51. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160803 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 12:09 pm

As long as the Jews keep pushing the "We are special" (special for any number of reasons) then there will continue to be hatred.

Weasel words. They have no meaning.

Israel, exists, as a racist state. Where citizenship is determined on the basis of your ethnicity and to some extent religion (although you must prove Jewish blood to become a citizen).

This is the manifestation of Zionism.

Zionism is a reaction to racism in europe and elsewhere. It was a country created out of total despair in a different climate when Britan controlled half the world, the arab world was disjointed, europe was in ruins, etc.

I too support the right of Israel to exist, because I believe in the right of self determination, I also believe in the right to call a spade a spade. I support Iran's right to determine its government, I also have the right to say this state is disgusting. I say the Israelis have a right to choose a state, I also have the right to say they have done so in a racist fashion.

See my australian hypothetical.

Israel accepted the 47 partition plan. If you look at the history in detail you will see that while Israel made some bad decisions along the way, it has never embarked on any racist agenda. All was done in order to survive and when pushed to the limits, bad things happen. In fact, many other countries can be accused of much worse in the last 100 years.

So I say it again, Israel is racist, it is the culmination of Zionism, therefore Zionism is racism. I don't know how it can be any more clear. You could potentially argue that this form of racism is acceptable, and I would certainly entertain that due to the special circumstance of Jews in history, but call it precisely what it is.

Let me quote my grandmother's reaction to similar accusations - she said - they can call me racist, but it's only thanks to zionism that I'm alive. For her zionism was not an option but a necessity.

In other words, if you want a scapegoat you are knocking on the wrong door.

52. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160799 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 11:53 am

Zionism presupposes an acceptance of a 2,500 year old real-estate contract with a non-existent, blood thirsty, ass hole space god.

Sorry, but each time I see this I get annoyed again. It's not true. Zionism is a secular nationalist movement 'inspired' by anti-jewish racism in europe. The decision to go to Judea/palestine was a pragmatic one.

53. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160713 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 10:06 am

Why not give the Jews a piece of Germany? Europe would be a far less hostile neighborhood for the Jews... No?

Why not give the palestinians a piece of Saudi, that would be less hostile...

I personally have no problem with Jews living in "Palestine"

I have no problems with Arabs living in Judea.

I say, "maybe". Like I said before I accept Israel's right to exist. Furthermore I might even make an exception to the Israel case, due to their special circumstances (Holocaust).

Then you are a zionist too.

Is Israel ethnically exclusive?

No.

OK. So, now, do you consider a citizenship requirement based on ethnicity acceptable?

Take a hypothetical example. Let's imagine that 5 million native aboriginies remained in Australia and demanded their own state due to racism and oppression. Shouldn't other aboriginals who have been dispersed throughout the world be entitled some stake in that state?

This is a tough question for which I have no simple Yes/No answers.

54. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160672 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 9:12 am

Are ethnically exclusive states racist or not? Just answer that

You appear to want everything reduced to simplistic terms. So the simplistic answer is NO.

55. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160658 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 8:59 am

Being that this comes from a supporter of Zionism, I can only sit, mouth agape

Are you some kind of fanatic? What's up with that?

As I said I support the Israelis right to exist. Israel exists because of racism. Don't tell me my atheist grandmother did not deserve a place free of persecution after her whole family died in WW2.

I also support the rights of the Palestinians to a state. Go check the definition of zionism...

56. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160648 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 8:54 am

Zionism is racism, support of Zionism is.....?

Martin Luther King said that anti-zionism is racism. Who's right?

57. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160643 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 8:52 am

Furthermore, the US selected Saddam to overthrow Qasim, precisely because he was brutal. Then the US starved Iraqis for years to supposedly remove him. They assisted in arming him with the most deadly of weapons.

So everything is America's fault, it has nothing to do with the actual people doing the actual dids? We are all just victims of American manipulation. Nothing we do is our fault.

This line of thinking is rife in the middle-east, but I thought this site would be free of this type of simplistic mud slinging.

58. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160621 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 8:38 am

What is Islamism?

The use of an imaginary friend to justify war. All religions know this trick.

I am still eagerly awaiting your explanation of Islamist violence. Cause, etc..

The same explanation you would apply to Hitler's Nazi movement, to the Catholic Inquisition and other atrocities that happen in the name of religion and dogma.

59. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160615 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 8:29 am

Now you can disagree fine, but if your going to do so, don't assume your all knowing and we are all ignorant on the subject of Israel and Palestine.

I think it's you who is making these assumptions. I was merely pointing out a few things in Israel's favour to debunk some of the hateful comments you made. I think I raised valid points which you dismiss as a whole.

I happen to know a lot on this issue and the picture you paint is one of bias and ignorance. I never tried to paint a 'charming' picture of Israel - I merely provided some contradictions to your simplistic and rather hateful analysis. In fact you appear to be arguing with someone else. You just throw generic statements at me and you don't address specifics.

Zionism is the support of the right of the state of Israel to exist. So I guess I'm a zionist. I also support the right of the Palestinians to a state. I also support the rights of the French to state. What's wrong with that?

Your still talking about 'them', as if 'them' is representative of all Arabs and Muslims. Did not know the whole of the Arab world is responsible for the copy, or statements broadcast by the website you post.

They must have a bloody big studio? How do all these Arabs and Muslim's fit round the microphone?

The site collects clips from all major muslim and arab media - it does not produce any material itself. Maybe you should take a look before doing what you seem to do best - that's jumping to conclusions. memritv.org

60. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160491 by ofir on April 14, 2008 at 6:49 am

Once again I find you hard to discuss with Steve, this has happened a few times now, like a slippery eel, it is impossinle to get an angle on what you mean, because you seem to amend it wth each post.

Yes, you seem to have this problem a lot recently...

You talk about facts - yet you do exactly the same thing Chomsky does - a little mud slinging and sewing of doubt of the consensus and then wham - your baseless analysis, supported by selective 'facts'.

Back to Israel which I happen to know a lot about. I don;'t know if you are referring to UK or US media. But in the UK I don't think the media has a 'party' line over this. Various articles and TV programmes are done, some lean one way and some the other. I also see that reporters are genuinely trying to understand the situation and report objectively although in may cases they fall victim to Arab propaganda such as the infamous doctored images from Beirut in 2006, etc.

I don't think Israel has managed to get the UK media on its side at all. Indeed, most people I speak to in the uk tend to take the Palestinian side, if any at all. Furthermore, despite Israel annexation of East Jerusalem, almost all countries refuse to recognise this and have their embassies in Tel Aviv, including the US.

I read and watched quite a bit of material. Chomsky is a glorified conspiracy theorist for 'intellectuals'. He's a good salesman. He says interesting things, but his conclusions are pre-defined. I don't trust him at all.

61. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160213 by ofir on April 13, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Steve Zara - I'm with you on this. I find Chomsky too much. He's a glorified conspiracy theorist as far as I'm concerned. He has an agenda and doesn't let facts interfere with it.

62. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160202 by ofir on April 13, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Since we were talking about Palestine and Israel initially, I suggest you live under Israeli occupation for 40 years

I suggest you live in Israel as a jew under constant attacks for comparison.

Or as a xian Arab. I'm sure you know about the plight of the xian palestinians since Israeli withdrawal?

Surely we don't have to experience every situation in order to debate it?

And by the way you are not polite at all. You just pretend to be.

63. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160193 by ofir on April 13, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Now you make a generalisation, and then say you have/had friends who that generalisation does not apply to.

You say that shows it means you have experienced their culture? Which, your friends, or those nazi like Arabs?

How can you speak about countries, religions and cultures without making generalisations? Am I supposed to discuss each person individually?

Talk about generalisations - you just called Israel racist - Israel is a democracy which effectively means that you just called the majority of Israelis racist.

Anyway, I never said the things you imply, I have no idea what you mean. I simply said I had experience of muslim and Arab culture.

Well at least we know what you think about 'Them'. And please refain form including me in your "us."

It's they who make the distinction by calling us kufars. I don't see myself as belonging to any specific group. They clearly talk about US and THEM. Just give it a try - memritv.org - clips from muslim and Arab TV.

I notice that all you have done so far is attack me instead of addressing any of the points I made. Feel free to start at any time.

64. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160162 by ofir on April 13, 2008 at 6:45 pm

I also have black friends! Hmmm, Well, little more to say.

That wasn't my intention at all. My point was that I have first hand experience of the culture. I think your stye of debate leaves a lot to be desired.

You haven't addressed any of my points - check memritv.org for a start. It's good to know how they think about us. No?

65. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160142 by ofir on April 13, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Here is a simple test for you. What Western state/country/land is occupied by a 'Muslim' state?

Thanks for the tip.

I still think that the majority of people in the west no longer want to force christianity on the rest of the world. That is the key issue, I have tried to debate Arabs and muslims, but their world is controlled by state media full of Nazi inspired propaganda.

Have you ever checked memritv.org ? You will not find such racism on British TV or Israeli TV for that matter. I wonder how much you will like them then.

By the way - I used to play in an all Arabic band.

66. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160133 by ofir on April 13, 2008 at 5:20 pm

OK, now that I figured how to do the blockquote I don't need it...

I just read the whole debate between Dershowitz & Chomsky and I find Chomsky incredibly one-sided. Sorry. He never mentions the fact that Israel was constantly under attack by its neighbours or acknowledges that Egypt and Jordan did not want the territories back.

He's a bit of a conspiracy theorist too.

67. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160129 by ofir on April 13, 2008 at 5:15 pm

>Now the good thing about footnotes, it inables one to follow up >and do ones own research. This allows you to draw ones own >conclusion on the opinions being offered.

But do you? I tried (admittedly on wikipedia, yes I know...) and many links are dead or require subscription so could easily be just fabrications.

Also, I find that following footnotes one tends to find the same press release repeated which is hardly reassuring.

68. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160128 by ofir on April 13, 2008 at 5:11 pm

>Where is the moral divide?

Sorry, I can't figure how to do these nice looking comments that everybody else is...

The moral divide is the willingness of most secular westerners to co-exist while the muslim world is awash with fascistic ideas of world domination. There's no clear leadership, except Allah who speaks in vague verses called the Quran.

69. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160114 by ofir on April 13, 2008 at 4:42 pm

> Yes! Israel is a racist terrorist state, and the USA (and the European community at times) acts has it's pimp.

Wow, you really believe that a democratic country with 20% Arabs that vote can consistently maintain the same policy for 60 years? I can't defend everything Israel does, just like I can't defend everything the UK does, but...

>Occupying land, (what do you call settlements -self-defence?!?!?!) is illegal, collective punishment is illegal, >cutting off supplies to a civilian population is illegal.

When your country is 10-30 miles wide settlements on the mountains are self-defence. Yes. Check Google Earth, you can see the wall from there.

>One does not need to read Chomsky to form that opinion, I have been of that opinion since a teenager (decades >ago - sadly), and came to that opinion just from watching the evening news.

Maybe it's time to find out what is really going on. I have changed my mind about a lot of stuff since being a teenager. At the time Israel was created USA had blacks segregated, the British Empire ruled half the world and Hitler was exterminating jews in Europe.

>Israel used terror to get a state (King David Hotel - for example) and now refuse to talk to Palestinians because they >use terror to end an occupation.

The King David bomb was very unusual and was before Israel existed. Israel does not refuse to talk to its enemies, that's how it achieved peace with Egypt and Jordan (who were the original occupiers of the west bank and Gaza)

>We are told that Palestinians must recognise Israel, yet Israel never recognises Gaza and the West Bank, but refers to >them as Judea and Samaria.

Israel insists on this only because the PLO (used to) and Hammas have a clause in their charters calling for the destruction of Israel.

Judea and Samaria are the original names, before the Roman Empire killed and enslaved the jews and renamed it Palestine.

>Many Israeli MP's, even deny there is a Palestinian people.

Weasel words. There are also Arab MP that say the opposite.

>The problems of the Middle East begin and end with Israel - unitl we sort that problem out, the other problems will >remain.

The problem today is the Palestinian leaders have no mandate to sign a peace treaty. Every time they try the people rebel.

It's saddens me to see such simplistic views posted here of all places. Israel is a secular democracy and is leading the world is science and technology. It is also a VERY self critical society. Unlike its neighbours who are pre-occupied with religious bigotry, feudal wars, etc.

70. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160034 by ofir on April 13, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Very interesting debate here too.

I have to say that Chomsky's simplistic opinions about Israel have completely discredited him in my mind.

He claims the worst war crimes today are committed by israel and: virtually everything that Israel is doing, meaning the United States and Israel are doing, is illegal, in fact, a war crime. And many of them they defined as "grave breaches," that is, serious war crimes. This means that the United States and Israeli leadership should be brought to trial.

71. God the psycho

Comment #121437 by ofir on February 3, 2008 at 12:03 pm

You should check the youtube comments. Some are shocking, others encouraging. But he's creating a lot of noise on youtube. No 4 most discussed today.

72. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #116790 by ofir on January 27, 2008 at 12:18 pm

"Art is not superseded by modern discoveries in the same way that scientific models can be. "

Actually it is sometimes, as was the case when a scientist worked out how to draw perspective properly. It caused a revolution in art. You could also argue that modern print, computers, the invention of paper and many other things made some art almost redundant - it has historical value, but not that much artistic value today.

73. Why debate dogma?

Comment #116190 by ofir on January 25, 2008 at 7:15 pm

I successfully 'converted' two people through debate in about 30 years of arguing. If every atheist did that then religion would be politically weakened which is really what's important.

I think Pat is brilliant and I hope some politicians get to hear him. That said, I think polite and less polite debate does work. You may not enlighten fools like DSouza, but you will have an effect on some of the audience. A lot of people are on the verge - you will weaken their faith if you make sense.

74. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116141 by ofir on January 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm

And don't you forget children, Jesus loves you.