Issues with defining Antisemitism and the 'problem' on The Left

[Lexicus]

Comparing IDF soldiers to Klansman seems a stronger statement than merely observing that they're "fair game".

That comparison only happened in the first place because someone else compared Hamas to the KKK.

kids who are just trying to keep their heads down.

This may be an accurate characterization of some soldiers, but the IDF as a whole? Definitely not.

 

[Mouthwash]

That comparison only happened in the first place because someone else compared Hamas to the KKK.

One of them is an organization that specifically targets members of a group in order to whip up both sides into a race war, and the other is the KKK.

This may be an accurate characterization of some soldiers, but the IDF as a whole? Definitely not.

In the parallel universe where blacks are 90% of the population, most of them have hostile/genocidal views against white people, and the KKK actively recruits blacks and latinos, then yes, it is roughly analogous.

You seem to have an ideological commitment to equating Jewish independence with racism, may I ask why?

 

[HoloDoc]

One of them is an organization that specifically targets members of a group in order to whip up both sides into a race war, and the other is the KKK.



In the parallel universe where blacks are 90% of the population, most of them have hostile/genocidal views against white people, and the KKK actively recruits blacks and latinos, then yes, it is roughly analogous.

You seem to have an ideological commitment to equating Jewish independence with racism, may I ask why?

Jewish independence? Is that what the Israeli regime is? Here I thought it was supposed to be a modern secular state. Any theocratic society is by definition racist.

 

[Traitorfish]

Any theocratic society is by definition racist.

...what?

That comparison only happened in the first place because someone else compared Hamas to the KKK.

Hamas are a hardline paramilitary group with some pretty out-there racial views. Whatever the merits of the analogy, an analogy can at least be drawn. It's not clear what useful analogy can be drawn between the IDF and the KKK, at least so far as membership and ideology is concerned.

This may be an accurate characterization of some soldiers, but the IDF as a whole? Definitely not.

It's accurate enough that it recommends caution when comparing the IDF to race-warring fanatics.

 

[Lexicus]

It's accurate enough that it recommends caution when comparing the IDF to race-warring fanatics.

From where I'm standing the IDF are basically race-warring fanatics, again, maintaining a regime of racial supremacy through terroristic violence against a legally defenseless population.

 

[Mouthwash]

Your posts for the last few pages could be rearranged randomly and it would be impossible to tell where each one was. They basically all say IDF = KKK with no further explanation or argument. What possible reaction are you hoping for, other than angry retorts from pro-Israel users?

Wasn't there something earlier about 'discussing this compassionately?'

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: This thread has veered a long way off from the original topic of conversation. If all we are left with is hyperbole, the thread will be closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Your posts for the last few pages could be rearranged randomly and it would be impossible to tell where each one was. They basically all say IDF = KKK with no further explanation or argument. What possible reaction are you hoping for, other than angry retorts from pro-Israel users?

Wasn't there something earlier about 'discussing this compassionately?'

There has been plenty of explanation, you are just shutting your eyes to it.

From where I'm standing the IDF are basically race-warring fanatics, again, maintaining a regime of racial supremacy through terroristic violence against a legally defenseless population.

This is the explanation. Your response is to be so completely dismissive that you don't bother to refute it, but we already know that you are committed to "the only thing standing against holocaust II is the noble IDF killing terrorists pre-emptively while they should be in grade school." Just like southern whites who didn't actually put on the hoods considered the brave men of the KKK to be their only line of defense against black mayhem.

 

[Mouthwash]

He's throwing around phrases like 'racial supremacy' and 'abusing a helpless population.' Which aren't useful aside from setting up parallels to the KKK. If I went around posting that Democrats were exactly like Stalinists (they want to restrict free trade! They want an all-powerful government!) and outright ignored your comparisons between the actions of the two groups, I don't think you would feel obligated to keep up the conversation.

And yes, I did refute it. You just had to scroll up to see.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He's throwing around phrases like 'racial supremacy' and 'abusing a helpless population.' Which aren't useful aside from setting up parallels to the KKK. If I went around posting that Democrats were Stalinists (they want to restrict free trade! They want an all-powerful government!) and outright ignored your comparisons between the actions/claims of the two group, would you feel obligated to keep up the conversation?

And yes, I did respond. You just had to scroll up to see it.

I saw your response. It informed my understanding of your side of the argument. What's missing is you actually not just dismissing ours.

We get that you believe things like "mowing the grass" as a 'delicate euphemism' for marching into Gaza and slaughtering people are 'just necessary.' To the rest of us they are pretty easy to characterize as indiscriminate mayhem inflicted on people who can't fight back; in short, terrorism. You have declined to even attempt to prove the necessity, and I can't blame you for not trying to scale that cliff, but don't blame everyone else for the fact that you aren't willing or aren't able. "I have no refutation, therefore I will turn a blind eye upon your argument and accuse you of not making one" is strategy that wins neither debates nor respect.

 

[Lexicus]

You seem to have an ideological commitment to equating Jewish independence with racism, may I ask why?

I think basically every nation-state is a racist or inherently chauvinist endeavor

 

[Robo-Star]

Religious discrimination is a form of racism,

Only if race is a subset of religion.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Only if race is a subset of religion.

They're both very superficial and arbitrary categorizations. Makes them pretty much the same in practice.

 

[Farm Boy]

How and why we choose to act, the moral rationale behind our behaviors is a "very superficial and arbitrary categorization?"

Or do you mean something more like, being a d-bag to people because of, or about their cherished personal beliefs and living interactions with their world?

I mean, lots of people do seem to treat contemporary lay definitions of "race" as a religion, and while I might have some things to say about the quality or morality of said particular religi-thingies, the way people treat them seems neither superficial or arbitrary, even if the actual construct of "race," is. Is that more it?

 

[Mouthwash]

I saw your response. It informed my understanding of your side of the argument. What's missing is you actually not just dismissing ours.

It's a direct response to Lexicus's comments.

We get that you believe things like "mowing the grass" as a 'delicate euphemism' for marching into Gaza and slaughtering people are 'just necessary.' To the rest of us they are pretty easy to characterize as indiscriminate mayhem inflicted on people who can't fight back; in short, terrorism. You have declined to even attempt to prove the necessity, and I can't blame you for not trying to scale that cliff, but don't blame everyone else for the fact that you aren't willing or aren't able. "I have no refutation, therefore I will turn a blind eye upon your argument and accuse you of not making one" is strategy that wins neither debates nor respect.

I don't discuss Gaza with the Israel hating crowd because it is an order of magnitude easier for the would-be prosecutors to make claims than it is for me to research your claim, put it in context, and try to refute it. I would basically have to give a short history of the wars to even engage with a claim like 'marching into Gaza and slaughtering people'. The debate is inherently loaded, just the way you people like it.

Another example: I could question your nonsense about Gazans not being able to fight back by asking why Israel hasn't yet reconquered Gaza, and you'd respond by saying it is economically unfeasible or impossible for PR reasons. Both of those would need hours of research to respond properly.

I think basically every nation-state is a racist or inherently chauvinist endeavor

So is the Australian army also just like the KKK?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't discuss Gaza with the Israel hating crowd because it is an order of magnitude easier for the would-be prosecutors to make claims than it is for me to research your claim, put it in context, and try to refute it. I would basically have to give a short history of the wars to even engage with a claim like 'marching into Gaza and slaughtering people'. The debate is inherently loaded, just the way you people like it.

So, exactly as I said, you dismiss the argument as unbeatable, then pretend it has never been made, then make accusations about how no argument was presented. Now we come full circle and you acknowledge that an argument was made, but claim that the reasons it is unbeatable make it somehow right to dismiss it as something "you don't discuss."

So, I guess we can take that as a retraction of "Lexicus never presented any arguments." Progress, in a way.

Now, as to your categorically dismissing anything you disagree with as "nonsense." Your circular non-arguments, random snotty comments, and intractable grip on positions that you choose not to defend and most people find indefensible, combine to net you zero respect, so it isn't like you actually have the cache to defame me, but you're still being an insulting little prig there.

 

[Mouthwash]

So, exactly as I said, you dismiss the argument as unbeatable, then pretend it has never been made, then make accusations about how no argument was presented. Now we come full circle and you acknowledge that an argument was made, but claim that the reasons it is unbeatable make it somehow right to dismiss it as something "you don't discuss."

Lexicus said Palestinians. Not Gaza. Safe to assume he wasn't referring to specific wars.

 

[REDY]

You just described the exact reason the PLO was formed.
The vast majority of "Arab" countries gave up on destroying Israel a long time ago.

Well PLO charter calls for destruction of Israel but They also tried coups in Jordan and Lebanon. I am not ab expert on Palestine and maybe there was also some normal sane man behind it, but terror against everybody moderate was there from the start.
After military loss and no economical support the arab countries hadnt much choice.
If arab countries would actually help Arabs living there instead sponsoring their stance for destruction of Israel, the problem would be solved. But instead allowing assimilation or immigration, they still supporting fight by supporting orgs like Hamas.
OFC there are some incidents caused by IDF, but Arabs living in Israel enjoy much more rights than in any Arab country, liberal Palestinian people are first victims of Hamas.
If arabs in Palestine would actually choose democracy, human rights and secularism and leave doctrine of destruction for Israel, they should have got some sympathy from normal people.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Lexicus said Palestinians. Not Gaza. Safe to assume he wasn't referring to specific wars.

Lexicus said a whole lot of things, and yet for a while you claimed he had said nothing at all. Keep circling; I'm sure it makes it seem like you are getting somewhere.

If arabs in Palestine would actually choose democracy, human rights and secularism and leave doctrine of destruction for Israel, they should have got some sympathy from normal people.

Since Israel has openly chosen against two out of three of the former and cheerfully adopted the latter whether it was left them or not it seems pretty clear why they get no sympathy. How long do you think Israel will be able to cling to their doctrine of destruction?

 

[REDY]

Since Israel has openly chosen against two out of three of the former and cheerfully adopted the latter whether it was left them or not it seems pretty clear why they get no sympathy. How long do you think Israel will be able to cling to their doctrine of destruction?

Israel has actually achieved many succeses far beyond great military defence. From economics through culture to science and without need of religious or political background. This is what I am missing in arab countries.