Based on the climate of this thread I feel the need to add this little disclaimer:
I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated with white supremacists or neo-nazi's, nor have I ever held up a nazi flag, even though I've been around historically significant ones and given some presentations involving their iconography.
That being said:
That guy should absolutely have the right to hold up that flag and not be physically accosted for it.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Based on the climate of this thread I feel the need to add this little disclaimer:
I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated with white supremacists or neo-nazi's, nor have I ever held up a nazi flag, even though I've been around historically significant ones and given some presentations involving their iconography.
That being said:
That guy should absolutely have the right to hold up that flag and not be physically accosted for it.
I disagree on part one of your last statement and agree with the second part.
Out of curiosity, and to be very clear I'm not purposely being obtuse or anything like that (since I know that accusation seems to fly once in a while), but:
Can someone explain to me why comparing the Israeli government to a nazi regime is inciting hate or hate speech?
I personally think the comparison is a little ridiculous, as despite their many violations of humanitarian law and questionable tactics, Israel certainly isn't that bad. I can see the general spirit of the comparison though, with some Palestinians feeling like they're the victims of genocide.
I could see him being guilty of disturbing the peace as it's clearly meant to get a reaction, I just don't get the hate speech part.
I disagree on part one of your last statement and agree with the second part.
The part one is unfortunately necessary because even when a poster is defending the right to free speech, other posters in discussion with them will throw in items like:
"Or is it just in this case that you're ok with equating Israel with Nazi's?"
Nothing like that was even hinted at, yet such thuggish comparisons are pulled out. So yeah, I get Flash's unfortunate preamble.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
The part one is unfortunately necessary because even when a poster is defending the right to free speech, other posters in discussion with them will throw in items like:
"Or is it just in this case that you're ok with equating Israel with Nazi's?"
Nothing like that was even hinted at, yet such thuggish comparisons are pulled out. So yeah, I get Flash's unfortunate preamble.
I think he's saying he disagrees that the guy should have the right to hold up that flag, but agrees he should have the right not to be physically accosted for it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flash Walken For This Useful Post:
Of course there is a difference but kicking someone in the head whithrowingl. they are down is assault. And that guy did attack the guy first and then kicked him in the head. Wasn't a mutual fight, he was defending himself. Freedom of speech only applies to pro-Israel folks I guess.
Ummm...no.
We have no evidence of who attacked first. The video shows two young men with fists up both throwing punches. We have a photo of the Palestinian supporter landing a clean punch.
The Palestinian supporters friend is holding back interveners but making no attempt to stop the fight. If my friend got jumped I'd be pulling the other guy off, not creating a buffer zone to allow the fight to continue.
The Israeli supporter should have stopped a second earlier. If you've ever seen a fist fight that almost always happens though, as adrenaline is flowing.. And the guy wasn't "down". He was on one knee and capable of getting up. There's no rule in a fight that when a guy goes down you have to let him up so he can hit you again.
This was not a case of a person laying a massive beating to a guy who was unconscious on the ground.
This was clearly two young adults voluntarily entering into a fist fight. Not assault.
We have no evidence of who attacked first. The video shows two young men with fists up both throwing punches. We have a photo of the Palestinian supporter landing a clean punch.
The Palestinian supporters friend is holding back interveners but making no attempt to stop the fight. If my friend got jumped I'd be pulling the other guy off, not creating a buffer zone to allow the fight to continue.
The Israeli supporter should have stopped a second earlier. If you've ever seen a fist fight that almost always happens though, as adrenaline is flowing.. And the guy wasn't "down". He was on one knee and capable of getting up. There's no rule in a fight that when a guy goes down you have to let him up so he can hit you again.
This was not a case of a person laying a massive beating to a guy who was unconscious on the ground.
This was clearly two young adults voluntarily entering into a fist fight. Not assault.
Well I don't know if I would go as far as calling them adults...
Chris Gunness @ChrisGunness · 7h
UNRWA condemns in the strongest possible terms this serious violation of international law by Israeli forces
Chris Gunness @ChrisGunness · 7h
Precise location of Jabalia Elementary Girls School #Gaza & that it housed 3,000 displaced was communicated to Israeli army 17 times
Chris Gunness @ChrisGunness · 8h
These are people who were instructed to leave their homes by the Israeli army
We have no evidence of who attacked first. The video shows two young men with fists up both throwing punches. We have a photo of the Palestinian supporter landing a clean punch.
The Palestinian supporters friend is holding back interveners but making no attempt to stop the fight. If my friend got jumped I'd be pulling the other guy off, not creating a buffer zone to allow the fight to continue.
The Israeli supporter should have stopped a second earlier. If you've ever seen a fist fight that almost always happens though, as adrenaline is flowing.. And the guy wasn't "down". He was on one knee and capable of getting up. There's no rule in a fight that when a guy goes down you have to let him up so he can hit you again.
This was not a case of a person laying a massive beating to a guy who was unconscious on the ground.
This was clearly two young adults voluntarily entering into a fist fight. Not assault.
Yeah, ok
The attacker was part of the JDL, a group who has been called a right wing terrorist group by the U.S. Members of the group planned to bomb a mosque in California.
Such angels these guys are.
Freedom of speech ladies and gentlemen only applies to Pro-Israelis.
Here is a pro-Palestinian getting spit on but of course nobody like Ian Robinson or Ezra Levant will mention it or write an article about the Jews not respecting freedom of speech and how they should go back to their own country.
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:
I find these tit-for-tat arguments about violence at the Canadian rallies ridiculous.
The thinly-veiled message from supporters of both sides seems to be that the negative/violent actions at these rallies can illuminate some mysterious deep flaw of the opposition and thus opposition's viewpoint.
It's disingenuous and completely irrelevant for the actual issues of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
Hannity is appalling, I'm shocked people fall for that garbage.
He's on his way out. Ratings are down and he got bumped to 10PM for Megyn Kelly's new show. Seems like he's going for the controversy generates ratings ploy (except Fox News's audience is locked in as a certain subset of the population anyways, with no room for growth)
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
[QUOTE=Chill Cosby;4865034]
Can someone explain to me why comparing the Israeli government to a nazi regime is inciting hate or hate speech?
I personally think the comparison is a little ridiculous, as despite their many violations of humanitarian law and questionable tactics, Israel certainly isn't that bad. I can see the general spirit of the comparison though, with some Palestinians feeling like they're the victims of genocide.
QUOTE]
The Nazis had a government program to murder millions of people and were successful in murdering millions of Jews and other people, based exclusively on their religion/ethnicity/etc. The Nazis are well known for genocide.
If Israel is committing genocide, what about the drug war in Mexico or what is going on in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc?
Israel absolutely has attacked Hamas and there are civilian deaths - this is no different than battles the US and Canadian military have engaged in this decade. It is surpising what Israel does to limit civilian deaths - not always - but frequently enough and according to posts in this thread, perhaps more than any other military before.
Calling Israel Nazis or that they are committing genocide or is an apartheid nation is in my opinion hate speech. It is hateful rhetoric that is not aimed at engaging in reasonable debate and is only used to incite violence or hatred towards a group.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nage Waza For This Useful Post:
Out of curiosity, and to be very clear I'm not purposely being obtuse or anything like that (since I know that accusation seems to fly once in a while), but:
Can someone explain to me why comparing the Israeli government to a nazi regime is inciting hate or hate speech?
I personally think the comparison is a little ridiculous, as despite their many violations of humanitarian law and questionable tactics, Israel certainly isn't that bad. I can see the general spirit of the comparison though, with some Palestinians feeling like they're the victims of genocide.
I could see him being guilty of disturbing the peace as it's clearly meant to get a reaction, I just don't get the hate speech part.
I can see where one would draw comparisons between the two. For all intents and purposes, Palestinians feel like they don't have the same access to services as their Israeli counterparts strictly because of their race. No matter which way you cut it, that's called racism and racism was one of the defining tenets of nazism. Also the whole settlement issue is reminiscent to Hitler's liebensraum idea, although they're not exactly the same. To me that's where the comparisons stop though. Israel hasn't committed genocide, but the fear is, if given time, this situation can escalate to genocide.
I do think the apartheid South Africa comparisons are more accurate however.
The Following User Says Thank You to _Q_ For This Useful Post:
If Israel is committing genocide, what about the drug war in Mexico or what is going on in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc?
Israel absolutely has attacked Hamas and there are civilian deaths - this is no different than battles the US and Canadian military have engaged in this decade. It is surpising what Israel does to limit civilian deaths - not always - but frequently enough and according to posts in this thread, perhaps more than any other military before.
Calling Israel Nazis or that they are committing genocide or is an apartheid nation is in my opinion hate speech. It is hateful rhetoric that is not aimed at engaging in reasonable debate and is only used to incite violence or hatred towards a group.
Firstly, I agree with placing Israel's role in this conflict in the same spectrum as the Mexican Drug War, Syria, Iraq, etc. I would argue something like the Mexican drug war is certainly worse for civilians and showcases an inherently awful government, but it doesn't fit any definition of genocide I'm aware of, just careless action against citizens.
I think the argument COULD be made for genocide in this situation, as Israel's targets (or casualties, if you prefer) are of a specific religion and ethnicity. I don't think Israel's effort to protect civilians is relevant, as it could very easily be argued based on the casualties and the lac of effectiveness that their efforts are purely superficial. Not saying that's true, but you can easily see where the argument comes from.
I know you personally have used "hate speech" and "anti-Semitic" a little casually (for my taste) in this thread, so your definition might be a bit looser than mine. I'm still not entirely sure how placing a swastika on a flag incites hatred towards the Israeli people as a whole, it's clearly a political statement based on their government's current actions, but doesn't seem to be based solely on their religion, ethnicity, or nationality. If someone was protesting something Harper was doing, and placed a swastika in place of the maple leaf on our flag, is that hate speech?
I guess that's more what I'm asking, is not whether accusing the Israeli government of being "nazi-esque" is hate speech, but if it is, WHY it is. Saying why it isn't a good comparison doesn't answer that question, I don't think.
The Following User Says Thank You to Chill Cosby For This Useful Post:
Firstly, I agree with placing Israel's role in this conflict in the same spectrum as the Mexican Drug War, Syria, Iraq, etc. I would argue something like the Mexican drug war is certainly worse for civilians and showcases an inherently awful government, but it doesn't fit any definition of genocide I'm aware of, just careless action against citizens.
I think the argument COULD be made for genocide in this situation, as Israel's targets (or casualties, if you prefer) are of a specific religion and ethnicity. I don't think Israel's effort to protect civilians is relevant, as it could very easily be argued based on the casualties and the lac of effectiveness that their efforts are purely superficial. Not saying that's true, but you can easily see where the argument comes from.
I know you personally have used "hate speech" and "anti-Semitic" a little casually (for my taste) in this thread, so your definition might be a bit looser than mine. I'm still not entirely sure how placing a swastika on a flag incites hatred towards the Israeli people as a whole, it's clearly a political statement based on their government's current actions, but doesn't seem to be based solely on their religion, ethnicity, or nationality. If someone was protesting something Harper was doing, and placed a swastika in place of the maple leaf on our flag, is that hate speech?
I guess that's more what I'm asking, is not whether accusing the Israeli government of being "nazi-esque" is hate speech, but if it is, WHY it is. Saying why it isn't a good comparison doesn't answer that question, I don't think.
It's hate speech because like it or not, Israel is a Jewish state, and nazism and judiasm is a no go for speech. There are plenty of examples that protestors could make (Croatia, South Africa etc) to try and express what they believe the Israeli government is doing to Palestinian citizens that makes the same point without bringing up Nazism.
Like it or not it really is a zero tolerance policy with the Jewish people when it comes to Nazism. It is still fresh in so many minds, how close the Jewish people came to be destroyed. My grandfathers village in Poland for example had 2 survivors, him and his brother. Every single other resident died at the hands of the Nazis.
There is plenty of examples to use to express your disdain for Israels policies, you don't need to use nazism to make that point. To do so touches a nerve way to close to the heart of Jewish people still. Whether this is hate speech in your mind doesn't really matter, it's hate speech in the minds of the people you are putting down. Isn't that what really matters when talking about hate speech anyways, the group it effects?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to J epworth For This Useful Post:
I'm sorry but you don't 'get' why the symbol of Nazi Germany, which exterminated at least 6 million Jewish people, is equated with hate? And you wonder if that is just you being obtuse?
Yeah ok...
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
It's hate speech because like it or not, Israel is a Jewish state, and nazism and judiasm is a no go for speech. There are plenty of examples that protestors could make (Croatia, South Africa etc) to try and express what they believe the Israeli government is doing to Palestinian citizens that makes the same point without bringing up Nazism.
Like it or not it really is a zero tolerance policy with the Jewish people when it comes to Nazism. It is still fresh in so many minds, how close the Jewish people came to be destroyed. My grandfathers village in Poland for example had 2 survivors, him and his brother. Every single other resident died at the hands of the Nazis.
There is plenty of examples to use to express your disdain for Israels policies, you don't need to use nazism to make that point. To do so touches a nerve way to close to the heart of Jewish people still. Whether this is hate speech in your mind doesn't really matter, it's hate speech in the minds of the people you are putting down. Isn't that what really matters when talking about hate speech anyways, the group it effects?
I think a lot of people use the Nazi comparison BECAUSE it touches a nerve and BECAUSE it's still fresh in their minds. It's kind of a "hey remember what the Nazis did to you guys? Yeah you aren't being much better. Go ask Grandma how she liked that." I think the point of that is to offend Israelis to the point that they do some introspection and try to figure out why a group of people is comparing them to their all time most hated enemy.
Again, I don't think the comparisons work for the most part, but on a certain level there are similarities.
It's hate speech because like it or not, Israel is a Jewish state, and nazism and judiasm is a no go for speech. There are plenty of examples that protestors could make (Croatia, South Africa etc) to try and express what they believe the Israeli government is doing to Palestinian citizens that makes the same point without bringing up Nazism.
Like it or not it really is a zero tolerance policy with the Jewish people when it comes to Nazism. It is still fresh in so many minds, how close the Jewish people came to be destroyed. My grandfathers village in Poland for example had 2 survivors, him and his brother. Every single other resident died at the hands of the Nazis.
There is plenty of examples to use to express your disdain for Israels policies, you don't need to use nazism to make that point. To do so touches a nerve way to close to the heart of Jewish people still. Whether this is hate speech in your mind doesn't really matter, it's hate speech in the minds of the people you are putting down. Isn't that what really matters when talking about hate speech anyways, the group it effects?
That doesn't seem like the definition of hate speech though:
Quote:
hate speech
noun
1. speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
I get what you're saying in that it's offensive and touches on a sensitive issue, but this is a matter of politics, is it not?
How is accusing the Israeli government of nazism an attack on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation? Hate speech is most certainly occurring in this dispute, but how does criticism of political policy in the harshest way possible constitute hate speech?
Are you saying it's alright to accuse them of many things the nazi's also were guilty of, but not alright to reference nazi's directly because of the sensitive history?
Hate speech, like racism, is an extremely loaded phrase, but it has a pretty understandable definition. It seems like this guy was just being an insensitive dick, and maybe I'm just dumb, but I'm not seeing how it's hate speech in any definable way. Being offended by it doesn't make it hate speech.
If you refer to any other government as a nazi regime, are you just being ridiculous? Or are you actively spreading hate speech?
