From an anonymous tipster:
Administrator Malik Shabazz apparently thinks legitimate criticism of the user Carol Moore is a “personal attack,” and reverts any criticism of her antisemitic posts on site.
Does it create a hospitable environment if Wikimania is held in a country that probably would make it very difficult for Arabs and Muslims to enter for the conference? Not to mention anyone suspected of being critical of Israel, including on Wikipedia? If editor members of this project (Jewish and gentile) considered “antisemitic” because they include negative information on the state of Israel or its most aggressively politicized supporters were excluded from entering Israel for the conference, while those considered pro-Israel were permitted, wouldn’t that be relevant? Something tells me those who are critical won’t even bother going to the conference.
Carol provides no proof that Arabs or Muslims would have difficulty accessing the conference. Previous Wikimia events have taken place in nations ruled by ruthless regimes, like Egypt. Why Carol failed to protest the lack of rights for Arabs then is a mystery. Or is it?
It is obvious she cares very little about the rights of Arabs and Muslims. Her concern is limited to Israel. And administrators like Shabaz have allowed her to propagate these views without warning or punishment.
{ 111 comments… read them below or add one }
The Israeli government routinely bans people from visiting based entirely on their opinions. The Israeli government often does this to Jewish people, including some very high profile Jewish intellectuals. There is tonnes of evidence for this. See for example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/15/middleeast-israelandthepalestinians
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8685930.stm
Israel’s treatment towards Arabs and Muslims is FAR more stringent than these high profile Jewish intellectuals.
Can you find any evidence that does not come from an anti-Israel news source? I take news from BBC and the Guardian on the Israel Situation with a grain of salt.
BBC and Guardian are “anti-Israeli” news sources? Are you kidding?
Why don’t you tell me what sources you consider not to be “anti-Israeli” and then I will post something. I am assuming all non-US or Israel based news sources are considered “anti-Israel” as per your requirements.
Do you consider Jerusalem Post to be okay?
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175714
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=102199
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=124581
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=228462
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?ID=228551&R=R1
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=228512
There are MUCH MUCH more than this on Jerusalem Post alone.
It is a widely known fact that the Israeli government denies entry to people whose opinion it does not like.
I’ll take that source as fair, but I have to say that I agree with Israel on people like Noam Chomsky. He is a friend of Hezbollah (literally) and a public enemy of Israel’s right to exist. Keeping anti-Israel activists seems reasonable based on the actions of some of their predecessors. However, people that are not publicly controversial don’t seem to have any problem getting in. Unlike Saudi Arabia, that would not let me in because I am Jewish, Israel would happily let in people regardless of their religion. However, some people warrant more scrutiny based on their possible connection to violent elements.
There is so much spin about what you wrote about Chomsky (i.e. “friend of Hezbollah”, “enemy of Israel”, and ” that I am not even going to waste time addressing it.
But let’s face facts. JPost is an extremely aggressive pro-Israel newspaper. When they call Chomsky’s ideas radical, they are comparing him to their own ideas. In reality, Chomsky’s ideas are not radical at all. They are actually quite mainstream in the world.
Chomsky is known for being the most cited living author, and 8th in all of human history (top ten list is in the following order: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero source: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1992/citation-0415.html source 2: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24270423.html?dids=24270423:24270423&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jan+01%2C+1993&author=Ron+Grossman.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29&desc=Strong+words+At+64%2C+linguist+Noam+Chomsky+continues+to+say+things+not+everyone+wants+to+hear&pqatl=google). He has probably sold more non-fiction books than any other living author.
If the Israeli government bans him from entering, is it really a good idea to hold wikimedia events there? Mind you, he wasn’t even going to Israel. He had to pass Israeli security in order to give a lecture in a Palestinian university.
Carol’s assessment is certainly valid. It is DEFINITELY not antisemitic. It is obviously true.
Non-citizens do not have the same rights as citizen. Britain has very similar immigration policies. They banned Michael Savage and Geert Wilders from entering the country.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/06/world/fg-britain-list6
And he was never a gushing supporter of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah nor did he deny communist wars crimes as Chomsky has done on numerous occasions.
Israeli academics routinely criticize Israel. Professors such as Neve Gordon openly endorse boycotts of the state that pays him his salary.
But what does this have to do with Wikimania? Unless editing warriors wish to hijack the event to whine about Israel they have nothing to worry about. The conference is about Wikipedia, no? Perhaps Carol Moore and her ilk are associates of these rogue academics? I guess it is easy to make outrageous accusations behind a computer but facing real Israelis and reality would embarrass them.
In the end, Carol’s concerns are baseless.
>Israel’s treatment towards Arabs and Muslims is FAR more stringent than these high profile Jewish intellectuals.>
Is this a joke? Muslims have more rights in Israel than in any Muslim nation, an arguably many European nations as well. Muslims have their own religious courts, polygamy is tolerated, and Sharia law is binding in social legal disputes. Christians also have their own courts and medieval judicial process that exist side-by-side within the confines of the Israeli judicial system.
Nobody has said Israel is perfect.
The truth of the matter is that Israel barred Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc entirely based on their views. I also disagree with Britain banning Wilders. But note that Wikipedia is supposed to be collection knowledge which highly relies on the expertise of academics.
We may argue that Carol’s arguments were baseless or not. What should be very clear from our discussions is that the claim that her arguments are antisemitic are absolutely baseless and possibly defamatory.
Your claim about the rights Israel affords to non-citizen Arabs and Muslims is very questionable. I don’t want to get into that discussion because it leads to what happened above. A pointless fight.
But I reiterate again, the complaint above is not about the rights Israel affords to Muslims. It is whether or not Carol the anti-semite is being sheltered by antisemitic wikipedia editors. To any reasonable person this is nonsense!
>Perhaps Carol Moore and her ilk are associates of these rogue academics?
Perhaps. Chomsky is the most cited person alive so I am assuming quite literally millions associate their work to his. Do we really want to hold Wikimania events where people who have associated with the most cited person alive (and 8th in human history) are excluded? That would be quite absurd!
The reason Chomsky’s views are mainstream in Europe and Arab countries is because anti-Semitism is mainstream in those countries. Just look at what Germany did.
Also check out Wikipedia’s newest anti-Semitic article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_Nazi_Germany_comparisons
As the recent Brevik incident showed recently, the Nazis of the past are quite pro-Israel and anti-Chomsky!
Please don’t come back to me and claim that I said pro-Israel people are Nazis. I am saying nothing like that.
I am just pointing out the absurdity of your claim that Chomsky’s views are the norm because Europeans are antisemitic people reminiscent of the Nazis. The right in every European country is highly supportive of the state of Israel so your point is baseless. It is the anti-Nazi socially leftists which seems to hold Chomsky’s views.
In fact, given that Chomsky very first paper was about his opposition of Nazism really shows the absurdity of your claims.
Nazis were not far right. Nazis were very liberal. The very name for their party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. It’s the neo-Nazis who are far right, and they still hate Jews. See Stormfront.
As for Chomsky, the modern far-left elitists are very good at doublethink. Since it is not politically correct to be a Nazi, they denounce open Naziism will simultaneously condoning virulent anti-Semitism and denial of Jews’ rights to their homeland.
Israel is a free and democratic country that has freedom of speech. Of course people who aid terrorists are not allowed into Israel, the same as they are not allowed into the United States.
>Israel is a free and democratic country that has freedom of speech. Of course people who aid terrorists are not allowed into Israel, the same as they are not allowed into the United States.
Replace “Iran” for “Israel” and you get a typical Iran-apologist position. Both positions are fairly loose with the facts.
For the record, these people who were denied entry live in the United States.
Why would Israel let someone into their country who wants to exterminate them?
I find it difficult to understand why Carol Moore has not been topic banned from editing Wikipedia articles having to to with Israel and antisemitism. She makes no secret of her anti-Israel, and anti-Jewish, Libertarian point of view on her site and her blog; and of course that carries through in her WP editing. She has a perfect right to her point of view, but her obvious bias is not helpful when editing articles on those topics.
But the idea that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization is extremely fringe everywhere outside of the US and Israel (i.e. over 90% of the world).
As for your questionable attacks on Chomsky, they are all-together off-topic and did not at all respond to what I had asked.>>
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a satellite of Syria and Iran. Hezbollah is complicit in the mass-killings of Syrian civilians and killings of Lebanese politicians who oppose Syria’s occupation of Lebanon.
The definition of terrorist is well-known. Organizations that resist tyranny can be rebels or fighters if their goal is to remove an oppressive power. Terrorism is about inflicting pain on a specific population. Al Qaeda seeks to create a global Islamic Caliphate. This is irrationally and bigoted. Hezbollah’s stated goal is to eliminate Israel, “liberation Jerusalem” and if they had the sources they would. That too is irrational and bigoted.
A rebel will put down their arms if their grievances are addressed. But their grievances must be rationale and legitimate. Hezbollah’s reasoning for fighting Israel is not legitimate, nor is Hezbollah’s relations with Iran and Syria legitimate.
You can negotiate with a rebel, you can’t negotiate with terrorists. Israel could give Hezbollah the moon and it wouldn’t make a difference. Whether or not the majority of countries say Hezbollah is or isn’t a terrorist organization is simply irrelevant.
>The definition of terrorist is well-known. Organizations that resist tyranny can be rebels or fighters if their goal is to remove an oppressive power. Terrorism is about inflicting pain on a specific population.
Never heard that definition before. But fine. Let’s go with it. I am okay with any definition you propose as long as we are consistent and avoid hypocrisy.
If “definition of terrorist is well-known” to be “inflicting pain on a specific population” then is this terrorism?
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?ID=212555&R=R1
What about this? Is this terrorism?
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3605863,00.html
Both are very clear examples of “inflicting pain on a specific population”.
You aren’t responding to my comment in its entirety.
I strongly advise you not to get involved in an argument about this subject (not just with me, but with anyone). There is absolutely no definition of terrorism (other than Chomsky’s definition), which makes Israel’s enemies into “terrorists” but avoids labeling Israel and its allies as “terrorists”.
Chomsky’s definition is “if they do it it’s terrorism. If we do it it’s counter-terrorism”. That is the most widely used definition.
Hence, an Iranian apologist would argue that parts of the US government are terrorist organizations and Iranians are fighting terrorism. An American apologist would argue that parts of the Iranian government are terrorist organizations and the American government is fighting terrorism. And both would be correct since that is the most widely used definition of terrorism.
>Also, a few years back, I noticed that in the rating the most visited Wikipedia articles in the category of The Arts, the article with the most hits was Lady Gaga. Do you think that makes her more important in the arts than Leonardo da Vinci, or Mozart? I hope not.
I never claimed Chomsky was more important than anyone. I only said that the notion that most people hate on Chomsky is absurd.
P.S. Why do you keep calling me Carol? I am also a Wikipedia editor (although a novice one at best). My wikipedia handle is Poyani as well. My full name is Poyan Nahrvar. I am fairly certain that I am the only person in the world with that name so you can look me up if you like.
You wrote: “I already told you my real name. It is Poyan Nahrvar. I edit wikipedia under the name “Poyani” .
Povani. Really? en wikipedia? If so, I can find no such user. Neither does a Google search for “Poyan Nahrvar” result in a single hit.
>Povani. Really? en wikipedia? If so, I can find no such user. Neither does a Google search for “Poyan Nahrvar” result in a single hit.
Poyani – not Povani. Search – it exists.
Spartacus wrote: “Chomsky believed this to be the fault of US “imperialism” because…”
As I understand it, Chomsky’s view of world’s various problems could not be more simple: Everything that is wrong in the whole world is the fault of the United States.
>As I understand it, Chomsky’s view of world’s various problems could not be more simple: Everything that is wrong in the whole world is the fault of the United States.
Then you don’t understand it. Chomsky’s view of the world is accurate and incredibly predictive. That is why so many people put stock to it.
Whereas the views of most state apologists are incredibly useless at predictions, Chomsky’s can be used to accurately predict state behaviour.
That you have not read a single word of is not really in your favour.
I see that Poyani has discussed Wikibias with our wiki-friends Malik Shabazz and Nableezy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy&diff=prev&oldid=435710728#Wikibias
It is necessary, of course, to scroll down to the bottom of the page.
Yes I have. It is an interesting concept. So you did find my username.
Haifa Hosts Largest Wiki Conference in History
“Approximately 650 Wikipedia editors, advocates, free content promoters, researchers and educators from 56 countries, some of which do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel, have gathered in Haifa for the seventh edition of the three-day conference.”
http://www.shalomlife.com/business/15722/haifa-hosts-largest-wiki-conference-in-history/
Q.E.D.
>>Haifa Hosts Largest Wiki Conference in History
>>Q.E.D.
QED to what argument? Who are you guys arguing against? What topic are you arguing for?
No one is here arguing how many people would show up. I am arguing that the statement “Is it a good idea to hold wikimania events in Israel given that Israel keeps people out based on their opinion” is not antisemitic. You are arguing that it is. Read the topic we are on.
I am still waiting for a single coherent definition of “terrorism”! Everyone here claims that terrorism is DEFINITELY defined and Hezbollah are DEFINITELY terrorists, yet no one can seem to be able to present 1 definition which fits. Every definition which implicates Hezbollah, Iran and their allies, implicates Israel, the US and their allies as well. That is the problem. That is why it is a meaningless word.
Well, aside form the Chomsky definition I posted.
Poyani wrote:
My point of view is best summed up by the writings of Uri Avnery….“Those who call themselves supporters of Israel are often supporters of its moral degeneration and probably ultimate destruction”.
You reply is not reassuring. You have not accounted for your obvious sympathy with Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations which the German scholar Matthias Küntzel describes as “two well armed movements dedicated to killing Jews.” http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/if-i-were-not-a-jew-my-hair-would-stand-on-end-with-fear
>You reply is not reassuring. You have not accounted for your obvious sympathy with Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations which the German scholar Matthias Küntzel describes as “two well armed movements dedicated to killing Jews.”
What “sympathy” are you referring to? I have noted my position on Hezbollah numerous times (I don’t think I have even addressed HAMAS).
I think Hezbollah are fanatics. But that does not mean they are an “internationally renowned terrorist organization”. They are listed as such by 6 countries, which is certainly not equivalent to “internationally renowned”. I also argued (and maintain) that the word “terrorist” has no actual definition.
With regards to the Lebanon US marine barracks bombing I noted that:
1. It occurred before the official declaration of Hezbollah
2. It is not terrorism by any definition
——–
My opinion of HAMAS is significantly less than Hezbollah. Hezbollah, much like Israel, attack civilians as part of their military strategy to establish deterrence (which in my opinion should be the definition of terrorism). HAMAS has no military strategy at all. They almost exclusively target civilians as a form of revenge. In the end HAMAS does significant damage to their cause and is even damaging the social fabric of the Palestinian people.
Poyani wrote:
“terrorist” has no actual definition.
Roberto Assagioli once wrote (paraphrasing from memory) that “intellectuals often think that if they have explained something when they have only defined it.” It seems to me that, likewise, the inverse applies. We can know a lot about something without a definition. In fact, Polyani, you are just playing a word game with this. You know that Hezbollah staging attacks against civilians that is terrorism.
…………………………
You wrote: “Hezbollah, much like Israel, attack civilians as part of their military strategy”
That is nonsense. Israel does not target civilians, and in fact the IDF often takes more casualties that they would otherwise as a result of efforts to protect civilians during combat. If an IDF soldier does target civilians it is against Israeli policy, and there are consequences.
“Hezbollah, on the other hand, is marching to a different drummer. Their motto is: “You love life, we love death.” There is nothing, gushes Hezbollah’s patron Ahmadinejad, “more beautiful, holier or more eternal than the death of a martyr.” Thus, Hezbollah is not only happy to kill as many Jews as possible, it is not bothered by the deaths of Shiite Muslims as well and has thus strategically based many of their rockets directly in the middle of Shiite residential districts.”
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/why-israels-reaction-is-right
>In fact, Polyani, you are just playing a word game with this. You know that Hezbollah staging attacks against civilians that is terrorism.
Okay! That is fine. I actually agree with this definition of terrorism. To me the most common sense definition of terrorism is “deliberate indiscriminate attacks against civilians to achieve goals which are political in nature”.
The US Army used that definition for a while. But changed it once it became obvious that by that definition they are BY FAR the biggest terrorists in the world. They changed it to “deliberate indiscriminate attacks against civilians BY NON STATE ACTORS to achieve goals which are political in nature”. But this then had another problem. They wanted to categorize the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. They are not a non-state actor. Therefore the definition was removed completely.
But I agree with your definition. If we use that definition, then yes, Hezbollah are terrorists. Just like the Israeli settler movement is full of terrorists: http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?ID=212555&R=R1
——————————————-
>That is nonsense. Israel does not target civilians, and in fact the IDF often takes more casualties that they would otherwise as a result of efforts to protect civilians during combat. If an IDF soldier does target civilians it is against Israeli policy, and there are consequences.
Yes! I have heard the statements of Israel’s Hasbarah as well. Every state in the world repeats these exact same words in almost the exact same order. In fact when Iran was murdering protestors in the street, the Iranian government made the EXACT same claim. But does it match reality?
No!
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3605863,00.html
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/05/13/i-lost-everything-0
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/16/israel2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0u3yljaMTg
http://www.btselem.org/human_shields/20060720_human_shields_in_beit_hanun
and so on!
Under the common sense definition of terrorism, Israel and the settlers engage in terrorism against Arabs far more often than Arabs engage in terrorism against Palestinians.
In fact, if you want to be honest about it, Israel’s creation (much like the creation of any other state) was one giant act of terrorism. In 2004 (I think – might have been 05) Ariel Sharon demanded that a new Palestinian state not be founded on terrorism. Bush agreed. Noam Chomsky (correctly) pointed out that the Americans and Israelis were demanding something of the Palestinians which was true in neither country’s founding.
——-
If we are serious about terrorism, we have to admit that the amount of terrorism committed by any collective is proportional to its power and influence. The US government is the largest terrorist collective in the world. The Russians are second. They are followed by the English French and Chinese.
In Israel’s case, it is roughly on par with Iran. Both parties commit terrorism on par of that of a significant regional power. The groups they accuse of committing terrorism (in Israel’s case Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, etc which they claim Iran supports – in Iran’s case MEK, Kingdom Assembly of Iran, Jundallah, which they claim Israel supports) commit terrorism at lower rates.
Poyani wrote:
No. That is not it at all. That definition amounts to very little more than the Clausewitz definition of war: “the continuation of policy by other means”. As though that explains anything. Moreover, the terrorist suicide attacks are nihilistic to a point that talking of goals is meaningless. All they want is to see Jews bleed and die and cry, and don’t care if any other ‘goal’ beyond that is achieved at all.
It might be possible to say that such acts as the fire bombing of Dresden, which had no strategic importance, is terrorism. Dresden was probably regarded as payback for the V1 and V2 attacks on England, which also had no goal beyond making the enemy bleed.
Israel has not done such things. It has fought to preserve itself, and stopped from destroying countries, even though it had the power to do that. All Israel wants is to have the attacks stop. If that happens, there will be peace. But that will not happen because Israel’s enemies want Jews to bleed, and Israel gone.
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/why-israels-reaction-is-right
This is looking int the abyss of fanaticism. The end will come when Israel (and whoever else does not comply) is obliterated.
“But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier.” Pre-Israel Zionist paramilitary group Lehi (later part of the IDF)
—————————–
Malcolm,
Terrorism IS a weapon of war. It is a tactic often used in war. I personally do not believe for a second that the violence of Arab terrorists is what you describe. That they are just engaging in nihilistic suicide without any goal whatsoever. I also don’t believe for a second that they do it just to “bleed Jews”.
Every one of these terrorist groups has stated/defined goals. They often have political structures where they create, express, and implement these goals. This is true of both HAMAS and Hezbollah for example.
No human action in the world happens without a reason.
————-
There was much discussion of Hezbollah here. Hezbollah’s violence and terror is actually very predictable, whereas if it was a nihilistic attempt at murdering Jews it would be random and unpredictable. Hezbollah/Israel violence often occur in cycles. A small provocative action (with a goal) by one side leads to a response, which leads to a bigger response, and so on. Take 2006. Hezbollah attacked Israel and captured soldiers (along with a diversionary rocket attack) with the stated goal of repatriating Lebanese citizens captured by Israel. Israel responded with shelling. Hezbollah responded with limited rocket attacks. Israel responded with air strikes. Hezbollah stepped up rocket attacks. Israel invaded. Hezbollah resisted invasion and so on.
None of that violence was either random or without a prior goal in mind. Notice that today Hezbollah does not attack Israel. Why is that? It is capable. It has the rockets! That is because Hezbollah’s goals would not be satisfied with an attack. In fact, Hezbollah’s goals (for influence in Lebanon) would be greatly set back. If its goal was truly to shed Jewish blood, then its goals would in fact be satisfied with another rocket barrage.
If your argument that they love death, and their goal is to “bleed Jews” above all else was accurate, then they would be firing rockets. It is a logical extension of your argument. However, the fact that they are not, demonstrates that your hypothesis is not predictive, and hence it is not scientific. It is irrational.
———————-
I have a lot of trouble taking this “they only want to kill Jews” argument seriously. If Hezbollah and HAMAS are essentially Iranian satellites as many claim, then why would they have such a goal? Does Iran have a goal of killing Jews? If so, then why doesn’t Iran kill its own Jewish citizens? Iran is home to the Middle East’s second largest Jewish population (with long historic roots in Iran – dating back to Cyrus’ liberation of Babylonian Jewish slaves).
If the Iran-Hezbollah-HAMAS axis is only interested about killing Jewish people, why are they so fixated on Israel’s Jewish populations? Why not Iranian Jewish citizens?
That is not their goal. Their goals are political in nature. Iran pays lip service (and cash and weapons) to the “resistance” because it gains politically from these gestures. It gains legitimacy for an illegitimate regime at home, and it gains influence on the Arab street, in Iran’s confrontation with the US. Hezbollah and HAMAS are engaged in their own power struggles in their own respective countries/territories. “Bleeding Jews” is simply not a part of the equation at a strategic level. Antisemitism may inspire individual terrorists, but it is not a goal in and of itself.
Poyani wrote: “Terrorism IS a weapon of war. It is a tactic often used in war.”
Poyani, you are trying to get me to believe that the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah are so stupid that they would actually believe that a terrorist attack can lead to a political goal. But any fool can see that such attacks never achieve any political goal at all. And the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah are not fools.
The German V1 and V2 attacks on England achieved nothing. Neither did the later retaliation against Dresden by fire bombing. 9/11 achieved anything. Neither have the many terrorist attacks against Israel, and other Jewish targets achieve any political goal at all. All that was achieved by any such attack is the reduction of random members of the ‘enemy’ population into piles of blood and guts. Nothing more than that was ever intended, or expected. Terrorism is nihilistic and has no goal but death.
>Poyani, you are trying to get me to believe that the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah are so stupid that they would actually believe that a terrorist attack can lead to a political goal. But any fool can see that such attacks never achieve any political goal at all.
Where did you get the idea that terrorism doesn’t work?
Terrorism works 99% of the time. Where do you live? I live in Canada. How do you think my country came into being? It came into being through waging politically motivated violence against the native civilian populations here, until they were almost invisible. Same is true for every other country on the western hemisphere. Iran suffers under Islamist dictatorship because of terrorism. Same is true of Syria.
Why did the Sandanista government fall during the cold war? Because of the efficiency of US backed terrorism.
How did the west win WWII? Do you recall? Through atomic attacks against Japanese cities. In other words, through the use of weapons of mass destruction on civilian targets, to achieve a political purpose.
Terrorism works!
———————-
>Neither have the many terrorist attacks against Israel, and other Jewish targets achieve any political goal at all.
Hezbollah’s attacks have succeeded in compelling Israel to withdraw. Terrorism was part of that overall strategy. Same is true of HAMAS and Gaza, which is no longer under the threat of colonization (although under siege).
Israeli sources like to often point out the the creation of the Palestinian people was a 20th century phenomenon. That is true. It is an identity which was created mainly through terrorism by the PFLP and FATAH. Same is true of the Israeli identity. You can judge for yourself whether the Lehi quote I posted was eventually successful or not.
Poyani wrote: “Hezbollah’s attacks have succeeded in compelling Israel to withdraw. Terrorism was part of that overall strategy. Same is true of HAMAS and Gaza…”
I had intended to reply to this earlier, but forgot.
According to a Palestinian version: “The May 2000 decision to unilaterally end control of the Lebanon security zone was forced on Israel by the relentless stream of casualties inflicted on its forces by Hezbollah’s low-intensity guerrilla campaign.” I think that is basically correct. Likewise, the withdrawal from Gaza resulted to a large extent from pressure created by the Intifada.
But neither of those involved any terrorism at all. The attacks were against the IDF and the casualties were not, for example, the random passengers who just happened to be on a Jerusalem buses that was bombed.
Those terrorist attacks (bus bombings, etc) are nihilistic, and never intended to achieve any political goal at all. The goal is just to maim and kill Jews. Nothing more.
>But neither of those involved any terrorism at all. The attacks were against the IDF and the casualties were not, for example, the random passengers who just happened to be on a Jerusalem buses that was bombed.
Yes! I concede on that point (regarding Hezbollah).
However that is just one example in a string of examples. If terrorism is politically motivated violence against random civilians, then it works. It has worked in countless examples. It worked when Russians applied it to Prague Spring. It works today when the Columbian government applies it to poor rural areas. It works most of the time.
But then again, you contradicted yourself here. Is Hezbollah using Nihilistic violence or does it have a strategy/goal in mind? Above you noted that they had a strategy in mind!
>Those terrorist attacks (bus bombings, etc) are nihilistic, and never intended to achieve any political goal at all. The goal is just to maim and kill Jews. Nothing more.
Well then. Let me ask you a question? If Hamas has no goals, other than kill Jews, why have they kept Gilad Shalit alive? Why have they not just killed him on the first day?
Regarding the bus bombings, Hamas officials have on numerous occasions explained their (flawed) logic. They have stated that (they believe) the bombings equalize terror and fear, which may create deterrence. The logic is very flawed given the huge gap between the amount of force and organization each side has in its disposal.
>Terrorism is nihilistic and has no goal but death.
Malcolm,
I already addressed this. It should be obvious from above that this is not true. This hypothesis is not predictive, and hence is invalid. I can also claim that gravity pulls objects towards the sky. However, that is not a predictive hypothesis and hence invalid. Nothing ever falls up. Likewise, terrorism always has a goal. If it did not, it would not be terrorism by definition.
No one refers to the Columbine massacre as terrorism. That is not because it was not a calculated attack against civilians (it was). No one calls it terrorism, because it was nihilistic. It had no goal but suicide. Therefore, it is, by definition, not terrorism.
What you are saying is wrong on several levels. Most importantly though, it is incorrect just by definition.
Poyani, this is getting more and more amusing.
Let me point out a few problems:
1. You keep making references, some veiled and some open, to the sacred relic. Why not just supply your sources, and put Noam (the sacred relic of so many who think they are leftists) on display?
2. You keep talking about having a model that is “predictive”. But you have not demonstrated that. Nor have you even said just what you think you can predict.
3. Your “predictive’ model is based on inverting the actual meanings. For instance, you say that the violence used by the strong against the weak is terrorism. But actually terrorism is violence used by the weak against the strong. Young children sometimes use an equivalent technique to terrorism when they throw a screaming temper tantrum when their parents don’t give them what they want. They know the screaming will not get them what they want, but they try to make their parents pay a price for that. Using terrorist methods is always a show of weakness, not a show of strength. Sure dropping an A-bomb on Hiroshima was mean, but it was not terrorism.
By the way, it seems to me that the Columbine massacre did have some characteristics in common with suicide attacks against Israel, and elsewhere. For one thing it was an attack of the weak against the strong. For another, there was no goal at all but the nihilistic wish to make some hated individuals, or group, bleed and die: ie terrorism.
>1. You keep making references, some veiled and some open, to the sacred relic. Why not just supply your sources, and put Noam (the sacred relic of so many who think they are leftists) on display?
I am not sure what you are getting at? Are you saying I should post a Chomsky article? Or is this just meant to attack me and portray the fact that I am persuaded by Chomsky’s arguments as some sort of cult worship? (for the record, I have no clue who he is – he could be a child molester for all I know – but his arguments are VERY persuasive).
>2. You keep talking about having a model that is “predictive”. But you have not demonstrated that. Nor have you even said just what you think you can predict.
What I was saying is that your argument is NOT predictive and hence could NOT be correct. I am not saying that my argument is 100% predictive. That argument could never be proven. Science is the process of building models to predict results of experiments. Hypothesis which are not predictive are discredited. Hypothesis which are some times predictive are developed. Hypotheses and theories are NEVER proven. They can only be discredited/disproven.
Your hypothesis is NEVER predictive. The idea that Hezbollah’s only goal is to kill Jews and get themselves killed is never predictive. If those two statements were true, and Hezbollah had access to an arsenal of rockets (which we both know is also true) then Hezbollah at this very moment would be launching those rockets. It would prove both their requirements (to kill Jews and to die) simultaneously. The fact that they do not launch them proves that at least one of those two arguments must be false. Examining Hezbollah’s behaviour can easily show that they have a goal. Their goal (most likely) is to exercise control/influence in Lebanon and implement their programs there.
You can discredit my argument by showing that it does not actually predict Hezbollah behaviour. But it is impossible for me to prove that it always does predict Hezbollah behaviour.
>3. Your “predictive’ model is based on inverting the actual meanings. For instance, you say that the violence used by the strong against the weak is terrorism. But actually terrorism is violence used by the weak against the strong.
No! We already came to a conclusion about what terrorism is. As we said, terrorism is the use of violence against civilians. All this stuff about “the strong” and “the weak” is just your attempt to redefine terrorism to suit your argument.
This is why I do not like to get involved in arguments about terrorism. It has no official meaning. It floats around meaninglessly to suit anyone’s purposes.
If terrorism is the weapon of the weak, then Hezbollah are certainly not terrorists. They are not weak. They are the strongest military in Lebanon. Furthermore, if terrorism is the weapon of the weak, then the Iranian revolutionary guards are certainly not terrorists.
Were Lehi terrorists? Were Irgun? Are the Settlers terrorists?
> (for the record, nearly every one of my favorite authors happen to be Jewish – including Chomsky).>
So?
Below are some excerpts from William Nicholls, in his book Christian Antisemitism a History of Hate, p.396. Nicholls is an Anglican minister and professor emeritus of Religious Studies at University of British Columbia.
“Some of the bitterest opponents of Zionism today are assimilated left-wing Jews such as Noam Chomsky, who view Israel in Marxist terms simply as an outpost of Western and especially American imperialism. Are such assimilated “non-Jewish Jews” antisemites? Of course they can not be racist antisemites. But since many of them are bitterly opposed to the maintenance of the historical identity of the Jewish people in their own country, which means to defend itself, they can legitimately be regarded as exponents of a new mutation of antisemitism.
“Can Jews be antisemites in any sense? Of course. We have seen from time to time the worst and most dangerous opponents of Jews have been converts to Christianity, who did not hesitate to spread false information about their former religion to their new friends, providing the basis for persecution. Sometimes it seems that membership of the secular Left functions like a new religion for assimilated Jews, replacing their old faith, but not the tenacity with which they hold it.”
“When all has been granted, I have no doubt that anti-Zionism is not only a form of antisemitism,but at present its typical form.”
What argument does he use to propose that anti-Zionism IS anti-semitism? Does he propose any argument at all? Or does he (like the rest of the proponents of “new” antisemitism) only assume it is the same and then spread his own vile ideological hatred?
I love the “self-hating” argument. It is very amusing. I also happen to know its roots. to quote Israeli professor (and Holocaust survivor) Israel Shahak “That is a Nazi expression. The Nazis called Germans who defended Jewish rights self-hating Germans. “
And one more thing, for the record, “the self-hating Jew” like the “covetous Jew” is an antisemitic stereotype. Funny how quickly some supporters of the state of Israel’s policies dabble in antisemitism (real antisemitism – not “new” antisemitism) when it suits their purposes.
I think that I have presented my views fairly clearly by now. Anyone reading this thread, should draw his/her own conclusions; and the best that can be hoped for is that it will provoke further thought, based on the ideas presented and not based on anyone’s claims, or assumptions, about the ideas.
I know for sure that Poyani has tried to frame the discussion about issues such as terrorism, and the antisemitism of self-hating Jews, to the advantage of the Palestinian side in the Israel/Palestine dispute arguments he is engaged in at this very time in Wikipedia. Probably I have done the same, but framing things differently. I think he is wrong in his positions and his arguments, but assume his intent is to do good, as he perceives the good. I hope he will extend the same courtesy, of assuming good intent, to those who oppose his editing goals on Wikipedia.
If on occasion I have been abrasive and dismissive, I hope that Poyani will forgive me.
Well said. Diddo on all points. My apologies if I have offended you or have engaged in unnecessarily aggressive emotional polemics (that Anglican priest really pissed me off).
I think this is probably the longest wikibias discussion ever.
later Malcolm – see you on wikipedia (if you edit there).
Sorry to be back here commenting one more time, but I found a recent US government document which may be interesting and relevant to what we discussed here.
The US Congressional Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence held a hearing recently entitled “Hezbollah in Latin America – Implications for US Homeland Security”. Every expert which testified was selected to be supportive of the government’s official positions. No dissenters were allowed. Most of the experts gave very cartoonish testimonies.
The following is the testimony of Brown University professor Dr. Melani Cammett. Note that she is supportive of almost every position you guys hold regarding Hezbollah (she on numerous occasions described the activities of the group as terrorism). What I thought you guys may find interesting is the following statement, during her detailed analysis of the movement’s history:
“The precise origins of Hezbollah are difficult to pinpoint. Various individuals and groups, including those linked to the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 and the kidnappings of Westerners during the 1980s, are said to be precursors to Hezbollah, which did not formally exist at the time. In 1985, Hezbollah officially announced its establishment with the publication of its Open Letter. The document outlined its philosophy of ‘oppression, ‘called for the established of an Islamic state in Lebanon modeled after Iran’s Islamic Republic, declared its opposition to the state of Israel, and detailed other aspects of its ideological orientation.”
http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony%20Cammett.pdf
After reading this I recalled that you guys had asked me for evidence of this just a weeks or so ago, so I thought I should provide a link.
It should be obvious that a nation like Israel that blocks entry to visitors (was it 300 earlier this year?) while robbing (60 journalists last year) and murdering others (at least 2 dozen internationals in the last 10 years) is wholly unsuitable as a venue for an international event that
About the only countries in the entire world that might be as unsuitable as Israel are North Korea, Zimbabwe and possibly Burma. Even Iran would be a lot better – at least they only have one international under sentence of death (Salman Rushdie) and they’ve not actually done anything about it!
The event has now passed – strange that conference room and hotels in Israel can’t do wifi properly (some wanted to charge $20 a day, fortunately the charge was cancelled when it was found not to work).
William, all I see in your comments are distortions of fact, and outright lies, of the type common to those who hate Israel; which contains a conclusion that is so irrational (“Even Iran would be a lot better”) that only other enthusiastic exponents of ‘big lie’ technique would support it.
Iran would certainly not be a better place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahra_Kazemi
So one foreign visitor (actually, an Iranian national) has died in Iranian police custody in the last 10 years (2003). Two agents were charged and acquitted, probably rightfully, but under a very much less-than-satisfactory judicial system criticised in the Iranian Parliameant.
In addition, two or more internationals have been arrested for illegal entry and convicted as spies. That’s a great deal better than Israel’s record, which included forcing foreign visitors to sign an indemnity relieving the authorities of responsibility if they were shot dead.
Furthermore, Iran has no record of systematic harrassing of visitors who come as observers, locking them up and turning them back at the point of entry – was it 300 Israel did this to this year alone?
In fact, Iran has tried to be notably open to visiting dissidents, including Jews living in Jerusalem. It claims to have no problem with such people and I’d have supposed we can believe them in this respect.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia has the most serious problems with its coverage of the Israel/Palestine topic, with Arabic editors openly abused by other editors and by admins, hugely more than anything Carol Moore could possibly be guilty of. It was wholly inappropriate to hold the event on stolen land, behind a barrier of guns preventing the legitimate owners from returning and preventing large numbers of legitimate Wikipedia editors from entering.
William, I did a quick web search, and see no complaints about Wikimania Haifa. It seems to have gone well. If you have reliable sources that say the contrary, let me see them. http://www.israel21c.org/social-action/wikimania-hits-haifa
I would probably not oppose a Wikimania in Iran either (although it is easy to think of better locations), and imagine that it could go well enough. But Israel just does not do the sort of things that Iran is noted for. Like, for instance, the execution of Baha’is as heretics. Or the hanging of homosexuals, also done on religious grounds.
I would certainly oppose a wikimedia Iran. Although I question the facts you have noted.
Media here tend to portray Iran in very funky ways. Iran does not execute people for being Bahai or gay. They definitely oppress those minorities. But they don’t just execute them out of nowhere. The Iranian government behaves like any other state. It murders people it feels threatened by.
The number one candidates for political executions in Iran, from the time of the Shah to now, has been students and activists. There was a period in the 1980s when Khomeini’s regime butchered thousands of students in a very short time. Today, activists, often involved in the founding of the Islamic Republic tend to be the primary choices for execution.
The information I get is that Iran does execute Baha’i's, and that in not a new development with the current government. Likewise, hangings of homosexuals is not unusual. It is a little difficult to find sources that you would consider unbiased, but perhaps this would do: http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/iranfem.html
This is the Wikipedia article on persecution of Iranian Baha’is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%ADs
As is well known Israeli homosexuals hold gay pride day parades. The Baha’i have their world headquarters near Haifa, and they are quite safe there, or as much as any Israeli is safe.
The first link you put up is kinda sketchy. The wikipedia article is good. I know that Iran has hanged gay people and Bahai people in the past. What I am pointing out is that being gay or being Bahai, alone, does not warrant an execution in Iran. Iran often hangs Bahai religious leadership who criticize the government. But the crimes they are charged with are often sedition, not belonging to another religion. Same is true of gays in Iran.
I never claimed Israel persecutes gays or Bahais. As I noted before, every state persecutes minorities which it feels threaten its power base.
The government of Iran is threatened by reformists, leftists, democrats and to a lesser degree Bahais and Sunnis. That is why the majority of those executed in Iran today are reformists.
Israel on the other hand feels threatened by Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. The reason why Israel feels threatened by the Palestinians is simple and self-explanatory. Israel’s creation has required the ethnic cleansing of large number of Palestinians. The Palestinians’ refusal to accept their Politicide as a reality has created a long (and probably unending) war between the two peoples. Ben Gurion put it very nicely when he said (to Nahum Goldmann):
“Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations’ time, but for the moment there is no chance.”
The threat Israel feels from the Israeli Arab minority is due to the definition of Israel (its self-image) as seen through the eyes of its Jewish majority. Due to the ideas which lead to its foundation, the state of Israel has an obsession in maintaining a racial demography (as far as I know it is the only country with this obsession). As long as the Israeli Arabs have a higher birth rate than Israeli Jews, the state will view the Arabs as a demographic threat. It does not matter that the Arab population, even if left to grow naturally, will not take over the Jewish population in 500 years. As long as the rate of Arab reproduction is higher, sometime in the future it will overcome the Jewish majority. For this reason Israel persecutes the Israeli Arab population, which ironically enough leads to higher birth rates among Arab populations.
Both Iran and Israel treat people they see as a threat harshly. The amount of violence and brutality they administer is directly proportional to how much pressure they are under.
This is generally the behaviour of all states. However, Iran and Israel are more militant in this type of behaviour because the regimes are more pressure due to (perceived) injustice. In the case of Israel, the injustice is external (Palestinian population, Turkish activists, etc). In the case of Iran, the injustice is primarily internal.
In other words, you (William Smart) may feel safe going to Iran by I (Poyan Nahrvar) a former Iranian will not be safe. I will, in all likelihood be imprisoned and treated like a foreign spy, with all the pain and torture that entails.
Today, Iran is MUCH worse than when Zahra Kazemi died. There is a power struggle with a winning side which is attempting to impose an incredibly totalitarian corrupt dictatorship. It is incredibly dangerous right now. MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN ISRAEL, which is not all that bad. In 2003, the situation may have been reversed, but today it Iran is certainly much worse place than Israel to hold any convention.
test
test
I have just blocked what I suspect is a dirty Jew meatpuppet from this evil kike site for adding the truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Millsstory). The truth is not acceptable at Wikipedia under my watch, so any future kike meatpuppet will be dealt with accordingly. Heil Hitler!
Millsstory,
You vandalized the Haaretz article and got banned. Do you really want to go around advertising that fact?
FYI – Malik Shabbaz is Jewish.
Poyani wrote:
Millsstory,
You vandalized the Haaretz article and got banned. Do you really want to go around advertising that fact?
FYI – Malik Shabbaz is Jewish.
…………………………………….
Yes, Malik Shabbaz is Jewish. (But then so was Tomas de Torquemada.)
Millsstory’s obvious problem is that he/she does not have a clue how WP works, and started out editing an I/P battleground article. It seems to me that a six month topic ban would have been enough to allow time for learning how to edit, before returning to editing I/P articles. But Malik Shabbaz decided to engage in another bout of his characteristic hubris.
Malcolm
Debatable, but fair enough.
On another note, isn’t it a bit ironic that Wikibias admins decided to publish Millstory’s rant here, given the title of this thread?
Poyani wrote:
….isn’t it a bit ironic that Wikibias admins decided to publish Millstory’s rant here, given the title of this thread?
……………………………………………….
Poyani ,
I am not sure that is what happened, and am starting to get the impression that this blog is getting no attention from its administrator. The posts are not, it seems, getting screened. Wikibias may be on the verge of becoming derelict, and I may give up on it.
Malcolm
I am not a Jew! I am a dirty Jew-hating Moslem nigger who pretends to be Jewish to get away with defending anti-Semitism.
I also like to call legitimate Jews trolls because I am so brainwashed by my racist mentor Malcolm X that I actually believe I am not a racist vermin!
Malik Shabazz, You are a liar, that much I know. If you want me to supply the documentation for that, again, let me know.
Get well.
Malcolm
Malik Shabazz has a lot of POV pushing in his past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968)#Requested_move
Apparently, Malik Shabazz is acting as the mentor and defender of the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam member User:Manson48. Just look at the anti-Semitic bullshit on that idiot’s user page, full of historical inaccuracies and outright disinformation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manson48
My studies include: History, Law, Psychology, Mythology and Religion. I enjoy writing, and I am currently working on my first book. It is my belief that religion is the single most destructive force in this world. I’m certain that for over 5000 years it has been abused as a source of population control. From my studies of ancient Egypt, I’ve gathered that the Hebrews (habiru), after ruling in Egypt as the Shepard Kings for four centuries, were overthrown by Egypt’s king: Amoses and forced to leave Egypt. Upon leaving they took the ancient Egyptian’s wisdom literature along with the religious text and wrote the Torah. Using one of the tents the Egyptian kings used as a mobile temple in battle, they held what we would call revivals today, and bilked desert villagers out of their gold. As the habiru priest grew rich and powerful they set up more permanent temples. Eventually they found a place as money changers for the state’s temples, and before long were financing imperialistic wars for the Empire’s kings. Little has changed today. These “habiru” are still the state’s money changers and still financing the Empires wars. JM
It looks like NawlinWiki is now defending the little shit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AManson48
It seems Wikipedia is now overrun by evil Islamofascists.
How is Chomsky not a friend of an internationally known terrorist group? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-jh2R-_eQY
How is he not an enemy of Israel if he openly supports its destruction? By not “wasting time” addressing it, you are missing a material fact and showing your own biases. I admit that I am very pro-Israel and can list thousands of reasons, but ignoring Chomsky’s hatred and saying that the average Wikipedia editor could not enter the country is absurd.
I can’t watch YouTube videos where I am right now. But even describing Hezbollah as an “internationally renowned terrorist group” is very controversial and radical. Hezbollah in its entirety is listed as a terrorist organization by 6 countries in the world. That is an extremely marginal view. Just to illustrate how marginal it is, consider that there are four times as many countries which do not recognize China as a country (they recognize Taiwan as the official sovereign over all of China).
I don’t even know what you mean by “Chomsky’s hatred” or his “open support for (Israel’s) destruction”. What are you referring to?
I think it is much more likely that your definition of “hatred” or “Israel’s destruction” is something wildly different than mine, his and the rest of the world.
To me, Israel’s destruction would occur if Israel ceased to exist as a country. To many hard-core Israeli government supporters, any change in Israel’s current path is considered “destruction”. Even worse, any critical analysis of Israel’s history or behaviour is considered “legitimization” which is considered another form of destruction.
It doesn’t matter if the “average” (whatever that means) wikipedia editor is allowed into Israel or not. Most wikipedia editors would also be allowed into Iran, but the ones who hold write negatively about Iran’s behaviour would not. The same is true of Israel. We should not be holding events in countries which hold us hostage to our opinions.
Now I agree with some of what was written up there. Egypt has definitely been an oppressive country and it was a bad idea to hold events there. But just because that mistake was made once, it does not follow automatically that we should make the same mistake over and over again.
Where I wrote “legitimization” I meant “delegitimization”
>Hezbollah in its entirety is listed as a terrorist organization by 6 countries in the world. That is an extremely marginal view. Just to illustrate how marginal it is, consider that there are four times as many countries which do not recognize China as a country (they recognize Taiwan as the official sovereign over all of China).>
Hezbollah’s status as a terrorist movement is unquestionable. The fact that only a minority of countries “officially” recognize the movement as a terrorist group is simply irrelevant. Claiming Hezbollah is NOT a terrorist movement would be a fringe and radical thing to say.
>I don’t even know what you mean by “Chomsky’s hatred” or his “open support for (Israel’s) destruction”. What are you referring to?>
People hate on Chomsky because he has achieved cult-like status among his worshipers. He has tacitly supported regimes that have called for Israel’s destruction (Hamas, Hezbollah). His relationship with blood-thirsty religious fanatics who seek genocide certainly isn’t surprising. Chomsky was also a major fan of Pol Pot and argued the Killing Fields was imperialist propaganda.
Sounds like a moral guy right? Definitely in a ethical position to lecture Israel on human rights.
“I can’t watch YouTube videos where I am right now.” — Sounds like someone lives in the Nazi-supported state of Syria.
Close. I am at my work computer in Canada.
>“I can’t watch YouTube videos where I am right now.” — Sounds like someone lives in the Nazi-supported state of Syria.
“Nazi supported”. lol! I hate to break this to you but the Nazis have not been in power since 1945. Even if they were in power they would NEVER support Syria. The would be quite pro-Israeli by now. Israel has a lot of things they would absolutely love. For example, the Nazis used to complement Islamic countries for their “warrior ethic”. That story is quite backwards at the moment. The Islamic countries are quite spineless while Israel is known for that trait.
Also I am sure the Nazis would love the fact that the state of Israel campaigns European Jewish families to leave Europe for Israel.
Just our of curiosity, have any of you ever heard of the “Haavara Agreement”. Look it up. It will surprise you.
>Hezbollah’s status as a terrorist movement is unquestionable.
The very definition of “terrorist” is questionable, hence your point is a non-starter. I don’t even think that word has 1 stable definition. If you can come up with a coherent definition we can discuss it. But the idea that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization is extremely fringe everywhere outside of the US and Israel (i.e. over 90% of the world).
As for your questionable attacks on Chomsky, they are all-together off-topic and did not at all respond to what I had asked.
I am not even sure what you mean by “people hate on Chomsky”. Which people? As for his status, as I mentioned before, according to academic studies, Chomsky’s status is among Plato, Freud, Hegel and Cicero. You can call these people “cult-like” or whatever you like. But that is the objective situation.
All of this is off-topic anyways.
One last point:
>Hezbollah’s status as a terrorist movement is unquestionable. The fact that only a minority of countries “officially” recognize the movement as a terrorist group is simply irrelevant.
You originally claimed that Hezbollah was an “internationally renowned terrorist group”. The number of nations which officially recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist group is very relevant to that claim. Especially since the word “terrorist” has no fixed meaning.
The US State Department has this (in part) to say about Hizballah :
“Activities: Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the US Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of US and other Western hostages in Lebanon. The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992.”
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm
I read this in Der Spiegel: “The United Nations Special Tribunal has indicted four senior Hezbollah members for the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.” http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,773913,00.html
The number of countries who recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate movement is none. Most nations in the West, especially those who have been victim to Hezbollah’s terror and their allies – recognize Hezbollah for what it is.
Terrorist has no fixed meaning? That is bull.
Are we having trouble thinking clearly today Carol? Plato was a philosopher, as was Hegel. Freud founded the school of Psychoanalysis, and was a psychiatrist. Ciciro was a Roman politician, with an interest in philosophy, who was very focused on the issue of property rights.
Which “academic studies” say Chomsky is like those you list above? (Curiously, if it were not for Chomsky’s political diatribes against The USA, Israel, and Western values in general — which make him so beloved with the Communists and Islamists who support him — he would be a very obscure writer in the rather specialized subject of linguists.)
Funny how he/she cannot respond to the charges against Chomsky. His whole-sale denial of the Cambodian genocide, bizarre predictions of future world conflicts, and relations with anti-American nations with horrible human rights records are issues not discussed by his worshipers.
>Which “academic studies” say Chomsky is like those you list above?
I cited it above. Look up. This is the list of the most cited people in human history (top ten list is in the following order: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero). Chomsky was listed as 8th but he is actually 7th given that the Bible is not an actual person and does not have a single author.
I am aware of the US government’s position on Hezbollah. It is laughable and reaches the point of absurdity at times.
For example, as you noted, the US government claims that Hezbollah (which was officially created in 1985) carried out bombings in 1983 and 1982. If the US government is correct about Hezbollah. They are not just terrorists. They are time-traveling terrorists.
Note that I am not questioning whether or not Hezbollah are sketchy people. I am not saying that they are not crazy fundamentalists (which they certainly are). I am just telling you that the word “terrorist” actually has no definition.
I am also arguing that Hezbollah cannot be an “internationally renowned terrorist group” when only 6 countries have listed it as a terrorist organization. That is not what “internationally renowned” means.
>The number of countries who recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate movement is none. Most nations in the West, especially those who have been victim to Hezbollah’s terror and their allies – recognize Hezbollah for what it is.
>Terrorist has no fixed meaning? That is bull.
What is the fixed meaning of terrorist?
There is no designation called “legitimate movement” in any country. But there are many countries which actually have foreign relations with Hezbollah. Aside from most Arab countries + Iran, the list include Russia and several Latin American, East Asian and African countries. So again, you are letting your emotions make points which facts cannot back up.
Again, this is going more and more off on a tangent. The point you guys seem to be making is:
Your Premises:
We all accept that the state of Israel bars people out of the country.
But one of those people was Chomsky (true) which can be used to represent all people kept out (false). Chomsky has ties with Hezbollah (false). Hezbollah is universally accepted as a terrorist organization (false). Therefore Chomsky has relations with a universally despised terrorist organizations (false), a notion which is very clearly defined (false). Having ties with terrorists is the same as being a terrorist (false). Therefore Israel only keeps out terrorists(false) and does not bar people only because of their opinions (false). Denying the previous statement is clearly antisemitism (false).
You claim:
Given the premises, Carol is an antisemite who is being shielded by wikipedia editors.
For your claim to be even debatable (not even true – just debatable) all of those (false) premises have to be true. Otherwise your chain of reasoning is contaminated and your argument is false. There is no point in even continuing this discussion. It should already be obvious to everyone.
>Terrorist has no fixed meaning? That is bull.
Still waiting for your guys to provide a single coherent definition!
>Funny how he/she cannot respond to the charges against Chomsky. His whole-sale denial of the Cambodian genocide, bizarre predictions of future world conflicts, and relations with anti-American nations with horrible human rights records are issues not discussed by his worshipers.
Who is he/she? Are you referring to me? I am not actually aware of any incidence where Chomsky actually did any of the things you claim.
Can you actually quote him denying the Cambodian genocide? I know some people push the notion that he minimizes Pol Pot’s role in it (Chomsky claims that both Pol Pot and the US gov were responsible). But I have never heard anyone claim he denies them “Whole-sale”. Can you provide a single quotation?
Can you provide a incidence of Chomsky’s “bizarre predictions of future world conflicts”? I don’t think I have ever even heard Chomsky make any “predictions”. Provide a single quote please.
And which “anti-American nations with horrible human rights records” does Chomsky have “relations” with? As far as I know Chomsky does not have any relations with any nation whatsoever. He lectures in universities and when asked gives interviews. The only country whose government he could even arguably have a relation with is the US government, where his research was used and financed by the Dept Defense. Even that is a stretch. The Dept of Defense funds MIT which hired Chomsky. I would not claim that this is a “relation”.
Also I don’t even think it is my place to “defend” anything Chomsky does. If you want to read about Chomsky’s defense of other people’s attacks against him, you can easily read and listen to his rebuttals. Most of the charges against Chomsky are of the Dershowitz variety (i.e. “when I was alone and no one was looking, Chomsky walked up to me and whispered in my ear ‘I deny the Holocaust’” and then quickly left”). His response to these charges are actually rather interesting:
“The sign of a truly totalitarian culture is that important truths simply lack cognitive meaning and are interpretable only at the level of ‘**** You’, so they can then elicit a perfectly predictable torrent of abuse in response. We’ve long ago reached that level.”
Chomsky in a Letter to Alexander Cockburn (1 March 1990), later paraphrased in Deterring Democracy (1992) p. 345
It is actually how you guys are reacting to his criticism of the Israeli government right now. You cannot listen to it at all.
When someone says “Banning boycotts against settlement is undemocratic” rather than analysis or argument, your natural response is, “you are an anti-Semite you genocide denying ass”. You cognitively interpret any criticism of the state the same way you would cognitively interpret “**** you”
1. Dismissive statements (“It is laughable…”, etc) are not arguments, much less facts. They lack rational content.
2. According to Wikipedia “Hezbollah first emerged in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, during the Lebanese civil war. Its leaders were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.” Please not the year: 1982 CE.
3. Not every country compiles lists of terrorist organizations, but that does not necessarily mean they hold no such view of Hezbollah.
You wrote: “I cited it above. Look up.”
I don’t see it, but no matter because popularity statistics are meaningless nonsense.
Hezbollah emerged in 1982, not 85.
>>Can you actually quote him denying the Cambodian genocide? I know some people push the notion that he minimizes Pol Pot’s role in it (Chomsky claims that both Pol Pot and the US gov were responsible). But I have never heard anyone claim he denies them “Whole-sale”. Can you provide a single quotation?>>>
Sure.
“”…the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives. It is striking that the crucial facts rarely appear in the chorus of condemnations”
“”A more appropriate comparison [for Pol Pot's Cambodia] would be France after liberation from the Nazis.”
The Nation, June 25, 1977, “Distortions at Fourth Hand.”
“The ‘slaughter’ by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times invention.”
Explaining how the Khmer Rouge had actually saved up to one million lives: “U.S. officials predicted at the war’s end that a million people would starve in a year. It appears that the new regime was at least partially able to avoid this consequence of the war.”
I could go on…
>. Hezbollah is universally accepted as a terrorist organization (false)>
Strawman. I never said Hezbollah is universally accepted as a terrorist organization, I said Hezbollah IS a terrorist organization, here’s why….
>I don’t see it,
Ctrl+F Hegel and you will find it above.
>but no matter because popularity statistics are meaningless nonsense.
They are absolutely meaningful when one is arguing against a person presenting the argument that “People hate on Chomsky because …”. Popularity statistics clearly demonstrate the absurdity of that sentence (which is what I was replying to). Arguing “people hate on Chomsky because …” is very similar to arguing “everyone thinks Einstein is dumb because …” Popularity statistics can very clearly show that both those statements are ridiculous.
>Dismissive statements (“It is laughable…”, etc) are not arguments, much less facts. They lack rational content.
You expect me to seriously debate the notion that Hezbollah are time-traveling terrorists?
>According to Wikipedia “Hezbollah first emerged in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon
Yes. Wikipedia editors such as the ones present here have shoved that down the throats of the article. It heavily relies on US government claim which are never actually backed up. There is no Lebanese or Western source from 1982 to 1985 referring to any group called “Hezbollah”. In fact, all 1980s western sources prior to 1985 attributed the bombings to two groups. One called “Islamic Jihad Organization” and a second called “Free Islamic Revolutionary Movement”. There is absolutely no mention of any Lebanese Shiite group named “Hezbollah” until 1985 in any newspaper, journal, book, or any other medium. This is why I don’t even like discussing the Time-traveling Hezbollah conspiracy theories. They are ridiculous and laughable and simply not worthy of serious discussion.
The documents which officially declared Hezbollah a movement were published in 1985. That is why the infobox in wikiepdia states that Hezbollah was officially declared in 85.
>Not every country compiles lists of terrorist organizations, but that does not necessarily mean they hold no such view of Hezbollah.
Almost every country does have a list like that. But let’s assume you are right. If your claim is true, how is Hezbollah “internationally renowned” as a terrorist organization? You still have not even presented a coherent definition for “terrorist”.
Popularity statistics? More fallacies.
Carol wrote:
>They are absolutely meaningful when one is arguing against a person presenting the argument that “People hate on Chomsky because …”.<
No they are meaningless. We don't even know how many of the citations that were used by writers intending to demonstrate that the man is a lair or a schmuck. Citations, as raw numbers, prove nothing.
Also, a few years back, I noticed that in the rating the most visited Wikipedia articles in the category of The Arts, the article with the most hits was Lady Gaga. Do you think that makes her more important in the arts than Leonardo da Vinci, or Mozart? I hope not.
………………………………
I want to add as a general comment about this thread.
This discussion has demonstrated how Carol Moore's arguing technique, of kicking up a lot of dust, can be an effective in making a mess. That is so particularly on Wikipedia, where making changes to an article, no matter how well supported by reliable sources, can result in an editor getting blocked if he/she does not respond to virtually every discussion page argument against that change, no matter how nonsensical that argument may be.
She will certainly continue arguing here, ad nauseum, about such things as the actual start date of Hezbollah (without supplying a single reliable source), and in general just continue kicking up a lot of dust to obscure the actual issues. Such methods, which are fairly common on Wikipedia, and make editing Israel/Palestine conflict articles virtually impossible to anyone not willing to invest hours of time every day arguing with Carol Moore, and the many other antisemites that infest Wikipedia. Just the time that is needed for such arguments is a price in time invested that few people are willing or able to pay. Feh.
How many countries recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate Islamist movement?
How many countries challenge Hezbollah’s status as a terrorist organization? Besides Syria, Russia, and Iran of course.
>Hezbollah emerged in 1982, not 85.
We can argue this pointless trivia for a long time. I will just let you know that the manifesto that you guys often like to point to, declared Hezbollah in Feb 1985. Either the manifesto is real or it is fake. You can’t have it both ways.
In any case, bombing the US marine and French barracks are not even really terrorism, by any serious definition. They are clearly a military targets. Nor is capturing (or “kidnapping” in US double-speak) CIA agents, who are also military targets and who are targeted.
And we can always go back to the very simple fact THAT THERE IS NO SINGLE DEFINITION FOR THE WORD TERRORISM. There is DEFINITELY no definition for terrorism which implicates Hezbollah and Iran but not Israel.
>“…the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives. It is striking that the crucial facts rarely appear in the chorus of condemnations”
Two problems:
1. This does not deny anything.
2. It is actually true. Phenom Penh was evacuated in the midst of US bombing which was killing many people.
>”A more appropriate comparison [for Pol Pot's Cambodia] would be France after liberation from the Nazis.”
This quote is more or less fake. It takes a sentence from one of Chomsky’s 1977 essays and cuts it mid-sentence. Then it completely changes the wording to arrive at what you provided above. The essay is still online at this link.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19770625.htm
The NYT was comparing Combodia to the Holocaust. Chomsky noted that:
“If, indeed, postwar Cambodia is, as he believes, similar to Nazi Germany, then his comment is perhaps just, though we may add that he has produced no evidence to support this judgement. But if postwar Cambodia is more similar to France after liberation, where many thousands of people were massacred within a few months under far less rigorous conditions than those left by the American war, then perhaps a rather different judgement is in order. That the latter conclusion may be more nearly correct is suggested by the analyses mentioned earlier.”
“The ‘slaughter’ by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times invention.”
Same as above. It is from the same essay. The NYT had published a story in 1977 which claimed that the Khmer Rouge had engaged in an orgy of mass slaughter reminiscent of the Holocaust. It claimed the number of dead to be in the millions.
Chomsky at the time exposed it as a forgery. Chomsky’s accounts have by now been fully vindicated. The NYT actually had perpetuated a hoax, which today is largely discredited. Today nearly all scholars agree that the vast majority of deaths in Cambodia were the result of starvation, overwork, and disease. There was no Holocaust in Cambodia as the NYT claimed.
>Explaining how the Khmer Rouge had actually saved up to one million lives: “U.S. officials predicted at the war’s end that a million people would starve in a year. It appears that the new regime was at least partially able to avoid this consequence of the war.”
Your interpretation of what he said is BS. US officials had predicted that a million would starve in 1 year in 1975. This did not happen. This is again 100% accurate and actually not a denial of anything.
———-
The irony of what anti-Chomsky zealots argue is simply astounding. In 1977, the US government was decrying the deaths of tens of thousands by the Khmer Rouge (which had overthrown their preferred vicious dictator). Chomsky showed the absurdity of these claims and pointed to the fact that the US war in neighboring Vietnam had actually already killed 4,000,000 directly and many more indirectly.
The absurdity continues ….
In 1979 after Pol Pot’s policies had lead to the deaths of over 1 million (from disease, labour and starvation – not the NYT manufactured “slaughter”), the Vietnamese overthrew him and put in place a more competent government. The Reagan administration refused to recognize the new government and continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge. The Reagan admin then began funding, training and arming Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge to fight the new Cambodian government. This policy continued until Pol Pot’s house arrest and death.
Pol Pot, at the end was nothing more than another Saddam Hussain. A US backed brute now being repackaged by the media.
>How many countries recognize Hezbollah as a legitimate Islamist movement?
>How many countries challenge Hezbollah’s status as a terrorist organization? Besides Syria, Russia, and Iran of course.
That is a hard question to answer. There is no designation called “legitimate movement” in any country. I know that there are many countries which have relations with Hezbollah. Russia and Germany for example both have relations. When Israel wants to negotiate with Hezbollah they usually do so through Germany.
There are many countries which challenge designation of Hezbollah (especially in its entirety) as a terrorist organization. The article “Foreign Relations of Hezbollah” on wikipedia has an interesting excerpt regarding who does:
-”Four countries list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization; the United States, Israel, Canada and the Netherlands while two countries list only its security arm as a terrorist organization; the United Kingdom,and Australia”
Technically speaking, every country which has relations with the Lebanese government has relations with Hezbollah (since it has elected members sitting in Lebanese Parliament). American CIA agent Robert Baer has on numerous occasions claimed that US agents have relations with Hezbollah. He also claimed that US agents often ask and are granted permission to conduct missions in Hezbollah territories (the movie “Syriana” is loosely based on Baer’s accounts and it includes such incidents).
I do know that there was a European Union vote, sought by Britain and Netherlands to designate Hezbollah in its entirety as a terrorist movement. Germany, France, Spain, Italy as well as many other states strongly objected.
I also know that India maintains an extensive list of terrorist organizations and it has close relations with Israel. But Hezbollah is not on their list. Same is true of China. Most Latin American countries maintain similar lists. Argentina at the time of its financial crisis, as part of a deal with the US, added Hezbollah to its list of terrorist organizations, and even blamed some antisemitic attacks in Argentina (which is still the #1 country of choice for Nazi war criminals and their descendants) on Hezbollah. It later retracted both when it distanced its financial relations with the US.
The UN maintains a list of terrorist organizations. Additions to the list are voted in by the UN Security council. Hezbollah has never been introduced for a vote, largely because of the likelihood that the UK and US would be isolated on the subject.
This issue is a lot more controversial than I think you guys would like to think.
>This discussion has demonstrated how Carol Moore’s arguing technique, of kicking up a lot of dust, can be an effective in making a mess…
I already told you my real name. It is Poyan Nahrvar. I edit wikipedia under the name “Poyani”.
Note that I was not the one who went off-topic here. I provided multiple sources which clearly demonstrated that the state of Israel does keep people out because of their opinions. That is what this was all about.
You guys are the ones who brought up Chomsky, Hezbollah, “terrorist” designations, and Cambodia. Not me!
You wrote: “You guys are the ones who brought up Chomsky, Hezbollah…”
It was not me who brought up those subjects.
Chomsky seems relevant to the topic because you seem think Israel’s treatment of him is undemocratic. I did come across this:
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001113.html
Plenty of countries block entry certain individuals, for a variety of reasons. Israel is very open, considering that so many countries, organizations, and individuals want to bring about its destruction, or at least to kill as many Jews as possible. That means security is very high, of necessity. But Israel claims that blocking Chomsky was an error made by border clerk at the border. Anyone who has lived in Israel would find that explanation easy to believe, because individual bureaucrats making their own policy decisions on the spot is common..and frustrating.
If you want to find bad things to believe about Israel, and about the Jews who support it, that is ok. Low level, garden variety, antisemitism is so prevalent in Christian and Islamic countries (but particularly prevalent among people who think they are Leftists) that worry about it is usually a waste of time.
>>Technically speaking, every country which has relations with the Lebanese government has relations with Hezbollah (since it has elected members sitting in Lebanese Parliament). American CIA agent Robert Baer has on numerous occasions claimed that US agents have relations with Hezbollah. He also claimed that US agents often ask and are granted permission to conduct missions in Hezbollah territories (the movie “Syriana” is loosely based on Baer’s accounts and it includes such incidents).>>
So? No proof? A Hollywood movie? Hezbollah is an outcast. It has no embassies, a few token governments support Hezbollah only because they control it – Iran and Syria for example. Just because Hezbollah politicians server in the Lebanese parliament does not mean the world has relations with Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
>>Pol Pot, at the end was nothing more than another Saddam Hussain. A US backed brute now being repackaged by the media>>
How you managed to arrive at this conclusion is beyond me. Pol Pot was not installed by the US. Pol Pot wiped out 1/3 of the Cambodian population, and Chomsky believed this to be the fault of US “imperialism” because communists are incapable of committing acts of genocide and evil. He totally rejected the events of the Killings Fields because Pol Pot was anti-American and anti-Americanism trumps facts and reality in Chomsky’s world-view.
Pathetic.
>Chomsky seems relevant to the topic because you seem think Israel’s treatment of him is undemocratic.
Malcolm,
I did not say Israel’s treatment of Chomsky is undemocratic. I am saying that the statement “Is it a good idea to hold wikimania events in Israel given that Israel keeps people out based on their opinion” is not antisemitic. It is not even unwarranted given Israel’s history of kicking out and keeping out non-citizen critics. You may debate it, but labeling it antisemitic is grotesque misuse of antisemitism (a form of racist hatred) for personal/political gain.
There is a big difference between what the article above is arguing and what you guys are arguing.
——————
Also I don’t put much stock in the link you posted in your article. It has become an almost mindless exercise among pro-Israel circles to describe riductio ad absurdum as “comparison”. It doesn’t fool anyone and it is incredibly counter productive for your arguments.
>>So? No proof? A Hollywood movie? Hezbollah is an outcast. It has no embassies, a few token governments support Hezbollah only because they control it – Iran and Syria for example.
I have never heard of any political party or paramilitary groups maintaining embassies. How many embassies does Likud have? I don’t even know what you want from me. As I said before, the word terrorist has no meaning. It is just as impossible for me to prove Hezbollah are not terrorists as it is for you to prove the state of Israel is not a Schmozenboglinjaby. Meaningless words cannot be assigned.
>>How you managed to arrive at this conclusion is beyond me. Pol Pot was not installed by the US. Pol Pot wiped out 1/3 of the Cambodian population, and Chomsky believed this to be the fault of US “imperialism” because communists are incapable of committing acts of genocide and evil. He totally rejected the events of the Killings Fields because Pol Pot was anti-American and anti-Americanism trumps facts and reality in Chomsky’s world-view.
Don’t pin your beliefs on Chomsky. It is called the strawman argument. Chomsky’s analysis of the New York Times article (which is the paper you are referring to) was 100% accurate.
Your ignorance of Pol Pot (and Reagan’s support for him during his entire presidency) does not justify your attempt at defamation.
Poyani wrote: “I did not say Israel’s treatment of Chomsky is undemocratic. I am saying…”
It is proving excessively unwieldy to reply to your many posts, some dealing with many points, in the context of this blog. Perhaps someday there will be also a Wikibias discussion group. Feel free to contact me through my WP email if you want to discuss any of this directly with me.
The original point with which Spartacus started this discussion had to do with Carol Moore’s protest against having Wikimania in Israel. Carol, as is known, favors boycotting Israel. She is also opposed to the continued existence of Israel….as are you also opposed to the very existence of Israel. You have every right to think and say what that. You can, if you choose, insist that doing so is not antisemitic. And I am sure you are acting according to what you think is best.
Criticism of Israel is certainly not antisemitism. Every Zionist I know is critical of Israel. But I think your views, and those of Carol Moore, are described by what is called “the new-antisemitism”. If I am wrong about you (and I would be very happy to hear that), and you instead really wish good fortune for Israel and the Jewish people, kol hakavod!
Malcolm,
You are wrong about me. I am not opposed to Israel’s continued existence at all. Furthermore, I do wish good fortune for Israel and the Jewish people (for the record, nearly every one of my favorite authors happen to be Jewish – including Chomsky).
My point of view is best summed up by the writings of Uri Avnery. To illustrate it (since he has been dragged into this discussion) let me quote a statement of Chomsky which sufficiently illustrates my point of view of the whole Israel/Palestine issue.
“Those who call themselves supporters of Israel are often supporters of its moral degeneration and probably ultimate destruction”.
Their are no such thing as European Jews. Jews are indigenous to Israel, not Europe. Europeans are evil, genocidal scum.