The new Anti-Semitism

[Sirotnikov]

if Israel is going to make such claims in the context of the dispute, then its legitimacy (or lack thereof) is fair game. Quit whining about it.

I don't understand the logic.

Israel does not use the moral high-ground to justify it's own existance, but to make itself more likeable. You can like it or you can not like it, but thinking it shouldn't exist is a whole different class.

Does egypt not being a democracy makes you question its basis of existance? Does Syria?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

it is a valid target if you're an anarchist or a libertarian, totally denying the necessity of nation states.

You don't have to be an anarchist or libertarian to view nation states as a load of nonsense.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I don't understand the logic.

Israel does not use the moral high-ground to justify it's own existance, but to make itself more likeable. You can like it or you can not like it, but thinking it shouldn't exist is a whole different class.

Does egypt not being a democracy makes you question its basis of existance? Does Syria?

It does use that highground to deny the Palestinians legitimacy, however. So it's fair game, IMO.

Incidently, I don't think Israel should not exist. Had I been in charge of the situation in 1947 (which in and of itself would've been a mistake), I would not have created it where it was created. I might have created it elsewhere, in a different manner (if it were possible - and it might not have been, considering that I'd have wanted consent on the part of those whose land I wanted to use).

But that's irrelevant. What's done is done. I generally don't spend much time on Israel's legitimacy, because it's not really worth discussing. Getting hung up on it is, IMO, an obstacle to peace.

-Arrian

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by uberloz

I wasn't going to post here until I saw you do this.

Is this the only answer people can expect from you if they have any criticism?

As the smilies in the bottom of the thread suggest, I was trolling a very full-of-himself Zoid.

To retort his point - Jews / Me (Siro) have the right to whine about everything we f***ing want, as long as we f***ing want to. If AAHZ can get away with it, so can we.
So no, I don't see his point as valid.

[uberloz]

Originally posted by Zoid
It's the only answer anyone can get from rabid zionists while debating this issue. Every criticism of Teh State of Israel is anti-semitic and therefore not worthy of debate. Only heaps of guilt trippin' and shaming opponents into silence.

I'm not sure if that's the explanation or not.

But I do think it's disrespectful to use that quote exclusively to attempt to derail someones criticism.

I read the whole article and it honestly came across as a "Pro-Israel/Jewish" manifesto which; in and of itself; is not a bad thing.

But if someone makes a thread in order to debate this whole premise, it just seems to me like that someone should give the people that took the time to read through the article and respond the courtesy of a response that is more than just a quote from the article used seemingly as a means to shut them up.

That's just my opinion, though.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Sandman
You don't have to be an anarchist or libertarian to view nation states as a load of nonsense.

yes you do.
and you are a libertarian, so what's your point?

[Arrian]

Gotta run, Siro. Maybe we can continue this tomorrow (if you like, and I have time)...

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
yes you do.

How about people who want a supra-national government?

[Zoid]

How to deal with manipulative people works as well for nations...

Recognizing Aggressive Agendas

Accepting how fundamental it is for people to fight for the things they want and becoming more aware of the subtle, underhanded ways people can and do fight in their daily endeavors and relationships can be very consciousness expanding. Learning to recognize an aggressive move when somebody makes one and learning how to handle oneself in any of life's many battles, has turned out to be the most empowering experience for the manipulation victims with whom I've worked. It's how they eventually freed themselves from their manipulator's dominance and control and gained a much needed boost to their own sense of self esteem. Recognizing the inherent aggression in manipulative behavior and becoming more aware of the slick, surreptitious ways that manipulative people prefer to aggress against us is extremely important. Not recognizing and accurately labeling their subtly aggressive moves causes most people to misinterpret the behavior of manipulators and, therefore, fail to respond to them in an appropriate fashion. Recognizing when and how manipulators are fighting with covertly aggressive tactics is essential.

Defense Mechanisms and Offensive Tactics

Denial – This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they've done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have. It's a way they lie (to themselves as well as to others) about their aggressive intentions. This "Who... Me?" tactic is a way of "playing innocent," and invites the victim to feel unjustified in confronting the aggressor about the inappropriateness of a behavior. It's also the way the aggressor gives him/herself permission to keep right on doing what they want to do. This denial is not the same kind of denial that a person who has just lost a loved one and can't quite bear to accept the pain and reality of the loss engages in. That type of denial really is mostly a "defense" against unbearable hurt and anxiety. Rather, this type of denial is not primarily a "defense" but a maneuver the aggressor uses to get others to back off, back down or maybe even feel guilty themselves for insinuating he's doing something wrong.

Selective Inattention – This tactic is similar to and sometimes mistaken for denial It's when the aggressor "plays dumb," or acts oblivious. When engaging in this tactic, the aggressor actively ignores the warnings, pleas or wishes of others, and in general, refuses to pay attention to everything and anything that might distract them from pursuing their own agenda. Often, the aggressor knows full well what you want from him when he starts to exhibit this "I don't want to hear it!" behavior. By using this tactic, the aggressor actively resists submitting himself to the tasks of paying attention to or refraining from the behavior you want him to change. In the story of Jenny and Amanda, Jenny tried to tell Amanda she was losing privileges because she was behaving irresponsibly. But Amanda wouldn't listen. Her teachers tried to tell her what she needed to do to improve her grade: but she didn't listen to them either. Actively listening to and heeding the suggestions of someone else are, among other things, acts of submission. And, as you may remember from the story, Amanda is not a girl who submits easily. Determined to let nothing stand in her way and convinced she could eventually "win" most of her power struggles with authority figures through manipulation, Amanda closed her ears. She didn't see any need to listen. From her point of view, she would only have lost some power and control if she submitted herself to the guidance and direction offered by those whom she views as less powerful, clever and capable as herself.

Rationalization – A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective tactic, especially when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. It's a powerful tactic because it not only serves to remove any internal resistance the aggressor might have about doing what he wants to do (quieting any qualms of conscience he might have) but also to keep others off his back. If the aggressor can convince you he's justified in whatever he's doing, then he's freer to pursue his goals without interference.

Diversion – A moving target is hard to hit. When we try to pin a manipulator down or try to keep a discussion focused on a single issue or behavior we don't like, he's expert at knowing how to change the subject, dodge the issue or in some way throw us a curve. Manipulators use distraction and diversion techniques to keep the focus off their behavior, move us off-track, and keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas.

Lying – It's often hard to tell when a person is lying at the time he's doing it. Fortunately, there are times when the truth will out because circumstances don't bear out somebody's story. But there are also times when you don't know you've been deceived until it's too late. One way to minimize the chances that someone will put one over on you is to remember that because aggressive personalities of all types will generally stop at nothing to get what they want, you can expect them to lie and cheat. Another thing to remember is that manipulators – covert-aggressive personalities that they are – are prone to lie in subtle, covert ways. Courts are well aware of the many ways that people lie, as they require that court oaths charge that testifiers tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Manipulators often lie by withholding a significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the truth. They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This is an especially slick way of lying' omission. Keep this in mind when dealing with a suspected wolf in sheep's clothing. Always seek and obtain specific, confirmable information.

Covert Intimidation – Aggressors frequently threaten their victims to keep them anxious, apprehensive and in a one-down position. Covert-aggressives intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats. Guilt-tripping and shaming are two of the covert-aggressive's favourite weapons. Both are special intimidation tactics.

Guilt-tripping – One thing that aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon. Aggressive personalities of all types use guilt-tripping so frequently and effectively as a manipulative tactic, that I believe it illustrates how fundamentally different in character they are compared to other (especially neurotic) personalities. All a manipulator has to do is suggest to the conscientious person that they don't care enough, are too selfish, etc., and that person immediately starts to feel bad. On the contrary, a conscientious person might try until they're blue in the face to get a manipulator (or any other aggressive personality) to feel badly about a hurtful behavior, acknowledge responsibility, or admit wrongdoing, to absolutely no avail.

Shaming – This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing fear and self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them. It's an effective way to foster a continued sense of personal inadequacy in the weaker party, thereby allowing an aggressor to maintain a position of dominance.

Playing the Victim Role – This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstances or someone else's behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. One thing that covert-aggressive personalities count on is the fact that less calloused and less hostile personalities usually can't stand to see anyone suffering. Therefore, the tactic is simple. Convince your victim you're suffering in some way, and they'll try to relieve your distress.

Vilifying the Victim – This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim. It enables the aggressor to better put the victim on the defensive.

Projecting the blame (blaming others) – Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding scapegoats, they're expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.

Minimization – This tactic is a unique kind of denial coupled with rationalization. When using this maneuver, the aggressor is attempting to assert that his abusive behavior isn't really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may be claiming. It's the aggressor's attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Let's talk about the deligitimization of the existance of a Jewish Nation State, as opposed to other (nation) states. Is that somehow justifiable?

You're presenting a false dichotomy. One doesn't have to support wiping Israel off the map if they view the foundation of Israel 60 years ago as a mistake.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Arrian
It does use that highground to deny the Palestinians legitimacy, however. So it's fair game, IMO.

Israel uses that highground to make itself more appealing to western eyes or sometimes to justify its military actions (the concept of a self-defending democracy).

Nowhere have I read "the palestinians are undemocratic so they should not get a state".

The Palestinians are more democratic than any other arab state. That doesn't mean much in western standards, but it would hardly be a good arguing point.

But that's irrelevant. What's done is done. I generally don't spend much time on Israel's legitimacy, because it's not really worth discussing.
-Arrian

Agreed.

The purpose of this thread was to show exactly that people who constantly bring up the subject of Israel's legitimacy over and over (myself excluded ), usually have an agenda.

I understand why the Pals do it. They have lots to gain from Israel's destruction. Can't blame them.


But I think that people who do it from a supposedly "objective/moralist" stand-point, are, in many ways, falling back on logic or popular-reasoning used in anti-semitism. And most of them fail to see that and get angry.

I don't think Agathon or Ziod hate Jews. But I think that the logic that leads them to anti-zionism (the dislike of the concept of a Jewish state in Israel) is not at all as pure and objective as they'd like to think.

I think that lots of old unconscious habits might play a role in popular anti-zionist propoganda. It's the same logic, with the words "Jew" replaced by "Zionist".

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by uberloz
But if someone makes a thread in order to debate this whole premise, it just seems to me like that someone should give the people that took the time to read through the article and respond the courtesy of a response that is more than just a quote from the article used seemingly as a means to shut them up.

That's just my opinion, though.

Hey, get your standards straight.

If someone makes a thread to debate something, it seems to me that people like Zoid should give the people who read the article on another site, then copied it here and edited it for pleasant reading (= me), the courtesy of a response that is more than: "Yadda Yadda, Yadda, Here you go complaining again, silly joos" like Zoid did. He also used much of the same words.

I did not feel Zoid's response was as serious as Arrian's or Aeson's, and responded in a similar non-serious manner (+ trolling).

I hope you form your opinion based on my more serious responses.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Please explain what in your argument makes Israel any less legitimate to exist

I'm not making that argument, merely pointing out the fallacy of your saying "Nothing about Israel is particularly unique". Although if I were, I would think it would be pretty self evident was makes it less legitimate

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

yes you do.
and you are a libertarian, so what's your point?

I'm not a libertarian. It's perfectly possible to be liberal, or socialist, or capitalist, or religious and also be internationalist.

[Sirotnikov]

You're presenting a false dichotomy. One doesn't have to support wiping Israel off the map if they view the foundation of Israel 60 years ago as a mistake.

I'll make it clear that I'm refering to the continued existance, rather than the establishment.

I'll also note that the article itself specifically mentions opinions that call for the cessation of the existance of Israel (in favor of a bi-national state, or what not), as opposed to people who think Israel was not the best solution.