Our Hearts Are Breaking

The passive blessing is there for everyone, at all times. You have to know! Self is a virtue. Able is a virtue. Good is the key virtue, our highest moral. Once you are in accordance with morality, the lights will come on; knowledge, able, wisdom, certainty, beauty. Good things will happen for everyone, peace is free, and it holds the passive wind.

If those people can't see because they are under harm in one way or another then they need our moral reach, we know them, we can help them.

It wasn't there for the German war criminals that the USA hypocritically tried for the same war crimes the USA has been committing for over two centuries.

German war criminals go with the undertaker and lose self and personhood, to the grave. Passive is there for all people.

And when do you suppose this might happen to the USA?

It won't happen for the USA, that's not Heaven.

It won't happen for the USA, that's not Heaven. It will happen for self as you achieve it.

Tell me something I don't know, MWal.

And anti-Semitism is a hatred of Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group (by definition).

Irrespective of any other consideration regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since it was first coined over a 100 years ago, usage of the term anti-Semitism exclusively relates to Jews.

I doubt, though, that there is a single thread in this forum in which the term is used, in the context of Israeli-Palestinian relations, that someone doesn't try and make the case that it also pertains to other Semitic-language people.

I always, including now, fail to understand what the point is to the effort to expand the definition. There must be a linguistic equivalent of hatred for Palestinians even if it's only anti-Palestinian, and it's a little late in the game to attack the accuracy of a term so widely accepted for so long, so why the urge?

The argument that Palestinians are also Semites and thus included in the definitional consideration of anti-Semitism is often made by those who criticize Israel; with the seeming intent of scoring a point against those who support Israel and find fault with Palestinians. I can only imagine that it somehow appeals to a poorly tuned sense of the ironic as a means to, in some way, illustrate the hypocrisy of their opponent.

While the term Semite includes Palestinians and Israelis, the term anti-Semitic simply does not. Usage may seem at odds with etymology, but it is reserved for Jews of any nationality. When Palestinians can lay claim to a very long and very tragic history of persecution, oppression and genocidal efforts, maybe they too will earn a word all their own, but in the meantime trying to assert, in any way, that they are the victims of the sort of deep and widely practiced hatred that has for so long plagued Jews, is at best, disingenuous, and it matters, to the extent that it is an attempt to cast Palestinians as faultless in this conflict or to in any way excuse acts like the one which is the subject of this thread, because of the great suffering they have endured.

Thisis not to say that Palestinians have not suffered, and from their own experiences of hatred and persecution. (Israelis aren't the only Semites to have given Palestinians a hard time.) They are not all murderous terrorists, although too many have accepted acts of terrorism like the kidnapping and murder of these three young men as justifiable, and they have legitimate grievances, although the manner in which their leaders attempt to obtain justice for them is neither just nor likely to ever succeed.

Nor is it to say that all or even most who sympathize with Palestinians fit the proper definition of anti-Semitic, but one only has to read or hear what many who have chosen to side with Palestinians in this conflict write or say, to recognize that sympathy for Palestinians is very frequently combined with hated for Israelis. Given the history of Jews I don't think that it is so far-fetched to come to the conclusion that hatred of Israel is very frequently an extension of hatred for Jews: anti-Semitism.

These kidnappings were all to convenient for Netanyahu. First, he breaks off talks with the Palestinian Authority because of their reconciliation with Hamas. Then within a matter of months, the three teenagers are kidnapped and a crisis ensues. Their corpses are found some weeks later, Netanyahu blames Hamas, who deny involvement, and uses the murder of these Zionist teenagers to wage war against Hamas. The fingerprints of Mossad are smeared all over this latest crisis.

Here is the problem with that Finn...

When someone refers to the Jews as "vermin" and states that Jews are bloodthirsty and want to murder children, they are rightfully called "anti-semites". All of us agree that this type of hate speech is despicable.

But... here we have Orally who refers to Palestinians as "vermin", and states that Palestinians "love murdering children". He also advocates that Palestinians should be cleared out or shot.

Do you see Finn? It is the same thing. There is no difference between what Jew-haters say and what Orally is saying.

If you accept that Jews and Palestinians, both being human beings, have the same value as people and the same rights, than this distinction is ridiculous.

You are trying to weasel Orally out through a technicality. You shouldn't.

Hate speech is hate speech no matter who it is directed toward. There is no difference between Orally hate speech and anti-semitic hate speech. We should call it the same thing.

That is incorrect. When anti-Semites spew horrible lies about Jews, they are spewing horrible lies. When I call the Palestinians a bunch of murdering scumbags who refuse to ever make peace, I'm simply telling the truth.

Not even remotely close to being the same thing.



I am not in any sort of position that requires escape, weasel-style or otherwise. My intention is to maintain the position that I am already in and defend it from all attackers. Everything that I said about the Palestinians is completely true.

However, if you try to bolster your position by twisting the definitions of words to pretend that they mean something that they don't, it is entirely legitimate for people to undermine your position by pointing out that what you are saying isn't true.

Good post.

Really Oralloy, You singled out an entire ethnic group who you say are "vermin" who "love murdering children" and who should be kicked out of the land or shot. And this is your defense, that Antisemitism is OK when it is true.

Everyone else here realizes how ridiculous your stance is. (Although I am curious to see how far Finn wants to go to defend your hate speech).

The OP smells like pure propaganda, by the way. Nobody's heart is breaking except for the parents' and friends'. For everybody else, it's like just another car accident reported on the news...

Anti-Semitism is never OK.

Anti-Semitism is never true.

I have never said that anti-Semitsm is OK.

I have never said that anti-Semitism is true.

And I'll thank you to stop lying about my position.



It is noteworthy that the only attack on my position so far has been you lying about what I say.

You are making vile attacks on human beings based solely on their ethnicity. You are calling them "vermin", accusing them of "loving to murder children" based only on their ethnic group. And you are saying they should be driven from the land, or shot based only on their ethnic group.

This particular ethnic group you are targeting with your hate speech happens to be Semitic. The people living 1000 years ago in what is now modern Israel are the common genetic ancestors of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is scientifically true that except for mixing with outside groups (mainly Europeans and Africans) modern Israelis and modern Palestinians have the same ancestors. They are the same people.

So yes, you are making vile attacks based solely on an ethnic hatred.

Yes, the people you are calling "vermin" are Semitic (with the same ancient anscestors as modern Jewish people). Personally I don't think this matters, ethnically based hatred is bad no matter who the target is.

And yes, you said that your ethnically-based hatred was OK because it was true.

I am still very curious to see if Finn will return to defend your ethnic hate speech. I don't see anyone coming to defend you, I suspect most people don't think it is worth the trouble.

Oralloy: And I'll thank you to stop lying about my position, when, as you have seen, I'm more than capable of doing that myself.

My condemnation of the Palestinians' behavior is based solely on the Palestinians' behavior.

Whether it is vile of me to do that is a matter of opinion. I doubt any of the good guys object to me telling the truth.



No they aren't. They are the ancestors only of the Israelis.



Your original lie, which is what I denounced, claimed that I was supporting anti-Semitism.

It is highly dishonorable for you to now pretend that your claim was about ethnic hatred.



Your original lie, which is what I denounced, claimed that I was supporting anti-Semitism.

It is highly dishonorable for you to now pretend that your claim was about whether Palestinians are Semitic.



Telling the truth about Palestinian vermin is hardly "ethnic hatred".

It is highly dishonest of you to word your reply in a way that suggests that I had denied saying that truthful statements are OK.

Of course I said that truthful statements are OK.



As if I was in need of outside help?

My position is secure. Your incessant lies are no threat whatsoever.

Q: What is the difference between Oralloy and an Antisemite?
A: Oralloy believes that his ethnic hatred is based on Truth.

Your lies are despicable. I do not agree with anti-Semites in any way whatsoever.

And "telling the truth" hardly counts as "ethnic hatred".