Where was I


By Real Real Zionist
February 10, 2012
Share

Ok so that is your position....

But why do people adopt a maximalist position and stand by a statement that is so obviously false ? Especially as there are near alternatives that that are as obviously true as aZas is obviously false?

Eg. " anti Zionism is often a manifestation of anti semitism? What is WRONG with that ?

It's a rhetorical question, I know the answer.

Changing tack slightly. Do you REALLY think the meaning of a word in long term common usage can be changed by a dozen bums around a table?

COMMENTS

Harvey

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 12:54

Rate this:

0 points

Here's one for you Millis . Unfortunately you ignored it last time ( as did Susanna ) so it s worth having another go . I won't even consider it rhetorical .
Why did the Palestinians fail to declare statehood at any time between 1947 and 1967 when there was no occupation and no settlements to impede their cause ?
Would the removal of the settlements and a return to 67 borders result in an irrevocable peace and an end to the conflict and if not what further concessions would be required to bring about the aforementioned ?
Looking forward to receiving your answers to these points . You can even consult Susanna and Brighton belle if needs be .


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 13:01

Rate this:

0 points

What was that buzzing noise ?


Advis3r

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 13:01

Rate this:

0 points

Harvey how come you are engaging someone who has called for the elimination of 300,000 Jews by declaring they have no right to life?

BTW if you can hold any store by it Millis has contacted me and denied he is RRZ.


Harvey

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 13:16

Rate this:

0 points

Actually I'll throw in a third one as it will soon be Shabbos and it will give you something to think about before posting your next 'weighty ' missive .
Can you point to any concrete examples of both PA and Hamas stating that a return to 67 borders will result in the irrevocable Peace Account referred to in first post


Harvey

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 13:37

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r
His imbecilic response tells me everything I need to know about him . Those few questions and his inability to answer them are the same questions I've been asking the delegitimizers for as long as I can remember . They shine a light on and expose the vacuous nature of the whole wretched edifice of antiZionism .
Millis is the Jewish Trojan Horse . There are many like him Greenstein , Levy ,Fink to name but two . They use their tenuous grip to Judaism as a badge of honour wheeling it out for their gentile brethren on anti Israel missions as if to say " look we are one of you " please accept us . The ever execrable Bruce Levy dons his yellow Kippot at psc demos , the only time since his barmitzvah that he has had cause to wear it .
Of course the fact that the psc is riddled with antisemites to the extent it has to hold an EGM in order to reject the appeal of one such holocaust denier against being thrown out resulted in 20% voting in favour of his appeal .
Anyway millis whoever he is can be seen for what he really is .
I suggest we simply starve him of the response he craves from now on


Advis3r

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 14:43

Rate this:

0 points

Affirming The Consequent:
logic reversal. A correct statement of the form "if P then Q" gets turned into "Q therefore P".
For example,

"All cats die; Socrates died; therefore Socrates was a cat." This is what RRZ laims people say when they equate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism but his argument is a fallacy. No one says Socrates is a cat what they do say is Socrates like the cat is dead.

Another example: "If the earth orbits the sun, then the nearer stars will show an apparent annual shift in position relative to more distant stars (stellar parallax). Observations show conclusively that this parallax shift does occur. This proves that the earth orbits the sun." In reality, it proves that Q [the parallax] is consistent with P [orbiting the sun]. But it might also be consistent with some other theory. (Other theories did exist. They are now dead, because although they were consistent with a few facts, they were not consistent with all the facts.) However someone who denies the right of Jews per se to self-determination is consistently shown to harbour ill feelings for Jews in other areas. RRZ is a prime example of this as his latest postings show.

Another example: "If space creatures were kidnapping people and examining them, the space creatures would probably hypnotically erase the memories of the people they examined. These people would thus suffer from amnesia. But in fact many people do suffer from amnesia. This tends to prove they were kidnapped and examined by space creatures."
RRZ being a prime example he forgot he posted something under the pseudonym Rich Armbach and then claimed he posted under his RRZ pseudonym. For all I know he may have been kidnapped by aliens too.


happygoldfish

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 14:55

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: Ok so that is your position....
But why do people adopt a maximalist position and stand by a statement that is so obviously false ? Especially as there are near alternatives that that are as obviously true as aZas is obviously false?
Eg. " anti Zionism is often a manifestation of anti semitism? What is WRONG with that ?

this is a continuation of our slightly off-topic discussion in another blog (which was getting rather long and was on the rather different topic of a point of grammar)

"aZas" is true, depending on the meaning of "Zionism"

i prefer not to use the word, since it's too vague, and instead to use something longer such as "denying israel's right to permanent existence", or "criticising israel for something for which they don't or wouldn't criticise other countries"

rrz, i say that (to use words from the ottawa protocol of the ica( http://www.antisem.org/archive/ottawa-protocol-on-combating-antisemitism...)) …

singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium – let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction

is anti-israeli racism

do you agree?

Real Real Zionist

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 15:17

Rate this:

0 points

Except that every time we refer to a country we are singling it out.

The seeking of a country' destruction has happened for reasons other then racism. ( that was thinking aloud) eg geo political advantage. Also there was a sleight of hand there to " anti Israeli racism"

I think as a matter of fact people that seek the destruction of Israel are motivated by anti semitism at least among other things. As a matter of fact. Not necessity.


Advis3r

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 15:50

Rate this:

0 points

Confusion of terms - "Israeli" is not a race and nor is there a Jewish Race so there is no such thing as anti-Israeli racism. Anti-Semitism is not just against Jews on the grounds of their religion but also their claim to nationhood hence denying Jews their right to nationhood is a manifestation of anti-Semitism and by extension anti-Zionism being against the political movement to realise that nationhood within the context of a national home in Israel, the Jewish people's homeland is a further manifestation of anti-Semitism.


happygoldfish

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 16:08

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: Except that every time we refer to a country we are singling it out.

you're misreading what i said …

i didn't say that singling Israel out for condemnation is racism,

i said that singling Israel out for selective condemnation is racism

(by which they and i mean selecting israel for condemnation for something for which they don't or wouldn't criticise other countries)

Real Real Zionist: I think as a matter of fact people that seek the destruction of Israel are motivated by anti semitism at least among other things. As a matter of fact. Not necessity.

why are you unwilling to discuss anti-israeli racism? do you say it doesn't exist?

(and it's a much easier issue than antisemitism)

do you agree that singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium is anti-israeli racism?

and do you agree that denying israel's right to exist, or seeking its destruction, is anti-israeli racism?


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 02/10/2012 - 18:17

Rate this:

0 points

Well I can and will response at length but first...I am a little puzzled by anti Israeli racism. This cannot be anything else but anti semitism can it ? What other race,ethnic group, can we be can we be talking about ?

Or do you mean anti Israel bias and prejudice ?


Real Real Zionist

Mon, 02/13/2012 - 18:56

Rate this:

0 points

Haaaaa Goldfish Just read the protocol. I get why there was a switch to " anti Israel racism"


happygoldfish

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 10:02

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: .I am a little puzzled by anti Israeli racism. This cannot be anything else but anti semitism can it ? What other race,ethnic group, can we be talking about ?

so there's no anti-israeli racism at all?

any allegation of anti-israeli racism can immediately be met by "it doesn't exist"?

do you say that, for the same reason, there's no such thing as anti-american racism (i mean anti-usa), since the americans are all members of races from elsewhere (england, ireland, italy, etc)?

and what about anti-nigerian racism? nigeria, like america, comprises many races

and what about anti-palestinian racism?

do you seriously say that there's a palestinian race, separate from the arab race, and yet no israeli race?

before 1948, the palestinians no more existed as a separate race than the israelis did

i think you accept that israel doesn't discriminate against arabs generally (well, no more than any country tends to discriminate against others), only against (non-israeli) palestinians …

so does that mean you agree that israel can't be accused of anti-palestinian racismor apartheid?

like it or not (and you certainly don't appear to like it, or at least to like admitting it), the israelis have become a race

and anti-israeli racists are now so blatant that the only way to defend them is by claiming that such racism doesn't exist


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:10

Rate this:

0 points

I have not said any of those things ( that doesn't mean I won't ) I merely said I now understand what I I am being invited to agree to. Circumstances do not allow me to respond as I would wish it may have to be done out of hours.

But in the meantime if we allow for the sake of argument there is anti Israeli racism, is that anti semitism? Not a rhetorical question, I really want to know.


Advis3r

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:18

Rate this:

0 points

Now RRZ feigns innocence? Anti Israeli racism is another manifestation of anti-Semitism - singling out the Jewish people's state and people for approbrium - as if he did not know.


Advis3r

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:21

Rate this:

0 points

and anti-israeli racists are now so blatant that the only way to defend them is by claiming that such racism doesn't exist

and by extension that attacking Israel simply because it is the State of the Jewish people is not a form of anti-Semitism.


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:37

Rate this:

0 points

Ignore him fish he is an incoherent idiot. It is your answer I am interested in.


happygoldfish

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:42

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: But in the meantime if we allow for the sake of argument there is anti Israeli racism, is that anti semitism? Not a rhetorical question, I really want to know.

(in the meantime …)

anti-israeli racism isn't necessarily antisemitism

this is why, when something is obviously anti-israeli racism, i often prefer to say so, rather than to make the less clear claim that it is antisemitism

however, i have no hesitation in saying that denying israel's right to exist or seeking its destruction is always antisemitism


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:44

Rate this:

0 points

Ok

Will get back to you.


Advis3r

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:15

Rate this:

0 points

"incoherent idiot" which presumes you are an expert on idiocy - yes I would go along with that - you display more than enough of it on this website. I can only admire the patience exhibited by Goldfish in giving more than the time of day.

Ignore me if you like but as an Israeli I find your comment both obnoxious and racist. Whilst Israel is not perfect whoever claimed it was considering the contribution Israel has made and continues to make to the well-being of humankind your comment - which I know you hold as true given your consistent calls for Israel to get back to some nebulous "real Zionism" the meaning of which you have yet to confide to us - is typical of the arrogant pseudo intellectuals who believe they have the answer to all mankind's problems which they lay solely at Israel's door.

Yes as an Israeli and a Jew I consider your remarks to be anti-Semitic.


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 12:39

Rate this:

0 points

Again in the meantime....how about this.

" The State of Israel has turned out to have been a very bad idea. This maybe should have been spotted at outset but it wasn't and we are where we are. Dismantlement is not practical so we must work to make it a very different place to what it is now"

Is that anti Semitic? Or anti Israeli racism ? Or neither ?


happygoldfish

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:08

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: " The State of Israel has turned out to have been a very bad idea. This maybe should have been spotted at outset but it wasn't and we are where we are. Dismantlement is not practical so we must work to make it a very different place to what it is now"

Is that anti Semitic?

(is that someone like churchill or danny rich?! )

as you know, my previous statement "denying israel's right to exist or seeking its destruction is always antisemitism" is from the ottawa protocol of the inter-parliamentary committee against antisemitism

it is carefully worded, and speaks only against the destruction (or denying the right to exist) of an existing state, in exactly the same way that it would be racist to call for the destruction of a kurdish state if one already existed

your quotation does not do so, and is no worse than pre-1948 opposition to the (future) creation of a jewish state, which was not necessarily antisemitism

your quotation leaves a lot unsaid (eg what is "very bad" about israel? ), and clearly is followed (in the original) by a list of those "very different" changes which may themselves be anti-israeli racism

if those changes "threaten the demographic nature" of israel (which btw the arab league has specifically opposed doing), then that would be antisemitic


Advis3r

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:36

Rate this:

0 points

Sorry happygoldfish I beg to differ.

The all parliamentary committee said the following in its report:

We take into account the view expressed in the Macpherson report of the Stephen
Lawrence Inquiry that a racist act is defined by its victim.1 It is not acceptable for an
individual to say ‘I am not a racist’ if his or her words or acts are perceived to be racist.
We conclude that it is the Jewish community itself that is best qualified to determine what
does and does not constitute antisemitism.
4. Broadly, it is our view that any remark, insult or act the purpose or effect of which is to
violate a Jewish person’s dignity or create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating
or offensive environment for him is antisemitic. This reflects the definition of harassment
under the Race Relations Act 1976. This definition can be applied to individuals and to
the Jewish community as a whole.

The comment is an affront to me as an Israeli and Jew - his comment alleges that the whole of Israel society is bad and is deserving of being dismantled and should be dismantled and the only reason why it cannot be dismantled is not because it would be wrong to do it but because it would be too difficult to do so. what is the difference between that and the French Ambassador calling Israel "that sh*&$y little country" or the Finnish Chairman of Amnesty International calling Israel a "scum state"?

Sorry anti-Semitism is in the eye of the beholder and that statement is anti-Semitic - would he call for the dismantling of Pakistan or Jordan which were set up around about the same time as Israel as also being mistakes?


Real Real Zionist

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:38

Rate this:

0 points

Fish I wasn't quoting anyone. I put it together myself. I was interested in knowing where something like that would fall on your racism spectrum.

You have answered that.

Thanks.


Advis3r

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:44

Rate this:

0 points

From the Report

We conclude that whilst many have pointed out that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not necessarily antisemitic the converse is also true: it is never acceptable to mask hurtful racial generalisations by claiming the right to legitimate political discourse.


happygoldfish

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:32

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: … anti-Semitism is in the eye of the beholder …

advis3r, you are trying to give the impression that you have parliamentary backing for your idea that jews (being the victims) have the right to final judgement on whether statements are antisemitism

but the all-party parliamentary report (quoting from the Macpherson report), was talking about the collection of statistics for uk assaults and other crimes …

should they be listed, for statistical purposes, as racist crimes, or not? (http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentar...)

ie if a jew or asian or black is assaulted by skinheads, can the police say "it's just an assault", or does the victim have the right to say "no, it's a racist assault, and you must treat it as such because i say so"?

(that question is relevant not only in assessing how many racist crimes there are, but also how well the police are dealing with them)

the report says yes, the victim has the say-so

that is completely different from what you are claiming, that an otherwise non-crime (a newspaper article, blog comment, etc) should be condemned as racism "because we say so"

the idea that jews can say "this statement is antisemitic because i say it is" is absurd


happygoldfish

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 11:46

Rate this:

0 points

anti-israeli racism:

Real Real Zionist: .I am a little puzzled by anti Israeli racism. This cannot be anything else but anti semitism can it ? What other race,ethnic group, can we be talking about ?

happygoldfish: so there's no anti-israeli racism at all?

any allegation of anti-israeli racism can immediately be met by "it doesn't exist"?

do you say that, for the same reason, there's no such thing as anti-american racism (i mean anti-usa), since the americans are all members of races from elsewhere (england, ireland, italy, etc)?

and what about anti-nigerian racism? nigeria, like america, comprises many races

and what about anti-palestinian racism?

do you seriously say that there's a palestinian race, separate from the arab race, and yet no israeli race?

before 1948, the palestinians no more existed as a separate race than the israelis did

i think you accept that israel doesn't discriminate against arabs generally (well, no more than any country tends to discriminate against others), only against (non-israeli) palestinians …

so does that mean you agree that israel can't be accused of anti-palestinian racismor apartheid?

like it or not (and you certainly don't appear to like it, or at least to like admitting it), the israelis have become a race

and anti-israeli racists are now so blatant that the only way to defend them is by claiming that such racism doesn't exist

Real Real Zionist: I have not said any of those things ( that doesn't mean I won't ) I merely said I now understand what I I am being invited to agree to. Circumstances do not allow me to respond as I would wish it may have to be done out of hours.
But in the meantime …

Real Real Zionist: Ok
Will get back to you.

well?


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 12:18

Rate this:

0 points

Will post it as a new blog early tomorrow morning.

In the meantime I don't recall claiming that the Palestinians constituted a race.


happygoldfish

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 12:34

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: I don't recall claiming that the Palestinians constituted a race.

i didn't say you did claim that

but if you don't, does that mean that you agree that israel (or lebanon!) can't be accused of anti-palestinian racismor apartheid?


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 13:12

Rate this:

0 points

No I don't agree. A people that don't themselves constitute a race can be victims of racism by default.

In default of not being of a particular race.

eg Jewish


happygoldfish

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 13:44

Rate this:

0 points

so in a case in which israel, in a particular respect, didn't discriminate against arabs generally, but did discriminate against (non-israeli) palestinians

that couldn't be called anti-palestinian racism, or indeed any sort of racism?


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:12

Rate this:

0 points

Well yes because you have been telling me that Israel has become a race and is a frequent victim of anti Israeli racism. This is something I find odd but not objectionable. I can live with it.

But it can't rub just one way. If Israel can be a victim of anti Israeli racism it can be a perpetrater of racism too, regardless of whether the victims themselves constitute a race.

Moreover we don't need


happygoldfish

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:56

Rate this:

0 points

rrz, i take it you now accept that there can be anti-israeli racism (distinct from antisemitism)?

because earlier i understood you to say that there was no such thing

Real Real Zionist: .I am a little puzzled by anti Israeli racism. This cannot be anything else but anti semitism can it ? What other race,ethnic group, can we be talking about ?

… to which my reply began …

happygoldfish: so there's no anti-israeli racism at all?

any allegation of anti-israeli racism can immediately be met by "it doesn't exist"?

ok, now that you accept that "anti-israeli racism" makes sense, we can return to the question about it that you postponed answering …

do you agree that singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium is anti-israeli racism?

and do you agree that denying israel's right to exist, or seeking its destruction, is anti-israeli racism?


happygoldfish

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:57

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: But it can't rub just one way. If Israel can be a victim of anti Israeli racism it can be a perpetrater of racism too, regardless of whether the victims themselves constitute a race.

yes of course, i've always said there is anti-israeli racism, there is anti-palestinian racism, there is anti-american racism, etc …

i've made no distinction!


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:02

Rate this:

0 points

That wasn't quite your point was it?

But still yes. You don't have to discriminate against an entire group on default race grounds to be guilty of racism. In a particular place in particular circumstances is enough. Israel discriminates against non Israeli or non Jewish ( you choose ) people on the west bank. That is racism. The Nazis didn't discriminate against central Asian Slavs or even Balkan Slavs. But made a decent fist of eliminating the Slavs of western Russia. That wasn't racism?

Btw I don't accept that there is not institutional discrimination against non Jews in Israel proper but that's a big discussion. Let's not go there for the moment.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:12

Rate this:

0 points

Sorry if I muddled it a little your last post wasn't there when I started to type mine so I hadn't read it when I posted.

So you are saying there is anti Palestinian racism on the part of Israel ?


happygoldfish

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:28

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: So you are saying there is anti Palestinian racism on the part of Israel ?

i'm saying that if someone says "there is anti-palestinian racism on the part of israel", then i won't avoid the question by saying "anti-palestinian racism can't exist", i'll actually answer the question!

so if you'd like to raise it in another blog, i'll be happy to deal with it

but for now

do you agree that singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium is anti-israeli racism?

and do you agree that denying israel's right to exist, or seeking its destruction, is anti-israeli racism?


Advis3r

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:45

Rate this:

0 points

"the idea that jews can say "this statement is antisemitic because I say it is" is absurd"

Why absurd? Look at the UK Law of defamation - In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it! So claiming that the reconstitution of a Jewish national identity in the form of the modern State of Israel was a mistake I find damaging and defamatory and anyone who says that has to prove it. It defames all Israelis becasue it mens that our national characteristic is somehow flawed - that's anti-Semitic.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 16:49

Rate this:

0 points

Ok like I said first thing in the morning

In the meantime you have not just said that anti Palestinian racism is a theoretical possibility but that there IS anti Palestinian racism. But no need to dwell on it, another blog another time.


happygoldfish

Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:36

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: Look at the UK Law of defamation - … the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court.

rubbish!

the onus is first on the plaintiff to prove that the comments are defamatory

(truth is then a defence)

we can't say "it's defamatory because i say so"

(the equivalent of "it's racist because i say so")


happygoldfish

Thu, 02/16/2012 - 12:02

Rate this:

0 points


Educating Happy Goldfish



By Advis3r
February 15, 2012

http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/Article_Directory/Defamation_Law/The_ins_an...

The lesson never argue with a lawyer.

COMMENTS

advis3r, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

let me bring enlightenment

a plaintiff in a defamation case must first prove that the words used were defamatory

(generally, that means that it damages his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people)

for example, if i were to claim that you were born out of wedlock, or that your father was a thief, and if that claim turned out to be untrue, you would still have to prove that the words were defamatory of you

i don't know whether there is any case-law on either of these (and i can't be bothered to look it up ), but obviously i would argue in court that being illegitimate, or having a criminal parent, was (in the 21st century) not of itself any reason for right-thinking people to shun you

you would have to prove that it was!

although other aspects of defamation law have been codified in statute, the basic principles have not

you can find what i have said in most books on tort … unfortunately, i cannnot quickly find any available on the internet

however, there are plenty of semi-authoritative sites such as http://www.lawteacher.net/human-rights/essays/european-convention.php

In order to mount a claim for defamation a claimant must establish:
1. that the words used are capable of being defamatory - either by lowering the claimant in the estimation of normal, right thinking people, exposing the claimant to hatred, contempt or ridicule or causing the claimant to be shunned or avoided.

also Liberty's website, at http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamat...
Once the judge has decided that the words - or other material - could possibly have a meaning that is damaging to the claimant’s reputation, the jury’s role is twofold. First, it must determine what the words mean in their natural and ordinary sense. Second, the jury must decide whether that meaning is defamatory.

any questions, grasshopper?

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS