urville

I think you left out the phrase, "for democrats" there. Plenty of people defended Bush vehemently against anything negative said. What i most disagree with is this idea that you cant hate on Obama. No way. Thats all they do. No matter what Obama does he's an asshole, thats what I see everyday nearly all day.

I'd answer this.... but its not really on topic. Is there a thread? I'll post.

Willravel

Roachboy didn't hit your caps lock or choose your words. You act as if you had no choice in how you react to what at most was a leading question.

Here's how I would have responded:
I actually agree with the point you were trying to make. Unfortunately, we live in a world where being called anti-Semetic is the ultimate charge whereas being anti-Muslim is normal, so it's not quite the same thing, but your point is still valid.

pan6467

Here's one for you to debate, I didn't think much at first about it other than it's a bunch of rich guys infighting.... but my attitude changed at the very end. I won't comment on what I believe because the only way to see if you actually read it would be if your comments go with the article (in that, I mean showing you actually read it and just aren't forming an opinion to just be the opposite of mine).

Plan for mystery mega-mansion sparks furor in 90210 - Yahoo! News

---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

If anything I am predictable, when the right buton is pushed. I take offense to being called racist and people know that but still use it to get a rise out of me, knowing it will. I don't care if I am called other names, they don't bother me. But because of the profession I want to be in being labelled "racist" will definitely cause me problems, I do not need. I don't care if people call me a mother f'er or a GD lying piece of poo, or whatever...... but the racist part is truly uncalled for.


That is a good response, but again my button was pushed and the person pushing it, because he views this as a "game", knew he pushed it and got the response he wanted, unfortunately. He pushed it so that he could start the whole "stop whining, I win" kid's game.

Well I am truly happy in my disaster of a response you got what I meant. Not that I care if you found it valid or not (I don't care how my points or opinions are found by others, because everyone should be allowed to find their own.) That is one reason TFP politics sucked me in..... a few years ago there were so many different voices and opinions and originality that it was fun because people shared their opinions and ideas and did so without having to be worried about a label. We label bananas and fruits and vegetables and everything in our society. Why must we label people? Must friendships be destroyed simply because the opinions differ? Isn't that a good thing in ANY relationship? I find having someone dissent with my opinions actually helps teach me. There is a huge difference between different opinions and trying to "put someone down" for the difference so that the one may feel superior.

Trust me, my self esteem is such these days that I KNOW I am not superior to anyone.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

urville

If you're thinking what I think your thinking... your probably right. Which is unfortunate. I'd want to believe its because he is royalty in a country that treats a lot of its people and all of its women like crap, but honestly, I doubt it.

Charlatan

Pan... if you know you have a button and from time to time people push it you really should learn to control your responses. Your CAPS LOCK, emotional, I am the victim here, tirades don't help the discussion or your position in that discussion.

Calm, rational, measured. You might not win the debate but at least you won't be dismissed out of hand.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Sun Tzu

A major issue is Israel was founded by Zionists. The country's whole premise gives it a spiritual permission to conduct its own manifest destiny. There is no seperation of synagogue and state. This provides an effective way of saying if a person is against what the government is doing they are against Jewish spirituality.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

pan6467

Good guess but not what I read into it. In fact I didn't even think of that.

Only clue I will give is the appearance could give a very good picture of the OP.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

curiously i think the situation is changing around israel. netanyahu has said as much publicly--the old assumptions about political consent from the united states are eroding. the settlements and the resulting apartheid system in israel are becoming liabilities in an increasingly obvious way.

of course that hasn't stopped israel from bombing gaza again.

strange how silent the world is about that. i don't say that in a conspiratorial manner. it's just strange that so little attention is being paid to the israelis using military gear against a civilian population again.

on the other hand, it's only palestinians.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

No, at the end the article states that Michael Ovitz seems to be pushing the hardest. It also states that he did something similar and was fought against, but won.

I found it interesting that a very powerful man of the Jewish persuasion would be the most outspoken against an Arab prince. Especially when he did the same thing (as the article points out).

Just my view and opinion from what I read.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

this is an article from a more or less israeli left position that outlines the problems created by the right's attempts to eliminate the space for criticisms of israel in order to protect the colonial occupation of the west bank:

Strenger than Fiction-Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News source.

it's a shallow strategy used to death by the israeli right---which is the main obstacle to a viable palestine, the main obstacle to the peace process and the main blight that is eating away at israel itself.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

urville

This is such utter bullshit. NOT what you said, but the reality of it... thousands of years and we're still morons.

Not sure i follow that.. but that's what i thought. I've got a bit misanthropy in me, haha.

Thats what I've been trying to say.

Xazy

Family in Texas massacred in their sleep.

Bomb hits bus #74 outside D.C. convention center injuring dozens and killing at least one.

Over 50 rockets and missiles continue falling in Fairfax, Virginia.

Do I have your attention? Oh wait it was Israel not the US my mistake.

Yes they have had a phosphorus missile attack this week, yet surprisingly there has been minimal coverage. Strange how the world has been silent and so little attention is being paid to the terrorists attacking civilian population again.

__________________
Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

dippin

It is so absolutely disingenuous to reduce Israel's actions to counter terrorism as to be pathetic. Please indicate what parts of the settlement policies, the attacking of civilian centers, the closing of the borders, the restrictions on importing even basic supplies, the restrictions on use and access to water, the restrictions on political activities by Arab Israeli citizens, the restrictions on Palestinians ever becoming a Israeli citizen and so on are meant to stop those terrorist attacks?

Walt

Opposing the existence of Israel would be anti-Zionist. Opposing the Jewish religion would be anti-antisemitism. Being critical of the Israeli government is neither .

__________________
Calmer than you are...

levite

Criticism of Israel's government, or the actions of its military leadership, does not, by any means, have to equal anti-Semitism. I have criticized both on a number of occasions, and I consider myself something of a religious Zionist. Most of my friends-- rabbis, Jewish scholars, and other Jewish professionals-- have criticized Israel's government or military actions at one time or another. It doesn't make them self-hating Jews.

Where things get tricky are two places. First of all, there is a very fine line between criticizing the actions of Israel's government or military, and criticizing Israel as a nation entire. The former is not necessarily problematic, but the latter tends to slide seamlessly into a rejection of Israel's right to exist-- and that is problematic.

The second place where things get tricky is that anti-Zionism is very frequently a genteel cover for anti-Semitism. It is not so 100% of the time, I grant you-- it is possible to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. But it seems to be extremely, extremely rare, and the one or two times I have encountered it, the individuals holding the opinions had a very intricate and complex constellation of beliefs at work leading them to that rather precarious balance of thought, but they did make it work. However, they seem to be the exception, rather than the rule.

The majority of Jewish criticizers of Israel (rather than criticizers of specific actions of Israel's government or military) that I've run into or seen are generally well-intentioned, but either ignorant of history, or naive about the sociopolitical realities of the situation, or they are blind idealists with major complexes about misplaced Eurocentric colonial guilt. Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, and many of his contributors all seem to fall into one or more of these category. But there are a small, vocal minority of Jewish anti-Zionists who truly are self-hating Jews of some sort, and have crossed the boundary into absolutely unacceptable behavior. Noam Chomsky and his ilk fall into this category, as do (on the other side of the religious spectrum) the Neturei Karta movement.

The Israel-Palestinian conflict has a remarkably propensity for bringing out the worst in the adherents of both sides. And for those of us who do take a side, but would not be among those to have the worst brought out in them, it is a continuous challenge to balance criticism of what is truly unacceptable behavior and restraining criticism of what may be understandably necessary in the behavior of one side or another. If we are not careful, generalizations, totalizations, and lack of empathy for one another can devolve into name-calling, de-legitimization, and even more unfortunate actions.

Which all goes to my general opinion that, concerning Israel and "the situation," it is better, if in doubt, to be cautious or refrain from public debating about it at all. I do my best to keep my opinions to myself, and so do most of my friends. It's just easier that way.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Willravel

I'd actually like to hear a bit more. If a rabbi and an atheist can discuss religion and remain polite and respectful, then we can walk into a bar with a priest. Or rather we can be civil about a sensitive socio/religious/political issue like Israel and Palestine.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of Zionism's more religious aspects. I certainly understand the Jewish peoples' want to have a place to call home (well, I think I understand it. I've never been without a cultural homeland so it's a case of trying to imagine what it might be like), but I seem to recall a few other religions claiming they had legitimate property claims to the area and needless to say things didn't go well. It's simply impossible to wring the religion out of the situation or the location, apparently, and I think it's the minority of Zionists who are, forgive me, religious zealots, that turn me off to the whole thing. Cultural and national self-determination? Makes perfect sense to me, go for it with my blessing and support. God gave us this land? That's not going to go over well with the Palestinian Muslims who's house was just bulldozed.

levite

To be fair, Will, I don't think it's supposed to. Religion seldom justifies anything to people outside its own community.

And I definitely agree that, as with so many other things involving religion, it's the extremely vocal minority of zealots who tend to leave a bad taste in the mouth.

What I am about to say is only my opinion, and I can imagine it may not be a popular one in some parts, so I hope it is not found to be unduly offensive.

I do believe that God gave the Land of Israel to the Jewish People, and that the return of great numbers of Jews to found a state in that Land may well be the first step on a long road toward the coming of the messiah.

But that said, where I differ from most Religious Zionists is that I also think that God does not love unnecessary bloodshed and suffering, no matter who is doing the shedding of blood or the suffering. And while God may, indeed, have given us the entirety of the Land of Israel, the State of Israel will never know peace if it tries to hold onto all that Land, and the Arabs living in what we now call the Palestinian Territories (both Gaza and the West Bank) have a legitimate de facto claim of residence upon those areas. And while it may behoove us as the Jewish People to defend ourselves and our land when necessary, it does not behoove us to shed more blood than necessary, or to prolong the suffering of others, or to forget our duties to the strangers among us.

While I vehemently believe in Israel's right to exist, and in its right to defend itself from terrorism, I also think that there are rules even in war. And some weapons should not be used, like phosphorus. That is a hideous weapon, and I am not even convinced it is ethical to use on professional soldiery, let alone in situations where civilian collateral damage is inevitable. Israel is wrong to use it (and so were those Palestinian terrorists who used it, the other day), and wrong to use cluster bombs-- another weapon of dubious ethicality.

And weaponry aside, it is a phenomenally bad idea for Israel to simply lock the Territories behind a fence and leave them to their own devices. Which isn't to say that I think the fence ought to be torn down-- it saves far too many lives for that. But we didn't just keep terrorists out of Israel, we kept too much potential economic aid out of the Territories. Now, admittedly, Gaza is a bit of a tough nut to crack, because Hamas are crazy and dangerous. But in the West Bank, which seems to be a somewhat less dangerous and fair pinch less crazy place, if the so-called Palestinian authorities aren't able to improve the infrastructure, build and supply hospitals and food stores, and so forth, then I believe it is the duty of Israel to go in and do those things, and not just let the Palestinians there become poorer and poorer and ever more bitter (and more apt to radicalize).

And what is more, there is a chronic problem in Israel itself of discrimination against Israeli Arabs, and widespread violations of their civil rights. And that has got to stop. It is profoundly unethical, and there are about a zillion different commandments in the Torah that specifically tell us not to oppress those who dwell among us, because we ourselves were once sojourners in a land not our own.

And I believe that ultimately, peace is going to require a land swap (especially since I personally don't believe in splitting Jerusalem again): whatever we keep, we have an obligation to give an equal portion to the Palestinians. And I feel strongly that when the time for this swap comes, just as we will doubtless tell Palestinians living in areas to be agreed as being permanently acknowledged to be Israel that they must either agree to Israeli citizenship or vacate the area, we must tell Jews living in Jewish towns in areas to be permanently ceded to the future Palestinian state that they must either agree to be legal residents or citizens of Palestine, or vacate the area.

I truly believe that God would rather see us give up some of our land to save lives and prevent suffering, then to keep it at a high cost in lives and trauma. And if it is truly His will that we once again have the entirety of the Land, then somehow it will come back to us, a hundred years or a thousand years from now. We are a people of millennia. We can afford to be patient. And if it is not His will, then we are all the more doing the right thing now to divide the land and save blood from being shed.

The leadership on both sides are prize arrangements of douchebags-- and what is worse, they are douchebags who also suffer from far too many internal crises to focus well on this problem. Some of my more right-wing friends say that the problem is that Israel has no dialogue partner in the Palestinian Authority government, and while that may or may not be true, it doesn't excuse the persistent dumbassery of the Israeli government on this issue. And some of my more left-wing friends think that we should just invite everyone to a seat at the table, and just take the word of Hamas that it would like to negotiate in good faith, despite its charter calling for the destruction of Israel. And this position, too, is dumbassery. Sure, sooner or later opposing sides have to talk, but I don't think it's out of line for one party to make a prerequisite that the other party first has to officially retract the death warrant they've put out on the first party.

Anyhow, I do think this situation is solvable, but we all have to face up to the fact that nobody is going to come away from this entirely happy, or with everything they want. But I think more people-- Israeli people and Palestinian people-- want peace than not.

And religiously, while I think it is a great good for there to be a Jewish State in the Jewish Land again, it is also a great good for us to seek peace, and to try and resolve our problems with our neighbors-- especially when they are also children of Abraham.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Willravel

If it means anything to you, I certainly am not offended by that.

Sun Tzu

EDIT

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

levite

It means something to me. Thanks.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

roachboy

this comment came appended to the side of an article about a kinda cool palestinian short film, a space exodus. the article is here:

"A Space Exodus": A Truly Palestinian Film

the film here:


there is an entirely legitimate counter-narrative based in the unfortunate experience of palestinians who have been herded about after expropriation, stuck in camps to rot since the 40s in some cases, subjected to serious brutalization since 67 in the name of the greater israel...colonial occupation dressed up as "the settlement program"...the economic crippling of the palestinian population, war crimes in gaza. on and on.


because i am neither palestinian nor israeli, i can have a simpler viewpoint.

i see no connection between anti-semitism and criticism of current israeli policy. but the ideological origins of israel make the separation delicate, i think, something that has to be periodically reiterated and understood between speakers in a conversation, made clear. so the separation ends up a matter of good faith between the speakers in an exchange.

it's possible to argue that the wrong sort of zionism had won by the early 50s, and that the sort of zionism that won has turned out to be racist (in its more rightwing forms) and its dominance has made of israel a de facto apartheid state. sp it is possible to simultaneously hold a zionist position and be very critical of the form of zionism that's come to dominate via the israeli right. i am not personally a zionist.


the problems between israelis and palestinians follow from political choices and nothing else. it seems to me that all of these unfortunate realities could be otherwise with different choices. which on it's own disconnects any such critique from a matter of imaginary "essence" to do with a people or religion.

i recognize there are more and less difficult issues...i personally support the right of return, but understand the argument to the contrary. i think that argument raises a basic question about the idea of a "religious" or "jewish" state as over against a secular nation-state (with all the qualifications about that category in place)...which seems, in turn, to recapitulate the basic intractability of some of these issues. this is a classical liberal type problem, a question in which either answer (support or oppose the right of return) results in one or the other party feeling that something fundamental about themselves gets erased.

the wider political questions are easier in that the basic ground the work on is a bit clearer. but the main one is the settlements. i think they are *the* central problem in the region and that they really have to be taken down. all of them. and there are no doubt heated arguments that could follow from and about that. but they're political questions, really.

unless you are on the ground on one side or the other.

not least because the brutality of colonialism makes everyone pathological. on this, fanon was right in wretched of the earth (in particular)...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

imaginary right? where is it written that someone doesn't have a right to feel how they feel, no matter how ignorant, stupid, or wrong?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

people can think inwardly whatever stupidities they want, but once they articulate them in a public space---particularly in a debate-oriented space---there's a symmetrical right to criticize those stupidities.

in a democratic environment, there'd be an assumption that you'd be able to mount arguments in defense of those positions. because it is simply not the case in a democracy that anything goes. not in one that actually exists or existed. there are standards of argumentation. if what a citizen thinks is really fucking stupid and he or she were to argue it in the agora, that'd likely be the end of their influence.

so no, there really is no "right" to be racist publicly, or be stupid publicly, if by that you mean some "right" to not be criticized for being racist or being stupid.

there is a right to not be arrested for being stupid discursively. but a "freedom" from being criticised?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

WhoaitsZ

say stupid shit, get criticized. it's not hard to figure out.. you have the right to be an asshole or racist. you do not have the right to say it and it not be called out on it.

every thought expressed has a consequence.

dksuddeth

of course, we call this the 1st Amendment.

of course. just as it is every persons right to either ignore or publicly engage the idiot in his/her discourse.

i would agree.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."