All things Politics

[DinoSoar]

It is recognised that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have connections to either side of the conflict. What you need to understand is that this site has rules governing posting standards and the appropriate way to talk to other posters, and you will abide by them.

How this interacts with this thread is that the following will result in your post being deleted, with a recurrence of the same behaviour resulting in (depending on severity) a threadban for a week and a day off:

• direct labelling of someone as anti-semitic or a terrorist sympathiser for posting that is merely critical of Israel's response over time. Israel has the right to defend themselves from violence, but that does not mean that Israel has carte blanche to attack disproportionately towards people under their care.
• deliberate goading or flippant responses, designed to get people reacting to your posting emotionally.
• abuse.
• attempts to turn this into a Left vs Right shitfight.
• Use the word 'Nazi' in here, you had better be able to justify it in the post you're making and the comparison had better be apt. Godwin's law is in full effect for the purposes of this thread; if you refer to Nazis, you've lost whatever argument you're involved in.
• Any defense of Hamas' actions on the basis of justification. There's no justification for genocide, regardless of whether or not they have the power to do so.

Please recognise that this is a difficult time for all involved, and some level of sensitivity is absolutely required to permit discussion to flow. From time to time, mods will reach out to specific posters and do some welfare checks; we may even give posters who get a bit too involved some days off to give people some time to cool down. This is not a reflection on you as a poster, merely that this is an intense subject.

I get that this is a fairly intense topic about which opinion can diverge rather significantly. If you feel you cannot be respectful in your disagreement with another poster, it is frequently better to refuse to engage than it is to take up the call.

From this point, any poster who finds themselves directly insulting another poster will find themselves receiving a threadban and an infraction, with each subsequent reoccurance resulting in steadily more points added to your account.

It has also become apparent that this needs to be said: just because someone moderates this forum that does not hold them to a different standard of posting than anyone else. All of us were posters first, and we are allowed to hold opinions on this and share them on this forum.

Treat each other with the respect each of you deserve.

Maggie5 Gone Critical Anzacday Jen2310

 

[JB1975]

She literally says "It is not just a Jewish versus Muslim issue." Clearly she believes religious ideologies are in play.



Can you show me any evidence of this at all?

Would be handy for you if we had a working definition IHRA style of Islamophobia.

Come on JB, after all the blatant anti-semitism you've defended to protect 'political discussion' you choose this path. Disappointing.

You've decided to take those few words out of the context of what she was saying. Her comments were clearly making the point that she doesn't think the issue is about Jews v Muslims.

Yours is the most disingenuous reading possible, designed only to delegitimise a woman who has taken a stand on principle.

Does she believe that religious ideologies are 'in play', beyond her? Probably. She'd be blind not to.

Do religious ideologies explain her decision to split from Labor? No. Not at all.

---------------------------------------------

I'm not sure an IHRA-style definition of Islamophobia would help us, Zev, considering your utter unwillingness to discuss the IHRA guidelines in any depth.

I've enjoyed watching you pay out on others in this thread for evading questions, given that you've so studiously avoided my questions on IHRA/antisemitism, the report on the experiences of Jewish students at universities, the significance of considerable Jewish opposition to Israel's policies and the implications of this for notions of antisemitism, as well as what sort of resistance by Palestinians you would consider legitimate.

I'll also ask you to explain how I've defended antisemitism, but I don't expect a genuine response. It'll likely be a quote of my own, thrown back at me minus its context and any actual analysis.

--------------------------------------------

Your distortion of Payman's comments are not only deliberate, they also tap into a stereotype that the political position of Muslims is almost invariably driven by faith.

To draw it out a bit more, they're not capable of non-secular reasoning. Instead, they are beholden to a religious grievance which often casts Jews as a central antagonist.

--------------------------------------------

It is disappointing, Zev. I won't dispute that.

 

[IlovethePies]

I have to say that I agree with Zevie on both points

1. Israel was negotiating agreements with muslim nations before the war. It has no beef with people who can trade. It wants the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank, whether they are muslim or christian. It wants them out, pure and simple. In a box or on a plane. It excluded Palestinian Christians from movement around Jerusalem just like their muslim mates before the war. It's the Palestinian part that the Israelis don't like.

2. People like Lichtman are in the small minority. They don't represent the views of jews or Israelis in general. These kinds of views might have been common when lichtman was a small boy, but not anymore. Look at Israeli behavior post war. Revenge. Payback. Get those nazis even if they are 90 year old and were only working as an office girl in a nazi's office. Listen to the words of the highly religious part of Israel. It wants death to the Palestinians, not to muslims in general. It wants them starved. Lichtman is an anomaly.

So I have to say that I agree with him on both points.

How do you know that Lichtman represents a "small minority" viewpoint? Have you done a census?
You are referring to the "highly religious (ie orthodox) " part of Israel to back up your comments. That is a very sick joke, because if you want to highlight a minority Jewish viewpoint, then in fact, it would be the religious orthodox nutcases.

Why are you writing that "Israel has not beef with people who can trade?", as if "ability to trade" is the criterion?? Really does sound like a provocative (racist/genuuinely anti-Semitic) kind of statement.
Israel has a "beef" with anything that stands in the way of its ability to spearhead the domination of both its own and US political hegemony in the Middle East.

Israel, and the US, are engineering the restructure of Middle Eastern state relations so that the US can exert its full control, with Israel playing the role of its well paid proxy.

The Palestinians stand in the way. Solution: genocide.
Hezbollah stands in the way. Solution: extend the war to Lebanon and destroy Hezbollah
Iran stands in the way. Solution: regime change in Iran, with the collaboration of the US and its NATO allies, in full scale war.
None of this is based on religion.
Religion is merely a cover for predatory imperialist interests.

 

[Black_White]

Finally.
The penny has dropped.

Hamas faces growing public dissent as Gaza war erodes support

Palestinians in Gaza are openly criticising the armed group both on the streets and online.

www.bbc.com

 

[IlovethePies]

Finally.
The penny has dropped.

Hamas faces growing public dissent as Gaza war erodes support

Palestinians in Gaza are openly criticising the armed group both on the streets and online.

www.bbc.com

I think you'll find that the vast majority opinion in Gaza is not "dissatisfaction with Hamas". Instead, it would be an eternal drive to overthrow the enthnonationalist Israeli state that has carried out genocide against them. Likewise, the Jewish and Palestinian workers who are oppressed and exploited within Israel, will be their allies.

 

[Markfs]

How do you know that Lichtman represents a "small minority" viewpoint? Have you done a census?
You are referring to the "highly religious (ie orthodox) " part of Israel to back up your comments. That is a very sick joke, because if you want to highlight a minority Jewish viewpoint, then in fact, it would be the religious orthodox nutcases.

Why are you writing that "Israel has not beef with people who can trade?", as if "ability to trade" is the criterion?? Really does sound like a provocative (racist/genuuinely anti-Semitic) kind of statement.
Israel has a "beef" with anything that stands in the way of its ability to spearhead the domination of both its own and US political hegemony in the Middle East.

Israel, and the US, are engineering the restructure of Middle Eastern state relations so that the US can exert its full control, with Israel playing the role of its well paid proxy.

The Palestinians stand in the way. Solution: genocide.
Hezbollah stands in the way. Solution: extend the war to Lebanon and destroy Hezbollah
Iran stands in the way. Solution: regime change in Iran, with the collaboration of the US and its NATO allies, in full scale war.
None of this is based on religion.
Religion is merely a cover for predatory imperialist interests.

sorry i didnt do that course...

 

[IlovethePies]

sorry i didnt do that course...

Which course?
You mean the course offered by Melbourne University called:"Learning how to engage in Robust debate on Social Media"
Course code: SMDontbeaFW-101

 

[leon123]

Which course?
You mean the course offered by Melbourne University called:"Learning how to engage in Robust debate on Social Media"
Course code: SMDontbeaFW-101

That course was hard, you didnt pass either did you

 

[IlovethePies]

That course was hard, you didnt pass either did you

You're totally wrong. I passed with Honours.
How did you go?
Most likely:
Pass, but needs to refine critical judgement.

 

[Markfs]

Which course?
You mean the course offered by Melbourne University called:"Learning how to engage in Robust debate on Social Media"
Course code: SMDontbeaFW-101

I thought the course was called "how to get to the promised land by murdering palestinians"

 

[leon123]

You're totally wrong. I passed with Honours.
How did you go?
Most likely:
Pass, but needs to refine critical judgement.

Not well, i have a huge hecs debt

 

[IlovethePies]

I thought the course was called "how to get to the promised land by murdering palestinians"

Hmm...so you took that course??

 

[Markfs]

Hmm...so you took that course??

I dont qualify.... atheists can never get into these courses.

 

[Markfs]

in further news it seems that dutton has been doing a few tricks that the lobby has trained him to do...

good boy pete....good boy....keep up the good work

 

[IlovethePies]

I dont qualify.... atheists can never get into these courses.

Not true. Over the last few years, they have lowered the selection requirements.

 

[ZEV]

You've decided to take those few words out of the context of what she was saying. Her comments were clearly making the point that she doesn't think the issue is about Jews v Muslims.

"Just". Don't bring Jews into it. She is an Australian Senator JB. The Senator's words matter and have significant impact. Say Israel, IDF, Palestine, Hamas whatever Fayman wants. Don't use terms that create social division in Australian society. Especially after the Senator's explanation of the "From the rover to the sea" usage.

I'm not sure an IHRA-style definition of Islamophobia would help us, Zev, considering your utter unwillingness to discuss the IHRA guidelines in any depth.

I've enjoyed watching you pay out on others in this thread for evading questions, given that you've so studiously avoided my questions on IHRA/antisemitism, the report on the experiences of Jewish students at universities, the significance of considerable Jewish opposition to Israel's policies and the implications of this for notions of antisemitism, as well as what sort of resistance by Palestinians you would consider legitimate.

Does this ring any bells?

The survey was flawed. The IHRA definition is flawed. The only thing I think you should consider (if you haven't already) is that the likelihood is that these students are not history or arts based. Pretty scary if this is happening in a science, business school.

By no means am I suggesting that Jewish students are the only minority that gets a rough deal by the way. Acceptance and tolerance is key.

With regards to the definition, it isn't meant to suppress political discussion, it's so that the next generation of teachers, business leaders, professionals etc don't carry this casual anti-semitism into the next generation.

I don't even like Josh Burns FFS. I'm team Zoe all the way.

I'll also ask you to explain how I've defended antisemitism, but I don't expect a genuine response. It'll likely be a quote of my own, thrown back at me minus its context and any actual analysis.

How about that time when you couldn't bring yourself to call Markfs anti-semitic when he said "Think of your mental health and zevie might work out where you live and kill your first born..."

I vaguely remember you saying it might not be blood libel just Old Testament references....

Your distortion of Payman's comments are not only deliberate, they also tap into a stereotype that the political position of Muslims is almost invariably driven by faith.

To draw it out a bit more, they're not capable of non-secular reasoning. Instead, they are beholden to a religious grievance which often casts Jews as a central antagonist.

You must have a pretty twisted, dark and sad world view if you think my critique of the Senator's choice of words is based on her ethnicity or religion. Furthermore you demonstrate a genuine lack of knowledge and understanding of what day to day Israeli life involves. It seems Senator Payman has less knowledge than you.

 

[ZEV]

I was just reading about Fatima Payman on wiki. it says that she was born in Afghanistan. I wonder if she's a dual citizen....

Aren't you just a ****ing little Nostradamus tonight.

https://archive.is/024Yw

 

[JB1975]

"Just". Don't bring Jews into it. She is an Australian Senator JB. The Senator's words matter and have significant impact. Say Israel, IDF, Palestine, Hamas whatever Fayman wants. Don't use terms that create social division in Australian society. Especially after the Senator's explanation of the "From the rover to the sea" usage.

Fatima Payman has been criticised for her decisions to cross the floor and to leave Labor, and she was addressing and (obviously to most) denying that her faith has influenced her decisions or her position on Palestine. This was something the media asked her about based on the 'backgrounding' from Labor figures who said that Payman claimed to be guided by God.

Again, you're just flailing around madly in an effort to delegitimise her.

As for the notion that we shouldn't use terms which create division in society, you might want to have a think about such a facile proposition.

Does this ring any bells?

The survey was flawed. The IHRA definition is flawed. The only thing I think you should consider (if you haven't already) is that the likelihood is that these students are not history or arts based. Pretty scary if this is happening in a science, business school.

By no means am I suggesting that Jewish students are the only minority that gets a rough deal by the way. Acceptance and tolerance is key.

With regards to the definition, it isn't meant to suppress political discussion, it's so that the next generation of teachers, business leaders, professionals etc don't carry this casual anti-semitism into the next generation.

This is a partial answer to one of the issues you've artfully avoided.

My expectations are too high and I take responsibility for that.

How about that time when you couldn't bring yourself to call Markfs anti-semitic when he said "Think of your mental health and zevie might work out where you live and kill your first born..."

I vaguely remember you saying it might not be blood libel just Old Testament references....

This is the basis of your suggestion that I've defended antisemitism, the fact that I didn't call another poster antisemitic because of the ambiguity of the post.

I can only apologise for being too restrained in my use of the term.

The fact that I've criticised other posts for crossing a line into antisemitism cannot redeem me, it seems.

You must have a pretty twisted, dark and sad world view if you think my critique of the Senator's choice of words is based on her ethnicity or religion. Furthermore you demonstrate a genuine lack of knowledge and understanding of what day to day Israeli life involves. It seems Senator Payman has less knowledge than you.

It wasn't a critique of her words. You simply accused Payman of seeing the issue of Palestine through a lens of Jewish v Muslim conflict.

It seems clear to me that you came to that conclusion based on the fact that she's a Muslim woman, because the words she was speaking make it very clear that her faith hasn't been the basis of her recent decisions.

Your observation that I'm ignorant of daily life in Israel is irrelevant to me, unless you can explain why it's not. In other words, it's true that I'm not familiar with daily life and Israel and I urge you to tell me what such an awareness would contribute to my perspectives on the issue.

As for me having a 'pretty twisted, dark and sad world view', I can only say that Israel's butchery since last October has hardly given me a rosy outlook on politics, society, and humanity.

 

[sr36]

You must have a pretty twisted, dark and sad world view if you think my critique of the Senator's choice of words is based on her ethnicity or religion. Furthermore you demonstrate a genuine lack of knowledge and understanding of what day to day Israeli life involves. It seems Senator Payman has less knowledge than you.

You must have a pretty twisted dark and sad view of the world if you use the word "just" to twist speech into saying the opposite of what someone was clearly trying to say.

Meanwhile, you defend Netayahu for talking about "that wicked city" and turning it into rubble - with a comment about Gaza not being a very nice place. And ignore the reality that he has then turned those cities into rubble - but apparently he didn't mean what he said. Whereas the senator's use of "just" was outrageous.

With those things in mind, it's pretty hard to view your perspective as anything other than tribal.

 

[Markfs]

interesting that someone involved in repressing people gives morality speeches...

 

[Markfs]

Aren't you just a ****ing little Nostradamus tonight.

https://archive.is/024Yw

actually i found out that fatima cant legally be a dual citizen and a member of parliament. I can understand the advantages of having a dual passport, but MPs shouldnt have access to something that brings a conflict of interest. Likewise, there have been articles that Australia might need to increase the numbers in its military by using people with foreign passports. I think that all these positions should be filled by australians.

 

[Markfs]

Aren't you just a ****ing little Nostradamus tonight.

https://archive.is/024Yw

further developments indicate that she may be afgan by her circumstances and has actively tried to renounce it. It seems that the high court awaits.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/senior-labor-figures-reportedly-hold-concerns-over-rebel-senator-fatima-paymans-citizenship-status/news-story/0fd9801ccbc2f5cdccc4fdd684fc0d9e

 

[sr36]

further developments indicate that she may be afgan by her circumstances and has actively tried to renounce it. It seems that the high court awaits.

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/senior-labor-figures-reportedly-hold-concerns-over-rebel-senator-fatima-paymans-citizenship-status/news-story/0fd9801ccbc2f5cdccc4fdd684fc0d9e

Labour knew all of this. They were fine with the legality when she was voting with caucus. I don't think they can go there without getting smashed by the libs.

 

[ZEV]

Fatima Payman has been criticised for her decisions to cross the floor and to leave Labor, and she was addressing and (obviously to most) denying that her faith has influenced her decisions or her position on Palestine. This was something the media asked her about based on the 'backgrounding' from Labor figures who said that Payman claimed to be guided by God.

Again, you're just flailing around madly in an effort to delegitimise her.

As for the notion that we shouldn't use terms which create division in society, you might want to have a think about such a facile proposition.

The Senator has been criticised for more than that.

The Senator's actions, statements and hypocritical standards are what have been criticised. You have resorted to Islamophobic tropes in an effort to defend her.

Thought about it, still believe it.

This is a partial answer to one of the issues you've artfully avoided.

My expectations are too high and I take responsibility for that.

Sorry mate I'm not on school holidays.

I also try and not step in dog shit too.

Apologies accepted.

It wasn't a critique of her words. You simply accused Payman of seeing the issue of Palestine through a lens of Jewish v Muslim conflict.

I said Payman's words clarified her usage of the phrase "From the river to the sea". You support that phrase though, it may be hard for you to understand what it is calling for.

This is the basis of your suggestion that I've defended antisemitism, the fact that I didn't call another poster antisemitic because of the ambiguity of the post.

I can only apologise for being too restrained in my use of the term.

The fact that I've criticised other posts for crossing a line into antisemitism cannot redeem me, it seems.

It's not the basis. It's an example. For such a history expert, I'm surprised you don't know the first born son story.
That's ok.

Quick to pull the trigger calling me an Islamophobe though despite having no evidence apart from your mental gymnastics.

Got any examples of these critiques?

It seems clear to me that you came to that conclusion based on the fact that she's a Muslim woman, because the words she was speaking make it very clear that her faith hasn't been the basis of her recent decisions.

Your observation that I'm ignorant of daily life in Israel is irrelevant to me, unless you can explain why it's not. In other words, it's true that I'm not familiar with daily life and Israel and I urge you to tell me what such an awareness would contribute to my perspectives on the issue.

I'm critical of her words and actions. I could care less about what building she prays in.

Muslim or Arab members of the Knesset are the standard in Israel, not an exception like in Australia. Noone cares who you pray too. If you pray if you don't.

 

[Markfs]

Labour knew all of this. They were fine with the legality when she was voting with caucus. I don't think they can go there without getting smashed by the libs.

parties in the past have made decisions on this and they've been wrong. The constitution is clear but fatima may have done everything possible to renouce her afgan citizenship. I dont like foreign nationals in parliament or the military. I dont have a thing against people with dual passports....it can be useful to them...but i dont like the conflict of interest. As our lord and saviour said, you cant serve two masters....

 

[ZEV]

You must have a pretty twisted dark and sad view of the world if you use the word "just" to twist speech into saying the opposite of what someone was clearly trying to say.

Meanwhile, you defend Netayahu for talking about "that wicked city" and turning it into rubble - with a comment about Gaza not being a very nice place. And ignore the reality that he has then turned those cities into rubble - but apparently he didn't mean what he said. Whereas the senator's use of "just" was outrageous.

With those things in mind, it's pretty hard to view your perspective as anything other than tribal.

Maybe, but I know what someone is saying when they use the phrase "From the river to the sea." Clearly.

Bit of a revisionist view of what occurred, from memory you didn't even know the statement was in Hebrew and there was a comma inserted which changed the way the statement read. Let's not let facts get in the way of SR36's righteousness.

If not wanting my country to be destroyed by terrorists fits your label of "tribal", then go ahead.