@lerlo I'm going to park your initial statement here so I can respond line by line. I'm guessing the agnostic..com Code of Conduct says something about playing nice. Will check later. I generally don't mind rude, but character assassination is another thing. Seems you're going to have to put up or shut up, my friend.

Shall we begin?

My responses will be in brackets. Your comments in italics. I may save part way through and use edit to complete.

Gee, anti-semitic?

[Umm... no thanks? Say what you mean. No need to be coy. Could you please elaborate? Are you saying that taking issue with the acts of Zionists in the name Zionism is anti-Semitic/anti-Semitism by default?]

Figure this is a great site to bash religious people in general?

[Non sequitur. Was it for relating using a derogatory Yiddish term as cause for my ban? Mention of Schumer?]

Can't find any anti-Israel sites?

[Does this presume only pro-Israel mentions/discussion is to be allowed here?]

Couldn't come up with any other famous Jews to bash?

[Who'd you have in mind? I mentioned 3 people. The word fits Trump (who elsewhere you imply I support), Schumer in my recollection, with a bit of editorializing based on his statements, and Zuckerberg because it's his platform]

Jealous?

[It would be nice to have money and/or power, don't you think?]

Stupid?

[Really? That the best you got? Doesn't seem you're coming off too well in this exchange, if you don't mind my saying so]

Need attention?

[I don't have a problem defending my views publicly. How about you? Your opener was certainly an attention-getter. Maybe even a cry for attention. I wonder if it will get any upvotes... or any votes for that matter. Maybe l'll throw you a bone]

Or just proud of being blocked?

[I was expressing frustration, particularly in as yet being able to determine the cause. Community Standards can be pretty nebulous, particularly applied selectively. You don't feel it's worth discussing?]

Your response to someone sending rockets at your house would be what?

[In your query, did I take the house from the someone shooting rockets at it... you know, from the person that previously lived there, murdered his family and friends to do so, and locked him and his people up, not allowing any entry or exit without my approval, and regularly directed my fully equipped and brutal enforcers using high-tech munitions on sophisticated, expensive, and unimaginably lethal weapons platforms from the land, sea, and sky, even on peaceful protesters, children, clearly marked press, visibly identified medical personnel, with snipers shooting to kill and maim, funded courtesy of my Uncle Sugar, while preventing most every possible legal redress in my own courts, as well as world courts, and ensuring that any narrative of our differences over the matter be almost exclusively one favorable to me, whether with endless, well-financed PR spin, or equally well financed (by me) political allies, or a team of online trolls financed exclusively to say nice things about me? That house?]

lerlo
Level 7
Dec 21, 2018

As a counterpoint, I offer this. Notice the handwringing and pearl clutching over the mere mention of Jill Stein's name and the tally of numbers for retweets and shares. RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA!!!

The comments by the Hillbots is like "The Terror" following the French Revolution. They seriously talk about stringing Stein up, hinting at Bernie being next. WTF?!?

I need to remind myself when following a link to DKos, "Never get out of the boat. Never get out of the boat. Never get out of the boat."

[m.dailykos.com]

Name any other country that should give up territory it won in a war? You try and cover your anti-semitism well. I notice you ducked my rocket question and if your neighbor's goal was to drive you into the ocean your opinion of them would be? Quoting propaganda is easy. You probably think Israel forced out the palestinians when they really left assuming the arabs would win and they were wrong. You're free to voice your opinions but don't think you can hide behind other's propaganda. You don't mind hurting others or you wouldnt brag about your blocking.

@lerlo

Right off the bat, get bent with your false anti-Semitism accusations. Thankfully, that tactic is losing its effectiveness in the manner of the boy who cried wolf. I did not duck your rocket question in the least. International law allows for people under illegal occupation to resist, even with the use of violence and deadly force. I am fortunate that I do not have to make that awful choice being subjected to such daily oppression. As an American whose taxes bankroll Israeli brutality, is it too much to ask for them to learn to murder on their own dime? Your "drive them into the ocean" is a long argued bit of projection, so I at least have a clearer indication of the level you'll stoop to. To call referring to those knowledgeable of the situation "quoting propaganda" is also more sophistry on your part. Your lack of feelings for the innocent victims caught in a war zone says much about your sense of morality (or lack thereof). You further demonstrate your lack of comprehension by saying I was bragging, when in fact it was a complaint accompanied by a modicum of fear. You do realize that our very own government is trying sanction those who might dare to support #BDS, don't you? Are you comfortable with this Constitutionally? Are you ignorant of the Mighty Wurlitzer or Operation Megaphone, the techniques of gaslighting, or some of the most egregious purveyors of fake news pointing the finger at others with that accusation?

You open with a question regarding a war crime, because that's what territory acquired by war is defined as. This was a reaction by a world court in the aftermath of the horrors and injustices of WWII. The partitioning plans by Western powers of a country not theirs to divvy up in the first place preceded WWII (Balfour).

I'm sure you'll reject the following observation as just some bigoted chucklehead, but I think he made a lot of sense. A rather brilliant insight actually.

In 1950 Einstein published the following statement on the question of Zionism. This speech was originally given to the National Labor Committee for Palestine, in New York, on April 17, 1938 but republished by Einstein after Israel’s creation.

"I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from the practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain – especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight without a Jewish state."

I pretty much think we're done, lerlo. You've offered nothing of substance, and you have no qualms about smearing someone you know nothing about. But times are changing, albeit painfully so, particularly for the people directly suffering, such as from "IOF" - my preferred term - snipers using fragmentation rounds to maim and murder peaceful protesters (including children), clearly marked medical personnel, and visibly designated journalists and photographers. I think it will eventually be shown that you were on the wrong side of history much as those advocating for slavery or segregation were. I hope I live long enough to see that day. I hope you do too.

@WilliamCharles Here are the facts you ignore and I guess we're giving back the U.S. to who we stole it from during our war crimes...figured you'd give up because the facts are not on your side...calling the arguments old doesnt make them go away or render them false. Of course you had to bring up the boycott, the essence of your anti-semitism. You should walk a mile in an Israeli's shoes...and feel your own discrimination or any for that matter in order to understand it.
[palwatch.org]
[algemeiner.com]
[mythsandfacts.org]

Oh yeah that Russian election meddling ploy...at what age did you go fact blind?

@lerlo

You know who has seen Israeli brutality first hand? The IDF soldiers of "Breaking the Silence."

[breakingthesilence.org.il]

@lerlo re: Russian meddling. Here's some truth for you. Our government and military has created sock puppet software to do what we're accusing Russia of. Dore has done media critiques that put the MSM to shame. It's not that they're unable to understand, but rather they are paid not to. Hence the blanket handwring over Syria. To be sure Trump's a douchebag (that term too strong for you?), but in this case the Mango Manchild did the right thing. We were there illegally and our agenda had nothing to do with the well-being of Syrians.

From an atheist, humanist, freethought hero.

This is the reality some choose to defend.

"Why should these Palestinians, who have lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years, be evicted from their homes so that Jews from Brooklyn can live in them?”

~ Dr. Norman Finkelstein

Israeli forces turn a blind eye to this sort of thing constantly. How ironic that they'd choose to treat a people as "untermenschen."

Seems @lerlo cut and ran. I am glad I chose to address his smears directly. The most common attribute of a bully it seems is to stand down when the intended victim is capable of effectively fighting back. In this context, I find it both ironic and false that on his profile it mentions his strong passion for social justice.

Goodbye, lerlo. We hardly knew ye.

The following came up on my FB history today.

"Those of us who defend the rights of Palestinians know we get attacked and screamed at on a regular basis (not to mention the loss of friends and ostricization of family).

Their arguments essentially boil down to, "If the Palestinians would just submit, then we wouldn't be forced to slaughter them so routinely!"

I find this sort of 'logic' both ignorant and frightening.

I was not always very optimistic, but over time, I have become so.

Palestine will be free.

Thank you to all of Palestine, and all their supporters, who remind me on a daily basis what true tenacity is.

Do I care about other injustices in the world? Certainly. But the hypocrisy concerning Palestine makes it harder to argue those other instances."

I sense you are a little shook by the presentation of some uncomfortable facts it seems.

From my Mondoweiss profile -

"I grew up with the conventional wisdom believing that the Israelis were the "white hats" and that the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims were the "black hats." After 9/11, I wanted to know more about the conflict in the ME. I came to the realization that the narrative was totally one-sided. I largely credit many outstanding Jewish voices (my close friend Bernie the Attorney for one) for opening my eyes. I see on a daily basis the efforts by Zionists and their stooges to dismiss truth-tellers in the most reprehensible manner, up to and including threats of violence.

Truth needs no army of thugs to establish it; only lies need enforcers."

~ LanceThruster

And regarding your implication that resistance via rockets is justification for collective punishment -

"MURDER as COVER for
THEFT and OPPRESSION
is NOT self-defense

It's a war crime."

~ LanceThruster

As to your tired canard about anti-Semitism, I offer these Jewish voices.

“We came and turned the native Arabs into tragic refugees. And still we dare to slander and malign them, to besmirch their name. Instead of being deeply ashamed of what we did and trying to undo some of the evil we committed … we justify our terrible acts and even attempt to glorify them.”

— Nathan Chofshi; Russian Jewish writer who migrated to Palestine in 1908. He witnessed the expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs and wrote critically about it as late as 1959.

AND

"The trick of declaring war against the armed resistance and then attacking the resisters’ unarmed kin as well as the sur­rounding population with the most gruesome products of Death-Science; this trick is not new. American Pioneers were pioneers in this too; they made it standard practice to declare war on indigenous warriors and then to murder and burn villages with only women and children in them. This is already modern war, what we know as war against civilian populations; it has also been called, more candidly, mass murder or genocide.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that the perpetrators of a Pogrom portray themselves as the victims, in the present case as victims of the Holocaust.

Herman Melville noticed over a century ago, in his analysis of the metaphysics of Indian-hating, that those who made a full-time profession of hunting and murdering indigenous people of this continent always made themselves appear, even in their own eyes, as the victims of manhunts.

The use the Nazis made of the International Jewish Conspiracy is better known: during all the years of atrocities defying belief, the Nazis considered themselves the victimized.

It’s as if the experience of being a victim gave exemption from human solidarity, as if it gave special powers, as if it gave a license to kill."

Fredy Perlman from his essay, “Anti-Semitism and the Beirut Pogrom” – [libcom.org]

And for a bit of Arab perspective (largely missing in contemporary discussions), there is this -

"As the Arabs see the Jews"
His Majesty King Abdullah,
The American Magazine
November, 1947

[kinghussein.gov.jo]

I welcome any rational discussion of the subject, even heated ones, but you'd do well to lose the bullying approach with me. Choose your topic. My main point was regarding Facebook and gatekeeping, but the language part of the issue is also interesting. The history of the Nakba is largely unknown to most people, so maybe your strident indignation will serve to educate others.

Do you have anything constructive to add, lerlo?

You have more formal education and are certainly more accomplished than I am, but I still feel I can make a stronger defense for my own position. I felt this is a good forum to discuss the various aspects involved in my post. I have a former coworker and friend who is IDF reserve who just spent a month in Israel (she is a contract programmer and works with their intel apparatus). She is originally from Moscow and a wonderfully warm and caring person (maybe if I knew her IDF function in detail I might think otherwise?). She knows I have a differing viewpoint on Palestine, but it is not an impediment to our friendship. When she asked about the basis for my own views, I offered to loan her my copy of "My Israel Question" by Antony Loewenstein. Jonathan Cook was also suggested as was Dr. Norman Finkelstein, whom I've met attending his lectures at my university and have had several warm email correspondences with.

This is from a blog piece discussing the WUJS Hasbara Handbook (I have my own copy). You shot right out of the starting gate with "Name Calling."

Handbook: 7 Basic Propaganda Devices

Preface: As part of our ongoing effort to expose propaganda techniques, we are posting the propaganda section of the Hasbara Handbook: Promoting Israel on Campus, originally leaked by Wikispooks. It is more than a decade old, as it refers to PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who passed away in 2004.

Propaganda is used by those who want to communicate in ways that engage the emotions, and downplay rationality, in an attempt to promote a certain message. To effectively present Israel to the public, and to counter anti-Israel messages, it is necessary to understand propaganda devices.

This article applies a list of seven propaganda devices to the Israeli situation, and by doing so allows an understanding of some of the ways in which public opinion is fought for in the International arena.

Name Calling

Through the careful choice of words, the name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol. Creating negative connotations by name calling is done to try and get the audience to reject a person or idea on the basis of negative associations, without allowing a real examination of that person or idea. The most obvious example is name calling – “they are a neo-Nazi group” tends to sound pretty negative to most people. More subtly, name calling works by selecting words with subtle negative meanings for some listeners. For example, describing demonstrators as “youths” creates a different impression from calling them “children”.

Those opposed to Israel use name calling all the time. Consider the meaning of the word ‘settlement’. When applied to Gilo, a suburb of Jerusalem over the disputed 1967 borders, the word ‘settlement’ creates the unfortunate impression that Gilo is located in the middle of the West Bank, and occupied by religious and political extremists (the image many people have acquired of settlements). That’s how the media and opponents of Israel use name-calling. Other examples include referring to the ‘war crimes’ of Ariel Sharon, talking about ‘invasion’ of the West Bank when an army unit enters territory under PA sovereignty in order to find terrorists, and so on.

Name calling is hard to counter. Don’t allow opponents the opportunity to engage in point scoring. Whenever ‘name calling’ is used, think about referring to the same thing but with a neutral connotation.

Glittering Generality

Simply put, the glittering generality is name calling in reverse. Instead of trying to attach negative meanings to ideas or people, glittering generalities use positive phrases which the audience are attached to in order to lend a positive image to things. Words such as ‘freedom’, ‘civilization’, ‘motherhood’, ‘liberty’, ‘equality’, ‘science’, and ‘democracy’ have these positive associations for most people. These words mean different things to different people, but are used to gain the approval of an audience, even when they aren’t used in their standard ways. Consider the use of the term ‘freedom fighter’, which is supposed to gain approval for terrorism by using the word ‘freedom’. Or, consider why it is so beneficial to bring home the point that Israel is a democracy.

Israel is a Western democracy in the middle of the Middle East. It stands for freedom, equal rights for all, it is a civilized country whose opera, ballet, and world-class universities ensure that Israeli culture is very advanced. These points can be made again and again, so that listeners in the West associate the country with positive concepts, and come to side with Israel.

Enemies of Israel will be keen to cast doubt on Israeli claims to be democratic, to guarantee freedom for all, and so on. In place of these ‘glittering generalities’ favourable to Israel, they will associate Palestinian behavior, including terrorism, with terms like ‘anti-colonialist’ and ‘freedom’.

Combating the use of ‘glittering generalities’ requires undermining the use of a positive term. For example, if a Palestinian speaker claimed that Palestinian terror is only carried out to gain freedom, it might be worth asking if “freedom means killing young children and leaving their parents to bury them?”

Transfer

Transfer involves taking some of the prestige and authority of one concept and applying it to another. For example, a speaker might decide to speak in front of a United Nations flag, in an attempt to gain legitimacy for himself or his idea. Some of the symbols that might be used in discussing Israel might include the Israeli flag, or Star of David; Islamic symbols, which might lend a militant speaker the apparent support of Islam, even when what they are saying goes against mainstream Islamic beliefs; non-denominational prayer, which gives a sense of religiosity to a speaker even when his message is not ‘religious’; and the national symbols of a speakers’ own country – such as the American flag – which create the impression that the speaker is presenting ‘American values’.

Palestinian groups notoriously attempt to enlist the symbols of the international community to transfer support and legitimacy. Arafat and the UN flag is a sight we are all accustomed to. These efforts can be undermined by trying to enlist the same symbols, or more powerful ones, first.

Testimonial

Testimonial means enlisting the support of somebody admired or famous to endorse an ideal or campaign. Testimonial can be used reasonably – it makes sense for a footballer to endorse football boots – or manipulated, such as when a footballer is used to support a political campaign they have only a limited understanding of. While everybody is entitled to an opinion, testimonial can lend weight to an argument that it doesn’t deserve: if U2’s Bono condemned Israel for something that it didn’t do, thousands would believe him, even though he was wrong.

Plain Folks

The plain folks technique attempts to convince the listener that the speaker is a ‘regular guy’, who is trust-worthy because they are just like ‘you or me’. Often politicians present themselves as being from outside the standard ‘political cliques’ and above political bickering, and then call for tax cuts to help the ‘regular guy’. More often than not these politicians are multi-millionaires financed by large corporations, but the plain folks technique allows them to obscure that fact by presenting their ‘common’ characteristics.

Support for an alleged underdog in a certain situation can often be part of a ‘plain folks’ agenda. Critics of Israel can paint the Palestinian people as the underdogs, and Israel as an ‘oppressor’ of a weaker people. This sort of populist position can best be combated by shifting blame for the Palestinian predicament away from Israel and towards Yasser Arafat. As the famous saying goes, “Yasser Arafat has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity”. Point out that the reason Palestinians are still stateless is because their leadership have, tragically and repeatedly, sought war instead of peace, and turned down offers of land for peace.

Care must be taken when adopting populist positions. There are some ethical boundaries that ought not to be crossed – for example tapping in to general anti-Arab feeling, or Islamophobia. Remember that Israel can be supported without resorting to mass generalizations or racism.

Fear

When a speaker warns that the consequences of ignoring his message is likely to be war, conflict, personal suffering, and so forth, they are manipulating fear to advance their message. Listeners have deep-seated fears of violence and disorder which can be tapped into by creating false dichotomies – ‘either listen to me, or these terrible things will happen’. Listeners are too preoccupied by the threat of terrible things to think critically about the speaker’s message.

Fear is easily manipulated in a climate that is already steeped in fear by the threat of global terror. Arab and Islamic fundamentalist terror has been responsible for 1000s of deaths in the West, and has threatened to bring the entire world into deep economic recession. Nobody wants to face physical risk, or financial ruin. Fear can be successfully utilized by pointing out the consequences of terror. Reminding people that terrorists have, in the past, operated throughout the world makes the threat vivid and immediate.

Bandwagon

Most people, when in doubt, are happy to do what other people are doing. This is the bandwagon effect. People are happy to be part of the crowd, and subtle manipulators can play on this desire by emphasizing the large size of their support. Although it is reasonable that people are given a chance to find out how many other supporters a speaker or movement has, often it is possible to create the impression of extensive support – through gathering all supporters in one place, or through poorly conducted opinion polls – in an attempt to persuade people who are keen to follow the crowd.

Remember that playing with perceptions of numbers supporting a cause can be problematic if this means that genuine supporters become complacent.

Palestinian activists’ success at creating the impression that they have enormous support is hard to counter. The most obvious and most effective response is to try and seem even better supported. Otherwise, simply start to deal with the issues, especially using ‘plain folks’ techniques, to gain support that is committed, and not just jumping on the bandwagon.

@WilliamCharles There are all kinds of self-hating Jews and you can find something written about every subject under the sun by someone to back up your beliefs--you're even using the "some of my best friends are Jewish" line. People without bias don't use that line, they don't need to. Not hard to find pro palesinian folks, the same folks who let 6 million Jews die--not hard to detest 1% of the world's population and feel good about it--I'm sure your friends and neighbors support you and there are bunches of people here that are on your bandwagon. I'm sure you also buy trump's b.s. Find an Israeli goal of driving the Arabs into the sea...of course there are no other countries abusing people right? No genocide in Africa? No other injustices anywhere but in Israel right? But ban you for using Yiddish and it all comes out. Enjoy your rant and your search to justify your anti-semitism

@lerlo

You make even less sense than before. The things I learned from Jews was because early on in the online discussions anything from an Arab/Palestinian/Muslim source was summarily dismissed as unreliably biased. I don't weigh an argument by its presenter necessarily, but by its merits. I consider Alan Dershowitz a plagerizing hack, and Norman Finkelstein a scholar and a man of principle. It has been helpful and informative finding Palestinian sources to speak for themselves. It would be easier to ignore Israel and the headaches that come with supporting justice for Palestinians, but the issue also has a perverting effect on my own government.

My circle of friends is from taking them for who they are as individuals and not the other delineations that often separate us as human beings. I was the staff atheist advisor for my university's atheist student group, and it was enlightening to see I might have more in common with a rationalist from halfway around the world than I might with a religionist from my own country. I would think that an appreciation for humanist values might connect us, but I see little consistency on your part, and even less civility. I will say, I've seen some fascinating physics and cosmology lectures online from ASU, but I do not see any of that academic integrity from you. You fling a lot of feces in the hopes some of it will stick.

Bernie the Attorney is one of the most brilliant people I know. He earned his credibility in the predictive nature of his observations. He could see around the bend in making determinations of how any number of world affairs would play out depending on how firmly a given party was aligned with Chosanistan. This was especially prescient with regards to media coverage. I made friends online with an officer who survived Israel's attack on the USS Liberty. He wrote a book about it. He too was smeared as an anti-Semite for daring to relate his first hand account of their war crimes committed that day. It bothers me the cover-up with that incident. And it is rational to ask "Cui bono?"

I hope, for your clients' sake, that you're a better lawyer than you've demonstrated by your inability to make a compelling case here. Regardless of any career success you might have, I think your moral compass is in dire need of recalibration.

And from someone choosing not to mince words. But in your mind this dear man is just a delusional self-hater.

Re: Israel's "democracy."

"The worst case scenario we fear is of the world averting its eyes from our suffering and allowing Israel one day to drive us out of our homes under an imposed news blackout when the next war breaks out with a neighboring country, say, Syria or Lebanon. If the world could sit still and not be moved to protect our brothers and sisters in Gaza from the white phosphorous and DIME bombardments and from the endless air, sea and land assault against them, why would it lift a finger to protect us from summary expulsion from our homes? And such contingency plans for our expulsion are known to exist."

[dissidentvoice.org]