What's remarkable about Israel is how it manages to maintain a strong democracy and freedom of speech even though it's the target of unrelenting belligerence from its neighbours and from terrorist organizations within the country. There are unquestionably mainstream and popular voices in Israel that condemn the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories.
In fact, the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. (and American Jews in general) are more hawkish than Israelis themselves. It's easy to be inflexibly hardline from the safety of 7000 miles away.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
What's remarkable about Israel is how it manages to maintain a strong democracy and freedom of speech even though it's the target of unrelenting belligerence from its neighbours and from terrorist organizations within the country. There are unquestionably mainstream and popular voices in Israel that condemn the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories.
In fact, the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. (and American Jews in general) are more hawkish than Israelis themselves. It's easy to be inflexibly hardline from the safety of 7000 miles away.
The lobby - yes - but the gap is growing the other way actually: Israel's public has become increasingly right-wing over the last fifteen years since the second intifada, and American Jews have polled lower in their support for and identification with Israel than at any time previously, especially with respect to some of the more controversial policies like settlements. There was a very large divergence after the unfortunate events in Gaza in 2009 especially (Operation Cast Lead). It's a real threat to Israel's identity and future.
I didn't ask you to reiterate what you think others should be doing. I asked whether you walk your talk. And I think you gave me your answer.
You really make no sense. I suggested a good idea, and you somehow twist things around to attack me. You could have built upon my idea, but instead made things worse. You see where this is going?
I have been to numerous protests and I criticize any violent rhetoric or lies.
Instead of attacking me with your words, why don't you post my words and debate what I have said? You know you won't.
What's remarkable about Israel is how it manages to maintain a strong democracy and freedom of speech even though it's the target of unrelenting belligerence from its neighbours and from terrorist organizations within the country. There are unquestionably mainstream and popular voices in Israel that condemn the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories.
In fact, the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. (and American Jews in general) are more hawkish than Israelis themselves. It's easy to be inflexibly hardline from the safety of 7000 miles away.
What is even more amazing is the same belligerence against Israel is used against their own populations. Yet you don't find many critics of Israel's neighbours, instead you find elaborate rationality for why they do that. This massive double standard is easily 'excused' by several posters. Despite Muslim freedoms in Israel being far greater (equal to Canada) than Israel's neighbours, just a few posts earlier Israel was accused of being an apartheid state.
At least the last few posts have included some actual discussion - yet do you notice how what is being debated is never the slanderous accusations against Israel?
The lobby - yes - but the gap is growing the other way actually: Israel's public has become increasingly right-wing over the last fifteen years since the second intifada, and American Jews have polled lower in their support for and identification with Israel than at any time previously, especially with respect to some of the more controversial policies like settlements. There was a very large divergence after the unfortunate events in Gaza in 2009 especially (Operation Cast Lead). It's a real threat to Israel's identity and future.
Actually the left and centre made huge gains in the last election. Right wing parties have been in power since about 2001. The right wing is now barely ahead of the left. Likud, who is the ruling party, gained more seats in the last election, but they are actually are actually considered a centre right party. Many of the seats they gained were at the expense of more right wing seats.
Overall there is a shift in Israeli politics towards the left. The Yesh Atid party, which is based on secularism is expected to challenge for government in the next general election.
You really make no sense. I suggested a good idea, and you somehow twist things around to attack me. You could have built upon my idea, but instead made things worse. You see where this is going?
I have been to numerous protests and I criticize any violent rhetoric or lies.
Instead of attacking me with your words, why don't you post my words and debate what I have said? You know you won't.
Hard to build upon a broken foundation.
What is your idea, exactly? Is it to imply that everyday Muslims are complicit in the actions of radicals because they don't counter protest an anti-Israeli protest?
Not sure where you're getting this often get attacked business from. Benny Morris is a professor at a large university. He freely publishes his books. Israel has total freedom of speech.
You're also taking quotes from his books out of context.
I was referring to Henry Siegman the originator of the comments. Here is the entire interview, perhaps you can tell me where he takes Morris out of context.
I was referring to Henry Siegman the originator of the comments. Here is the entire interview, perhaps you can tell me where he takes Morris out of context.
If you actually read through Morris's books, he spends a lot of time detailing acts committed by both sides. He's one of the "new historians" that look at the issues in shades of grey, as opposed to one side being right or wrong.
This is particularly true of the 1949 war, where you had a total breakdown of law and order and gangs of militias running wild on both sides. However, it's very easy to just read portions of Morris' works (as he outlines atrocities committed by both sides) and conclude that the conflict was the result of just one side. So, while pointing out Jewish/Israeli atrocities and aggression, unless you include the portions where Morris refers to Arab atrocities and aggression, you would be taking Morris out of context. Morris has also revised several of his opinions through the years. Once again, it's very easy to refer to or cherry pick quotes out of his earlier works, without acknowledging that his opinions have changed.
For example, he blames the failure of peace process on Israeli leaders who are not committed to giving up land. But then he also blames it on Palestinians and states they have a deep seeded hatred of Israelis and will never accept a Jewish state. He stated that suicide bombing express the "deep will" of the Palestinian people as a whole and that the Palestinian people need to be physically contained and potentially removed in the future.
Quote:
If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential....Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified.[5]
Hardly the words of someone as critical of Israel as you state, but it's easy to just cherry pick his passages and present them out of context.
I'm also not sure what the purpose of you pointing out this video was. I was responding to the argument that speech against Israel was limited. You then show me a video openly discussing the issues...thanks I guess?
The comments I included were from Henry Siegman, they were his words not Morris'. It was part of a larger discussion (contained in the video) where Siegman was responding to a question about violence used to implement policies.
If you watch the interview you would understand the context Siegman was speaking in.
What is your idea, exactly? Is it to imply that everyday Muslims are complicit in the actions of radicals because they don't counter protest an anti-Israeli protest?
You can call it an anti-Israel protest - but when the chants from the protest is that they want to cleanse the lands of Jews (from the river to the sea), and they wave terrorist group flags, then I call it something different.
There is obvious friction between different groups and how to handle terrorism. England is seeing anger surrounding Islamic extremism, there is anger surrounding immigration from Muslim nations and anger about the perceived abuse of freedom of speech which allows some extremist groups to call for even more violence.
I raised the subject of high hatred/racism in many countries that we (Canada) and other western countries are receiving immigrants from and questioned how we should absolutely talk about that. There were some claims (based on nothing as far as I could tell) that the people that immigrate are not hateful or racist.
So the question was what could be done about the problems, and there were a few ideas put out there. There was an opportunity in the Muslim community to put their foot down against continuing this cycle of hatred (localized or from immigration), and Al Quds day seemed like a really good place for the assorted communities to work together and simply stop accepting the hate.
So should everyday Muslims counter protest the hatred? I think the answer is yes. The answer is yes to all of us. Yet, we have an unfortunate trend towards enabling this continued cycle of hatred all over the map.