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
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. |
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 . |
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 13:37 Rate this: 0 points | Advis3r |
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 14:43 Rate this: 0 points | Affirming The Consequent: "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." |
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 14:55 Rate this: 0 points |
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...)) … … is anti-israeli racism …
|
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. |
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. |
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 16:08 Rate this: 0 points |
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)
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)
|
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 ? |
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" |
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 10:02 Rate this: 0 points |
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
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 |
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. |
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. |
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:21 Rate this: 0 points |
and by extension that attacking Israel simply because it is the State of the Jewish people is not a form of anti-Semitism. |
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. |
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 11:42 Rate this: 0 points |
(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 |
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. |
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 ? |
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:08 Rate this: 0 points |
(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
|
), and clearly is followed (in the original) by a list of those "very different" changes which may themselves be anti-israeli racism
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:
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? |
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. |
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 13:44 Rate this: 0 points | From the Report
|
Tue, 02/14/2012 - 14:32 Rate this: 0 points |
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 |
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 11:46 Rate this: 0 points |
well? |
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. |
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 12:34 Rate this: 0 points |
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 racism … or apartheid? |
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 |
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? |
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 |
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 …
… to which my reply began …
ok, now that you accept that "anti-israeli racism" makes sense, we can return to the question about it that you postponed answering … |
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 14:57 Rate this: 0 points |
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! |
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. |
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 ? |
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 15:28 Rate this: 0 points |
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 … |
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. |
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. |
Wed, 02/15/2012 - 18:36 Rate this: 0 points |
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") |
Thu, 02/16/2012 - 12:02 Rate this: 0 points |
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!
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 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 … also Liberty's website, at http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamat... …
|
…MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
Harvey
Fri, 02/10/2012 - 12:54
Rate this:
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 .