Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
Christmas 2006: Is Jesus still a Palestinian?; bethlehem notes....
Topic Started: Dec 13 2006, 02:41 AM (1,592 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jeffrey
Dec 18 2006, 01:17 AM
JB - I have noticed that sometimes people feel the need to be deliberately offensive when discussing the actions of Israel, in a way they do not feel the need to be when discussing other actions of other countries or peoples.

I find your insinuation offensive. (and it comes off as absurd - those who don't accept the founding myths of Israel as promulgated in American sunday schools must have some deep, ulterior motive? some character flaw of some sort?)

At any rate, I haven't used any terminology or tone here that I wouldn't use discussing our own country's history, especially (and this is an important point) if I were talking to someone with an idealized view of that history.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Quote:
 
Why do you think it is that when it comes to Israel there is a view that Israel is/ always was/ always will be refexively in the right?


My own experience is that this view is much more common here than it is in Israel (and is virtually non-existent anywhere else). I think its a combination of three things:

(1) THere's a lot of truth to it. Meaning that, in general, the overall behavior of Israel has been significantly better than its Arab neighbors, with regards to human rights, conduct in war, etc.

(2) Among many American Jews, self-identification with and love for Israel effects their ability to judge its actions objectively. Of course this interacts with #1, above. So even when actions are recognized as less than ideal, they are immediately excused as better than the other guys. (This is the same phenomenon you'd see among the more patriotic or nationalistic Americans)

(3) Americans in general relate to Israelis better than they do Arabs. A strong component of this is religion, especially in the heartland. But its also cultural. Israelis speak English, and behave like us. Arabs have an alien religion and culture.




Quote:
 
Why would one want to deny the Holocaust and not deny any other part of history?


(note I moved the'not' in your sentence - I think thats what you menat)

I have no idea. Virtually everyone I've ever heard who denied the holocaust struck me as anti-semitic.




Quote:
 
Why are people who do not reflexively support Israel (putting aside that Israel is a democracy and not everyone in Israel believes the same way about every issue) branded anti-semitic (whether stated or insinuated)?


First of all, we should recognize that many people who are anti-semitic criticize Israel because they know that it is not accepatable to criticize Jews. Therefore when people say that Israel's critics are motivated by anti-semitism, much of the time they are correct.

Having said that, its also thrown around quite often to stifle debate and to deflect criticism. Personally, I'm appalled by the arrogance of this sort of usage. Its as if to say "Criticism of Israel is not just misreading of history or bad analysis, its a deep, structural character flaw".

Take for example Jeffrey's insinuation about my posts here - frankly I find it surprising (you may not know this Daniel but Jeffrey and I are friends in real life. We've been to each others apartments, met each other wives, played each others pianos - we even met up in London when he was there on vacation). The only reason I've let it go is that I know his emotions take over when this topic is discussed.

I must say it is an effective strategy. I've been PMed by a number of people on this and the other forum who tell me they won't discuss anything to do with Israel for fear of being labeled anti-semitic. Its even more effective in the public sphere.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jon,

It's an interesting part of the internet that people can have met each other, or talked to each other on the phone, and will have almost certainly emailed each other- and who is the wiser for it. Nope, that caught me flat footed.

I edited my post, something I have been doing a lot lately. I'm trying to maintain a balance between contributing when I can and not posting when it's frustrating to me. I've been erring on the side of caution- nothing personal.

I so much appreciate you answering my questions (and don't mind at all that you edited my post). My questions stem from my own experience of being a student in 8th grade in upstate New York and a student teacher from Vassar we had- it was social studies. Long story short, she taught me that there was more than one point of view about current events. WE LITERALLY DIDN'T KNOW that there was any other opinion than whatever was the politically correct opinion about whatever issues concerning whatever current event. I thanked her for what she did for us and apolgized for giving her a hard time- after class in private. She appreciated this but it's kind of a poignant memory for me- that I felt I had to do this in private. I'm not worried about people calling me anti-semitic today.

I think I'll leave it at that. Thank you Jon and good night all.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
jon-nyc
Dec 18 2006, 06:09 AM
phykell
Dec 18 2006, 04:06 AM
JBryan
Dec 18 2006, 04:53 AM
Until this discussion I thought most people understood "ethnic cleansing" to be associated with mass graves and extermination. Now it seems to mean people moving from one area to another either forcibly or by choice. Perhaps that is an acceptable use of the term but one would be forgiven for thinking that there should be a new term invented to encompass only those horrors with which we asssociated "ethnic cleansing" before. At least, for the sake of honestly, so that we understand we are not talking about the same thing in both cases.

Genocide.

Good point, Phykell. While I suppose genocide is technically a form of ethnic cleansing, it makes sense that it was coined as a dysphemism for the more neutral-sounding 'population tranfer'. The word genocide hardly needed to be made more emotive.

Genocide does not apply as that involves the extermination of an entire race. None accused simply of ethnic cleansing have been so ambitious.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
phykell
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
It isn't necessarily an entire race; the online .co.uk dictionary states its meaning as follows:

the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race or religious group
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated. - Ghandhi

Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself.

Remember, bones heal and chicks dig scars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
jon-nyc
Dec 18 2006, 05:51 AM
JB - I think my usage of 'ethnic cleansing' conforms with the norm. While I suppose genocide would be its extreme case, it is generally used when discussing the removal of a certain ethnic group form particular territory under force or threat of force.

Wikipedia agrees with me, FWIW. (at least it does now after I spent the last 4 hours editing it ;) )


Jon, while I find Wikipedia to be a valuable resource in most cases I find that, particularly with emotionally or politically charged subjects, it can be all over the map since it is publicly edited and subject to the whims of the last editor whose edition passed muster with those who maintain the site.

I continue to maintain that the term "ethnic cleansing" has a lot of baggage that should not be associated with anything the Israelis did even if we can both agree that much of it was an injustice towards those on the receiving end. However, war breeds injustices (we certainly committed our share in WWII) and wars for survival only compound those injustices.

I can agree that the Israelis should make some effort to address the displacement of people from their homes as long as it does not amount to the "right of return" demanded by so many. However, you would have to agree that those organizations representing these interests should, at the very least, renounce their openly stated calls for the destruction of the state of Israel before the Israelis can seriously consider addressing the issue.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
phykell
Dec 18 2006, 08:33 AM
It isn't necessarily an entire race; the online .co.uk dictionary states its meaning as follows:

the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race or religious group

Has there ever been anything of that sort that could also be accurately described as simply ethnic cleansing. What went on in Bosnia certainly does not. There is a line that must be crossed between expunging a certain race, religion or nationality from a given region and the extermination of that race, religion or nationality before we can begin calling it genocide.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
JBryan
Dec 18 2006, 05:37 AM

Has there ever been anything of that sort that could also be accurately described as simply ethnic cleansing.

The forced relocation and dispersal throughout the USSR of Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars and Chechens for suspected collaboration with he Nazis during WWII.

Wasn't called ethnic cleansing at the time, but that's what it was.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
But was it also genocide?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
I wouldn't consider it genocide- it was a state retribution policy of evacuation and resettlement of certain ethnic groups from specific regions to other areas. The intention was forced dispersal in order to bring about assimilation not extermination.

However these days the words *genocide* and more recently *ethnic cleansing* get thrown about interchangably. A bit like WMD- until the first Gulf War chemical weapons were regarded as specialized anti-personnel battlefield conventional weapons not WMD. The term WMD was specific to nuclear weapons. CNN reporting at the time however lumped CW and BW into the MWD category and in the absence of miltary and political leaders correcting the reporting error, the misnomer stuck. I suspect a similar evolution of terminology has occurred with genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Daniel
Dec 18 2006, 03:55 AM
I quote Wikipedia and to support your use of a term and come to find out YOU wrote the damn thing? What a waste of time- I have not written a post on this board in the last two days I have not had reason to delete and replace with Edit.

You should check Wiki for "gullible", Dan -- I posted a link to your post there.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Dec 18 2006, 05:10 AM

(2) Among many American Jews, self-identification with and love for Israel effects their ability to judge its actions objectively. Of course this interacts with #1, above. So even when actions are recognized as less than ideal, they are immediately excused as better than the other guys. (This is the same phenomenon you'd see among the more patriotic or nationalistic Americans)

As Chesterton noted of patriotism in general -- saying "My country, right or wrong" is like saying "My mother, drunk or sober".
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Dec 18 2006, 08:53 AM
Daniel
Dec 18 2006, 03:55 AM
I quote Wikipedia and to support your use of a term and come to find out YOU wrote the damn thing?  What a waste of time- I have not written a post on this board in the last two days I have not had reason to delete and replace with Edit.

You should check Wiki for "gullible", Dan -- I posted a link to your post there.

Fair enough.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Daniel
Dec 18 2006, 05:22 PM
ivorythumper
Dec 18 2006, 08:53 AM
Daniel
Dec 18 2006, 03:55 AM
I quote Wikipedia and to support your use of a term and come to find out YOU wrote the damn thing?  What a waste of time- I have not written a post on this board in the last two days I have not had reason to delete and replace with Edit.

You should check Wiki for "gullible", Dan -- I posted a link to your post there.

Fair enough.

:lol: So.... did you check? :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Dec 18 2006, 04:24 PM
Daniel
Dec 18 2006, 05:22 PM
ivorythumper
Dec 18 2006, 08:53 AM
Daniel
Dec 18 2006, 03:55 AM
I quote Wikipedia and to support your use of a term and come to find out YOU wrote the damn thing?  What a waste of time- I have not written a post on this board in the last two days I have not had reason to delete and replace with Edit.

You should check Wiki for "gullible", Dan -- I posted a link to your post there.

Fair enough.

:lol: So.... did you check? :wink:

Don't push it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5