Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

National Union of Students elects Malia Bouattia as president. Watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Did she specifically say she supported knifing random Jewish passers by on the street as part of armed resistance, or are you just making a strawman inference?
    I made an inference that her support of the "Intifada" meant that she supported the "Intifada of the Individuals."

    And I made that inference explicit by asking "what else could it mean?"

    A man isn't made of straw if he actually exists, is made of flesh and blood. And stabs random Jews to death...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The NUS needs to lose its formal association with universities. If it were an "opt-in" organisation that had to raise funds directly from member subscriptions, practically no one would join.
    Absolutely. QFT.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Tbh, I do wonder which ideology Hitler would join if he were alive today; far-right or far-left?
    He didn't much care for political allies, but I think he would be happy to receive homage from the Islamists, after all, his buddy Eichmann was instrumental in setting up widespread anti - Semitism in the Arab world, via the good offices of the Grand Mufti.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Seriously?
    Yeah seriously.

    The Far Left is anti semitic, anti democratic, and attempts to destroy free speech.

    Fascist in other words.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by High Stakes)
    Do you believe in the real world everyone has to have their ancestry genetically analysed before they can identify with one particular group?
    Read my words: I am not concerned with identity, which has no basis outside the mind of the identifier.

    I have still not been shown a picture of a black Arab or Berber.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    You do realise that colour (including Black) is simply a matter of pigmentation?
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Shallow people can't get their heads around the fact that "black" is more than colour


    edit:
    (Original post by MildredMalone)
    Hmmm.....
    lol didn't see that someone had picked up on this.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    I made an inference that her support of the "Intifada" meant that she supported the "Intifada of the Individuals."
    If someone said during the 1980s that they supported the armed struggle against apartheid, would you take that as unconditional support for every act committed as part of it, including the atrocities?

    Or, to turn it round another way, do those on the pro-Israeli side who say they support Israel's "right to defend itself" therefore support each and every act committed as part of it, including the killing of civilians?

    Or is the more likely answer that they all merely support the general principle of using armed violencein pursuit of a particular goal?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    If someone said during the 1980s that they supported the armed struggle against apartheid, would you take that as unconditional support for every act committed as part of it, including the atrocities?
    If made without clarification, I would interpret that as approval of the armed operations that had taken place to that point, including ones I consider atrocities.

    Even with clarification, I would assign a relatively high probability that the person supported the atrocities too, and just didn't want that to become known.

    Or, to turn it round another way, do those on the pro-Israeli side who say they support Israel's "right to defend itself" therefore support each and every act committed as part of it, including the killing of civilians?
    I think someone who supports Israel's military operations has to support operations that involve collateral damage. They don't have support operations targeted solely against civilians, since carrying out such operations isn't Israeli policy.

    Similarly I support the British war effort in WWII and I think you can reasonably infer that that means I support the actions of Bomber Command, that I support the use of artillery against cities like Cherbourg and that I support the blockade of Germany from imports of food and medical supplies. If I don't then I should clarify my statement.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Yeah seriously.

    The Far Left is anti semitic, anti democratic, and attempts to destroy free speech.

    Fascist in other words.
    Agreed. But they're all elements of the far right.

    Anti-semism in 20th cent Europe is today's Islamophobia. Hitler would still constitute as far right if he were around today.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    Can we have a round of applause to congratulate her on her election victory. On second thoughts, we'll make it a round of jazz hands as we don't want to scare anyone of a nervous disposition.

    You've got to give to to the NUS, for all their irrelevance, they are quite entertaining.
    Oh wow look at you appropriating black culture by doing jazz hands. Disgusting
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If made without clarification, I would interpret that as approval of the armed operations that had taken place to that point, including ones I consider atrocities.

    Even with clarification, I would assign a relatively high probability that the person supported the atrocities too, and just didn't want that to become known.


    I think someone who supports Israel's military operations has to support operations that involve collateral damage. They don't have support operations targeted solely against civilians, since carrying out such operations isn't Israeli policy.

    Similarly I support the British war effort in WWII and I think you can reasonably infer that that means I support the actions of Bomber Command, that I support the use of artillery against cities like Cherbourg and that I support the blockade of Germany from imports of food and medical supplies. If I don't then I should clarify my statement.
    I'd say there's a difference between supporting a side while accepting that atrocities will likely take place at some point (that's inevitable in wars) and actively supporting those atrocities.

    But whatever your opinion on that, the way you're framing it would not make Malia Bouattia's states support for Palestinian armed resistance anything out of the ordinary, just from a different angle.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'd say there's a difference between supporting a side while accepting that atrocities will likely take place at some point (that's inevitable in wars) and actively supporting those atrocities.

    But whatever your opinion on that, the way you're framing it would not make Malia Bouattia's states support for Palestinian armed resistance anything out of the ordinary, just from a different angle.
    In the sense that you can argue that Britain used similar tactics in WWII, that is true. Britain also killed civilians to spread terror.

    However, Britain and Germany acted reciprocally. If Israel were allowed to use Bomber Command or Luftwaffe tactics there would be no Palestine today, and probably no Palestinians. Palestine is allowed to use Bomber Command/Luftwaffe tactics whereas Israel is not. So saying you support Palestine doing what it is doing now is morally equivalent to saying you support Israeli committing genocide in Palestine, not to saying that you support Israel doing what it is doing now.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'd say there's a difference between supporting a side while accepting that atrocities will likely take place at some point (that's inevitable in wars) and actively supporting those atrocities.

    But whatever your opinion on that, the way you're framing it would not make Malia Bouattia's states support for Palestinian armed resistance anything out of the ordinary, just from a different angle.
    Hmmm.

    You are right that there is a distinction between supporting a cause and actively supporting atrocities committed in that cause.

    To use an example cited I support Britain's cause in WW2 but do NOT support the fire bombing of Dresden, after the war was won. That killed far more innocent people than either the IDF or Palestinian terrorism.

    Dresden was morally unforgivable and is a stain on Britain's honour, Churchill's historic legacy, and I would argue has totally destroyed Harris' posthumous reputation.

    But the point is that Malia Bouattia supports the cause AND the atrocities to achieve that cause. She is like Air Marshal Harris, the ends justify the means for them both. Arthur Harris thought children burned to death (in effect) deserved it because they were German, and the Nazis started the war, started the bombing of cities, and had to be defeated. Bouattia believes Israelis stabbed to death deserve it because they are citizens of a "colonialist, Zionist" power, whose illegal, immoral government is murdering Palestinians and depriving them of their homeland.

    But the ends don't justify the means. Both were, are wrong. The atrocities are morally indefensible.

    And this is to to ignore another differentiating point which is also vital. The ends aren't the same in the two cases. WW2 was a "just war." The cause of Palestinian terrorism (wiping Israel off the map) is not.

    If they moderated their aims, and accepted that a two state solution was inevitable that would be a different matter. Then you could reasonably argue that the ends were just. It still wouldn't morally legitimise terrorism to achieve them, though...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Anti-semism in 20th cent Europe is today's Islamophobia.
    Merr. Nearly all islamophobia is in response to the negative aspects of islamic religion and culture which are carried out over here. Was anti-Semitism in response to anything as bad?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MildredMalone)
    Merr. Nearly all islamophobia is in response to the negative aspects of islamic religion and culture which are carried out over here. Was anti-Semitism in response to anything as bad?
    This is all in the context of Germany. The feeling was partially similar in other countries, but rather surprisingly not in Fascist Italy. The anti-semtic laws passed in Italy were essential in keeping Mussolini in Hitler's bed. Not because Mussolini, the Facists or Italy were anti-Semites.

    It was in response to the Jewish conspiracy, which was that the Jews were wanting to dominate western life and it was the Jews who had lost the war (with a significant proportion of German army officers Jewish). Most wealthy people in Germany who were Jews (yet only made up a small percentage of society), while the lower and some of the middle classes were suffering with no job, no food and no home. People felt VERY bitter about this.

    So yeah pretty bad.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'd say there's a difference between supporting a side while accepting that atrocities will likely take place at some point (that's inevitable in wars) and actively supporting those atrocities.
    Except that bigotry and hatred is inherent in any support for Hamas in light of its charter which calls for all the Jews in the world to be executed.

    Also, it's inherent in supporting the "armed resistance" that she supports the deliberate targeting of civilians which is a war crime.

    And logically, she must be considered to support the targeting of people for death based on the fact they are a Jew. All this makes her a totally unsuitable individual to hold the post of NUS President
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    It was in response to the Jewish conspiracy, which was that the Jews were wanting to dominate western life and it was the Jews who had lost the war (with a significant proportion of German army officers Jewish). Most wealthy people in Germany who were Jews (yet only made up a small percentage of society), while the lower and some of the middle classes were suffering with no job, no food and no home. People felt VERY bitter about this.
    You cannot be serious? You actually buy the Nazi fantasy of a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the West?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    You cannot be serious? You actually buy the Nazi fantasy of a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the West?
    Hhahahahahaha do you think I believe in the Jewish conspiracy?!

    I was merely saying what it was to that guy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamestg)
    Hhahahahahaha do you think I believe in the Jewish conspiracy?!

    I was merely saying what it was to that guy.
    Okay. Your comment sounded quite definitive, claiming that most wealthy people in Germany were Jews etc.

    You have to admit, it's not entirely clear from the way you phrase your comment, it looks exactly like you were stating these things as facts
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Okay. Your comment sounded quite definitive, claiming that most wealthy people in Germany were Jews etc.

    You have to admit, it's not entirely clear from the way you phrase your comment, it looks exactly like you were stating these things as facts
    Well a lot of wealthy people, and those in positions of authority, were Jews in Germany between unification and Hitler taking the premiership. Obviously the stats were wrong, but there was however a trend.

    I was stating it in a way to show how people viewed Jewish people in 20th Cent. Germany. I don't like twisting it to suit my own views or opinions. Plus I never referred to myself in the explanation
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 18, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.