• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

"describing Israel as a 'racist government' established on the 'pretext' of Jewish suffering,"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
It is easy to understand that Jewish is a religion, NOT a race. However, there are enough Jews (and the arguments that have occurred on AT are numerous to show this - go seek it out) that think Judaism is a RACE . This is where your argument falls apart.

So from their perspective, you have "Jews" and Arabs. Thus you can apply the racist argument.
It's true Judaism is more then just a religion, the same is true with Islam. But neither is a race. I am not personally aware of any Jews whom consider Judaism to be a race. There certainly may be Jews who do, but I would disagree with them. Judaism, as well as Islam, are a combination of religion, culture, politics, etc. The conflict between Israel and Palestine has nothing to do with race or racism, it is however about culture, religion, and politics.

Jordanians and Egyptions are not races. They are NATIONALITIES.
Correct, this is my point. There was no Palestinian nationality until 1949. They were Jordanians and Egyptians, and before that, Ottomans. There is no such thing as a Palestinian race.

Calling people 'Jew Bashers' because they oppose the policies of Israel is a meaningless statement because it is a thinly veiled means to draw away rightful criticism against the Israeli Government.
I didn't call you a Jew Basher because you made arguments against the policies of the Israeli government. I called you a Jew basher because you call the Israeli government "racist", which is meaningless diatribe.

 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Oh yeah, I forgot this little gem, which I got a good laugh out of:

...unlike the settlers from the 'New World' who slaughtered all Indians, legislated miscegenation laws, Arabs ended up assimilating into the locals, and the locals ended up being assimilated.
I really must know where you went to school and were taught this.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Deleted for space
Wow, good post.

Interesting to note Einstein was approached to be the first President of Israel.

It's too bad he declined.

He might have set it on a better course and reduced the far right elements.
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
The concept of race is social construct, created in the 18th century to justify slavery. That the Irish and Russians are of the same race, but the Spanish and Moroccans are not is a testament of this. Similarly, the "one drop" rule in America demonstrates that race is not essential. Culture is far more important, and often what we mean when we discuss race. Therefore, I do agree that there is a Jewish race. However, it is quickly assimilating into the greater "white" race. Fifty years ago, the existence of a Jewish race would have been obvious to everyone here.

It is clear that there is hate from both sides, but the word racism is a bit tricky, because it includes hueism/colorism (the supremacy of light skin) and cultural supremacy. Many academics would argue that it only describes systemic oppression, so a marginalized group (say, Palestinians), are incapable of racism against their oppressors. Israelis and Palestinians often have similar skin tones and features, and besides religion (admittedly a large caveat), have very similar cultures. Perhaps a better adjective is nationalism, not in the sense of legal states, but of ideological nations. Both Israelis and Palestinians are very nationalist, and this hatred is the cause of their problems.
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: n yusef
That the Irish and Russians are of the same race, but the Spanish and Moroccans are not is a testament of this.
How are Irish and Russians the same race :confused:

Irish are mostly Celts and Russians are mostly Slavs...
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: n yusef
That the Irish and Russians are of the same race, but the Spanish and Moroccans are not is a testament of this.
How are Irish and Russians the same race :confused:

Irish are mostly Celts and Russians are mostly Slavs...
They are both "white."
 

Atheus

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2005
7,313
2
0
Originally posted by: n yusef
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: n yusef
That the Irish and Russians are of the same race, but the Spanish and Moroccans are not is a testament of this.
How are Irish and Russians the same race :confused:

Irish are mostly Celts and Russians are mostly Slavs...
They are both "white."
"They're all the same"?
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: n yusef
Originally posted by: Atheus
Originally posted by: n yusef
That the Irish and Russians are of the same race, but the Spanish and Moroccans are not is a testament of this.
How are Irish and Russians the same race :confused:

Irish are mostly Celts and Russians are mostly Slavs...
They are both "white."
"They're all the same"?
That's not what I'm saying, and you know it. We have reached a point where, in the US at least, all Europeans are white, and are treated pretty equally. To many people, Spanish Americans are closely related to Russian Americans than Moroccan Americans. (Let us assume that they were all born in the US, and speak without foreign accents.)

Race is a political mechanism, not a natural classification of humans.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
You first have to be human to be a race. You are not human if you strap bombs to your chest and blow up cafes. Therefore, Israel cannot be a racist government.
 

mrkun

Platinum Member
Jul 17, 2005
2,189
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
You first have to be human to be a race. You are not human if you strap bombs to your chest and blow up cafes. Therefore, Israel cannot be a racist government.
You're saying all Palestinians strap bombs to their chests and blow up cafes?

Also, is dropping a bomb on a building full of non-combatants more moral?
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: JS80
You first have to be human to be a race. You are not human if you strap bombs to your chest and blow up cafes. Therefore, Israel cannot be a racist government.
You're saying all Palestinians strap bombs to their chests and blow up cafes?

Also, is dropping a bomb on a building full of non-combatants more moral?
No but there's a name for it, it's called war.

Is intentionally hiding behind civilians, conducting war operations in schools and hospitals, and making every effort to cause civilian deaths on your own side just to make the other side look bad moral? No, and there is a name for that too. It's called terrorism.
 

cumhail

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
682
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
You first have to be human to be a race. You are not human if you strap bombs to your chest and blow up cafes. Therefore, Israel cannot be a racist government.
And so you're saying one of the following:

1) Israel only discriminates specifically against suicide bombers and treats all others equally.
2) Israel (and by your statement, you as well) view all Palestinians as subhuman because they belong to the same ethnic group as those who have been suicide bombers. And as subhumans, they can be treated as badly as anyone wishes.

Which is it?

Some lauded former leaders of the state of Israel, by the way, had previously been members and/or leaders of terrorist groups who blew up buildings and killed non-combatants. And they are deemed terrorists not by my declaration, mind you, but by the judgements of other Israelis. So by your measure, are you declaring all members of their "race" (or do you even count them one) as subhuman?

It's funny how racists never see themselves as being in the wrong. The then-indigenous peoples of the Americas could killed with clear conscience... they weren't human. Africans could be subjugated and treated like chattel... they weren't human. Mexico could be invaded and their lands illegally siezed in the name of "Manifest Destiny." Armenians and Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, Jews, Catholics and Gypsies in Germany, Bosnians in the former Yugoslavia, Tsutsis in Rwanda... all fair game in the minds and hearts of those who committed and/or defended the atrocities. And it's with the same zeal that you now defend this.

But it's all ok, of course... because after all, they're not even human.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I can't really see how you could call Israelis racist. There are white, black, and semetic Jews, all treated equally. If by racist what you really mean is "distrustful of their muslim neighbors whom have tried to invade and annihilate them 5 times in 50 years" then sure.
You think the muslim neighbors should be happy that they invaded and set up shop?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I can't really see how you could call Israelis racist. There are white, black, and semetic Jews, all treated equally. If by racist what you really mean is "distrustful of their Muslim neighbors whom have tried to invade and annihilate them 5 times in 50 years" then sure.
You think the Muslim neighbors should be happy that they invaded and set up shop?
The first waves were economic - Unused land as well as viable orchards wee SOLD by the Arabs to the Jews.

"Invasions" afterwards were done by political conspiracies and self defense retaliation.
History has shown that the buffer zones were needed and expansion required as each buffer zone was determined to be to small.

 

mrkun

Platinum Member
Jul 17, 2005
2,189
0
0
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: JS80
You first have to be human to be a race. You are not human if you strap bombs to your chest and blow up cafes. Therefore, Israel cannot be a racist government.
You're saying all Palestinians strap bombs to their chests and blow up cafes?

Also, is dropping a bomb on a building full of non-combatants more moral?
No but there's a name for it, it's called war.

Is intentionally hiding behind civilians, conducting war operations in schools and hospitals, and making every effort to cause civilian deaths on your own side just to make the other side look bad moral? No, and there is a name for that too. It's called terrorism.
I agree with the above. All I'm saying is that Israel really can't claim moral high ground.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,648
3,134
126
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I can't really see how you could call Israelis racist. There are white, black, and semetic Jews, all treated equally. If by racist what you really mean is "distrustful of their muslim neighbors whom have tried to invade and annihilate them 5 times in 50 years" then sure.
You think the muslim neighbors should be happy that they invaded and set up shop?
Your history is screwed up. The Israeli`s did NOT invade!
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
There's plenty of other unused land out there, why don't the other arabs donate some for the new palestinian state.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: lupi
There's plenty of other unused land out there, why don't the other arabs donate some for the new palestinian state.
For the same reasons of 60 years ago.

The Pals are a pressure cooker outlet for the internal strife.

The Arab countries do not think that a Palestinian state is viable - it will be a leech.

 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: JS80
You first have to be human to be a race. You are not human if you strap bombs to your chest and blow up cafes. Therefore, Israel cannot be a racist government.
You're saying all Palestinians strap bombs to their chests and blow up cafes?

Also, is dropping a bomb on a building full of non-combatants more moral?
No but there's a name for it, it's called war.

Is intentionally hiding behind civilians, conducting war operations in schools and hospitals, and making every effort to cause civilian deaths on your own side just to make the other side look bad moral? No, and there is a name for that too. It's called terrorism.
I agree with the above. All I'm saying is that Israel really can't claim moral high ground.
Sure they can, because the Palestinians have always been the initiators of the violence.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: JS80
You first have to be human to be a race. You are not human if you strap bombs to your chest and blow up cafes. Therefore, Israel cannot be a racist government.
You're saying all Palestinians strap bombs to their chests and blow up cafes?

Also, is dropping a bomb on a building full of non-combatants more moral?
No but there's a name for it, it's called war.

Is intentionally hiding behind civilians, conducting war operations in schools and hospitals, and making every effort to cause civilian deaths on your own side just to make the other side look bad moral? No, and there is a name for that too. It's called terrorism.
I agree with the above. All I'm saying is that Israel really can't claim moral high ground.
No country in war, can claim that absolute higher ground.

However, their overall intentions can be to stay on higher ground than their opponent.

Israel has shown that they desire that level. The Palestinians have never shown a desire.

 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: JS80
You first have to be human to be a race. You are not human if you strap bombs to your chest and blow up cafes. Therefore, Israel cannot be a racist government.
You're saying all Palestinians strap bombs to their chests and blow up cafes?

Also, is dropping a bomb on a building full of non-combatants more moral?
No but there's a name for it, it's called war.

Is intentionally hiding behind civilians, conducting war operations in schools and hospitals, and making every effort to cause civilian deaths on your own side just to make the other side look bad moral? No, and there is a name for that too. It's called terrorism.
I agree with the above. All I'm saying is that Israel really can't claim moral high ground.
No country in war, can claim that absolute higher ground.

However, their overall intentions can be to stay on higher ground than their opponent.

Israel has shown that they desire that level. The Palestinians have never shown a desire.
You cannot maintain high moral ground after displacing an entire people and "accidentally" killing hundreds of civilians. Neither Israel nor Palestine are in any way acting morally.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: n yusef
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
...
No but there's a name for it, it's called war.

Is intentionally hiding behind civilians, conducting war operations in schools and hospitals, and making every effort to cause civilian deaths on your own side just to make the other side look bad moral? No, and there is a name for that too. It's called terrorism.
I agree with the above. All I'm saying is that Israel really can't claim moral high ground.
No country in war, can claim that absolute higher ground.

However, their overall intentions can be to stay on higher ground than their opponent.

Israel has shown that they desire that level. The Palestinians have never shown a desire.
You cannot maintain high moral ground after displacing an entire people and "accidentally" killing hundreds of civilians. Neither Israel nor Palestine are in any way acting morally.
There is the rub.
Were they civilians? - Palestinian & Arab militants have shown that they have no qualms pretending to be civilians or hiding amoung civilians for cover.

When you are being attacked from within a crowd or from a building - a choice has to be made to defend yourself.

The responsibility of a governemnt is to it's citizens. If you have opponents attacking / supporting the attackers, then they become a part of the problem.

Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas - therefore they are part of the solutions to remove Hamas control from the area.

Israel may not have the "high" moral ground - yet they are quite a few meters above the Palestinians in the way they protect their population and the type of selective attacks on the opponents.

Israel could easily give up that elevation advantage by removing all Palestinians from Gaza and turn the area into Carthage. That would solve their problems in the south and allow the Israeli civilians to sleep easier.

They do not because they have morals that the Palestinians within Gaza do not.

 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234

Wow, good post.

Interesting to note Einstein was approached to be the first President of Israel.

It's too bad he declined.

He might have set it on a better course and reduced the far right elements.

that would have been very interesting, Einstein as president. I doubt his genius would be properly utilized as a politician, so that would have been a huge waste.

but, if he had gotten rid of the cooks on both sides, then he would have made a great conservative.

 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
There is the rub.
Were they civilians? - Palestinian & Arab militants have shown that they have no qualms pretending to be civilians or hiding amoung civilians for cover.
Sure, that is what Israel said about Hezbollah too, but but the US Army War College found little truth in Israel's claims:

The Proximity of Combatants to Civilians.
Classical guerrillas obtain much of their cover and
concealment via intermingling with innocent civilians;
classical conventional armies avoid civilians where
possible and tend to obtain cover and concealment
via terrain rather than civilian intermingling. Hence
the greater the proximity of combatants to civilians,
the greater the degree to which the actor?s methods
approximate the guerrilla extreme.
Hezbollah is often described as having used
civilians as shields in 2006, and, in fact, they made
extensive use of civilian homes as direct fire combat
positions and to conceal launchers for rocket fire into
Israel.90 Yet the villages Hezbollah used to anchor its
defensive system in southern Lebanon were largely
evacuated by the time Israeli ground forces crossed the
border on July 18. As a result, the key battlefields in the
land campaign south of the Litani River were mostly
devoid of civilians, and IDF participants consistently
report little or no meaningful intermingling of
Hezbollah fighters and noncombatants. Nor is there
any systematic reporting of Hezbollah using civilians
in the combat zone as shields. The fighting in southern
Lebanon was chiefly urban, in the built-up areas of
the small to medium-size villages and towns typical
of the region. But it was not significantly intermingled
with a civilian population that had fled by the time the
ground fighting began. Hezbollah made very effective
use of local cover and concealment (see below), but this
was obtained almost entirely from the terrain?both
natural and man-made.91

The Use of Uniforms to Distinguish Combatants
from Civilians.

Classical conventional militaries use uniforms or
other distinguishing marks to differentiate combatants
from noncombatants; classical guerrillas seek to blend
in with civilians rather than to distinguish themselves
from them, and hence often wear versions of typical ci-
vilian clothing. Hence the greater the incidence of uniformed
combatants, the greater the degree to which the
actor?s methods approximate the conventional extreme.
In 2006, the great majority of Hezbollah?s fighters
wore uniforms. In fact, their equipment and clothing
were remarkably similar to many state militaries??
desert or green fatigues, helmets, web vests, body
armor, dog tags, and rank insignia.92 On occasion, IDF
units hesitated to fire on Hezbollah parties in the open
because their kit, from a distance, looked so much like
IDF infantry?s: at Addaisseh, seven Hezbollah fighters
were mistaken for Israelis until an IDF soldier noticed
that one of them was wearing track shoes.93 Again,
there were exceptions: at Marun ar Ras, most fighters
were seen in uniform, but some armed combatants
were also observed in civilian clothes; 2 of 20 bodies of
dead Hezbollah fighters at At Tayyibah were found in
civilian clothing; two fighters in civilian clothes were
observed at Frun, and a few more at Al Qantarah; at At
Tiri, combatants were observed in uniform pants, but
not tops.94 But the great majority of Hezbollah fighters
in 2006 were uniformed and visually distinguishable
from civilians.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY