The Israeli-Palestinian issue

[Selene]

Leonid:

This is from Tom Gross's website that is one of the links that you offered.

"BIAS IN A LEAGUE OF ITS OWN

There were and are exceptions to the prevailing anti-Israel prejudice – among some editorial-writers, for example – and some of the criticism leveled at Israel is of course justified. Nor should one forget that the media is full of stereotypes and mistakes about other issues. Yet when every allowance has been made, the sustained bias against Israel was and, despite some improvements recently still is, in a league of its own.

As the Intifada raged, it also became clear that there was a link between inflammatory reporting about Israel and physical attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions in the countries where the reports were published or broadcast. Correspondents may not realize it, but their unfair reporting plays into pre-existing anti-Semitic feelings.

I am not for one moment suggesting that Israeli misdeeds should not be fully and unsparingly reported on (and indeed Israel being a vigorous democracy, such misdeeds are widely reported on in the Israeli media itself, and debated in the Israeli Knesset). But propagating the falsehoods of the Palestinian Authority’s propagandists has done nothing to further the legitimate aspirations of ordinary Palestinians, any more than parroting the lies of Stalin helped ordinary Russians.

As suicide terrorism has spread elsewhere, and people have realized what it is like to be on its receiving end, I believe the media coverage of Israel has grown a little more balanced. At the same time regimes of the kind to be found in Damascus, Riyadh and Teheran have been placed under greater scrutiny. But there is still a great deal wrong with the coverage, and enormous room for improvement.

My friend and fellow journalist Melanie Phillips wrote recently that independent lists of this kind are necessary because “the media refuse to open up the debate over their coverage of Israel since the prejudice is omnipresent.” I wouldn’t myself call the bias “omnipresent,” but it is certainly very widespread indeed."

This is just a start, so do not assume what my positions are or will be as to the Israeli-Palestinian "issue".

There were and are exceptions to the prevailing anti-Israel prejudice – among some editorial-writers, for example – and some of the criticism leveled at Israel is of course justified.

Could you provide me with examples that you accept as true of the "exceptions" and some of the "justified" in quote from Gross above.

And thank you for being so prompt.

Adam

[Leonid]

Adonis

By suggesting to Jews to go back to Germany you have turned yourself into Abu Ali ibn Sina's donkey in the mosque. Observe that you have adopted old slogans of European anti-Semites. They used to shout “Jews, go back to Israel." Islamists, who follow the trend, shout “Jews, go back to Europe." But both have in mind gas chambers. Don’t you feel ashamed of yourself?

Before you start ranting, slandering and misrepresenting what I say, perhaps you should go back and read my comments. At NO stage during this discussion did I or have I ever advocated 'sending the Jews back to Europe', that is YOUR paranoid interpretation and I most certainly didn't say they should be sent to gas chambers either..

Don't YOU ever feel ashamed about misrepresenting what people say to try and prove a point or is it that you have some psychological problem that causes you to immediately read things that aren't written? I'm really serious in asking that question because you seem to have a serious problem there that really needs addressing.. It is you who looks like the donkey here and not me..

You all talked about how Israel conquered the lands of Palestine in the wars and thus they should keep them, I agree that taking over land is conquering it but certain obligations to the citizens of those lands come with such conquests which have not been addressed and that still leaves the issues of the Palestinians that needs to be resolved, are they to be forever refugees in their own land or will they be exiled into another state completely or will Israel accept them as citizens? Well we know the latter option wont happen so then what is the solution? Is it as many Israeli academics and peace workers have stated that Israel's plan is to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from the area as a 'final solution' to this problem.

Therefore, what I did say was that if the there emerges one or more military powers in the region that can compete with Israel through conventional and guerrilla warfare who's governments are not puppets of the US and thus having the ability to turn the tables on Israeli military superiority in the region which aside from it's 200+ nuclear weapons has already been shown to be now a paper tiger after the 2006 war in Lebanon where Israel was outrightly defeated by Hezbollah and still the Israelis refuse to negotiate a just peace agreement then it would obviously require further action.

That is, if the situation gets so bad for the Palestinians in terms of human rights and diplomacy fails and that the only option to avoid a humanitarian disaster is for a one or more of these regional powers to militarily intervene to restore the Palestinian people's rights and a war ensues to bring the Israelis back to the negotiating table and yet still the Israelis refuse to accept a just peace agreement then clearly, the only option left to ensure the rights of Palestinians would be to militarily take over aka 'Conquer' Israel like they had conquered the Palestinian territories in 1948 and 1967 and create a one state solution where all people, regardless of race or religion should be able to live there with equal rights... There won't be any massacres or anything like that of the Jews, they can stay and live freely.

This is in line with Islamic history where in many occasions the inhabitants of a country that fought the Muslims were forgiven and not massacred whether it was the Quraish of Mecca once it was taken over or whether it was the Christians of the Crusader State, the majority of whom were sent back to Europe freely.

But, if any Zionists should happen to want to live in a different type of state then so be it, they can leave and head back to Europe, it was the Europeans and their supporters in America that helped spur Hitler and the Nazi Party into power initially and many of whom supported him during the genocide, and therefore, let EUROPE give up some land for a Zionist state to be created in Europe.

[Leonid]

Adonis "But, if any Zionists should happen to want to live in a different type of state then so be it, they can leave and head back to Europe, it was the Europeans and their supporters in America that helped spur Hitler and the Nazi Party into power initially and many of whom supported him during the genocide, and therefore, let EUROPE give up some land for a Zionist state to be created in Europe."

But if terrorists of Hamas or Fatach should happen to want to live in a different type of state, state which endorses intolerance, bigotry, religious fanaticism, aggression, medieval backwardness and total denial of human rights, as they live at present, let Arab Saudi or Iran give up some land for them to create such a state. Israel as it is today can accommodate the rest of Palestinians, who prefer peace, prosperity, dignity and freedom.

[Leonid]

Leonid:

This is from Tom Gross's website that is one of the links that you offered.

"BIAS IN A LEAGUE OF ITS OWN

There were and are exceptions to the prevailing anti-Israel prejudice – among some editorial-writers, for example – and some of the criticism leveled at Israel is of course justified. Nor should one forget that the media is full of stereotypes and mistakes about other issues. Yet when every allowance has been made, the sustained bias against Israel was and, despite some improvements recently still is, in a league of its own.

As the Intifada raged, it also became clear that there was a link between inflammatory reporting about Israel and physical attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions in the countries where the reports were published or broadcast. Correspondents may not realize it, but their unfair reporting plays into pre-existing anti-Semitic feelings.

I am not for one moment suggesting that Israeli misdeeds should not be fully and unsparingly reported on (and indeed Israel being a vigorous democracy, such misdeeds are widely reported on in the Israeli media itself, and debated in the Israeli Knesset). But propagating the falsehoods of the Palestinian Authority’s propagandists has done nothing to further the legitimate aspirations of ordinary Palestinians, any more than parroting the lies of Stalin helped ordinary Russians.

As suicide terrorism has spread elsewhere, and people have realized what it is like to be on its receiving end, I believe the media coverage of Israel has grown a little more balanced. At the same time regimes of the kind to be found in Damascus, Riyadh and Teheran have been placed under greater scrutiny. But there is still a great deal wrong with the coverage, and enormous room for improvement.

My friend and fellow journalist Melanie Phillips wrote recently that independent lists of this kind are necessary because “the media refuse to open up the debate over their coverage of Israel since the prejudice is omnipresent.” I wouldn’t myself call the bias “omnipresent,” but it is certainly very widespread indeed."

This is just a start, so do not assume what my positions are or will be as to the Israeli-Palestinian "issue".

There were and are exceptions to the prevailing anti-Israel prejudice – among some editorial-writers, for example – and some of the criticism leveled at Israel is of course justified.

Could you provide me with examples that you accept as true of the "exceptions" and some of the "justified" in quote from Gross above.

And thank you for being so prompt.

Adam

[Leonid]

Adam "Could you provide me with examples that you accept as true of the "exceptions" and some of the "justified" in quote from Gross above."

I think that SOME criticism of the last Israeli operation in Gaza is justified. Israel had to use more troops and less air-strikes-to avoid unnecessary casualties and to achieve better, lasting results. However it's easier to say than to do.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Leonid

[anthony]

Adam,

There is no shortage of facts when it comes to the M.E., as you are aware.

For me, this factual overload, continuous over 40 years of passionate study of Israel and Palestine, led me to make a kind of 'running assessment' of principle, based on the facts.

There are no angels in the M.East,- though I admit to always being partial to Israel's survival and growth, I have been at times a severe critic of her policies, and specific actions.

In short I have been as objective as possible, and would not be her supporter today if I had not concluded these basic principles :-

1.Israel is, and has always been, far more sinned against, than sinning.

2.Israel has the right to exist autonomously, and must act on that right, yet also do its damndest to bring Palestine into a full equal statehood - but never at risk to its self-interest and survival. (Easier said than done, given that peace with Israel is seen as the ultimate betrayal by too many Muslims.)

3.Palestine has the chance to choose a prosperous future, if they only 'get real', and relinquish their suicidal obsession with "face." (This obsession is implicit and explicit in much of Adonis' comments, you may have noticed, and he's just one voice in millions.)

So if I've seemed low on factual content, I hope you understand that it's because I feel this is not a situation that will be resolved on historical facts, any longer; I am certain that secular principles, and rationality, (and yes, good-will), hold the key, now.

Tony

[Selene]

Tony:

Agreed.

As to history. It seems there are at least three.

Whenever, in law, in theory, you list the facts of the case at hand.

Now, the hard part is to present the actual facts that can be agreed upon. Yes Party X is a corporation ....etc. Party Y was shot three times etc.

What are the historical "facts" that both "sides" can agree upon?

Palestine began on or about XYZ date Israel began on or about XYZ date

That would be a start.

I am not trying to entrap anyone or trick anyone. There is generally so much selective retention and selective distortion in this "dispute" that it is hard to even hear any "facts".

Just trying to get some starting points of agreement.

Like all Palestinians are human and all Israeli's are human. Not sure I could get that in some houses in either Palestine or Israel.

Adam

especially on this "history of the Middle East"

Edited February 10, 2010 by Selene

[jeffrey smith]

A recent illustration of how Muslims are eager to sit down, consider the facts, and work out a rational, peaceful relationship with Israel:

http://www.ocregister.com/news/oren-61482-ocprint-uci-speech.html

Note especially the reliance on the authority of the UN Human Rights Council. Given the membership of that council, condemnation by the UNHRC should be an honor any freedom loving company should actively seek...

And here's an instance of how, well before the events of 1948, the Arabs of Palestine were willing to live in peace with neighboring Jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

And the links other Wiki articles on that page

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to reiterate that I consider Adonis to be a person of good character.

And I consider to almost all of the other posters on this thread to have good character. (There is one exception, but that does not pertain to this discussion.)

No matter how many times all of you keep repeating the same slurs against each other, nothing will make "Israelis" mean only the good people and not the bad elements, or vice-versa, and nothing will make "Palestinians" mean only the good people and not the bad elements, or vice-versa. Ditto for all the other oversimplifications in this thread.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

I want to reiterate that I consider Adonis to be a person of good character.

And I consider to almost all of the other posters on this thread to have good character. (There is one exception, but that does not pertain to this discussion.)

No matter how many times all of you keep repeating the same slurs against each other, nothing will make "Israelis" mean only the good people and not the bad elements, or vice-versa, and nothing will make "Palestinians" mean only the good people and not the bad elements, or vice-versa. Ditto for all the other oversimplifications in this thread.

Michael

How is condoning evil consistent with "good character"?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

You mean like the evil of oversimplification that leads to bigotry?

That part isn't an example of good character. But I believe all sides do it out of strong tribal feelings in their subconscious that they don't bother to examine. I hold that those who do this are usually followers, not leaders. Intellectually, they are certainly followers of the oversimplifications of others.

Still, despite demonizing each other and/or sundry oversimplified scapegoats, I don't believe that anyone on this thread is saying, "I want to be evil."

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Still, despite demonizing each other and/or sundry oversimplified scapegoats, I don't believe that anyone on this thread is saying, "I want to be evil."

Michael

No, its worse than that. It is that some people look the other way and say I don't want to identify what is evil. We are talking about capital "E" Evasion.

It is both the glory and the tragedy of mankind, that humans can justify just about anything. And if not justify it, then make excuses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anonrobt]

Isn't the cry of 'over simplification' really the cry against principles?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Isn't the cry of 'over simplification' really the cry against principles?

Robert,

No.

On the contrary, it's a cry for principles--correct identification being the most fundamental.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No, its worse than that. It is that some people look the other way and say I don't want to identify what is evil. We are talking about capital "E" Evasion.

It is both the glory and the tragedy of mankind, that humans can justify just about anything. And if not justify it, then make excuses.

Bob,

This is a sword that cuts both ways.

Michael

[anonrobt]

Isn't the cry of 'over simplification' really the cry against principles?

Robert,

No.

On the contrary, it's a cry for principles--correct identification being the most fundamental.

Michael

Then what are these principles that all are supposedly dancing around that claim each side is the 'good' side - or worse, that good lies in both, making them as 'equals in being misunderstood'?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Then what are these principles that all are supposedly dancing around that claim each side is the 'good' side - or worse, that good lies in both, making them as 'equals in being misunderstood'?

Robert,

Beats me.

I haven't seen anyone making that claim, so you might ask someone who does.

Michael

[Leonid]

Adonis:

“Palestinians as a whole have no problem with Jews being in Palestine and welcomed the Jews, they did and still do however have a problem with Zionism which was a secular belief promoted by non practicing Jews.”

Here are just two citations which utterly refute your myth. I can bring up many others evidences of Arab atrocities against Jews ( not Zionists) in the land of Israel and in many Arab countries which occurred long before Zionism.

1.“This pogrom is known in Jewish history as ‘The great plunder of Safed’ and it lasted from the 15 of June 1834 to the 17 of July of that year. This pogrom had been forgotten because this whole era of pre – Zionist Palestine (or the Land of Israel prior to the emergence of the Zionist movement) has been cast”

“...the Jews of the place, who were exceedingly wealthy, had lived peaceably in their retirement until the insurrection which took place in 1834, but about the beginning of that year a highly religious Mussulman called Mohammed Damoor went forth into the market-place, crying with a loud voice, and prophesying that on the fifteenth of the following June the true Believers would rise up in just wrath against the Jews, and despoil them of their gold and their silver and their jewels...

http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000349.html

2.“The riots began in earnest, however, on the morning of Saturday, August 24.1929. Arabs killed 64 to 67 Jews in Hebron and wounded many others. Babies were beheaded. Old rabbis were castrated. There were incidents of rape, torture and mutilation. Hands and fingers were torn off bodies, apparently for jewelry…"On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman.”... I got into the room and shot him."

(Bernard Wasserstein, The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict 1917-1929, Oxford England, Basil Blackwell, 1991)”

(

http://www.zionism-israel.com/Hebron_Massacre1929.htm

Adonis, I still don’t know whether you are sincere ignorant or conscious evader of facts which you don’t like or which don’t fit your theories. In any case you are deadly wrong. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict didn’t start with creation of Israel. It started long before as result of constant instigation against Jews by highest Muslim religious authority of Palestine-Hajj Amen El Hussein, Mufti of Jerusalem.

That is –the root of conflict is intolerance of Islam, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding, power and money hungry Palestinian leadership, anti-Semitism and constant evasion of reality by Arabs and their supporters as you promptly demonstrated.

Adonis:

“I'd support war against the occupation and the expulsion of all Zionists from Palestine if they refuse to live in a state that guarantees the rights of all people in that land as a one state solution... They can go back to Europe and let them take some of the land of the Germans and Italians, they were responsible for the Holocaust, not the Palestinians”

What you say here is that you support “ the expulsion of all Zionists from Palestine”-all 6 millions of them, in other words you support new Holocaust. You just use as a fig leaf to cover your shame the old trick of all Jews-haters from Cairo to Paris and from Teheran to Jacarta by substituting the word “ Jew” for “ Zionist”. I’d like to tell you that you fool nobody. Vast majority of Jews in Israel and abroad are Zionists-that is, they see Israel as a national home for Jewish people. Even their very name “ Jew” origin confirms their strong connection to Israel. “Jew” originated from Hebrew “ yehudi” ( al yahud in Arabic) which simply means the dweller of Yehuda, that is-Judea. To say that dwellers of Judea invaded and occupied Judea is linguistic, political and historical perversion. However that doesn’t mean non-Jews have no rights in Israel. On the contrary, Israel is the only place in the whole Middle East, where Arabs enjoy full human rights as long as they respect rights of others. So your diatribe and the call for the new Holocaust have no real base and may have only two possible reasons: your astonishing ignorance or your hatred for Jews. Make your choice.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Leonid,

Where has Adonis called for a new Holocaust? Or shown ignorance or hatred of Jews?

He has shown ignorance (or at least massive oversimplification) of Zionism and hatred of that as he understands it.

You vastly weaken your own arguments when you mischaracterize what another person says.

I have no doubt many readers will read things like "So your diatribe and the call for the new Holocaust have no real base and may have only two possible reasons: your astonishing ignorance or your hatred for Jews," and think, "Oh well. More back and forth bickering and name-calling. I wonder if it will ever stop."

And they will not read your arguments.

I don't when I see that stuff. I skim and skip it all.

That goes for this last post by you and many others (not just by you) that take the scapegoating and name-calling party line approach to discourse.

I admit that when I see the "evil Zionist" argument in Adonis's posts, I skim and skip that stuff, too.

Do you guys want to discuss serious issues or throw stones at each other?

Is anything productive happening here?

Seriously...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The bottom line is not whether Adonis is of good character or not, but whether his philosphy is. A person doesn't travel the way a philosophy does.

--Brant

is his philosophy rational or irrational?

and Zionism?

[anthony]

The bottom line is not whether Adonis is of good character or not, but whether his philosphy is. A person doesn't travel the way a philosophy does.

--Brant

is his philosophy rational or irrational?

and Zionism?

Brant,

Well this does strike at the heart of the issue, and maybe is something that I have been tip-toeing around.

First, I consider all religion irrational - some variants though I consider less harmful and invasive than others.

I do have an innate respect for the choice of a person's faith, and will generally not "go there."

At least,I will criticise the philosophy, but very seldom the holder of the philosophy. (Yes, I know, Ba'al!)

So I'll only defend Zionism, rather than attack Islam here.

Briefly: that a numerically tiny group of people with a common and ideological bond, scattered world-wide, should want a homeland, is rational to me.

For the hell of it, let's call them "Volitionists". Now this philosophical sect has always been a peaceful, thinking, introverted people, who for 1000 years lived in nations where they were considered, at best, guests, at worst, interlopers with strange and evil customs. Human nature being what it is, they suffered repression, and tyranny.

A couple of visionary Volitionists begin making representation to the more benevolent governments for a homeland. And pointing out to their fellows that they are living on borrowed time - that without autonomy, any disaster was possible...

But I'm getting carried away with this little fable.

Rational self-interest, survival, secular virtues of trade and productivity, individual rights, and long-term 'flourishing'- the Zionists (mainly) could be a case study for Objectivism, imo.

Adonis,

A critical point; You write ..."they did and still do however have a problem with Zionism which was a secular belief promoted by non practising Jews."

This is a new angle for me.

Q. Is this a general opinion, or your own?

Q. Does this indicate that Muslims would have accepted or embraced any "-ism" if it had been non-secular? IOW, if Zionism had been purely religious Judaism?

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The bottom line is not whether Adonis is of good character or not, but whether his philosphy is.

Brant,

You want to bet?

Reread this thread.

Some of the arguments I've read remind me of the way Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo behaves. People want a scapegoat to trash so badly they incorrectly attribute an idea to a person, even when he has explicitly said he does not hold that idea, just so they can bash him. They are salivating for a scapegoat.

Since none is at hand, this dude will do. He doesn't fit? No problem. We'll make him fit, by God!

That is wrong.

Even the people who do this know it's wrong.

But it feels soooooooooooooooo good to vent...

If you think Adonis's philosophy is wrong, why so selective? What is wrong with the principle of wanting to be left alone to believe as he wishes? And wanting to find tools to spread this idea among Muslims, so that they too explicitly think about leaving others alone to believe as they wish? That's the real reason I think Adonis is seeking out libertarians. He has specifically stated this and it has been ignored, time and time again, as people start pushing him and trying to make him out to be an Islamist terrorist.

Is that the part, the freedom part he seeks to practice and spread, the part you find evil?

That is part of his philosophy, after all.

So, do you find that evil? Of course not. That part gets blanked out. That part is not considered to be a part of his philosophy by those pushing hard. You know why? Because underneath it all, the premise is: This Muslim has bad character, so he couldn't possibly mean it.

That's the bottom line.

The philosophy is only a pretext to hate a person without knowing him.

(Just like Adonis does with Zionists.)

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

The bottom line is not whether Adonis is of good character or not, but whether his philosphy is.

Brant,

You want to bet?

Reread this thread.

Some of the arguments I've read remind me of the way Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo behaves. People want a scapegoat to trash so badly they incorrectly attribute an idea to a person, even when he has explicitly said he does not hold that idea, just so they can bash him. They are salivating for a scapegoat.

Since none is at hand, this dude will do. He doesn't fit? No problem. We'll make him fit, by God!

That is wrong.

Even the people who do this know it's wrong.

But it feels soooooooooooooooo good to vent...

If you think Adonis's philosophy is wrong, why so selective? What is wrong with the principle of wanting to be left alone to believe as he wishes? And wanting to find tools to spread this idea among Muslims, so that they too explicitly think about leaving others alone to believe as they wish? That's the real reason I think Adonis is seeking out libertarians. He has specifically stated this and it has been ignored, time and time again, as people start pushing him and trying to make him out to be an Islamist terrorist.

Is that the part, the freedom part he seeks to practice and spread, the part you find evil?

That is part of his philosophy, after all.

So, do you find that evil? Of course not. That part gets blanked out. That part is not considered to be a part of his philosophy by those pushing hard. You know why? Because underneath it all, the premise is: This Muslim has bad character, so he couldn't possibly mean it.

That's the bottom line.

The philosophy is only a pretext to hate a person without knowing him.

(Just like Adonis does with Zionists.)

Michael

The problem I have with Adonis not what he says he believes, but rather his apparently uncritical acceptance of what "his" side says regarding Israel and the Palestinians. If he actually went looking for the facts, he would find that a large segment of the Palestinian population wants the Jews expelled or killed, that this attitude long predates the events of 1948, and that much of what he's reciting as apparent facts is false or at least seriously doubtful. For instance, he said a couple of days ago that the Allies went to war with Germany for the sake of the Jews. That's patently false--for one thing, the Holocaust did not really begin until WWII began and its full scope became known only gradually, and was only clear after the war ended--and, after all, it was Hitler who invaded Poland, not the other way around. More fundamentally, it ignores the fact that if the only thing involved were the fate of the Jews, Hitler would have been allowed by the Allies to do whatever he wished. After all, no attempt was made to stop him from ravaging the Jews of Germany before the war started; and finding a country to emigrate to from Germany was not an easy thing if you were a German Jew in the late thirties. Britain was actively blocking Jewish migration to Palestine for the sake of pleasing the Arabs, and few countries were willing to accept more than a handful of Jewish emigres. The US was only marginally better at this than most other countries. That's why Jews fleeing Europe ended up in places like Shanghai, for instance. In 1946 and other Jews could conclude two things: first, that no one really gave a damn about protecting Jews (although they knew that already), and if genocide could find a home in Germany, where Jews were prosperous and well assimilated in a thoroughly modern country, than it could find a home anywhere, even in the United States. So they decided, once and for all, that they had better get serious about protecting themselves.

So Adonis, by adopting the full pro Palestinian position, is condemning racism on the one hand but justifying a specific application of racism on the other hand. That doesn't mean he's a hypocrite, but the most charitable interpretation that we can adopt is willful ignorance--refusal to fully understand the facts and the implications of the position he's adopting. And the full implications of the Palestinian position include a new Holocaust aimed at the Jews of Israel.

Jeffrey S.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The problem I have with Adonis not what he says he believes, but rather his apparently uncritical acceptance of what "his" side says regarding Israel and the Palestinians. If he actually went looking for the facts...

Jeff,

Are you kidding me? Adonis actually does go looking for facts. He's over here. You're certainly not over where he is.

And look what "facts" you (and others) are giving him. Claims that he's a Jew-hater who refuses to understand and wants another Holocaust. And you spice it with refusal to look at his facts.

This is so easy to fix, I am amazed that people don't do it. Especially on a forum devoted to reason.

Look at claims objectively and present objective facts.

There. That's the answer.

You don't need to do anything else. If that does not reach Adonis, you reach the reader.

In this respect and from what I have read, he has been doing a lot better (and that means a lot by far) at reaching the independent readers of this thread than those who rebut him. That is, until he starts that anti-Israel Zionism scapegoating stuff. That really undermines him with independents when he does that.

I can almost sense people turning off during the hostilities you guys fling back and forth.

Why not do like Dershowitz did in The Case for Israel? Here is a quote from p. 7:

I respond to the accusation with hard facts backed up by credible evidence. In presenting the facts, I do not generally rely on pro-Israel sources but primarily on objective, and sometimes to emphasize the point, overtly anti-Israel sources.

Now that's rational.

Instead I have been reading the "speculation presented as fact" system of argument and watching it inflame all around.

There is one thing I don't think the anti-Adonis posters here get. His reference for knowledge is not Ayn Rand or Little Green Footballs. He lives in another community where people--many of them very good people--discuss current issues, etc., from a different perspective--from a Muslim perspective.

The only way to penetrate that perspective is with facts. You won't reach everyone, just those open to facts. And that's true outside the Muslim world. That's just the way people are. Some are hard-liners and some are independent thinkers.

The purpose of discussion is to reach and interact with independent thinkers. They are the ones who change the world for the better.

There is one surefire way to close off examination of the facts: present a different point of view and call the people you are talking to evil garbage when they present their point of view. How do you expect to communicate that way?

Then there is the issue of glossing over the facts Adonis presents. I mentioned that he glosses over the facts I present, but I have seen people do the same with him, over and over.

The only effective way to answer facts is with other facts. Better ones if you can find them. You compare them. You judge them. You judge the sources. Then you come to rational conclusions.

But you do not ignore facts, regardless of where they come from.

There is no other way.

If you present facts from sources like Dershowitz gives and the person says, "I refuse to look at those facts," or presents propaganda slogans as rebuttal, then--and only then--do you have a right to say he is not open to facts.

Vice-versa, that same principle applies to you, to me, to everyone.

So Adonis, by adopting the full pro Palestinian position, is condemning racism on the one hand but justifying a specific application of racism on the other hand. That doesn't mean he's a hypocrite, but the most charitable interpretation that we can adopt is willful ignorance--refusal to fully understand the facts and the implications of the position he's adopting. And the full implications of the Palestinian position include a new Holocaust aimed at the Jews of Israel.

You call "refusal to fully understand the facts and the implications" which leads to "a new Holocaust" a charitable interpretation?

Good Lord! What would bashing look like?

What you said is speculation presented as fact. That is exactly what I am talking about. You don't even know how Adonis arrived at his conclusions or whether he is open to looking at other sources and perspectives or not. Your premise is that you already know.

In my view, that is poor speculation at best. But I don't think it is poor speculation. I think it is casting stones.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I think it is casting stones.

I’ve noticed Adonis matches the tone of the post he replies to, he’s been unfailingly polite to me, and pretty rough on Ba’al and some others. I can’t fault him for that.