I think the question posed: Why is there no support for Israel? - was a bit more nuanced, regarding why there is a growing outcry against Israel's actions. Of course there are supporters - it is a complicated world. No one debates that. It is also true that religious fundamentalism in all its guises is not a pleasant prospect under which to live. I don't think anyone has argued that it is.
You may think it's BS but the comparison was made by holocaust survivors, daring to speak out with their last fading breath. They are worth listening to.
Tyger, you are out of your depth, again. You clearly couldn't be bothered citing your own sources for what you claimed, nor could you be bothered reading everything which I clearly researched and referenced. You are welcome to your room full of ditto-heads, but some of us prefer facts, even when reality isn't politically correct.
First, do you honestly believe Hitler invited Jews into the government, tried to make peace with his neighbors, and stood up for gay rights -- even sheltering gays of other faiths from around the world? Seriously? What kind of genocide allows its "victims" to get elected into the highest branches of government and then take in other, oppressed people of that same faith in order to protect them?
Hamas has been compared to the Hitler Youth. Does that carry weight with you, or are you only able to see one-side of the argument, regardless of actual facts?
I feel embarrassed for you and more than a little ashamed your half-assed allegations, without reference, are being applauded by others who cannot be bothered with research.
Ouch! Nasty. What's this about? This is a conversation. We are having a conversation. If you don't want to engage with people who are 'non-experts' why jump in? Is anyone on this chat site an 'expert' - really? Maybe some are more well read than others on certain topics - but an 'expert'? It's an informal chat site.
There has been no 'hate and stupidity against Jews' on this thread. There has only been criticism of Israel's actions as a political state. The two are different.
You think comparing Jews to Nazis is having a conversation? Is it polite to make uneducated allegations and assume no one will challenge them? So you know, Hamas doesn't even
believe there was a Holocaust, so your comparison would be wasted on them.
Let me ask you, how many rockets can a terrorist organization launch into Israel, in it's attempt to "kill all the Jews", before Israel can strike back? According to Human Rights Watch, Hamas has launched literally
thousands of rockets into Israel since 2001 in an attempt to kill Israeli citizens. Most of the world has been silent regarding these atrocities. Israel is using its defenses to protect its citizens, Hamas is using its citizens to protect its rockets. That's a rather large difference.
According to a translation by Palestinian Media Watch, in 2008, Fathi Hamad, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, stated on Al-Aqsa TV, "For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly (Palestinians) created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death as you desire life.'"
Hamas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hamas is now teaching its kids to shoot all Jews. Meanwhile, a majority of Jews in Israel
support having a separate, independent, Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority in Israel wants a separate, independent, Palestinian state. Do you know which group is adamantly opposed to having a separate, independent, Palestinian state?
Why, that would be Hamas, entirely because they cannot stand the idea of Jews being in Israel and will not accept any treaty which allows such, even if it gives them full autonomy.
You have to tease out the religiosity woven through your sentence. Arguing self-determination for Jews is the same as arguing self-determination for Mulims, or Christians, or Buddhists, or Hindus. Does this make sense? There has always been the argument - made by Noam Chomsky in regards Israel - that any state based on a religion cannot be a democracy.
Is self-determination the correct term to use here when talking politics? Religions deserve protection in a democracy. I don't think you mean Jews - but Israelis have the right to self-determination as a sovereign state - be they of whatever religion, Jew or Muslim.
I support self-determination for Jews, and Kurds, and Shabakis, and Muslims, and LGBTs, and women. As I've already cited, the Jews in Israel support self-determination for these groups -- just not at the expense of all Jewish lives. Hamas, on the other hand, does not support the right for Israel to exist or even for Jews to live, as the "shoot all the Jews" program clearly shows. Hamas, as well as most other Muslim countries, does not support the right for LGBTs to exist, frequently
tortures and kills its own people, and is even doing its best to stall Palestinian negotiations with Israelis.
When I asked where you would like Jews to live, your response was:
Which sounds lovely, until you realize that 'everywhere' means absolutely nowhere when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the globe, leading to the deaths of countless Jewish civilians in Europe and the systematic terror and oppression of millions more. (Read that
Guardian UK article I sourced in my previous response. This is part of a common theme.)
Then, in response to my stating, "It would appear most of the people on this thread don't want them to live in Israel, and probably don't want them living anywhere else."
You replied:
Not true - your fears/phantoms are waving in front of your eyes. Nothing of the kind has been said here on this thread.
The creation of Israel was a bad idea. The Jews can live there - they were living there before Israel was a state. It's the creation of Israel that led to the 'Palestinian Problem' - the refugees. That situation is making the world unsafe. It needs to be re-thought. That is what I have said, anyway.
No one on this thread has said they "don't want [Jews] living anywhere else". You are taking this too far afield in your thinking.
So, what you are admitting is that you're fine with Jews living in Israel, as long as they don't have any rights to self-determination. You forget how much land in what was once the Ottoman Empire and later Palestine was sold back to the Jews and gave them some autonomy. You also forget that
Haj Amin al Husauni, a leader in Mandatory Palestine and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, sided with both the Nazis and Fascist Italy during WWII. As a general rule, when your leaders side with a losing cause, some of your territory will be up for grabs.
In addition to blaming Mossad for murdering those 3 Jewish teens (which is more bullshit, as even Hamas has admitted the killings) and blaming Hamas' existence on Mossad, there seems to be the notion that Jews were forcing Palestinians out of the land. Most of the Palestinians voluntarily left Israel -- after surrounding Arab governments told them to get out of the way while they push the Jews into the sea. You might want to Google the "1948 Arab-Israeli War for a better idea of this:
A week before the armies marched, Azzam Pasha said: “It does not matter how many [Jews] there are. We will sweep them into the sea."
1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It might also behoove you to read about Jordan, King Abdullah I, when it was decided which lands would go to the Jews and which parts of the West Bank would be annexed by Jordan. This would give you a better idea about who was willing to accept - and take - which parts of Palestine for certain people. To date, there are almost 2 million Palestinians who are Jordanian citizens. Jordan is also home to a few million other Muslim refugees, who are all part of the problem with "certain Muslim groups slaughtering all other Muslim groups" you seem to think is "anti-Semeitic" to discuss.
You betray your own anti-semitism with this remark.
Discussing the historic problems of Muslims slaughtering other Muslims has absolutely nothing to do with being "anti-Semitic." I honestly wonder how much history you've missed, from the routine slaughters between Sunni and Shia, to the
genocide of the Kurdish people in Iraq, to the creation of Bangladesh after the
genocide of Pakistanis against eastern Pakistanis, and too many other atrocities to list. Then we should also consider how well Muslim LGBTs in these Middle Eastern countries would fare at the hands of other Muslims if they didn't have the ability to flee to Israel.
Well, that's sad. Are all your friends required to think in lock-step with you on all topics?
No, but there are certain things I expect from my friends:
1. To not be bigots: They should support a Jewish right to self-determination just as they should support a Muslim right to self-determination - and the rights of LGBTs, women, etc.
The thing is, what we keep seeing in these Islamic countries is the belief that their right to self-determination includes the right to oppress and execute such people as from other Muslim sects, LGBTs, Jews, Christians, and other races and religions. The one Middle Eastern country that embraces these other groups is Israel. Therefore, my liberal values completely coincide with my support of Israel. If it weren't for the Jews living there and setting up a democracy - and having the Jewish state you decry - there would be no open LGBTs and other groups, including certain Muslim groups, living in that part of the world. A Muslim woman fares far better in Israel than in any of the numerous Islamic countries that would subject her to FGM, or beat her, or shoot her in the head for trying to get an education.
2. To engage in critical thinking and research: This is what is fundamentally lacking on this site and especially on this thread. For instance, just because someone insists that Mossad killed those three Israeli teens and did countless other atrocities -- without citing any evidence (as usual) -- this does not mean we should accept this as fact and parrot it around, ad naseum. You keep thinking this isn't about religion. I'd demand to know how the hell we can separate the rights of Jews from the rights of Jews to exist and have some autonomy. I'd also want to know why so many who insist they have liberal values would so gladly see LGBTs, Kurds, Druze, Bedouins, and countless other groups and sects be systematically slaughtered if not for Israel's existence and its commitment to protecting these very groups.
This is far from being merely inflammatory language, it is patently absurd. Why would you conclude such a thing? Questioning Israel's political and military actions becomes that kind of drama? No one wants anyone dead - that's the point. No one wants Gazans dead either.
This makes for some very cheap talk, and little else -- much like saying you'd like Jews to be able to live "everywhere." Great, pull out a magic wand and make that possible. Until then, I'll keep my feet firmly planted in reality and accept that Jews are in perilous positions throughout the known world. While the situation in Europe is making the international headlines, again, we should also remember that almost half of all Jews living in Israel are from Middle Eastern descent. We keep talking about Israel's "persecution" of Muslims, (while ignoring how many are in the Knesset, or fight in the IDF, helping keep Israel in existence,) while we completely ignore that
850,000 Jews were kicked out of other Middle Eastern countries and 650,000 of them settled in Israel. I guess nowhere is part of that "everywhere" you would have them live.
Judging by your statement, you're fine with them living "everywhere" -- as long as they don't try to defend themselves against an enemy that wants every last one of them slaughtered. If Israel falls, so do a majority of the world's Jews, as well as large sects of Muslims who would be oppressed and murdered in other countries, LGBTs, women who don't want to suffer from FGM or get killed for the sake of an education.... So I guess I'm going to have to support Israel's right to exist.
I think you will - where that is being discussed. It's not being discussed here. This is an intellectually dishonest debate tactic. You're 'changing the subject'. That tactic has been riddled through this thread: 'What about this' and 'what about that over here'. No one has risen to the bait - and I think that annoys those trying to divert the attention away from Israel.
Edit: You wrote: "I have yet to hear a single peep coming from anyone, liberal or conservative." Again, positing the identities of anonymous posters on a chat site is a fruitless task. No one here is a stand-in for anyone else's bugaboos. You may want that dialog - and if so, go in search of some "liberal or conservative" that so identifies themself to have that conversation - but don't insist that anyone take up that mantle because you insist.
There's nothing dishonest about comparing the fates of different groups. It's actually called a "comparative conversation" and it's how intelligent people discuss and debate the parameters of different topics. For instance:
1. Why are unarmed black boys routinely stopped and sometimes shot by authorities or those who "stand their ground"? Does this happen with unarmed white boys?
You see, it's hard to understand the realities of one group without having another group with whom to compare. It's gives us a better idea if these are problems based in race or gender.
Here's another example:
2. Why were Muslims in India given a part of that country to have as a homeland -- at the expense and often the death of others who lived there -- whereas we deny the right of Jews to have a land that has historically been theirs?
See how it works? The way people answer these questions gives an insight regarding their views towards Jews, Muslims, self-autonomy, and how much we are willing to give particular groups under certain circumstances. I'd love to tell you some of the responses I've been given regarding this very question, but you are holding to the illusion that these conversations are not about religion.
'
