Israel lobbying countries to cut funding to Int'l Criminal Court

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

My spouse's mother and her band were forced off their reserve a couple of years ago when the Manitoba gov't decided to flood their reserve in order to protect land further south (read : white people's land)

They still dont have a reserve to return to (which is their treaty right)

I think Aboriginal people in this country feel very different about the moral superiority of Canada than non aboriginal residents do. I sure see why.

I think there are a lot of white people still upset as well that their land was flooded to protect other white peoples land to. I don't think race motivated the decision on what land to flood if you are talking about the red river floods.

As for the treaty rights not being restored I know nothing about that but Canada does have a fairly robust process for land claims currently estblished. Where is it currently at within the court system?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

Firstly Canada forcibly relocated and killed a lot of people.

Secondly Israel does not relocate people unless the courts show they have built buildings illegally. The vast majority of housing demolitions occur in east Jerusalem, which is historically uninhabited and state owned. About 1/3 home demolitions are Jewish homes.

Essentially what's gong on is people are moving into east Jerusalem and building new homes on land they have no claim to. It'd be like me building a house in the middle of Fish Creek Park. Clearly the government would tear it down.

I agree with you. I didn't like where you were going with your argument of well this country USED to do this so they have no moral authority.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

That is why this thread should be locked. Q's post saying " meh, nothing new, just the usual from a garbage pariah state" adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and while not technically anti-semetic is inflammatory and very offensive to many, non-Jews and Jews alike, including myself, a staunch supporter of Israel, but critical when circumstances warrant.

This opinion is not uncommon nor is it anything remotely resembling racism, hate speech or inflammatory.

From Haaretz:

This is how, with our own hands, we turned the problem of the occupation into an issue for the entire Western world, and the Palestinians into the West's proteges: Faced with an occupying power that is simultaneously unresponsive and self-righteous, the West feels moral and political responsibility for the Palestinians' fate, just as in the past, Western public opinion felt deep sympathy for the Jewish state.

This feeling of responsibility has increased in recent years, after it became clear that the Israeli right has no intention of responding to Palestinian demands for freedom and independence. Under the guise of security considerations and the war on terror hides the real, ideological reason: In the right's view, recognizing the equal national rights of the Palestinians means forgoing exclusive Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel. From the point of view of members of the Israeli rejectionist front, recognizing the equality of Jewish and Arab rights on both sides of the Green Line is tantamount to betraying Jewish history.

But since the number of people who are still prepared to buy an argument of this kind is diminishing worldwide, Israel is on a collision course with all our allies and supporters. And at the end of this road, it is liable to become a pariah state.

From the Economist:

Clearly, Europe’s antipathy towards Israel is more than just loud protest. Many Israelis think they can no longer count on public opinion in Europe—and, to a much lesser extent, America—and that where popular sentiment leads, democratic politicians will sooner or later follow. They see the rising number and vehemence of demonstrations against Israel’s wars, and as a result fear “delegitimisation”: the turning of Israel into a pariah state, outside polite international society.

A global poll in and about several countries, conducted for the BBC long before the latest strife in Gaza, reported that negative views of Israel’s influence in the world outweighed positive ones by more than two to one (see chart 1). In aggregate, Americans saw Israel favourably; Europeans did not. But plenty of Americans worry about Israel’s reputation. Barack Obama has fretted about his country’s “limited” ability to manage the “international fallout” were a Palestinian state no longer within reach. Delegitimisation, says Einat Wilf, a former Israeli parliamentarian and one of the authors of a three-year, as-yet-unpublished study of the topic at the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) in Jerusalem, is becoming “a strategic threat”.

From the journal, Foreign Policy, Via The Wall Street Journal:

In a 1977 article in Foreign Policy, the political scientist Richard K. Betts singled out Taiwan, South Africa and Israel as "pariah states" that had run afoul of nuclear-nonproliferation treaties. In more recent years, the label has been applied to such norm-breaking nations as North Korea, Iran, Myanmar, Sudan and Syria.

From Haaretz:

This is the only way to understand why public opinion polls in Israel show consistently overwhelming support for the two-state solution and the evacuation of the settlements, while in practice few Israelis give expression to this when they cast their ballots.

What this shows is that the Israeli voter needs firm support from the outside in order to extract his sane parts from the shelter in which he’s been hiding them for the past half-century or so. Only intervention by the international community can undo the balance of terror that Israelis maintain inside themselves, between knowing what’s good and doing what’s bad.

Only “involuntary treatment” of Israeli rejectionism, executed with sincere concern for the country’s fate, would demonstrate to its citizens that there is no correct way to live an incorrect life, enable them to forgo their megalomania and help them release their sanity from its hiding place.

“He is forced until he says ‘I want to,’” the Gemara says, recognizing the duality of the will and the fact that coercion sometimes helps a person in his struggle against inner factors that otherwise prevent him from realizing his true will.

Those who have Israel’s welfare at heart, and the Jewish lobbies abroad, need to stop listening only to the will of official Israel, which is unrelated to the Israelis’ true will.

Official Israel might stamp its feet and cry “anti-Semites!” or, “by what right?” – but the nation in Israel, whose right hand doesn’t know what its left is doing, is only waiting for genuine help from the outside. Help that will enable us to be healed of the curse of ruling the Palestinian people. Israel is not Russia and it is not Iran, and its citizens will not accept pariah status indefinitely.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by jammies

Can we not just self-moderate and not bring up accusations of people being anti-semites? That's not debate, that's trying to stifle debate. If you can't argue a point without demonizing your opponent, you are a poor debater and probably too emotionally involved in the subject to be at all credible.

Further, you're perpetuating hate by hating, whether or not the emotion can be justified. You are solving nothing but your own selfish need to feel superior and right.

Originally Posted by _Q_

Meh, Israel acting like the pile of garbage pariah state that it is... Nothing new here.

I get the backlash against what I posted, but what I don't get is how this can go unchallenged as bringing anything to the table. How does this generate discussion?

I apologise for bringing the discussion down but garbage posts like the one from Q shouldn't be glossed over/tolerated either.
Edit: Oh and comparing Israel to North Korea....really??

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Edit: Oh and comparing Israel to North Korea....really??

Jesus Christ, you know that's not what he was doing. He was clearly creating and analogy. Either grow up and debate the merits of the argument, or maybe recognize that you're too emotionally invested in this to do so and take a more observational role in the thread.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Zevo

I get the backlash against what I posted, but what I don't get is how this can go unchallenged as bringing anything to the table. How does this generate discussion?

I apologise for bringing the discussion down but garbage posts like the one from Q shouldn't be glossed over/tolerated either.
Edit: Oh and comparing Israel to North Korea....really??

It's always pretty much the group of same posters posting about how atrocious Israel is and the smaller group of same posters defending it. The funny (or sad) common theme through all of Israel-related threads is – irrationality. It's always about what Israel does or doesn't do and never about what Palestinians (Hamaz, Fatah, Al-Aqsa Brigades etc...) do or about what the Arab/Muslim world does to the entire planet on a much grander and horrifying scale.

_Q_ by his own earlier admission is a Palestinian, so everyone here knows that his posting on Israel will never be rational. Blankall and Nage_Waza are likely Jewish, so their staunch defending of Israel is probably rooted there as well. Other posters could have ethnic roots in either side or not, doesn't matter. What does matter, these threads are NEVER of good-nature or rational thinking; thus, intending to find something of value in a debate, something that is seen by both sides of the debate as worthy of using in coming to some kind of a consensus decision or solution, albeit a very hypothetical Internet-forum solution. It's always "Israel is awful" vs. "No, it is not". I see these threads as damaging to the CP forum, as they only pursue personal hatred outbursts; therefore, I believe they should not be allowed here. It would be great if the moderators finally get their minds together on this and ban them for good; just like they have banned other topics that didn't benefit the spirit of a good community discussion.

[Flash Walken]

Why do self described members of the 'pro-israel' crowd routinely appeal for a ban on discussion of Israel?

I don't get it.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why do self described members of the 'pro-israel' crowd routinely appeal for a ban on discussion of Israel?

I don't get it.

For the same reason Israel lobbies countries to cut funding to international courts.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why do self described members of the 'pro-israel' crowd routinely appeal for a ban on discussion of Israel?

I don't get it.

Because they feel the need to object to the posts of those who are "against-Israel" and it goes on and on and on.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Zevo

I get the backlash against what I posted, but what I don't get is how this can go unchallenged as bringing anything to the table. How does this generate discussion?

Edit: Oh and comparing Israel to North Korea....really??

Q's post establishes that this practice is common or to be expected and provides a context or summation of what he believes the previous history of these sorts of events are.

It's not inflammatory language no more than it is to say Canada has a diminished role internationally.

Moreover, you yourself are welcome to challenge it. Unfortunately, you chose to try to shoot the messenger and shout him down by calling him an anti-semite.

Rather than attempt to understand his opinion you just labelled it at hate speech. If 'discussion' is what you're after, how does that contribute to it?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why do self described members of the 'pro-israel' crowd routinely appeal for a ban on discussion of Israel?

I don't get it.

I think it's because, and I say this as a previously huge supporter of Israel who went through this process, the behaviour of Israel since the invasion of Lebanon has been pretty reprehensible, reactive no doubt but still reprehensible, and I don't excuse Hamas or Hezbollah's behaviour either, but right now there's nothing to pick between them morally, and I think if you are Jewish, well I know because I have Jewish friends, this is extremely painfull.

Zionism is rooted in a sense of righteousness with a healthy dose of socialism and my Jewish friends, several of whom have left Israel to avoid serving in the IDF, are in a position of trying to defend the actions of a bellicose right wing fundamentalist country, it's a conversation that is painfull for most of them.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why do self described members of the 'pro-israel' crowd routinely appeal for a ban on discussion of Israel?

I don't get it.

Don't really think this is true at all. I'm sure Naga Waza will be more then willing to engage you. And if you find him annoying, perhaps you can take a look and see how your own "discussion" is a different side of the same coin.

Why do the Pro-Palestinian crowd routinely appeal for a ban on discussion with Naga Waza?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by blankall

Don't really think this is true at all. I'm sure Naga Waza will be more then willing to engage you. And if you find him annoying, perhaps you can take a look and see how your own "discussion" is a different side of the same coin.

Why do the Pro-Palestinian crowd routinely appeal for a ban on discussion with Naga Waza?

Probably because Nage Waza is the originator of the "anti-semite" defense on this forum and tries to claim every post contrary to him is a personal attack. It's pretty tiring.

[Coach]

Why is one either pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by blankall

Don't really think this is true at all. I'm sure Naga Waza will be more then willing to engage you. And if you find him annoying, perhaps you can take a look and see how your own "discussion" is a different side of the same coin.

Why do the Pro-Palestinian crowd routinely appeal for a ban on discussion with Naga Waza?

I don't think anyone is trying to shut down a discussion; people are just tired of being called an anti-semite because they don't agree with Nage Waza's axioms. Hence the short temper towards his posts.

Plus, I wonder who is open to a discussion and who isn't. Months ago in one of these threads, to open discussion I listed a series of grievances that I believed Israeli citizens had with the Palestinian opposition, and how those grievances were outright legitimate and reflected clear shortcomings and unacceptable / inhumane actions by the opposition. As part of the exercise, I asked strongly pro-Israeli posters (such as Nage) if they could enumerate legitimate grievances that the Palestinians had with Israeli policy. You know, to start a discussion.

Crickets.

So if that's what you mean by shutting down discussion with Nage... guilty

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

Don't really think this is true at all.

No, it really is. Manhattan and Captain_Yooh have both appealed in this very thread to have this conversation, and all subsequent conversations involving Israel, banned.

This is from Captain_Yooh, 5 posts prior to the one I'm quoting from you. Maybe you didn't read it?

It's always "Israel is awful" vs. "No, it is not". I see these threads as damaging to the CP forum, as they only pursue personal hatred outbursts; therefore, I believe they should not be allowed here. It would be great if the moderators finally get their minds together on this and ban them for good; just like they have banned other topics that didn't benefit the spirit of a good community discussion.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by nik-

Probably because Nage Waza is the originator of the "anti-semite" defense on this forum and tries to claim every post contrary to him is a personal attack. It's pretty tiring.

Nah, I am calling it the way it is. If you are judging Israel with a different ruleset than everyone else and your purpose is simply to slander a group, than you are what you are.

The fact many of the posters ignore absolutely psychotic murderous behaviour around the world, and then go on the attack against Israel for things that pale even compared to how segments of Palestinians have treated themselves, is beyond shady. In fact, as I have outlined numerous times in threads just like this, there are formal definitions of anti semitism.

Here is what the EU (FRA) defines it as:

The working definition stated: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

It provided examples of antisemitism, which include: promoting the harming of Jews in the name of an ideology or religion; promoting negative stereotypes of Jews; holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of an individual Jewish person or group; denying the Holocaust or accusing Jews or Israel of exaggerating it; and accusing Jews of dual loyalty or a greater allegiance to Israel than their own country.

It also stated that ‘Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:’

-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
-Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame...f_Antisemitism

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by nik-

Probably because Nage Waza is the originator of the "anti-semite" defense on this forum and tries to claim every post contrary to him is a personal attack. It's pretty tiring.

I should also add that you attack me as a poster over and over again. Are you afraid that someone is willing to defend Israel so you attempt to bully them? Try to discredit me so that you can push away anyone from this website who is willing to call out the lies and the hatred?

That is pathetic and perfectly aligns with the intimidating tactics seen across university campus' across Canada and the US.

I don't start this thread, and I don't mind engaging in discussion on the topic, but so much of what is posted here is a lie written up in dark dangerous corners of the world. When I see that stuff, I post.

Shame on you.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I don't think anyone is trying to shut down a discussion; people are just tired of being called an anti-semite because they don't agree with Nage Waza's axioms. Hence the short temper towards his posts.

Plus, I wonder who is open to a discussion and who isn't. Months ago in one of these threads, to open discussion I listed a series of grievances that I believed Israeli citizens had with the Palestinian opposition, and how those grievances were outright legitimate and reflected clear shortcomings and unacceptable / inhumane actions by the opposition. As part of the exercise, I asked strongly pro-Israeli posters (such as Nage) if they could enumerate legitimate grievances that the Palestinians had with Israeli policy. You know, to start a discussion.

Crickets.

So if that's what you mean by shutting down discussion with Nage... guilty

Wait a second, you are the poster that attacked my character. I have ignored most of your posts. And I know you don't think I avoid legit discussion, after all, why are you among the group that simply tries to discredit me over and over, such as this? Simply to avoid real discussion.

I post over and over that I want peace in the region, and how I see peace coming about, yet am called every name in the book. I ask for a single hateful post I have made, but there is none to be found.

Instead, you discredit, in order to end discussion. So don't post like you are an angel.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why do self described members of the 'pro-israel' crowd routinely appeal for a ban on discussion of Israel?

I don't get it.

The discussion is fine, the lies and rhetoric are the bad part. Go review that 'Israel land grab map'.