There used to be a time in the not-too-distant past when describing Israel as an apartheid state because of the way that it treats Palestinians was considered controversial. Whenever I wrote it on this blog, there would be commenters who would suggest that I was not just anti-Semitic but pretty much a Nazi-sympathizer. The government of Israel has an official propaganda program known as Hasbara that trains people in the US to pose as grass roots individuals who would seek out on the internet those who criticize Israel and defend that nation’s policies, often using the anti-Semitism charge as a weapon. I could count on such people popping up on my blog whenever I criticized Israeli policies.
But as Israel’s appalling treatment of Palestinians has intensified, and as its government has turned hard right and authoritarian, the view that Israel is an apartheid state has become almost mainstream, with even Jewish groups in the US and Israel echoing that view.
Now we have the former head of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, joining other prominent Israelis in describing the state in those terms.
A former head of the Mossad intelligence agency has said Israel is imposing a form of apartheid on the Palestinians, joining a growing number of prominent Israelis to compare the occupation of the West Bank to South Africa’s defunct system of racial oppression.
But Tamir Pardo’s views will have added impact because of the high regard for Mossad in Israel and because they come at a time when far-right members of Israel’s government are moving to kill off any prospect of an independent Palestinian state.
Pardo told the Associated Press that Israel’s mechanisms for controlling the Palestinians, from restrictions on movement to placing them under military law while Jewish settlers in the occupied territories are governed by civilian courts, matched the old South Africa.
“There is an apartheid state here,” he said. “In a territory where two people are judged under two legal systems, that is an apartheid state.”
…Pardo told the AP his views on the system in the West Bank were “not extreme. It’s a fact.”
He also warned that what has been described as Israel’s “forever occupation” threatens its existence as a Jewish state. “Israel needs to decide what it wants,” he said. “A country that has no border has no boundaries.”
Pardo is among the highest ranking former officials to draw the once taboo parallel with the old South Africa. Israel’s former attorney general, Michael Ben-Yair, said last year “that my country has sunk to such political and moral depths that it is now an apartheid regime”.
The former speaker of the Israeli parliament, Avraham Burg, and the renowned Israeli historian, Benny Morris, are among more than 2,000 Israeli and American public figures who have signed a recent public statement declaring that “Palestinians live under a regime of apartheid”.
The open letter calls on US Jewish groups to speak out against the occupation of the Palestinian territories as “the elephant in the room” in the mass Israeli protests against Netanyahu’s deeply divisive judicial reforms which, it said, are intended to “annex more land, and ethnically cleanse all territories under Israeli rule of their Palestinian population”.
Benjamin Pogrund, who grew up in South Africa during that country’s apartheid era and used to reject charges that Israel was an apartheid state, now says that he can no longer defend it
Israel 2023, South Africa 1948. I’ve lived through it before: power grabbing, fascism and racism – the destruction of democracy. Israel is going where South Africa was 75 years ago. It’s like watching the replay of a horror movie.
…In 2001, I joined Israel’s government delegation to the world conference against racism in Durban. The government of Ariel Sharon invited me because of my expertise after a quarter-century as a journalist in South Africa; my specialty was reporting on apartheid close up.
At the conference, I was disturbed and angered by the multitude of lies and exaggerations about Israel. During the years since, I have argued with all my might against the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state – in lectures, newspaper articles, on TV and in a book.
However, the accusation is becoming fact. First, the nation-state law elevates Jews above fellow citizens who are Arab – Muslim, Druze, Bedouin and Christian. Every day sees government ministers and their allies venting racism and following up with discriminatory actions. There is no mercy even for the Druze, who, like Jews, have been conscripted into the military since 1956.
Second, Israel can no longer claim security as the reason for our behaviour in the West Bank and the siege of Gaza. After 56 years, our occupation can no longer be explained as temporary, pending a solution to the conflict with Palestinians. We are heading toward annexation, with calls to double the population of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, which currently stands at around 500,000.
The army is fully complicit in the illegal seizure of land and the creation of settlement outposts. The government misuses many millions of shekels for settlers. It abuses its own laws. Settlers kill Palestinians and destroy houses and cars. The courts seldom intervene. Soldiers stand by and watch.
The most significant supporters of Israeli apartheid policies is the US congress which pretty much ignores all the abuses and continues to lavish that country with aid that is used by the Israeli government to benefit the Jewish population and harm the non-Jews. Evangelical Christians are also major supporters of Israeli policies for their own reasons.
In the US, Congress and presidents continue to hide behind the fig-leaf of seeking a two-state solution, using that to avoid taking any action against Israel’s horrendous policies, when serious observers have been saying for a long time that the facts on the ground, with Israeli annexation of Palestinian lands and settler expansions into those lands, have made a two-state solution impossible.
It seems like what Israel is seeking is total annexation of all Palestinian land followed by the expulsion of Palestinians, either by force or by making their lives so miserable that they will be forced to leave. The way things are moving, even South African apartheid will start looking good by comparison.
You are right, Mano.
My father was minister of a Unitarian Universalist church in Rochester, and worked with a lot of local rabbis on social issues from a liberal perspective. He says that pretty much their only area of disagreement was -- surprise, surprise -- Israel. I wonder where those rabbis stand on Israel today.
Israel invaded and annexed extensive land in 1967’s Six Day War, but how nice of Benjamin Pogrund to admit that in 2023, Israel is just now becoming apartheid. Better late than never I guess, but jeez, he’s pretty slow. Anyway, if even roll my eyes at the guy, I welcome anyone coming to their senses.
Who else remembers those irritating arguments stamping down quad-posted prattle from StevOR? Good times. Also, this.
With Netanyanhu becoming openly authoritarian, it has created an opening for moderate groups like J Street as distinct from the pro-far-right Israeli lobby. May it finally break their stranglehold over American politics!
He also warned that what has been described as Israel’s “forever occupation” threatens its existence as a Jewish state. “Israel needs to decide what it wants,” he said. “A country that has no border has no boundaries.”
It seems to me as if he is saying that Israel has a choice between being an apartheid state, or a racist ethno-state. While I agree, I don’t think that he’s arguing that apartheid is morally wrong so much as that it’s going to interfere with the ethno-state agenda. Ummmmm….
It seems like what Israel is seeking is total annexation of all Palestinian land followed by the expulsion of Palestinians, either by force or by making their lives so miserable that they will be forced to leave.
To be fair, Israel’s founders, back to Hertzl, were pretty open about that as a long-term objective. The whole “jewish state” trope is a dog-whistle; what they are really saying is that Israel is to be a jewish homeland -- a homeland only for jews. Pardo is blowing the supersonic whistle pretty hard in his comment about “borders” -- literally, he wants an ethnic border, i.e.: a racist ethno-state.*
[* Whether the racism is pro-jew, or anti-palestinian, or both, I’ll let you decide]
There are some religious right wing Jews that are not going to want to stop there. The radicals want Israel to conform to some version of the lands granted to the Jews by God in the Torah. There are multiple versions and they are vague, often describing territory by the historical tribes that occupied it then. Taken at it’s most expansive it was described as the land from the river of Egypt (the Nile) to the Euphrates. That would mean all of Lebanon and parts of Egypt and Syria. Depending on where you wanted to draw the border most or all of Jordan and possibly bits of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The historical Israel was never that big but would include Lebanon and parts of Egypt.
If Israel does eject the Palestinians it could just open the next phase of land acquisition. Even if the government of Israel doesn’t want to the settlers are likely to start building settlements just across the border, wait a couple of decades, then build a settlement just across the new border. Much the same way they have been slowly taking Palestinian land for the last couple of decades. The population of Israel won’t tolerate another country using the military to eject them and nothing else will get them out of their fortified encampments.
Not just an apartheid state but one with a lot of religious nutcases fervently supported by US evangelical whackos.
Does the arrival of five red heifers in Israel signal third temple, end times?
“Israel” is nothing more than a terrorist invasion of Palestine and should be dismantled.
Um, as long as denials persist, it is evidently deniable.
e.g.
“Why Allegations that Israel Is An ‘Apartheid’ State Are False under International Law”
(https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4343950)
@ ^
Also, nothing is inexcusable if a single person excuses it.
Also, nothing is unforgivable if a single person forgives it.
Also, nothing is unbelievable if a single person believes it.
Also Morales is a tedious troll who’s entire shtick is this sort of idiotic hyperliteralism of which we are all thoroughly sick.
@7:
Twelve years ago a puerile digital arts community of which I was a member presented an image challenge simply titled “WWJD?”. My entry was this: https://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/72057/1318590607/israel.jpg
@9: you’ve proven your racist credentials elsewhere, there’s no need to keep trying. You’ve explained that you hate The Jews -- we get it. Do you have anything to say, other than that?
@10: “Israel is an apartheid state” is deniable. Broken glass is edible. The people who do it are best ignored, and the people who point it out can fuck off.
There is no getting away from the fact that the founding act of Israel included ethnic cleansing.
There was a well-documented massacre in a Palestionian village comitted by the two militias Irgun and Stern , this led to a panicked exodus of arabs.
Afterwards, the secretary general of UN, the Norwegian politician Tryggve Lie secretly supported the Israeli state for ideological reasons, and undermined the efforts of Bernadotte, the Swedish UN envoy who tried to mediate in the conflict (and was murdered).
Many efforts to create a lasting peace were subverted because the zionist (and later Israeli) leaders went for a maximalist outcome, lasting peace be damned.
It has been practically impossible to discuss these things openly without getting labelled “anti-semite” by the political allies of the far-right nationalists.
One of the few places with a nuanced debate is the US magazine Tikkun.
Many efforts to create a lasting peace were subverted because the zionist (and later Israeli) leaders went for a maximalist outcome, lasting peace be damned.
And many other such efforts were subverted, or doomed to fail, because the Palestinians, and/or their so-called allies in the Arab world, were also going for their own maximalist outcome — the total elimination of Israel — which they were never really able, or even willing, to try to achieve.
I read a novel in which the protagonist, who has just joined the IDF, hears an Israeli general say: “Most peoples owe their existence as a nation to one army, their own. But we Israelis are unique in that we owe our existence to two armies: ours because it is so good, and theirs because it is so bad.” Exactly the same thing can be said of Israel’s diplomats vs. their neighbors’.
Ah, the bobbing blabbler blurbles.
Well, duh.
Actually, you are the tedious troll.
Obsessed with me, of course. Still, it is rather cute, so hey.
As far as your claim goes, you are of course demonstrably wrong.
I employ mere literalism, no need to go beyond that. Nothing hyper about it.
Thing is, if someone writes something is impossible, adducing an example of that something is an existence proof of its negation.
Now, you want to interpret “That Israel is an apartheid state has become undeniable” as “That Israel is an apartheid state has remained deniable”, fine.
(hypoliteralism!)
Cute, but the actual reason is USA diplomatic, political, economic and military handouts.
Still wrong, just as the last time you tried to rally support around this. And your absurd objection to undeniable only adds to the evidence that it is you.
Heh. Has it been a thousand times, yet? I know it’s been years, literally.
But sure, endless repetitions of the claim that I am a troll, with only the purported basis for it changing on an ad-hoc basis. Still obsessive.
I put it to you that in excess of half the comments BoogerBub posts are about me and my purported trollishness. Care to dispute that claim?
As I’ve often pointed out, for someone who claims to desire I cease commenting, they sure elicit a lot of comments from me. I see you’re working on that, you’ve elicited this one.
So, instead of one comment by me, there are now multiple comments by me.
(I could go by what you and bub say, or go by what you do. Guess which?)
Rally support? Heh.
I’m not a needy fellow such as you.
Heh. The only absurd thing about it is your denial of its existence.
It’s a real thing. I cited it.
Last sentence: “Accordingly, Israel’s actions are the very antithesis of apartheid, which should put to rest the apartheid lie once and for all.”
Deal with it.
@roj — I don’t hate “the Jews”. I hate, and will oppose, genocide, no matter who does it. And Israel has done nothing but commit a slow-motion genocide since the day of it’s inception. The Holocaust is no excuse.
The Holocaust is no excuse.
Hertzl started the zionist movement because of the Dreyfus Affair in the late 1800s. The european colonization of Palestine to establish an ethno-state was well underway before WWI, never mind The Holocaust. The Holocaust has been thrown into the pile of post-facto justifications and has been allowed to stand, while Palestinians were being forced out of their homes before European Jews were.
A little study of the history of Israel ought to enrage anyone who looks seriously at the topic.
“Israel” is nothing more than a terrorist invasion of Palestine and should be dismantled.
It’s a lot more complicated than that. I think you perform an injustice by oversimplifying.
A more thoughtful approach might be to consider Israel as a reactionary response to centuries of European anti-semitism, which we now recognize as a moral crime. Whether forming a racist ethno-state as a response to racism is an effective and moral response is a question we should be examining. But that is very complex. It is supremely important to understand the sequence of events and consider French, Russian, Austrian, and -- above all -- Polish anti-semitism as parts of that sequence. And German, eventually. British and American anti-semitism are also hugely relevant. It is highly suspicious that the US was quotaing Jewish immigration from Poland at the time of WWI when the zionist project got underway.
My opinion is that the populations I listed above were allowed to export their anti-semitism instead of dealing with it -- and it was left to the post-Ottoman British and French to attempt a “final solution” by exporting them. I see parallels in the American white supremacists who tried to get rid of freed American Black people by encouraging them to leave and go to Liberia. (Again still my opinion) Jews claims on territory are laughable -- if its anyone’s ancient territory, it’s Babylonian/Assyrian -- they “owned” the place before Jews had even become a distinct sect. No deep historical land grants can or should be respected because it just leads to an incoherent mess, i.e: if Jews have a claim to Palestine why aren’t we respecting Mongol claims to Ukraine or Danish claims to Northumberland? The British and French really screwed the pooch when they carved up the remains of the Ottoman empire and many many lives have been poisoned by their imperial apathy. To be fair, there was no solution that would make everybody happy, but the Brits promised Palestine to several factions, setting up inevitable conflict. Since then they cheerfully jumped in the “lets all blame the Germans!” bandwagon, helped by the Germans heaping a great deal of blame on themselves.
Anyway, yes, Israel is now terroristic but you’re doing history and politics a disservice by reducing the matter to a sound bite.
You should read “O Jerusalem” and “Bloodlands” if you want to begin to have an informed opinion on this history.
You called each other troll and I agreed with Sbob -- you are the troll, not him. I said nothing about whether he is obsessive.
I doubt the claim, but it is up to you to carry it. Until then, Hitchens’ Razor.
By that logic, you’ve elicited this one and also Bob’s #11, part of sonof’s #12, and my #17. But we both know who is responsible for the decision to post; your attempt to dodge is transparent.
You can ‘heh’ it all you like, but you did attempt to appeal to us to agree that Sbob was the troll and not you. And no one joined you.
Oops, looks like you lost the subject of my sentence there. Here, I’ll annotate it and you can try again:
And your objection to something being undeniable was absurd for the simple reasons outlined in #11 and #12. Do you those simple comments explained to you?
Morales has never obsessively, trollishly, referred to me as an adolescent male.
Cute, but the actual reason is USA diplomatic, political, economic and military handouts.
Um, no, that’s A reason, but it’s not THE reason. It’s a lot more complex than that, both before and after the actual creation of Israel.
Blaming America first, last and always, as a means of sounding intelligent, got old a long time ago.
Marcus Ranum, various:
You are the history guy, so you probably know that ethno-states were all the rage in Europe of 1848 and in the time immediately following WW1. So it isn’t surprising that Jews, once deciding to identify as a ‘people’ followed the same trend. Whether an ethno-state feels the need to be overtly racist or only subtly so depends on how confident the ethnicity in question feels about maintaining its majority status over time.
BTW there was already Zionism before Herzl. Officially modern Zionism was started with the Lovers of Zion (Hibat Zion) movement which was formed in response to the pogroms in southern Russian Empire in 1881 and the antisemitic May Laws of 1882, leading to the foundation of settlements starting from 1882. This stream of Zionism was also known as practical Zionism, which was about coming to live in Palestine in self-supporting communities (as opposed to those Ashkenazim of the Old Yishuv who lived on support from their communities of origin in Europe; Sephardi and Yemenite Jews were already self-supporting, but remained in traditional cities). What Herzl did was create the political stream of Zionism, with a clear goal of founding a state for the Jews. (There were many other streams of Zionism, including the Spiritual Zionism of Ahad Haam, focusing on reviving the Hebrew language and opening a Hebrew university, Socialist Zionism, Religious Zionism).
I don’t know if you are aware that Herzl wrote a bit of science fiction (before becoming a journalist he wanted to be an engineer), and besides his political pamphlet ‘Der Judenstaat’ he wrote Altneuland, a futuristic view of his imagined Jewish state, which he saw as a Vienna in the Middle East, cosmopolitan and egalitarian (and the only Jewish aspect to it as far as I could tell was the implementation of a Jubilee when land returns to its original owners every 50 years).
[skipping tedious bullshit]
Yeah, it will be fun, Holms. Have at it. Tell me more about how absurd it is to point out the existence of a denial of that which is asserted to be undeniable.
(BTW, falsification, not “objection”)
John Morales, most people do not use language as literally as you seem to think. You might think we are wrong to do so, but few people care.
So, you are not literally telling me that most people do not use language as literally as I seem to think — that would only be the case were I to take you literally.
To take you at your word would be abnormal. Absurd, even!
(I know what you intended to write: that most people take language far less literally than I do. That, of course, makes most people inferior to me in that respect)
(argumentum ad populum!)
So, when you write “few people care”, you mean maybe a lot of people care, maybe nobody cares, maybe something else. Heh.
(Also, you obviously are part of the subset that cares, as evinced by your interjection)
—
Might as well get to the nub of your claim: whatever one writes, it is not actually intended to be literal. Which means you personally don’t mean what you wrote.
(You really don’t see the problem?)
Readers of this thread may be interested in refusal to serve in the military in Israel. Some links: How an army refusal letter became the last stand of the Zionist left (from March 2022)
‘Youth Against Dictatorship’: Meet Israel’s new class of conscientious objectors. The first link within the article leads to their refusal letter, signed by at least 230 would-be draftees.
Also, +972 Magazine is an excellent resource.
anat, heh.
Well, you did warn me. Not literally an excellent resource.
Only because I didn’t happen to see it. John Morales is often tedious, but sometimes enlightening andor amusing. Silentbob’s bizarre obsession with Morales is far more tedious and trollish than the most pernickety of Morales’ pedantry.
@12 Just a polite note: Your criticism of @9? Don’t do that.
Painting a false equivalency between criticism of Israel the nation or its politics and anti-semitism shows either poor judgement or an inherent dishonesty. And it also trivializes anti-semitism which is still an actual problem. Maybe you had a point in mind but you didn’t show it here. You led with this lie instead and any reasonable person would reject your criticisms out of hand because of it.
This isn’t hard.
Israel the nation != the jewish people
the jewish people != Israel the nation
If these actually were the same thing or even equivalent, we could call Benedict Arnold a misandrist and say he was racist against white Europeans. Because he chose to betray a lot of white European males who were becoming citizens of the newly minted United States. But we don’t because that’s gibberish and has no basis in reality.
@lanir -- I know that perfectly well.
Context: https://proxy.freethought.online/singham/2023/09/03/the-controversy-over-bradley-cooper-playing-leonard-bernstein/#comment-5233899
That’s not a political criticism of the government of israel. WMDKitty has demonstrated that they’re that brand of anti-Semite that dishonestly hides behind the “I’m criticising Israel” lie, just like people who hate pakistanis “criticise Islam”.
@sonofrojblake -- Don’t be tedious. Yes, context. There is nothing wrong with that statement in that thread unless you’re upset about the actors part? I’m unaware of any particular complaints around that. And what I originally said stands: If you had a point you didn’t show it here.
Israel is still not the same thing as the jewish people. There is no way to stealthily criticize the jewish people as a whole by criticizing Israeli politics because they are not and will never be the same thing. One way to define bigotry is when a person takes the trait of a small subset of a population and ascribes it to the whole population. So don’t do that, not even in reverse. It’s inherently dishonest and invalidates whatever idea you’re trying to convey.
@lanir: so sorry I’m boring you.
It’s hard to tell if you’re being disingenuous here… do you REALLY think there’s nothing wrong with the statement “Rarely have I seen a group so bent on being the victim…”?
Yes, I had a point, yes, I didn’t show it here because I was addressing the racist who posted the racist thing in a different thread without quoting their racist quote from that thread, in the expectation that they’d remember having posted it.
As I’ve already stated clearly, I know that perfectly well.
Are you really that naive? Yes, they are not the same thing, any more than the residents of and diaspora from Pakistan “are” Islam. But you’d have to be wilfully ignorant to pretend you don’t know that there are anti-Semites who hide behind “I’m just criticising Israel”, just as there are anti-Asian racists who hide behind “I’m just criticising Islam”. The English Defence League are just one example of the latter.
Eh? Don’t take the trait of a whole population and ascribe it to a small subset? What? That’s not what I’m doing. What I’m doing is accurately characterising as anti-Semitic the statement ” “Rarely have I seen a group so bent on being the victim…”. That’s not got anything to do with Israel AT ALL, doesn’t even mention it.
#26 John
By which you mean skipping the bits to which I have no good response.
Not so fun, sadly. The word simply does not mean what you think it means. I know, it’s ‘deniable’ with a negating prefix, how could it not mean what you have in mind, amirite?? Yet all it takes is a moment’s thought to see that this thinking is too simplistic. How could something be literally not capable of being denied when there are people that deny the existence of gravity, an Earth that is round and older than 10,000 years? Plus, there is always the possibility of some wag denying the existence of something obvious simply to, ahem, ‘falsify’ the label of undeniable. As there is nothing preventing either irrationality or contrariness, nothing is ‘undeniable’ the way you read it.
Comments #11 and #12 alluded to it, and #27 explained it in a way a normal person would understand, gave some more explanation and context here. Perhaps ask your doctor about the possibility of you being on the spectrum? Though exchanges with anat -- comments #28 and #30, and more in the next thread -- demonstrate that your issue is just argument for the sake of starting argument. That is, trolling.
___
#34 lanir
The WMDKitty’s comment sonof links to demonstrates it is WMDKitty that equates ‘jewish people’ with ‘Israel’ and vice versa, though it only becomes obvious in a later comment.
Holms: No, actually, nothing you’ve cited, and nothing I’ve seen so far, “demonstrates it is WMDKitty that equates ‘jewish people’ with ‘Israel’ and vice versa.” Right or wrong, their comments are not broadly anti-Jewish.
Dude. Open your eyes.
1. Mano makes a post about non-jewish actors playing jewish people, and speaks generally of out-groups being deprived of roles by actors not from that group.
2. WMDKitty says “Jewish actors are hardly “deprived” of roles, and it’s simply a fact that the dude had a large-ish nose. Rarely have I seen a group so bent on being the victim…”
3. Sonofrojblake responds to that last sentence with “Holy shit, are you serious? Anti-semitic much? Did you not get the memo?”
4. WMDKitty responds to that comment with “@roj — LOL pay attention to the Israel situation and you’ll see what I mean. Invade, steal land, and whine about being the victim when the native population rightly fights back…”
A blatant equivalence is drawn between ‘jewish people’ and ‘Israel’. If you can’t see it with it laid out so plainly, then I must put you in the same boat as WMD.
@Holms & sonofrojblake: Okay… I didn’t really think I’d have to explain this much when I first commented but we’ll give this one more try.
Oh yeah, that’s pretty awkward. On its own that would definitely be problematic. But in the context of a reply to a blog post about people getting in an uproar about a nose thing? It’s about the nose thing. Are you upset about the nose thing? That would be pretty silly so I assumed you were not.
I also don’t think it’s particularly useful to argue in this thread about a conversation in another thread. The subjects aren’t even similar. And as you see above, that kind of matters when you’re deciding whether to interpret a statement broadly or specifically. This is not the only reason cross thread arguments are problematic but it’s a pretty significant one.
Apparently everyone agrees that Israili politics and jewish people are two very different subjects. Except when Holms and sonofrojblake decide they’re not..? You see how that doesn’t make sense, right? Go read reply #9 here again. How does that even translate for you into something about jewish people? How about #19? These aren’t opinions I necessarily agree with and the parts I do I’d phrase differently. But I have a hard time even imagining how you could be reading those specific comments as some statement about jewish people. What exactly are they saying about jewish people? If you don’t have a clear answer (and no, linking some other statement is not a clear answer) then that’s a strong indicator that you’re making an argument that doesn’t have any facts behind it. You can still feel strongly about it but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right.
But just for a moment let’s all assume that the way sonofrojblake and Holms view WMDKitty’s statements is correct (caveat: I obviously don’t speak for WMDKitty and I’m not implying anything about their intent or views here -- it’s a debate tool). For the purposes of this example only we’ll say that all statements this person makes about Israel are in fact about jewish people and not the politics of Israel. Now. Look at this thread. Do you realize that you’re telling me the both of you were trolled so hard that WMDKitty only had to type a handful of sentences to get you to look like fact-free apologists for Israel? Because that whole thing of calling people antisemites after they disapprove of Israeli politics is the calling card of just that sort of apologist.
Mano has mentioned this a number of times and I’m pretty sure you were both around for it.
I brought it up because commenting here of all places and looking like you’re pulling that fact-free nonsense? It makes you look ridiculous. It’s never fun to realize that you’ve made that sort of blunder but I thought you deserved another chance to figure it out. Put the pieces together. See the disconnect. I tried a more gentle approach at first but you seem to need some blunt explanations so here we are.
I’ll try to check back in a few days and read if either of you feel like replying but I’m done after this. If you’re still stuck on this then that’s where you want to be. I’ll acknowledge that I can’t possibly change your mind about it so I’ll just respect your opinions and leave you be.
My claim, most recently stated in #36, is “WMDKitty […] equates ‘jewish people’ with ‘Israel’ and vice versa” and no further. With that in mind, I have already laid out the case in comment #38, just above your own. And as I said to RB, if that brief exchange does not show the equivalence, then you are in the same boat.
@39: heres some text from #35 again, since you appear not to have understood it.
What I’m doing is accurately characterising as anti-Semitic the statement ” “Rarely have I seen a group so bent on being the victim…”. That’s not got anything to do with Israel AT ALL, doesn’t even mention it.
If you can’t see the racism inherent in that statement, I don’t think I can help you.
I suspect you see it perfectly well, but tacitly agree with it.
Holms:
<snicker>
When you have to pretend I mean other than what I wrote, you’ve jumped the shark.
Mind you, it’s easy enough: what you meant by that quotation is that I am so superior to you that all you have left is fabulation.
(Go Walter!)
Inconceivable! 😉
(What do you think that word means?)
Your meaning is made clear by the fact that you willingly launch into any argument, no matter how stupid or petty. This establishes a pattern -- if you had a rejoinder, you’d have used it. Because you’re you.
Also, I wonder if you are even dimly aware of the sheer number of times you’ve made declarations about what other people mean and even think.
Notably, you also have no response to the point about ‘undeniable’. Instead, you blatantly try to change the target.
Holms, since you insist on being tedious, and my guest is gone:
By which you mean I make one (1) comment and then people like the bub jump in and post a derogatory comment about me, utterly ignoring whatever the topic at hand may be. And then saps such as you leech onto the argument, because… well, do you dispute the evident fact that you willingly launch into any argument?
It is always thus. Baseless accusations, psychological projection.
Because jumping in with a rejoinder is willingly launching into an argument; which proves I only want to argue when you. Whereas not jumping in with a rejoinder is skipping the bits to which I have no good response.
It is evident to any third party who is provoking an argument here, and who is attempting sophistry.
Quote away, let’s have some fun. Delve deep into the corpus!
I know what you will find, I’ve long since made a habit of retorting with rejoinders that play on their provocations. It’s my hobby, and I’m not that shabby at it.
<smirk>
Inconceivable! 😉
Heh. Perhaps the Princess Bride allusion was too oblique for you.
So… target.
You claim that it is absurd of me to cite a denial of that which is claimed to be undeniable. You then claim that the basis for your claim is that I misunderstand to what ‘undeniable’ refers.
Since I think ‘undeniable’ means ‘undeniable’, it follows that you do not think ‘undeniable’ means ‘undeniable’; alas, the question regarding to what you imagine is meant by ‘undeniable’ is hitherto unanswered, other than in the that specific privative sense.
Perhaps it is you who also does not understand ‘absurd’.
Or ‘blatantly’!
Heh
@ 44
Off topic, I’m amused that Morales shared that he adopted the name John, because anglos couldn’t say Juan. And when I would occasionally refer to him as ‘Juan’, acted all offended -- schooling me that Spanish names are compound, which apparently I should have known.
So I immediately apologized to his culture for the disrespect, and I’ve never called him ‘Juan’ since -- only ‘Juan Ramón’.
But now my name’s bub, apparently. X-D
I’m not the least bit bothered -- it’s the feigned offense and hypocrisy that tickles me. 🙂
Trolls gotta troll, eh Juan Ramón?
Ah, my obsessive fanboi, the very originator of this derail.
They whose comments are ever about me, never about whatever the topic may be.
You claim you perceived offence and hypocrisy (of the feigned variety) when you were merely faced with disdain at your ignorance.
However, it is true you were duly schooled. Now, you are slightly less wrong.
Go on, link to that episode.
Show everyone just how offended I supposedly was, how putatively hypocritical.
But yes, your deliberate misnyming was the genesis for my mocking echo thereof, and let’s face it, you are not silent, but you are indeed flatulent.
Sure, FecalBubulum. Thus your ongoing efforts, as evinced by this (your most recent) diarrheal effusion.
As I noted and you’ve exemplified, people like you jump in and post a derogatory comment about me, utterly ignoring whatever the topic at hand may be to focus on me and my character.
It’s what you do.
PS
“So I immediately apologized to his culture for the disrespect”
Heheh heh heh heh.
As if my culture (whatever you imagine that may be) gave a shit.
#45 sbob
See also John’s scorn for your silly names for chigau here, and compare that the the silly names he has for you. “Sir SillyBob” in that very comment, “FecalBubulum” just above, and a thousand others over the last year or whatever. He adopts a position, e.g. scorn for derisive nicknames, not because he actually believes it true, but because it is convenient in the moment to drive an argument.
But perish the thought that he trolls!
Ah, yet another comment about me, and only about me.
(and, of course, it’s wrongity-wrong as usual. The scorn was not about the intendedly derisive nature of the misnyming, it was about its utter stupidity)
Quite evidently, I am more interesting than whatever topic may be at hand to my little coterie of followers.
You shouldn’t mistake being annoying for being interesting, although both will tend to provoke a reaction. You are, in fact, quite the most tedious arsehole it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.
Well, Dunc, I would be less tedious were I not to respond to people dissing me, that much is true. So that’s on me.
Of course, it is also true that did not people try to diss me I would not be responding to them, and thus my tediousness would be lessened to that degree.
And that’s on YOU.
If #47 is a comment about John and only John, then
#10 is a comment about the OP and only the OP (which is fair… shame it’s so stupid),
#15 is a comment about sbob and only sbob,
#16 is a comment about RB and only RB.
#18 is a comment about me and only me,
#26 is a comment about me and only me,
#28 is a comment about anat and only anat,
#30 is a comment about anat and only anat,
#42 is a comment about me and only me,
#44 is a comment about me and only me.
There, I think we are all caught up with respect to your silly framing in which talking about or replying to = fascination with. Quite evidently, by applying this reasoning consistently, we can see we are all more interesting to you than whatever the topic may be to the troll.
Uh huh. So, FecalBubulum et al.
Wrong, your comments are always on you. Mine are on me, Dunc’s are on Dunc etc.
heh, Holms. I can see this is yet another thread where you are determined to have the last word, and I care not to annoy Mano again so he has to close a thread. So, no more appeasing your neediness on this particular thread, henceforth.
Still, since you want a response (obviously), here it is:
To what framing do you refer? Not mine; mine is that I generally respond to people who comment to or about me, and therefore were they not to try to snipe at me, there would be no retorts to them. In this particular case, by far the bulk of my comments would not have existed without your little fellowship of Morales Obsessives ™.
(Also, you missed seven squared)
Heh. I’ll give you credit for being stupid rather than mischievous, but I cannot respond to people unless people first comment to or about me.
As you have just done.
It’s not a complicated concept except to those who are doltish or disingenous; I can only respond to comments.
Oh, don’t worry. I shan’t run out of them any time soon.
BTW, I’m quite familiar with the degree of grasp of logic that you possess, and this is yet another inappropriate essay of the tu quoque fallacy.
(Undeniably!)
Suggestion, to one and all: it’s clear there are a number of people who find it hard to ignore the troll. I’ve been guilty of it. Going forward, how about this: if you can’t stop yourself responding to him, try restricting your response to something like
“@52: Fuck off Morales”
Is be interested to see how he’d maintain a thread was “about him” if the comments mentioning him were exclusively those three words.
So: @52 -- Fuck off Morales.
Youse should note the term “Morales”.
Pretty fucking hard to pretend it’s not about me, but somehow you pretended so.
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(grammar)
sonofrojblake, well done!
It is now definitive that the usual suspects, the Morales-obsessed gang that is, most certainly includes you.
(And here’s another response by me to someone else.
Math)
@54: fuck off.
I post in reply to dumb comments to point out the silly stuff. You post many dumb comments.
White flag noted, framing rejected. This has nothing to do with any sensitivity towards Mano, he has said often enough that he does not mind such argument that you cannot possibly have missed it. Also if you really meant that, you would not have then posted again to argue with another person. Obvious lie is obvious.
As you know very well, the spin you put on people’s corrections of your terrible claims and reasoning. A few examples: “the Morales-obsessed gang”, “your little fellowship of Morales Obsessives ™”, “my little coterie of followers”, and “my obsessive fanboi” from just the most recent handful of comments. It’s a pose you adopt for replies to you, which mysteriously doesn’t seem to apply to your replies to them.
Bonus points for including an example in the very same paragraph in which you pretend not to be doing that.
Why would I include a comment by Dunc in my list of your comments that were directed at others?
The simple fact that you comment isn’t a problem, frequently or not; it’s the content. For example, if #10 contained no stupid contrarianism, no one would have pointed out the stupid contrarian content.
Pointing out hypocrisy is only an example of tu quoque if it is an attempt to thereby rebut or weaken your point. But I have never objected to you pointing out how ridiculous Sbob’s names for chigau are, and in fact I agree that calling her ‘weeabooboi’ very dumb. In pointing out your hypocrisy with FecalBubulum etc., I was only pointing out hypocrisy.
(offtopic)
To be clear, if it’s true, I had no idea “違う” the obviously and offensively pretend Japanese culturally appropriating dickhead identified as female. The misgendering was not intentional.
(/offtopic)
(off topic again)
It just occurred to me -- does Morales think “weeaboo” is a term I made up?! Dude, Google it. Drag yourself kicking and screaming into the Internet age. X-D
(/off topic)
@^
The more I think about this the more I’m laughing. He literally thought ‘weeaboo’ was some pretend insult I made up didn’t he. Hahaha. Fuckin’ hell Gramps. Hahaha. Get a grip. What an idiot. Hahaha. X-D
@ ^
Oh by the way grampa, boi is a deliberate misspelling of boy we sometimes use here in the 21st century.
Hahaha. I’m sure you’ll catch on one day. Hahaha. X-D
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/boi/
Silentbob
Pourquoi es-tu si xénophobe?
De quoi as-tu peur?
SillyBib, you are ignorant as always, which kinda fucks up your attempted goading. Here: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2023/07/05/a-well-timed-contribution-from-katy-stoll/#comment-2187143
No, he didn’t. But he noticed how you’ve worked yourself up, comment after comment. Quite informative.
Again: It was (and remains) a particularly stupid epithet because you’ve utterly misread her, much as you’ve utterly misread me. It could, in fact, hardly be more inappropriate. I know this because she has been commenting for many, many years now.
It is unfortunate that I’m cursed with having no clever people left to try to criticise me. Not like olden days. Ah well, so it goes.
—
Meanwhile, Israel. Apartheid.
FWIW, I’ve thought that it was effectively an apartheid state for many years now.
I remember, for example, posting links to images of the separation walls in Jerusalem. cf. https://www.jerusalemstory.com/en/access-mobility-and-fragmentation/topic/separation-wall
John Morales #62
wanker : -)
@ ^
aaannd… queue outro theme!…
chigau theme -- end credits
Silentbob
Ta bite, elle est toute petite ?