Jewish Settler Attacks = Terrorism

gimmesometruth27

hasbara.

yosi

Hasbara? By which you mean what exactly? Is the implication that I am part of some sort of organized conspiracy to spread false Israeli propaganda? Because if that is what you're getting at gimme, then I think you've only added to my point about the tendency for anti-Zionist sentiment to slide precipitously from legitimate criticism into conspiracy theory.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

Once again, you already know my feelings on the issue.

As for everything else, I seem to be fooling you, for one. I don't know how else to take your complete dodge of the issues raised but as a tacit admission that you lack an adequate response.

Your feelings on the issue? No, I don't know them. Why don't you remind me?

This thread is about Settler attacks against Palestinians. Yet all you've done in this thread is try and accuse everyone who criticizes Israel of being either a knowing, or unwitting, anti-Semite.

To use your lame logic: Your behaviour indicates that you're 'running in a crowd that includes some real bad people', such as the extremist Israeli settlers who call for the complete annihilation of the Palestinians.

You've said nothing against the extremist settlers, who are rightly being labelled terrorists. Instead, you've simply jumped to the defence of Israel and played the anti-Semitism card. Therefore, I take it you've nothing against these people:

http://aljazeerah.info/News/2011/January/17 n/Israeli Rabbis Call for Extermination Camps to Kill Palestinian Arabs.htm
An article in the Israeli Jewish Orthodox publication "Fountains of Salvation", which purports to be a 'family magazine', suggests that Israel will create death camps for Palestinians in order to wipe them out like Amalek.

The terms Amalek or Amalekites is code for the Palestinians (and other perceived enemies of the Jewish people) and originates in the Old Testament. It amounts to a call for genocide.

...In the last paragraph of the piece, the attack continues with the following remark, "It will be interesting to see whether they (the politically correct rabbis) leave the assembly of the Amalekites (Palestinians) in extermination camps to others, or whether they will declare that wiping out Amalek is no longer (historically ) relevant. Only time will tell……."

http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/pkfjt-jewish-talmudic-extremism-rabbi-yisrael-all-palestinians-must-be-killed-men-women-infants-and-beasts.cfm
"All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts." This was the religious opinion issued one week ago by Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tsomet Institute, a long-established religious institute attended by students and soldiers in the Israeli settlements of the West Bank. In an article published by numerous religious Israeli newspapers two weeks ago and run by the liberal Haaretz on 26 March, Rosen asserted that there is evidence in the Torah to justify this stand.

...Rosen's article, which created a lot of noise in Israel, included the text of the ruling in the Torah: "Annihilate the Amalekites from the beginning to the end. Kill them and wrest them from their possessions. Show them no mercy. Kill continuously, one after the other. Leave no child, plant, or tree. Kill their beasts, from camels to donkeys."

At the head of those supporting his opinion is Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, the leading religious authority in Israel's religious national current, and former chief Eastern rabbi for Israel. Rosen's opinion also has the support of Rabbi Dov Lior, president of the Council of Rabbis of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), and Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, the chief rabbi of Safed and a candidate for the post of chief rabbi of Israel. A number of political leaders in Israel have also shown enthusiasm for the opinion, including Ori Lubiansky, head of the Jerusalem municipality.

yosi

Ok, even though you already know very well where I stand on the issue, or should know given everything I've written on these threads over the years, I'll indulge you. I agree, these settlers are crazy and criminal, and yes, probably deserve to be labeled terrorists.

Now, once again, do you have anything to say about your completely irresponsible rhetoric?

yosi

Oh, and by the way, you did it again. You wrote, "You've said nothing against the extremist settlers, who are rightly being labelled terrorists. Instead, you've simply jumped to the defence of Israel...." Once again you've slipped from talking about a particular group of individual settlers to talking about Israel as a whole, which once again indicates that you aren't really talking about the real state of Israel, which like any state in the real world can't be so easily essentialized, but rather are talking about your own ideological construction of "Israel."

gimmesometruth27

yosi said:

Hasbara? By which you mean what exactly? Is the implication that I am part of some sort of organized conspiracy to spread false Israeli propaganda? Because if that is what you're getting at gimme, then I think you've only added to my point about the tendency for anti-Zionist sentiment to slide precipitously from legitimate criticism into conspiracy theory.

you know exactly what i mean.

you can not deny that hasbara is a real thing. you may not be a part of an organized conspiracy and you may not be on the government payroll, but you come on here and you continue to state that you can recognize the things that the israeli government is doing and you acknowledge that they are treating the palestinians like shit, and that the settlers are in the wrong, but at the end of the day you support the settlers and the israeli government. why is that? we can all see it. you can not be on both sides of the argument. you just can't. logic dictates that you can not be on two sides that are completely opposite of each other.

you can criticize me all you want, but i am criticizing the israeli government and it's policies. the government is the representative of all israelis, and until i see a group of israelis standing up and opposing it and voting out people like bibi and his party, i am going to take that as a tacit approval of that government from all israelis.

i oppose zionism and i find it to be the root of all of the problems in the middle east. there is no convincing me otherwise.

the settlers are the problem, and the expansion of the illegal settlements are the problem. and no matter which way you try to analyze it or justify it, their attacks on palestinians, and the theft of land and destruction of palestinian homes and olive groves, and the thuggish acts of the idf are acts of terrorism. period.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

Oh, and by the way, you did it again. You wrote, "You've said nothing against the extremist settlers, who are rightly being labelled terrorists. Instead, you've simply jumped to the defence of Israel...." Once again you've slipped from talking about a particular group of individual settlers to talking about Israel as a whole, which once again indicates that you aren't really talking about the real state of Israel, which like any state in the real world can't be so easily essentialized, but rather are talking about your own ideological construction of "Israel."

Have the settlers been supported 100% by the Israeli leadership? Yep. Until the settlements start to be evacuated, as they should be under international law - instead of more settlements being built, as they are right now - then maybe you have a case that the settlers and the government are not hand in glove with each other.

yosi

Gimme, it's perfectly possible to be an ardent Zionist and to support Israel while at the same time opposing the settlers. If you don't believe that it is only because (a) you're completely unaware of what goes on in left-wing Israeli/Zionist discourse, and/or (b) you've conflated the small group of settlers who are the subject of this thread with the Israeli state as a whole. I oppose the settlers and the settlements, as well as the current Israeli government (at least with regards to its policies on the West Bank). You're issue is that I don't agree with your outlandish beliefs about the uniquely evil nature of Zionism as a whole, which strike me as growing out of conspiratorial thinking. The fact that you seem to actually believe that the Israeli government cares at all about what is said on a pearl jam fan forum and would actually organize a secret conspiracy to counter what is said here just confirms the fact (at least for me) that you're not seeing this issue straight.

B, the settlers have certainly gotten too much support from the government, but once again you make the mistake of radically simplifying a complex situation. The Israeli government isn't monolithic, and you're wrong to paint the whole government with a single brush. Look at the article you yourself posted in this thread. Or look at the new senior staff promotions that the IDF just made - they promoted a bunch of left-wing generals who have been targets of settler protests in what many are taking to be an implicit sign that the army views the radical settlers as a big problem. But of course, I forgot, Israel is unique among all the states in the world in that it is completely devoid of all complexity.

Still haven't gotten an answer about your irresponsible rhetoric. For someone so concerned with being anti-racist you seem awfully unconcerned by the fact that you might unwittingly be lending aid and comfort to racists.

rgambs

yosi said:

Gimme, it's perfectly possible to be an ardent Zionist and to support Israel while at the same time opposing the settlers. If you don't believe that it is only because (a) you're completely unaware of what goes on in left-wing Israeli/Zionist discourse, and/or (b) you've conflated the small group of settlers who are the subject of this thread with the Israeli state as a whole. I oppose the settlers and the settlements, as well as the current Israeli government (at least with regards to its policies on the West Bank). You're issue is that I don't agree with your outlandish beliefs about the uniquely evil nature of Zionism as a whole, which strike me as growing out of conspiratorial thinking. The fact that you seem to actually believe that the Israeli government cares at all about what is said on a pearl jam fan forum and would actually organize a secret conspiracy to counter what is said here just confirms the fact (at least for me) that you're not seeing this issue straight.

B, the settlers have certainly gotten too much support from the government, but once again you make the mistake of radically simplifying a complex situation. The Israeli government isn't monolithic, and you're wrong to paint the whole government with a single brush. Look at the article you yourself posted in this thread. Or look at the new senior staff promotions that the IDF just made - they promoted a bunch of left-wing generals who have been targets of settler protests in what many are taking to be an implicit sign that the army views the radical settlers as a big problem. But of course, I forgot, Israel is unique among all the states in the world in that it is completely devoid of all complexity.

Still haven't gotten an answer about your irresponsible rhetoric. For someone so concerned with being anti-racist you seem awfully unconcerned by the fact that you might unwittingly be lending aid and comfort to racists.

YOU are the one who is conflating particular criticisms into general criticisms..when byrnzie makes points about specific issues and you defend it is Israel you defend. You take criticism of terrorists and Zionism and equate that to antisemitism and everyone versed in this issue is worn out with that mentality.

Just because the rhetoric isn't placatory and equivocating doesn't mean it is irresponsible. What are the consequences that arise from passionate discourse? You don't like it, fine, but who made you the judge of whats acceptable?
"lending aid and comfort to racists" theres some inflammatory rhetoric!!! Does he run some sort of shelter for racists who need aid and comfort? Or are you stretching the antisemitism arguement past it's credibility?

Anti-Zionism is also not outlandish, that is just ridiculous.

Whats outlandish is the idea that people from particular bloodlines should be able to make a "self-deterministic" state in direct opposition to people from other bloodlines based on several thousand year old myths which are poorly construed into reality. Inflammatory? Yes. Irresponsible? I highly doubt it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

yosi said:

The fact that you seem to actually believe that the Israeli government cares at all about what is said on a pearl jam fan forum and would actually organize a secret conspiracy to counter what is said here just confirms the fact (at least for me) that you're not seeing this issue straight.

You lost me here, Yosi.

The fact that...

Where has Gimme even come close to demonstrating the fact that he believes the Israeli government coordinates efforts responding to PJ 10C accusations?

Unless I am missing something outrageous... you have lost some credibility with this attempt to illustrate him the fool.

yosi

I fail to see how comparing Zionism to Nazism is a criticism of a particular policy. Maybe you can explain that to me, but I highly doubt it. As for anti-Semitism, again, it's perfectly possible to be critical of particular Israeli policies and not be an anti-Semite. It's possible to be anti-Zionist and not be an anti-Semite. That said, it's inarguable that a great many actual anti-Semites travel in anti-Zionist circles, and I would think that it doesn't need to be explained how comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and a general attitude that treats Israel not as a normal state with particular objectionable policies, but as some sort of uniquely evil entity on the world stage easily slips over the line into anti-Semitism, or at the very least normalizes anti-Semitic discourse and provides a respectable cover for anti-Semitic remarks so long as it is phrased in anti-Israel terms rather than presented as blatant traditional Jew hatred.

If you want a concrete example of how criticism of Israel can easily and unknowingly slip into blatant anti-Semitism, a few years ago a regular contributor on this forum (who I won't name) posted an article that claimed that Israel was murdering Palestinian children so that it could harvest their internal organs. That is essentially a blood libel claim, which is one of the oldest and most notorious anti-Semitic myths. And yet it got posted on this forum because someone was so blinded by anger at Israel that they were willing to uncritically accept the truth of whatever claims of Israeli brutality they came across. So you'll forgive me if I think that the anti-Zionist rhetoric on this forum sometimes crosses lines that shouldn't be crossed.

yosi

Thirty, sorry for that. There's a background to this whole part of the discussion that I guess not everyone is privy to. "Hasbara" is a Hebrew term which means roughly public relations or propaganda. The term is often used to refer to Israel's efforts to explain itself to the rest of the world. For a few years now people on this forum have claimed that Israel, as part of its hasbara effort, pays a cadre of young adults to spread propaganda online. I have repeatedly been accused on this forum of being one such paid propagandist by people who disagree with my positions. I took Gimme's reference to "hasbara" to be another such accusation.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

yosi said:

Thirty, sorry for that. There's a background to this whole part of the discussion that I guess not everyone is privy to. "Hasbara" is a Hebrew term which means roughly public relations or propaganda. The term is often used to refer to Israel's efforts to explain itself to the rest of the world. For a few years now people on this forum have claimed that Israel, as part of its hasbara effort, pays a cadre of young adults to spread propaganda online. I have repeatedly been accused on this forum of being one such paid propagandist by people who disagree with my positions. I took Gimme's reference to "hasbara" to be another such accusation.

I see. Thanks for taking a moment to clear this up for me.

yosi

No problem.

yosi

Since I mentioned the new IDF senior officer appointments earlier in the thread as an example of how much more complex Israel is than its depiction by many here would suggest, and since I think it's safe to assume that probably no one here has any idea what I'm talking about, I thought I'd post this (I've edited out a bit in the middle to fit the length requirements for posts).

New Crop of IDF Chiefs Is Flock of Hardline Doves
By J.J. Goldberg

The Israeli military has sent what amounts to a barely disguised message to the political leadership and the troops in the latest round of senior command promotions, announced April 25.

With the Israeli-Palestinian peace process frozen, settler militancy on the rise and right-wing religious nationalists increasingly making their presence felt at the junior command level, the appointments make clear that the General Staff, led by chief of staff Benny Gantz, is doubling down on its basic strategic outlook: cooperation with the Palestinian leadership, enforcement of the soldiers’ code of ethics, deterrence on the northern front — and zero tolerance for Palestinian terrorism. Call them the hardline doves.

The three most charged appointments are the promotion of Brigadier General Herzl “Herzi” Halevi, the IDF’s so-called “philosopher-general,” until recently commander of the Galilee Division, to major general and chief of military intelligence; the appointment of the outgoing intelligence chief, Major General Aviv Kochavi, as chief of Northern Command; and the striking decision to retain the left-leaning chief of Central Command, Major General Nitzan Alon, in his current post overseeing the West Bank.

Alon’s retention at the head of Central Command, which covers the West Bank, sends a clear signal of the army’s impatience with growing settler radicalism and the spread of so-called price tag attacks. Alon is regarded by settler leaders as an undisguised liberal; it’s frequently noted that his wife Mor has been a supporter of the women’s human-rights group Machsom Watch, which is viewed on the right as subversive.

Alon spent much of his career in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit before taking a series of positions in intelligence and field command, mostly in the West Bank. Shortly before assuming his current position as chief of Central Command in December 2011, Alon infuriated settler leaders by calling price-tag actions “Jewish terrorism” in a New York Times interview. He also warned against cutting U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, then under congressional consideration because of the Palestinian application for United Nations recognition. He said cutting aid would destabilize Palestinian security forces, which he described as crucial to stability in the area. Under his command the army has clashed repeatedly with West Bank settlers, and he himself has been physically attacked by settlers and had protest demonstrations mounted outside his home.

...

Of all the latest appointments, though, the most talked-about is the promotion of Brigadier General “Herzi” Halevi to chief of Military Intelligence. A former commander of the paratroops brigade and of the Sayeret Matkal commando, he was described last November in a flattering New York Times profile — itself a rarity for an Israel Defense Forces general — as a likely future IDF chief of staff. Even so, the promotion of a brigadier to head military intelligence, leapfrogging over various qualified major generals, is unusual.

Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea reported this past Friday that after the New York Times interview appeared, Halevi called him and begged him not to publish an interview he’d conducted several days earlier, fearing it would look like he was campaigning for the top spot, sparking jealousy and resentment among his peers.

Halevi was raised in what he’s described as a “liberal religious” home in Jerusalem. After high school he enlisted as a member of a kibbutz-linked youth movement in Battalion 50 of the Nachal Brigade, the unit that carries on the Nachal tradition of combining military service and kibbutz agricultural work. He worked his way up through various command postings in the paratroops and Sayeret Matkal. As a junior paratroops officer in the West Bank in 2002, he shocked his peers by speaking out against plans to capture Yasser Arafat, who was then holed up in his headquarters in Ramallah. Then-chief of Central Command Moshe Kaplinsky is commonly credited with blocking the plan, warning the General Staff that it would cause the Middle East to “explode.”

In 2007 he was made commander of the paratroops brigade, which went on to participate in ground action in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09. Later that year he spoke out publicly to urge that field commanders be held responsible for educating their troops on the ethics of warfare.

More than almost any other IDF officer, Halevi is the subject of numerous stories and near-legends, most having to do with his philosophizing. Much of it revolves around his penchant for drawing on religious text to appeal to the religious right for moderation.

In September 2008, while debate was still raging over the Gaza disengagement and rabbinic calls for soldiers to disobey orders, Halevi gathered his paratroop officers for a New Year’s lecture and taught a pointed Talmud lesson on deferring to authority. It concerned a tale from Tractate Rosh Hashanah in which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania, who chaired the Sanhedrin after the fall of the Temple, sparred with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the Nassi or prince, over the correct date of Yom Kippur. When neither could convince the other, Rabbi Yehoshua deferred to Rabban Shimon because of his senior rank, and on the day that he believed was Yom Kippur he left his home carrying money and a walking stick to show it was not a holy day. The lesson, Halevi told his officers, was that even when religious principles seem overriding, a leader’s first duty is to maintain unity.

Another legendary talk came a year later, at a memorial in Tel Aviv for the late Haaretz military analyst Zeev Schiff in early September 2009. At the time Israelis were sharply divided over the costs inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza by Operation Cast Lead the previous January. Considerable attention was focused the actions of military and Chabad rabbis who were circulating among units at the front with literature urging soldiers to “show no mercy” and treat civilians as enemies. In addition, the contents of the U.N.’s Goldstone Report, accusing Israel of war crimes, were beginning to leak out, with formal publication three weeks away. In his talk that day, Halevi argued that field commanders have a duty to teach their troops the ethics of combat and laws of war, and not leave the soldiers to their own personal struggles or the influence of outside factors.

Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/198014/new-crop-of-idf-chiefs-is-flock-of-hardline-doves/#ixzz325VK2arH

Byrnzie

rgambs said:

YOU are the one who is conflating particular criticisms into general criticisms..when byrnzie makes points about specific issues and you defend it is Israel you defend. You take criticism of terrorists and Zionism and equate that to antisemitism and everyone versed in this issue is worn out with that mentality.

Just because the rhetoric isn't placatory and equivocating doesn't mean it is irresponsible. What are the consequences that arise from passionate discourse? You don't like it, fine, but who made you the judge of whats acceptable?
"lending aid and comfort to racists" theres some inflammatory rhetoric!!! Does he run some sort of shelter for racists who need aid and comfort? Or are you stretching the antisemitism arguement past it's credibility?

Anti-Zionism is also not outlandish, that is just ridiculous.

Whats outlandish is the idea that people from particular bloodlines should be able to make a "self-deterministic" state in direct opposition to people from other bloodlines based on several thousand year old myths which are poorly construed into reality. Inflammatory? Yes. Irresponsible? I highly doubt it.

Exactly. And he fails to see that his, and others, constant defense of the Israeli government, and it's policies - "I'm opposed to the settlements, but..." - gives aid and comfort to those who support the ongoing ethnic cleansing and land grab. But because I'm critical of Israel's race war against the Palestinians, then I must be giving aid and comfort to anti-Semites.
Yosi, I also doubt that the Israeli government read this message board. And I also doubt that anti-Semites read it either.

Byrnzie

Yosi, according to Zionism, how much of the area of Palestine rightfully belongs to the Jews? What does your Zionist ideology say about what portion of the land the Jews are entitled to?

yosi

It doesn't say anything about it. That's the whole point. Zionism is not one monolithic ideology. There are all sorts of different Zionisms. I'd say the only common denominator is that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel, because it is our homeland. Beyond that everything is up for debate. Your notion that Zionism necessarily has any other substantive content is just wrong.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

It doesn't say anything about it. That's the whole point. Zionism is not one monolithic ideology. There are all sorts of different Zionisms. I'd say the only common denominator is that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel, because it is our homeland. Beyond that everything is up for debate. Your notion that Zionism necessarily has any other substantive content is just wrong.

And when you say 'Israel', what do you mean exactly?

yosi

If you're asking whether I think "Israel" could conceivably include the West Bank, then yes, in principle it could. But I don't think it should. At all. Because I'm not a crazy person blind to reality.

Do you think there is such a thing as anti-Semitism in the world?