Israeli policeman stated on facebook desire to 'slay arabs'

Post Reply New Topic

Technically both Arabs and Jews are Semitic peoples. So if either one hates the other they are "Anti-Semitic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

Personally my 2p is if a phrase get used very broadly, then it can loose all meaning.

I think there are some anit-semitic Jews. But there are also people who label people anti-Semitic because they don't like their opinions, or political persuasion,

Palestinians whilst thy do have other blood, are closer generically to Canaanites that that Israelites are derived from, then many of the European Jews. In fact some of the Palestinian ancestors would have been Jewish or Christian, before they became Islamic.

They are a Semitic people technically speaking.

So this is a phrase not to be used lightly.

But since the 19th century, "antisemitism" has meant only hatred or dislike of Jews.

Gilad Atzmon, Richard Silverstein, Israel Shamir, Gerald Kaufman...



I try to avoid that wherever possible. I don't think criticising Israeli policy on this or that issue is antisemitic, just as I don't think criticising the French or German government about their lunatic EU policy, or the French mad dash to the left-wing is anti-German or anti-French. I'm not calling for France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or any country to be wiped from the map.

If one can read Hebrew (I can't, but Google Translate will give you an idea), Israeli media seems the most diverse and opinionated on Earth. There is criticism of Israel's government and society from to to bottom, in every sphere and about most subjects. It is a very democratic country, with opinionated people giving off and arguing about every subject on Earth. Israelis seem to love to argue the toss and the arguments about education, social welfare, immigration, crime and safety, Israel's place in the world and so on and so forth seem to go on and on. In fact, from what I have read of Israeli life, it's as though domestic local issues come to the fore, as there has been to resolution with the Palestinians. Bread and butter topics are more important to many Israelis.

I think it crosses the line when people support murder and terror against ordinary civilians. I think it goes over the line when people support Fatah (when you see how they actually behave, and this information is out there on the Internet) or Hamas. I think it goes over the line when people start using conspiracy theories. I think it goes over the line when people start approvingly quoting terrorists. I think it goes over the line when people always believe that the Israelis - as a nationality of people - are always in the wrong and are never in the right. I don't think that about Palestinians, and I wish the best for them. I feel sadness when I hear of Palestinians killed by Hamas, or when they are imprisoned and persecuted for 'Islamic' or other reasons. I feel bad for people's families when innocent Gazans get caught in the crossfire between Israel and Hamas.

Anti-Jewish is a better phrase.

There a people who are broadly anti-Islamic too.

I think the point is people have all sort of crazy beliefs that doesn't automatically mean these people are bad people.

I don't like Islam as a religion, I think this is a legitimate position to have. There are aspects of Judaism that I wouldn't be OK with either. If you take extremist from both religion, they will tell you god is vengeful, they will say similar things about non-believers.

On other other hand I know some of these people and they consent. Not all are that comfortable with it, however. The worst that could happen usually is they will be shunned an outcast. No nice, but they could continue on with their life.

Regarding women's right, there are aspect of frum Judaism that arguably, more problematic, certainly invasive it the word that springs to mind. Islam treats women, as fem-fatal, that is absolutely irresistibl, if you see flesh, would will instantly start fornicating, or certainly you could argue this in one of their courts. In Judaism they preserve modesty, but also they are so obsessed with 'purity', that they need to know every little detail of the woman's state. Islam and Judaism share similar ideas about bodily fluids (they are more related then people realize), however in Islam much of has to be self-managed as it is Haraam to share this, where as in Judaism rabbinical deliberation is a big part of it. I don't know which is more disturbing. Possibly sending your dirty nickers to your Rabi, if I was pushed. Like I said people consent to this, so I can't say they are wrong.

I don't think Israel had a whole lot of British backing pre 1948 or post 1948....unless it's some clandestine effort to help the Arabs on the outside, but hurt them in the long run? If Britain wanted to help the Zionists, why did they make it so difficult, and why did they give both sides a sh***y deal with the partition plan? I could ask a lot of "why did the British do this, why did they do that" things that dont gel with what you're saying.

I dont know much about the situation between the Irish and the British, the partition of Ireland? But I bet you're trying to relate that and Israel/Palestine. Maybe your central gripe is with the British, and you relate to the Palestinian plight, as presented to you by Jew hating Arabs. Arabs never wanted, and many still dont want a Jewish state in the middle east. So I'm not being far fetched when I say "Jew hating."
I would be interested to know what you think should happen there. I don't even know myself, I would like to know, I should read up and see what the latest is, but I think the Arabs want a perpetual war against Israel, which is what has been going on since 1948ish, so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Thomas81, I am aware of your stance on these issues, but this is beyond even that..

Why don't you look up the statements of Mr. Bevin in the runup to the partition vote, and the RAF's dogfight with (what would become) the IAF in 1948...the UK took a side, but it was'nt the one you're implying.

The UK was enforcing a one-sided arms embargo, and shipping arms to the UK's allies the whole way through. That pretty much continued after 1948, at least up to the run up to the Suez Crisis....which I'm pretty sure what you think of that subject.

The British were in a tough situation. Arguably the french were far worse in the region. What is happening in Syria is the legacy of this. Obviously the Ottoman were Sunni, so Sunni were not involved in French middle east. But they handled it very badly.

But is easy to say historically they were naive (but who wasn't?), and Zionists (in the true definition), weren't so well behaved back then, given he support we were giving to Jews in Europe, being bombed at the King David Hotel was a stab in the back. Zionist movement was actually an idea that wasn't so mainstream till around the 20s, and even then arguably not really taken hold in the majority until the war. This is all purely historical however, not much to do with the modern situation.

The point is that is in the past. I don't think nationhood is defined in divine right, or some distant kingdom. Israel right to exist is based on thriving. I think that is the same for any nation. You can't have a modern legal principle based on anything less. Those that are still trying unpick that I can only feel sorry for them. Move on, find solutions not problems.

Note this also mean I don't particularly buy the argument the Ottomans 'sold' the land either, apart from anything else they lost, so it is pretty much meaningless.

I wouldn't defend Ottomans, but one thing they could do is administer. They were expert in using local groups to do their administration for them, with the oversight of a pasha.

Also, before (and during) the war, the British stopped many Jews from fleeing European persecution and resettling in Palestine. There was a lot of Jews who could have escaped from the Nazis if the British authorities had let them do so, but Britain wouldn't either let them into the UK or resettle in Palestine.

If anything, the British policy was pro-Arab rather than pro-Jewish.

You have to remember that the State of Israel is, what, 20% of the territory of Mandatory Palestine? Most of Palestine is in Jordan, which is why the three-state solution makes logical sense to me.

I'd go further than that. Most Arabs don't want Jews living in the Middle East full stop. The Muslim Arabs have, in their holy scripture, as Islamic destiny the killing of Jews for a start. In the Quran, it says how Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs and how they are weaker and smaller than Muslims, and will thus fall easily. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is extremely popular in numerous Arab country - in the PA and under Hamas, in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, in Qatar and in other countries too.

That's basically thomas81's position. Wipe Israel from the map and expel (and kill) the Jews living there.

The Irish parallel is those sectarian republicans suggesting that all people of a Unionist persuasion should should be forced out of Ireland and to kill them if they refuse.

(Protip: Most Israeli Jews are not descendants of European Jews, but of Jews ethnically cleansed from Arab and Muslim countries.)

The British weren't really in a position to stop fleeing, after all they could only stop people entering territories under their control.

People fled to all sorts of places. Of course we handle such humanitarian crisis differently nowadays, but to paint the British as the one obstacle isn't really accurate. Opposition to immigration, was just a strong elsewhere.

The British weren't really pro-Arab until people like Laurence, came. What they really wanted to do is prevent the axis from returning, arguably that was part of this strategy no matter how flawed.

Wrong! The term "anit-Semitic" was coined by Willheim Marr a German writer at the end of the 19 th century. It is a euphimism for Judenhass or Jew-Hatred. It has nothing to to with the Semitic language origins of Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic.

ruveyn

Agreed. The British were probably better than most of the European countries when it came to dealing with Jews fleeing persecution in the 1930s, but as you say they weren't particularly receptive to the world's Jews. It was an antisemitic time.

I only hope that, were the ethnic nationalist far-right gains power (say, in Hungary or Greece) that we could enable people suffering persecution to flee those countries. I wouldn't want to turn my back on those people. (The illegal immigration issue is big in Greece, but doesn't mean fascism is right.)

That still doesn't make it any less despicable. Seriously, the only group that deserves support in the Arab-
Israeli conflict are those that are actually decent people and not these violent, radical extremists.

absolute bollocks. Quote me where I said that.

I have consistently said that I support the idea of a shared Muslim-Jewish state with a mutuality of national identity. Not the Zionist zero sum idea of a solely Jewish state where the rights of indigenous arabs are an afterthought.

Some here however, have more or less advocated the same as what you have implied but with the roles reversed.

Perhaps they simply misheard the fella. While it sounded like "slay Arabs," what he was actually saying was "Slayer rocks!"