Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Islamophobia, Not Islam, Will be the End of Israel

Posted on 21 August 2012 by Emperor

A very good article from Bradley Burston of Haaretz.:

Islamophobia, not Islam, will be the end of Israel

by Bradley Burston (Haaretz)

SAN FRANCISCO – Everyone knows how it works. Everyone knows what it sounds like. Everyone knows how easy it is to get away with it.

Everyone knows, deep down, that hatred feeds on tolerance. That however well-intentioned, a society’s forbearance for the toxic slur, for the poison of ethnic or religious or racial prejudice, does hatred invaluable service.

No one knows this better than professional bigots. People like Pamela Geller, who pass themselves off as supporters of a worthy cause even as their hatred and prejudice stain and undermine anything and everything worthy about that cause.

For years, in the guise of supporting Israel, Geller has engaged in promoting hatred of Islam. In recent weeks, in a campaign timed to coincide with Muslims’ observance of the sacred month of Ramadan, her American Freedom Defense Initiative has run caustic, self-styled “pro-Israel” advertisements on the sides of public transit buses in San Francisco.

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man,” the ads begin, white letters on black. Below it, in blue letters flanked by Stars of David, it read “Support Israel” and below that, in red, “Defeat Jihad.”

Last year, when Geller’s group tried to place the ads on public buses in New York, the city’s Metropolitan Transit Authority rejected them as violating its prohibition on messages that demean individuals or groups. But in July, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled that the Geller group had been denied First Amendment guarantees of free speech. That same day, the ads went up in San Francisco.

Geller told ABC News that the purpose of the ads was to counter “fallacious and dangerous” ads on San Francisco area transit trains a year ago, urging cuts in U.S. aid to Israel. “If I had my way, the (“support Israel” ads) would be in every city in the United States of America, and if I can get the funding, that’s exactly what’s going to happen.”

To its credit, Muni, the San Francisco transit agency, did more than simply mount Geller’s message. It condemned the ads. Alongside them. In bus ads of its own.

In a move without precedent, Muni said in the new ads that its policy “prohibits discrimination based on national origin, religion, and other characteristics, and condemns statements that describe any group as ‘savages.’”

Muni spokesman Paul Rose said that while Muni is bound by the First Amendment, “Obviously we think the [Geller-sponsored] ads in place right now are repulsive and they definitely cross the line.”

Of late, in tandem with anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab attacks by radical settlers and Arab-hating Jewish youths in Israel and the territories (“He’s an Arab. He deserves to die,” a 14-year-old assault suspect told a court on Monday), there are troubling signs in America of a tendency to conflate hatred of Muslims with support for a Jewish state.

“The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures,” a “pro-Israel” NGO called the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights quotes Geller’s ideological inspiration as having said in a 1974 speech. “Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”

In this light, Bay Area Jews are to be especially commended for denouncing Geller and her works. J., the community newspaper, said that “any right-thinking person, Jewish or not, must oppose these ads.” The Anti-Defamation League called the ads “highly offensive and inflammatory,” and the Jewish Community Relations Council and the American Jewish Committee issued a similar denunciation.

At root, this is what Geller denies: Israel can only exist as a democracy if it continually acts to foster and equalize the rights of its Arab citizens, not abrogate and dismiss them. It can only exist as a democracy if it actively works to end the unperson status of the Palestinians of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. A true democracy cannot treat bigotry with understanding. It has to fight it, or its sense of democracy has no meaning.

At root, the Geller and pro-Kahane brand of “support of Israel,” is little more than a slash and burn Arab–hate that, if left unanswered, will tear apart the Israel and the Jewish community from within. It blinds people to solutions. It convinces people that there are no solutions. It persuades people that there are no options apart from violence, both of word and deed.

Israel has elaborate defense systems against military attack and terrorism. Its defenses against its own extremists are much more porous.

The Gellers and Kahanists attack Israel at the root. An Israel torn apart from within doesn’t need an external enemy to destroy it. The enemy is right here.

  • Chameleon

    @Believing Atheist,

    Even I clearly recognize Israel’s right to exist, per my posts above, but this does nothing to change my claim that Israel is a racist, nondemocratic state. It just means that Israel needs to change and evolve to become a true democracy — that is all, and the sooner the better. Therefore, your point about how many countries recognize Israel’s right to exist is simply moot and irrelevant to my claim.

    The debate is over. I made a claim, which you conceded and no one else rebutted. The rest is just fluff and nonsense. I never made any claim with respect to anything being absolute, nor am I interested in debating such philosophical diversions. I will only clarify my position so that you can move on to someone else with this predictable atheistic obsession.

    You say, “Not even time is considered absolute.”

    Yes, I already know. Nothing is absolute, not even time, not even morality. I already agree, as I have for many, many years now. But all of this is simply boring and meaningless to me. What interests me, rather, are the consequences of this fundamental uncertainty. For example, it is because morality is not absolute that it must be defined on a social level by universal social norms that cut across cultural and religious boundaries. You label this as a fallacy, but your logic is the only thing that is fallacious once again. It would only be an argumentum ad populum if I were claiming morality to be absolutely true, which I am not and never have. What is morally “right” is not based on “if many believe so, it is so” (i.e., irrefutably true), but rather, “if almost everyone believes so, then it can be considered morally right by social norm” (though never provably right as a confirmed fact). It never ceases to astonish me when I have to explain something so basic as this to atheists. Please read your own Wikipedia reference source, by the way, which explains this exception to the fallacy quite unambiguously:

    “Matters of social convention, such as etiquette or polite manners, depend upon the wide acceptance of the convention. As such, argumentum ad populum is not fallacious when referring to the popular belief about what is polite or proper.”

    The more important question is what would the world be like if morality were absolutely and verifiably true? Or to put it more bluntly, what would the world be like if God were absolutely and verifiably true? The answer is that the time for morality would then be over. The time for faith itself would be over. And the time for Judgment would begin. It is because morality is not absolute that our choice of faith is actually meaningful and of so much consequence, and why we remain free to choose our own destiny until we breathe our last breath.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Chameleon,

    Why do you resort to argumentum ad populum continuously? You say:

    keep waiting. The rest of the world will not be.

    Just because the rest of the world thinks it is true (which is non-factual as I will demonstrate later), does not make it true.

    Once again:

    In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: “If many believe so, it is so.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    Now the rest of the world really does not think that way. Here is the proof:

    Today, at least 149 countries officially recognize Israel
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogIsrael.html

    I answered all (or at least most) of your requests and questions. Yet you fail to answer my one and only request.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Chameleon,

    ROTFL! The majority of the nations of the world recognize Israel:

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/recogIsrael.html

    Today, at least 149 countries officially recognize Israel, Twenty-five countries have never formally recognized Israel.

    So the world doesn’t care, only you and a selected few do. If the world indeed cared the Palestinians would not be in the state they are in, and Israel would not be rich and prosperous via the global economy.

    Btw Are you going to address the fact that you made a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum?

    Oh and I think you need to attend some science classes in addition to logic classes since, nothing is absolute is just not a mantra, it is the backbone of science:

    Scientific knowledge is never absolute. Rather, it represents the consensus of a critical and vigilant community of scholars. It is this idea of consensus which is often confused with Absolute Truth, and this is particularly apparent when we enter the realm of human action, and thus of moral judgment.
    http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N6/king.06o.html

    Consensus does not equal to truth. It is a logical fallacy (as I mentioned already) to state that it does.

    Not even time is considered absolute:
    http://www.science20.com/count_infinity/blog/time_not_absolute_do_you_know_how

  • Chameleon

    @Believing Atheist says “I am still waiting for you to prove to me that morality is an objectively verifiable fact.” OK, so Israel is a racist nondemocratic state, as I claim, but now you are waiting on me to prove that this is morally wrong. Brilliant — keep waiting. The rest of the world will not be.

    I rest my case on your thumb-sucking mantra of “nothing is absolute, nothing is absolute” as your whining admission that you have absolutely nothing intelligent left to say, just as I predicted you would do.

  • http://www.wmonline.com BuddhaShrink

    @BelievingAtheist

    Thank you.

    You said, “I wish it were otherwise.” And in an earlier comment you concluded by stating that it was, Time to move “forward.”

    I agree. And I hope that your efforts are instrumental towards moving “forward” towards that “otherwise” for the sake and the good of all.

    And thanks for seeing me as your friend.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Buddha,

    Why does it matter what I believe, my friend? From a subjective viewpoint I believe that no nation should be a racist or supremacist nation in any form.

    But that does not change what Israel is, what it does, what laws it enacts. I wish it were otherwise.

  • http://www.wmonline.com BuddhaShrink

    @Believing Atheist

    I am responding here, to you, because you chose to mention me.

    I did not ask if you wrote, Israel had the right to be racist. I asked if you believed that Israel has the right to be racist.

    I also wrote that, to me, democracy, if it means anything at all, it means liberty and justice for all.

    Racist democracy is an oxymoron; no true Scottsman fallacy, or not.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Chameleon,

    I am just laughing at my self at all the fallacies you commit you say:

    “All democracies are non-racist” is based on the support of a worldwide social norm.”

    BWHAHAAHAHAH! Oh man. You have committed another logical fallacy:

    In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: “If many believe so, it is so.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    You seriously need to go and take some remedial classes in logic.

    I am still waiting for you to prove to me that morality is an objectively verifiable fact.

  • Chameleon

    @Believing Atheist,

    Oh, please, your lack of logic is becoming embarrassing now:

    “My uncle is a Scotsman” is a factual, provable premise, whereas “Israel is a democracy” is the hypothesis, the disputed claim. Moreover, “All Scotsmen enjoy haggis” is an unsupported, isolated personal opinion, whereas “All democracies are non-racist” is based on the support of a worldwide social norm. Your substitutions are therefore specious. I am trying to decide whether to laugh or yawn.

  • Chameleon

    @Believing Atheist,

    You say, “We are not here to argue your opinion, we are here to argue the facts.”

    I agree, but you are now also arguing about one more thing: whether the overwhelming opinion of society as a whole about whether racism is wrong is a fact or even counts. On that note, the world is virtually unanimous in condemning racism without qualification. The social norm against racism is universal. If you want to argue that racism can be a good thing, then go indulge that line of argument with the receptive audiences on Stormfront or somewhere else. I and others on Loonwatch reject it without any debate required — been there, done that already.

    The world has no respect for atheist arguments about how morality is logical moot. Racism is morally wrong and despicable no matter how you cut it or through what lens you try to filter it. The last refuge of debate of so many atheists that I meet who have nothing left to argue is predictably the same: retreat into a logical corner while they keep chanting the same thumb-sucking mantra of “nothing is absolute, nothing is absolute” to avoid the fear of the moral consequences of their own choices. Like Israel, they desperately need to grow up.

    You also quote the following in support of your argument, whatever that might be at this point, I don’t know: “The only thing Israel has asked for, and continues to ask for in order to end the state of war with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours, is that all recognise its right to be a racist state that discriminates by law against Palestinians and other Arabs and grants differential legal rights and privileges to its own Jewish citizens and to all other Jews anywhere.”

    Since you did not bother to rebut this fact of yours, thank you for just conceding my claim that Israel is a racist state.

    “You then claim that democracies cannot be racist. Yes they can. Read this article.”

    I did, but the only conclusion I come to is that you did not bother to read the Wikipedia article that I gave you to read. Your article is just another Association Fallacy, this time of the negative sort using the example of how France is being racist with its stateless Gypsy (Roma) population. Your argument goes as follows: France is a democracy, and France is behaving in a racist fashion, therefore democracies can be racist. Wrong. This is just Guilt by Association. It is not the democracy that is racist, but those within the democracy who are violating it. You really do need more logic lessons if you can’t absorb such a simple concept.

    With Israel, it is not just about them behaving in a racist fashion, since there are plenty of examples to demonstrate that, as you concede. It is about Israel enshrining racism into the defining foundation of the country itself. When the state itself is openly racist, we can no longer just blame the errant behavior of certain individuals or groups, since they would actually be following the state’s founding racist principles, not violating them. We can only hold the state itself to account, to demand that it become a true democracy and to shed its racist foundations.

    The true test of any democracy is in how it protects diversity, minorities and individuals. The core purpose of the U.S. Constitution, by the way, is in doing just that. A democracy is not just about setting up ballot boxes to let the majority decide everything. The only purpose that can accomplish is to enforce a tyranny of the majority, not a democracy.

    You say, “[I]t is not up to you to define what a democracy is.” I agree. The etymology of the word — “rule/power of/by/for the people” from “kratos” and “demos” — already does that with no formal definition required. That said, there is a huge body of research that would agree that a tyranny of the majority does not qualify as a democracy, nor does any state that is able to exclude, invalidate or discriminate against certain individuals or groups in defining who “the people” of the state are. If you want to challenge me on this point, then be my guest. You will humiliate yourself with your own arguments. That will at least be entertaining.

    I repeat myself one more time: Israel is a racist, undemocratic state. I am still waiting on a rebuttal with relevant facts and logic to the contrary.

  • http://www.wmonline.com BuddhaShrink

    @Ilisha

    Thank you so very much for your very kind,touching, encouraging and gratifying words. I do greatly appreciate hearing and knowing them.

    I think that it was the post on whacking a rag-head (what a disparaging term, in and of itself) that you thanked me for noticing Loonwatch’s high level of tolerance for diverse opinions, thoughts and feelings. I compared your demonstrated high level of tolerance to that of the Islamophobic websites where I knew for a fact that differing opinions were swiftly met with being called a “slut” and told that, “You don’t have any right to draw your next breath” and then being banned from their site.

    I am glad that you are sensitive to regular, well meaning visitors to Loonwatch and their possible turning off because of the intentional, taunting and distracting on the part of those who do not mean well. I will always remember BareNakedIslam’s last comment on Loonwatch in which she concluded that nothing gave her more pleasure than riling up Muslims. How pathetic is that?

    I respect your dilemma regarding how much abuse to tolerate and your calls on which to accept and which to not. If anything, in my opinion, you err on the side of tolerating too much abuse. And that’s the best direction to err in. Compassion and kindness, the essence of all religions and life itself, always trumps fear and hate.

    Good for now, and thank you again for your kind words.

    Happily breathing long, slow, deep breaths, and thinking kind thoughts for all the good people at Loonwatch and all over the world;
    ONE LOVE!

    BuddhaShrink

  • Believing Atheist

    I said Joseph Massad said that. He pointed that out in an article titled: Israel’s right to be racist. Btw both Chameleon and Buddha have committed the no true scottsman fallacy. They claim true democracies cannot be racist. That’s in fact a fallacy. Here is how it goes:

    Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
    Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn’t like haggis!
    Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

    So let’s insert the word democracy.

    All democracies are non-racist
    Israel is a democracy yet racist
    Therefore Israel is not a true democracy

    That’s a fallacy. A democracy is not necessarily defined by whether or not it is pluralistic or racist. Athenian democracy was oligarchic.

  • Ilisha

    @BuddhaShrink

    I don’t remember on which thread I promised to reply, so I’ll just reply here, even if it is a bit off topic. You mentioned that we do allow considerable dissent in the comments here, and it’s gratifying to have someone acknowledge that. I don’t think we need to scurry into dark corners when challenged, because I really do believe in the moral and logical integrity of our arguments. We should be challenged, and if we’re misguided, we should reconsider–only God knows things with certainty, but I think we are true to our core principles.

    On the other hand, there are so many trolls who are relentless in spamming us with juvenile taunts, menacing remarks, and off topic rants, and I don’t think we’re obligated to post those. After moderating for a while, such comments tend to roll off of us, to borrow your phrase, like water off a duck’s back. But I also think we need to consider our visitors, at least some of whom come here for sanctuary. If trolls are spamming every thread, I think some of our regular visitors may feel besieged.

    We try to strike a good balance, and we do so in good faith–so thank you for noticing. But the reason I really wanted to reply is so I could tell you how happy I am you’re a Loonwatcher. I’m not sure how you manage to convey so much kindness, thoughtfulness and generosity through you writing, but you do. If LW serves as a sanctuary for some, comments like yours certainly help create that atmosphere–and counter balance the sometimes overwhelming negativity of our detractors.

    In short, I’m deeply appreciative of your contributions, BuddhaShrink. :)

  • http://www.wmonline.com BuddhaShrink

    “Israel has the right to be a racists, sadly.”

    Did Believing Atheist really write that statement? Does he really believe that?

    Does he truly believe that Israel has the right to be a racist state that legally discriminates by law against Palestinians and at the same time claim to be a democracy?

    In my mind, if democracy is about anything at all, it is about liberty and justice for all.

    A democracy that legally discriminates strikes me as the oxymoron of the century.

  • Believing Atheist

    @ Chameleon,

    If your entire argument is based on morality, then that does not exist in the world. You have committed a philosophical error. Have you ever heard of error theory? It goes like this:

    Error theory is built by three principles:
    There are no moral features in this world, nothing is right or wrong.
    Therefore no moral judgments are true; however
    Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things.

    An amplification of that is presupposition failure:

    The Presupposition Failure form claims that moral beliefs and assertions are not true because they are neither true nor false (i.e. moral beliefs and assertions presuppose the existence of moral facts that do not exist).
    http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_nihilism.html

    Morality is not a fact. It varies from people to people, culture to culture and epoch to epoch.

    Read the philosopher J.L. Mackie, here is a summary:

    The most famous moral Error Theorist is J. L. Mackie (1917 – 1981), who defended the metaethical view in his 1977 “Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong”. Mackie argues that moral claims imply motivation internalism (the idea that an individual has a motivation to perform an action which they see as morally obligatory), which is false, and therefore so too are all moral claims. He also argues that moral claims necessarily entail a correspondent “reasons claim” (e.g. if “killing babies is wrong” is true, then everybody has a reason to not kill babies), but this is refuted by a psychopath who sees every reason to kill babies, and no reason not to do so, therefore all moral claims are thus false.
    http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_nihilism.html

    I do not believe Israel in totality is racist, though it can be argued that it is racist partially, but let’s hypothetically assume it is. So what? Israel has a right to be racist, sadly. This was concluded by the Arab academic Joseph Massad (the title is Israel’s right to be racist):

    Israel’s struggle for peace is a sincere one. In fact, Israel desires to live at peace not only with its neighbours, but also and especially with its own Palestinian population, and with Palestinians whose lands its military occupies by force. Israel’s desire for peace is not only rhetorical but also substantive and deeply psychological. With few exceptions, prominent Zionist leaders since the inception of colonial Zionism have desired to establish peace with the Palestinians and other Arabs whose lands they slated for colonisation and settlement. The only thing Israel has asked for, and continues to ask for in order to end the state of war with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours, is that all recognise its right to be a racist state that discriminates by law against Palestinians and other Arabs and grants differential legal rights and privileges to its own Jewish citizens and to all other Jews anywhere.
    http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/836/op1.htm

    There is no law that says Israel cannot be a Jewish state.

    You then claim that democracies cannot be racist. Yes they can. Read this article:

    Democracies can be as racist as any other state
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/democracies-can-be-as-racist-as-any-other-state/article1213494/

    And more importantly, it is not up to you to define what a democracy is.

    We are not here to argue your opinion, we are here to argue the facts.

  • Chameleon

    @Believing Atheist,

    I apologize for not being clearer in explicitly mentioning the full phrase “democratic states”. However, clearly you are not making any point whatsoever to challenge the claim that Israel is a nondemocratic racist state by pointing to the racism of other nondemocratic states. My whole claim is that Israel is a racist state and, because of that, it cannot be a morally accepted democracy. Any example to refute that claim would have to be another morally accepted democratic state that enshrines racism in its founding principles. So far you have presented none. Even your irrelevant Jordan example is extremely weak, by the way, since it is clearly a very specific reaction (in 1954) to the racist founding principles of Israel just a few years earlier (in 1948) and does not promote any ridiculous Arab/Islamic purity concept like Israel does with its racist founding principles. Racism and democracy are simply incompatible. My claim not only still stands. It is untouched by any of these irrelevant facts.

    Yet another irrelevant fact you bring up is some silly resolution in 1991 strong-armed by George Bush (just months after the start of the Gulf War) to revoke the 1975 fact-based condemnation by the U.N. of Zionism equating to racism. No new facts were raised as the basis for this revocation whatsoever. Only new “logic” was employed. So based on what logical Bushism was this revocation given? Well, here it is:

    “And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and, indeed, throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself.”

    Oh, yes, so let me repeat that logic with other words substituted for Zionism and racism:

    “And to accuse this man of the intolerable sin of child abuse is to twist history and forget the terrible child abuse he suffered as a child and, indeed, throughout his entire life. To equate the abused with the abuser is to reject him as the innocent victim that he is.”

    How funny indeed it sounds now, doesn’t it? What you are reading is a classic example of Association Fallacy, in this case of the positive sort, also known as Honor by Association. In other words, because the Jews were victims of egregious racism, and victims of racism are not guilty of that racism, that means victims of such racism can never be guilty of such racism. Wrong. In fact, it is all too often true that victims can often become the worst perpetrators of what they themselves have been victimized of. Child abuse is a classic example proven overwhelmingly by research, as most already know, which is why the fallacy appears so obvious when substituting child abuse for Zionism/racism.

    Now let’s take the fact you used in support of your argument and turn it completely against you even more. Given that Bush’s logic has been summarily eviscerated as a logical fallacy, we are left with Bush’s own conclusion that must apply in the absence of his logic being relevant or true: “To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself.” So you see, I am actually being much more generous than George Bush. Bush flatly concludes that Israel has no right to exist if Zionism equates to racism! I am far kinder in merely asserting that Israel has no moral right to call itself a democracy if it continues to be founded upon racist principles, but I never claimed it has no right to exist.

    I think you need a few more logic lessons. Try starting with this Wikipedia link, since you clearly missed it in your studies of other fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

    Israel is a racist, undemocratic state. I am still waiting on a rebuttal with relevant facts and logic to the contrary.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Chameleon,,

    The UN has declared that Israel/Zionism is not racist:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_46/86

    It is called United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86

    The motion was supported by 111 (including the 90 nations who sponsored the resolution), opposed by 25 nations and abstained by 13 nations.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Chameleon,

    This was your question: Which other states enshrine racism in the founding principles of their nation, such that the purpose of the nation itself is meant to be a “homeland” only for those of a certain race?

    I answered it. You did not specify democracy in your question, so now you are moving the goal post, this is a logical fallacy:

    Moving the goalposts, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after a goal has been scored, the goalposts are moved farther to discount the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#As_logical_fallacy

    I am not your teacher, here to answer all of your questions after you have been refuted. If you want me to do that I charge per comment.

  • Chameleon

    @Believing Atheist,

    Your facile arguments are frankly boring me. How does using the examples of nondemocratic countries like Iran, Pakistan or Jordan acting in allegedly racist fashion support any claim that Israel is not racist or still a democracy in spite of being racist? Answer: they don’t, not a bit. This is just another flavor of the argument “Murder is OK because others are doing it too”.

    Incidentally, I forgot to elaborate in my previous post that I do not support any country referring to itself as “The Islamic Republic of X” or “The Jewish State of Y”. Although it is natural for any democratic state to base its guiding moral and legal principles on the majority religious group of the state, this does not mean it is justified to put a religious label on the state itself. Democracy must always be the priority, then religion. When these are reversed, then religion becomes a meaningless sham, and persecution and oppression of choice becomes the only way to maintain that sham priority of religion over democracy. Therefore, I will also call out Pakistan and Iran as being racist states until they choose to remove this nomenclature from their countries’ names. It does not belong in their names. The only difference, however, is that the consequences of not doing so are not nearly so severe as in Israel, which is a country that was created by DISPLACING (as llisha emphasizes) those of other religions and races based on its racist founding ideology. Also, Pakistan and Iran do not have racism enshrined in their founding principles as far as I know, unlike Israel, so their violation is not nearly so severe.

    Another of your boring arguments is as follows: “See any difference with Nazi Germany? Did the Nazis call for unity between Jew and Aryan?”

    Your supporting fact was a call for unity in 1948 at the founding of Israel when they had almost no political power, were extremely fragile as a newborn state, and had zero track record of living up to those lofty democratic principles yet (and still haven’t lived up to them). Are you serious? If you want to try to make a distinction from Nazis, give me examples of calls for unity and full equal human rights to non-Jewish Israelis TODAY by those Jews who have both the power to deliver on that promise and the powerto oppress and ignore human rights with impunity.

    You also say to llisha, “I rather have the Palestinians get their own state, instead of no state so that they can simply please your romantic and idealistic musings. This is not a Disney movie, llisha.”

    Sorry, you have it backwards. We have been watching a rerun of the same Disney movie for the past 60+ years. It is time for reality, not more of the same fairy tale negotiating over a pie that Israel eats with more and more settlements while they negotiate. You are right that Palestinians have no power, which is why they should resign their call for a failed two state solution option and accept the reality that only a one state solution is possible. However, in doing so, they need to take the high road by demanding that Israel become a true democracy to accommodate them. Democracy is not a fairy tale. The belief in a homeland only for one race is. Democracies are real and growing in number worldwide. Racist states, by contrast, are doomed to self-destruction or catastrophic implosion because they are simply unsustainable.

    @JSB,

    You said, “Anyone who insists that blame can be laid solely on one side. I would include anyone who thinks of one side as Satanic or the other as practically angelic. I would include anyone who thinks that one side has made all the reasonable offers and the other has rejected everything. I would include anyone who repeatedly mentions the ethnic cleansing by one side and ignores that of the other. I would include anyone who thinks that either the Israelis or Palestinians are 100% responsible for the Palestinians’ plight without assigning any blame to the other”

    Oh, yes, the “Muslim countries good, Israel bad” (or vice-versa) knee jerk line of argument. I agree that any such arguments are absurd. I am not sure anyone is making such simplistic arguments here, and most certainly not llisha nor me. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides, no doubt, and therefore a lot to be forgiven by both to achieve resolution, as I emphasized already.

    However, I personally put the biggest blame not on Jews or Muslims, who have otherwise lived in relative peace for hundreds of years until quite recently. Some will say it is the Muslims who are to blame because their religion “teaches terrorism,” and some will say that the Jews are to blame because “they are just evil”. But the logical premise of both these arguments is absurd. Did Islam suddenly change in the past few decades after nearly 1400 years so that it suddenly justified terrorism against Jews, which by all accounts was essentially nonexistent before this time? Or did the Jews suddenly catch an evil virus to explain why they are suddenly “evil” when they lived in relative peace with Muslims for hundreds (if not thousands, including pre-Islamic times) years? The historical facts completely ridicule both lines of argument. So playing the blame game or extremist quoting game is a completely useless and superficial endeavor that ignores the root problem.

    The root problem is that Israel was founded as a racist state, not so much by the Jews, but by the Europeans who wanted to export their hatred of Jews by exiling them out of Europe to make them someone else’s problem. In doing so, they encapsulated all that racism into the founding principles of Israel itself, perhaps to atone for their sin of exiling the Jews because of their own racism. In effect, they just swept all that racism under a rug and left it for someone else to clean up. Unfortunately, it is the foundation of a country that drives it inexorably to logically deterministic destinations, at least until that foundation changes or evolves. The foundation of a country defines the purpose of everything that it does, for good or bad. If we miss this point, then we will never get past the superficial blame game, or “chasing our tails”, as llisha says.

    Even though it will require an enormous act of heroic will and faith by all involved to fix things, I believe and hope that it is possible. The way to clean up this mess is as follows: 1) with complete forgiveness by both sides of all that has happened in the past, before all else, so that everyone can move on with a fresh start; and 2) by converting Israel from a racist state to a true democracy, where diversity, freedom, equal human rights, and justice for everyone becomes the new foundation of the state. We must create a shared vision of a future state that everyone can respect, Jew and Muslim alike, just like the Founding Fathers of the U.S. envisioned – and then created – perhaps the greatest example of democracy ever in history. And then once we do that, we must never take it for granted, as unfortunately the U.S. has done in recent decades by systematically violating and destroying this original vision with its acts of aggressive invasion and occupation across the globe. The obstacles are high indeed, but I fear the only other deterministic outcome will eventually be another holocaust (potentially by either side) if we can’t achieve this admittedly lofty goal.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here