I've already reported the typo in the thread title.
This thread is for everyone who feels tempted to derail other threads with arguments about how their criticism of Israel isn't, per Orwell, objectively anti-Semitic.
You can come here and make your case. I'll start by making mine:
---
Because it's premised on an anti-Semitic paradigm.
Palestinian terrorism, and the state sponsorship of Palestinian terrorism by Islamofascist regimes, is premised on anti-Semitism. Any defense, excuse, rationalization, or justification of anti-Israeli violence is a priori anti-Semitic.
I say that Palestinians in particular, and Arab societies in general, need to repudiate their anti-Israel aspirations, accept defeat in Israel, embrace peaceful submission, and seek redress through peaceful processes in the UN and other such diplomatic venues.
Israel is entitled to possess the land it captured during a defensive war, and settle its people there. Israel is entitled to wall itself off from the usurpationist enclave on the Gaza Strip, and constrict the flow of arms into the Strip. And of course Israel is entitled to respond with force to attacks launched against it from Gaza and the West Bank.
There are things I could criticize Israel for, in how it's handling the genocidal bigots along and within its borders. But my criticism is founded on the premise that its enemies, both foreign and domestic, are anti-Semites that embrace crimes against humanity as a strategy to harm Israel.
One criticism of Israel I could make, is that the IDF may not be as diligent as it could or should be, in upholding international conventions on collateral damage. Another is that the Israeli government may be too cavalier about the fact or appearance of collective punishment. Those criticisms can be made without embracing the anti-Semitic paradigm.
---
If you stipulate to the above points, I'll happily give your criticism of Israeli policy the benefit of the doubt, that it's not anti-Semitic.
If you don't stipulate to those points, if you believe in the legitimacy of Palestinian violence against the people and state of Israel, then we're back to Mr Orwell, and you have a much tougher case to make.
Hard mode: Make your case without the first word being "so".
Nightmare mode: Make your case without appealing to an analogy.*
Hell (Sheol/Jahannam) mode: Make your case without equivocating around the complaint that oppressing Palestinians forces them to commit crimes against humanity.
---
*Bringing up similar cases, to examine what they can tell us in comparison with this case is fine. Traducing agreement about Similar Case B into agreement-by-analogy about Primary Case A is not.
This thread is for everyone who feels tempted to derail other threads with arguments about how their criticism of Israel isn't, per Orwell, objectively anti-Semitic.
You can come here and make your case. I'll start by making mine:
---
Because it's premised on an anti-Semitic paradigm.
Palestinian terrorism, and the state sponsorship of Palestinian terrorism by Islamofascist regimes, is premised on anti-Semitism. Any defense, excuse, rationalization, or justification of anti-Israeli violence is a priori anti-Semitic.
I say that Palestinians in particular, and Arab societies in general, need to repudiate their anti-Israel aspirations, accept defeat in Israel, embrace peaceful submission, and seek redress through peaceful processes in the UN and other such diplomatic venues.
Israel is entitled to possess the land it captured during a defensive war, and settle its people there. Israel is entitled to wall itself off from the usurpationist enclave on the Gaza Strip, and constrict the flow of arms into the Strip. And of course Israel is entitled to respond with force to attacks launched against it from Gaza and the West Bank.
There are things I could criticize Israel for, in how it's handling the genocidal bigots along and within its borders. But my criticism is founded on the premise that its enemies, both foreign and domestic, are anti-Semites that embrace crimes against humanity as a strategy to harm Israel.
One criticism of Israel I could make, is that the IDF may not be as diligent as it could or should be, in upholding international conventions on collateral damage. Another is that the Israeli government may be too cavalier about the fact or appearance of collective punishment. Those criticisms can be made without embracing the anti-Semitic paradigm.
---
If you stipulate to the above points, I'll happily give your criticism of Israeli policy the benefit of the doubt, that it's not anti-Semitic.
If you don't stipulate to those points, if you believe in the legitimacy of Palestinian violence against the people and state of Israel, then we're back to Mr Orwell, and you have a much tougher case to make.
Hard mode: Make your case without the first word being "so".
Nightmare mode: Make your case without appealing to an analogy.*
Hell (Sheol/Jahannam) mode: Make your case without equivocating around the complaint that oppressing Palestinians forces them to commit crimes against humanity.
---
*Bringing up similar cases, to examine what they can tell us in comparison with this case is fine. Traducing agreement about Similar Case B into agreement-by-analogy about Primary Case A is not.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/vCjmK1c
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire