I'm sick of people remembering ...

Originally posted by scherzo
[/i][b]The phrase "supports israel" is so vague it's ridiculous that you'd call that in itself to be racist.

Except Israel is not a race.

Do you have any facts to actually back that claim up?

Finkelstein: "For [Wiesel's] standard fee of $25,000 (plus chauffeured limousine), he lectures that the 'secret' of Aushwitz's 'truth lies in silen ...[text shortened]... Finkelstein actually proves his assertions.

EDIT: got rid of italics[/b]

Except Israel is not a race.

I know. I did not say or imply it was. You were the one that claimed that saying that because Elie Weisel supporting israel was a racist action.

This doesn't even address what I said at all.

Finkelstein: "For [Wiesel's] standard fee of $25,000 ..

Doesn't address what I actually asked at all.

more finkelstein...

I'm skeptical, but that at least addresses something related to what I said.

It doesn't nullify his whole memoir though, even if it is true.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It must be noted that the religion Jesus started is largely responsible for the situation. It must also be noted that Ghandi and Mandela have had far more success at actually achieving forgiveness and reconciliation than Jesus ever did. Jesus somehow managed to enrage people so much he got crucified for it.

So you blame Christians for the situation in Israel? Care to explain?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you have an actual argument as to why you disagree with me or are you simply going to feign disbelief and hope that constitutes an argument?
Do you disagree that by any reasonable measure conceivable the Holocaust has received more publicity by proportion than any other similar atrocity - even to the extent of getting the word Holocaust specifically a ...[text shortened]... g of the Jews is what makes it special. If that is your argument then can you substantiate that?

Do you have an actual argument as to why you disagree with me or are you simply going to feign disbelief and hope that constitutes an argument?
If, by "actual argument," you mean a defensible position which is in opposition to your stance, then yes, I have an "actual argument."

As stated, I was merely pining for the ability to consider your absurdities as being made in jest. Previous conversations with you disabused me of such a notion, as your standards and values have been fully exposed for their utter abjectness.

It is not I who disagree with you, but rather it is you in defiant opposition to reality. It is my "hope" that you wake yourself up from such unjustified stupor.

Do you disagree that by any reasonable measure conceivable the Holocaust has received more publicity by proportion than any other similar atrocity - even to the extent of getting the word Holocaust specifically assigned to it?
Apples for oranges, right? Do you mean that this time around, when a mere four or five million Jews were exterminated, in comparison to any other times Jews have been singled out for their mere Jewishness?
Or do you mean the Jews have an awful lot of gall by failing to always couch any conversation about their plight in light of all other pograms against any and all other groups of people?

If you do mean to have the Jews make sure they keep the Holocaust in perspective, then you'll have to allow them to include the overall historical picture, as well.

While there have been appalling genocides in the history of man, there exists not one group of people who have been targeted any where nearly as consistently and relentlessly as has been experienced by the Jew.

Originally posted by Scriabin
I'd prefer Buddha as the answer - not as a prophet and certainly not as some sort of human-created "divinity." If you worshipped Hercules or Apollo or Zeus, it would amount to the same thing.

Whereas, Buddhism is a philosophy under which forgiveness and compassion and right conduct based on an increased awareness of reality would serve us all quite well.

Well at least we agree that the road to peace MUST involve forgivness. The question then is, how. My pastor while in Israel also talked to a Christian Palastinian who ran an organization to help council those who had lost their loved ones in the conflict and encouraged people to forgive as a means of recovering. Of course, he spoke from personal experience because his own father was a Christian man who was wrongly gunned down by the Israelis. His mother then forbade her children from holding resentment towards the Israeli's, rather, she insisted they forgive them and move on with their lives. My pastor asked then asked him if he thought that if Israel pulled out of the region if he thought that would bring peace. He replied by saying that he believed the Palastinians would then probably tear each other apart. Case in point are the stuggles for power between Fatah and Hamas.

Personally, I think the ball is in the Israelis court. I think they should begin treating the Palastinians as equals, give them decent jobs, and slowly incorporate them into their country. When people have a full belly and a decent life to look forward to I don't see a way for the radicalism to flourish in such circumstances. It is therefore in the best interests of the extremists to keep the people as miserable as they can. So what motivating factor would cause this change? What would be the best catalyst? Would it be the attraction to a particular philosophy or a spiritual tranformation of the heart?

I'll tell you what, we could conduct an experiment but transplanting 5 Buddhaists and 5 Christians into the region and see which ones effect the most change. 😉

Originally posted by whodey
Well at least we agree that the road to peace MUST involve forgivness. The question then is, how. My pastor while in Israel also talked to a Christian Palastinian who ran an organization to help council those who had lost their loved ones in the conflict and encouraged people to forgive as a means of recovering. Of course, he spoke from personal experience ...[text shortened]... 5 Buddhaists and 5 Christians into the region and see which ones effect the most change. 😉

any more religion injected into the mix would only make things worse.

as it is, the hatred and violence that persists among the Arabs has now bred at least two generations of Israelis born there who absolutely hate and despise Arabs with equal vigor.

you cannot cure that with religion. You cure it by non violence. The Israelis won't be the first to stand down. If the Arabs provoke them, they will strike and strike harder and harder each time.

Only an insane person would conclude this reaction by Israelis will result in their defeat -- simply not the way the world ever has worked.

The latest series of Arab initiatives, rockets et al., resulted in Netanyahu and Lieberman, even though Kadima got more votes.

Hold on to your seats, it is going to be a bumpy ride here on out.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Except Israel is not a race.

I know. I did not say or imply it was. You were the one that claimed that saying that because Elie Weisel supporting israel was a racist action.

This doesn't even address what I said at all.

Finkelstein: "For [Wiesel's] standard fee of $25,000 ..

Doesn't address what I actually asked at all.

[i]m elated to what I said.

It doesn't nullify his whole memoir though, even if it is true.

[/i]I know. I did not say or imply [Israel is a single-race state]. You were the one that claimed that saying that because Elie Weisel supporting israel was a racist action.

But Israel is a racist state founded on a racist ideology.

Concerning the "memoir": it paves the way to questions like "did it really happen to him at all?"

And concerning the money: anyone could lecture that the secret to Aushwitz's truth lies in silence. Wiesel is just trying to un-quantify an easily quantifiable genocide (in the scheme of genocides) and label it a purely Jewish phenomenon. Nothing in his lectures says anything that separates his experience from any European in the war.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I think too many people see the problem as being an issue with the number of dead.

No, the number of dead isn't the greatest and I don't think that's the point either. I don't think it's a matter of the west caring more about jews - they certainly didn't when the holocaust was actually happening.

The real lessons of the holocaust have been clouded ...[text shortened]... sons to be learned, but I doubt have been because people care more about the number dead.

I completely agree. My point is about latent racism coming through in arguments about recognition or not of an atrocity.

Originally posted by divegeester
I completely agree. My point is about latent racism coming through in arguments about recognition or not of an atrocity.

Latent racism ... stop speaking of Judaism like it's a race, and stop speaking of Zionism like it's Judaism.

Originally posted by scherzo
[/i][b]I know. I did not say or imply [Israel is a single-race state]. You were the one that claimed that saying that because Elie Weisel supporting israel was a racist action.

But Israel is a racist state founded on a racist ideology.

Concerning the "memoir": it paves the way to questions like "did it really happen to him at all?"

And concerni ...[text shortened]... g in his lectures says anything that separates his experience from any European in the war.[/b]

Please do NOT change my words when you quote me. Apparently dishonesty isn't below you.

I DID NOT say anything about Israel being a single-race state or say anything about that in any of my posts.

This replacement of my words in my quote is obviously deliberate and obviously completely changes the meaning of what I said.


But Israel is a racist state founded on a racist ideology.

You are free to have your opinion. This is irrelevant to what I did say.

it paves the way to questions

aaah yes. paving.. It doesn't say anything about the answers.

And concerning the money:

Once again, you didn't actually address the issue of money after the colon.

Originally posted by scherzo
Latent racism ... stop speaking of Judaism like it's a race, and stop speaking of Zionism like it's Judaism.

I don't think i mentioned either of them so stop putting words in my mouth.

Let's say 'latent hatred' then shall we.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Please do NOT change my words when you quote me. Apparently dishonesty isn't below you.

I DID NOT say anything about Israel being a single-race state or say anything about that in any of my posts.

This replacement of my words in my quote is obviously deliberate and obviously completely changes the meaning of what I said.


But Israel is a r ...[text shortened]... he money:

Once again, you didn't actually address the issue of money after the colon.

I acknowledge that you did not say that (it was in brackets, after all, which in the world of literature signifies that a certain quote needs an antecedent), but I wanted to provide a reference without just saying "it" out of nowhere. It is what we were discussing.

Your attempt to divert the questions holds no water, I repeat, no water. Instead of indulging in false truths about my honesty (which far exceeds the honesty of most people on this forum), perhaps you would care to actually counter my points. Unless you have no counterargument, in which case a gracious debater will concede, as I have done on multiple occasions.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't think i mentioned either of them so stop putting words in my mouth.

Let's say 'latent hatred' then shall we.

Apparently taking a leaf out of psycho's book, then. Some forms of hatred are justified.

Originally posted by scherzo
I acknowledge that you did not say that (it was in brackets, after all, which in the world of literature signifies that a certain quote needs an antecedent), but I wanted to provide a reference without just saying "it" out of nowhere. It is what we were discussing.

No. It was not what we were discussing.

Let's recap.

You said about Elie Weisel (all direct quotes):

He supports Israel. That is a racist, fascist action on his part.

I said:
The phrase "supports israel" is so vague it's ridiculous that you'd call that in itself to be racist.

Meaning that it's ridiculous to characterize someone simply "supporting Israel" as being racist since the phrase is vague enough to mean just about anything you want it to.

you said:
Except Israel is not a race.

I responded:
I know. I did not say or imply it was. You were the one that claimed that saying that because Elie Weisel supporting israel was a racist action.

It's obvious that your insertion of the comment of Israel being a racist state completely changed the meaning of what I actually said. If it wasn't obvious to you then frankly, I'm disappointed in your lack of reading comprehension skills.

Originally posted by scherzo
Your attempt to divert the questions holds no water, I repeat, no water. Instead of indulging in false truths about my honesty (which far exceeds the honesty of most people on this forum), perhaps you would care to actually counter my points. Unless you have no counterargument, in which case a gracious debater will concede, as I have done on multiple occasions.

I'm not attempting to divert the questions.

I have conceded that according to some of your claims that I am skeptical, but am not familiar with the context or the evidence so can't make an authoritative argument.

You have repeatedly made irrelevant posts in response to what I am saying. I'm not going to just concede that you're right about everything when you just go off on whatever tangent you feel like.

You may be right, I don't know. You certainly haven't proven it though.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
No. It was not what we were discussing.

Let's recap.

You said about Elie Weisel (all direct quotes):

He supports Israel. That is a racist, fascist action on his part.

I said:
The phrase "supports israel" is so vague it's ridiculous that you'd call that in itself to be racist.

Meaning that it's ridiculous to characterize s ...[text shortened]... s to you then frankly, I'm disappointed in your lack of reading comprehension skills.

Elie Wiesel supporting Israel is a racist action.

Elie Wiesel is a racist.

Israel is a racist state.

Maybe you're missing something, maybe I'm missing something, but the pieces seem to fit together.