This time they went too far.

[Formaldehyde]

When did I deny this? Some Ethiopian women may have been pressured into it, but none of them have the slightest clue if the government deliberately was responsible. Which was the point of this thread.

"Some"?

Their birth rate dropped dramatically. This was obviously a systematic effort by a large number of people who were directly involved with their healthcare. If the Israeli government wasn't complicit they are certainly guilty of being incredibly incompetent, or completely uncaring, or both. This went on for years.

It also goes back to your own comment about "demographics". This is exactly the sort of irrational fear an paranoia which likely caused this dramatic drop to occur. But this time it wasn't even directed at Arabs. It was directed at blacks whom some Israelis even think aren't Jews. They suspect they are actually Christians instead who are pretending to be Jews to escape Ethiopia.

Yes. Go back to literally every single post I've responded to you in. Go back to the OP. See how many links and studies I give. Look at the blatant distortions I highlight in the Independent's article. Why is this hard for you? Why do I have to ask you over and over?

So you are alleging there is a vast anti-Semitic conspiracy because a handful of papers sensationalized this story a bit?

Do you pay any attention at all to the media outside of how they report about Israel? "Some" of the media sensationalizes things to increase their circulation. This shouldn't be news to anybody who pays the least bit of attention at all to the way any stories are reported.

 

[Ajidica]

Right. I can give you a hundred more examples, but I think that would deserve a thread of its own. Just drop it.

Isn't the alleged bias against Israel in media the entire point of this thread in which you use the birth control program as an example?

No, what does "anti-Zionist" mean?

A basic grasp of English would indicate it means someone who is against the ideology of Zionism. If your understanding of Israeli politics and society is as detailed as you would have us believe I am confident you have a working knowledge of what Zionism is.

Are you even glancing at the things you respond to? I told you why I pointed it out. Did you read the article?

Given that I'm not quite sure what you are trying to point out, for the sake of productive discussion could you tell me exactly what I should be getting from the first Haaretz article and what the point of this thread is? Evidently my understanding of it is radically different from yours.

At the same time, I wouldn't expect David Cameron to feel at home with George Galloway, or Barack Obama to feel at home with the KKK. No real objection here.

So your two default examples are an active hate group and a dick like Galloway? Somehow I don't feel the examples you selected as to why Stephen Fry should feel at home in an ultra-orthodox community given Fry's open secularism, liberalism, and homosexuality mesh well with this line of thought.

 

[Mouthwash]

"Some"?

Their birth rate dropped dramatically. This was obviously a systematic effort by a large number of people. If the Israeli government wasn't complicit they are certainly guilty of being incredibly incompetent, or completely uncaring, or both.

Their birth rate didn't "drop" from a previously high one to twenty percent. Since you clearly looked at the OP, you obviously already know that I pointed that there were plenty of obvious social and economic reasons as to why this was, and was ostensibly not the work of mass forced birth control.

So you are alleging there is a vast anti-semitic conspiracy because a handful of papers sensationalized this story a bit?

No, I'm alleging that there is a vast anti-Israel media campaign because of the blatant preference for ranting about Israel and distorting the real issues. It sometimes dips into anti-Semitism. Oh, and check this out.

Do you pay any attention at all to the media outside of how they report about Israel?

I do indeed.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Their birth rate didn't "drop" from a previously high one to twenty percent. Since you clearly looked at the OP, you obviously already know that I pointed that there were plenty of obvious social and economic reasons as to why this was, and was ostensibly not the work of mass forced birth control.

You can try to rationalize it however you want. But it seems quite apparent at this stage that this massive effort to deliberately reduce their procreation rate was quite effective.

No, I'm alleging that there is a vast anti-Israel media campaign because of the blatant preference for ranting about Israel and distorting the real issues. It sometimes dips into anti-Semitism.

What utter nonsense. While there is certainly still some anti-Semitism in the world today, it is hardly the reason why the Israeli government keeps getting criticized by so many for its absurd policies. There isn't anything "vast" about this supposed "campaign" at all except in the minds of those who are completely unwilling to come to grips with the obvious.

 

[Mouthwash]

Isn't the alleged bias against Israel in media the entire point of this thread in which you use the birth control program as an example?

No, the point was refuting this ridiculous lie. The bias against Israel was just a theme.

A basic grasp of English would indicate it means someone who is against the ideology of Zionism. If your understanding of Israeli politics and society is as detailed as you would have us believe I am confident you have a working knowledge of what Zionism is.

No, there are plenty of definitions of Zionism. Sorry.

Given that I'm not quite sure what you are trying to point out, for the sake of productive discussion could you tell me exactly what I should be getting from the first Haaretz article and what the point of this thread is? Evidently my understanding of it is radically different from yours.

Go back and read my post about the article in the Independent.

So your two default examples are an active hate group and a dick like Galloway? Somehow I don't feel the examples you selected as to why Stephen Fry should feel at home in an ultra-orthodox community given Fry's open secularism, liberalism, and homosexuality mesh well with this line of thought.

He wouldn't feel at home in an ultra-orthodox community. I did not say he was. Right now, I'm going to stop feeding you.

 

[Mouthwash]

You can try to rationalize it however you want. But it seems quite apparent that this massive effort to deliberately reduce their procreation rate was quite deliberate.

So... no response? Gotta love that. Let me know when you have an argument.

What utter nonsense. While there is certainly some anti-Semitism still in the world today, it is hardly the reason why the Israeli government keeps getting criticized by so many for its absurd apartheid policies. There isn't anything "vast" about this supposed "campaign" at all except in the minds of those who are completely unwilling to come to grips with the obvious.

No response here either? Gotta love that.

 

[Ajidica]

No, the point was refuting this ridiculous lie. The bias against Israel was just a theme.

Oh. My apologies for disputing your assertion that the media unfairly focuses on Israel in general, I thought that was a core of the thread.

No, there are plenty of definitions of Zionism. Sorry.

Which one are you operating under?

Go back and read my post about the article in the Independent.

If this is what you are referring to:

The first non-Israeli media source to break the story was the Independent (note that it lies about the recognition of Ethiopian immigrants as Jewish- despite some religious controversy, any Ethiopian in doubt was halachically "converted" anyway. The article also quote-mines Netanyahu, who was not referring to Ethiopians, but to illegal immigrants from Sudan, which we only keep because Egypt executes them).

Then the worst they are guilty of is some poor reporting and not fully understanding how Jewish ethnicity is passed down. If poor reporting in a first-breaking article translates into a willful and systemic attempt to slander Israel then I'm at a lost.

He wouldn't feel at home in an ultra-orthodox community. I did not say he was. Right now, I'm going to stop feeding you.

So then two people who would both be admitted ethnic Jews would not share any meaningful level of cultural similarity. How then can we treat 'Jewish' as such a wide-ranging ethnic/national identifier when two people who should fit under such a definition operate under completely different worldviews?

 

[aelf]

OP's rage is entertaining.

 

[Mouthwash]

Oh. My apologies for disputing your assertion that the media unfairly focuses on Israel in general, I thought that was a core of the thread.

It wasn't.

Which one are you operating under?

I thought I was asking you.

If this is what you are referring to:

Then the worst they are guilty of is some poor reporting and not fully understanding how Jewish ethnicity is passed down. If poor reporting in a first-breaking article translates into a willful and systemic attempt to slander Israel then I'm at a lost.

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you can't grasp this very basic point I'm trying to get through. If you don't get the explanation I gave, don't bother trying to understand.

I'll try anyway, because I'm stupid that way: They said that Ethiopian Jews had controversy over if they were really Jewish. This doesn't make a lot of sense to include in the article, but that's not by itself incriminating. Then they quoted Netanyahu on how African immigrants threatened Israel's Jewish characteristic, while not mentioning that he was referring to illegal immigrants from Sudan. In the next sentence.

If you don't see the extremely obvious connection to make, let's try taking a critical thinking course. Maybe there's an online one.

So then two people who would both be admitted ethnic Jews would not share any meaningful level of cultural similarity. How then can we treat 'Jewish' as such a wide-ranging ethnic/national identifier when two people who should fit under such a definition operate under completely different worldviews?

I can't do it. I can't respond over and over. This is not a difficult concept. This is not a difficult concept. My head is going to split if I keep winding on like this. Please either learn how to string together concepts from those funny little symbols on the screen, stop trolling, or drop the subject. Whichever one suits you.

OP's rage is entertaining.

Glad to have been of amusement to you.

 

[Ajidica]

I thought I was asking you.

I was under the impression there was really only one strand of Zionism, yet apparently there are several. Since you apparently possess a greater knowledge of the topic that I do I was seeking whatever information you could provide me.

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you can't grasp this very basic point I'm trying to get through. If you don't get the explanation I gave, don't bother trying to understand.

I'll try anyway, because I'm stupid that way: They said that Ethiopian Jews had controversy over if they were really Jewish. This doesn't make a lot of sense to include in the article, but that's not by itself incriminating. Then they quoted Netanyahu on how African immigrants threatened Israel's Jewish characteristic, while not mentioning that he was referring to illegal immigrants from Sudan. In the next sentence.

If you don't see the extremely obvious connection to make, let's try taking a critical thinking course. Maybe there's an online one.

So the Independent had some poor reporting. I'm utterly failing to see how crap reporting justifies this much internet rage.

I can't do it. I can't respond over and over. This is not a difficult concept. This is not a difficult concept. My head is going to split if I keep winding on like this. Please either learn how to string together concepts from those funny little symbols on the screen, stop trolling, or drop the subject. Whichever one suits you.

Hey, you are the one arguing for a volkstaat based on the Jewish identity, not me. It is hardly my fault Jews aren't some hive mind and can produce people as different as Stephen Fry and the Ultra-Orthodox.

 

[Mouthwash]

I was under the impression there was really only one strand of Zionism, yet apparently there are several. Since you apparently possess a greater knowledge of the topic that I do I was seeking whatever information you could provide me.

You were the one who said "anti-Zionist." What does that mean? Did he refer to himself as anti-Zionist?

So the Independent had some poor reporting. I'm utterly failing to see how crap reporting justifies this much internet rage.

No, it was dishonest reporting (they couldn't have not known who Netanyahu was referring to), and the reason I'm making this thread is because people are calling Israel a racist state or denouncing it as a whole because of this. The whole anti-Israel crowd has jumped on the bandwagon, and it doesn't cease.

 

[Ajidica]

You were the one who said "anti-Zionist." What does that mean? Did he refer to himself as anti-Zionist?

Zionism is a rather distasteful ideology, Israel is a state. Frequently in media and by Zionists the two are conflated but it simply isn't true. For example, being opposed to Labour does not make one anti-Britain.

No, it was dishonest reporting (they couldn't have not known who Netanyahu was referring to), and the reason I'm making this thread is because people are calling Israel a racist state or denouncing it as a whole because of this. The whole anti-Israel crowd has jumped on the bandwagon, and it doesn't cease.

Where one sees bad reporting, the other sees a conspiracy theory.
If you get this worked up about crap reporting I expect to see your thread of rant when bad journalists conflate the PA with Hamas.

 

[Mouthwash]

Zionism is a rather distasteful ideology, Israel is a state. Frequently in media and by Zionists the two are conflated but it simply isn't true. For example, being opposed to Labour does not make one anti-Britain.

Was Zionism not the basis on which Israel was founded? Some variants ( especially the religious types) want the entire land of Israel, some of them call for a Jewish state along modest borders.

Where one sees bad reporting, the other sees a conspiracy theory.
If you get this worked up about crap reporting I expect to see your thread of rant when bad journalists conflate the PA with Hamas.

It's not a conspiracy. This is fairly common. I don't expect proportionate or fair coverage.

IDGAF if they post psychotic lies in their paper. I'm just sick of people, even on this forum, using it to trash Israel.

 

[Ajidica]

Was Zionism not the basis on which Israel was founded? Some variants ( especially the religious types) want the entire land of Israel, some of them call for a Jewish state along modest borders.

Zionism and Socialism, yes, were instrumental in the creation of Israel.

It's not a conspiracy. This is fairly common. I don't expect proportionate or fair coverage.

IDGAF if they post psychotic lies in their paper. I'm just sick of people, even on this forum, using it to trash Israel.

If anything I feel the media is biased in favor of Israel but to each their own.

 

[Gucumatz]

Mouthwash, so I take it you aren't MisterCooper part 2?

I am disappointed... Are you Jolly Roger at least?

 

[Traitorfish]

No, if English immigrants were transforming Scotland into another English area, I don't think they would approve. As I said, I don't care if Arabs are in Israel with equal rights. I just don't want Israel to become an Arab state.

Did you ever consider that it doesn't have to be either? National identity doesn't necessarily proceed from ethnic identity.

No, it is not.

Oh, well, I think it is. So it's not a problem for me.

OK, so quibble with the exact phrasing. "History" may have been a bad word. I was referring to mythology.

It's hardly a quibble. Shared history, even a partially-imagined one, implies some tangible reference points, which until the creation of the State of Israel itself world Jewry simply did not posses. (Even the ruins of the temple were lent significant not as tangible objects in themselves, but as vessels of mythology.) What references it did possess were heavily dependent on region and ethnicity, with even as profoundly traumatic experiences like the Holocaust being essentially one of European Ashkenazi Jews. Only with the creation of the State of Israel, and the consequent upheaval that followed across the Jewish world, did Jews of all origins have a shared reference that was tangible rather than merely mythological.

I think there's a serious case to be made that, rather than the State of Israel being made in the image of the Jewish people, the Jewish people have been re-made in the image of the State of Israel.

 

[Tahuti]

If anything I feel the media is biased in favor of Israel but to each their own.

Israel supporters say it's biased against Israel while Israel critics say it's biased in favor. It's quite telling of the media really: Sensationalize everything, one report at the time.

 

[Mouthwash]

Did you ever consider that it doesn't have to be either? National identity doesn't necessarily proceed from ethnic identity.

It doesn't. Being an Arab isn't purely about ethnicity, either; it's a cultural group. I would have preferred a "Hebrew State" to serve as a Jewish and Palestinian homeland, so long as they identified more with the Jews than they did the Arabs. But I don't think that you can simply undo history that way. The Palestinians have their own identity now, and so do the Israelis.

Oh, well, I think it is. So it's not a problem for me.

They can't report every scrap of ethnic and religious discrimination around the world. There has to be some prioritization. I just don't like the fact that they put Israel way too high on that list.

It's hardly a quibble. Shared history, even a partially-imagined one, implies some tangible reference points, which until the creation of the State of Israel itself world Jewry simply did not posses. (Even the ruins of the temple were lent significant not as tangible objects in themselves, but as vessels of mythology.) What references it did possess were heavily dependent on region and ethnicity, with even as profoundly traumatic experiences like the Holocaust being essentially one of European Ashkenazi Jews. Only with the creation of the State of Israel, and the consequent upheaval that followed across the Jewish world, did Jews of all origins have a shared reference that was tangible rather than merely mythological.

So I used the wrong word. It doesn't require a lecture.

I think there's a serious case to be made that, rather than the State of Israel being made in the image of the Jewish people, the Jewish people have been re-made in the image of the State of Israel.

What's wrong with that? I actually agree with you partly. There's a lot of antagonism and racism towards Sephardic Jews among anti-Zionist Ashkenazi groups like Satmar because they're so isolated from the mainstream Jewish community.

 

[Traitorfish]

It doesn't. Being an Arab isn't purely about ethnicity, either; it's a cultural group. I would have preferred a "Hebrew State" to serve as a Jewish and Palestinian homeland, so long as they identified more with the Jews than they did the Arabs. But I don't think that you can simply undo history that way. The Palestinians have their own identity now, and so do the Israelis.

I still don't understand why a state in Palestine has to be identified with any ethnic group.

They can't report every scrap of ethnic and religious discrimination around the world. There has to be some prioritization. I just don't like the fact that they put Israel way too high on that list.

Israel is a developed, Westernised, democratic country. We hold it to higher standards, so it seems more notworthy when it fails to meet them.

So I used the wrong word. It doesn't require a lecture.

I already said, this is about more than words. It's about the fact that, until 1948, the idea of a globe-spanning "Jewish people" was essentially fictitious, even by the unimpressive standards of these things. They shared a mythology, but a mythology does not make a coherent social group.

What's wrong with that? I actually agree with you partly. There's a lot of antagonism and racism towards Sephardic Jews among anti-Zionist Ashkenazi groups like Satmar because they're so isolated from the mainstream Jewish community.

It's not that there's anything wrong with it, but that it undermines the official narratives of the Zionist movement, that the State of Israel was created as a homeland for a "people without a home". If the Jews were not a single people, but in fact a range of related peoples, and furthermore peoples that were often quite at home where they were, this narrative becomes a lot less tenable.

 

[Mouthwash]

I still don't understand why a state in Palestine has to be identified with any ethnic group.

It doesn't. Most Israeli Arabs identify as Palestinian themselves. They just aren't brainwashed by Palestinian media into their culture of victimhood, so they are reasonably tolerant of Israel.

Israel is a developed, Westernised, democratic country. We hold it to higher standards, so it seems more noteworthy when it fails to meet them.

So is Russia, officially. So is Turkey, officially. Russia does genocide against Chechens. Turkey is becoming anti-Semitic and authoritarian. Why don't they get as much attention as Israel?

I already said, this is about more than words. It's about the fact that, until 1948, the idea of a globe-spanning "Jewish people" was essentially fictitious, even by the unimpressive standards of these things. They shared a mythology, but a mythology does not make a coherent social group.

Well, I would agree with you that they didn't act as politically one, but there certainly were connections between Jewish communities regardless of nationality. I wasn't alive before Israel was created, so maybe I'll ask my grandmother when I'm in Israel.

It's not that there's anything wrong with it, but that it undermines the official narratives of the Zionist movement, that the State of Israel was created as a homeland for a "people without a home". If the Jews were not a single people, but in fact a range of related peoples, and furthermore peoples that were often quite at home where they were, this narrative becomes a lot less tenable.

European Jews were essentially a single people, and Israel was intended to be a state for them. Ethiopian or Kaifeng Jews weren't exactly roaring Zionists before Israel was founded. I don't think Ben-Gurion intended to take in the Jews from Arab and African countries, but that's the way it happened (although in retrospect it should have been obvious it would turn out that way, due to the non-assimilation and religious unity of the global Jewish community- so you might say that the Jews were a nation in hiatus).