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

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kathy89)
    I never claimed that all does
    You don't need. It was enough to say "Jewish schools teach to hate and fear Arabs" - a very nice generalization.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alisa59)
    Watched the video. You can clearly see a bunch of Palestinians holding weapons in the first part. The rest of the video parts are just short moments without seeing the whole story. I don't see how your point is valid.



    I disagree. They're not violent in any sort. Sometimes the violence gets worse and they have no choice but to control them forcefully. You can believe what you want but that's the truth. However, Israelis might do the violence towards them with intention, but that doesn't make them any worse compared to Palestinians being taught to hate Jews or wipe out Israelis out of existence.

    I don't think you should say such things about the IDF if you don't know about them or the whole situation.




    There are many evidences on twitter, including Facebook or other social media, news reports, and blogs. Usually they are from governmental and non-governmental sectors, politicians, important individuals, arab or non-arab Israelis, etc. These factors I read from a lot of sources, I can't remember which ones.

    I'm pretty surprised you don't know anything about Hamas, Fatah, and the Palestinian government oppressing Palestine.




    If what other people said in this thread is correct, then I guess your circumcision part is a misunderstanding.




    Not all of your sources are discredited. I think they miss out the true story about it. The Wikipedia one is pretty shocking tbh, I don't believe it, also it's sometimes unreliable.


    Basically, you're just pretty misunderstood.
    "Watched the video. You can clearly see a bunch of Palestinians holding weapons in the first part. The rest of the video parts are just short moments without seeing the whole story. I don't see how your point is valid"
    I don't think you watched the video. You can clearly see Israeli forces firing the cannon into random Palestinian homes. My point is still valid.

    "I disagree. They're not violent in any sort. Sometimes the violence gets worse and they have no choice but to control them forcefully. You can believe what you want but that's the truth. However, Israelis might do the violence towards them with intention, but that doesn't make them any worse compared to Palestinians being taught to hate Jews or wipe out Israelis out of existence"
    They're not violent in any sort? Hilarious! The Palestinian death toll is nearly 10 times higher than the Israeli death count. The Palestinians were killed by peaceful Israeli love, weren't they? Yes, they are worse than the Palestinians, the death tolls prove it. Israel is no better than Nazi Germany. Israelis are taught from a young age that gentiles are inferior and most Rabbis agree that a gentile is permitted to be killed in a Jew is in need of an organ. You act surprised that the Palestinians hate Israel, what do you expect them to do? Shower Israel with roses and love in response to thousands of them being killed and their land stolen?

    "I don't think you should say such things about the IDF if you don't know about them or the whole situation"
    The IDF is a vile death squad comparable to the SS that takes pleasure in murdering innocent children. If you're against the Nazis, but support the IDF, you're nothing more than a hypocrite.

    "There are many evidences on twitter, including Facebook or other social media, news reports, and blogs. Usually they are from governmental and non-governmental sectors, politicians, important individuals, arab or non-arab Israelis, etc. These factors I read from a lot of sources, I can't remember which ones"
    Oh really, there's "many evidences", then you won't have any problem providing some evidence to back up your claim. Provide proof that the majority of Palestinian deaths are self inflicted.s

    "I'm pretty surprised you don't know anything about Hamas, Fatah, and the Palestinian government oppressing Palestine"
    On what basis are you making these assumptions?

    "If what other people said in this thread is correct, then I guess your circumcision part is a misunderstanding"
    Seriously, have you even studied the basic of religion? Metzitzah B'Peh is a very big part of Jewish tradition and compulsory within orthodox families. Please do more research before making such idiotic statements, thank you.

    "Not all of your sources are discredited. I think they miss out the true story about it. The Wikipedia one is pretty shocking tbh, I don't believe it, also it's sometimes unreliable"
    Go on then, what's the true story that these multi-million pound news companies have missed out on that you're picked up? Enlighten me, what's the true story?

    "Basically, you're just pretty misunderstood"
    Please, don't make me laugh. First you didn't believe my statements, so I provided credible sources to support my claims. Now you suggest that I'm "pretty misunderstood". You just don't want to accept the fact that you were wrong and hence disregard any logical argument I present to you.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Someone earlier said it hasn't be proven that Jews run the world. But this narrative hasn't been proven false either. So it is an opinion, and under freedom of thought and speech, such opinion does not count as hate speech/thought so is allowed. If you wish to criticise someone who holds such views, do it in the way of a reasonable logical debate with facts.

    Now what is quite clear, through a simple google search of top media executives/politicians and influential business owners, is that there is a very strong contingent of Zionists who are among the elite in these professions. Even the BBC has had those with strong zionist views become senior executives. Do it now, Google who is in charge of these businesses and research into their viewpoints.

    Then you also have one of the most powerful countries in the world who always have been zionists and a strong sense of giving to Israel exists within the US.

    As for the arguments that they are situated in a region where other countries despise them. Well, my question is why did the West decide after WW2 that the Middle East would be the best place to locate the Jews? Especially when a country the size of the US could easily have taken in the Israeli population and annexed a small section of their country to create a state for the Jews to reside in. That would not only have resulted in no Middle East tensions and the Jewish population would have lived lives of plenty freedom and no fear.

    p,s. the retort that the Jews lived in ancient Israel at some point and deserve the land does not make any sense, nor does the "God given land" theory stand. We don't see the Native Americans being given back the US or the Aborigines being given back Australia. In fact, these native populations are actually treated as second class in a lot of instances. So why one rule for the Israelis and another rule for everyone else?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    You don't need. It was enough to say "Jewish schools teach to hate and fear Arabs" - a very nice generalization.
    I understand you are Jewish and have a strong connection to Israel. I understand why it hurts you when I write such things, but you completely take the things out of proportion.
    There are extremists in both sides, There are interesants in both sides who want this war. However, most of the people are pro-peace and were just misinformed a lot... ON BOTH sides.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calsmith12)

    Israelis are taught from a young age that gentiles are inferior and most Rabbis agree that a gentile is permitted to be killed in a Jew is in need of an organ. You act surprised that the Palestinians hate Israel, what do you expect them to do? Shower Israel with roses and love in response to thousands of them being killed and their land stolen?
    1. Only orthodox school actually teach that gentiles are inferior, same term is used for those whose mother is not Jewish, not only for Arabs.
    2. At school we learn that Palestinians are firing rockets at cities in the south of Israel. They say "Palestinians" and not "Hamas" or any other organization, that is how non-religious schools are teaching us to hate Palestinians and Arabs in general.
    3. I am sure that Muslims in Gaza are taught that Muslims are superior and any other religion is inferior. I am also sure that they are taught that Israel is firing rockets at them and bombing their houses out of the blue for no reason at all. And all this is because the media in each place shows only one side of the coin.

    (Original post by calsmith12)
    "I don't think you should say such things about the IDF if you don't know about them or the whole situation"
    The IDF is a vile death squad comparable to the SS that takes pleasure in murdering innocent children. If you're against the Nazis, but support the IDF, you're nothing more than a hypocrite.
    On one hand IDF soldiers are following orders to bomb houses, on the other hand they are helping injured Palestinians as well as injured soldiers. I served as a medical assistant in IDF we were treating both soldiers and Palestinians.
    Yes. There are cases of military aggression that are coming out of proportion. There are even cases like El'or Azaria's case which was highly criticized even by Israeli authorities.
    The IDF and the Israeli goverment are not angels, but they are far from being the devil either.


    (Original post by calsmith12)
    "I'm pretty surprised you don't know anything about Hamas, Fatah, and the Palestinian government oppressing Palestine"
    On what basis are you making these assumptions?
    Please tell me what you know/think about Hamas.

    (Original post by calsmith12)
    "Not all of your sources are discredited. I think they miss out the true story about it. The Wikipedia one is pretty shocking tbh, I don't believe it, also it's sometimes unreliable"
    Go on then, what's the true story that these multi-million pound news companies have missed out on that you're picked up? Enlighten me, what's the true story?

    "Basically, you're just pretty misunderstood"
    Please, don't make me laugh. First you didn't believe my statements, so I provided credible sources to support my claims. Now you suggest that I'm "pretty misunderstood". You just don't want to accept the fact that you were wrong and hence disregard any logical argument I present to you.
    The coin has two sides, you only see one. That's the whole story. Once you realize there is another side your views will change a bit.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calsmith12)
    "Watched the video. You can clearly see a bunch of Palestinians holding weapons in the first part. The rest of the video parts are just short moments without seeing the whole story. I don't see how your point is valid"
    I don't think you watched the video. You can clearly see Israeli forces firing the cannon into random Palestinian homes. My point is still valid.

    "I disagree. They're not violent in any sort. Sometimes the violence gets worse and they have no choice but to control them forcefully. You can believe what you want but that's the truth. However, Israelis might do the violence towards them with intention, but that doesn't make them any worse compared to Palestinians being taught to hate Jews or wipe out Israelis out of existence"
    They're not violent in any sort? Hilarious! The Palestinian death toll is nearly 10 times higher than the Israeli death count. The Palestinians were killed by peaceful Israeli love, weren't they? Yes, they are worse than the Palestinians, the death tolls prove it. Israel is no better than Nazi Germany. Israelis are taught from a young age that gentiles are inferior and most Rabbis agree that a gentile is permitted to be killed in a Jew is in need of an organ. You act surprised that the Palestinians hate Israel, what do you expect them to do? Shower Israel with roses and love in response to thousands of them being killed and their land stolen?

    "I don't think you should say such things about the IDF if you don't know about them or the whole situation"
    The IDF is a vile death squad comparable to the SS that takes pleasure in murdering innocent children. If you're against the Nazis, but support the IDF, you're nothing more than a hypocrite.

    "There are many evidences on twitter, including Facebook or other social media, news reports, and blogs. Usually they are from governmental and non-governmental sectors, politicians, important individuals, arab or non-arab Israelis, etc. These factors I read from a lot of sources, I can't remember which ones"
    Oh really, there's "many evidences", then you won't have any problem providing some evidence to back up your claim. Provide proof that the majority of Palestinian deaths are self inflicted.s

    "I'm pretty surprised you don't know anything about Hamas, Fatah, and the Palestinian government oppressing Palestine"
    On what basis are you making these assumptions?

    "If what other people said in this thread is correct, then I guess your circumcision part is a misunderstanding"
    Seriously, have you even studied the basic of religion? Metzitzah B'Peh is a very big part of Jewish tradition and compulsory within orthodox families. Please do more research before making such idiotic statements, thank you.

    "Not all of your sources are discredited. I think they miss out the true story about it. The Wikipedia one is pretty shocking tbh, I don't believe it, also it's sometimes unreliable"
    Go on then, what's the true story that these multi-million pound news companies have missed out on that you're picked up? Enlighten me, what's the true story?

    "Basically, you're just pretty misunderstood"
    Please, don't make me laugh. First you didn't believe my statements, so I provided credible sources to support my claims. Now you suggest that I'm "pretty misunderstood". You just don't want to accept the fact that you were wrong and hence disregard any logical argument I present to you.
    Lmao. Reading your answers, I think you're really in denial and not actually considering my points thoroughly, especially being emotional too.

    "You just don't want to accept the fact that you were wrong".
    I actually didn't disregard your points. I wanna enlighten myself and listen to your point of view. Sadly, some of them are misinformed and not seeing the actual truth.

    I give up having a thorough conversation without this emotional gibberish and questions. Have a nice day.Thank you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kathy89)
    The coin has two sides, you only see one. That's the whole story. Once you realize there is another side your views will change a bit.
    I agree. I used to see one side of the coin (the Palestinian side), but changed my perspective when I see both. To be honest, I favour one side the most.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alisa59)
    I agree. I used to see one side of the coin (the Palestinian side), but changed my perspective when I see both. To be honest, I favour one side the most.
    That is fine favouring a side. No one realky expects you to be completely neutral, but you have to aknowlage the other side still exists.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calsmith12)
    Firstly, I think you're just clutching at straws now. The terms 'refute' and 'discredit' are near identical. You asked why it remains so marginal in 'serious history', whatever that is.
    History written by qualified professional historians (or academics in related fields, such as sociology or political science), appearing in peer-reviewed history journals, or in books published by academic presses, that kind of thing.

    And no, they're not identical. A "refuted" claim is one that has been factually disproven. A "discredited" claim is one that is rejected by authorities on the topic. They're related, of course. But pretty much everyone believes and claims that they have "refuted" the arguments of those they oppose. It's much harder to convince yourself that people are on your side when they're not.

    Well, simply put, because of the heavy bias towards Israel prevalent in Western nations
    This was true in historiography of the Israel-Palestine conflict until the late 1980s, but it's much less so now. Nowadays there are a lot more historians and histories with a more pro-Palestinian interpretation - people like Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Shlomo Sand, Nur Masalha, Baruch Kimmerling. If you want to expand beyond the academy, you can look at people like Max Blumenthal and Ben White. I could go on.

    The original, hardline pro-Israel interpretation, though still trumpeted by Israeli politicians and pro-Israel types in the West, is largely no longer taken seriously in academic history. The books that come out still defending it tend to be books by non-historians written for a lay audience (because they likely wouldn't pass the academic rigour). The serious academic pro-Israel perspective nowadays is people like Benny Morris, who accept that the original romanticised portrayal of Israeli history is wrong, but still interpret the "new history" in a pro-Israel way.

    Let me give you an example, British textbooks never once mention Churchills genocide of 2-4 million Indians yet they mention Hitlers supposed genocide of 6 million Jews wherever possible. Why? To indoctrinate us from a young age that specifically Jews deserve our eternal sympathy and thus sympathise with the idea of Israel.
    I'm assuming you're referring to the Bengal Famine. Outside of the occasional Indian politician, no-one really considers this genocide. A horrific crime, perhaps. But most attribute it to either incompetence or indifference, rather than malice.

    There's a very basic difference between Churchill's responsibility for the Bengal Famine, and genocide (not just the Holocaust, but all genocides) - namely the difference between simply allowing people to die by starvation, and actually rounding them up and slaughtering them.

    If you want to know why the Holocaust is more focused on than other modern "canonical" genocides like Armenia, Bosnia and Rwanda, I'd say there are a few reasons:
    - Sheer numbers. Ultimately, it's bigger than the others.
    - Intensity. Only the Rwandan Genocide can really rival or beat the Holocaust for sheer rate of slaughter, and that's much more recent and ignored for other reasons.
    - Technology. The ways in which the Nazis used modern technological and industrial methods to commit genocide shocked people used to the idea that technological advancement could only ever be wholly a good thing.
    - A certain amount of condescending racism. White Europeans and Americans assumed that they were just too "civilised" to commit such industrial slaughter - an assumption they didn't extend to Turks or Hutus.
    - Motive. Most genocides, when you think about them clearly, have an explanation which can be couched in particular political interest (which is not the same as a justification). The Ottoman government's interest in wiping out the Armenians was guaranteeing that Eastern Anatolia would never break away to form part of an Armenian state. The Serb nationalists' interest in wiping out the Bosniaks of Eastern Bosnia was to leave the region as a Serbs-only area that could be annexed to Serbia. The Interahamwe's interest in slaughtering Tutsis was to destroy the possibility of an alliance between Tutsi nationalists and Hutu moderates. Even the Nazis' genocidal activities towards Poles and other Slavs had an obvious motive - to clear the Lebensraum for German colonists. But the Shoah and the Porajmos had no such obvious motive - their victims did not really pose any threat, nor was there anything concrete to be gained from the killing at a collective level, except in Nazi propaganda.

    It's also worth noting that prior to the Eichmann Trial in 1961-62, the Holocaust didn't really get that much attention in academic or school history. Raul Hilberg, when pursuing the PhD thesis that would come to be The Destruction of the European Jews, widely regarded as the most authoritative book on the Holocaust ever written, even today, was advised against pursuing the topic, and even when he had finished his PhD and written the book, he struggled to find a publisher.

    Really? I wasn't present for the trial, care to enlighten me as to how they refuted these claims regarding the tests taken at Auschwitz?
    Irving lost the case, did you miss that?

    If you want some more specific details, Leuchter was unqualified (having no qualifications in any science, never mind chemistry), took giant hunks of brick rather than just surface samples, was unaware of the amount of cyanide needed to kill lice and humans respectively, was unaware of the ventilation systems in some of the crematoria, and drastically underestimated their capacity. I could go on.


    ... Germar Rudolf has already debunked this absurd argument (http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html)
    Are you a chemist, for the record?

    If you want to see a full technical dismissal of Rudolf's claims, see these by Richard Green:
    http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocau...t-the-science/
    http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocau...hemistry/blue/

    Though what I find more interesting about this particular article you've linked is Rudolf's claim at the top that Irving would have won the case had his evidence not been withdrawn by Irving - in other words, that his affadavit was the "magic bullet" which somehow would have convinced the judge where everything else had failed. Rudolf even desperately tries to twist the judge's words to say this.

    The obvious problem with this is that, if it was true, why didn't Irving present the evidence that would have won him the case? The much more likely explanation is that Irving knew Rudolf's evidence wouldn't win the case, and thought that it would either be a waste of time to include it, or (even worse from Irving's perspective) that Van Pelt and Green would tear it to shreds as they had done Leuchter, and so Irving left it out precisely so Rudolf could make such claims about it later.

    Ok, I got this slightly wrong. The assertion is that Jews were tattoos on arrival to Auschwitz for identification. If the Nazis planned on wiping out the Jews, why would they waste valuable resources on tattooing each prisoner? It makes no sense.
    They wouldn't have tatooed those Jews who were killed on arrival, just those who they planned to use as Sonderkommandos or slave labour, or human experimentation.


    Yes, this is from the Leuchter report.
    So not worth much....

    There was little to no prussian blue staning in the Auschwitz gas chambers compared to Majdanek. This makes no sense since only 80,000 were gassed in Majdanek, compared to the 1,000,000+ supposedly gassed in Auschwitz.
    Firstly, Prussian blue doesn't always form. That was precisely why Markiewicz deemed it an unreliable indicator and used other indicators in his own test.

    Also, the Auschwitz gas chambers were blown up by the Nazis before they left. Leuchter was taking his samples from ruins that had been lying outside for decades, subject to all the Polish weather and elements in that time. By contrast, the attempted destruction of the Majdanek gas chambers failed, and so they were largely preserved.

    The entire purpose of a death camp is death.
    Auschwitz was not like Treblinka or Sobibor. The latter two were purpose-built as extermination camps, and that was their sole purpose. Auschwitz was originally an ordinary concentration camp, primarily for political prisoners. The extermination facilities were only built later, and the concentration camp/slave labour camp functions were retained alongside the death camp ones (this is part of the reason why there were three main Auschwitz camps).

    Is that an assumption or fact?
    A mix. For example, we have testimony from former Polish prisoners at Auschwitz I that they used the brothels.

    Do you think the assumption that the camp guards would have had access to more luxuries than the prisoners is an unreasonable one?

    I do believe you are pro-Israel and hiding your bias by pretending to support a dissolved state of Israel.
    Then trawl through my history and find proof of my allegedly pro-Israel stance.



    AlexanderHam thought some of this might interest you.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    As Israel are disliked by all there neighbouring countries in the middle east so they need protection from the west.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kathy89)
    I understand you are Jewish and have a strong connection to Israel. I understand why it hurts you when I write such things, but you completely take the things out of proportion.
    No, it doesn't hurt me, but I'm surprised. I'm surprised because I never heard such thing even from radical left. You are the first. And the only your argument sounded like "one my teacher once said something". You refuse to support your assertion, because it's just your personal opinion.
    I'm also surprised how comfortable you feel with a Holocaust denier and a person repeatedly saying "the Jews rule the world".
    What exactly in my posts is "out of proportion"?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    No, it doesn't hurt me, but I'm surprised. I'm surprised because I never heard such thing even from radical left. You are the first. And the only your argument sounded like "one my teacher once said something". You refuse to support your assertion, because it's just your personal opinion.
    I'm also surprised how comfortable you feel with a Holocaust denier and a person repeatedly saying "the Jews rule the world".
    What exactly in my posts is "out of proportion"?
    I simply ignore holocost deniers like these, believe what you wqnt to believe. They have tons of books to prove you are wrong, give them any evidence you want, they will prove you are wrong and they are right anyway. It is useless to argue about it.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    x
    An incisive and methodical refutation of that user's claims.

    I think reasonable people are so shocked by the sheer audacity and brazenness of Holocaust denial that they find it hard to know where to begin in responding to and debunking it, so I salute you for taking the time to do a line-by-line response, and one clearly based on a very good historical (and historiographical) grounding in that issue.

    Then trawl through my history and find proof of my allegedly pro-Israel stance
    I thought that was quite funny, when he accused you of being pro-Israel. I don't think anyone has accused you of being pro-Israel before, and it's a sign that he has basically closed his mind to any possibility of being reasoned with.

    The irony is that anyone who is a Holocaust denier is no friend of the Palestinians; the assertion of Holocaust denial myths by people associated with the Palestinian movement just gives ammunition to the Israeli right
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kathy89)
    Even if it does (as an Israeli I can say, it does) Israeli Army (politicians) reaction is far from being proportional. In one case there was a guy who run away from his family and joined a cult and went to harm Israelis, he killed one and injured two, he was killed by the Israeli forces (either the police or the army), his family has no contact with him for a long time and never approved such an action, but what did Israeli government do?! They ****ing destroyed the house of that family!!! Not the cults headquarters but the poor family's house.....
    I have to salute your comments on this thread, it is indeed very interesting to get the view of an Israeli who is pro-peace but who has not lost perspective about the intentions and blameworthiness of each side.

    Do you think there's a possibility at some point of a Labour / Yesh Atid / Kulanu coalition that could at least attempt to make a deal with the Palestinians? Personally I find it hard to see why someone like Kahlon continues to prop up Likud (although I guess even if Kulanu switches, Labour still can't make a government without support from the Arab Joint List and they have said (understandably) that is something they will not do
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I have to salute your comments on this thread, it is indeed very interesting to get the view of an Israeli who is pro-peace but who has not lost perspective about the intentions and blameworthiness of each side.

    Do you think there's a possibility at some point of a Labour / Yesh Atid / Kulanu coalition that could at least attempt to make a deal with the Palestinians? Personally I find it hard to see why someone like Kahlon continues to prop up Likud (although I guess even if Kulanu switches, Labour still can't make a government without support from the Arab Joint List and they have said (understandably) that is something they will not do
    I think that no political party can make any more moves towards peace negotiations when the palestinain leader'a demand is simply the destruction of Israel.
    Sorry, I am just being realistic
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I thought that was quite funny, when he accused you of being pro-Israel. I don't think anyone has accused you of being pro-Israel before, and it's a sign that he has basically closed his mind to any possibility of being reasoned with.

    The irony is that anyone who is a Holocaust denier is no friend of the Palestinians; the assertion of Holocaust denial myths by people associated with the Palestinian movement just gives ammunition to the Israeli right
    Indeed. It's a weird thing that results from them fitting Israel and Zionism into their pre-existing ideas about worldwide Jewish conspiracies - you start seeing everyone who doesn't believe in said conspiracies as a confirmed pro-Israeli.

    Reminds me of the affair with Gilad Atzmon and the PSC a few years back. Atzmon got forced out by Tony Greenstein, of all people, upon which Atzmon decided that, because Greenstein (rightly) regarded Atzmon and Paul Eisen and Co. as racist scumbags who he wanted nothing to do with, therefore Greenstein must have been a closet Zionist all along.

    Similarly, Atzmon thinks Max Blumenthal is really a "Jewish supremacist" simply because Blumenthal denounces Atzmon and doesn't deny the Holocaust. See also Norman Finkelstein, Ali Abunimah, BDS, etc - Atzmon thinks they're all secretly ardent Zionists.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Indeed. It's a weird thing that results from them fitting Israel and Zionism into their pre-existing ideas about worldwide Jewish conspiracies - you start seeing everyone who doesn't believe in said conspiracies as a confirmed pro-Israeli.
    Indeed. It really is remarkable how many apparent "shills" Israel has out there who publicly advocate for the Palestinian cause and criticise Israel. I'm familiar with Israel's public relations machine and their online propaganda operation, but the reflexive cry of "hasbara" any time someone fails to subscribe to their particular brand of politics and ideology is tiresome, to say the least.

    These people are utterly deluded, but they think that they are the truly clever ones, they are the ones who see things as they truly are and everyone else are just shills/sheeple etc.

    Similarly, Atzmon thinks Max Blumenthal is really a "Jewish supremacist" simply because Blumenthal denounces Atzmon and doesn't deny the Holocaust.
    I think Blumenthal is a first-class **** head, but Jewish supremacist he is not. And I would argue it goes further than simply failing to subscribe to Holocaust denial. Anyone who is Jewish and in the pro-Palestinian movement who believes that the pre-67 borders are probably a broadly realistic starting point for negotiations are at risk of being accused of harbouring secret chauvinism based on their ethnicity. It's a very ugly state of affairs. As you are aware, Finkelstein was subjected to this.

    As for Atzmon, I genuinely believe the man has some mental health issues that drive him to extreme and outlandish behaviour.

    In any case, this kind of behaviour is probably to be expected when you have a very diverse and heterogenous array of people and groups who share, loosely speaking, a goal (a just settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict) but for whom the definition of "just settlement", and the ideological and political (and religious) background that led to their belief in this goal, couldn't be more different.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I have to salute your comments on this thread, it is indeed very interesting to get the view of an Israeli who is pro-peace but who has not lost perspective about the intentions and blameworthiness of each side.
    (Original post by Kathy89)
    I think that no political party can make any more moves towards peace negotiations when the palestinain leader'a demand is simply the destruction of Israel.
    Still saluting? :cool:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Still saluting? :cool:
    With the leaders we have now, no side wants peace. If hypothetically, Israel would have a leader who really wants peace, it will still require the other side to have one like this too in order to negotiate the terms....
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Still saluting? :cool:
    Of course. I largely accept that, at present, a comprehensive deal may not be possible due to Hamas' intransigence. However, a deal with the PA / Fatah is possible and even if it weren't, the Israeli side must continue to be willing to talk whenever the Palestinians are.

    Netanyahu has no interest in pulling out of the West Bank, even on a deal that allows the Israelis to keep the largest settlement blocs like those around Ariel and Maale Adumim.

    The Israeli right is simply too dogmatic, too narrow-minded, too bigoted (and too much in hock to the settlers) to ever make serious moves toward contracting a lasting peace deal.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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

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