Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - UN anti-blasphemy measures have sinister goals, observers say

flylock shox · 03-01-2009, 05:17 AM

Yowzers.

What is it about Israeli-Palestinian conflict that manages to get people so heated? It's crazy. I think another cease-fire might be in order.

But, since this thread has been hopelessly derailed, and I'm about 7 beers deep and not nearly sleepy enough to go to bed, perhaps I'll weigh in.

I think it's important to separate criticism of Israel (i.e. the actions of the state) from criticism of Jews, Judaism, etc. It's far too easy to dismiss valid criticism as being "antisemitic" when it is, in fact, nothing of the kind. In addition, a lot of harsh criticism of Israeli policies with respect to the Palestinians has, in fact, come from Jewish commentators, some of whom have been branded with the label "self-hating Jews." Attempts to brand anyone who criticizes Israel as either "antisemitic" or, in the case of Jewish critics, "self-hating Jews" actually falls withing the OT of this thread: an attempt to curtail freedom of speech. It is a means of suppressing valid arguments by attaching undeserved stigma to the makers of the arguments.

The second point I'd like to make is in respect of how poor a medium the internet is for conducting such a debate. I think intentions are often misconstrued, and there is a tendency for people to expect significant points to be supported or documented by some e-source, which ultimately leads to ex-post-facto link-searching by those seeking to find internet sources to support the points they were hoping to make. I suspect this was the case for Longsuffering, who could have simply stated his (her?) opinions on Conservative government policies, but tried to provide a foundation for those opinions using internet links which (apparently) turned out to be something other than what was expected.

I think we'd all agree that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is less than optimal, that it would be great if both sides could live in peace without the sorrowful events that have characterized their relationship for so many years, and that the region in which they exist would benefit enormously from a compromise between both sides. There is blame to go around for the current state of affairs, and various observers would divide that blame in various ways. But debating over how to divide blame is about as useful as debating whether creating the state of Israel was a good idea in the first place: it just doesn't matter, the situation exists, and time would be better spent on how to resolve the conflict so both sides, regardless of which side one feels is "right," can move forward, progress, and improve the quality of life for their citizens. Neither side can "win." Either both will win, or both will lose. Their fates are tied together.

03-01-2009, 05:17 AM	#58
flylock shox 1 millionth post winnar! Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Now world wide! Exp:	Yowzers. What is it about Israeli-Palestinian conflict that manages to get people so heated? It's crazy. I think another cease-fire might be in order. But, since this thread has been hopelessly derailed, and I'm about 7 beers deep and not nearly sleepy enough to go to bed, perhaps I'll weigh in. I think it's important to separate criticism of Israel (i.e. the actions of the state) from criticism of Jews, Judaism, etc. It's far too easy to dismiss valid criticism as being "antisemitic" when it is, in fact, nothing of the kind. In addition, a lot of harsh criticism of Israeli policies with respect to the Palestinians has, in fact, come from Jewish commentators, some of whom have been branded with the label "self-hating Jews." Attempts to brand anyone who criticizes Israel as either "antisemitic" or, in the case of Jewish critics, "self-hating Jews" actually falls withing the OT of this thread: an attempt to curtail freedom of speech. It is a means of suppressing valid arguments by attaching undeserved stigma to the makers of the arguments. The second point I'd like to make is in respect of how poor a medium the internet is for conducting such a debate. I think intentions are often misconstrued, and there is a tendency for people to expect significant points to be supported or documented by some e-source, which ultimately leads to ex-post-facto link-searching by those seeking to find internet sources to support the points they were hoping to make. I suspect this was the case for Longsuffering, who could have simply stated his (her?) opinions on Conservative government policies, but tried to provide a foundation for those opinions using internet links which (apparently) turned out to be something other than what was expected. I think we'd all agree that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is less than optimal, that it would be great if both sides could live in peace without the sorrowful events that have characterized their relationship for so many years, and that the region in which they exist would benefit enormously from a compromise between both sides. There is blame to go around for the current state of affairs, and various observers would divide that blame in various ways. But debating over how to divide blame is about as useful as debating whether creating the state of Israel was a good idea in the first place: it just doesn't matter, the situation exists, and time would be better spent on how to resolve the conflict so both sides, regardless of which side one feels is "right," can move forward, progress, and improve the quality of life for their citizens. Neither side can "win." Either both will win, or both will lose. Their fates are tied together.