Rep. Omar defends invoking allah to combat ‘evil’ israel

[D_NATURED]

That is, flatly, ridiculous. It's not normalized tyranny for (for example) Democrats to support a higher minimum wage, thinking that it's a moral imperative to help low income families, or for us to outlaw rape because we find violation of another in that fashion to be wrong.

Ummm...it's like you're responding to a completely different post. Where is the parallel between Americans making laws to benefit the poor and people excusing and ignoring the crimes of another country?

The tyranny I spoke of is actual Israeli policy that is given the blind eye by many consrvatives. Nothing about that point was ambiguous but I'll reiterate using your own metaphor for reference.

If an Israeli rapes a Palestinian, the fact that a Palestinian raped his sister last week doesn't make it right.

Agreed. Unfortunately, many who advocate the former hide behind the latter, and the latter does not generally call them out for it, further blurring the lines.

The lines are clear, murder and oppression are wrong, no matter who does it.

Nope, they are being people, who have the ability to be wrong, a tendency to see things through tribal lenses, and an inclination to attribute evil motives to those who they dislike. The left does this in spades, so throwing rocks from that Glass House may not be your wisest strategy on this one.

Ah, the "they do it too" excuse. I think you just explained Israeli policy. The difference is, it's not the democratic party doing it, as in giving a pass to dictators and tyrants..

 

[cpwill]

If we can't separate Israel from Judaeism or morality from politics, you have set the stage for normalized tyranny.

That is, flatly, ridiculous. It's not normalized tyranny for (for example) Democrats to support a higher minimum wage, thinking that it's a moral imperative to help low income families, or for us to outlaw rape because we find violation of another in that fashion to be wrong.

Ummm...it's like you're responding to a completely different post.

Nope:

If we can't separate Israel from Judaeism or morality from politics, you have set the stage for normalized tyranny.

You can't really fully separate "A Jewish Homeland" from "Judaism" or "Jewishness", either, I think, but I was responding directly to the bolded.

The tyranny I spoke of is actual Israeli policy that is given the blind eye by many consrvatives. Nothing about that point was ambiguous but I'll reiterate using your own metaphor for reference.

If an Israeli rapes a Palestinian, the fact that a Palestinian raped his sister last week doesn't make it right.

Sure. And if an Israeli soldier kicked a Palestinian, that doesn't make it worse than a group of Palestinians trying to kill an entire school full of Israelis by shooting rockets at them.

Like most issues in this fallen world, our choice is not between a pure good and a pure evil, but between two actors, one of whom is further from the first ideal than the other.

Ah, the "they do it too" excuse. I think you just explained Israeli policy. The difference is, it's not the democratic party doing it, as in giving a pass to dictators and tyrants..

It's not an excuse at all to point out that something is a common, nigh-universal human failing, instead of (as you seemed to be suggesting) uniquely particular to folks who disagree with you.

 

[Born Free]

Of course, CNN didn’t push back on the anti-Semite... bigot.

Of course not, CNN is racist just like the Democratic party. Christ they have Farrakhan screaming kill the jews. Then you have Clinton on the same stage as Farrakhan giving him statues as a racist bigot homophobe sexist etc. Now they have Ilhan Omar doing her hate speech. Hell Obamafail hates the jews and whites, no surprise there he's a racist.

 

[Thoreau72]

That's anti-semitism.

No, it's an observation of historical and present day facts.

 

[Mr Person]

... while

1. The left is certainly tolerant of anti semitism

and

2. Many anti-semites try to cover themselves by claiming to be "only taking about Israel",

3. Claiming that Israel is engaged in evil deeds is not, in fact, an anti-semitic statement.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I liked some of your posts here, but "the left" is far too broad.

A great weakness of the Dems is an overzealous defense of the Palestinians that ignores the very real reasons Israel has done some of the things it has done, even if it does overreach at times. I know I can't say much here, so there's that.

For some, that is indeed rooted in anti-semitism, or so it would seen. But it's no given, especially as to an entire group.



But it's not like "the left" as a whole is "tolerant" of anti-semitism.

 

[cpwill]

I liked some of your posts here, but "the left" is far too broad.

A great weakness of the Dems is an overzealous defense of the Palestinians that ignores the very real reasons Israel has done some of the things it has done, even if it does overreach at times. I know I can't say much here, so there's that.

For some, that is indeed rooted in anti-semitism, or so it would seen. But it's no given, especially as to an entire group.



But it's not like "the left" as a whole is "tolerant" of anti-semitism.

Hm. Well I would agree we are speaking in generalities, here, and there will be plenty of counterexamples. But when Anti-Semites are friends with, pastors to, and appear on stage with Democrat Presidents, and head up their marches, it's sort of clear that a general tolerance for it does indeed exist, though I wouldn't say it's anything close to an advocacy position. A similar dynamic exists across the pond, in ole Mother England, where the leader of the Labor Party "has described the constitutionally genocidal Hamas as his “friends.” He’s appeared on stage with inveterate anti-Semites. He’s defended a mural that depicted hooknosed bankers running the world. He’s attended a wreath-laying ceremony that celebrated the perpetrators of the Munich Olympics massacre....

For example, if David Duke were a former pastor of Trump, or if Trump were to appear on stage with him, we'd all rightly identify that was visual evidence of a serious issue of tolerance for white nationalism within Trumpism. There would be a bitter fight within the right as the former Never Trumpers and those who hadn't sold out to Tribalism went into rhetorical battle against those who had. But, for all that he has indeed said racist things and has an issue of racist problems from apartment rental policies of a few decades ago, Trump has, in face, as near as I can tell, never appeared with David Duke, and famously left the Reform Party when Duke was admitted. He's introduced an uglier element into our Right than was there before (or, boosted it far beyond where it was before), but he's not gone that far.

Unlike Democrat Presidents, who appear with Louis Farrakhan types.... to absolutely no (as near as I can tell) criticism from the left whatsoever for doing so.

 

[Mr Person]

Hm. Well I would agree we are speaking in generalities, here, and there will be plenty of counterexamples. But when Anti-Semites are friends with, pastors to, and appear on stage with Democrat Presidents, and head up their marches, it's sort of clear that a general tolerance for it does indeed exist.

But is it really?

Forget the constitution for a sec. Give me Obama v. Trump, 2020. There's no way in hell I could vote for Trump to punish the Dems in some hypothetical where he has Louis Farrakahn or ten of those guys on stage at some Obama speeches.

I'd feel bad doing it. I'd despise him for it. But for many of us, personal character matters, but matters only relative to the other considerations. It's why you may have noticed me occasionally correcting people who go on about how Trump supporters must be racists, yadda yadda.



It's hard to draw solid conclusions here.

(And note, personal anecdote: I'm a completely non-practicing Jew. As in, just by birth. The majority of my votes have gone to Ds, but I've definitely gone for Rs and Ls at times, depending. I cannot let my anger at the Democrats-in-general over the way they treat Israel interfere with every other political consideration. I suspect I'm far for alone, and the same applies to Trump supporters.....though whether it makes sense to still ardently support him at this point may be a different question)

Pragmatism above all else.

 

[cpwill]

But is it really?

Forget the constitution for a sec. Give me Obama v. Trump, 2020. There's no way in hell I could vote for Trump to punish the Dems in some hypothetical where he has Louis Farrakahn or ten of those guys on stage at some Obama speeches.

:shrug: I wouldn't expect you to. But I would expect members of the left who don't want to be considered as tolerant of anti-semitism to criticize Obama and other Democrat candidates and leaders who do invite the Louis Farrakhans, or defend the Women's March leadership, etc. for doing so.

It may honestly be that I'm not part of that intramural discussion, and so I don't see it. But if there is mainstream opposition to tolerance of antisemitism within the left (the way, for example, there is opposition to Trump's gestures towards anti-hispanic racism within the right), I've not seen it.

And so, because it's allowed in, engaged with if not pursued by the leadership, and all without much (if any) critique, I have to draw the conclusion that - broadly - the left is, indeed, tolerant of antisemitism.

I'd feel bad doing it. I'd despise him for it. But for many of us, personal character matters, but matters only relative to the other considerations. It's why you may have noticed me occasionally correcting people who go on about how Trump supporters must be racists, yadda yadda.

Yup. In the last election, voting against either of the candidates was eminently defensible (voting for either of them rather less so, I think), and many well-meaning people did both.

It's hard to draw solid conclusions here.

(And note, personal anecdote: I'm a completely non-practicing Jew. As in, just by birth. The majority of my votes have gone to Ds, but I've definitely gone for Rs and Ls at times, depending. I cannot let my anger at the Democrats-in-general over the way they treat Israel interfere with every other political consideration. I suspect I'm far for alone, and the same applies to Trump supporters.....though whether it makes sense to still ardently support him at this point may be a different question)

Pragmatism above all else.

I get that. You may find the linked article that I put in the previous post interesting.

 

[Mr Person]

:shrug: I wouldn't expect you to. But I would expect members of the left who don't want to be considered as tolerant of anti-semitism to criticize Obama and other Democrat candidates and leaders who do invite the Louis Farrakhans, or defend the Women's March leadership, etc. for doing so.

It may honestly be that I'm not part of that intramural discussion, and so I don't see it. But if there is mainstream opposition to tolerance of antisemitism within the left (the way, for example, there is opposition to Trump's gestures towards anti-hispanic racism within the right), I've not seen it.

And so, because it's allowed in, engaged with if not pursued by the leadership, and all without much (if any) critique, I have to draw the conclusion that - broadly - the left is, indeed, tolerant of antisemitism.

And how many conservatives do you really see here regularly calling out racist behavior or support/defense of racist behavior by Trump supporters? Or even regularly in general?

Seems incredibly rare to me, and some of those have been labeled "RINOs" because they criticized Trump without defending his policies. I don't think I'm allowed to name them here, unless they've posted.

The only times I've seen it, it's (1) an article in left-leaning media that quotes maybe three people around the country saying that they were Trump supporters who
don't like Trump now and linking it to polls, (2) a few GOP politicians who criticize Trump but still do whatever it is he wants them to do.


Consider.

And bear in mind, we're all likely to spend a lot more time arguing with statments we disagree with more.

I mean, I'm not going to dig through my far-too-many posts to provide proof. But I, at least, do sometimes surprise my "liberal" compatriots by having a go over something they said. But that's the minority of the time, because I typically disagree far more with what a large portion of the forum says (those being the farther right people, especially Trump supporters). And if I move to call someone out for not calling people on their 'team' out, I limit it to when they are going at a liberal for not calling out liberals as regularly.

:shrug:




Frankly, with the Ds, I think it's more of a reflexive instinct to play to.....and I know some may misread this....but to play to consideration of individuals as "victims" without regard to whether they had done something earlier that contributed to whatever situation is being argued about. And if something looks like unequal (ie, Israel-Palestinian relations), to side with the ones facing the restrictions, but without looking much at why.

"This is bad" as an absolute, is often the message. I don't think a whole lot of that is anti-semitism. But it's not a thing one can measure directly, any more than how many Trump supporters support Trump because they hate brown people.

 

[cpwill]

And how many conservatives do you really see here regularly calling out racist behavior or support/defense of racist behavior by Trump supporters? Or even regularly in general?

Well

<--- this guy, for one.


This guy, for another:



This guy for a third:

These guys have been pretty consistent:

etc. so on and so forth. Sitting leaders in the party. Previous leaders of the party. Institutional voices of conservatism and conservative Christian leadership. You could say that tolerance for Trump's abuses is more common in the right than it should be, and I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But opposition to it and a willingness to call it out are also there.

I don't recall Nancy Pelosi criticizing President Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright, Luis Farrakhan, et. al. I don't recall any previous Presidential Candidates suggesting he was unqualified to be President as a result of his tolerance of them. I don't recall the New Republic or the New York Times going after him on it, or Clinton for appearing with Farrakhan, certainly not like that which is above. I've seen a couple of isolated individuals oppose the anti-semitism of the Womens' March leadership (including, notably, a founder), but, again, nothing like the above.

The only times I've seen it, it's (1) an article in left-leaning media that quotes maybe three people around the country saying that they were Trump supporters who
don't like Trump now and linking it to polls, (2) a few GOP politicians who criticize Trump but still do whatever it is he wants them to do.

Feel free to check out the personnel on the boards, you'll find several of us NeverTrumper types still here

And bear in mind, we're all likely to spend a lot more time arguing with statments we disagree with more.

I mean, I'm not going to dig through my far-too-many posts to provide proof. But I, at least, do sometimes surprise my "liberal" compatriots by having a go over something they said. But that's the minority of the time, because I typically disagree far more with what a large portion of the forum says (those being the farther right people, especially Trump supporters). And if I move to call someone out for not calling people on their 'team' out, I limit it to when they are going at a liberal for not calling out liberals as regularly.

It's cognitively more painful to publicly disagree-with / call-out members of "your team", I agree. But that's why it's important. Because tribalism is tempting, and powerful, and dangerous. It helps explain why the left is - generally, as near as I can tell - tolerant of anti-semitism, just as it helps explain why so many Republicans have decided to carefully ignore some of Trump's abuses... but it doesn't excuse either of them. In the Right, however, broadly, I see antibodies at work. I don't really see that happening on the Left, though, agreeably, I'm not as well-versed in their intramural dialogue.

Frankly, with the Ds, I think it's more of a reflexive instinct to play to... if something looks like unequal (ie, Israel-Palestinian relations), to side with the ones facing the restrictions, but without looking much at why.

"This is bad" as an absolute, is often the message. I don't think a whole lot of that is anti-semitism. But it's not a thing one can measure directly, any more than how many Trump supporters support Trump because they hate brown people.

Hm. I think that "This is bad", on this topic, typically becomes "They are bad". It's hard to say that someone's very existence or self defense counts as engaging in genocide and apartheid without imposing a moral judgment about them. And "they" can be "bad" for a variety of reasons, and, so long as someone agrees with the conclusion, the left is (again, generally and institutionally) all-too-often willing to overlook how they got there.

 

[Mr Person]

Well

<--- this guy, for one.


This guy, for another:



This guy for a third:

These guys have been pretty consistent:

etc. so on and so forth. Sitting leaders in the party. Previous leaders of the party. Institutional voices of conservatism and conservative Christian leadership. You could say that tolerance for Trump's abuses is more common in the right than it should be, and I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But opposition to it and a willingness to call it out are also there.

I don't recall Nancy Pelosi criticizing President Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright, Luis Farrakhan, et. al. I don't recall any previous Presidential Candidates suggesting he was unqualified to be President as a result of his tolerance of them. I don't recall the New Republic or the New York Times going after him on it, or Clinton for appearing with Farrakhan, certainly not like that which is above. I've seen a couple of isolated individuals oppose the anti-semitism of the Womens' March leadership (including, notably, a founder), but, again, nothing like the above.




Feel free to check out the personnel on the boards, you'll find several of us NeverTrumper types still here



It's cognitively more painful to publicly disagree-with / call-out members of "your team", I agree. But that's why it's important. Because tribalism is tempting, and powerful, and dangerous. It helps explain why the left is - generally, as near as I can tell - tolerant of anti-semitism, just as it helps explain why so many Republicans have decided to carefully ignore some of Trump's abuses... but it doesn't excuse either of them. In the Right, however, broadly, I see antibodies at work. I don't really see that happening on the Left, though, agreeably, I'm not as well-versed in their intramural dialogue.




Hm. I think that "This is bad", on this topic, typically becomes "They are bad". It's hard to say that someone's very existence or self defense counts as engaging in genocide and apartheid without imposing a moral judgment about them. And "they" can be "bad" for a variety of reasons, and, so long as someone agrees with the conclusion, the left is (again, generally and institutionally) all-too-often willing to overlook how they got there.

Allright. I'm mid-cooking, but I do hope I don't forget to respond.

Generally: yes. I'm not assigning the criticism to one alleged "side". But I try to base my judgments on actions, at least as to the congress critters. If they criticize Trump but do what he wants, I don't count them as opposing him. So if D or R politicians say mean things about a person but go along anyway, I don't assign any value to what they said before they went along.

Voters are different. There are many reasons to vote for someone. We have different motives. And as we appear to agree, we may do things that can be painted as inconsistent based on which motives are more important to us, rightly or wrongly. I don't don't intend to give you short shrift to dismiss. I should probably write a note to say more later so I don't forget.

Shrimp-calamari-garlic/tomato/seafood/pasta must finish being cooked.... by me.





I'm saving the exchange as "RESPOND TOMORROW" in gmail drafts....

 

[cpwill]

Allright. I'm mid-cooking, but I do hope I don't forget to respond.

No worries.

Generally: yes. I'm not assigning the criticism to one alleged "side". But I try to base my judgments on actions, at least as to the congress critters. If they criticize Trump but do what he wants, I don't count them as opposing him

This strikes me as a standard which is probably appealing, because it allows one to neatly avoid the problem that the right seems to have more anti-bodies to racism within its ranks than the left does, but when, which inspected, falls apart. Agreement on one or another political issue (or even most political issues) does not mean that one is tolerant of another's racism (which is what is under discussion here, not whether or not one "opposes Trump", a loose term that means various things depending on who you talk to).

If we were to take the logic and your above proposed election, for example, we would say:

Mr Person did what Obama wanted, and voted for him.
Obama was tolerant of anti-semitism.
Mr Person ergo does not oppose anti-semitism.

Right-wingers have (often dishonestly) had a lot of fun with this sort of logic. The Nazis wanted universal healthcare, to end "unearned income", to break up the big box stores, and to increase taxes on the rich.... ergo people who support these things in modern day America are sorta like the Nazis. What makes the Nazis uniquely evil were their racial policies, not their economic ones, but its easy (and emotionally gratifying) to point to any overlap and shout a-HA!, as though it meant something more than it does.

We could make the same claim, for example, when Mr Person agrees with Obama on raising the minimum wage, expanding Medicaid, so on and so forth... all of which is him Doing What Obama Wants, and therefore proof that he is fine with anti-semitism on the left.


...and, while it would be emotionally satisfying to those who wanted to believe that people who believe as MrPerson does are morally inferior to themselves, it would also be balderdash. MrPerson voting for Obama over Trump doesn't mean he is tolerant of anti-semitism, any more than his support for higher MW does. What determines whether or not MrPerson is tolerant of anti-semitism is whether he is tolerant of anti-semitism.

Similarly, Romney, Ryan, National Review, or Myself are free to agree with Trump on a variety of political issues - because those issues are not what defines whether or not we are tolerant of racism. Whether or not we are tolerant of racism is.

"But They Do What He Wants" :roll: I guarantee you Trump did not want Ryan to publicly denounce his statements as racist, and you are free to look at his supporters' collective freak-out about Romney's recent OpEd and the NeverTrumpers in general to see whether or not he wanted them to act in the way they do. The last thing he wants is to be castigated from the Right when he acts immorally. You are conflating whether or not someone agrees with Trump on policy questions with whether or not they tolerate his racism when they have already gone on record, against interest, and against their own "team" to oppose his racism. Your complaint here doesn't seem to be that conservatives don't oppose racism when it shows up within their ranks, but rather that conservatives are conservative.

Shrimp-calamari-garlic/tomato/seafood/pasta must finish being cooked.... by me.

I'm saving the exchange as "RESPOND TOMORROW" in gmail drafts....

that sounds fantastic. I look forward to the response, as well.

Enjoy your evening

 

[Skeptic Bob]

You should be exactly as angry about this as if they were a Christian who used the exact same words except switch “God” for “Allah”.

 

[D_NATURED]

Nope:



You can't really fully separate "A Jewish Homeland" from "Judaism" or "Jewishness", either, I think, but I was responding directly to the bolded.

Wow, dude, I think you just diminished the Jewish faith to nothing but a political party. The irony of you guys calling me an antisemite is glaring.

Why on Earth would a country like the United States, that claims to value freedom of conscience, support a theocracy in any god's name? If there is no difference between Judaism and the political manifestation that is represented by the state of Israel, then you're arguing that the Abrahamic god does not exist except as a tool for use to justify war and atrocities. In a way I agree with that but only the most cynical part of me. I know and have known enough Jews to realize they are not all tyrants. However, any group who enjoys default moral credentials based upon whom they subjugate is a monster created not born. We don't have to tolerate that from them.

I refuse to blame Jewishness for what the state of Israel has done to defend their theocracy from competing theocrats. The very notion that the Jews, having endured the holocaust, are now excused from having to be responsible for their own war crimes is absurd. That sort of logic is alive and well in our society, though, so I'm not surprised to hear it articulated here.

Sure. And if an Israeli soldier kicked a Palestinian, that doesn't make it worse than a group of Palestinians trying to kill an entire school full of Israelis by shooting rockets at them.

What school was struck by a rocket? There were these children, among many others, killed by an Israeli rocket:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children

Like most issues in this fallen world, our choice is not between a pure good and a pure evil, but between two actors, one of whom is further from the first ideal than the other.

The world hasn't fallen, it's been transformed by selective apathy. It's not the bad men that are the problem, it's the good men who stand by while they act contrary to human decency. That's always been the problem.

It's not an excuse at all to point out that something is a common, nigh-universal human failing, instead of (as you seemed to be suggesting) uniquely particular to folks who disagree with you.

They don't just disagree with me, they imbibe a very ugly fascist philosophy that commodifies humanity and treats murder like an acceptable political tool. They disagree with the dictates of common, nigh-universal human morality.

 

[Apocalypse]

Wow, dude, I think you just diminished the Jewish faith to nothing but a political party. The irony of you guys calling me an antisemite is glaring.

Every moral person should call out your racism.

Why on Earth would a country like the United States, that claims to value freedom of conscience, support a theocracy

Israel is a liberal democracy, you're extremely ignorant of anything related to this subject you're only so emotional about out of pure racism.

If there is no difference between Judaism and the political manifestation that is represented by the state of Israel, then you're arguing that the Abrahamic god does not exist except as a tool for use to justify war and atrocities.

That's not what he said.
He's saying that you cannot deny the Jewish homeland is related to the Jewish people, meaning that the denial of the right of Jews to their very homeland is indeed Jew hatred, antisemitism. You cannot hide it as "criticism" of anything, it's an outright attack on Jews as a people.

In a way I agree with that but only the most cynical part of me. I know and have known enough Jews to realize they are not all tyrants. However, any group who enjoys default moral credentials based upon whom they subjugate is a monster created not born. We don't have to tolerate that from them.

Tell us more about those evil Jews who are tyrants.
And who is "we"? Who do you think your antisemitism stands for, exactly?

I refuse to blame Jewishness for what the state of Israel has done to defend their theocracy from competing theocrats. The very notion that the Jews, having endured the holocaust, are now excused from having to be responsible for their own war crimes is absurd.

Ah yes, bringing up the holocaust and claiming that Jews use it as an excuse for "war crimes". "War crimes" - what antisemites refer to when discussing the act of a Jewish person who dares defend his own life and not allow himself to be murdered.

What school was struck by a rocket? There were these children, among many others, killed by an Israeli rocket:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children

Accidents happen during wars.

Germany killed over 100 civilians in Afghanistan several years ago.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ed-over-air-strike-that-killed-civilians.html
Did you claim Germany is a theocracy that murders?
The US kills civilians all the time, in the dozens.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46398620
Did you attack the US' right to exist yet?
Yet you take this incident of an accident caused by Israeli attacks and you make it unique to the Jews so you can attack them.
Just like I called you out in your special demand for Israel to stop existing, not recognizing its very right to exist, while not doing so with any other country.

You're the perfect example for the point of this thread that all moral people should take a lesson from - there are many who use Israel to promote their Jew hatred. You're one of those.

There's legitimate criticism and then there are antisemitic Jew haters like you.
It needs to always be called out by anyone opposing racism.

It's not the bad men that are the problem, it's the good men who stand by while they act contrary to human decency.

That's exactly why you're being confronted here.

 

[cpwill]

Wow, dude, I think you just diminished the Jewish faith to nothing but a political party.

Nope What I said was:

You can't really fully separate "A Jewish Homeland" from "Judaism" or "Jewishness", either, I think,​

However, I appreciate you attempting to retire to a fainting couch in order to avoid the point that the notion divorcing policy from a moral code normalizes tyranny is balderdash.

Why on Earth would a country like the United States, that claims to value freedom of conscience, support a theocracy in any god's name?

Well, I can think of many reasons why the United States would support one theocracy or another, many reasons why we have, in fact, done so often throughout our history. Foreign policy is not the search for Utopia, but a dealing with real world options.

If there is no difference between Judaism and the political manifestation that is represented by the state of Israel, then you're arguing that the Abrahamic god does not exist except as a tool for use to justify war and atrocities.

....no. Firstly I did not say that there was no difference between Judaism and the state of Israel, and secondly, if it was so, then it would not logically follow that the Abrahamic God did not exist except as a tool to justify war and atrocities. You are confusing emoting with reason.

In a way I agree with that but only the most cynical part of me. I know and have known enough Jews to realize they are not all tyrants.

How very gracious of you.

What school was struck by a rocket?

That is an interesting attempt to goalpost shift. Israel now protects their schools with the Iron Dome system, due to the fact that Hamas likes to shoot rockets at them.

The world hasn't fallen, it's been transformed by selective apathy. It's not the bad men that are the problem, it's the good men who stand by while they act contrary to human decency. That's always been the problem.

....no. All the good men in the world weren't enough to stop Ghengis Khan from rampaging, or the entire sordid history of the human race. This world is broken and fallen, as are the men in it, and so you will always be dealing with broken nations run by broken decision-makers applying broken values. There isn't a "Well Gosh, We Should Just Back The Perfect People, Then" option, because those folks do not exist, in this country, or outside it.

They don't just disagree with me, they imbibe a very ugly fascist philosophy that commodifies humanity and treats murder like an acceptable political tool. They disagree with the dictates of common, nigh-universal human morality.

That is incorrect. I would recommend you get to know some in real life.

 

[D_NATURED]

Every moral person should call out your racism.

You don't know what morality is. Save your sanctimonious call to arms for those who oppress and murder and steal, not for those who criticize them.

Israel is a liberal democracy, you're extremely ignorant of anything related to this subject you're only so emotional about out of pure racism.

First of all, the Judaism we're talking about is a religion, not a race. So, your stupid racism insult is really the worst kind of projection by those who knowingly parse the lives of children. Israel didn't reclaim that territory on behalf of a set of genetic traits, they did it on behalf of a book and its divine author. So leave racism out of this until you have half a ****ing idea what it is.

Second of all, a country can be both sort of democratic and a sort of theocracy. If the only ones allowed to vote or own property or whatever are of a particular faith, there is a bias that contradicts the implied equality that the word "democracy" suggests. In the case of Israel, there are many such special privileges afforded to Jews. Therefore, I feel it's fair to call it a theocracy, even if those theocrats play democracy and vote on legislation.

That's not what he said.

Actually, he did say that. He said you can't separate Judaism from Israel and, presumably, vice versa. How else should I interpret that?

He's saying that you cannot deny the Jewish homeland is related to the Jewish people, meaning that the denial of the right of Jews to their very homeland is indeed Jew hatred, antisemitism. You cannot hide it as "criticism" of anything, it's an outright attack on Jews as a people.

That desire to have a homeland is NOT a right, it's a desire, nothing more. It is no more antisemitism to deny them something that harms others as it is anti-Christian to deny them the freedom to oppress gay people or anti-Muslims to punish the murder of promiscuous daughters. We have to get past this idea that faith entitles us to a special set of rules. Well, maybe after death but not when there are victims who didn't sign up with that god. And, while we're all on this planet together, I don't accept that you get to murder Palestinians and take their land because your god said you had to. The law should be humanist, not magical. I wonder if you realize how dangerous it is to patronize their magical, religious entitlements. Someone's religion will victimize you some day, if it isn't already.

 

[D_NATURED]

Tell us more about those evil Jews who are tyrants.
And who is "we"? Who do you think your antisemitism stands for, exactly?

I didn't call them evil, that's your hyperbole. The "we" is people who stand for justice. Clearly, you're excluded.

Ah yes, bringing up the holocaust and claiming that Jews use it as an excuse for "war crimes". "War crimes" - what antisemites refer to when discussing the act of a Jewish person who dares defend his own life and not allow himself to be murdered.

Why was Israel created? Why did it not happen until after the holocaust? The holocaust was an event that inspired such empathy for Jews that it became a wave of sorrow that excused taking land and imprisoning the inhabitants if necessary. Look, I realize the Jewish state is under siege, in a way. They are surrounded by Arabs who are not above senseless violence. Their wrongness does not make Israel right, though. I don't know how else to say it.

Accidents happen during wars.

Then you must accept it when a Palestinian missile accidentally hits Jews. If their mutually agreed upon paradigm is violence, it's no accident when it happens either way.

Germany killed over 100 civilians in Afghanistan several years ago.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...ed-over-air-strike-that-killed-civilians.html
Did you claim Germany is a theocracy that murders?

No, that would be as stupid as claiming that Israel isn't one.

The US kills civilians all the time, in the dozens.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46398620
Did you attack the US' right to exist yet?

Many already have. Would it change any opinions? Probably not.

Yet you take this incident of an accident caused by Israeli attacks and you make it unique to the Jews so you can attack them.

There's been many "accidents". They never accidentally rocket attack their own people so, at some point, it begins to feel less accidental. Why do you have such a problem admitting that Israel uses violence and has, if we were counting, produced waaaay more dead arabs than the dreaded terrorists and rock throwing juveniles have produced dead jews? Your denial problem is worth mentioning because there is a huge imbalance of dead children. Furthermore, the Jews have not been forced to live in refugee camps by the tens of thousands. They don't have to worry that their apartments will be turned to rubble while they sleep because some Jihadi ass hat might be there.

Just like I called you out in your special demand for Israel to stop existing, not recognizing its very right to exist, while not doing so with any other country.

Actually, I didn't call for it to stop existing. That's the most retarded interpretation one could take of my words. I called into question whether it was begun justly or whether it remains a place where justice is more than a seven letter word.

You're the perfect example for the point of this thread that all moral people should take a lesson from - there are many who use Israel to promote their Jew hatred. You're one of those.

No, it's your arab hatred that is at play here. I recognize that both parties are crazy and must stop. You excuse and coddle one people, excusing them from personal responsibility for murder. Apparently, you hate arabs enough to see them dead and Jews enough to see them compromised as two-bit religious zealots rather than rational, accountable beings.

There's legitimate criticism and then there are antisemitic Jew haters like you.

How much death and blood must spill before the criticisms are legitimate? Is any amount sufficient to satisfy you? I don't hate jews but I sure as **** hate entitled Torah thumpers. Is that who you are? It seems that way.

It needs to always be called out by anyone opposing racism.

There's the conundrum. The Jews and the arabs are the same race. They are both murdering each other and they both have gods who allow it. Maybe instead of focusing your damp rhetoric on imagined racism, you should consider the blood on your own hands. I'm not a racist, I'm a realist and reality is not kind to your kind. You know, **** hurling monkeys.

That's exactly why you're being confronted here.

I'm being confronted because the best defense is a good offense and you don't want to discuss the fact that there is no moral standard among those who attack stone throwers with helicopters. How it must hurt you to know what suffering your gods create in this world...through you.

 

[Apocalypse]

You don't know what morality is. Save your sanctimonious call to arms for those who oppress and murder and steal, not for those who criticize them.

You don't "critcize". You're a Jew hater who uses this platform to express his hatred of Jews. You can't preach about morality to anyone.

First of all, the Judaism we're talking about is a religion, not a race. So, your stupid racism insult is really the worst kind of projection by those who knowingly parse the lives of children. Israel didn't reclaim that territory on behalf of a set of genetic traits, they did it on behalf of a book and its divine author. So leave racism out of this until you have half a ****ing idea what it is.

You're extremely ignorant. Jews are an ethnoreligious people united by ethnicity and/or religion. It's written in the first lines of the Wiki article on "The Jewish people". Educate yourself on actual platforms of knowledge and perhaps one day you'll be able to rid yourself of the racist and barbaric world view you have adopted. As long as you make such ridiculously claims such as "I cannot be racist if I'm against Jews" you're just going to get called out if not by me then by others.

Second of all, a country can be both sort of democratic and a sort of theocracy. If the only ones allowed to vote or own property or whatever are of a particular faith, there is a bias that contradicts the implied equality that the word "democracy" suggests. In the case of Israel, there are many such special privileges afforded to Jews. Therefore, I feel it's fair to call it a theocracy, even if those theocrats play democracy and vote on legislation.

A sort of democracy and a sort of theocracy? What? Name one country like that.
You're ridiculous. You're so invested in your antisemitic lunatic's theories that you've lost connection with actual facts of reality.
Israel is a liberal democracy. I wonder why you can't come to accept that. Perhaps being a rabid Jew hater has something to do with that.

Actually, he did say that. He said you can't separate Judaism from Israel and, presumably, vice versa. How else should I interpret that?

That desire to have a homeland is NOT a right, it's a desire, nothing more. It is no more antisemitism to deny them something that harms others as it is anti-Christian to deny them the freedom to oppress gay people or anti-Muslims to punish the murder of promiscuous daughters. We have to get past this idea that faith entitles us to a special set of rules. Well, maybe after death but not when there are victims who didn't sign up with that god. And, while we're all on this planet together, I don't accept that you get to murder Palestinians and take their land because your god said you had to. The law should be humanist, not magical. I wonder if you realize how dangerous it is to patronize their magical, religious entitlements. Someone's religion will victimize you some day, if it isn't already.

The connection between the Jewish people and their homeland has nothing to do with rights. It's history revisionism to simply claim that a people who lived in a land for over 3,000 years have no connection to it, and in this case it's pure and simple antisemitism. You keep claiming you have things to "criticize" but it's decisions like that by you to expose your inner antisemite and your racism towards Jews that way which leaves no room for doubt.

 

[cabse5]

Ah yes, the right wing idiocy of claiming anybody critical of Isreal is a anti-Semite and bigot. Oh, that's exactly what Israel has hypnotized people to believe, this bull****.

Sorry, Israel murders scientists, murders Palestinians, steals their lands, bombs neighboring countries, and is constantly provocative. Sorry, they are assholes, just as much as Palestinians have been assholes and other countries in that region have as well.

There is nothing racist about being critical of Israel Israel is a country, not a race of people




Didn't say strike down, just said "see". People do need to see Israel is not really the good guy,.

A racist should be demonized a racist no matter their politics. A sexist should be demonized a sexist no matter their politics. A fascist should be demonized a fascist no matter their politics. This is where things have badly gone off the rails.

 

[Apocalypse]

I didn't call them evil, that's your hyperbole. The "we" is people who stand for justice. Clearly, you're excluded.

Of course, antisemitism is justice, now where have I heard that last.

Why was Israel created? Why did it not happen until after the holocaust? The holocaust was an event that inspired such empathy for Jews that it became a wave of sorrow that excused taking land and imprisoning the inhabitants if necessary. Look, I realize the Jewish state is under siege, in a way. They are surrounded by Arabs who are not above senseless violence. Their wrongness does not make Israel right, though. I don't know how else to say it.

The holocaust allowed people to realize that Jews are always persecuted by people like you who can't live their lives knowing that these people who make 0.2% of the planet's population are breathing and are acting normally like every other human being. To claim that "Jews used the holocaust" is antisemitic in sickening levels of inhumanity.

Regardless of the Holocaust Israel is justified in defending the lives of its people. That you seek to promote the lies of radicals and claim it murders and steals and whatever doesn't change the reality of the situation where Israel is the defending party and where violence would have ended at any point of time had it stopped being employed by Israel's enemies. You're on the side of barbarism, pure and simple, trying to convince yourself otherwise using the lies of antisemitic hate sites is futile.

Then you must accept it when a Palestinian missile accidentally hits Jews. If their mutually agreed upon paradigm is violence, it's no accident when it happens either way.

Were the planes diverted into the WTC an accident as well? You're pathetic.

No, that would be as stupid as claiming that Israel isn't one.

Your special standards were thus exposed. You ask yourself "is this Jewish?" and then make an opinion. Pathetic Jew hatred.

Many already have. Would it change any opinions? Probably not.

Why are you dodging the question?
Do you claim the US murders, the US has no right to exist, the US is a theocracy, etc.?
Do you claim Germany does? The UK? Or is it the world's only Jewish state that your life becomes painful if you are acknowledging the right to exist of?

There's been many "accidents". They never accidentally rocket attack their own people so, at some point, it begins to feel less accidental. Why do you have such a problem admitting that Israel uses violence and has, if we were counting, produced waaaay more dead arabs than the dreaded terrorists and rock throwing juveniles have produced dead jews? Your denial problem is worth mentioning because there is a huge imbalance of dead children. Furthermore, the Jews have not been forced to live in refugee camps by the tens of thousands. They don't have to worry that their apartments will be turned to rubble while they sleep because some Jihadi ass hat might be there.

This comment is too stupid, I can't even begin to understand the brain functions that were used to get to this level of absurdity. "They never accidentally rocket attack their own people" what? Israel doesn't use rockets on Gaza first of all, secondly Gaza is in Gaza Israel doesn't have to strike Tel Aviv while aiming for Gaza this is ridiculously and inhumanly stupid. Holy **** the amount of sheer stupidity exposed when one discusses a subject he has zero (and in your case it's not an exaggeration, absolute zero) knowledge on purely out of emotions of racism and blind hatred for those who are different than him.

Actually, I didn't call for it to stop existing. That's the most retarded interpretation one could take of my words. I called into question whether it was begun justly or whether it remains a place where justice is more than a seven letter word.

You denied its right to exist while not doing the same with any other country, you went further to deny the historical claim. That's quite awful.

No, it's your arab hatred that is at play here.

Uh-huh. When you have nothing, use projection.

I'm being confronted because the best defense is a good offense and you don't want to discuss the fact that there is no moral standard among those who attack stone throwers with helicopters. How it must hurt you to know what suffering your gods create in this world...through you.

You're being confronted because you're a racist and it's fairly simple stuff, hardly the first racist around these boards.

 

[Gina]

Moderator's Warning:

This thread is closed for review.