Israel: Clearly The Most Racist Country

yosiyosi Posts: 3,038
For those who need a reminder not to blindly accept the received wisdom on this forum:

Watch Israeli President Reuven Rivlin’s Moving Anti-Racism Message

Rivlin joins 11-year-old George Amira, whose anti-bullying video went viral
By Yair Rosenberg|October 1, 2014

This past Saturday, George Amira, an 11-year-old student in Tel Aviv, became an overnight celebrity in Israel when he posted a plaintive video protesting the bullying he was experiencing in school over his appearance and high-pitched voice. In a simple 90-second clip, with no spoken words, Amira displayed the slurs he’d been subjected to on pieces of paper: “homo,” “cheerleader,” “doesn’t belong with the boys.” “Look at me, then at yourselves,” he wrote on a sign. “We are exactly the same.” Amira’s video went viral, racking up over 8,000 Facebook shares and airtime on Israeli television, as well as plaudits for bravery from Israel’s education minister, Shai Piron.

One person who was moved by Amira’s message was Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, who has made anti-racism advocacy a cornerstone of his political work, and served as a vociferous defender of the rights of Israel’s 1.7 million Arab citizens long before he was sworn in as the country’s 10th president in July. This week, Rivlin met with Amira and his family, and commended the youth on his courage. The two then filmed a message modeled on Amira’s video for the entire country, condemning “violence, hostility, bullying, and racism.” It was released this morning, just days before Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement. Watch it below with English subtitles (click the caption button on the bottom-right if not already enabled):

Rivlin’s video is part of a growing anti-racism effort being spearheaded by Israel’s leadership, in the wake of disturbing outbreaks of racist violence and demonstrations in the country, directed against both Arabs and African migrants. In August, Rivlin told Jewish leaders that he would be embarking on anti-racism crusade, saying, “This is a terrible evil and a disgrace to Israeli life, which must find ways to isolate and uproot it.” Earlier, the country’s Justice Ministry under Tzipi Livni produced an edgy anti-discrimination ad which juxtaposed a haunting rendition of Israel’s national anthem with scenes of social exclusion. Livni herself spoke out forcefully against anti-Arab racism and incitement on social media during the recent Gaza conflict, while the country’s education minister Shai Piron devoted the opening weeks of this school year to an anti-racism curriculum.

Here's the link if you want to see the video:
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/185824/watch-israeli-president-reuven-rivlins-moving-anti-racism-message
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

«1

Comments

  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150
    edited October 2014
    Yosi, it's great to see Israeli leadership speaking out against racism directed against Arabs and African migrants, but it's interesting to that you chose not to bold a few words in the last paragraph: "in the wake of disturbing outbreaks of racist violence and demonstration in the country, directed against both Arabs and African migrants". If Israeli leadership had been proactively condemning racism when it recognized there was the potential be a problem (if it wasn't already a problem months or even years ago), those disturbing outbreaks of racist violence and demonstrations in the country might not have occurred, no?

    Regrettably, I put the onus on the president to not tolerate racism - and not only (though especially) when it is leading to divisiveness within a country. And to be fair, at least this response is more noble and less deflective than that of the American president after the Ferguson shooting (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-mistrust-police-corroding-america-25814152). In my opinion - neither are enough, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

    Personally, if I had started this thread, it'd be entitled "Israeli President desperately attempts to snuff Israel's recognized racism problems". In order for the power of groupthink to come into play and actually alter social opinion, I'd say it's pretty critical for Israelis to recognize the validity of a racism problem within their own borders.

    As an addition, this was specifically about racism towards Israeli non-Jews at the hands of Israeli Jews. I'd also love to see Rivlin start to work on bridging the trust between Israeli Jews and non-Jews by trying to reach the Arabs and African migrants (and solve issues they perceive): if Jews should be held to the standard that they must recognize innate or societally-indoctrinated racism within Israel, so should non-Jews. There ought to be an authentic and class-undivided coexistence within the state if the leaders of the Palestinian regions and the remainder of the Arab world could ever be expected to enter meaningful and long-lasting peace negotiations with Israel (especially if certain parties are being requested to lay down their arms).
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • yosiyosi Posts: 3,038
    Sorry, I don't follow your last paragraph. Could you explain please.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150
    yosi said:

    Sorry, I don't follow your last paragraph. Could you explain please.

    No worries Yosi... I guess what I'm saying is that instead of 'promoting tolerance' when the need arises in regards to racism, it would be great to see a shift in primary objective towards 'promoting empathy' instead; I'm only suggesting this distinction because I believe conflict is largely a byproduct of the lack of understanding of each others' perceived plights. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that to seek tolerance is an inherently negative way to look at it, and to simply 'tolerate' someone or some group shouldn't need to be taught if empathy is instead introduced. I remember asking you a month or two back about the Israeli opinion when people in Gaza were dying, and how you mentioned that they get sad for a little bit on the news, but they're not losing sleep over it. This is completely understandable to me given how the situation must feel in Israel, and I think just as I am a Jew and the assumption is that I hold an inherently pro-Israel opinion, I wonder what the assumption is about an Arab within Israeli borders.

    I truly don't think that a long-lasting peace can come into existence given how many years of animosity have ensued, without some form of training in 'empathetic thought process' . After all, if coexistence and equality can't be demonstrated and/or guaranteed between Arabs and Jews within Israel, why would an Arab in Gaza or the West Bank or East Jerusalem trust a Jew? (PS, what is the politically correct way to refer to the part of Israel that excludes the Palestinian regions?) I feel like a broken record, but I can't stress enough how much I believe that trust, in spite of history, must be given and received between Jews and Arabs, in order for a justice that feels just to all involved is obtained.

    And in addition to this, a belated Shana Tova to you and your family, and if you fast - have an easy one.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

    bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

    he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

    just sayin.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    It takes away from your point (slightly) that you tried to minimize the existing racism by leaving the one sentence unbolded. It's a move that gives a tiny amount of credence to the Hasbara conspiracy theories, it is clearly a "PR" move that smacks of advertising schtick. Let the message stand on it's own, it's stronger without your selective editing muddying the waters.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Posts: 10,769
    Don't you mean lunatic, racist, and fascist?
  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150

    Don't you mean lunatic, racist, and fascist?

    How does this further the conversation?
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1

  • I believe that Israel isn't any more or less racist than any other country however tensions between Israel and the rest of the Middle East makes continued hostility with Palestine an easy sell for most Israelis. Having said that, it's not as if those feelings of animosity are intirely misplaced as I'm sure that Palestinians likely feel the same way about Israel. Almost 70 years of conflict is bound to stir negative, racist feelings on both sides. That much bad blood is going to be nearly impossible to wash away. The real difference of course is that Israel is operating from a position of privilege with an infinitely superior military force backed by the most powerful country on the planet. The conflict between Palestine and Israel is like a battle between a mouse and a lion. Israel isn't the victim here; they are the bully.

    It's hard to play the victim when you're holding a killer hand.
  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150


    I believe that Israel isn't any more or less racist than any other country however tensions between Israel and the rest of the Middle East makes continued hostility with Palestine an easy sell for most Israelis. Having said that, it's not as if those feelings of animosity are intirely misplaced as I'm sure that Palestinians likely feel the same way about Israel. Almost 70 years of conflict is bound to stir negative, racist feelings on both sides. That much bad blood is going to be nearly impossible to wash away. The real difference of course is that Israel is operating from a position of privilege with an infinitely superior military force backed by the most powerful country on the planet. The conflict between Palestine and Israel is like a battle between a mouse and a lion. Israel isn't the victim here; they are the bully.

    It's hard to play the victim when you're holding a killer hand.

    Agreed, except for the number of years of conflict... I would say it was the inception of the Zionist movement and the introduction of notions of religious or racial superiority, not the establishment of Israel, that began the conflict.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150
    edited October 2014
    Yosi, I would very much appreciate a response to any of the points raised here when you get a chance. Given your initial disclaimer to not take things at face value, when differing opinions are given I'd say it's pretty important to address them. Especially because, as previously mentioned by rgambs and me, you didn't present things at face value - you selectively bolded from within the article.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    How is Saudi Arabia or North Korea not in this mix.I get everyone jumping on the Israeli Govt and some is warranted,but as a society they are a tolerant people.Many walks of life and religions live in pretty good harmony for the most part.Lets take personal feelings out of this and look at societies that frown upon any religious freedoms and have little tolerance toward women,Homosexuals,or those that don't subscribe to the "govt chosen religions.Rascism isn't just religion it's the whole squashing of freedoms and intolerance to those who are different.
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    rr165892 said:

    How is Saudi Arabia or North Korea not in this mix.I get everyone jumping on the Israeli Govt and some is warranted,but as a society they are a tolerant people.Many walks of life and religions live in pretty good harmony for the most part.Lets take personal feelings out of this and look at societies that frown upon any religious freedoms and have little tolerance toward women,Homosexuals,or those that don't subscribe to the "govt chosen religions.Rascism isn't just religion it's the whole squashing of freedoms and intolerance to those who are different.

    I'd even go so far as to add the whole emirates in all. No doubt, very very to their own.
  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150
    rr165892 said:

    How is Saudi Arabia or North Korea not in this mix.I get everyone jumping on the Israeli Govt and some is warranted,but as a society they are a tolerant people.Many walks of life and religions live in pretty good harmony for the most part.Lets take personal feelings out of this and look at societies that frown upon any religious freedoms and have little tolerance toward women,Homosexuals,or those that don't subscribe to the "govt chosen religions.Rascism isn't just religion it's the whole squashing of freedoms and intolerance to those who are different.

    rr, the reason they're not in the mix is because Yosi started the thread with regards to racism in Israel (and not the silly "who is the most racist" competition, which I stated then that it was silly and not really useful for changing anything, and still feel that way). In addition, this isn't about just the Israeli government, but also the Israeli citizens (which is evident in this quote from the article: "Rivlin’s video is part of a growing anti-racism effort being spearheaded by Israel’s leadership, in the wake of disturbing outbreaks of racist violence and demonstrations in the country, directed against both Arabs and African migrants"). As someone who doesn't live in Israel, and having only been to the country twice in my life, I don't feel that I'm in a position to comment about the tolerance of the society. What I will say that presenting this article as if it's evidence to the fact that Israel is not a racist country feels very skewed to me: it acknowledges that racism has led to violent demonstrations severe enough that the President of the country is speaking up against it. That to me would suggest there is a very serious racism problem.

    With regards to the rest of your statement, I don't think anyone here would claim that racism is exclusively about religious intolerance.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    benjs said:

    rr165892 said:

    How is Saudi Arabia or North Korea not in this mix.I get everyone jumping on the Israeli Govt and some is warranted,but as a society they are a tolerant people.Many walks of life and religions live in pretty good harmony for the most part.Lets take personal feelings out of this and look at societies that frown upon any religious freedoms and have little tolerance toward women,Homosexuals,or those that don't subscribe to the "govt chosen religions.Rascism isn't just religion it's the whole squashing of freedoms and intolerance to those who are different.

    rr, the reason they're not in the mix is because Yosi started the thread with regards to racism in Israel (and not the silly "who is the most racist" competition, which I stated then that it was silly and not really useful for changing anything, and still feel that way). In addition, this isn't about just the Israeli government, but also the Israeli citizens (which is evident in this quote from the article: "Rivlin’s video is part of a growing anti-racism effort being spearheaded by Israel’s leadership, in the wake of disturbing outbreaks of racist violence and demonstrations in the country, directed against both Arabs and African migrants"). As someone who doesn't live in Israel, and having only been to the country twice in my life, I don't feel that I'm in a position to comment about the tolerance of the society. What I will say that presenting this article as if it's evidence to the fact that Israel is not a racist country feels very skewed to me: it acknowledges that racism has led to violent demonstrations severe enough that the President of the country is speaking up against it. That to me would suggest there is a very serious racism problem.

    With regards to the rest of your statement, I don't think anyone here would claim that racism is exclusively about religious intolerance.
    Again, this guy Ben, he's a fucken smart one for sure.
  • SkeeterBSkeeterB Posts: 423

    the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

    bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

    he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

    just sayin.

    Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.
    Fighting childhood obesity...
    www.amazingathletes.com/northchi
  • yosiyosi Posts: 3,038
    Ben, thanks for the holiday wishes, and Shana Tova to you as well. Also, thanks for explaining your point about empathy. I'd certainly agree with that. I actually recently read a great article that touched on just those same sorts of points in regards to Jerusalem being a model for future peacemaking because it's one of the few places in Israel where the Jewish and Arab communities are fairly intermingled and people are actually able to develop some empathy towards one another. Perhaps I'll post it here later. Regarding the selective bolding, I wasn't trying to hide anything (which is why I didn't edit anything out of the piece). I just wanted to draw attention to the sections of the article that best made my point. And if I'm being honest, my point wasn't really to spark an earnest discussion of racism in Israel (that is certainly a topic worthy of a lot of discussion, but my past experience has made me wary of having it here). Really I was just trying to draw attention to a story that complicates the one-sided and simple-minded view of Israel that I think predominates on the Train.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • yosiyosi Posts: 3,038
    And just in case it's not clear from what I just wrote above, I don't think this article is evidence that there isn't racism in Israel. Clearly you're right that the existence of racism is a predicate to the entire story the article tells. What it shows, I think, is that that, contrary to what I think many here believe, Israel is not monolithic in its opinion on Arabs, nor is it a racist country as a matter of state policy, as is often alleged here (though particular discrete policies may be questionable). Basically, I just think it paints a more complex, realistic portrait than is normally presented on the Train.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • yosiyosi Posts: 3,038
    Here's the story about Jerusalem if you want to read it (too long to post the text):
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-jerusalem-approach-20140912
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150
    yosi said:

    And just in case it's not clear from what I just wrote above, I don't think this article is evidence that there isn't racism in Israel. Clearly you're right that the existence of racism is a predicate to the entire story the article tells. What it shows, I think, is that that, contrary to what I think many here believe, Israel is not monolithic in its opinion on Arabs, nor is it a racist country as a matter of state policy, as is often alleged here (though particular discrete policies may be questionable). Basically, I just think it paints a more complex, realistic portrait than is normally presented on the Train.

    Yosi, that's entirely fair. It's far too easy to get trapped into thinking in binary systems, where a ____ is either _____ or ______, so it's certainly a good reminder through posts like yours not to do so. And my apologies for suggesting any ill-intent through your bolding - it was an unfair accusation on my part, especially now understanding what your purpose of the posting was!

    And thanks for posting that, Yosi, I'll be sure to look through it hopefully today or tomorrow.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    SkeeterB said:

    the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

    bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

    he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

    just sayin.

    Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.
    You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?
  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150
    badbrains said:

    SkeeterB said:

    the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

    bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

    he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

    just sayin.

    Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.
    You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?
    To be honest, I have agreements and disagreements with what SkeeterB wrote.

    The Hamas Charter, for example, is written in a very sensationalist way. Things that jump out at me as needing revision in order to agree with Khaled's Meshaal's statements that Palestinians are ready and willing to coexist with other religions:
    -In Article Two, there are two Islamic concepts mentioned that would likely be seen as less than agreeable by Jews - "the spreading of Islam", and "conversion to Islam". I'm not in a position to say whether these notions are accurate to Islam, but I can say that psychologically, Jews do not recruit from outside of Judaism, and this would create a disconnect. If someone wants to convert to Judaism, they are welcome to, but most forms of Jewish missions take place from within Judaism (i.e. programs that try to strengthen bonds between a Jew and his or her culture, rather than attempting to explain Judaism to non-Jews).
    -In Article Three, the reference to Jihad is certainly one which would be seen as contentious. It seems there is disagreement amongst the Muslim world in regards to what a Jihad really means, but I think it was you, Byrnzie or fuck who mentioned the fact that true Islam actually proposes that communicating with non-Muslims present opportunities to learn from people outside of the Islamic faith. My understanding of a Jihad is that it represents a resistance force to wrong-doing: I see nothing wrong with that concept, but perhaps it could be clarified within the Charter that the Hamas definition of Jihad does not involve indoctrination or suppression of free will as retribution to said wrong-doing. This would serve to assuage the Israeli security concerns.
    -In Article Six, the Charter refers to an attempt to "raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned". I disagree with Muslim rule over the region just as I disagree with Jewish rule over the region, because both notions present a sense of superiority and don't represent true coexistence. I would expect the Israeli government would feel the same: calling for a return to secular rule independent of religion would seem to be the most equitable. It should be noted that this specifically addresses coexistence with other religions, for anyone who claims that the Charter refers to the abolishment of Jews (and not just Israel).
    -Article Eight refers to the Qur'an as the future constitution of a Palestinian state. This could not do, for the same reason the Bible could not be viewed as the constitution of Israel.
    -Article Eleven refers to the necessity of Islamic Sharia governing the land of Palestine which it justifies because it is considered an Islamic Waqf - again, this represents the notion of religious superiority and can not be allowed: and any presence of equivalent acts within Israel should be condemned.
    -Article Twelve suggests a right to Muslim land with a tightly correlated nationalism and religious creed. Just as I question Israeli right to Jewish land based on biblical claim, Palestinian Muslims need to be held to the same standards and it is wrong to refer to the rightful attainment of it based on claim from the Qur'an.
    -Article Thirteen is blatantly anti-peace, and calls for fighting for liberation. Since the definition of liberation is Muslim rule, this seems no more or less fair or equitable than Israeli Jews fighting for their perceived right to Jewish rule - which Hamas readily condemns.
    -Article Fifteen specifically utters the words "It is necessary to instil in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem". This can not be the case when it comes to resolution. I condemn that notion when Jews say that it is an attack on Jews' rights to be Jews, and I feel the same way here. This problem needs to be viewed as a humanitarian problem first and foremost.
    -Article Sixteen compares Zionism to Nazism. I'm not going to touch this one with a ten foot pole, but if you make a sensationalist remark for the sake of making a sensationalist remark, you are going to offend and instil anger - instead of reasonable response. This is a form of semantics that deviated from moderatism which could breed civility, instead opting for something known to be a sensitive topic which could breed sensitivity, anger, and a diminished credibility.
    -Article Twenty-Two ventures into conspiracy theory territory, claiming Jews were responsible for WWI and WWII, the League of Nations and eventually the UN and the Security Council. A constitution must not allude to unproven notions, that's simply not fair.
    -Condemning the PLO for its promotion of secularism is an attack on a secular future for the region. It is an unacceptable solution for Israel to allow Islamic superiority instead of Jewish superiority - neither party has this right. If changes happen, they must be changes which shift towards secularism.
    -Article Thirty-Two states that "Leaving the circle of struggle with Zionism is high treason, and cursed be he who does that". This is thought control at its finest, with severe ramifications for civil disobedience. As always, I feel that undue or unethical indoctrination is worthy of condemnation.

    These must be addressed by Hamas representatives. When you look for the trends, it all boils down to one concept which must be observed:
    It is not acceptable to condemn Jewish rule while calling for Islamic rule. When there are conflicting opinions of who has claim to the land, it seems clear to me that secular rule is the only option for the one-state solution that Hamas proposes in its document. For a two-state solution, both Israel and Palestine would have to have absolutely 100% set in stone borders, and take a strongly anti-expansionist stance, as for a permanent solution, one party's liberties may not be infringed upon by another.

    I put the onus on Khaled Meshaal and other senior Hamas operatives to address these issues, so that SkeeterB and many other Jews can stop saying "but they want to kill us" (which is a legitimate concern in light of witnessing evidence like the Hamas Charter - the closest thing to a constitution that the Palestinian regions seem to have at the moment).

    What I will say is that the Hamas Charter was written in 1988 and Meshaal has stated that it is a "piece of history and no longer relevant, but cannot changed for internal reasons". I find this to be bullshit, and think it ought to be revised. He is right, however, that it is largely irrelevant, if only for the reason that it was written in 1988, and that Netanyahu still leads the country's aggressive suppression of Palestinians and their liberties today - 26 years later.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • SkeeterBSkeeterB Posts: 423
    badbrains said:

    SkeeterB said:

    the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

    bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

    he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

    just sayin.

    Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.
    You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?
    Very flawed argument. Hamas has been on the US terrorist list prior to 9/11. Even so, if Isis was 'democratically' elected into office as the lead party in Syria, would that mean the U.S. would want to negotiate with them? Please see both sides of the argument.
    Fighting childhood obesity...
    www.amazingathletes.com/northchi
  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150
    edited October 2014
    SkeeterB said:

    badbrains said:

    SkeeterB said:

    the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

    bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

    he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

    just sayin.

    Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.
    You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?
    Very flawed argument. Hamas has been on the US terrorist list prior to 9/11. Even so, if Isis was 'democratically' elected into office as the lead party in Syria, would that mean the U.S. would want to negotiate with them? Please see both sides of the argument.
    SkeeterB, I'd say your argument is equally flawed. The US has an incredibly obvious interest in maintaining control in the Middle East (largely through its relationship with Israel). In addition, I don't know whose label I would trust when defining 'terrorist organizations', but I would certainly question the rights of a country who has dropped atomic bombs, who has dispelled Agent Orange in Vietnam leading to generations of deformities and health issues, and who on a regular basis, intervenes in global conflict without UN consent, and without just cause to facilitate instabilities to governments around the world (and rarely fixes them) when it helps them economically. Not to mention the American government's insistence that they stand by Israel at any cost: whenever you use the term 'at any cost', you are diplomatically stating that you just don't give a shit about negative humanitarian ramifications. Most terrorist organizations masquerade in noble actions, while acting in heavy-handed extremes, using terms like 'at any cost', with the end goal of their own gain while deluding the public to think otherwise: for these reasons, it seems to me that the US ought to be on the US's terrorist list.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    benjs said:

    SkeeterB said:

    badbrains said:

    SkeeterB said:

    the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

    bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

    he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

    just sayin.

    Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.
    You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?
    Very flawed argument. Hamas has been on the US terrorist list prior to 9/11. Even so, if Isis was 'democratically' elected into office as the lead party in Syria, would that mean the U.S. would want to negotiate with them? Please see both sides of the argument.
    SkeeterB, I'd say your argument is equally flawed. The US has an incredibly obvious interest in maintaining control in the Middle East (largely through its relationship with Israel). In addition, I don't know whose label I would trust when defining 'terrorist organizations', but I would certainly question the rights of a country who has dropped atomic bombs, who has dispelled Agent Orange in Vietnam leading to generations of deformities and health issues, and who on a regular basis, intervenes in global conflict without UN consent, and without just cause to facilitate instabilities to governments around the world (and rarely fixes them) when it helps them economically. Not to mention the American government's insistence that they stand by Israel at any cost: whenever you use the term 'at any cost', you are diplomatically stating that you just don't give a shit about negative humanitarian ramifications. Most terrorist organizations masquerade in noble actions, while acting in heavy-handed extremes, using terms like 'at any cost', with the end goal of their own gain while deluding the public to think otherwise: for these reasons, it seems to me that the US ought to be on the US's terrorist list.
    Thank you ben
  • SkeeterBSkeeterB Posts: 423
    benjs said:


    SkeeterB, I'd say your argument is equally flawed. The US has an incredibly obvious interest in maintaining control in the Middle East (largely through its relationship with Israel). In addition, I don't know whose label I would trust when defining 'terrorist organizations', but I would certainly question the rights of a country who has dropped atomic bombs, who has dispelled Agent Orange in Vietnam leading to generations of deformities and health issues, and who on a regular basis, intervenes in global conflict without UN consent, and without just cause to facilitate instabilities to governments around the world (and rarely fixes them) when it helps them economically. Not to mention the American government's insistence that they stand by Israel at any cost: whenever you use the term 'at any cost', you are diplomatically stating that you just don't give a shit about negative humanitarian ramifications. Most terrorist organizations masquerade in noble actions, while acting in heavy-handed extremes, using terms like 'at any cost', with the end goal of their own gain while deluding the public to think otherwise: for these reasons, it seems to me that the US ought to be on the US's terrorist list.

    I don't agree with all US foreign policies, as I don't agree with all of Israel's policies either. What I don't care for is the fact that people dislike the US, then, when they need the US, they say they aren't doing enough. You're seeing it in Syria right now.

    That being said, to your last point, is the US hijacking planes, beheading innocent people, etc? I consider acts of terrorism those that the people have to hide their plans and purposefully go only after innocent civilians. The US clearly doesn't do that. They announce everything they're doing, whether it's right or wrong and normally, the intent is not to kill innocent civilians. That being said, the irony is that the US chastised Israel for not pinpointing their attacks, but I assure you that innocent civilians are getting killed in their current airstrikes against ISIS, so it does bug me that the US speaks out of both sides of their mouth. My guess is that we have different views of what a terrorist is, so no need to really go into that.

    The issue on this message board is the fact that it seems like Israel can do no right and the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. I do appreciate that you pointed out flaws in the Hamas charter, but there are some here that feel that Palestinians have done absolutely nothing wrong. I don't read everything on here since believe it or not, as a huge Pearl Jam fan, my life doesn't revolve around this board anymore (it did when I worked in a boring corporate office). However, for some to just attack Israel and not take any blame on the Palestinians side is very narrow minded and it's very difficult to have any type of civil discussion with these certain people. It would be nice to see both sides. I've spoken to some and have gotten a better understanding of the Palestinian point of view. I feel that there are some who could care less what the Israeli point of view is.


    Fighting childhood obesity...
    www.amazingathletes.com/northchi
  • yosiyosi Posts: 3,038
    badbrains said:

    SkeeterB said:

    the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

    bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

    he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

    just sayin.

    Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.
    You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?
    I know I'm piling on somewhat at this point, but this "democratically elected Hamas" thing has become a knee jerk reaction from some corners and deserves to be addressed. It's just such an irrelevant argument. The Nazis were also democratically elected. Should the world have respected everything they did? Just cause they were elected doesn't mean that the rest of the world is obligated to deal with them.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane

  • yosi said:

    badbrains said:

    SkeeterB said:

    the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

    bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

    he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

    just sayin.

    Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.
    You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?
    I know I'm piling on somewhat at this point, but this "democratically elected Hamas" thing has become a knee jerk reaction from some corners and deserves to be addressed. It's just such an irrelevant argument. The Nazis were also democratically elected. Should the world have respected everything they did? Just cause they were elected doesn't mean that the rest of the world is obligated to deal with them.
    On the flip side, "Hamas the terrorist organization" is bandied about when justifying illegal settlements or heavy-handed military responses against a society which is clearly outgunned. It's never Israel's fault that thousands of women and children are killed in their attacks on Palestine. At the same time, Israel staunchly refuses to stop or condemn the settlements that continue to pop up in the West Bank. "Hamas the terrorist organization" has also become a knee jerk reaction from some to justify any assault on Palestine irrespective of any justification.
  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150

    yosi said:

    badbrains said:

    SkeeterB said:

    the israeli government is the greatest barrier to peace in the entire middle east.

    bibi alienated a bunch of countries this week at the un.

    he is digging the graves or rational israeli citizens.

    just sayin.

    Disagree a bit on this one. Hamas is the greatest barrier. Before Hamas came in to power, the borders were a bit more open, including the border to Egypt. Bibi has clearly made mistakes along the way, but when in Hamas' charter it wants the destruction of Israel, not sure how you can make a point that they aren't the greatest barrier to peace in the middle east.
    You mean the democratically elected Hamas? The one the Palestinians voted Into office and then had the US and Israel decide they didn't want to negotiate with? That Hamas?
    I know I'm piling on somewhat at this point, but this "democratically elected Hamas" thing has become a knee jerk reaction from some corners and deserves to be addressed. It's just such an irrelevant argument. The Nazis were also democratically elected. Should the world have respected everything they did? Just cause they were elected doesn't mean that the rest of the world is obligated to deal with them.
    On the flip side, "Hamas the terrorist organization" is bandied about when justifying illegal settlements or heavy-handed military responses against a society which is clearly outgunned. It's never Israel's fault that thousands of women and children are killed in their attacks on Palestine. At the same time, Israel staunchly refuses to stop or condemn the settlements that continue to pop up in the West Bank. "Hamas the terrorist organization" has also become a knee jerk reaction from some to justify any assault on Palestine irrespective of any justification.
    And at the end - why can't we just call them Hamas? I wouldn't refer to Israel as the "Holy Land" or the "only truly democratic society in the Middle East", nor the "lunatic, racist state" that many refer to it as. I would simply call it Israel. I wouldn't call Hamas a "terrorist organization" nor "the democratically elected Hamas" - just Hamas. Let an entity's actions dictate how we feel about it: any labelling is just a form of attempted indoctrination.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • benjsbenjs Posts: 9,150
    SkeeterB said:

    benjs said:


    SkeeterB, I'd say your argument is equally flawed. The US has an incredibly obvious interest in maintaining control in the Middle East (largely through its relationship with Israel). In addition, I don't know whose label I would trust when defining 'terrorist organizations', but I would certainly question the rights of a country who has dropped atomic bombs, who has dispelled Agent Orange in Vietnam leading to generations of deformities and health issues, and who on a regular basis, intervenes in global conflict without UN consent, and without just cause to facilitate instabilities to governments around the world (and rarely fixes them) when it helps them economically. Not to mention the American government's insistence that they stand by Israel at any cost: whenever you use the term 'at any cost', you are diplomatically stating that you just don't give a shit about negative humanitarian ramifications. Most terrorist organizations masquerade in noble actions, while acting in heavy-handed extremes, using terms like 'at any cost', with the end goal of their own gain while deluding the public to think otherwise: for these reasons, it seems to me that the US ought to be on the US's terrorist list.

    I don't agree with all US foreign policies, as I don't agree with all of Israel's policies either. What I don't care for is the fact that people dislike the US, then, when they need the US, they say they aren't doing enough. You're seeing it in Syria right now.

    That being said, to your last point, is the US hijacking planes, beheading innocent people, etc? I consider acts of terrorism those that the people have to hide their plans and purposefully go only after innocent civilians. The US clearly doesn't do that. They announce everything they're doing, whether it's right or wrong and normally, the intent is not to kill innocent civilians. That being said, the irony is that the US chastised Israel for not pinpointing their attacks, but I assure you that innocent civilians are getting killed in their current airstrikes against ISIS, so it does bug me that the US speaks out of both sides of their mouth. My guess is that we have different views of what a terrorist is, so no need to really go into that.

    The issue on this message board is the fact that it seems like Israel can do no right and the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. I do appreciate that you pointed out flaws in the Hamas charter, but there are some here that feel that Palestinians have done absolutely nothing wrong. I don't read everything on here since believe it or not, as a huge Pearl Jam fan, my life doesn't revolve around this board anymore (it did when I worked in a boring corporate office). However, for some to just attack Israel and not take any blame on the Palestinians side is very narrow minded and it's very difficult to have any type of civil discussion with these certain people. It would be nice to see both sides. I've spoken to some and have gotten a better understanding of the Palestinian point of view. I feel that there are some who could care less what the Israeli point of view is.


    Syria has its hands tied, and I would venture to guess that their request for assistance is out of nothing but the most dire of necessity, and an existential crisis within its political boundaries. The responsible thing to do, in my opinion, would be for the US to deny that request for assistance initially, and suggest that this is a topic for the UN to decide. Your military's strength does not dictate the necessity for hasty and thoughtless intervention.

    And no, the US aren't hijacking planes or beheading innocent people. But how can you honestly say that dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the dissemination of spray dioxin in Vietnam, even consider the weight of their actions in regards to loss of innocent life? That to me is unequivocally terrorism. In fact, it's terrorism done in such a cowardice way so as to prevent any feelings of guilt or remorse: from that distance, you don't see the faces of the men, women, children, babies, that you've melted, maimed, and deformed.

    As for your last paragraph, I actually agree with you about your later sentences. I know I can get preachy on this topic, but universal empathy must be practiced in order for any tangible change to occur. Empathize with all parties involved in a conflict, learn about why they feel and act the way they do, and then encourage those involved to do the same thing. Sometimes I forget how few Israeli perspectives are around here, and that's largely because back in the real world, I'm very much living within a Jewish community which is notoriously pushy when presenting Israeli opinion pieces.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Sign In or Register to comment.