Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas - Hezbollah - Houthis

[JB1975]

Uh huh.

Who was bandying the term antisemitism around then? "If we're going to bandy terms like 'antisemitism' around, then surely we need a working definition"

Sartre was bandying the term around in 1944 when antisemites were conducting the holocaust? Lol. No you were talking about me and if you weren't it surely looks like you were.

This needs to be my final post on the matter. Indulging other people's narcissism is something I swore off years ago.

As I mentioned before, there is a general conflation of antisemitism and criticism of Israel in the present-day. I was happy to draw attention to Sartre's comment in the context of the present because it is you who drew the clear link between antisemitism in the present and what JPS said 80yrs ago.

You suggested that the antisemitic tendencies of Sartre's time (which as you point out were causing a Holocaust) were just as relevant as the antisemitism in this thread. (i.e. hey, how prescient was this guy?)

Now, do I know whether or not antisemitism abounds in this thread? No. But do I know that the slander of antisemitism has been used to shut down discussion of Israel? Yes.

It's in that context that the meaning of antisemitism might need some clarification. Are we talking about the hyper-hatred of Nazi Germany, or the politicised use of 'antisemitism' in the present, or something in between?

I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge that you had the wrong end of the stick in relation to the subsequent post, but you might want to acknowledge that you're barking up the wrong tree on this as well.

Now if it's alright with you, I'll stop caring about your interpretations and allow the thread to talk about more meaningful things, like Israel's war against children.

 

[jason_recliner]

Your insanity, exhibit B.

I added to a list of things which are often conflated with antisemitism.

That list was not a list of the ways in which you have conflated criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

Ergo, my post to Dapper was adding another point for consideration, not another point of accusation.

Your defensiveness is interesting, and yet it also manages to be very boring.

The defensiveness is because she is one of the first (after Zinane) to accuse anybody criticising Israel or Jews of anti-semitism. She gives herself an 'out' by claiming "legitimate" criticism isn't anti-semitism, while bending over backwards and tying herself in knots to claim all criticism is illegitimate.

 

[Jazny]

As I mentioned before, there is a general conflation of antisemitism and criticism of Israel in the present-day. I was happy to draw attention to Sartre's comment in the context of the present because it is you who drew the clear link between antisemitism in the present and what JPS said 80yrs ago.

You suggested that the antisemitic tendencies of Sartre's time (which as you point out were causing a Holocaust) were just as relevant as the antisemitism in this thread. (i.e. hey, how prescient was this guy?)

Now, do I know whether or not antisemitism abounds in this thread? No. But do I know that the slander of antisemitism has been used to shut down discussion of Israel? Yes.

It's in that context that the meaning of antisemitism might need some clarification. Are we talking about the hyper-hatred of Nazi Germany, or the politicised use of 'antisemitism' in the present, or something in between?

Antisemitism is a form of racism. It's bigotry, prejudice toward or hatred of Jews. This is the only way I use the term. See the bullet points I listed which were just some examples of things I have seen in this thread which I consider antisemitic.

Again, you failed to address who you were saying was bandying the term around in your post. From this I can only conclude, since nobody else had been recently, this post was referring to me. Since it's your last post on the matter and I doubt anyone other than us cares, I rest my case.

 

[DapperDon]

even though Dapper was asking me directly in an accusatory way

Your imagination is flying today

 

[Jazny]

The defensiveness is because she is one of the first (after Zinane) to accuse anybody criticising Israel or Jews of anti-semitism.

Can you provide a single example of me doing this?

This is the part where as Sartre says: If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent.Or maybe you will delight in bad faith instead and offer an absurd reply. What you won't do is find any good example of me doing what you accuse me of. At least you can't use the "I wasn't even talking about you" defense.

 

[jason_recliner]

Can you provide a single example of me doing this?

This is the part where as Sartre says: If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent.Or maybe you will delight in bad faith instead and offer an absurd reply. What you won't do is find any good example of me doing what you accuse me of. At least you can't use the "I wasn't even talking about you" defense.

It's literally your posts throughout this thread. Your little list of examples accusing people of antisemitism. Your quote of Sartre. Am I going to wade through 200+ pages and pick out specific posts? It's not antisemitic to attack Israel and Jews for their support of mass murder. You're wrong.

 

[DapperDon]

Can you provide a single example of me doing this?

This is the part where as Sartre says: If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent.Or maybe you will delight in bad faith instead and offer an absurd reply. What you won't do is find any good example of me doing what you accuse me of. At least you can't use the "I wasn't even talking about you" defense.

You called me anti-semitic for saying the retaliation to Israeli football hooligans wasn't an anti-semitic group bash by the Dutch

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Your imagination is flying today

Thats antijaznytic

 

[JB1975]

gain, you failed to address who you were saying was bandying the term around in your post.

I've mentioned it twice. Your refusal or inability to comprehend what I've said reflects badly on you.

Now we move on. Thanks for your time (wasting).

 

[JB1975]

Can you provide a single example of me doing this?

This is the part where as Sartre says: If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent.Or maybe you will delight in bad faith instead and offer an absurd reply. What you won't do is find any good example of me doing what you accuse me of. At least you can't use the "I wasn't even talking about you" defense.

Sartre is not the weapon you think he is. Even if he was, you're too clumsy to wield it.

To judge the reactions of others around here to what you've been saying to me, it seems you're exactly the sort of person to deliberately conflate any criticism of Israel and Israelis with antisemitism.

You definitely seem like a 'bad faith' poster at this point.

 

[Jazny]

You called me anti-semitic for saying the retaliation to Israeli football hooligans wasn't an anti-semitic group bash by the Dutch

I showed you the testimony of three Jews, one British Jew, who were claiming to have been bashed by groups of people specifically targetting Jews. You reacted to it with a "haha" emoji. This testimony is in support of Dutch authorities who have labelled the attacks antisemitic.

The idiotic actions of Macabbi Tel Aviv hooligans seems to have had nothing to do with those attacks that were described. There are reports of people attacking people for being Jewish, not for being Macabbi hooligans that specifically chanted trash racist songs. The fact you keep trying to excuse credible testimony of antisemitic violence based on the actions of some Macabbi fans is ridiculous and antisemitic.

 

[Jazny]

To judge the reactions of others around here to what you've been saying to me, it seems you're exactly the sort of person to deliberately conflate any criticism of Israel and Israelis with antisemitism.

Now I will just ask you to back this up. Again, this is the part where you run along. Or deflect. Imagine if you originally just came out and admitted this is what you think rather than run around in circles wasting everyone's time with embarrassing attempts to gaslight

 

[DapperDon]

I showed you the testimony of three Jews, one British Jew, who were claiming to have been bashed by groups of people specifically targetting Jews. You reacted to it with a "haha" emoji. This testimony is in support of Dutch authorities who have labelled the attacks antisemitic.

The idiotic actions of Macabbi Tel Aviv hooligans seems to have had nothing to do with those attacks that were described. There are reports of people attacking people for being Jewish, not for being Macabbi hooligans that specifically chanted trash racist songs. The fact you keep trying to excuse credible testimony of antisemitic violence based on the actions of some Macabbi fans is ridiculous and antisemitic.

Sadly, they were in direct response to the Macabbi supporters who for 2 days walked around Amsterdam chanting "**** the arabs" and vandalising anything Palestinian. As usual though, you skip over that part and go directly to the end to justify your ongoing support for anything Israeli, good or genocidal.

 

[JB1975]

The fact you keep trying to excuse credible testimony of antisemitic violence based on the actions of some Macabbi fans is ridiculous and antisemitic.

I think you'd agree that most of the violence seems to have been in direct response to anti-Arab racism and the targeting of pro-Palestinian sentiments (e.g. flags) by Macabbi hooligans, and that the term 'pogrom' is sensationalist nonsense.

 

[JB1975]

Now I will just ask you to back this up. Again, this is the part where you run along. Or deflect. Imagine if you originally just came out and admitted this is what you think rather than run around in circles wasting everyone's time with embarrassing attempts to gaslight

It's my observation from interacting with you.

 

[DapperDon]

Now I will just ask you to back this up. Again, this is the part where you run along. Or deflect. Imagine if you originally just came out and admitted this is what you think rather than run around in circles wasting everyone's time with embarrassing attempts to gaslight

Did you say this into a mirror?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Since when are examples needed? All we need to do is post out of context quotes

Like comparing Dutch Jewish groups to Westboro

The comparison was only to highlight the supposed outsized relevance you were giving to the Erev Rav statement.

Jazny wasn't equating the statement or opinions of Erev Rav to those of Westboro.

This pile on is a bit unfair, I wouldn't say Jazny throws around the term excessively, unlike at least one other in this thread. I haven't seen it used unless there is a genuine belief it's deserved.

 

[JB1975]

This pile on is a bit unfair, I wouldn't say Jazny throws around the term excessively, unlike at least one other in this thread. I haven't seen it used unless there is a genuine belief it's deserved.

Hope this is right.

It's a tendency that I'm both wary and weary of. If Jaz is one less person who's guilty of it, then bloody marvelous.

 

[Jazny]

I think you'd agree that most of the violence seems to have been in direct response to anti-Arab racism and the targeting of pro-Palestinian sentiments (e.g. flags) by Macabbi hooligans, and that the term 'pogrom' is sensationalist nonsense.

I agree the term 'pogrom' is overboard, but understand that reaction from Jews based on initial reports and the history of persecution. But it's wrong I think and I said so early on.

I don't know if I agree that 'most' of the violence was in direct response to anti-arab racism. It's possible, I haven't seen any official claim to back that up. What there does seem to be reason to believe is that there were a number of attacks against people for seemingly no other reason than just being Jewish.

More will come out about it in the future which will shed more light one way or another.

 

[DapperDon]

The comparison was only to highlight the supposed outsized relevance you were giving to the Erev Rav statement.

Jazny wasn't equating the statement or opinions of Erev Rav to those of Westboro.

This pile on is a bit unfair, I wouldn't say Jazny throws around the term excessively, unlike at least one other in this thread. I haven't seen it used unless there is a genuine belief it's deserved.

I know this, my reply was in jest due to Jazny pulling out of context quotes to throw as anti-semitic

 

[JB1975]

I agree the term 'pogrom' is overboard, but understand that reaction from Jews based on initial reports and the history of persecution. But it's wrong I think and I said so early on.

I don't know if I agree that 'most' of the violence was in direct response to anti-arab racism. It's possible, I haven't seen any official claim to back that up. What there does seem to be reason to believe is that there were a number of attacks against people for seemingly no other reason than just being Jewish.

More will come out about it in the future.

Fair enough.

From my understanding (yes, limited), it seems that the strident anti-Arabism of the Maccabi supporters is what set things off. Without that, there would have been no violence.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I think you'd agree that most of the violence seems to have been in direct response to anti-Arab racism and the targeting of pro-Palestinian sentiments (e.g. flags) by Macabbi hooligans, and that the term 'pogrom' is sensationalist nonsense.

I think this is probably how it started, and it wouldnt have mattered if Maccabi supporters were Legia Warsaw, or Hadjuk Split, they would have been targetted for reprisals.

But I can see how easily that initial violence could quickly go from 'catch that Maccabi' to Israeli, to Jew, in a way that would not happen if they were Polish or Croatian.

 

[JB1975]

I think this is probably how it started, and it wouldnt have mattered if Maccabi supporters were Legia Warsaw, or Hadjuk Split, they would have been targetted for reprisals.

But I can see how easily that initial violence could quickly go from 'catch that Maccabi' to Israeli, to Jew, in a way that would not happen if they were Polish or Croatian.

Yeah, no doubting that there's going to be a fair degree of underlying antisemitism which was easily set off.

 

[Mofra]

Ultimately peace is better for USA / Trump in the ME with lower tensions, oil prices etc. Trump is a big fan of MBS, refusing to bring him to account for the Khashoggi murder.


It's just the way he will go about it. I can see him threatening to send US forces to Gaza which would be a huge mistake. His mediation skills are next to non existent, at least reasonable ceasefire resolutions were tabled by the US to the UNSC and one that actually passed UNSC.


I doubt a Trump administration will propose a meaningful peace fire resolution in Gaza. Can only hope the war is ended by the time his administration gets to work in January.

Unlikely. Escalation more likely.

 

[Jazny]

Unlikely. Escalation more likely.

View attachment 2163545

Trump is one of the worst possible people to have as the US president right now. I hope there is enough sane people in Israeli parliament and Trumps' US advisors that this plan never happens.

Some of the established settlements in the West Bank are probably going to end up being parts of land swaps for a two state solution. Annexing all of it as Israeli territory could set back any possible peace process. It's like taking some of the Palestinians best bargaining chips off the table.