The Student Room Group

So-called anti-zionism

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TheBlackWatch
It's fascinating that bornblue (who claim to be Jewish, and gay apparently) doesn't realise that his beloved Hamas friends would cut his throat without a second thought.

Does it not occur to him why Hamas and the PLO demand that all areas under Palestinian control must be judenrein


Seeing as both the PLO Charter and the PA Basic Law explicitly contradict such a claim, it seems you're conflating 'illegal settlers' into simply 'Jews'.

while Israel has a diverse society of Jews, Christians, Druze, Muslims, atheists etc?


A 'diverse' society that Israeli officials routinely state cannot be allowed to become too diverse, because then it would be a "demographic threat" to the "Jewish character" of the state. And officially declares it belongs to only one ethnic/national group (even those of that group who live halfway around the world and have never set foot in Israel) but not of all the people who actually live there, including those who have lived there for over a thousand years.
Original post by anarchism101
A 'diverse' society that Israeli officials routinely state cannot be allowed to become too diverse, because then it would be a "demographic threat" to the "Jewish character" of the state.

That's a good thing. The West needs to emulate that.

You are making a conflation here too. Wanting the majority ethnic or cultural group in your nation to remain the majority ethnic or cultural group is not comparable to the genocidal ambitions of the Islamists in Hamas and Hezbollah. Wanting Israel to remain Jewish or England to remain English is not morally equivalent to wanting to re-establish the Caliphate, forcing religious minorities into dhimmi status and taking captive women as sex slaves.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue

I don't hate Jews, I'm one myself and yes there are things I hate about myself but the fact I'm Jewish isn't one.

If there was another Holocaust, would you be grateful for the existence of a state where Jews could flee?

Israel butchered thousands of civilians. It dropped bombs on schools, it dropped bombs on hospitals and it dropped bombs on shopping centres


Those buildings are not a target, until they're used to target Israel

[video="youtube;H8bwiour-iM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8bwiour-iM[/video]


It shelled four children on a beach playing football and what's your response ? ' ah that's just a mistake'


Are you saying it wasn't a mistake? Are we going for the good old blood libel here? It must have been the Jewish bloodlust to kill children, of course. No possibility it could have been a mistake, the evil Jews don't make mistake

You can't go into a densely populated area, drop a load of bombs and go ' ah yeh but mistakes happen'


It's not so much a mistake as the tragic consequence of Hamas operating from civilian areas. If Hamas operates from civilian areas, then civilians will get killed.

If Hamas fired their rockets from the open fields on the eastern side of Gaza, civilians would not have been killed.

It wasn't a mistake, they meant to drop the bomb on the kids playing football or wait did their finger just slip on the button?


Do you seriously believe they wanted to kill children? Is that really your conclusion?

Do you realise that sometimes targeting systems fail, that sometimes computers mess up, that sometimes guided weapons malfunction?

Or how about the Un school in gaza


You mean the school that was hit by a misfiring Hamas rocket?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article4392976.ece

And you're also conflating Jews, zionists and the actions of the current Israeli government.


I'm doing no such thing. I'm pointing out that the disproportionate focus on Israel can only come from anti-semitism. And it's not impossible for Jews to be anti-semitic, they often internalise the hatred, just like closeted gays

So its terrorism when Hamas fire rockets (which it is) but apparently according to israels supporters, it's not terrorism when you bomb schools, hospitals, shopping centres and beaches


I'm going to make two response and I want you to carefully address them both

(1) There is a clear moral distinction between deliberately targeting civilians, as Hamas is doing, and targeting terrorist bases / rocket sites etc and civilian deaths being an unfortunate consequence

(2) Are schools, hospitals etc the only targets Israel hit? Is that what you're claiming?

But your final card to play is then to accuse me of being an anti-Semite. Of course, because there's no logical reason to oppose slaughtering innocent civilians in a beach playing football


It would make sense that you've internalised anti-semitism, given your disproportionate focus on Israel and your willingness to believe something that amounts to a modern blood libel

As to your hysterical comments about "slaughtering innocents", do you truly believe it was intentional? You believe that the young 19 year old conscript was sitting behind the console on the Saar 5 thinking, "Ahh I want to kill some Palestinian children today". And you claim to have lived in Israel? And you can believe that about Israelis?

You seem to keep avoiding this with hysterical shrieking about schools and hospitals, while failing to acknowledge that Hamas was operating from those schools and hospitals, and that they were empty of children and patients. All you offer is sophistry, buzzwords and slogans, not serious argument.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by anarchism101
Seeing as both the PLO Charter and the PA Basic Law explicitly contradict such a claim, it seems you're conflating 'illegal settlers' into simply 'Jews'.

How many synagogues are there in PA controlled areas? And how many mosques in Israel proper?

Also, certain Gypsy / Traveller settlements are "illegal" too. I wonder what your position is on them?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
That's a good thing. The West needs to emulate that.

You are making a conflation here too. Wanting the majority ethnic or cultural group in your nation to remain the majority ethnic or cultural group is not comparable to the genocidal ambitions of the Islamists in Hamas and Hezbollah. Wanting Israel to remain Jewish or England to remain English is not morally evuilanet to wanting to re-establish the Caliphate, forcing religious minorities into dhimmi status and taking captive women as sex slaves.


Well said. Also, many minorities in Israel want it to remain explicitly a "Jewish" state. The Druze and the Ba'hai, for example. They know what awaits them under an Arab Muslim state (dhimmitude).

Furthermore, the "Jewish" nature of Israel relates to its unique function as a haven for the Jews if there was ever to be another Holocaust somewhere, hence the right of return.

It is the world's only Jewish majority state, therefore it has a unique role and function to remain a place to which Jews could flee. Some say "Oh a holocaust could never happen again". That's whig history; few could have predicted that liberal Germany of the 1920s only fifteen years later would be herding Jews into gas chambers and slaughtering them in the millions. Unfortunately many Jews found they were unable to get refugee status to England or America etc,

Right of return and its Jewish nature has nothing to do with Jewish superiority and everything to do with its unique status to ensure that Jewish people will not find themselves in that situation again.

Muslims, if there is a Muslim holocaust, can find refuge in many countries. Jewish people can find refuge in only one
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
That's a good thing. The West needs to emulate that.

You are making a conflation here too. Wanting the majority ethnic or cultural group in your nation to remain the majority ethnic or cultural group is not comparable to the genocidal ambitions of the Islamists in Hamas and Hezbollah. Wanting Israel to remain Jewish or England to remain English is not morally equivalent to wanting to re-establish the Caliphate, forcing religious minorities into dhimmi status and taking captive women as sex slaves.


Oh and... Israel is the only state in the middle east where the Christian population is growing.

In the rest of the middle east Christians are being forced out of the region they've inhabited for 2,000 years, thanks to the ideological brethren of Hamas

In fact, some of the Gaza Christians did their yearly journey to Bethlehem, and after Christmas they said to the Israeli government, "Please don't make us go back there, we can't live under Hamas"
Original post by Bornblue
I've lived in Israel too.


Where did you live in Israel? How long did you live there?
Original post by TheBlackWatch
How many synagogues are there in PA controlled areas? And how many mosques in Israel proper?


Pretty sure Israel chose to keep the settlements out of the territory given to PA enclaves.

Also, certain Gypsy / Traveller settlements are "illegal" too. I wonder what your position is on them?


My position would be firstly that that's (generally) national rather than international law.

Also I was using the legal argument because it's an independent standard for judgement here, not necessarily my personal opinion of what's right. Though if you want to discuss that, we can do.
Original post by TheBlackWatch
Well said. Also, many minorities in Israel want it to remain explicitly a "Jewish" state. The Druze and the Ba'hai, for example. They know what awaits them under an Arab Muslim state (dhimmitude).

Furthermore, the "Jewish" nature of Israel relates to its unique function as a haven for the Jews if there was ever to be another Holocaust somewhere, hence the right of return.


Obvious problem with this is that Zionism and the demand for a Jewish state existed before the Holocaust.

It is the world's only Jewish majority state, therefore it has a unique role and function to remain a place to which Jews could flee. Some say "Oh a holocaust could never happen again". That's whig history; few could have predicted that liberal Germany of the 1920s only fifteen years later would be herding Jews into gas chambers and slaughtering them in the millions. Unfortunately many Jews found they were unable to get refugee status to England or America etc,

Right of return and its Jewish nature has nothing to do with Jewish superiority and everything to do with its unique status to ensure that Jewish people will not find themselves in that situation again.


Let's try this hypothetically to avoid contestation over other historically comparable situations. Suppose that, at some point in the near because of birth rates etc, Arab Israelis are, or look like they could become, the majority of Israel's population. What do you say should happen to them?

Or let's take, since we've already mentioned them, the Romani people, as they share many similarities with the pre-1948 Jewish diaspora - persecuted and discrminated against in most places, as has regularly been the case through history, scattered across the world, with no state or indeed any significant area where they form a majority, and who also suffered a genocide at the hands of the Nazis. So they decide to form a movement somewhat like Zionism, advocating the aim that there needs to be a Romani state with a Romani majority.

Wherever they or you think that state should be, what about the people already living there?

Muslims, if there is a Muslim holocaust, can find refuge in many countries.


So any victim of genocide who is a Muslim can find refuge in any Muslim country? That will be news to the victims of the Iraqi Kurdish and Bangladeshi genocides, being Muslims already in a Muslim country.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
That's a good thing. The West needs to emulate that.

You are making a conflation here too. Wanting the majority ethnic or cultural group in your nation to remain the majority ethnic or cultural group is not comparable to the genocidal ambitions of the Islamists in Hamas and Hezbollah. Wanting Israel to remain Jewish or England to remain English is not morally equivalent to wanting to re-establish the Caliphate, forcing religious minorities into dhimmi status and taking captive women as sex slaves.


I never compared them, so this is a Whataboutery fallacy. Saying X is worse than Y doesn't mean Y isn't bad too.

Also since I was talking about the PLO, your mention of Hamas etc is an irrelevant strawman.

And to actually reach the relevant point, again, let's take a hypothetical situation. Suppose that in your state, the majority ethnic group looks, based on demographic trends, like it will not be so much longer. And for the sake of argument, let's suppose this is entirely through endogenous factors like birth rates, rather than immigration. What exactly would you propose to do about it?
Original post by anarchism101
And to actually reach the relevant point, again, let's take a hypothetical situation. Suppose that in your state, the majority ethnic group looks, based on demographic trends, like it will not be so much longer. And for the sake of argument, let's suppose this is entirely through endogenous factors like birth rates, rather than immigration. What exactly would you propose to do about it?

Address the underlying problems - end feminism, restore religion, improve the culture, etc.

Also it depends on what the other major ethnic or religious groups are. A large Muslim population is a more serious problem than some others.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Address the underlying problems - end feminism, restore religion, improve the culture, etc.


And if that fails? Pretty sure demographics have changed in some places without any of these "underlying problems".

Also it depends on what the other major ethnic or religious groups are. A large Muslim population is a more serious problem than some others.


Doesn't really change the question. The processes of them becoming a majority or not will still be the same.
Original post by anarchism101
And if that fails? Pretty sure demographics have changed in some places without any of these "underlying problems".

Then the society would collapse.

Original post by anarchism101
Doesn't really change the question. The processes of them becoming a majority or not will still be the same.

No, because Mohammedans believe in a religion that advocates conquering and conversion by force. They are a greater threat than other groups.
Original post by anarchism101
Obvious problem with this is that Zionism and the demand for a Jewish state existed before the Holocaust.

And the Holocaust proved right all those who had advocated for Zionism before World War 2; the Jews need a state of their own, a place to which they can flee.

Suppose that, at some point in the near because of birth rates etc, Arab Israelis are, or look like they could become, the majority of Israel's population. What do you say should happen to them?


I would advocate Israel cedes certain northern areas to a new Arab Israeli state that will remain in overall association with Israel (free trade, etc). In any case, that's not going to happen so we don't need to worry.

So they decide to form a movement somewhat like Zionism, advocating the aim that there needs to be a Romani state with a Romani majority.


I don't have any inherent objections to it. If the Romani, like the Jews did, want to go and buy certain areas of Romania from the Romanians, and live there, maybe with some form of federal association, that sounds fine to me.

Wherever they or you think that state should be, what about the people already living there?


The Romani would buy land from the existing inhabitants just as the Jews did. Like most "anti-zionists", you seem to be under the misapprehension that Israeli Jews turned up in landing crafts, invaded Palestine, kicked the Arabs out and moved into their houses.

In fact, purchase of lands from Arabs was the predominant method of obtaining housing.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheBlackWatch
If there was another Holocaust, would you be grateful for the existence of a state where Jews could flee?

Should there be a Gay state then? And a gypsy state? What about the hootsies and the tootsies, should they have a state?
Your question makes two fundamental assumptions, that there would be another Holocaust and no state would let Jews in.



Those buildings are not a target, until they're used to target Israel

That's just nonsensical. You do know that the IDF changed the definition of 'military target' to the family of anyone in Hamas. So if someone had a second cousin in Hamas, their house would officially be a legitimate target.
Israel has bombed and shelled many schools which had no missiles in,



Are you saying it wasn't a mistake? Are we going for the good old blood libel here? It must have been the Jewish bloodlust to kill children, of course. No possibility it could have been a mistake, the evil Jews don't make mistake

Of course it wasn't a mistake. What were they trying to do? They bombed 4 children playing football on a beach. What were they trying to do? Either way they were so reckless in their actions that they don't get to call it a 'mistake'.


It's not so much a mistake as the tragic consequence of Hamas operating from civilian areas. If Hamas operates from civilian areas, then civilians will get killed.

The whole of Gaza is a civilian area, they don't have big open spaces.
Yet Israel drops bombs in Gazan civilian areas.




Do you seriously believe they wanted to kill children? Is that really your conclusion?

They were so reckless in their actions that it does not matter what they 'wanted' to do. If I really want to burn down a building but don't want to kill anyone inside that's not a justification.
Israel were so reckless in their actions.

Do you realise that sometimes targeting systems fail, that sometimes computers mess up, that sometimes guided weapons malfunction?

Again, you're basing your argument on an assumption they had to go in and bomb Gaza. I don't believe they did.
You cant invade somewhere, bomb the crap out of it and go 'oh sorry, mistakes happen'.


You mean the school that was hit by a misfiring Hamas rocket?

No, the Israeli shelling of the UN school which they were warned 17 times had people sheltering in it.




I'm doing no such thing. I'm pointing out that the disproportionate focus on Israel can only come from anti-semitism. And it's not impossible for Jews to be anti-semitic, they often internalise the hatred, just like closeted gays

And I repeat, I am not a self-hating Jew, I am not anti-semitic. There are many things I do not like about myself but the fact I'm Jewish isn't one of them.
It's a pathetic argument you and others use when you have no logical argument to defend it you go with the 'yeah but you're anti-semitic'.
Of course, because you can't oppose the butchering of thousands of innocent civilians without being anti-semitic.
You said Israel gets 'disproportionate focus'. Well you also said Israel was the only 'democracy' in the middle east. If you claim it's a democracy then it must be held to higher standards then Arab dictatorships who we all know are bad.
You want to have your cake an eat it.

I like being jewish, I like how I have a rich family history and culture. I like the food, I like celebrating festivals and I like how the community supports each other.
I don't like Israel's actions in Gaza, that doesn't make me anti-Semitic.



(1) There is a clear moral distinction between deliberately targeting civilians, as Hamas is doing, and targeting terrorist bases / rocket sites etc and civilian deaths being an unfortunate consequence


No, there isn't. Because Israel is SO reckless in it's actions that the consequences become a near certainty. If you bomb schools and hospitals and children on a beach, civilians will be killed.

Now what to you is worse, a.)one guy intentionally murdering one individual or b.) One guy recklessly throwing a grenade, not thinking where it's going and ending up killing hundreds.

(2) Are schools, hospitals etc the only targets Israel hit? Is that what you're claiming?
No, they also hit children playing football on a beach.


It would make sense that you've internalised anti-semitism, given your disproportionate focus on Israel and your willingness to believe something that amounts to a modern blood libel

Disproportionate focus on Israel? THIS IS A THREAD ON ISRAEL FFS. I'l gladly contribute to a thread on Saudi Arabia or North Korea.

As to your hysterical comments about "slaughtering innocents", do you truly believe it was intentional? You believe that the young 19 year old conscript was sitting behind the console on the Saar 5 thinking, "Ahh I want to kill some Palestinian children today". And you claim to have lived in Israel? And you can believe that about Israelis?

I did live in Israel. And no, I don't think they 'want' to per se but they are so reckless in their actions, that the consequences become a certainty. It does not matter what they 'want'. Recklessness when the consequences were certain, in a legal sense can count as intention.

You seem to keep avoiding this with hysterical shrieking about schools and hospitals, while failing to acknowledge that Hamas was operating from those schools and hospitals, and that they were empty of children and patients. All you offer is sophistry, buzzwords and slogans, not serious argument.


Haha. Hamas was not operating from many of these which were blown up.
Your 'serious' argument is ' you're just anti-semitic'.
Deary me.
Original post by felamaslen

I'd like to see what your response to jihadists would be. Give them flowers and hope for the best?

You do realise that Hamas are not Jihadist?
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
That's a good thing. The West needs to emulate that.

You are making a conflation here too. Wanting the majority ethnic or cultural group in your nation to remain the majority ethnic or cultural group is not comparable to the genocidal ambitions of the Islamists in Hamas and Hezbollah. Wanting Israel to remain Jewish or England to remain English is not morally equivalent to wanting to re-establish the Caliphate, forcing religious minorities into dhimmi status and taking captive women as sex slaves.


Not the same thing.
Surely the comparison there, is wanting England to remain English and Israel to remain Israeli.
Or wanting England to remain Christian and Israel Jewish.

Don't conflate nationalities with religion.
Original post by Bornblue
You do realise that Hamas are not Jihadist?


wat
Original post by Bornblue
Not the same thing.
Surely the comparison there, is wanting England to remain English and Israel to remain Israeli.
Or wanting England to remain Christian and Israel Jewish.

Don't conflate nationalities with religion.


Jewish is an ethnicity. English is an ethnicity. Israeli is not.
Original post by SotonianOne
Jewish is an ethnicity. English is an ethnicity. Israeli is not.


Jewish isn't an ethnicity. It's a religion.
You get Jews from all different places and all different races. You have Ashkenazis and sephardim.

Israeli is an ethnicity, English is an ethnicity. Jewish is not. I'm Jewish and I am not the same ethnicity as people born in Israel, or Jews born in Africa, or China or Mexico or Spain etc.

Apples and oranges. Don't conflate nationality with religion.
Ethnicity is about where a person was from. Judaism is a religion.

The fact that people can convert away from Judaism proves this. If I denounce my Judaism I am no longer Jewish, you can't denounce your ethnicity.
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you