadcast would be corrected on Monday, according to a network spokesperson.

The maps closely resemble propaganda disseminated by anti-Israel organizations that support boycotts of the Jewish state and aim to portray it as stealing land once belonging to Palestine, a state that has never formally existed.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/msnbc-...-israel-wrong/

That pity party for Palestinians map is great to sway the minds of vulnerable, uninformed college kids to support BDS, but one look should tell you the map is propaganda.

[EveryLady]

It's when we don't make clear what we think or who we are that others define us, opening the door to unfair charges of anti-Semitism. (That's not to say that the current definitions do not IMHO have the potential to be over applied and/or unfairly applied.)

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Like I already commented, I don't believe in miracles, and I am not optimistic about any lasting peace at this point. Mostly I am against making matters worse. That's all. No one can get this nasty genie back in the bottle...

Like you, "I am [mostly] against making matters worse." But who or what is the "nasty genie"? This could be read to mean the ongoing conflict, with contributions from multiple parties. Or it could be read to mean the existence of a Jewish state plunked down in the middle of a sea of Islam. I wouldn't necessarily find the latter viewpoint anti-semitic even if it flunked the definition test, although I'd probably say it was historical wishful thinking. Still, to use the term "nasty genie" without any further clarification has the potential to inflame.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Thank you for something to consider beyond just the noise and nonsense, though all too much about this conflict is all too much noise and nonsense. All I can tell you is that I have about as much confidence that HAMAS represents the sort of leadership and/or vision that can foster peace as I do the Zionist leaders who also lacked the necessary leadership and/or vision needed to avoid the conflict we are dealing with today.

I've got no magic answers, and I don't believe in miracles, but I do believe in avoiding further aggravation and offensive actions that make matters worse rather than better. At least this, but nothing but the opposite has been going on for well too long now, as also well documented. Right up to what Trump is doing to further aggravate the tensions during his term too.

The second paragraph is right on. Who needs any further aggravation, and I'm ready to complain away as I have been doing. But I don't know what to make of the first paragraph. Are you comparing HAMAS (and the actions it has taken) directly to the Zionist leaders (with the much longer time period leading me to wonder who, what, when, where)? The Zionist leaders who brought the first Jews to Israel? The Zionist leaders like Netanyahu who are taking what we both agree are unwise actions in the West Bank? Any and all decisions by intervening Zionist leaders? That you use the term "Zionist" as opposed to "Israeli" implies to me that you mean the longer timeframe but that you don't want to directly say so.

Originally Posted by EveryLady

Over the last day or so, your positions are becoming clearer. You appear to be addressing the negative impact that religion can have on a situation using Israel (and by default) Zionism as an example. Doing that is not anti-Semitic. This is a world issue but the forum rules leave our topics somewhat narrowly focused.

At a minimum, you need also address the impact of Islam on what is essentially a tribal - religious based clash. From what I can tell, you've rejected analyses that don't comport with your own - for example, the multiple factors in how Israel came to be established (other than Zionism), the role that emotion and fear played in various decisions (Israeli fear of annihilation), cultural factors that drove some responses (Palestinian persistence).

But once having turned to the conflict we need be scrupulous in sorting out the various issues or possible facts no matter what corner they may be hiding in or how irrelevant we may think them to our individual view of the situation. Otherwise this all just becomes more noise.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

While I appreciate much you DO seem to hear that some people simply cannot, I think you veer a little off base again with what I put in bold in your comment. I can address any comment that I know something about in the context of the topic at hand. If someone really needs to read more about what nonsense and danger can come from Islamic scripture or teaching, I doubt it's anyone participating in this thread. Surely we don't need to separate the truth from all nonsense when it's challenge enough simply to do so with the nonsense more immediately at hand. The topic of THIS thread.

We simply "compare notes" and judge as we will who makes more or less sense and why, or... turn up your own music and tune out. Whatever...

The items that you bolded from my comment were raised earlier in this thread, by me! You dismissed each as either not valid or somehow off the point. Then you brought in Jewish scripture and praised golgi1 for doing the same.

Again, that's fine if you're trying to discuss the how religion fed this conflict, but BOTH need addressed, with that not having anything to do with the anti-Semitic definition but instead scholarly thoroughness. To only mention Judaism suggests to me that you view it as the primary culprit since Zionism "started this" with the arrival of the Ashkenazi Jews in the latter part of the 19th century.

IF what draws you to this topic is the impact of religion AND you would argue (again I can't tell from what you've written) that Zionism was in the wrong from the git go with this mess the result then to once again say these questions "veer a little off base" strikes me as disingenuous. For how can you complain about the decisions of the Zionist leadership but then reject or counter context other than Zionism either for the decisions or various outcomes?

This approach turns what should or could be a conversation into verbal ping pong. That that might be typical of this forum with the one-liners and so on does not make it less frustrating.

EDITED TO ADD: Upon reflection ... to attempt to consider multiple perspectives ... perhaps any point-of-view you're not directly expressing but that IS reflected in various comments and responses may well be due (at least, in part) to the existence of the anti-semitic definitions. That they could stifle honest debate is potentially problematic. That this may be true on an anonymous forum says a bunch about how they can influence the "real world."

[Rachel976]

Originally Posted by EveryLady

It's when we don't make clear what we think or who we are that others define us, opening the door to unfair charges of anti-Semitism. (That's not to say that the current definitions do not IMHO have the potential to be over applied and/or unfairly applied.)



Like you, "I am [mostly] against making matters worse." But who or what is the "nasty genie"? This could be read to mean the ongoing conflict, with contributions from multiple parties. Or it could be read to mean the existence of a Jewish state plunked down in the middle of a sea of Islam. I wouldn't necessarily find the latter viewpoint anti-semitic even if it flunked the definition test, although I'd probably say it was historical wishful thinking. Still, to use the term "nasty genie" without any further clarification has the potential to inflame.



The second paragraph is right on. Who needs any further aggravation, and I'm ready to complain away as I have been doing. But I don't know what to make of the first paragraph. Are you comparing HAMAS (and the actions it has taken) directly to the Zionist leaders (with the much longer time period leading me to wonder who, what, when, where)? The Zionist leaders who brought the first Jews to Israel? The Zionist leaders like Netanyahu who are taking what we both agree are unwise actions in the West Bank? Any and all decisions by intervening Zionist leaders? That you use the term "Zionist" as opposed to "Israeli" implies to me that you mean the longer timeframe but that you don't want to directly say so.





The items that you bolded from my comment were raised earlier in this thread, by me! You dismissed each as either not valid or somehow off the point. Then you brought in Jewish scripture and praised golgi1 for doing the same.

Again, that's fine if you're trying to discuss the how religion fed this conflict, but BOTH need addressed, with that not having anything to do with the anti-Semitic definition but instead scholarly thoroughness. To only mention Judaism suggests to me that you view it as the primary culprit since Zionism "started this" with the arrival of the Ashkenazi Jews in the latter part of the 19th century.

IF what draws you to this topic is the impact of religion AND you would argue (again I can't tell from what you've written) that Zionism was in the wrong from the git go with this mess the result then to once again say these questions "veer a little off base" strikes me as disingenuous. For how can you complain about the decisions of the Zionist leadership but then reject or counter context other than Zionism either for the decisions or various outcomes?

This approach turns what should or could be a conversation into verbal ping pong. That that might be typical of this forum with the one-liners and so on does not make it less frustrating.

EDITED TO ADD: Upon reflection ... to attempt to consider multiple perspectives ... perhaps any point-of-view you're not directly expressing but that IS reflected in various comments and responses may well be due (at least, in part) to the existence of the anti-semitic definitions. That they could stifle honest debate is potentially problematic. That this may be true on an anonymous forum says a bunch about how they can influence the "real world."

Thank you. You hit on the same points I raised - which earned me LearnMe's mocking - that LearnMe only quoted Jewish scripture, picking up and advancing the "bad" verses put forth by Golgi, while failing to quote similar "bad" versus in the Quran. Clearly, he has laid the fault for the conflict solely on the Jews (as evidenced by his quoting of the worst of The Jewish OT versus while omitting the worst of the Quran) and even went so far as to suggest that Israel should drop its "ridiculous conditions" for peace - including their insistence that the Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

This again tells me that, in some instances, negativity toward Jews has indeed fed anti-Israel sentiment. We have seen proof of that on this very thread.

P.S. I have no internet access (my reward for upgrading to FIOS optics yeaterday!) and I thus will have intermittent access over the next few days. (I'm at a public wifi now.) This also serves as notice to LearnMe not to waste his digs and taunting on me since they will miss their target.

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by Rachel976

And you haven't insulted ME non-stop? And now you're aiming to step up the ridicule? To what purpose? Just because Alinsky said that's what you do when you can't refute a point? Or because I'm a Jew, who, dang it, won't agree with your pro-Palestinian viewpoint?

And my accusation that you have negative sentiments toward Jews? It's all over these pages. There is no reasonable explanation as to why you would single out the OT for "bad" verses and overlook the similar "bad" versus in the Quran when we are discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict (or, as you may see it, given your posting of religious text, the Jew-Muslim conflict.)

Yes. Of course. Whatever you say...

Before signing on to this forum this morning, I sensed more than usual that this thread was wasting more of my time than I should allow. I won't name names as to why that is, but first comment I read here seems to confirm my sense about this. Still, I mostly just wanted to consider that map/graphic before moving onto other things...

[shanv3]

Originally Posted by Rachel976

Thank you. You hit on the same points I raised - which earned me LearnMe's mocking - that LearnMe only quoted Jewish scripture, picking up and advancing the "bad" verses put forth by Golgi, while failing to quote similar "bad" versus in the Quran. Clearly, he has laid the fault for the conflict solely on the Jews (as evidenced by his quoting of the worst of The Jewish OT versus while omitting the worst of the Quran) and even went so far as to suggest that Israel should drop its "ridiculous conditions" for peace - including their insistence that the Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

This again tells me that, in some instances, negativity toward Jews has indeed fed anti-Israel sentiment. We have seen proof of that on this very thread.

P.S. I have no internet access (my reward for upgrading to FIOS optics yeaterday!) and I thus will have intermittent access over the next few days. (I'm at a public wifi now.) This also serves as notice to LearnMe not to waste his digs and taunting on me since they will miss their target.

I advice closing this thread. Golgis atomic bomb hasnt been cleaned up yet. Learnme is now analysing the territory map, whici you have to defend for another 40 pages

[Rachel976]

Originally Posted by shanv3

I advice closing this thread. Golgis atomic bomb hasnt been cleaned up yet. Learnme is now analysing the territory map, whici you have to defend for another 40 pages

Is it up to the OP - me -to close it, or is that strictly a moderator decision? Unfortunately, I have given a platform to some very biased posts against Jews and the Old Testament, if not outright vicious antisemitic posts. OTOH, I am enjoying the discussion with EveryLady and others and hate to cut off intelligent discourse due to the outlandish postings peppered throughout this thread, including those taunting me.

You, at least, do seem to have learned something from this thread. As I said elsewhere, you seem like a nice person - but naive. Perhaps now you realize, via that map, how people with anti-Jewish attitudes have skewed the truth to a) turn public opinion against Israel and b) influence young, poorly informed students (and, dare I say it, some millennials).

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by kdog

An educated person would infer it's a lie.

More: https://www.timesofisrael.com/msnbc-...aps-of-israel/

I won't get into all the thoughts and questions that come to my mind when reviewing this graphic, but I would be interested to know at least what some of the more informed people contributing to this thread might reply...

My first reaction is with respect to how there was no "nation of Palestine." Agreed, but I've never been too convinced the issue is all about whether there was ever a "nation of Palestine." Whatever anyone wants to call the area pre-Israel, I think the graphic is fairly accurate with respect to where the Arabs and/or Jews lived in this region over the course of time from the early 1900s (or before) until today. Right?

Also, I have to question what is meant by the claim "by 1920 it was recognized as the Jewish homeland under international law." What international law was this?

Instead, I'm more familiar with the following summary (though not entirely in agreement with all as written here either).

Recognition as a Jewish State

The term “Jewish state” is sometimes misconceived as
implying an aspiration for a Jewish theocracy. Properly
understood, however, the claim seeks no more and no
less than public recognition of the right of the Jewish
people to self-determination in a state of their own. In
this respect, the demand for recognition is no different
from the self-determination claims advanced by many
other peoples under international law.

The claim should also not be seen as an attempt
to negate the corresponding Palestinian right to self determination.
Indeed, today’s advocates of recognition argue that it is
Israel’s acceptance of a Palestinian nation-state that justifies
parallel Palestinian acknowledgment of the Jewish nation-state.
While the demand for recognition of the Jewish
homeland is at least as old as Zionism itself, the claim’s
legitimacy has been the target of increasing criticism.
Indeed, as efforts to delegitimize Israel’s Jewish character
have intensified, many Israeli leaders have come to
view international recognition as a means for not only
preserving Israel’s national identity but also advancing
its national security.

Historical Overview

Despite near consistent Arab opposition, Israel’s claim
for recognition has historically enjoyed relatively
widespread international support. From the advent of
political Zionism at the turn of the twentieth century,
Zionist leaders engaged in efforts to acquire political
recognition for restoring Jewish sovereignty and
enjoyed remarkable success.

Issued in 1917 by Great Britain, the Balfour Declaration
welcomed the idea of a “Jewish national home”
and is known as the first political recognition of Zionist
aims by a great power. Only five years later, the League
of Nations Mandate for Palestine transformed the goal
of “reconstituting” a Jewish nation-state from a policy
preference into an international legal obligation.
In the wake of strong Arab opposition to the goals set
forth in the Mandate, the international community ultimately
responded not by abandoning the goal of Jewish
sovereignty but by endorsing the concept of partitioning
Palestine into two states—one Jewish and one Arab—a
model that remains the conceptual basis for today’s twostate
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...cyFocus108.pdf

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by shanv3

In what context?

Was a joke...

Another example of changing the focus of attention to something else entirely so the focus doesn't stay on what makes some uncomfortable. Like so many conservatives like to do when "defending" Trump for example.

"Trump is running up the national debt to new record levels!"

"Oh yeah? Well what about Obama?!?"

The "whataboutism defense" is another one of those tired lame defenses that truly gets exhausting to hear again and again, and again no matter to some how dumb it tends to be. All too many people have simply got nothing better to offer.

I think your graphic has made for a good "talking point." Thanks again.

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by kdog

You didn't quote from anyone. That map is a Palestinian propaganda that's been around for many years, and the source for it is long gone. People mindlessly repost it to make a point without knowing (or probably without caring) whether it's accurate.

And the correction I posted is NOT from the link I supplied. The link points out a story where MSNBC used that map in a news report, researched it and then APOLOGIZED for it.

Also interesting. I wonder how or why I had not seen that graphic before. Thanks to you too, because none of these sorts of propaganda pieces should go without proper scrutiny.