Should Pearl Jam Play in Israel??

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

Outlaw, you're a jerk. There was no need to turn this into an arena for personal attacks. Go back and read the exchange again between Triumphant and me and you'll see that I was simply responding to his assertions. The quotes denote the statement implied by his previous remark, i.e. I said, to paraphrase, "most Israelis aren't happy when Palestinians die," to which she said "you're wrong, look at these poll numbers," to which I responded "your poll numbers show x, but that does not support y, which is what you were implicitly trying to prove." (do you see how quotes work? kinda neat right?!)

again you are incorrect, we might as well clear that up too.

yosi

So let me get this straight, your argument is that a poll that shows that Israelis supported an operation that they viewed as necessary for their self-defense is proof that Israelis support the massacre of Palestinians because you consider what happened in Gaza a massacre? Do you not see the very obvious logical flaw? Namely that an argument about what Israelis support is contingent on how Israelis view the situation, and since Israelis don't consider what happened in Gaza to have been a massacre it makes no sense to interpret the poll you cite to mean that.

NoK

yosi wrote:

Fake history, right, my bad. There is no point in doing this. It's like arguing with a handful of rocks. Just go back and read a bit more, and try to get your hands on some better books.

Yes I forgot that as a Zionist Jew you believe you are superior to all of us. Perhaps you are the one that needs to read a bit more outside your comfort zone. I guess a superiority complex won't help you see that.

The fact is many Israeli historians now agree with what I have said about 1967 but all you have is drivel to answer my point.

yosi

Ok, and many historians would agree with my version of events. As for superiority complexes I believe that I've been speaking a lot about narratives, specifically because I realize that how you view history is almost entirely dependent on where you are standing. You are the one that first started proclaiming that your own understanding of history was the Truth (capital T intended), so please don't lecture me about superiority complexes.

NoK

yosi wrote:

Ok, and many historians would agree with my version of events. As for superiority complexes I believe that I've been speaking a lot about narratives, specifically because I realize that how you view history is almost entirely dependent on where you are standing. You are the one that first started proclaiming that your own understanding of history was the Truth (capital T intended), so please don't lecture me about superiority complexes.

Its the truth because there are historians on both sides of the fence that agree with the assessment. Whereas the "defensive pre-emptive strike" is only sold by Zionists so they can act like the victims and have an excuse to maintain a hold on the land.

yosi

What are you talking about? Both sides of the fence? So just because a couple of Israelis agree with your understanding of history you think you're right? All that says is that Israel is an open and pluralistic society where people can think freely, even to the point of attacking the state. Just for the shock value, by your logic if I found a handful of self-hating Jews who thought that Jews were secretly running the world, undermining countries' economies and efforts in war, and polluting the purity of other races, I would be right in saying that the Nazis reading of history was correct, because hey, people from both sides think it. Your argument is absurd on its face.

NoK

yosi wrote:

What are you talking about? Both sides of the fence? So just because a couple of Israelis agree with your understanding of history you think you're right? All that says is that Israel is an open and pluralistic society where people can think freely, even to the point of attacking the state. Just for the shock value, by your logic if I found a handful of self-hating Jews who thought that Jews were secretly running the world, undermining countries' economies and efforts in war, and polluting the purity of other races, I would be right in saying that the Nazis reading of history was correct, because hey, people from both sides think it. Your argument is absurd on its face.

Bullshit analogy. Historians from both sides are basing their findings on FACTS on the ground and not emotions as a self-hating Jew would.

There is absolutely no reason for an Israeli historian to agree with the findings that go against the Zionist agenda except historical integrity. Give me another reason why they would? It is illogical. While on the other hand, Zionists have something to gain with their BS history.

Open and pluralistic society where Israeli arabs are treated like second class citizens hahaha good one

fuck

yosi wrote:

So let me get this straight, your argument is that a poll that shows that Israelis supported an operation that they viewed as necessary for their self-defense is proof that Israelis support the massacre of Palestinians because you consider what happened in Gaza a massacre? Do you not see the very obvious logical flaw? Namely that an argument about what Israelis support is contingent on how Israelis view the situation, and since Israelis don't consider what happened in Gaza to have been a massacre it makes no sense to interpret the poll you cite to mean that.

I'm sure many Germans in the 1940s thought the Holocaust was vital for their survival as well. yes, I'm sure throughout history, there were many people who were able to find justifications for their crimes. And that is why Pearl Jam should not play Israel.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Just for the shock value, by your logic if I found a handful of self-hating Jews who thought that Jews were secretly running the world, undermining countries' economies and efforts in war, and polluting the purity of other races, I would be right in saying that the Nazis reading of history was correct, because hey, people from both sides think it. Your argument is absurd on its face.

What's a self-hating Jew? Any Jew who is critical of Israel's crimes, and whose every word can therefore be dismissed out of hand?
I wonder if Einstein was a self-hating Jew, or if he was a self-loving Jew? And I wonder if this would have any bearing on the truth of his scientific work?
Clearly Alan Dershowitz is a self-loving Jew because he supports Israel's crimes, and Norman Finkelstein is a self-hating Jew because he's critical of Israel's crimes.

Fantastic logic!

yosi

_outlaw wrote:

yosi wrote:

So let me get this straight, your argument is that a poll that shows that Israelis supported an operation that they viewed as necessary for their self-defense is proof that Israelis support the massacre of Palestinians because you consider what happened in Gaza a massacre? Do you not see the very obvious logical flaw? Namely that an argument about what Israelis support is contingent on how Israelis view the situation, and since Israelis don't consider what happened in Gaza to have been a massacre it makes no sense to interpret the poll you cite to mean that.

I'm sure many Germans in the 1940s thought the Holocaust was vital for their survival as well. yes, I'm sure throughout history, there were many people who were able to find justifications for their crimes. And that is why Pearl Jam should not play Israel.

Your ability to misunderstand is staggering. I am making a very specific argument about this particular use of this particular poll. Whether what happened is or is not a massacre is beside the point. Polls are reflections of people's opinions, which in turn are reflections of people's perceptions. If your goal is to use a poll to show that the Israeli public support the massacre of Palestinians then the poll in question has to either frame the situation in exactly those terms, meaning ask about support for a massacre, which it did not, or the respondents to the poll would have had to understood the poll to mean "massacre of Palestinians" when it referred to the "Israeli operation," which they did not.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Just for the shock value, by your logic if I found a handful of self-hating Jews who thought that Jews were secretly running the world, undermining countries' economies and efforts in war, and polluting the purity of other races, I would be right in saying that the Nazis reading of history was correct, because hey, people from both sides think it. Your argument is absurd on its face.

What's a self-hating Jew? Any Jew who is critical of Israel's crimes, and whose every word can therefore be dismissed out of hand?
I wonder if Einstein was a self-hating Jew, or if he was a self-loving Jew? And I wonder if this would have any bearing on the truth of his scientific work?
Clearly Alan Dershowitz is a self-loving Jew because he supports Israel's crimes, and Norman Finkelstein is a self-hating Jew because he's critical of Israel's crimes.

Fantastic logic!

And your ability to twist words is also staggering. A Jew that agreed with the Nazis about the nefarious actions of Jews and the need to kill them would self-evidently be a self-hating Jew. Hence the use of the term in my analogy. Nowhere have I called any Jewish detractors of Israel self-hating Jews. They are entitled to their opinions. I may disagree with them, and in some cases I may think they're stupid, and in other cases I may even think they're malicious, but that doesn't have anything to do with their being Jewish per se.

yosi

NoK wrote:

yosi wrote:

What are you talking about? Both sides of the fence? So just because a couple of Israelis agree with your understanding of history you think you're right? All that says is that Israel is an open and pluralistic society where people can think freely, even to the point of attacking the state. Just for the shock value, by your logic if I found a handful of self-hating Jews who thought that Jews were secretly running the world, undermining countries' economies and efforts in war, and polluting the purity of other races, I would be right in saying that the Nazis reading of history was correct, because hey, people from both sides think it. Your argument is absurd on its face.

Bullshit analogy. Historians from both sides are basing their findings on FACTS on the ground and not emotions as a self-hating Jew would.

There is absolutely no reason for an Israeli historian to agree with the findings that go against the Zionist agenda except historical integrity. Give me another reason why they would? It is illogical. While on the other hand, Zionists have something to gain with their BS history.

Open and pluralistic society where Israeli arabs are treated like second class citizens hahaha good one

Ok look, historians have to be judged based on the scholarly merit of their work. I say this as a student of history and as the son of an historian. If they are honest about their scholarship then their political affiliations shouldn't matter. Obviously this is not always the case. Nevertheless I've read good scholarship that reflects your position, and I've read good scholarship that reflects my position. The reason for this is not, as you so arrogantly suggest, that one side is dealing with facts while the other deals only in fabrications. The reason, again, is because where you stand determines how you look at history, so that two honest scholars could look at the same events and come to two entirely different understandings of what happened, based on which elements they choose to emphasize and their particular interpretations of the available information. I am perfectly comfortable accepting the validity of the Palestinian narrative. Obviously history looks much different from their vantage point. That does not mean that the Israeli narrative is not equally valid.

Speaking of propaganda, and twisting history to political purposes, I will note that you are the one working so hard to assert the supremacy of your historical narrative for expressly political purposes. I believe in psychology they call this projection. Perhaps you see something in yourself you find unattractive, but rather than deal with it you find it easier to project your own faults onto others, and then attack them for the faults that are really your own.

TriumphantAngel

yosi wrote:

_outlaw wrote:

yosi wrote:

So let me get this straight, your argument is that a poll that shows that Israelis supported an operation that they viewed as necessary for their self-defense is proof that Israelis support the massacre of Palestinians because you consider what happened in Gaza a massacre? Do you not see the very obvious logical flaw? Namely that an argument about what Israelis support is contingent on how Israelis view the situation, and since Israelis don't consider what happened in Gaza to have been a massacre it makes no sense to interpret the poll you cite to mean that.

I'm sure many Germans in the 1940s thought the Holocaust was vital for their survival as well. yes, I'm sure throughout history, there were many people who were able to find justifications for their crimes. And that is why Pearl Jam should not play Israel.

Your ability to misunderstand is staggering. I am making a very specific argument about this particular use of this particular poll. Whether what happened is or is not a massacre is beside the point. Polls are reflections of people's opinions, which in turn are reflections of people's perceptions. If your goal is to use a poll to show that the Israeli public support the massacre of Palestinians then the poll in question has to either frame the situation in exactly those terms, meaning ask about support for a massacre, which it did not, or the respondents to the poll would have had to understood the poll to mean "massacre of Palestinians" when it referred to the "Israeli operation," which they did not.

Ninety-two percent justify the air force’s attacks in Gaza despite the damage they cause to infrastructure and the suffering of the civilian population in the Strip.

+

the public’s current positive assessments of the IDF’s fighting capability (93%)

tells me, that they have a fair idea of the damage that's going to be caused the Palestinians. and they don't give a fuck.

so don't pretend that they do.

NoK

yosi wrote:

Ok look, historians have to be judged based on the scholarly merit of their work. I say this as a student of history and as the son of an historian. If they are honest about their scholarship then their political affiliations shouldn't matter. Obviously this is not always the case. Nevertheless I've read good scholarship that reflects your position, and I've read good scholarship that reflects my position. The reason for this is not, as you so arrogantly suggest, that one side is dealing with facts while the other deals only in fabrications. The reason, again, is because where you stand determines how you look at history, so that two honest scholars could look at the same events and come to two entirely different understandings of what happened, based on which elements they choose to emphasize and their particular interpretations of the available information. I am perfectly comfortable accepting the validity of the Palestinian narrative. Obviously history looks much different from their vantage point. That does not mean that the Israeli narrative is not equally valid.

Speaking of propaganda, and twisting history to political purposes, I will note that you are the one working so hard to assert the supremacy of your historical narrative for expressly political purposes. I believe in psychology they call this projection. Perhaps you see something in yourself you find unattractive, but rather than deal with it you find it easier to project your own faults onto others, and then attack them for the faults that are really your own.

Haha are you seriously trying to assess my psychological well-being from posts I have made on a message board? That is probably some of the lamest stuff I have read on here in a while and that says a lot. If you are trying to say I have some sort of psychological issue why don't you be up front and say it without trying to sugarcoat it like you sugarcoat all of atrocities Israel has committed.

Interpretation of history can no longer be considered history, per se. That delves more into opinion or literature. History is purely based on FACTS and the facts on the ground, for example in 1967, were that the Arab forces were not mobilizing to attack Israel thereby removing any validity of the defensive pre-emptive strike Israel keeps latching onto. Interpret that whichever way you want it wont change.