Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[Belz...]

Uh-huh, yeah, sure, right.

Well, Zionism _did_ predate the Holocaust, didn't it?

That will be quite enough from you: collective guilt justifying mass murder of innocents.

Now wait a second. That's not what Capel said. He said it was convenient to Zionism. Where do you get the collective guilt? He sounds more like an anti-Zionist than an anti-semite.

Your posts. Including this one.

Wait. Can you explain that? Or do you mean that you must be on one side or the other?

 

[Ziggurat]

Wait. Can you explain that? Or do you mean that you must be on one side or the other?

That's the standard Caveman asserted: you're either on one side or the other.

And he has picked the side of those who cheered 9/11.

 

[Belz...]

That's the standard Caveman asserted: you're either on one side or the other.

And he has picked the side of those who cheered 9/11.

That is a very uncharitable reading of his post, Zig. He talked about taking a side against cheering for death, not taking a side for the terrorists who commited 9/11. It takes quite a large amount of mental gymnastics and over-simplification to get from his post to yours.

 

[tyr_13]

Here you trash any foundation for your objections about the same being done elsewhere. Your rant is, then, all about taking a side against Israel.

They're doing industrialized murder in the form of a spectator sport. How would you not take a side against that?

The Palestinians cheered when 9/11 happened. You have taken sides with that.

It must be sad when all you have to cheer for is some people hijacking a plane and flying it into a building, rather than such a nice spectacle Israel regularly provides its citizens.



Evidence?

That is a very uncharitable reading of his post, Zig. He talked about taking a side against cheering for death, not taking a side for the terrorists who commited 9/11. It takes quite a large amount of mental gymnastics and over-simplification to get from his post to yours.

Actually he was talking about siding against Israel, not siding against just cheering for death. He in fact defends the Palestinian cheering for death as better than Israel's, because Israel's is a 'spectator sport' somehow.

So while it's a bit of a leap to say he took a side for the 9/11 terrorists, saying he takes the side of cheering for the 9/11 terrorists is exactly right.

Perhaps he just worded things poorly, but as written that's what he said. If he meant something different and is willing to condemn the Palestinian's actions (the same actions he condemns Israel for), that would clear up the matter. One could suppose he denies supporting the cheering for 9/11 with his request for 'evidence', but that is satisfied with quoting him. It's now incumbent on him to correct his statement if he meant something other than what he said.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is a very uncharitable reading of his post, Zig. He talked about taking a side against cheering for death, not taking a side for the terrorists who commited 9/11. It takes quite a large amount of mental gymnastics and over-simplification to get from his post to yours.

The whole cheering thing was just the latest of his rationalizations for why he opposed Israel. And he most definitely wasn't taking a side against cheering for death, because he turned around and defended the Palestinians for doing it.

 

[trustbutverify]

Now wait a second. That's not what Capel said. He said it was convenient to Zionism. Where do you get the collective guilt? He sounds more like an anti-Zionist than an anti-semite.

He sounds like both to me.

 

[Belz...]

He sounds like both to me.

Would you mind explaining why? I follow the thread from time to time so I may have missed a good chunk of evidence in favour of your interpretation.

However, many people seem to conflate the two: if you criticise Israel, you are anti-semitic. Never mind that a lot of Jews criticise Israel, and that a lot of people criticise both sides and more.

I myself would say that no one is looking particularily good when it comes to the middle-east.

 

[Belz...]

The whole cheering thing was just the latest of his rationalizations for why he opposed Israel. And he most definitely wasn't taking a side against cheering for death, because he turned around and defended the Palestinians for doing it.

Would you mind quoting him defending the Palestinians cheering for 9/11?

 

[Ziggurat]

Would you mind quoting him defending the Palestinians cheering for 9/11?

Here you go:

The Palestinians cheered when 9/11 happened.

It must be sad when all you have to cheer for is some people hijacking a plane and flying it into a building, rather than such a nice spectacle Israel regularly provides its citizens.

 

[Belz...]

Here you go:

I had a feeling you'd quote that one, but it doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that he defended those cheering on 9/11. Instead, the post you quote has him saying that the cheering on 9/11 is a one-time thing vs a regular one in Israel, presumably meaning that the latter is even worse.

I disagree with him on that, but it doesn't make him support the 9/11 cheerers. Unless you have more, I'd think that he believes both to be despicable, just one more than the other.

 

[GlennB]

Lets face the truth, awful though it is to Zionists : most people don't give a toss about Jews and Jewishness. There, I've said it.

And I'll agree. Whoever bulldozes the olive and citrus groves in the West Bank in order to intimidate the occupants into leaving is a ****, whether it's Jew or Arab. If it's done to ease and promote Israeli settlement on non-Israeli land then that's Zionism in action, not "Jewishness".

 

[Ziggurat]

I had a feeling you'd quote that one, but it doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that he defended those cheering on 9/11. Instead, the post you quote has him saying that the cheering on 9/11 is a one-time thing vs a regular one in Israel, presumably meaning that the latter is even worse.

No. He did NOT excuse it on the basis of it being a one-time-only thing, he excused it on the basis that they're so terribly oppressed, they've been driven to cheering death. That's a defense of the indefensible.

And do you seriously think they wouldn't cheer again if we got hit like that again? Do you seriously think he thinks that? Of course they would. And of course he knows they would.

Unless you have more, I'd think that he believes both to be despicable, just one more than the other.

I understand the impulse to be charitable in your interpretation, but it just isn't so. He thinks one is so bad that we must take sides against Israel because of it, and he thinks the other is excusable because the Palestinians are so oppressed.

 

[caveman1917]

Blah...Blah...Blah.

More nonsense.

More than just the statement you highlighted even. Ziggurat is on record here multiple times explicitly expressing his approval of bombing Palestinians to little pieces. Wonder who would be on record explicitly expressing approval of flying planes into office towers, probably nobody.

Try to picture it like this: you go to one of those people cheering on the hill and say "I'm taking a side against this." Then this person immediately points towards the Palestinians who are getting bombed as a justification. When that doesn't work, the person just randomly starts shouting "Jews! Holocaust! Antisemitism!" That's pretty much how you can imagine conversing with Zig.

 

[caveman1917]

Instead, the post you quote has him saying that the cheering on 9/11 is a one-time thing vs a regular one in Israel, presumably meaning that the latter is even worse.

The post says exactly what the post says, that it must be sad when all you have left to cheer for is some people flying a plane into an office tower. The post has no moral valuation in it.

You do realize we're not actually doing a comparison or anything here right? Just because the person on the hill points towards the people being bombed to justify his cheering doesn't mean you should also look at where he points. Because that's exactly how the tactic works, it's a weaker of form of a "tu quoque", more like a "somebody quoque."

 

[caveman1917]

As expected. I'm now officially the winner.

General 9/11 discussion thread is over there -->

 

[Roofgardener]

To be fair, he wasn't the leader until the British put him there (and kept him there even after the Arab Revolt - the British exiled him, but didn't replace him). He was only removed from the position in 1948, after the Israeli War of Independence, by King Abdullah of Jordan.

Hmm... you're right. Thanks for the correction on that one A'isha.

The British didn't exactly cover themselves in glory over the Mandate, although I suspect it was probably an impossible mission to start with.

 

[Mycroft]

The post says exactly what the post says, that it must be sad when all you have left to cheer for is some people flying a plane into an office tower. The post has no moral valuation in it.

You do realize we're not actually doing a comparison or anything here right? Just because the person on the hill points towards the people being bombed to justify his cheering doesn't mean you should also look at where he points. Because that's exactly how the tactic works, it's a weaker of form of a "tu quoque", more like a "somebody quoque."

I don't think there is a place in the world where if there were a war going on that could be watched from a distance in a position of safety, that there would not be people, particularly young people, who would watch it.

I think even if we accept the absolute most charitable interpretations of what you said, it's still a disgusting smear and a blatant double standard.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Ziggurat]

General 9/11 discussion thread is over there -->

Sorry, you already conceded defeat, you'll need to do a lot better than that if you want a rematch.

 

[caveman1917]

I don't think there is a place in the world where if there were a war going on that could be watched from a distance in a position of safety, that there would not be people, particularly young people, who would watch it.

We've certainly learned, from the quote mined so as to bring up the holocaust, that Hamas rocket fire isn't terrifying but exciting. I did not know that yet.

I understand how exhilarating it must be to really feel the national identity flow through your veins, as you cheer and watch the enemy people being blown to bits. I do wonder, does it make it even better if you can hear them scream as well?

I think even if we accept the absolute most charitable interpretations of what you said, it's still a disgusting smear and a blatant double standard.

Blah blah blah

 

[Roofgardener]

They're doing industrialized murder in the form of a spectator sport. How would you not take a side against that?

Firstly, that is an extraordinary statement, Caveman. You are suggesting that the Gaza incursion was motivated from the desire to create a spectator sport ? Because that is what your sentence implies.

Secondly: Thanks for posting that link to the Guardian article. It is WELL worth reading. In particular, you will note that it implies that a significant number of Israeli's where gathering at this hilltop to watch the distant bombing. Perhaps even a crowd.

And yet, the photographs show just four people, and the SAME sofa (and two chairs), shot from different angles.

If this was a "spectator sport", would you not expect rather more than this ?