Anti-Semitism or legitimate criticism
dave23 said:
Israel does tend to be held to a higher standard--similar to that of the US and western Europe--than its neighbors.
mfpark said:
What I am troubled by are the people who solely focus on Israel and ignore so much else.
One would hope so. I believe some in South Africa also complained of being set to a "higher" standard when the boycott and divestment movement started.
BG9 said:
dave23 said:One would hope so. I believe some in South Africa also complained of being set to a "higher" standard when the boycott and divestment movement started.
Israel does tend to be held to a higher standard--similar to that of the US and western Europe--than its neighbors.
mfpark said:
What I am troubled by are the people who solely focus on Israel and ignore so much else.
Are we comparing South Africa to Israel now?
BubbaTerp - Just using JCSO's word for it. Also, reading your comments on the other Israel thread, I feel there are several points we can agree on. I'm also a Pacifist.
I think people are frustrated by the aid we give to Palestine too when places like Gaza get blown up over and over again....and I know the reply to that will be about the tunnels.
The recent killing of the Palestinian in the hospital was a state mandated murder....JCSO. Also Netanyahu has said his own questionable statements - about the Mufti calling for the Holocaust and about Arabs voting....
Israel is a Jewish State, but I don't equate it with Judaism the religion. The killing of women and children (those kids on the beach) - my mind just does not think that is holy or religious. Bombings and killing (on either side) are deplorable.
Israel is the occupier of Palestine and that is the difference....and I know some of you might think Palestine never existed....
Many of the Palestinians I know (Christians in the US) have no hope for the two state solution. They want one state with equal rights for Palestinians - not walled off in bantustans. Then you have the question of how Israel could remain a Jewish State....They know they can't return to their actual home - (though they still have the deed) they would also like the right of return. They aren't anti-Semitic, but of course are very critical of current Israeli policy.
I agree that the control of oil in the Middle East is a huge factor to the strife in the region. Hope we can develop more and better energy alternatives.
The below leaves out so much detail that I can only advise you to be more thorough when attempting moral equivalency. For instance, the recent hospital incident saw an actual terrorist use a hospital for refuge and when the police came his cousin came at them with a loaded automatic weapon and was shot and the terrorist apprehended. How is that the same as a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance refusing to stop and treat Israeli victims of murderous and anti Semitic terror
carrielogo said:
BubbaTerp - Just using JCSO's word for it. Also, reading your comments on the other Israel thread, I feel there are several points we can agree on. I'm also a Pacifist.
I think people are frustrated by the aid we give to Palestine too when places like Gaza get blown up over and over again....and I know the reply to that will be about the tunnels.
The recent killing of the Palestinian in the hospital was a state mandated murder....JCSO. Also Netanyahu has said his own questionable statements - about the Mufti calling for the Holocaust and about Arabs voting....
Israel is a Jewish State, but I don't equate it with Judaism the religion. The killing of women and children (those kids on the beach) - my mind just does not think that is holy or religious. Bombings and killing (on either side) are deplorable.
Israel is the occupier of Palestine and that is the difference....and I know some of you might think Palestine never existed....
Many of the Palestinians I know (Christians in the US) have no hope for the two state solution. They want one state with equal rights for Palestinians - not walled off in bantustans. Then you have the question of how Israel could remain a Jewish State....They know they can't return to their actual home - (though they still have the deed) they would also like the right of return. They aren't anti-Semitic, but of course are very critical of current Israeli policy.
I agree that the control of oil in the Middle East is a huge factor to the strife in the region. Hope we can develop more and better energy alternatives.
BubbaTerp said:
The below leaves out so much detail that I can only advise you to be more thorough when attempting moral equivalency. For instance, the recent hospital incident saw an actual terrorist use a hospital for refuge and when the police came his cousin came at them with a loaded automatic weapon and was shot and the terrorist apprehended. How is that the same as a Palestinian Red Crescent ambulance refusing to stop and treat Israeli victims of murderous and anti Semitic terror
carrielogo said:
BubbaTerp - Just using JCSO's word for it. Also, reading your comments on the other Israel thread, I feel there are several points we can agree on. I'm also a Pacifist.
I think people are frustrated by the aid we give to Palestine too when places like Gaza get blown up over and over again....and I know the reply to that will be about the tunnels.
The recent killing of the Palestinian in the hospital was a state mandated murder....JCSO. Also Netanyahu has said his own questionable statements - about the Mufti calling for the Holocaust and about Arabs voting....
Israel is a Jewish State, but I don't equate it with Judaism the religion. The killing of women and children (those kids on the beach) - my mind just does not think that is holy or religious. Bombings and killing (on either side) are deplorable.
Israel is the occupier of Palestine and that is the difference....and I know some of you might think Palestine never existed....
Many of the Palestinians I know (Christians in the US) have no hope for the two state solution. They want one state with equal rights for Palestinians - not walled off in bantustans. Then you have the question of how Israel could remain a Jewish State....They know they can't return to their actual home - (though they still have the deed) they would also like the right of return. They aren't anti-Semitic, but of course are very critical of current Israeli policy.
I agree that the control of oil in the Middle East is a huge factor to the strife in the region. Hope we can develop more and better energy alternatives.
And almost everyone accepts that Hamas is a terrorist and fascist organization that refuses to cease a war of anhiliation and terror against an Israel they refuse to accept . That was left out
BubbaTerp said:
BG9 said:Are we comparing South Africa to Israel now?
dave23 said:One would hope so. I believe some in South Africa also complained of being set to a "higher" standard when the boycott and divestment movement started.
Israel does tend to be held to a higher standard--similar to that of the US and western Europe--than its neighbors.
mfpark said:
What I am troubled by are the people who solely focus on Israel and ignore so much else.
Call me an anti-Semite (as I suspect you are dying to do) but isn't that comparison inevitable? I mean, just look at the demographic issues inherent in a single state "solution".
Klinker said:
BubbaTerp said:Call me an anti-Semite (as I suspect you are dying to do) but isn't that comparison inevitable? I mean, just look at the demographic issues inherent in a single state "solution".
BG9 said:Are we comparing South Africa to Israel now?
dave23 said:One would hope so. I believe some in South Africa also complained of being set to a "higher" standard when the boycott and divestment movement started.
Israel does tend to be held to a higher standard--similar to that of the US and western Europe--than its neighbors.
mfpark said:
What I am troubled by are the people who solely focus on Israel and ignore so much else.
Demographics are debatable but in the end if need be Israel will declare unilateral borders and there won't ever be a one state solution which everybody knows is absurdly unrealistic to begin with. Or they'll use unilateralism to get leverage.
So you say 40 years after the territories were occupied.
On a certain level, I don't really care or, perhaps, I don't care enough to be bothered. What I do care about is the fact that my money is going to pay for all of this nonsense.
The simplest answer to the Palestine/Israel question, from an American point of view, is to cut off all funding to both sides and let them figure it out for themselves.
Klinker said:
So you say 40 years after the territories were occupied.
On a certain level, I don't really care or, perhaps, I don't care enough to be bothered. What I do care about is the fact that my money is going to pay for all of this nonsense.
The simplest answer to the Palestine/Israel question, from an American point of view, is to cut off all funding to both sides and let them figure it out for themselves.
Very nuanced and grounded in an understanding of history and foreign affairs 
. Cut off all funding is a great idea! Lose any leverage!
BubbaTerp said:
Klinker said:Very nuanced and grounded in an understanding of history and foreign affairs
So you say 40 years after the territories were occupied.
On a certain level, I don't really care or, perhaps, I don't care enough to be bothered. What I do care about is the fact that my money is going to pay for all of this nonsense.
The simplest answer to the Palestine/Israel question, from an American point of view, is to cut off all funding to both sides and let them figure it out for themselves.
What leverage does our funding give us now when we let them know we won't cut it?
BG9 said:
BubbaTerp said:What leverage does our funding give us now when we let them know we won't cut it?
Klinker said:Very nuanced and grounded in an understanding of history and foreign affairs
So you say 40 years after the territories were occupied.
On a certain level, I don't really care or, perhaps, I don't care enough to be bothered. What I do care about is the fact that my money is going to pay for all of this nonsense.
The simplest answer to the Palestine/Israel question, from an American point of view, is to cut off all funding to both sides and let them figure it out for themselves.
I don't have the time to get into the benefits that our foreign aid brings us in return not to mention the value Israel has culturally, technologically, militaristically and their importance as a democracy with a shared ethnicity to an active segment of American population. I will say foreign aid provides incentive and leverage for the patron in terms of the client. If you want to defund Israel than good luck finding consensus on that since both parties understand the strong value we get back for our $3B. Oh also, you'll want to defund every other country we don't agree 100% with as well which is most if not all of them otherwise you're singling Israel out
First of all 75% of money given to Israel must be spent here in the US. It is spent on military equipment providing jobs here in the US for thousands of workers.
Second, this is not a one way street. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Mid-East and provides it's share of assistance to us.
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf
The term "anti-semitism" is frequently abused to smear critics of Israel's occupation and settlements in the West Bank.
Two blatant examples of this abuse came to light in the last week:
(1) Netanyahu appointed a new spokesman who has said President Obama is anti-semitic.
(2) A number of Israeli officials and ministers called the EU's new policy to label goods made in the West Bank as goods made in the West Bank, rather than goods made in Israel, as anti-semitic. Netanyahu himself did not say so directly, but he compared the move to Europe's "dark" period.
References in the Israeli-Palestinian thread.
paulsurovell said:
The term "anti-semitism" is frequently abused to smear critics of Israel's occupation and settlements in the West Bank.
Two blatant examples of this abuse came to light in the last week:
(1) Netanyahu appointed a new spokesman who has said President Obama is anti-semitic.
(2) A number of Israeli officials and ministers called the EU's new policy to label goods made in the West Bank as goods made in the West Bank, rather than goods made in Israel, as anti-semitic. Netanyahu himself did not say so directly, but he compared the move to Europe's "dark" period.
References in the Israeli-Palestinian thread.
As per the other thread. The first point is irrelevant since across the board that appointee had been derided and he'll be sacked soon and the second, regardless of what Obama said, the labeling is a de facto boycott and will enable more and more anti Israel sentiment and because it's being done there and not other states with border disputes makes it anti Semitic. I don't see Azeri or Moroccan or Chinese or Indian or Pakistani or Russian goods being treated the same way.
I think that the question asked by the OP and the responses in the thread is whether criticism of Israel by people outside of Israel is legitimate criticism or anti-semitism, not about what Israeli politicians have said.
cramer said:
I think that the question asked by the OP and the responses in the thread is whether criticism of Israel by people outside of Israel is legitimate criticism or anti-semitism, not about what Israeli politicians have said.
He seems to be implying that the opinions of one man who has been mocked in Israel represent a larger issue and representation which would then allow us to criticize Israel without being anti Semitic. IMHO. If we want to veer off into a debate about the President and his love or dislike for Israelis we can. I'd rather stick to sorting out legitamite critique of a foreign state versus anti Jewish animosity disguised as anti Israel or anti Zionist sentiment.
cramer said:
I think that the question asked by the OP and the responses in the thread is whether criticism of Israel by people outside of Israel is legitimate criticism or anti-semitism, not about what Israeli politicians have said.
If this is directed against my post, a reminder that:
President Obama is someone outside of Israel who was labeled antisemitic for his criticism of Israel.
The EU represents many people outside of Israel who have been labeled antisemitic for their criticism of Israel.
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:If this is directed against my post, a reminder that:
I think that the question asked by the OP and the responses in the thread is whether criticism of Israel by people outside of Israel is legitimate criticism or anti-semitism, not about what Israeli politicians have said.
President Obama is someone outside of Israel who was labeled antisemitic for his criticism of Israel.
The EU represents many people outside of Israel who have been labeled antisemitic for their criticism of Israel.
Plenty of people believe Obama has held Israel to a unique standard and has singled out Israelis Whether he is personally pro or anti Israel is up for debate. I wouldn't use the word Semitic so that guy has used an incorrect label which most of Israel agreed with and he's being dealt with by his own party! Lol
Are we really going to argue about European anti Semitism? Do you know how bad it is for Jews in Europe? Attitudes towards Israel are mostly abysmal outside of Germany.
BubbaTerp said:
paulsurovell said:As per the other thread. The first point is irrelevant since across the board that appointee had been derided and he'll be sacked soon and the second, regardless of what Obama said, the labeling is a de facto boycott and will enable more and more anti Israel sentiment and because it's being done there and not other states with border disputes makes it anti Semitic. I don't see Azeri or Moroccan or Chinese or Indian or Pakistani or Russian goods being treated the same way.
The term "anti-semitism" is frequently abused to smear critics of Israel's occupation and settlements in the West Bank.
Two blatant examples of this abuse came to light in the last week:
(1) Netanyahu appointed a new spokesman who has said President Obama is anti-semitic.
(2) A number of Israeli officials and ministers called the EU's new policy to label goods made in the West Bank as goods made in the West Bank, rather than goods made in Israel, as anti-semitic. Netanyahu himself did not say so directly, but he compared the move to Europe's "dark" period.
References in the Israeli-Palestinian thread.
So if someone abuses the term "anti-semitic" and it is "derided" the abuse becomes "irrelevant?"
Your point denies the simple fact that no country in the world -- including the United States -- considers the West Bank to be part of Israel. To label goods made in the West Bank as made in Israel is false and misleading labeling. To require truthful labeling of products made in the West Bank is not antisemitic by any rational criteria.
The State Department does not oppose the EU labeling. Does that make the State Department antisemitic?
Regarding the other countries you mentioned, please provide examples of products that are labeled "made in -- " Azerbaijan, Morroco, China, India and Pakistan that are not actually made in those countries.
dave23 said:
Israel does tend to be held to a higher standard--similar to that of the US and western Europe--than its neighbors.
mfpark said:
What I am troubled by are the people who solely focus on Israel and ignore so much else.
The US has held Israel to a higher standard than it holds itself, at least on one occasion. In August 2014, during the Gaza crisis, the IDF launched a missile from the air which struck the road outside an UNWRA school. 10 people were killed. One hour later, the US State Department issued a statement saying that the US was appalled by the shelling. The statement went on to say that "the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify the strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians."
"The United States is appalled by today’s disgraceful
shelling outside an UNRWA school in Rafah sheltering some 3,000
displaced persons, in which at least ten more Palestinian civilians were
tragically killed. The coordinates of the school, like all UN
facilities in Gaza, have been repeatedly communicated to the Israeli
Defense Forces. We once again stress that Israel must do more to meet
its own standards and avoid civilian casualties. UN facilities,
especially those sheltering civilians, must be protected, and must not
be used as bases from which to launch attacks. The suspicion that
militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk
the lives of so many innocent civilians. We call for a full and prompt
investigation of this incident as well as the recent shelling of other
UNRWA schools."
In October, 2015, when the US bombed a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders in Afghanistan, killing 10 people and wounding many more,on questioning by an AP reporter, a US State Department Spokesman declined to say the the bombing was "disgraceful and appaling" as it did when Israel bombed the road outside the UNRWA school.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/ap-reporter-grills-state-department-over-israel-criticism/
BCC said:
First of all 75% of money given to Israel must be spent here in the US. It is spent on military equipment providing jobs here in the US for thousands of workers.
Second, this is not a one way street. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Mid-East and provides it's share of assistance to us.
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf
100% of the money saved could be spent here in the United States.
As for our "alliance" with Israel, it is clear to me what we do for them, what exactly they do for us is a bit more nebulous.
Klinker said:
BCC said:100% of the money saved could be spent here in the United States.
First of all 75% of money given to Israel must be spent here in the US. It is spent on military equipment providing jobs here in the US for thousands of workers.
Second, this is not a one way street. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Mid-East and provides it's share of assistance to us.
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf
As for our "alliance" with Israel, it is clear to me what we do for them, what exactly they do for us is a bit more nebulous.
Foreign aid. Research it a bit maybe?
BubbaTerp said:
Klinker said:
BCC said:100% of the money saved could be spent here in the United States.
First of all 75% of money given to Israel must be spent here in the US. It is spent on military equipment providing jobs here in the US for thousands of workers.
Second, this is not a one way street. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Mid-East and provides it's share of assistance to us.
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf
As for our "alliance" with Israel, it is clear to me what we do for them, what exactly they do for us is a bit more nebulous.
Foreign aid. Research it a bit maybe?
And again if you don't like foreign aid that's fine but it's the singling out of Israel that skirts a very fine line.
BubbaTerp said:
BubbaTerp said:And again if you don't like foreign aid that's fine but it's the singling out of Israel that skirts a very fine line.
Klinker said:
BCC said:100% of the money saved could be spent here in the United States.
First of all 75% of money given to Israel must be spent here in the US. It is spent on military equipment providing jobs here in the US for thousands of workers.
Second, this is not a one way street. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Mid-East and provides it's share of assistance to us.
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf
As for our "alliance" with Israel, it is clear to me what we do for them, what exactly they do for us is a bit more nebulous.
Foreign aid. Research it a bit maybe?
Its hard to think of other countries where our foreign aid generates as much trouble and enmity for us as our aid to Israel does. Saudi Arabia maybe? I would also end our aid to them.
BubbaTerp said:
Klinker said:
BCC said:100% of the money saved could be spent here in the United States.
First of all 75% of money given to Israel must be spent here in the US. It is spent on military equipment providing jobs here in the US for thousands of workers.
Second, this is not a one way street. Israel is our only reliable ally in the Mid-East and provides it's share of assistance to us.
www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/AssetTest_Infographic.pdf
As for our "alliance" with Israel, it is clear to me what we do for them, what exactly they do for us is a bit more nebulous.
Foreign aid. Research it a bit maybe?
Sorry, I was trying to be subtle. My bad.
What I really meant to communicate is my belief that what little benefit our aid to Israel provides us is entirely eclipsed by the trouble that rebounds from it. Its hard to run a cost benefit analysis of these programs that would justify their continuance (from an American perspective).
Anti-Semitism? Nah.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Palestinian-rights-activist-raises-possibility-Israel-behind-Paris-attacks-433010
cramer said:
Anti-Semitism? Nah.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Palestinian-rights-activist-raises-possibility-Israel-behind-Paris-attacks-433010
Just some dope. Plenty of dopes think Bush did 9/11 and Obama did Newtown.
RobB said:
Just some dope.
Lots of dopes. Pretty hard to read Facebook links that do not include long lists of people with Arabic names insisting that Zionists were behind the carnage in Paris on Friday.
They said the same things after 9-11, and my husband and I both have non-Muslim European friends who were promptly convinced that the Mossad blew up the Twin Towers. One of them--a well educated British expat living in Switzerland--even sent us a book by some idiot Palestinian activist insinuating that the whole thing was a CIA-Israeli plot.
Again nobody said ALL criticism what was said was criticism out of proportion or context or accuracy.