with apologies for a flippant response before I've even read
your whole post.. but in general I think it's all absurd, the
notion of nations that endure. None of them do.

Hold the mayo.

How many billions over the past 30 years?

Not even close, actually.

x

have been the top 2 recipients. But if you want to say Israel is only second in getting US handouts, well, is that something you are bragging about?

But I doubt you've ever uttered a word of dissent about the multi-billions of tax dollars in aid that goes to Pakistan, have you? Pakistan knowingly harbored the USA's #1 terror target until he was taken out over a year ago.

I doubt you've ever uttered a word about the multi-billions in US aid that goes to the UN, way more than what goes to Israel, while the UN is mostly useless and also typically hostile to US interests.

At least Israel is an ally and puts most of that aid back into the US economy.

But they need to stop stealing other people's land and killing them.


They certainly shouldn't get any of my tax dollars to do it.

They tear down houses in response to mass murder instead of responding with mass murder. In return, they get missiles in the back yard where children play. Bombs in restaurants, buses, markets.

But sometimes decades of fear makes someone crack. Can't imagine why.

Please, be sure to ride a bus with a Palestinian. Nothing to be afraid of.

I hate ill-informed bigotry. It isn't the Palestinian apartments that need to have bomb shelters.

on edit: And the Israelis don't murder other Israelis for advocating peace and cooperation. The Palestinians kill their own.

Absolute angels, those Israelis. Thanks for setting me straight.

Either they are a nation or they aren't. I believe they are and will regard them as such.

All that was done was rightly point out that to get around laws in some countries or make their anti-semitism more palatable those with anti semetic sentiments will cloak their anti Jewish views as a critique of Israel as a nation state.
The false charge of attempting to define any criticism of Israel as antisemitism just like the pre-emptive false charge of "I will be accused of anti-semitism" are both commonly made by many in the anti Israel camp including some who don't harbor anti-semetic sentiments when nothing of the sort was done. Such false charges are made when there is a lack of facts to wage a counter argument and or to stifle debate and sweep inconvenient truths under the rug.

If you can show me where there was an attempt to define any criticism Israel as antisemitism I will be happy to apologize.

Here:


The way to get round that obstacle is to air anti-Semitic sentiments in the guise of a critique of Israel as a nation-state. To make that somewhat more palatable, a bit of spice is often added by evoking the sufferings of the Palestinians. However, once the mayonnaise of political grievances against Israel is pushed aside, one is often left with the old unpalatable hatred of the Jew.


Other than the typical "Israel is special" style rhetoric (what nation isn't "special"?) found in the piece, or the absurd "singled out" nonsense, this small bit makes it clear that the author of the article disregards any criticism of that country as antisemitic or at best, is merely trying to marginalize those that disagree with the actions taken by the nation of Israel.

Given that Israel is singled out and happens to be the only Jewish nation in the world, the most likely reason its destruction is called for is bigotry.

And that isn't even criticism. That is just ranting.

Criticism would be along the lines of calling it an Apartheid state.

...who are against Israel's existence.

Funny how that works, eh?

Maybe his tone and conclusions were wrong. I don't know about that, and I would not have voted to hide the post. However, his claims that neither the UN nor Britain created israel are spot on.

at least on DU, that person can expect a PPR. Even in this group. Israel's right to exist has been accepted by a large majority of nations for a very long time.

And there it is.

However, I also understand that the actual Arab argument against Israel is even more extreme and noxious than the hidden post. I assume that you have read or have some understanding of the PLO or Haas Charters. They believe that israel has no right to exist because Jews are not a peopole entitled to a state. What they maintain is worse. At least this poster was honest. So if we are hiding this post, then how can we have any real meaningful discussion about the I/P dispute?

I don't visit this group. I was on the jury for that noxious post. You folks will have to fight it out for yourselves.

Are we to assume that it not the case - that it is moot for both Israelis and Arabs?

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

It isn't a legal or moral body. It doesn't make judgments. That means that UNGAR 181 does not support the creation of either a Palestinian or a Jewish state. The Jews and the Palestinians each have a right to a state in historic Palestine for the same reasons that other peoples have a right to a national existence. I see no reason to treat them any differently than the French, Russians, Japanese, etc..

Do you know of any way to read the opinions of the jurors? I'd like to know what their thought processes were.

or if someone who was either is willing to post the results

The statement is simply not acceptable on DU that Israel doesn't deserve to exist. It never has been, and never will be.

so your post was informative

I think it was important for people to know how you and the other jurors made the decision.

Statements to the effect that Israel does not have the right to exist get hidden on DU. That's very unlikely to change.

Thanks for your jury service and your input.

First para is straw man: "zionist sympathizers" do not in general claim the UN created Israel.
Second para is correct, ignoring the rhetorical flourishes, that is how Israel was created.
Third para is, at best, a non-sequitur.

I'd of voted hide, because of the bits of coded rhetoric, but I'd of had to think about it a while, so I suppose I would agree that was quick.

the article never really defines who is advocating for the destruction of Israel or exactly what destruction of Israel means a nuclear bomb or simply ending the occupation of the West Bank or something in between?

as to our MIR team they do indeed act rapidly

It would take too long to reorganize it into some sort of rational form so you could begin to rationally argue about it. And of course there is no point in playing Calvin-ball, telling talking points like some benighted rosary, a discourse long since become stale anyhow.

I've been enjoying watching how the jury system evolves, much amusement can be derived from spectating the vast quantities of energy being invested in trying to somehow control that which is by design not controllable.

my questions were rather rhetorical in nature and why I have not directly responded either

however you are quite right about the jury system as this shows

At Tue Jun 26, 2012, 02:14 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

I don't think its that
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=12728

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Jews appear to control the world?

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Jun 26, 2012, 02:31 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: antisemitic...hide this garbage
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is just an opinion about a possible perception as far as I can tell.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Absurd.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post is a statement not an attack, not disruptive, not rude, nor over-the-top. While it maybe slightly insensitive the OP seems to be playing devils advocate and people are just alerting because they dislike his/her opinion. To me this is not a legitimate reason for hiding the post.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you.

He was not saying Jews control the world.

He said 'I think most anti semites have the belief that jews control the world '

That could be a true statement . A lot of antisemites also believe that Israel is the tail that wags the dog (USA )

I do not think it surprising ,at all, that it was not hidden.

I am more surprised it was alerted on.

and under that appearance of control things are getting worse?

Which is what I was talking about, the iffy-ness of the jury system, not meaning to speak for azurnoir in any way.

It's very fun to participate, but there is no consistency whatsoever as far as I can tell.

If you want to know what's acceptable, you have to ask a jury, and then there is a very good chance that you will get something that's probably pretty close to the answer.

however juries here tend to lean towards leaving things there are certain subjects that will almost automatically get things hidden whether or not they actually apply now I've done the jury thing 117 times (according to my profile) but have only voted to hide maybe 5 times and only once was I on a jury about an I/P comment

that can be blocked from sitting on our Juries if one of our posts is alerted on,

there is a lower chance of regular IP contributors sitting 'in judgement' on our own alerted posts.

must be quite frustrating for some here

I approve of the jury system, but it does have certain "weaknesses" compared to the moderator system, mostly in that every jury is a new event, and so there is much less context than with a moderator system; the moderators provide a more reliable form of institutional memory. The rules, instead of being a list of formal standards, are now guidelines, fuzzy around the edges, judgement is required. On the other hand, the results are probably a better representation of the views of the membership here, rather than of the proprietors, and we all get to participate, if we choose to.

But you have to take more of a "just let it roll" attitude or it's going to annoy you constantly with inconsistent or unpalatable results.

the inmates running the asylum, however I find a good deal of alerts to be more grudge matches or a single comment is alerted as a personal attack on a thread that is chock full of them, sometimes made by the alerter themselves then I vote to let it stand, because especially in the latter case it is means of silencing the opposition, generally though unless it is something really bad I let it stand there are exceptions of course and in those cases I vote to hide but that's not very often, I still vote to let more comments go than to hide

I have a bias against censorship, in favor of letting people talk, even if what they say is wrong, but I do vote to hide things.

I see lots of pissing contests and attempts to redress ego-damage, but mostly I try not to pay attention to that, because the last thing I want to do is get involved in somebody elses argument or take a side. On the other hand, if it is clear that it's an ego-alert, I take that into account in deciding how to vote.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the PLO, etc... all of which are led by extreme rightwing, totalitarian, misogynist, anti-gay, anti-christian, bigoted, racist, anti-semitic warmongerers. They and their friends in the east and west, left and right-wingers, want Israel gone and replaced by whatever ends up in its place. It doesn't matter whether Palestine replaces Israel or whether Jordan, Syria, and Egypt divide Israel amongst themselves. So long as there's no Israel. It's not about Palestine and Palestinians.

They want this done in either of 2 ways. Under the guise of human rights via full RoR. Or some all-out wet dream of a missile/rocket assault, with tanks, planes, chemical and biological weapons, suicide bombers flooding the borders, maybe even nukes.

I find there's no significant difference b/w the views of Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran, etc... and other anti-zionists who parrot their views WRT Israel. They all want the same thing.

they are supporting an group that is attempting to destroy Israel, unless you think that they too advocate for Israel's destruction?

genocidal organization who's aim is to destroy Israel? Is this being done knowingly?

Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:04 AM - Edit history (1)

It's not just the USA or Obama, but also the Congress, Senate, and State Dept. Add the EU and UK in as well. I have no idea whether it's done "knowingly". It may very well be. Maybe they don't think the PA is serious with its threats, who knows.

For example, do you "know" the PA is genocidal and wants to destroy Israel?

but it's not just Obama that is supporting an according to you genocidal organization it's Congress it's the Senate it's the EU it's everybody (who counts with some here )?

however you seem to believe it, are you queing up those vids yet ?

...whether they know, don't know, or pretend not to know.

More than likely there's a combination of all 3 going on.

so you know more than they do? well okay then

Israel is on the side of Democracy. Period. So yes.