You're Fired - Because You're Israelis

[Shi Huangdi]

Change your avatar back to the dolphin SD. The dolphin was cool, your new avatar is ugly.

And oh yeah, I agree with Ramo.

[CyberGnu]

Ramo and Old Blackie, you were both against the boycott of South Africa?

[Ramo]

I would've been were I not 5 when Apartheid ended.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Oxford is a government owned university. BobJones is privately owned and barely qualifies as an institution of higher learning. Let me put it this way. I live in the same town as Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, an institution of the same ilk as Bob Jones, but light years better. Even around here a degree from LU will get you squat when it comes to employment. Everyone knows that a diploma from these institutions is worthless.

I used to think Oxford has maintained its old corporate structure. But be that as it may, your initial point gets the qualifier "apart from the lunatic fringe".

[Fidel]

i wasnt aware that oxford is government-owned. i also thought it retained its old structure.

[Roland]

Hmmm... Well, the Doc made the claim, so I suggest he does the search work....

[Fidel]

Oxford is an independent and self-governing institution, consisting of the central University and the Colleges.

The Vice-Chancellor, who holds office for seven years, is effectively the 'Chief Executive' of the University. Three Pro-Vice-Chancellors have specific, functional responsibility for Academic Matters, Academic Services and University Collections, and Planning and Resource Allocation. The Chancellor, who is usually an eminent public figure elected for life, serves as the titular head of the University, presiding over all major ceremonies.

The principal policy-making body is the Council of the University, which has 26 members, including those elected by Congregation, representatives of the Colleges and two members from outside the University. Council is responsible for the academic policy and strategic direction of the University, and operates through four major committees: Educational Policy and Standards, General Purposes, Personnel, and Planning and Resource Allocation.

Final responsibility for legislative matters rests with Congregation, which comprises over 3600 members of the academic, senior research, library, museum and administrative staff.

Day-to-day decision-making in matters such as finance and planning is devolved to the University's five Academic Divisions - Humanities, Life and Environmental Sciences, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Medical Sciences and Social Sciences. Each division has a full-time divisional head and an elected divisional board. Continuing Education is the responsibility of a separate board.

The Colleges, though independent and self-governing, form a core element of the University, to which they are related in a federal system, not unlike the United States. In time, each college is granted a charter approved by the Privy Council, under which it is governed by a Head of House and a Governing Body comprising of a number of Fellows, most of whom also hold University posts. There are also six Permanent Private Halls, which were founded by different Christian denominations, and which still retain their religious character. Thirty colleges and all six halls admit students for both undergraduate and graduate degrees. Seven other colleges are for graduates only; one, All Souls, has fellows only, and one, Kellogg College, specialises in part-time graduate and continuing education.

[MikeH]

Some Israeli academics agree with the sackings, although the majority don't. Are they anti-semetic?

[Rogan Josh]

Sometimes I think I am in a sort of strange twilight zone, where I type in one thing and it appears on people's screens as another. Or perhaps it is just a matter of English reading comprehension....

Thank you CyberGnu for trying to clear things up.

It is a lost cause though. These people will read into any post whatever they want to. On the brighter side, at least they admitted that it wasn't actually anti-semitic.

Since I made an ambiguous comment about Sirotnikov's name, I should probably explain what I believe. 'Sirotnikov' is a Ukrainian name as already pointed out. I think it is rather unethical of the Israeli state to regard someone who's descendents have lived outside of Israel/Palestine for so long that their name reflects some other region as acceptable candidates for residence and citizenship, while declining the same for people whose family has lived in the area for generations.

As far as I can see, the distinction can only be based apon ethnicity and/or religion (depending on how you want to define 'Jew'). I think that is wrong.

That is not to say that Siro shouldn't be allowed to be Israeli (after all, he was probably born there himself), but it is rather hypocritical to not allow the people now living in 'Palestine' the right of return too.

[CyberGnu]

Ramo, care to elaborate? You would have preferred the apartheid system to exist? I really don't think you would, so I'm assuming you have a different reason...

Rogan, my pleasure

[Dauphin]

Edit I have misread *gasp*.

[Trotsky]

I'm against Palestinians -- or needless to say, even Afghanis -- being fired without cause, based on
race, nationality, or being part of a given academic institute. I'm equally against Israelis being
fired without cause, for any similar reason.

There would have been far greater poetic justice if part of Germany had been given to Jews after the
second world war as a homeland as a compensation, though practically speaking it wouldn't have
worked. This wouldn't have displaced anyone who was outside of the conflict (such as the
Palestinians). Apart from Israel being an ancestral homeland and the Zionist movement, it would
have made more sense.

Second, this is not at all like sanctions during the Apartheid era, since South Africa was
controlled entirely by whites, rather than shared by two groups, where Israel and Palestine are now
apparently divided, apart from some border disputes.

Third, Palestinians who are Muslim have a wide choice of other Muslim-run states, though of course
no one wants to be forced to leave their home. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no other
Jewish-run states. Regardless, Palestine/Israel should be divided fairly, but this does help to
indicate why, historically, Israel should appear to be fighting for survival rather than merely for
simple purposes of domination.

Finally, it's easy for us to condemn violence and call for peace on both sides when it doesn't
affect us, especially as retaliation. On the other hand, how many opposing it in the case of
Israel/Palestine were utterly in favor of bombing Afghanistan based, not on the actions of its
government, but on those of a few dissidents hiding out within its borders? (In this case, the
attack was not on the sovereignty of the US, but much more limited, despite exaggerated claims by
warmongers to the contrary.) Likewise, after Pearl Harbor was bombed, many in the US wanted to
retaliate, and did.

In all these cases, part of the will to retaliate and escalate conflict commonly involves cynical
manipulation of the population of the country in question by the government, and its propaganda
machine, the (mainstream) media. Equally cynical is the end purpose of this manipulation: to
justify its own rule: wars can serve to prop up an otherwise flagging regime (for instance one which
contrary to its laws wasn't voted into office by the will of the people).

I don't think racism in hiring practices is confined to Europe, though maybe it's more prevalent,
more extreme, and also more hidden there. Foreigners and immigrants are also unjustly being fired
from the US following 9/11, not typically from academics, since they might (?) collect more advocacy
there than elsewhere, but from working class jobs.

In any case, this is a weak, rather than complete and insightful definition of racism (one blind to
any occurence save the directly proveable), which is why people, if not in Britain, are willing to
condemn this instance of it. Systematic forms, however, which regulate and segregate race by means
of class, mostly go unexamined and ignored, since people are willing to stand up for equal
opportunity, but not equal (including equal economic) rights -- that is, they will stand for
'liberal' 'democracy', which is inherently unequal (wherein everyone has the right to try to be
superior), but not for any general form of equality, in which the state provides employment and
equal compensation for all.

The underlying mechanism which produces citizens willing or compelled to identify with one group or
another (nationality, race, and so forth) in order to dominate other groups and to by this gain more
for themselves (to be rats in a rat-race willing to step on their neighbors to survive or prosper),
is capitalism, which produces the inequity in the first place through a relative scarcity and plenty
of resources (including territory), and the ideology of competition (the rat-race) to monopolise
wealth in the top ten percent of individuals.


>> Look at the US in the cold war. Would it have been >> usual practice to have Russians on the boards of
>> American journal? Only if they left the USSR and cut >> off all ties with their homeland I think.
There's no cold war between Britain and Israel as far as I can tell. Or perhaps you're better informed?


There are always technicalities to excuse racism: in the US some whites won't attack African Americans directly, but indirectly through insulting their culture. There it's a question of the distinction between race and culture. It's no different when some use the difference between race and nationality (being Jewish versus being a citizen of Israel) to excuse racism.


>> Finally, I don't hate Israel par se. I hate the actions >> and policies carried out by Israel. If/when the Israeli >> people starts behaving like decent human beings I'll >> start supporting them as well.
Admittedly atrocities should be opposed by all of good conscience, but suppose you lived in Israel
and opposed the actions of the government. What would you do? You would speak against these
actions as far too extreme, as some Israelis do. There's no reason to generalize them all as 'the
Israeli people'. Likewise in the US, there are some who opposed the US bombing Afganistan, but the
government did anyway. Does that give anyone the right to stereotype all Americans as 'not human
beings' (or 'not acting like human beings')?

I agree that Palestinians who've lived in Israel should be recognized as citizens.

>> >> quote:
>> >> This is exactly the reason why Israel currently is >> >> not employing Palestinians and disallows them to >> >> come into Israel.
>> >> Yet you, somehow, manage to find it perfectly
>> >> normal, to discriminate against Israelis, for being
>> >> from Israel, while in the same time, you are
>> >> criticizing Israel, for discriminating against
>> >> Palestinians due to them being from Palestine.
>> Siro, this comes over as "It is ok, when Israel
>> discriminates against Palestinians, but not when
>> other people discriminate against Israel because of
>> the former." At least you didn't disapprove your
>> government's behaviour.
His claim seems to be that people discriminate against Israel not because of the former but for other underlying reasons, with the former serving as a cover.


>> >> So tell me Mr Sirotnikov (what a good Iraeli name >> >> that is...), are you just dumb or anti-christian (or >> >> anti-anglo-saxon if you want to think of it as a >> >> racist thing)?
>> What is it you are referring to? The comment 'Mr
>> Sirotnikov (what a good Iraeli name that is...)'?
>> Quite frankly, I don't even know what he means. But
>> to deduce from that statement that he dislikes Siros
>> ethnicity is plain paranoia.
It's either deliberately or unconciously racist, or else rather careless to call him dumb and
antichristian and then mock his name for (supposedly) being 'Israeli' in the same breath. In any
case it's irrational to claim he's anti-christian or anti-anglo-saxon, since the person who fired
the Israelis was in the first place Egyptian-born. Further, how do racists commonly defend each
other? By denying racism exists; by claiming anyone who notices it has fallen prey to 'paranoia',
this in an attempt to apologize for and conceal themselves and their views. You would do well to
consider why you assume it merely 'paranoid', and who wants you to believe that. It's the language
of an apologist.



>> >> Originally posted by Kamrat X
>> >> It´s not like they´ve participated in IDF attacks >> >> on Palestine...
>> As an excuse, that would prevent valid sanctions on >> any country.
These aren't sanctions on a country in the least. No government decided on them; they were, from
what's been said here, the isolated actions of one individual. It's equivalent to someone in
Britain firing Americans 'because the US bombed civilians'. Needless to say, I'm sure everyone's in
favor of that. Second, these so-called 'sanctions' affected only two individuals, neither of
whom have so far been shown to have any more than cursory ties to Israel, much less its government,
responsible for the atrocities; people who moreoever support it with such patriotic fervor that they
spend 9 months a year or so in a foreign country. They specifically didn't affect the country in question -- Israel -- at all.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Trotsky
Second, this is not at all like sanctions during the Apartheid era, since South Africa was
controlled entirely by whites, rather than shared by two groups, where Israel and Palestine are now
apparently divided, apart from some border disputes.

It is much more than just a border dispute. Would you have approved of South Africa more if the whites had rounded up the black population and shoved them into a certain part of South Africa, refusing to let them go back to their homes?

Third, Palestinians who are Muslim have a wide choice of other Muslim-run states, though of course
no one wants to be forced to leave their home. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are no other
Jewish-run states.

Well, this is just ridiculous. You are basically saying that it is OK to throw people out of their homeland as long as there is some other country with the same religion to which they can go?

Also, the palastinians do not have a 'wide choice' of where they can go, since no islamic country is willing to take them. And why should they? Would the US take christians from lebanon and make them citizens simply because they are christians?

In my opinion, no government should be based on religion, and discriminate against people based on religion. Of course, the islamic states are just as guilty of this as Israel is, but that does not excuse it.

In any case, this is a weak, rather than complete and insightful definition of racism (one blind to
any occurence save the directly proveable), which is why people, if not in Britain, are willing to
condemn this instance of it.

Are you aware of a single British person who has not condemned this instance? Are you just being racist against the British?

>> Look at the US in the cold war. Would it have been >> usual practice to have Russians on the boards of
>> American journal? Only if they left the USSR and cut >> off all ties with their homeland I think.
There's no cold war between Britain and Israel as far as I can tell. Or perhaps you're better informed?

The cold war was not official, in the same way that the 'war on terrorism' is not an official war. I suspect you would not complain if a US insitution fired someone who supported the regime of Sadam Hussein, or perhaps the Taliban before they were ousted from power in Afghanistan....

It's no different when some use the difference between race and nationality (being Jewish versus being a citizen of Israel) to excuse racism.

Oh, now this is just rubbish. Criticising the Israeli government does not imply discrimination against jews, just as criticising the Taliban does not imply racism against muslims. Or are you implying that you harbour a racist attitude towards muslims?

It's either deliberately or unconciously racist, or else rather careless to call him dumb and
antichristian and then mock his name for (supposedly) being 'Israeli' in the same breath.

I see you have little comprehension of English, and absolutely no sense of irony. You might at least bother to read the rest of the thread (including my explanation of the comment) before making such statements....

[Dauphin]

Rogan, save your keyboard.

[Zevico]

Would you have approved of South Africa more if the whites had rounded up the black population and shoved them into a certain part of South Africa, refusing to let them go back to their homes?

And where did this interesting peice of crap come from?
Tell me, are you as utterly ignorant as I think you are?
Palestinians who left during wars were encouraged to stay by Israelis and the Israeli Government. Do you know who forced those people out of their homes? Arab governments such as Jordan, Egypt, and the rest. They threatened to kill any Palestinian who stayed, and offered help and assistance to those who left. Israel won the war(s) and the governments sat on heir asses, leaving refugee problems lingering just so idiots like you could complain about them while not knowing the truth. As for the refusal to allow them back in-would you? An absolutely hostile Arab population that wants you dead, and you allow them back in? Additionally, the Israeli government did not coop up it's Arab population AT ALL. All arabs who stayed became citizens. They could buy land and etc in Tel Aviv if they wanted to.

Also, the palastinians do not have a 'wide choice' of where they can go, since no islamic country is willing to take them. And why should they? Would the US take christians from lebanon and make them citizens simply because they are christians?

Again, you're a moron.
The Arab countries PROMISED to take these people in, and threatened to kill any who didn't leave.

In my opinion, no government should be based on religion, and discriminate against people based on religion. Of course, the islamic states are just as guilty of this as Israel is, but that does not excuse it.

My god you are an idiot, aren't you? The extent of religion in Israel basically amounts to having holidays on Jewish festivals. Yes, there is a religious minstry (or somesuch), but it's influence is absolutely 0 on anything.
Islamic states have their countries ruled by religion and utterly barbaric Sharia law, where people have their hands chopped off for stealing, and woman are treated like dirt.
Lets compare: Israel, basically a secular state, as opposed to Islamic countries such as Iran, where woman are beaten if they don't wear burkas (i know that it is slightly less strict in Iran and etc, but the concept remains), and people have limbs chopped off for breaking the law.
Before this post, I really did think Siro and etc. were just being paranoid. I stand corrected.