Malaysia bans Israel from competing in Paralympics. Accused of Antisemitism Watch

Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Underscore__)
Where did I conflate the two?
I said by extension you are.

[quote[
Oh look, you're claiming I said something that I didn't. What a new and novel approach from you. Where did I say you should go and ask all Malaysians? What I said was if you disagree with how their sampling was done then you need to provide some evidence that shows their sampling was done poorly. [/quote]
No that was simply me misunderstanding what you wrote. No need to get your panties in a bunch of it.
All sampling is done poorly for these things it just depends how poorly and given how much Malaysia varies across its regions and between city and rural its not an outandish assumption to make.
So does Cancer Research UK exaggerate the number of cancer sufferers? Or Unicef exaggerate the number of children living in poverty? After all both have a vested interest in having people believe in the prevalence of the harm they were created to combat.
Oh hello Mr strawman i nearly missed you there. The number of patients with cancer or those children starving to death tends to be an object fact, not an opinion.
Although my your rather umm questionable logic should these organisations be supporting wars, slavery and the arms trade to keep themselves in business?


If you think it's a lie then please do find some evidence of a donation to a campaign by the AIPAC[
I'm not sure what the number is a reference to. /quote]
Go read the booj i linked. Whilst AIPAc itself notionally doesnt contribute directly it most certainly does indirectly.
I'm not sure what the number is a reference to.
It's an ISBN...

No what happens is people are less responsive to things that are labelled as antisemitic, it doesn't suddenly mean that antisemitism doesn't exist.
No but it does mean there is a delightful grey zone exists because peopkle have watered the term back so much where it can accurately be said to be devoid of much meaning anything.

I used the wrong term, I was referring to Mahathir.
I see nothing wrong with the man. He's a better chap than his predecessor.
That isn't actually true, Israelis are allowed into Malaysia they just need written permission from the Malaysian government. It's very interesting that the prime minister of Malaysia claims that Jews have an instinctive sense of money yet only allows Jews in for business purposes and not for sporting competition.
That is a de facto ban... although qualified with hard nosed realism :lol:

The more significant problem is that despite him declaring himself a proud antisemite he still wins elections, in some getting over 60% of all votes. In most developed countries calling yourself a 'proud antisemite' would be enough to completely end your political career.
Again, in this instance his alleged anti-semitism is not an issue for Malaysia and he needed to win that election regardless. Unless you think a corrupt quasi-autocrat is better than someone who plays for sound bites?

1. JP Morgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo were not started by Jews. Also, as far as I'm aware, there's nothing to suggest Citigroup, Jeffries Group, US Bancorp or PNC were founded by Jews. I've just named the majority of large US banks with the exception of Goldman. There's also nothing to suggest that any of the founders of the 10 largest companies by revenue in the US were started by Jews.
No, most of them have gobbled up the Jewish started ones like Lehmen, Saloman et al.
I dont recall intimating that big business was founded by jews? I merely said that their claim that finance is/was disproportionately represented by Jews had a grain of truth in it. Even if they have a rather perverse motive for saying it.

No I'm not insinuating that everyone is antisemitic as obviously not everyone voted for him. It's reasonable to suggest that there is a problem with antisemitism when a prime ministerial candidate can call themselves a 'proud antisemite' and not see their political career obliterated. Just as it would be reasonable to say there's a problem with sexism in a country if the prime minister called themselves a proud sexist. When that's then combined with a poll that shows troubling opinions it's not a jump to say that antisemitism is a problem in that country. Like I said, that is not to suggest that all Malaysians are antisemites.
Its a dubious leap to make that is all im saying on the matter.
However, I stand by him being a deserving candidate and his comments on jews dont detract from that given what Razak and him crime syndicate got up to.
Would you mind clarifying how it is a 'problem' in Malaysia though? As in what tangible negatives are attached to this allegation?


I don't really care if he's antisemitic; it appears to me, based on the evidence available, that he is antisemitic and that there is widespread antisemitism in Malaysia but I don't really care. Everyone should be nice but I recognise that 'nice' is subjective and a lot of people aren't what I would call nice.
Ideal worlds and that.


You haven't, you've just claimed that they're not reliable without any reason to doubt their reliability.
I literally just said why?


It seems this article takes your line of reasoning that because it's in the ADL's interest for antisemitism to exist they can't be trusted to report on it. That is akin to saying that because it is in Cancer Research UK or the British Heart Foundation's interest for certain illnesses to exist, they cannot be trusted when reporting on those illnesses. What is in fact true is that the kind of groups that take a particular interest in something are the right people to research it. Ironically you have quoted a source which is likely to be opposed to the ADL and therefore, as you and they would see it, take a dim view on any survey they conduct.
So because it supports my argument it must ipso facto be wrong and shot down with a shoddy straw man? Right.

It also criticises certain questions asked in the poll, most of which I haven't mentioned. However, the criticism over the the 'people dislike Jews because of how Jews behave' question seems a little insulting to the intelligence of the people polled. The criticism by the author infers that the people asked are so dim that they cannot distinguish between a Jew and an Israeli, as though they think that all Jews are Israeli. The author doesn't seem to see how self defeating his own criticism is; it would be completely unreasonable to judge all Russians, Japanese and Peruvian people by the actions of their government.
That is another reason why polls arent to be trusted, the phrasing of questions can easily be made to change the outcome (that just being general good knowledge as opposed to a specific reply)
Well seeing as they Jews//Israelis do broadly tend to be the same its not an unreasonable position to take. Not to mention, if they were interviewing the more rural Malaysians who havent been university educated on the matter - and thus probably couldnt give a **** for jews or israelis one way or the other - its hardly an egregious mistake on their part.

Usually i tend to agree on the last point however the argument can easily be made that you should be judging the population based on their government, after all, who put the government in power?
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Napp)
I said by extension you are.

[quote[
Oh look, you're claiming I said something that I didn't. What a new and novel approach from you. Where did I say you should go and ask all Malaysians? What I said was if you disagree with how their sampling was done then you need to provide some evidence that shows their sampling was done poorly.
No that was simply me misunderstanding what you wrote. No need to get your panties in a bunch of it.
All sampling is done poorly for these things it just depends how poorly and given how much Malaysia varies across its regions and between city and rural its not an outandish assumption to make.

Oh hello Mr strawman i nearly missed you there. The number of patients with cancer or those children starving to death tends to be an object fact, not an opinion.
Although my your rather umm questionable logic should these organisations be supporting wars, slavery and the arms trade to keep themselves in business?[/QUOTE]

You haven't formatted the response properly and it's far too much work for me to go through and correct your errors. Interestingly you claim that the prime minister's views aren't necessarily representative of the views of the Malaysian people yet when you talk about Israel you question who put the government in charge, inferring that the government of Israel is representative of the views of the people. In fact, you go further and infer that the Israeli government is representative of the views of most Jews, as you said 'Jews/Israelis do broadly tend to be the same'. It seems you want to recognise nuance and cultural diversity in Malaysia but don't want to recognise it amongst Israelis or even Jews generally.

You also seem to have this real issue with the sampling despite having not the slightest clue how the sampling was done; they may well have asked rural and city dwelling Malaysians. For some reason you seem to assume they've only asked some kind of homogenous group of Malaysians. Despite this you haven't offered any evidence to suggest they didn't ask a broad range of people. I understand that there are difficulties in accuracy with samples which is why surveys give figures for the degree to which they may be in accurate (4.4% in this instance if memory serves).

I'm not sure why my Cancer Research comparison is a straw man? You made the argument that as it is in the best interest of the ADL for antisemitism to exist their research isn't to be trusted. I can replace the words 'ADL' for 'Cancer Research' and 'antisemitism' for 'cancer' and the same point exists. Yes, it's harder to lie about the number of cancer patients however it is not as though reputable charities don't conduct surveys and use estimates.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#63
Report 3 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by Underscore__)
No that was simply me misunderstanding what you wrote. No need to get your panties in a bunch of it.

Although my your rather umm questionable logic should these organisations be supporting wars, slavery and the arms trade to keep themselves in business?
You haven't formatted the response properly and it's far too much work for me to go through and correct your errors. Interestingly you claim that the prime minister's views aren't necessarily representative of the views of the Malaysian people yet when you talk about Israel you question who put the government in charge, inferring that the government of Israel is representative of the views of the people. In fact, you go further and infer that the Israeli government is representative of the views of most Jews, as you said 'Jews/Israelis do broadly tend to be the same'. It seems you want to recognise nuance and cultural diversity in Malaysia but don't want to recognise it amongst Israelis or even Jews generally.
In other words you're lazy?
Actually I want to recognise the fact that the current PM got in on a ticket simply being in opposition to Razak. Netenyahu got on a xenophobic and anyone who isnt ethnically or religiously jewish one.


I'm not sure why my Cancer Research comparison is a straw man? You made the argument that as it is in the best interest of the ADL for antisemitism to exist their research isn't to be trusted. I can replace the words 'ADL' for 'Cancer Research' and 'antisemitism' for 'cancer' and the same point exists. Yes, it's harder to lie about the number of cancer patients however it is not as though reputable charities don't conduct surveys and use estimates.
I literally just said why.
Actually the article i linked made that argument, i merely think it isnt an unreasonable position to take.
Did you seriously just compare anti-antisemitism to Cancer again? Jesus Christ. One is a debatable proposition the other is not.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#64
Report 3 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Napp)
In other words you're lazy?
Actually I want to recognise the fact that the current PM got in on a ticket simply being in opposition to Razak. Netenyahu got on a xenophobic and anyone who isnt ethnically or religiously jewish one.
And so the best candidate that could be produced was a proud antisemite? Not a glowing advert for Malaysia. Regardless of who the former prime minister is it seems hard to imagine a proud antisemite can win an election without a fair proportion of the population agreeing with that view. When that's coloured with a survey that shows such high agreement with antisemitic beliefs it seems to suggest that antisemitism is pretty common.


(Original post by Napp)
I literally just said why.
You haven't really explained why, you've just said that it's in their interest to show that antisemitism exists, I've rebutted that. You mentioned the problem with sampling, I've rebutted that. Typically in a debate if someone rebuts something you've said you either stop repeating or referencing it, or offer a further rebuttal.


(Original post by Napp)
Actually the article i linked made that argument, i merely think it isnt an unreasonable position to take.
No, you've also made that argument, below is an example:

"The evidence as to why it’s not trustworthy is that it’s an organisation specifically set up to call anyone and everyone antisemitic on the most hollow of grounds."

(Original post by Napp)
Did you seriously just compare anti-antisemitism to Cancer again? Jesus Christ. One is a debatable proposition the other is not.
I think you should maybe go back and have a reread and you should discover you've missed the point that I was making, either that or you're being wilfully ignorant but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#65
Report 3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by Underscore__)
And so the best candidate that could be produced was a proud antisemite? Not a glowing advert for Malaysia. Regardless of who the former prime minister is it seems hard to imagine a proud antisemite can win an election without a fair proportion of the population agreeing with that view. When that's coloured with a survey that shows such high agreement with antisemitic beliefs it seems to suggest that antisemitism is pretty common.
That really depend son your view point. I doubt the average Malaysian could give a toss about a far off country of no consequence to them vs. betting on a proven politician and ousting a crook who looted billions.
Again, are we confusing anti-semitism for being anti-israel? Malaysia is not only bound by religion, culture and shared bonds of heritage that grew out of empire but it has an extensive history with the Arabs going back centuries. Not with an Israel that takes pride in killing them.


You haven't really explained why, you've just said that it's in their interest to show that antisemitism exists, I've rebutted that. You mentioned the problem with sampling, I've rebutted that. Typically in a debate if someone rebuts something you've said you either stop repeating or referencing it, or offer a further rebuttal.
I'm sorry what exactly do you want me to reiterate then?
No, no you havent. Offering a facetious straw man is not considered a suitable rebuke.


No, you've also made that argument, below is an example:

"The evidence as to why it’s not trustworthy is that it’s an organisation specifically set up to call anyone and everyone antisemitic on the most hollow of grounds."
Did i? Apologies, it's getting harder to keep track as this winds on. Nevertheless the point stands, you might disagree with it but unless you've found an enticing way of proving a negative...?

I think you should maybe go back and have a reread and you should discover you've missed the point that I was making, either that or you're being wilfully ignorant but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Quite possibly. Remind me of your salient point again?
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#66
Report 3 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Napp)
That really depend son your view point. I doubt the average Malaysian could give a toss about a far off country of no consequence to them vs. betting on a proven politician and ousting a crook who looted billions.
Who said anything about a country? It's funny that you accuse me of conflating Jews with Israel yet it seems to be you viewing them as one and the same. Besides, that argument hardly carries any water; I don't have any Muslim friends but if a candidate called themselves a proud Islamaphobe there's not the slightest chance I would vote for them. I would, as Malaysians could have, vote for an alternative candidate. If a candidate who called themselves a proud Islamaphobe won a general election I would say that country has an issue with Islamaphobia, I'm applying the same rational here.

(Original post by Napp)
Again, are we confusing anti-semitism for being anti-israel?
As the quotes from Mahathir show he's not simply anti-Israel, I don't think being opposed to the behaviour of the Israeli state is an unreasonable position and it certainly isn't antisemitic. He's spoken of Jews and Israel being the same thing, and continually made statements that push the 'global Jewish cabal' conspiracy. He's also declared himself an antisemite; to suggest he is simply against Israel is to ignore his own words.

(Original post by Napp)
Malaysia is not only bound by religion, culture and shared bonds of heritage that grew out of empire but it has an extensive history with the Arabs going back centuries. Not with an Israel that takes pride in killing them.
Source?

(Original post by Napp)
I'm sorry what exactly do you want me to reiterate then?
No, no you havent. Offering a facetious straw man is not considered a suitable rebuke.
Well I'd certainly like you to explain how what I've said is a straw man. My understanding of what you've said is that the ADL's statistics on antisemitism aren't to be trusted because it is in their best interest as an organisation for antisemitism to exist. Could you either correct my misunderstanding or explain how, on that basis, any charity can be trusted when giving estimates?

You also took exception to their sampling. I've explained that sampling does have flaws and because of that surveys have in built margins of error. You seem to think they only polled a specific, narrow group of people but I'm not really sure why you think this.

(Original post by Napp)
Did i? Apologies, it's getting harder to keep track as this winds on. Nevertheless the point stands, you might disagree with it but unless you've found an enticing way of proving a negative...?
I'm not asking you to prove a negative?

(Original post by Napp)
Quite possibly. Remind me of your salient point again?
My salient point is that lots of reputable charities give estimates. Being that all charities want to highlight the prevalence of the issue they are set up to fight, if you can't trust the ADL because of self interest how can you trust any charity when it gives estimates?
1
reply
Heyysarah
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#67
Report 3 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by rushdi130)
Underscore__ Hmmmm... Our country is THAT HOSTILE to religious minorities that over 30,000 Christian Chin refugees from Myanmar would go on a perilous journey by foot, skipping over Thailand, just to get to predominantly Muslim 'religious minority-suppressing' Malaysia... Our country is 40% non muslim... So pls do enlighten me on why Jews would be treated any different...
👏👏👏 You know ur stuff.
0
reply
Heyysarah
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by limetang)
Which doesn't answer my question looloo2134 was responding to. I'll grant you that an anti-zionist view is not in itself antisemitic, but countries (like Malaysia) that seek to boycott Israel on grounds of antisemitism, but who do not boycott say Myanmar and China for their treatment of a minority ethnic group within their borders, have some explaining to do. What makes anti-zionism heinous above other crimes against minority ethnic groups?

You may have an answer, I'd be happy to hear it, but at bottom there IS a difference in how Israel gets treated and how other countries doing equally heinous things appear to be treated.
I know this is an old thread but they don't boycott Myanmmar because they are both part of ASEAN (so they basically have to cooperate with one another).

...And this is why they don't boycott China.
(Original post by Napp)
What was your question sorry?

Officially Malaysia boycotts Israel for the same reason that many other Muslim countries do and that is simply down to its treatment of Muslims. I mean you can argue either way about the populations feelings on Israel but the official line is very neutral on the matter in that it is simply a response to Israeli crimes against Arabs and Palestinians.
I cant speak for Myanmar but China there are two very simple reasons. 1) There is a significant Chinese minority here. 2) China provides a huge amount of revenue for the Malaysian state through trade, you don't piss off your banker.
There is also the reason (this is more my speculation than a fact) that this policy was enacted decades ago and there has been no reason for them to change it, they get along perfectly well pretending Israel doesn't exist (ironically enough a fair number of Malaysians do go on pilgrimage to Israel though). The only reason some of the Arab regimes are changing their tone is due to wanting to cosey up with the regional superpower versus Iran. (again, in ones opinion)

Well of course but one of the more salient reasons is that Israel claims to be a liberal democracy. Liberal democracies arent supposed to engage in ethnic cleansing and invoke racist laws (to say nothing of them maintaining a de facto concentration camp in Gaza and the terror they unleashed in Lebanon)
Israel and Malaysia have never had any diplomatic relationship, so it doesn't really affect Malaysia economically or diplomatically if they are boycotting them.
Last edited by Heyysarah; 3 weeks ago
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by Heyysarah)
...And this is why they don't boycott China.
Not to mention that would rather be like the UK deciding to boycott the US... a decidedly painful and self defeating act.
Israel and Malaysia have never had any diplomatic relationship, so it doesn't really affect Malaysia economically or diplomatically if they are boycotting them.
More power to them aha
0
reply
EndIessCritic
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
Antisemitism the oldest trick in the book
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (122)
19.55%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (58)
9.29%
No I am happy with my course choice (352)
56.41%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (92)
14.74%

Watched Threads

View All