[noemon]

The assertion is made but the author's counter-argument lacks a citation unlike all the other instances, which leaves only one option that his counter-argument is made-up.

[danholo]

You mean "the next page"?

[Heisenberg]

I double-checked and you did not, this is the first time.

So the other times when I said that I take no side in the conflict, that just didn't count. Right, whatever you say.

I can only assume from what you write Heisenberg and you did provide us with this irrelevant tidbit which has what point exactly?

It was a reply to skinster's comment about Hamas being a "resistance movement", and an attempt to provide a bit of context, which is desperately lacking most of the time in conversations about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Was it directly relevant to the OP? No. Did I ever claim it was? No. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities by being a bit irreverent in the way I worded it, but desperately clinging onto this point is not going to get us very far.

So, make all the inferences and snide, indirect accusations you like about my "racism", "Zionism", and anything else. If you're actually interested in my position on the matter, I'll direct you to this thread in which I make it quite clear I'm not an uncritical supporter of Israel. Of course, this means I don't fit neatly into a box of "Member of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy who can safely be dismissed out of hand", but that's not my problem.

To do exactly what Israel is accused to be doing to consider the nation non-existant, the nation and also the people.

Israel does not recognise the state of Palestine. To act like this is some sort of great shock is very odd. Similarly, a lot of countries and organisations around the world do not recognise the state of Israel, including Hamas. To act like this is a great shock, or somehow news, is also very odd. My position on this is that criticism should be applied equally to both sides. You, along with skinster and Heinie, have an interest here in presenting Israel as irredeemably bad evil and the Palestinian Arabs as noble and oppressed. I am trying to point out that this is not, to put it mildly, wholly accurate.

It stands accused of showing that people & their villages inside a land do not exist. And that is also the point of Palestinians not being a "real nation" as you said, which means that you are in fact propagating the same racist view and that is why you would not mind if England showed Ireland as a lot empty of villages and people? You would call it stupid but not malicious.

Listen, I'm not going to lose any sleep over you calling me a "racist" because I acknowledge that Israel does not recognise the state of Palestine. If Britain published textbooks tomorrow saying that Ireland was a part of Britain, it would be stupid, because Britain long ago recognised the Republic of Ireland. Would it be malicious? Well, I don't recall you ever asking whether it would be malicious. You asked if it would be reprehensible. These are not the same.

Is Israel's refusal to recognise Palestine malicious? Of course it is. But, given the state it is in - one where both sides literally hate each other, have done for centuries, and show no signs of easing up on it - it is not "reprehensible".

And I do not see what makes Israel exempt from being 'fantastically stupid'.

Neither do I, and I challenge you to quote me saying this. I have said several times in the past that Israel has acted stupidly.

[noemon]

So the other times when I said that I take no side in the conflict, that just didn't count. Right, whatever you say.

They do not cancel the zionist tidbits out and where there are contradictions then you need to answer with a simple yes or no, but even still, claims are different to actions.

It was a reply to skinster's comment about Hamas being a "resistance movement", and an attempt to provide a bit of context, which is desperately lacking most of the time in conversations about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Israeli racist supremacism of Palestinians being a faux-nation who had their asses licked is somehow "context" that is "lacking".

You are confused and dangerously so. It is racism, this is the same as saying "Black people are a faux nation who had their asses licked", or "Jewish people are a faux nation who had their asses licked".

This will not pass in here.

Israel does not recognise the state of Palestine.

You and we are not talking about the State of Palestine, you said Palestinian nation and we are talking about whether Israeli textbooks imply that these people do not exist, not even in the map. When you err, you need to get over it, especially when your added-value "context" is supplementary to the non-existence narrative.

Neither do I, and I challenge you to quote me saying this. I have said several times in the past that Israel has acted stupidly.

Here:

In which case, I do not find it reprehensible. If Britain did the same today regarding Ireland, it would be fantastically stupid

[Heisenberg]

They do not cancel the zionist tidbits out and where there are contradictions then you need to answer with a simple yes or no, but even still, claims are different to actions.

\
Look, I don't care about you playing thought police and demanding that I confess my alleged "Zionism", when I have now told you no less than four times what my view is. Given the fervour with which you are doing this, I think I was right to assume you see "Zionist" as an automatically pejorative term in the first place, which makes me care even less whether you label me as one. I note that you ignored the link I provided in which I am also critical of Israel.

Israeli racist supremacism of Palestinians being a faux-nation who had their asses licked is somehow "context" that is "lacking".
You are confused and dangerously so. It is racism, this is the same as saying "Black people are a faux nation who had their asses licked", or "Jewish people are a faux nation who had their asses licked".

Look, if you're going to quote me directly and then change the wording of what I said to make your case, I'm not going to keep responding. What I said was that the Arab armies that attacked Israel in 1948 (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, not "the Palestinians") got thoroughly licked by Israel, and are sore about it to this day. I also said that the move to frame it as "Israel and Palestine" grew in the 1960s, as it was to the Arabs' propaganda advantage to present Israel as the large, aggressive power and take themselves out of the equation. This is a simple statement of the case. You might disagree with my view on this, but it is not at all comparable to saying "Black people are a faux nation who got their asses licked". To say otherwise is utterly childish.

You and we are not talking about the State of Palestine, you said Palestinian nation

I talked about the Palestinian "nation" in a different context, when replying to skinster. With you, I have been talking about the state of Palestine, and in fact have not mentioned the "Palestinian nation" once. Go back and check if you don't believe me.

Regarding the textbook thing. Of course it is regrettable, but once again I am not going to let the view that Israel is *uniquely in the wrong* slide here. I haven't come across any mention of Hamas wanting to wipe Israel off the map in this thread, for example, even though it is much-needed context in a conflict where both sides treat each other very badly. I suppose asking for balance is something that a rotten "Zionist" would do though.

Here:

I do not believe that quote says that Israel is incapable of being stupid. You might want to read it again.

Look, noemon, you've clearly decided to dig your heels in and do everything you can to present me as a frothing-at-the-mouth fanatical Israeli chauvinist. I think this is very silly, and I have no idea why you've decided to go all out to smear me, since I wasn't aware we were on bad terms. If you want to carry on, then fine. I'll just not respond any more. I'm getting a bit tired of it.

[skinster]

In Heisenberg's defense, I'd be embarrassed to be called a 'zionist' too. Anyone should.

Also, Heisenberg did that thing where he pretends he's not an Israel-apologist by quoting back from a thread in the past. In that post from the past he regurgitates the lie that Israel is defending itself, when Israeli actions are quite clearly not about security but stealing more and more Palestinian land (newsflash: an occupying force is not a victim). And also you blame Hamas for the massacres in Gaza. Yep, not a Zionist.

I totally understand why you'd be embarrassed to admit to being an Israel supporter, but assuming we can't figure out your position by your own words is rather bizarre. Maybe you're one of those (oxymoronic) liberal-Zionists. What do you think?

[noemon]

Look, if you're going to quote me directly and then change the wording of what I said to make your case, I'm not going to keep responding.

I did not change anything from your wording, I quoted you verbatim.
Observe.

I talked about the Palestinian "nation" in a different context

You called it a faux nation that had its ass licked. This is just bigotry, pure & simple, there is no working around it in any context.

Of course it is regrettable, but once again I am not going to let the view that Israel is *uniquely in the wrong* slide here. I haven't come across any mention of Hamas wanting to wipe Israel off the map in this thread, for example, even though it is much-needed context in a conflict where both sides treat each other very badly. I suppose asking for balance is something that a rotten "Zionist" would do though.

Irrelevant, make a thread about Palestinian racism in textbooks and we will discuss it on the same standards as we are discussing Israel textbook racism right now.

I do not believe that quote says that Israel is incapable of being stupid. You might want to read it again.

Maybe you need to read again that you clearly said that what Israeli is charged of doing -by Israeli professors and the scholars responsible for its textbooks- is not reprehensible, in my question on whether we should ridicule it like we would have done with the UK.

Look, noemon, you've clearly decided to dig your heels in and do everything you can to present me as a frothing-at-the-mouth fanatical Israeli chauvinist. I think this is very silly, and I have no idea why you've decided to go all out to smear me, since I wasn't aware we were on bad terms. If you want to carry on, then fine. I'll just not respond any more. I'm getting a bit tired of it.

I need to point out to you that I talk to you because we are in good terms, if I'm not in good terms with someone I do not talk to them at all. If you say something bigoted I will call you out regardless if I like you or if I am indifferent to you, you I like more than others but does not mean I will let you post such bigoted statements without telling you something.

[Heisenberg]

I did not change anything from your wording, I quoted you verbatim.

Oh, Jesus. Yes, you quoted me verbatim. You then literally ignored the quoteand deliberately claimed I had said something I did not say.

By the way, your link is to a completely different thread talking about Salafism.

You called it a faux nation that had its ass licked. This is just bigotry, pure & simple, there is no working around it in any context.

Read the quote again, I beg you. Here it is: "Of course the original "resistance" was a coordinated invasion by the armies of all of Israel's Arab neighbours, all of whom were and are significantly larger than Israel. They got thoroughly licked in the process, and have been sore about it ever since." If you can pick out the part of this that says "Palestine is a faux nation that had its ass licked", I'll be amazed. Don't deliberately and flagrantly misrepresent what your opponents say, and then continue to do it once this has been pointed out to you.

Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I am well aware that there is something that can be considered a "Palestinian nation" now. However, its entry into the political consciousness can be traced to roughly the late 60s and early 70s. I don't think this is a particularly "bigoted" view to take, but I'm sure you'll point out why I am actually a Very Bad Person for taking it.

Maybe you need to read again that you clearly said that what Israeli is charged of doing -by Israeli professors and the scholars responsible for its textbooks- is not reprehensible, in my question on whether we should ridicule it like we would have done with the UK.

Ridicule it all you like, but don't pretend it's happening in a vacuum. That is all I'm saying. I think that dodging the point about context, or claiming that the situation on the ground is "irrelevant", is dishonest in this case. Arab-Israeli relations are not at all comparable to Anglo-Irish relations, even taking the Troubles into account.

I need to point out to you that I talk to you because we are in good terms, if I'm not in good terms with someone I do not talk to them at all. If you say something bigoted I will call you out regardless if I like you or if I am indifferent to you, you I like more than others but does not mean I will let you post such bigoted statements without telling you something.

Oh, isn't that just lovely. I'm so glad that we're on good terms, and that you will "call me out" for "bigotry" based on things I haven't actually said. Fucking wonderful.

[skinster]

Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I am well aware that there is something that can be considered a "Palestinian nation" now. However, its entry into the political consciousness can be traced to roughly the late 60s and early 70s. I don't think this is a particularly "bigoted" view to take, but I'm sure you'll point out why I am actually a Very Bad Person for taking it.

The state of Palestine is mentioned in the Balfour Agreement, which preceded the 60s/70s.

I also edited my last post which is directed at you.

[Heisenberg]

The state of Palestine is mentioned in the Balfour Agreement, which preceded the 60s/70s.

The Balfour Declaration refers to Palestine as a geographical term, in the context of Palestine as a British colony. It makes no mention whatsoever of "the state of Palestine".

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Also, Heisenberg did that thing where he pretends he's not an Israel-apologist by quoting back from a thread in the past.

Must I constantly, always and forever be criticising Israel lest I be accused of fanatically supporting it? What a stupid view to take.

n that post from the past he regurgitates the lie that Israel is defending itself,

Erm, no I didn't. Can you read? "Israel already has an effective defensive system, which is what is actually defending Israeli civilians. There isn't really anything else they "need" to do in order to keep their population safe. The mass bombardment campaigns simply harm Israel's international image, cause massive civilian casualties, and do very little extra to "defend" Israel."

And also you blame Hamas for the massacres in Gaza.

Again, no I didn't. I said that Hamas was trying to goad Israel into a response with its rocket attacks. At no point did I say that this absolves Israel of responsibility. It's like Afghanistan. Al Qaeda tried to goad the US and UK into attacking Afghanistan with 9/11. However, the US and UK are still responsible for the chaos they inflicted on that country as a result.

Seriously skinster, you're going to have to a hell of a lot better than that. I did after all provide a link to the thread in question, where anyone can see that you have just blatantly misrepresented what I said.

[skinster]

Yes, anyone can read it, you can feel free to quote it too. That you say one thing and then another doesn't mean I trust you at all. It's pretty clear what your position is and noeman has already called you out for it, resulting in you getting emotional from time to time in this very thread. As I said already, I could understand why you'd be embarrassed to admit to certain things or why you don't want to admit you're a zionist.

[noemon]

Oh, Jesus. Yes, you quoted me verbatim. You then literally ignored the quoteand deliberately claimed I had said something I did not say.

You are not making any sense, first you accuse me of misquoting you. I quoted you verbatim Heisenberg and told you this bigotry is not acceptable as you are already aware for I have called out every other person who has used such characterizations towards a people, so don't really see what makes you special.

By the way, your link is to a completely different thread talking about Salafism.

My link shows you that someone else called me out for bigotry and I apologised for it, I did not try to dance around it like you do and my bigotry was in fact a lot less than yours.

You called it a faux nation that had its ass licked. This is just bigotry, pure & simple, there is no working around it in any context.

Read the quote again, I beg you..
Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I am well aware that there is something that can be considered a "Palestinian nation" now. However, its entry into the political consciousness can be traced to roughly the late 60s and early 70s. I don't think this is a particularly "bigoted" view to take, but I'm sure you'll point out why I am actually a Very Bad Person for taking it.

We can talk about the ethnological aspect of ethnogenesis in a relevant thread. It is a pity that you refuse to admit that the narrative you employ, in fact stating that "they were licked", "have been sore" and "are not really a nation" does not refer to the Palestinians in a negative & bigoted way, ofc you added the words 'Arab neighbors' but does that exclude the Palestinians from "being sore" and "licked"? And how so?

Ridicule it all you like, but don't pretend it's happening in a vacuum. That is all I'm saying. I think that dodging the point about context, or claiming that the situation on the ground is "irrelevant", is dishonest in this case. Arab-Israeli relations are not at all comparable to Anglo-Irish relations, even taking the Troubles into account.

No it's not dishonest at all, dishonest is to stop talking about it and talk about someone else instead which is what you would prefer, but you can make a separate thread about your someone else and we will discuss it there.

[Heisenberg]

If pointing out flagrant dishonesty is "getting emotional", then we really are in a sad state.

skinster, I am only a "Zionist" insofar as I do not actively wish to disband the state of Israel. I don't care in the slightest about either side in the conflict there. The battle of Armageddon could happen tomorrow, leaving the whole place a desert, and I wouldn't lose much sleep. This is my honest view. If you don't believe me, fine. I can live with being disliked by you, funnily enough.

noemon, that last post of yours is drivel, plain and simple, and doesn't address any of what I said. I did not accuse you of misquoting me, I accused you of changing the wording of what I said. Not literally, as in directly editing the quote. Figuratively, as in inferring things I did not say and deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

I'm done with this now. I'm not going to apologise for an imagined offence, or act as though you have any legitimacy as some kind of moral commissar. I've explained myself several times, and you've deliberately ignored and misrepresented me on every single occasion.

[skinster]

This is my honest view. If you don't believe me, fine. I can live with being disliked by you, funnily enough.

This is what I'm talking about when I say you get emotional, zionist.

Adios.

[noemon]

noemon, that last post of yours is drivel, plain and simple, and doesn't address any of what I said. I did not accuse you of misquoting me, I accused you of changing the wording of what I said. Not literally, as in directly editing the quote. Figuratively, as in inferring things I did not say and deliberately misrepresenting what I said.

Changing the wording but not literally...figuratively...I see.

If you want to clarify or retract something you are more than welcome:

It is a pity that you refuse to admit that the narrative you employ, in fact stating that "they were licked", "have been sore" and "are not really a nation" does not refer to the Palestinians in a negative & bigoted way, ofc you added the words 'Arab neighbors' but does that exclude the Palestinians from "being sore" and "licked"? And how so?

[Heisenberg]

Changing the wording but not literally...figuratively...I see.

Yeah, I worded it clumsily. You got me. It would be pretty stupid for me to claim you were making up a quote from me when it's on the previous page of the thread. I know you're pissed off with me, but at least give me some benefit of the doubt, for God's sake.

If you want to clarify or retract something you are more than welcome:

I did not add the words "Arab neighbours". I specifically talked about the Arab neighbours. As in, "the first example of 'resistance' to Israel was Israel's Arab neighbours". This refers, quite clearly, to the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, which involved the entire Arab League attacking Israel, and being beaten very decisively. I say that these nations have been "sore" ever since, because they are have literally never come to terms with the fact that they lost. They still bitch and whine about it to this day to anyone who will listen.

Note that Germany does not do the same regarding the Second World War - which it started. The Russians do not endlessly complain about losing in Afghanistan - a war they started. We don't do the same about Iraq. The Arab League started its war against Israel in 1948, and lost. They had their opportunity, and failed. I am not going to sit here and give legitimacy to their claims of being "oppressed" by an enemy they attacked and were defeated by. They also use this bogeyman to oppress their own populations, and are happy to see the Palestinians suffer to keep the Israel bogeyman alive. Fasces pointed this out earlier and you didn't hound him endlessly for it, so I'm baffled that you're going after me in this tiresome, pedantic fashion.

Yes, I admit that this "narrative" is not particularly generous to the Arab nations. But then, I see no particular reason to be generous to them, given the way they have treated their own populations, and the Palestinians whose cause they claim to support, over the last 70 years. I do not accept that it is "bigoted" though, and I frankly don't care whether you do. You aren't going to get a grovelling apology from me on this point, so give it up and we can go our separate ways.

Finally, please don't keep using "not really a nation" in quotes. It is not a quote from me, as you well know.

[noemon]

Yes, I admit that this "narrative" is not particularly generous to the Arab nations. But then, I see no particular reason to be generous to them, given the way they have treated their own populations, and the Palestinians whose cause they claim to support, over the last 70 years. I do not accept that it is "bigoted" though, and I frankly don't care whether you do. You aren't going to get a grovelling apology from me on this point, so give it up and we can go our separate ways.

That's fine with me. Everyone makes their own choices and is ofc then rationalised according to the value placed on pejorative language against other peoples. I guess you want to reserve the right to repeat what you said in the future as if it's some item. I am indifferent to other people(neither generous, nor insulting), I find no reason to be ungenerous(=insulting) towards other peoples. I didn't think you had a reason but you have led me to believe that you do.

It is not a quote from me, as you well know.

Sure.

[skinster]

Related: African refugees are likened to rats in Israeli exam question — and it’s supposed to be funny

[danholo]

Yeah, thanks for the share. The worst, IMO, are the comments. I encounter these on the daily. There was a piece on Israel's Channel 2 about an absolutely stunning model who is half Palestinian and was presented as a "Palestinian model" and the commenters were having a field day about how 'she isn't Palestinian'. I just checked and it's a bit more evened (thanks to this guy) out but even so...

I watched the video because she was, frankly...

[Heinie]

Related: African refugees are likened to rats in Israeli exam question — and it’s supposed to be funny

By comparing African refugees to rats, "Professor" Moshe Kaspi shows he taken a lesson from Dr. Goebbels' handbook.

[youtube]U2Iazwru7yE[/youtube]