Antisemitism today

[Sunstone]

There are no "Palestinians" so your sympathies begin based on a flawed understanding.

No doubt your word on that is just as admirably trustworthy as a Toyota salesman talking about a Ford car. Yeah, I was born yesterday.

 

[rosends]

No doubt your word on that is just as admirably trustworthy as a Toyota salesman talking about a Ford car. Yeah, I was born yesterday.

Well, since there has never been a country called "Palestine" then the chance of finding someone who is a Palestinian is, um, small.

Prior to 1948 the mandated area was known (on the whole) as Palestine (and it included Jordan as well). The people who were "Palestinians" were the Jews of the region.The Palestine Post was the Jewish newspaper. The coins and stamps all had "The Land of Israel" (or the abbreviation for it) written on them. Do you refer to people from Canada as "North Americans"?

So buy a car or don't. Facts and history are what they are.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, since there has never been a country called "Palestine" then the chance of finding someone who is a Palestinian is, um, small.

Sure. And there's never been a country called "Cajun", so the chance of finding someone who is a Cajun is, um, small.

Rosends, you've made some excellent and informative posts in this thread that I've found useful and worth listening to. I thank you for those. But when you regurgitate propaganda that apparently you haven't even made a reasonable effort to critically examine, you dirty yourself.

 

[Kirran]

Yes. Can a communist be an American citizen? How about an anarchist? Yes, but that doesn't mean that therefore America should change its political identity. A nation is not defined by the diverse identities of every single citizen, is it? Would you rather Israeli citizenship is not conferred on non-Jews? The Jewish status exists regardless of the religious choice of any of its members because that's what the state IS.

An interesting question. But I don't think it's a fair analogy. You yourself have experienced discrimination based on living in a country which asserts itself as Christian, partly because of its Christian majority. Why would you wish to replicate this situation in Israel?

Well, I'd rather Israel was just Israel, rather than including this whole Jewish identity thing.

Well, no you haven't. You have met Arabs. There are no "Palestinians" so your sympathies begin based on a flawed understanding. And as to the "driven from their homeland" there are many ways to respond to that. One is to point out the actual truth of why many people left. Another is to point out that the state was created by international mandate. Another is that the Jewish population didn't just materialize and force everyone out. But these are topics for another day.

They refer to themselves as Palestinian, identify as Palestinian, owe loyalty to a region they refer to as Palestine, speak a dialect of Arabic referred to as Palestinian Arabic. I believe in Palestinians.

Well, let's not get sidetracked over there then. We'll agree to disagree on that point?

I am asking if you are singling Israel out because I have yet to see parallel threads addressing other inequalities and the inequalities people raise regarding Israel are much more pronounced elsewhere.

If those threads were up, I'd probably participate. Depending on if I felt I could contribute.

I have heard from non-Jews in Israel who don't agree with you. I don't know if you speak with authority when you project how you might feel on how they DO feel.

I guess I'm extrapolating based on how non-Christians living in Christian countries, and so forth, feel. I'm not saying such feelings are universal, but I do think they are encouraged by the explicitly Jewish nature of Israel as a state.

This is a gross error, simply put. If I said to you "Israelis are being pushed from their homes, bombed and murdered" it would actually be more accurate.

Do you claim that there aren't Arabs within the area in question being bombed, being slaughtered, and driven from their homes? Because I personally know people matching such descriptions. Or are you refuting my use of the word 'Palestinian'?

which is why I didn't say Arab rule. The two options are that Judaism is a driving creative and defining/guiding force or it isn't. Therefore the choices are "Jewish homeland" or "not".

I support the redefinition of Israel as an Israeli state. Not a Jewish state. Jews would be involved in government in proportion to their population, and so would be fairly represented.

Your moral reaction would be better developed if it was steeped in some other narrative rather than one that has presented that notion of "colonial Israel" to you. I don't know what sources you use, but I can refer you to a raft of them (all fully attributed) which paint quite a different picture.

Well, I'm not saying that Hamas and Fetah are blameless. Of course, I'm always welcome to learn more about all this. So if you send me those sources, I'll have a look.

Part of my perspective on this comes from my mother, who worked on justice development in the West Bank and in Gaza for many years. She has seen, firsthand, the humiliation and abuse inflicted upon the people I refer to as Palestinians by the State of Israel's government, and those it is using.

why the exception?

Because the Vatican exists as a sovereign entity so as to stop Italy from having the privilege of hosting the Holy See, and make it more impartial. It is occupied only by clergy, the Swiss Guard etc.

I don't. Should I?

No, I don't think you should personally. I just wanted to see if anybody here was conflating my views on the State of Israel with anti-Semitism.

 

[rosends]

Sure. And there's never been a country called "Cajun", so the chance of finding someone who is a Cajun is, um, small.

Rosends, you've made some excellent and informative posts in this thread that I've found useful and worth listening to. I thank you for those. But when you regurgitate propaganda that apparently you haven't even made a reasonable effort to critically examine, you dirty yourself.

So you are saying that there is a unique and identifiable heritage and history of people called "Palestinians" which parallels the Cajun? I can provide myriad quotes from Arabs themselves who would argue this point. I am not speaking from some sort of personal point of view, but from one based in the history of the region and from the statements of the people who live and lived there historically. I will be away until Sunday, but if you'd like some videos of Arabs who reject your statement, I can get that for you.

In the meanwhile, please provide the documentation that supports the contention that there is a unified and identifiable "Palestinian" people with a unique culture and history. Telling me I haven't critically examined that which I have been studying for 15 years is not a particularly useful accusation to make.

 

[Kirran]

I'm sure there are people who claim that there are no such thing as Jews, because their bloodlines are varied, their religious practices vary and their cultures are often so divergent. Nevertheless, this is an absurd statement, because these people all identify as Jews.

Similarly with Palestinians. There are millions of people who identify as Palestinian, largely speak a similar dialect of Arabic and identify with the idea of Palestine. So how are you qualified to say that their national identity doesn't exist? This is equally absurd.

 

[Augustus]

Well, no you haven't. You have met Arabs. There are no "Palestinians" so your sympathies begin based on a flawed understanding

People from a region known to many as Palestine, can correctly identify themselves as Palestinians. Just as people from the Basque region of Southern France/Northern Spain can correctly identify themselves as Basques. Dismissing them simply as 'Arabs' is a cheap rhetorical trick to obscure their historical ties to the Southern Levant.

[Edit: Didn't realise Kirran posted exactly the same point whilst I was writing this]

 

[Nietzsche]

What exactly do you mean "colonise"? Do you mean "live in"? Are you saying that a country doesn't have the right to live places?

Just like the French had the "right" to live in Algeria, and the British had the "right" to live in India, or the Spanish had the "right" to live in Mesoamerica.

Yeah yeah it's basically the worst thing since forever that it said "Jewish, Arab, Druze or Circassian" on the ID card.
Can you even produce some evidence that it lead to "second-class citizenship"?

Funnily enough it seems that it was deleted because the Haredim got butthurt because non-Orthodox Jews were listed as Jews.

Yes. It was removed because of the worst portion of Israelis(the ultra-Orthodox) didn't think the exclusivist policy wasn't exclusive enough. However, it is becoming clear that you're only interested in denying the very real abuses, that anyone with a two-minute Google search could find, and then when presented with it justifying it with poorly researched quasi-history as if that means anything in the present day.

I like you. I want to continue liking you, so I'm done with this thread.

How do you colonise your own Capital? But I get it, the City was divided for 19 years out of it 4 thousand years of history, that's obviously the way to go.
Also I am implying nothing, you are the one who wants to talk about Colonisation.
Also mentioning the Golan Heights is funny.

It's only "their capital" because they took it and then ignored the treaties they signed saying that they would leave the Eastern Half to the Palestinians.

How many years did it take for the US to ensure equal rights in terms of voting for all? What about women's suffrage in England? It took New Zealand 53 years. Israel's speed of growth seems rather reasonable.

If Israel had what amounts to "cultural baggage" dating back a few hundred years, and a state-system it had to work within equally as old(hundreds of years), this might be a legitimate point. But it's not. It was founded in 1948 by a people who knew what oppression was, and they still took the land from those who were there before them.

 

[rosends]

I'm sure there are people who claim that there are no such thing as Jews, because their bloodlines are varied, their religious practices vary and their cultures are often so divergent. Nevertheless, this is an absurd statement, because these people all identify as Jews.

Similarly with Palestinians. There are millions of people who identify as Palestinian, largely speak a similar dialect of Arabic and identify with the idea of Palestine. So how are you qualified to say that their national identity doesn't exist? This is equally absurd.

So they have a national identity without being a nation or ever having been a nation. I see.

Jews have a religious identity as determined by religious law. And many people try to say that there are no Jews, or that others are Jews, or that people whose lineage doesn't conform to Jewish law are Jews. But Jews aren't claiming nationhood and representation on the political stage as a nation. Israel is, and unless you want to say that "Israel doesn't exist" you don't have a parallel. There is a subdialect of English spoken by people from South Boston. They don't claim to be a distinct group or a nation of their own.

 

[Sunstone]

So you are saying that there is a unique and identifiable heritage and history of people called "Palestinians" which parallels the Cajun? I can provide myriad quotes from Arabs themselves who would argue this point. I am not speaking from some sort of personal point of view, but from one based in the history of the region and from the statements of the people who live and lived there historically. I will be away until Sunday, but if you'd like some videos of Arabs who reject your statement, I can get that for you.

In the meanwhile, please provide the documentation that supports the contention that there is a unified and identifiable "Palestinian" people with a unique culture and history. Telling me I haven't critically examined that which I have been studying for 15 years is not a particularly useful accusation to make.

Save your breath. Just ask yourself who gets to decide when and under what circumstances people can legitimately identify themselves as a group? You would set the bar at "a unique culture and history". By what objective law of nature is that the only criteria that could be applied here? In fact, there is no such law. So, why must Palestinians jump through your hurdles, anyway, before they can call themselves "Palestinians"? Isn't enough that a group self-identifies as a group?

Besides, even if we granted your silly argument that Palestinians do not exist, that would fail to imply any logical reason why Palestinians could not exist, or could never exist. Even by the ridiculously sloppy reasoning of your stubbornly held position, Palestinians could be created, just as Israelis were once created, by the creation of a Palestinian state. So I don't even find intellectual utility in your propaganda.

I honestly admire your fifteen years of study, but it doesn't seem to me at all evident that you spent much of it on examining this particular problem: Hence, I don't think your mentioning it in this context is very relevant.

 

[Kirran]

So they have a national identity without being a nation or ever having been a nation. I see.

Jews have a religious identity as determined by religious law. And many people try to say that there are no Jews, or that others are Jews, or that people whose lineage doesn't conform to Jewish law are Jews. But Jews aren't claiming nationhood and representation on the political stage as a nation. Israel is, and unless you want to say that "Israel doesn't exist" you don't have a parallel. There is a subdialect of English spoken by people from South Boston. They don't claim to be a distinct group or a nation of their own.

I don't think any points you can make here mean anything in the face of the fact that Palestinians identify as Palestinians.

 

[rosends]

People from a region known to many as Palestine, can correctly identify themselves as Palestinians. Just as people from the Basque region of Southern France/Northern Spain can correctly identify themselves as Basques. Dismissing them simply as 'Arabs' is a cheap rhetorical trick to obscure their historical ties to the Southern Levant.

[Edit: Didn't realise Kirran posted exactly the same point whilst I was writing this]

The Basques have a unique language and a heritage/history which makes them distinct. Arabs who moved into the area do not. They would agree that they come from other Arab lands.

Here's a quick quote:
March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein.

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism."

There are plenty more.

 

[rosends]

Just like the French had the "right" to live in Algeria, and the British had the "right" to live in India, or the Spanish had the "right" to live in Mesoamerica.

So Jews do not have the "right" to live in their own country. Oh, it isn't there? To whom does it belong? TO the English? They partitioned it after taking it from the Ottomans. What about the Mamelukes? The Greeks?

If Israel had what amounts to "cultural baggage" dating back a few hundred years, and a state-system it had to work within equally as old(hundreds of years), this might be a legitimate point. But it's not. It was founded in 1948 by a people who knew what oppression was, and they still took the land from those who were there before them.

Yeah, what did the American colonists know of oppression when they made the United States?

 

[gsa]

Save your breath. Just ask yourself who gets to decide when and under what circumstances people can legitimately identify themselves as a group? You would set the bar at "a unique culture and history". By what objective law of nature is that the only criteria that could be applied here? In fact, there is no such law. So, why must Palestinians jump through your hurdles, anyway, before they can call themselves "Palestinians"? Isn't enough that a group self-identifies as a group?

Besides, even if we granted your silly argument that Palestinians do not exist, that would fail to imply any logical reason why Palestinians could not exist, or could never exist. Even by the ridiculously sloppy reasoning of your stubbornly held position, Palestinians could be created, just as Israelis were once created, by the creation of a Palestinian state. So I don't even find intellectual utility in your propaganda.

I honestly admire your fifteen years of study, but it doesn't seem to me at all evident that you spent much of it on examining this particular problem: Hence, I don't think your mentioning it in this context is very relevant.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that virtually all ethnic and national categories are dynamic, and that the idea of an ethnic or national community is an imagined one. The best resource on the development of Palestinian national consciousness that I have found is Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness, by Rashid Khalidi. He shows how it is basically wound up with Zionism before and after the period of World Wars.

 

[rosends]

Save your breath. Just ask yourself who gets to decide when and under what circumstances people can legitimately identify themselves as a group? You would set the bar at "a unique culture and history". By what objective law of nature is that the only criteria that could be applied here? In fact, there is no such law. So, why must Palestinians jump through your hurdles, anyway, before they can call themselves "Palestinians"? Isn't enough that a group self-identifies as a group?

Besides, even if we granted your silly argument that Palestinians do not exist, that would fail to imply any logical reason why Palestinians could not exist, or could never exist. Even by the ridiculously sloppy reasoning of your stubbornly held position, Palestinians could be created, just as Israelis were once created, by the creation of a Palestinian state. So I don't even find intellectual utility in your propaganda.

I honestly admire your fifteen years of study, but it doesn't seem to me at all evident that you spent much of it on examining this particular problem: Hence, I don't think your mentioning it in this context is very relevant.

Yes, the could exist. In fact, with the creation of the stateless entity of "paelstine" (and the future plans for a state) there is a move to establish a unique people who go by that term. But the intellectually lazy and linguistically sloppy tendency to apply that term where it simply doesn't exist is ridiculous. What isn't evident to you is study that would have led me to the position you already hold. The learning should be evident in my ability to produce documentation and support for my contentions so that I can't be told that I have not applied any critical thinking to my position, an accusation that was actually made.

 

[Kirran]

So Jews do not have the "right" to live in their own country. Oh, it isn't there? To whom does it belong? TO the English? They partitioned it after taking it from the Ottomans. What about the Mamelukes? The Greeks?

I support the right of Afrikaners to live in South Africa. But this doesn't mean I would have supported their ancestors colonisation of South Africa at the expense of the native peoples. Similarly, I support the right of Israelis to live in Israel. But I don't support their perpetrating violence against the Palestinians to do so.

I continue to use the term Palestinian, as, as I say, many people from that region call themselves Palestinians. That's all that's required for an ethnic or national identity.

 

[Sunstone]

But the intellectually lazy and linguistically sloppy tendency to apply that term where it simply doesn't exist is ridiculous.

And where it "doesn't exist" is defined by you, Mr. Toyota salesman?

 

[rosends]

I don't think any points you can make here mean anything in the face of the fact that Palestinians identify as Palestinians.

And I don't think that arbitrary self identification rises to the level of nationhood. Go figure.

 

[rosends]

And where it "doesn't exist" is defined by you, Mr. Toyota salesman?

Well, what definition for nation would you mean to use? Maybe a distinct history? None. Maybe a unique heritage? None. Maybe a land with a capital and some sort of leadership? None. Instead of simply creating a nation by your own personal fiat, you could provide some standards which would allow for the United State to be a nation but New England not to be, no matter what New Englanders claim.

 

[gsa]

And I don't think that arbitrary self identification rises to the level of nationhood. Go figure.

What makes Israelis a nation?