|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 28, 2018 23:47:07 GMT 1
Nobody, except the die-hard Saudi government loyalists, says that Saudi Arabia should, as of right, be beyond criticism, else they will be accused of anti-whatever (maybe anti-semitism, because Arabs are semites).
fascinating, the fact is that anti-semitism was coined in C19 to refer exclusively to discrimination against or hatred of Jews, and is accepted as such. Semitic embraces a wide group of MEast languages, not races.
I say this not to make a provocative point or raise controversy. It's just that some people (not you, fascinating) like to sow confusion and cause trouble.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 29, 2018 5:41:25 GMT 1
Yes, I understand that, but what would the word be if you criticised Saudi Arabia. Anti-what?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 29, 2018 8:33:31 GMT 1
Anti-[repressive murdering scum who just happen to own everything and fund al-Quaeda as a result of Churchill deciding the Navy should run on diesel rather than coal, and are therefore beyond criticism by UK governments who insist that if we don't sell them weapons, somebody else will, and it's up to their so-called historic culture to decide whether women should drive cars or be executed for asking to do so]. We can discuss pre-trial torture on another thread, perhaps. www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3158/islam-sodomy is worth a read too. Or possibly just "pro-civilisation".
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 29, 2018 9:37:05 GMT 1
Please tell me what they did to attack the people of Israel, this month. AFAIK there have been no reported incidents since 0830Z today. Perhaps August is a special month, but July certainly wasn't. And remember body counts are pretty much irrelevant: war is not tennis, where you take it in turns to serve, nor 15-a-side rugby where the loser restarts after a point, but 7-a-side where the winner kicks off. And there is no referee, just a winner on one side and a hole in the ground on the other. The question is whether,like Hamas, you want to see Israel returned to the hole in the ground that it was in 1945.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 29, 2018 10:22:42 GMT 1
asks fascinating.
I do and I'll explain why.
Post World War II there were millions upon millions of "displaced persons" in Europe courtesy of the Nazis, Reds and the wholesale change of the national borders of all the combatant nations. (There was a similar displacement of millions of people after the First World War, too, when nearly every national border also changed.)
Yet, within a few years of the end of World War II those Displaced Persons Camps were empty and the occupants had been helped to resettle elsewhere courtesy of the generosity of the victorious allies, the UN, Red Cross and private charity. There are not still countless millions of European DPs, six generations on in 2018, squatting in camps, breeding incontinently, bemoaning the loss of property, livelihood and nationality 70 years ago that will never be regained, are there? They "moved on" and made new, fulfilling lives elsewhere. That is what reasonable human beings do. They did not make permanent grudge-bearing for their losses a way of life.
So, in what way was the dispossession of the Palestinians in 1948 any different from that of Europe's MILLIONS of Displaced Persons that occurred at much the same time? Why was not international effort made to help them to resettle elsewhere? Why did the UN et al help the European DPs to disperse yet the same organisation subsidised the Palestinians to squat forever in Gaza, yea unto the sixth and 7th generations? Remember, too, that the small part of Palestine allocated to the Jews was by unanimous consent of the then United Nations in 1947.
Are Palestinians unique in any way that makes them, ALONE, entitled to demand back what they lost in war 70 years ago, when Europeans were enabled to "move on" and embrace the future and new opportunities? Why are Palestinians permitted, nay, encouraged to continue their vindictive small scale aggravation of the neighbours who pushed them out in 1948, not to mention the international terrorism that springs from their unwillingness to let go and "move on"? (In fact, many Palestinians with the "get-up-and-go", did indeed, "move on" to neighbouring Arab countries and to the West. Almost all Palestinian Christians, for example, have decamped.) But enough of Palestine's "remoaners" remain squatting in Gaza to make life uncomfortable for Israel and to give certain like-minded folks their "cause celebre"
So, what is different about the DPs of Europe in the aftermath of two world wars and the DPs of Palestine?
There is only one difference. It was Nazis and Reds who were responsible for the massive population upheavals of Europe post WWII. But it was the Jews and Jews alone, who were responsible for the Palestinian "Catastrophe" - the Nakba in 1948. That is why 70 years on the bien pensants, the PC and the European "Left" glory in their poster children, the "Poor Palestinians" and are happy for them to be permanent "refugees" in Gaza and a constant reproach to Israel.
Fascinating, you should call this apparently moral displacement activity what it really is - the same old, same old Antisemitism under a new, clean, moralistic banner and a massive example of historical double standards.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 29, 2018 12:21:21 GMT 1
Splendid post, marchesa.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 29, 2018 12:44:23 GMT 1
Thank you, jean! I knew I would find support here.
If only more people were capable of putting this matter in a comparative and a historical perspective.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Aug 29, 2018 14:18:45 GMT 1
Thank you, jean! I knew I would find support here. If only more people were capable of putting this matter in a comparative and a historical perspective. Not yet had time to read the entire thread, but welcome back Marchesa. You have been missed.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 29, 2018 15:37:04 GMT 1
Thank you, Jonjel!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 29, 2018 17:12:09 GMT 1
Yes, welcome back dear Marchesa.
Just popping in. To say, mainly, that I am a proud and vehement Zionist.
The use of the word Zionist to imply anything reprehensible is itself anti-semitic, imo. I do not understand how or why it could be used in any other way. I'd like to see some defence of the use of this term to imply anything at all negative, please. There are some members of this board who believe that the Jewish people should not have a homeland?
Also - no one as far as I'm aware has ever said anything remotely like that criticism of Israeli policies should in any way be equated with anti-semitism. The very suggestion that this has ever occurred is a racist slur, imo. That's you, Fing, in case there's any mistake about the insinuation. I don;t understand Nay's criticism of the international definition of anti-semitism, either...It's such a crucial dialectical point that Israel should be zllowed to be compared to the Nazis that one would want to make a stand on it? I'm nonplussed. This is one of those issues where the disputants seem to have lost their reason.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 29, 2018 17:32:27 GMT 1
I'd also like to point out that the term "dispossession of the Palestinains" is not really accurate. I know Marchesa probably didn't mean to cencede this point to "anti-Zionists", and her argument solidly still holds water, but it's an important matter nevertheless. Some - a few thousand at most - Palestinains were forced out, to be sure - against Israeli orders, but such things happen in the heat of war. Tens of thousands of them were allowed back (more than were actually forced out, for sure) with Israel's encouragement and returned to their homes after 48. The vast majority chose to stay in their "camps" - mainly because, as tenant farmers, they didn't really have much to return to, and they were overtly threatened if they made any motion to leave, and, no doubt, because of a calculation that it wouldn't be long before the Arab nations reconquered Israel.
I'd like to contrast this with the several million - at least five million well-documented cases - native Germans forced out of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Italy at roughly the same time (after 1945). Where did all these millions of people go? Where's the outcry about their "dispossession"? They lost their land, their property, their fortunes, their ancestral homelands, forced at gunpoint to leave with at most a couple of suitcases. The fact that such an issue is almost comical is my very point.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 29, 2018 19:03:15 GMT 1
native Germans forced out of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Italy .......They lost their land, their property, their fortunes, their ancestral homelands Kind of begs the definition of "native Germans", doesn't it? Care to elucidate? There was a kind of shame attached to names like Battenburg and Teck during the last century, but our royal family seems to have survived with most of its land intact. On the other hand those whose land was actually invaded and occupied by the democratically elected freedomloving Nazis seem to have been a bit unsporting after the game was over and may have been overzealous in their disinfection. Frightfully unBritish, Johnny Foreigner.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 29, 2018 22:58:20 GMT 1
Please tell me what they did to attack the people of Israel, this month. AFAIK there have been no reported incidents since 0830Z today. Perhaps August is a special month, but July certainly wasn't. And remember body counts are pretty much irrelevant: war is not tennis, where you take it in turns to serve, nor 15-a-side rugby where the loser restarts after a point, but 7-a-side where the winner kicks off. And there is no referee, just a winner on one side and a hole in the ground on the other. The question is whether,like Hamas, you want to see Israel returned to the hole in the ground that it was in 1945. You previously said "Now and again they persuade some kids (never themselves) to cause trouble at the border or attack people in Israel." So I asked what they did to attack the people of Israel this month, and you cannot point to any attack. The people shot and killed were not causing any trouble nor attacking anybody. They were walking, unarmed, inside the border of their own territory. There is no question of Israel being returned to a hole in the ground. For a start, there wasn't a hole in the ground before, the area was lived in by mostly Arabs and some Jews. There is no chance of the Gazans being able to do that. Even if Hamas has declared war on Israel, what do you think the response to that should be? All out war by Israel, a demand for unconditional surrender, and then de-hamasification and occupation? That might make some kind of sense, but what is happening now seems to be constant killing for no purpose. Why is it happening? When is it ever going to end?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 29, 2018 23:22:18 GMT 1
"Do you think that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic?" asks fascinating. I do and I'll explain why. Post World War II there were millions upon millions of "displaced persons" in Europe courtesy of the Nazis, Reds and the wholesale change of the national borders of all the combatant nations. (There was a similar displacement of millions of people after the First World War, too, when nearly every national border also changed.) Yet, within a few years of the end of World War II those Displaced Persons Camps were empty and the occupants had been helped to resettle elsewhere courtesy of the generosity of the victorious allies, the UN, Red Cross and private charity. There are not still countless millions of European DPs, six generations on in 2018, squatting in camps, breeding incontinently, bemoaning the loss of property, livelihood and nationality 70 years ago that will never be regained, are there? They "moved on" and made new, fulfilling lives elsewhere. That is what reasonable human beings do. They did not make permanent grudge-bearing for their losses a way of life. So, in what way was the dispossession of the Palestinians in 1948 any different from that of Europe's MILLIONS of Displaced Persons that occurred at much the same time? Why was not international effort made to help them to resettle elsewhere? Why did the UN et al help the European DPs to disperse yet the same organisation subsidised the Palestinians to squat forever in Gaza, yea unto the sixth and 7th generations? Remember, too, that the small part of Palestine allocated to the Jews was by unanimous consent of the then United Nations in 1947. Are Palestinians unique in any way that makes them, ALONE, entitled to demand back what they lost in war 70 years ago, when Europeans were enabled to "move on" and embrace the future and new opportunities? Why are Palestinians permitted, nay, encouraged to continue their vindictive small scale aggravation of the neighbours who pushed them out in 1948, not to mention the international terrorism that springs from their unwillingness to let go and "move on"? (In fact, many Palestinians with the "get-up-and-go", did indeed, "move on" to neighbouring Arab countries and to the West. Almost all Palestinian Christians, for example, have decamped.) But enough of Palestine's "remoaners" remain squatting in Gaza to make life uncomfortable for Israel and to give certain like-minded folks their "cause celebre" So, what is different about the DPs of Europe in the aftermath of two world wars and the DPs of Palestine? There is only one difference. It was Nazis and Reds who were responsible for the massive population upheavals of Europe post WWII. But it was the Jews and Jews alone, who were responsible for the Palestinian "Catastrophe" - the Nakba in 1948. That is why 70 years on the bien pensants, the PC and the European "Left" glory in their poster children, the "Poor Palestinians" and are happy for them to be permanent "refugees" in Gaza and a constant reproach to Israel. Fascinating, you should call this apparently moral displacement activity what it really is - the same old, same old Antisemitism under a new, clean, moralistic banner and a massive example of historical double standards. I note how the pro-Israelis always answer about the situation today by referring to what happened 73 years ago after the most titanic and destructive war that there has ever been on the planet. I don't think the 2 situations are analogous, for several reasons, which I have given before. Even so, if we must compare the defeated now and the defeated then, the one major difference then was that the expelled people had a state to go to. We are talking mainly about Germans, I think, and they had a country to go to, called East or West Germany. Another difference is that many of them were anyway forced back after having first occupied the adjoining countries illegally; they had taken possession of land which was not theirs and that wrong was righted by the defeat of Germany and their expulsion. The Palestinians had been living in what is now Israel, but were forced out. Even if it is taken that these "squatters" who "breed incontinently" are "defeated", what should the policy toward them be? Are you saying that they should be forced at gunpoint to leave their homes and live in Syria, Jordan etc? Or are you saying that should just be forced to become citizens of an expanded Israel? After WW2 an overall settlment, with a clear policy for refugees, was agreed, and even though the cold war ensured the division of Germany for a time, it became unified in less than 50 years. The 1967 war happened 51 years ago. I know for a fact that it is nothing to do with anti-semitism on my part to want an agreed settlement instead of a war which has been going on for over half a century and no end in sight.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 29, 2018 23:24:47 GMT 1
mrsonde hasn't read what Marchesa wrote.
|
|