Civil servant faces sack over anti-Israel rant

[Scurrilous]

Foreign Office worker Rowan Laxton convicted of racially aggravated harassment after outburst in gym

<snip>

"A senior Foreign Office civil servant was today facing the sack after being convicted of racially aggravated harassment.

Rowan Laxton, who heads the South Asia desk, launched an expletive-ridden tirade against Israel and Jews as he worked out at a London gym.

A court was told the 48-year-old shouted: "Fucking Israelis, fucking Jews" as he watched a television news report about the death of a Palestinian farmer.

His fellow gym members Gideon Falter and William Lemaine overheard him and complained to gym staff. Falter claimed he also heard Laxton say: "If I had my way, the fucking international community should be sent in and if the Israelis got in the way, they'd be blown off the fucking earth."

Lemaine said: "No-one really expects to hear those words being uttered and when you do, you take a note of it."

more

[LeftishBrit]

1. Not exactly suited to a diplomatic post.

[bemildred]

2. Agreed. nt

[aranthus]

14. Is running the South Asia desk a diplomatic post?

It would seem to be a managerial/analysis/policy position. I can see, however, why you would not want someone with a high bias content, or lacking the self control to shut up about it in public to be running it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. UK, where the first amendment does not apply

[Ken Burch]

5. Why the heck are YOU defending this guy?

I hope it isn't because you like the fact that his saying that gives the Israeli right another chance to pretend that all critics of Israeli security policy are antisemites.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Because I believe in the freedom of speech, and that the antidote to hate speech is more speech

What he is saying is repugnant though it would play well in Tehran, Gaza, Syria and on Stormfront. It is better to confront it and show it to be wrong and the speaker a fool or worse than censor. A good example is Ahmadinejad at the UN.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. I find the American obsession with 'freedom of speech' to be quite idiotic...

The UK and the rest of the world isn't the US, and the rest of us don't blindly worship the 'freedom of speech' thing like some mainly RW Americans do. No-one's saying this guy didn't have the right to say what he said, but there's consequences for what people say, and in his case the consequence is going to be his career. There's no way he should be allowed to continue in the job he's in, not after that...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Restrictions on speech is often the first sign of repression

And its the Liberal/Progressive/Left Wing in the US that has benefited most from the free speech protections. Even in the US, actions outside of work can an do impact you, especially if its a right to work state or at will employment. What is absolutely asinine is the court case. I should have made that clear earlier.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. No-one restricted the guy's speech...

He's just copping the consequences of what he said...

btw, I do agree with you about the court case side of things...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. The court case is clearly a restriction, they have similar inanities in Canada

[Violet_Crumble]

59. No it's not. btw, do you consider libel cases to be restrictions of free speech? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. In the US no, in the UK yes, but he was not charged with libel

The difference being that the truth is a defense in the US and in the UK it is not.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Ah, so yr selective about what speech is free....

Which means that free speech isn't some unlimited thing and there are restrictions on some speech in the US...

[cali]

19. you really don't know this country very well if you think that it's "mainly right Americans"

who "blindly worship" freedom of speech. That's simply not the case. And this guy would certainly have gotten axed here as well. Freedom of speech is not freedom from a response to that speech. It's simply freedom not to be persecuted by the gov't for speech.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I know there's also some people who are LW that blindly worship the freespeech thing...

Chomsky is one that comes straight to mind. But from what I've seen it's predominately RWers who do the blind worship thing. Of course I should have just said what's obvious, which is the blind worship of free speech over all else is a uniquely American thing...

[cali]

23. you're just flat wrong and it's not as you choose to characterize it,

blind worship. Frankly, I think one of the best things about this country is the 1st amendment and esteeming it highly, is not blind worship.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. No, I'm not just flat wrong. It is blind worship that I'm talking about...

I'm not talking about folk that hold it in high esteem - I'm talking about the folk that do blindly worship it...

[oberliner]

62. I think you are wrong as well

As an American, I have to say that I not never encountered this phenomenon that you are describing.

Most of those folks who have been the strongest defenders of free speech in this country have been on the left. The ACLU being the first organization that comes to mind.

I am unaware of any people who "blindly worship" free speech.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. So what? I think yr wrong....

Clearly you haven't been reading GD or LBN when some folk who blindly worship free speech get on their hobby horses and rush to defend the most ugly and dangerous sort of speech. And when it comes to high profile folk, Chomsky's an obvious example. If you disagree, feel free to explain why....

[Ken Burch]

8. If you're in the diplomatic service(as you would be as part of the British Foreign Office)

would it not be a normal expectation that you would refrain in public or semi-public areas from inflammatory outbursts? That is, if you're in the diplomatic field, aren't you normally expected to display, well, tact?

If the man were a private citizen, it would be different.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Strongly agree

[aranthus]

15. He'd be fired in the States.

He's not a private citizen working for a private company. He's in the foreign service, and if he can't keep his mouth shut in public, or if he displays bias that could affect his job, then he deserves to fired.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. But he would not be in court

My issue is with the courts not job consequences

[aranthus]

65. True.

I agree that he shouldn't be prosecuted for what he said.

[Ken Burch]

4. He deserved it.

What's being done to Palestinians is the fault of the Israeli government, not "Jews".

The man probably still think's Fagin's big number from "Oliver!" is funny.

[pelsar]

9. d/p

[pelsar]

10. welcome to the real world...

where jews and israelis are constantly identified as one and the same..be it europeans and Palestinians and nazis, diplomats many others....and it has nothing to do any PR thing israel might do......

there is an on going argument that israels and jews are separate identities.....maybe to some they are within the world of exact dictionaries definitions, but in the real world the two defined as intimately related...

[Ken Burch]

11. In that real world, a lot of Jews choose not to see themselves as Israelis

It's long been settled that you don't have to take the Israeli government's side against the Palestinians just to prove you're not an antisemite.

You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that those two concepts(Israeli on the one hand, Jewish on the other)are NOT the same.

The fact that this idiot said the shit that he said(for which he's been condemned, you can be sure, by almost everyone who supports Palestinian self-determination, doesn't change that.

He's an idiot. He's also not the first antisemite in the history of the British Foreign Office. There was a chap named Balfour that beat him to it by several decades.

[pelsar]

12. it doesnt matter that hes an idiote...

that very same "combination of words" can be heard from almost every Palestinian every interviewed...not to mention arabs in the middle east....

it doesnt really matter what the those who support Palestinians self determination can differentiate between the two...they have little affect upon israeli policy. The reality is that those who have a far greater affect on israeli policies do infact mix the two up as one.

thats simply the reality of the world today.....it doesnt matter that i know there are jews that are not zionists, that have no identity with israel nor with their religion....that is quite irrelevant to the politics of those directly involved in the middle east conflict...

just listen to the Palestinians, the arabs etc...they disagree with you and it has nothing at to do with anti-Semitism and i have no idea why you even brought it up

[Ken Burch]

22. Does it really mean the same thing from a Palestinian as it would from, say, this guy?

Of from a Gestapo officer?

If you are powerless and you use "trash talk" against your oppressor, is it really bigotry? Is it any different from any side in any war says about whoever's on the other side?

To hear you talk, it's as if you think there's no difference between Anne Frank and the Israeli commander who orders a Palestinian farmer's olive trees destroyed. I hope to G-d I'm wrong about that, but you don't give me much reason to think so. And your mindset really, really, really misuses the suffering of European Jewry, twisting it to inflict suffering on people who had nothing to do with that suffering. The Shoah may not have been the only reason Israel was created, but you would HAVE to admit it's been used time and time again to silence criticism of what the government has done, even when the actions of that government(such as Ariel Sharon's invention of the "settlers movement" in the early 70's, a choice on his part that had no positive consequences whatsoever for Israel and did nothing but inflame the fully justified anger Palestinians felt about the Occupation into incandescent rage).

Had open dissent and discussion of these issues been fully acceptable in the late 60's and 70's(when everybody ALREADY knew there would have to be a Palestinian state), it's very likely that a peaceful settlement fair to both nations would have been achieved decades ago. But the Israeli goverrnment never wanted that. It just wanted to keep the "existential struggle" myth going because that Israel wouldn't actually matter on the world stage. No politician anywhere likes to give up the limelight(look at what Dick Cheney's been up to SINCE the election), and that's what peace would have meant for Israel's political class. In addition to the suffering of the Palestinians over this, the people of Israel have suffered badly from it as well. The combination of militarized politics and the suppression of dissent never takes any country to a good place.

If you're a settler or in the IDF, you are no longer in any sense a victim of oppression. You, in any exchange with any Palestinian, have all the power and they have none. And it is not bigotry for a Palestinian, in that exchange to attack a settler or a soldier. The settlers are no different than any other colonial movement. Israel as a whole is NOT colonialist, but it is colonialist to try to take the West Bank.

If you're a soldier in the Territories or a settler stealing land there, people in your family were possibly victims of past oppression, and their suffering needs to be honored, but YOU aren't. And the oppression of the past or in other countries cannot automatically be used to justify everything the Israeli security apparatus does today, or every new settlement that's built. Especially since there isn't even a SECURITY justification for new settlements.

This Brit at the gym is no different than Arthur Balfour. Balfour wanted a Jewish state so he could keep Eastern European Jewish immigrants OUT of Britain and so he could make sure that no real effort was made to combat antisemitism within Britain. This was the case with a lot of statesmen who were seen as "pro-Zionist". They got the state. They didn't actually do antisemitism any harm, and they may have helped it to grow by imposing a fairly dark quid pro quo: that a "Jewish homeland" be created in exchange for Europe and(until the 1950's)North America not be places where Jews would be welcome. It's an open question in the end as to whether the world's Jewish communities came out ahead on this. And it's entirely possible that they may have come out the worse for it.

Supporting Palestinian self-determination is one of the most important things a person can do to COMBAT antisemitism. Making shrill demands that Palestinians "recognize Israel as a 'Jewish state'" really isn't.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. Are you freaking kidding?!

"Supporting Palestinian self-determination is one of the most important things a person can do to COMBAT antisemitism."

That is one of the most stupid things I have read here in recent days.

[Ken Burch]

26. No it isn't.

And it's bound to be much more effective as a means to combat antisemitism than OPPOSING Palestinian self-determination.

The settlers, with their arrogance and self-entitlement(and with their delusional notion that the West Bank is MORE their than it is the Palestinians, are doing more harm to Jews(and especially to the majority of the world's Jewish communities who do NOT live in Israel and never will)than any Hamas crazy could do.

It's the height of arrogance to take somebody else's land, steal their water, steal their olive and lemon and fig trees (or just destroy them), and then say "you're a bigot if you feel any anger whatsoever towards me for doing this".

Nothing would do more to ease tensions, nothing would do more to make Israel to secure, than for the Israeli government to make it clear that Israel is the lands in the pre-1967 boundaries and nothing else is, and to accept that a Palestinian state(a state which would then have every incentive to live in peace with Israel as defined in those terms)in all of the West Bank and Gaza.

It is perfectly obvious that "peace through crushing the foe"(which is what Netanyahu STILL wants, whether you realize it or not)is impossible. It's equally impossible for either side to win an outright and final military victory. Sane people accept this.

There's no longer any reason to pretend that stalling for time and "creating facts on the ground" can achieve anything positive whatsoever for Israel. And there's no longer any reason to pretend that the Palestinians can be made to accept peace as surrender terms. Please accept that "victory" in this conflict is no longer possible or even a worthwhile goal.

The IDF high command and the settlers simply don't deserve the support of anyone with humane or progressive values. The settlements are not American style desegragation, and expanding them can have no positive effects for Israelis or Israeli security. Why pretend otherwise?

[Behind the Aegis]

27. It is completely stupid.

It is unrealted to anti-Semitism and to even suggest such a thing is confusing Jews and Israel. You are comparing apples to oranges. Do you even know what anti-Semitism is?

[Ken Burch]

29. Antisemitism is hatred of Jews and Judaism. I despise it and oppose it

There is a difference, however, between what some redneck in Georgia, or an Eastern European politician, or that British asshole at the gym saying the word "Jew" as he said it, and a Palestinian saying it as an IDF D-9 Cat destroys his house or as he hears that his grandmother died of a heart attack because the soldier at the checkpoint wouldn't let his desperate elderly grandfather drive through to get his grandmother to the hospital in time(when that soldier KNEW that there was no way that innocent old couple could have been terrorists).

I don't think Palestinians SHOULD use that word...however, is using it as a taunt to your oppressor really the same as a Gestapo officer using on people being loaded on the train to Auschwitz?

Is there any reason why Palestinians should automatically accept that the Israeli soldier that's tormenting him is MORE oppressed than he is?

That's why it's unfair to attack Palestinians, who are oppressed and are fighting for their lives, for using that word when it's no worse for them to do that than it would be for the ancient Israelites to use whatever trash talk they undoubtably used against the Centurions who were destroying the Temple.

The side that oppresses can't demand sainthood from the side that's oppressed. "Pro-Israelis" have very little right to judge Palestinians on word usage.

The British jerk deserves what he got. A Palestinian shouting it at the tank commander that just killed his brother, not so much, since that tank commander was never a victim of oppression.

If you don't want Palestinians shouting that, stop supporting the Israeli government when it does hateful and brutal things to Palestinians.

Fight antisemitism. Fight the arrogance of the Israeli military. A decent human being does BOTH.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Nothing but convoluted nonsense.

You have created your own argument for excusing anti-Semitism.

"however, is using it as a taunt to your oppressor really the same as a Gestapo officer using on people being loaded on the train to Auschwitz?"

Yes, Ken, it is the same! The nature of the word doesn't change because of who is saying it or what reason other than the speaker hates or dislikes Jews.

"however, is using it as a taunt to your oppressor really the same as a Gestapo officer using on people being loaded on the train to Auschwitz?"

That makes absolutely no sense.

"That's why it's unfair to attack Palestinians, who are oppressed and are fighting for their lives, for using that word when it's no worse for them to do that than it would be for the ancient Israelites to use whatever trash talk they undoubtedly used against the Centurions who were destroying the Temple."

So despite your claim in your subject line, sometimes anti-Semitism is OK?

"The side that oppresses can't demand sainthood from the side that's oppressed. "Pro-Israelis" have very little right to judge Palestinians on word usage."

Stupid conclusion! "Pro-Israelis", actually anyone who really does oppose bigotry, has every right to judge anyone using anti-Semitism.

"If you don't want Palestinians shouting that, stop supporting the Israeli government when it does hateful and brutal things to Palestinians."

This would be laughable if it weren't so incredibly stupid and sad.

"Fight antisemitism. Fight the arrogance of the Israeli military. A decent human being does BOTH."

A 'descent human being' doesn't make excuses for the use of bigotry of any kind.

Which leads back to your original remark as being stupid and conflating Israel and Jews. One doesn't combat anti-Semitism by accepting Palestinian self-determination as the two are mutually exclusive. One combats anti-Semitism by confronting it and not excusing it.

[Ken Burch]

31. I don't conflate them myself, and you know it

All I'm saying is that no one who defends the IDF has any right to judge the Palestinians on the words they use when the IDF oppresses them. A Palestinian using those words is NOT the same as a European Christian using them. It would be better if they didn't, but it's silly to act as if that's worse than anything the IDF does to them. A soldier destroying your house or killing your brother, or a settler(who probably came from the U.S. and never experienced antisemitism in her or his life) has no right to call you a bigot or to act as if her or his suffering could ever be worse than yours. That's the difference. Even you should see that.

No one in Israel(with the exception of the Israeli left and the resistors) has any right to be sanctimonious about any words Palestinians use. Certainly nobody who cheers when the IDF demolishes houses while watching from safety in the U.S. does.

I wish they wouldn't say that word, they could do better than to use it, but no one has the right to demand that they don't while the Occupation continues. The oppressor has no right to pass judgment on the oppressed. Using that word is just like the words the Israelites would've hurled at the Romans. Why should they see settlera and the IDF any differently than the way the ancient Israelites would've seen the destroyers of the Temple?

And why do you NEVER blame the IDF and the settlers for any of what happens in this dispute(at least from what I've read in this forum)? There's no way that keeping public silence on that could actually be GOOD for the people of Israel, people who never benefit from the hard line at all. If you want to stop Palestinians saying things you don't like, you need to call on the Israeli government, the IDF and the settlers to stop doing massive injustices TO THE PALESTINIANS.

If you don't want people to use those words(words I agree they shouldn't use)don't oppress them and then invoke that word to JUSTIFY the oppression. Do you get it now?

If the Occupation was over, nobody in the West Bank would be using that word. They'd be living in peace next to a secure Israel.

Why can't you admit that the Occupation is NOT good for the world's Jewish communities? Why can't you admit that the Palestinians have a right to be angry?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

33. Of course I grasp that Jews and Israel are not interchangeable

I'm simply saying that you can't be sanctimonious about what word an oppressed Palestinian would use towards his oppressor.

I've never conflated Israel and Jews. If I had, I wouldn't have spent thread after thread arguing that criticism of Israeli security policy was NOT "antisemitism".

You are now making false insinuations about me.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. It sure doesn't look that way.

Who is occupying the Palestinians?

"I'm simply saying that you can't be sanctimonious about what word an oppressed Palestinian would use towards his oppressor. "

It isn't "sanctimonious" it is called actually standing against bigotry. Bigotry is always wrong or do you disagree? Are there times that bigotry is acceptable? Because it sure seems you are implying such.

[Ken Burch]

36. It is sanctimonious, and it is arrogant.

If a state insists on equating itself with a word(whether or not everyone who identifies with that word agrees with what that state is doing or even identifies with the state that wraps itself in that word), then of course the people oppressed BY the military of that state will throw that word back, whatever that word may be. Why is it any different for a Palestinian, seeing the IDF kill his son and destroy his olive grove while claiming to do so in the name of that word, to throw that word back at those doing the destroying than it would be for, say, a Latin American campesino seeing the U.S. overthrow the government he helped elect because that government decided that feeding people was more important than the profits of a U.S. corporation, to shout "Yanqui, go home"?
Or for an Ulster Catholic in the height of the Troubles to shout "Brits Out!"

It's not bigotry when a word is used in that sort of a power relationship. It's an expression of pain and despair and powerlessness.

Understand me carefully.

I HATE it when that word is used as a taunt. It shouldn't be. But it's been used because the Israeli government pompously labeled itself the "Jewish state", consciously blurred the lines between "Israeli" and "Jewish"(which was shameful for them to do, because that government NEVER represented every Jewish person in the world and never had the unquestioning backing of all of them). The Palestinians fell into the trap of using that word because the ISRAELI government wanted them to.

And in the past, I did loudly denounce it. But it's silly to act like Palestinians using that word is worse than anything the IDF and the settlers do to Palestinians. I wish they wouldn't but it's not the same as an English diplomat using. And I'd never use it myself. And that's all that you have the right to expect of me. If I was as smug about denouncing that word's use among Palestinians as you are, it would mean I was indifferent to their suffering.

It's just not as simple as you make it out to be.

You have to stop supporting the oppression of people before you can lecture them about their choice of epithets.

[Behind the Aegis]

37. Bigotry against Jews is always wrong; there are no exceptions.

PERIOD.

I do love your "blame the victim" excuse, which is often very popular and wrapped in strawman, as well. The only thing is you are indifferent to anti-Semitism when it is used by a certain group; this is justifying the use of bigotry.

"You have to stop supporting the oppression of people before you can lecture them about their choice of epithets."

Almost as stupid as the original quote to which I responded.

[Ken Burch]

38. Bigotry against ANYONE is equally wrong.

Bigotry against the Palestinians is wrong too. Bigotry against Jews, loathsome as it is, isn't worse than all OTHER forms of bigotry.

And antisemitism is loathsome but the Occupation is equally loathesome. Both are bigotry.

And I wasn't blaming any "victims". Jews in Europe in the past were victims, and we need to make sure that neither they nor anyone else(including Muslims, Roma and economic refugees from Eastern Europe as well as Jews and LGBT people)are victims of hatred now.
No West Bank settler can ever claim to be a victim, and certainly no IDF general.

Supporting the Occupation does nothing to STOP antisemitism nor to combat bigotry. And the Palestinian resistance was never about bigotry. I'd say you know this perfectly well but it's perfectly clear that you don't know it, because you're view of life is hopelessly particularlist, based on your posts here. You seem to have long ago abandoned any universalist conception of justice or of human equality.

There'd be no bigotry if nobody was oppressed.

[Behind the Aegis]

39. What crap.

"Between Israel and Palestine, the Palestinians are always the victims."

What a stupid remark, one of many you have made in this sub-thread.

"And antisemitism is loathsome but the Occupation is equally loathesome. Both are bigotry."

:eyes: Both are not bigotry.

"And no IDF officer and no settler can claim to be "the victim"."

They can be victims. They can be victims of anti-Semitism (if Jewish) and can be victims of violence.

[Ken Burch]

41. The Palestinian resistance is not based on antisemitism

Why can't you accept that they'd do the same thing to anyone else who did the same thing to them?

Are you really saying that Palestinians would be perfectly happy to have the Turks or the other Arabs take their land, destroy their olive groves, hoard the water supply and kill their kids? You wouldn't take that from anyone else. Why would you expect anyone else to?

It's about injustice. Not bigotry. And it never was about bigotry. It's time to stop misusing claims of bigotry to perpetrate injustice.

[Behind the Aegis]

43. More straw?!

"Why can't you accept that they'd do the same thing to anyone else who did the same thing to them?"

You mean like the resistance while occupied by Egypt and Jordan?

"Are you really saying that Palestinians would be perfectly happy to have the Turks or the other Arabs take their land, destroy their olive groves, hoard the water supply and kill their kids? You wouldn't take that from anyone else. Why would you expect anyone else to?"

Why do you insist on making up "facts?"

"It's about injustice. Not bigotry. And it never was about bigotry. It's time to stop misusing claims of bigotry to perpetrate injustice."

More crap! Bigotry has played a part in it and to pretend or deny otherwise is disingenuous at best. To comment that the actions of Israel are based on bigotry committed against it is stupid and remarkably ignorant.

[Ken Burch]

45. I made up no facts.

I asked some questions.

And they did engage in resistance against Jordan. That's why Arafat got kicked out of Jordan.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. You certainly did make up facts.

"Are you really saying that Palestinians would be perfectly happy to have the Turks or the other Arabs take their land, destroy their olive groves, hoard the water supply and kill their kids? You wouldn't take that from anyone else. Why would you expect anyone else to?""

When have I ever said the Palestinians or anyone else for that matter should be happy with anyone who would "take their land, destroy their olive groves, hoard the water supply and kill their kids?"

"And they did engage in resistance against Jordan. That's why Arafat got kicked out of Jordan."

Got kicked out of where?! JORDAN! Why? Learn some history.

[Ken Burch]

49. Egypt and Jordan, for the record, didn't force Palestinians to leave Palestine,

didn't steal their water, didn't cut down their olive trees, didn't kill their kids. Egypt and Jordan, while hardly paragons of earthly virtue, pretty much left Palestinians alone.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. You need to read more history.

If you believe the twaddle you are trying to peddle.

"Egypt and Jordan, while hardly paragons of earthly virtue, pretty much left Palestinians alone."

[Ken Burch]

52. Did they destroy Palestinian homes?

Divert Palestinian water? Did they send in Egyptian or Jordanian settlers who claimed the land was more Egyptian or Jordanian than it was Palestinian? No.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. Again, read more history.

Just because certain things weren't done, doesn't mean the occupation was any less brutal.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Okay, I've read some history and the Jordanian occupation wasn't brutal...

Maybe you've been reading some different history than I have? If so, could you give some examples of how the Jordanian occupation was no less brutal than the Israeli one?

[Behind the Aegis]

60. The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank wasn't like the current dispute.

The only ones who suffered were the Jews. I should have left Jordan out.

Edit: Took out silly remark.

[shira]

66. much of it is Ken - they are proxies of the greater Arab/Muslim world, like S.Arabia and Iran...

...two of the most antisemitic countries in policy and action against Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Well, I agree with your edited title.

"Bigotry against the Palestinians is wrong too. Bigotry against Jews, loathsome as it is, isn't worse than all OTHER forms of bigotry."

I see you are relying on your tried and true strawman of choice, it seems.

"And I wasn't blaming any "victims"."

You most certainly were:

I HATE it when that word is used as a taunt. It shouldn't be. But it's been used because the Israeli government pompously labeled itself the "Jewish state", consciously blurred the lines between "Israeli" and "Jewish"(which was shameful for them to do, because that government NEVER represented every Jewish person in the world and never had the unquestioning backing of all of them). The Palestinians fell into the trap of using that word because the ISRAELI government wanted them to.

"Supporting the Occupation does nothing to STOP antisemitism nor to combat bigotry. And the Palestinian resistance was never about bigotry. I'd say you know this perfectly well but it's perfectly clear that you don't know it, because you're view of life is hopelessly particularlist, based on your posts here. You seem to have long ago abandoned any universalist conception of justice or of human equality."

Strawmen on the march, as well as untruths.

"There'd be no bigotry if nobody was oppressed."

That statement is a pile of horseshit and you know it.

Excusing anti-Semitism doesn't strengthen the resolve of Palestinian self-determination nor prepare for honest negotiations. Israeli actions aren't always about maintaining the occupation or stalling talks. And you know it.

[Ken Burch]

44. In the passage you put in a block

I said that the Israeli government had constantly insisted on referring to itself as "the Jewish state", as if everything it ever did was drawn from the Torah and if any criticism of anything it did equalled antisemitism. If goes without saying that this was done, in part, to goad Palestinians and other Arabs to make the mistake of conflating the two.

Certainly the Israeli government itself can never be considered a victim in any exchange with the Palestinians. The Israeli government, between the two entities in question, has ALL the power. The Palestinians have none.

And it's quite likely that even the most nonviolent, moderate Palestinian leadership that would ever emerge would face repeated humiliation from the Israeli political-military leadership, because, to that leadership, "winning" is more important than anything.

This is the case with other polticians elsewhere, so why should it not be legitimate to say it of THEM?

And it's not a strawman for me to draw conclusions from my OWN arguments. I was talking there about what I believe, not anything that YOU had said.

I do have some questions for you, at this point:

Have you ever condemned the settlers for their relentless anti-Palestinian bigotry?

For taking Palestinian land and water?

For their repeated violent attacks on Palestinians?

For their arrogant belief that the West Bank is theirs and NOT the Palestinians?

Will you ever do so?

Have you ever condemned further settlement construction?

And why do you not condemn the Israeli government for using the settlement project to try to make any Palestinian state as small and unsustainable as possible by inventing and encouraging the settler movement?

Why don't you condemn these things here?



A Palestinian saying the "J-word" is a bad choice. No one can seriously believe that it's worse than anything the IDF and the settlers do to Palestinians. It's enough to wish that they wouldn't use it. It's absurd to suggest that its really bigotry or that it trumps anything that's been done to them.


As to bigotry and oppression:

Look at the U.S.

We are hardly perfect, yet we do have a lot less oppression here than in much of the world. We also have(with exceptions)a good-deal less bigotry than other places. If we had no oppression at all, if everyone had economic security and the knowledge that it would always be there and also the knowledge that there was little likelihood of war, there'd be little if any liklihood of anyone expressing bigotry. Bigotry is a product of misery. That's why, when the European social welfare states were at their heights and those countries had something close to full-employment economies, there was much less bigotry there than there is now.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. It is called "blaming the victim."

You continue to do it with your absurd first paragraph.

"It's not a strawman for me to draw conclusions. I was talking there about what I believe, not anything that YOU had said. no strawmen at all. I didn't set up ANY false position on your side."

It was a strawmen, Ken. You create a "position" for me, act as if I were the one who held such, then 'squash' it as not appropriate.

"Have you ever condemned the settlers for their relentless anti-Palestinian bigotry? Will you ever do so? You never have in these threads. Have you ever condemned further settlement construction? Why do you not condemn it here? And why do you not condemn the Israeli government for using the settlement project to try to make any Palestinian state as small and unsustainable as possible? You should do that here. Why don't you? These are sincere and legitimate questions."

Again, making up shit, claiming it is my position, then demanding my answer to something you already answered. Why don't you let me make statements about my positions when I so chose and barring that you do NOT get to decide what I do and don't support/condemn/approve of in any given situation.

"A Palestinian saying the "J-word" is a bad choice. No one can seriously believe that it's worse than anything the IDF and the settlers do to Palestinians."

Strawman.

"Look at the U.S.

We are hardly perfect, yet we do have a lot less oppression here than in much of the world. We also have(with exceptions)a good-deal less bigotry than other places. If we had no oppression at all, if everyone had economic security and the knowledge that it would always be there and also the knowledge that there was little likelihood of war, there'd be little if any liklihood of anyone expressing bigotry. Bigotry is a product of misery. That's why, when the European social welfare states were at their heights and those countries had something close to full-employment economies, there was much less bigotry there than there is now."

Care to prove any of this or pretend it is fact without substantiation?

[Ken Burch]

47. I asked you why you didn't condemn those things here

Perhaps you have in other situations, but not here. It was a legitimate question to ask why you hadn't condemned those things here when it is common knowledge that they contribute heavily to the situation. I didn't make up your position. I asked you to ELABORATE on your position. There's a huge difference between those things.

And no, blaming the Israeli government is not blaming the victim. The government is just the government. blaming it is no more blaming the people as a group than blaming the U.S. government is blaming Americans as a group. No government can ever claim to be a victim. A government is just a government, all of them are made up of normal, fallible human beings, and none is any better than any other.

[Behind the Aegis]

50. I don't have to condemn those things here because it is not the topic.

Just because you introduce red herrings, doesn't mean I have to respond.

"And no, blaming the Israeli government is not blaming the victim. The government is just the government. blaming it is no more blaming the people as a group than blaming the U.S. government is blaming Americans as a group. No government can ever claim to be a victim. A government is just a government, all of them are made up of normal, fallible human beings, and none is any better than any other. "

It is blaming the victim. You are claiming it is Israel's fault that the Palestinians call them things like "fucking Jews" because they, Israel, set themselves up to be victimized, which you claim is not possible.

[Ken Burch]

53. They are entwined with the topic

Palestinians didn't say things like that without severe provocation. They were goaded into saying them. They didn't hate Jews from time immemorial(they got along fine prior to 1900 with the indigenous Mizarahi community, for example)and its entirely possible that they wouldn't even have had bad feelings towards the Ashkenazi newcomers if Britain hadn't poisoned the well by refusing to consult the Palestinians or any other Arabs about what the antisemite Balfour was planning to do.

And I said "the Israeli government", not "Israel" and not the Israeli people as a group. The three are NOT interchangeable, any more than "Jews" and "Israel" are interchangeable. The Israeli GOVERNMENT clearly wanted to goad Palestinians into using the "J-word" as a slur. They got what they wanted. Saying that is attacking a group of politicians, not an entire people.

[Behind the Aegis]

55. Red herring. Look it up!

"They were goaded into saying them."

That is a pathetic remark.

"They didn't hate Jews from time immemorial(they got along fine prior to 1900 with the indigenous Mizarahi community, for example)and its entirely possible that they wouldn't even have had bad feelings towards the Ashkenazi newcomers if Britain hadn't poisoned the well by refusing to consult the Palestinians or any other Arabs about what the antisemite Balfour was planning to do. "

It is always someone else's fault for their use of bigotry.

"And I said "the Israeli government", not "Israel" and not the Israeli people as a group. The three are NOT interchangeable, any more than "Jews" and "Israel" are interchangeable. The Israeli GOVERNMENT clearly wanted to goad Palestinians into using the "J-word" as a slur. They got what they wanted. Saying that is attacking a group of politicians, not an entire people."

You are blaming the Israeli government for creating the anti-Semitism used by the Palestinians. It is the same as I said above, blaming someone else for their actions.

[pelsar]

57. the line of thinking is now clear....wrong factually and historically but clear....

he Israeli GOVERNMENT clearly wanted to goad Palestinians into using the "J-word" as a slur. They got what they wanted

previously you claimed the israel has all the power and the Palestinians have none...given that line of belief, it makes sense that when the Palestinians interchange israel and jew it must be israels fault....since the Palestenians have no responsability for even the words they use, and must be ignorant of the differences and it must be israels fault.....

you must have a horrible view of the Palestinians as a bunch of ignorant, locals that have no education, no culture.....thank god they have westerners like yourself to explain to us what they think and why they talk like they do....what would they do without you?

[pelsar]

56. just to bud in..this is a common claim.......but as usual insulting to the Palestinians...

between the two entities in question, has ALL the power. The Palestinians have none.

its not true.. factually and historically. The Palestinians far from being powerless have had incredible influence on the wars, violence and politics throughout the middle east, be in jordan, lebanon, egypt israel and the territories....

What is very clear, however is why its stated. If the Palestinians are powerless, they infact have no responsibilities for any of the events, be it political or militarily in the conflict and all the failures are israels fault.

Unfortunately though this is one of those "feel good' positions held be the cultural colonialists...the Palestinians in fact disagree, but then i guess for some..what do they know, they're just the locals.....

[pelsar]

34. you post was meant for the Palestinians/arab world...not me

Palestinians interchange jew and israeli when talking about israel as does the arab world.......its not my mindset...your whole post is meant for the Palestinians, the egyptians, the syrians etc I just described to to you the view from "their side....."

its that simple....there is nothing "dirty" or deceitful or anti semetic about it. What you don't understand or want to accept is that israel is defined as the jewish state not just by so many jews but by the arabs as well.(which is why the PA/hamas gets such pleasure out of not stating it clearly for Netanyaho....)

i get it that such a definition bothers many people who find such an idea problem (as per your post)....but thats simply how the major players in the conflict see it.

you can put you head in the sand and pretend its not true......just don't forget to NOT listen to the Palestinians or Arabs when discussing the I/P conflict.....(check into pre 67, pre 48 as part of your research)

this by the way is a problem that comes up often..nice westerners believing that their definitions, their cultures actually define the conflict....... colonial culturalism (believeing that the culture of the "locals" isn't relevant)

example here and teaching moment:
That's why it's unfair to attack Palestinians, who are oppressed and are fighting for their lives, for using that word
a) description is a western cultural attempt to explain why the words are interchangeable
b) the explanation is simply wrong (shows lack of historical knowledge)
c) the poster should inquire as to why the words are interchangeable rather than assume they believe they understand...an understanding based on a western education (psychology 101?)

[aranthus]

16. Agreed, however

"Be Back Soon" from Oliver!, is kind of a funny number. Or are you thinking of "Reviewing the Situation?" That's got a little more pathos to it.

[Ken Burch]

28. I was thinking of "You've Got To Pick A Pocket Or Two!"

I really don't understand why Lionel Bart, who himself was Jewish, would include a number that was so blatantly and viciously antisemitic, with a cartoohishly Jewish Fagin(who, as Ron Moody played him in the movie looked like Shylock gone to seed) singing the lines:

"In this Life, one thing counts
In the bank, large amounts!"

It sounds like something somebody in France might have sung at an anti-Leon Blum rally in the Thirties. Or worse.
As a child, I laughed at that, not knowing the implications(and also not knowing what a virulent Jew-hater Dickens actually was). I'm now deeply ashamed of ever having found that funny and, if I were the artistic director of a musical theatre would probably bar the company from ever staging Oliver! as a result).