Enablers | The Moderate Voice

Google Scholar search…

“Anti-semitism”: 24,600 hits

“Orientalism” (which is just one book): 32,500 hits

“Racism”: 278,000

“Imperialism”: 162,000

“Feminism”: 229,000

“Queer Theory”: 22,900

“Zionism”: 16,500

Well, offer another method of proving your point. This is interesting.

Maybe it’s only in the spam thread and Michael can manually approve it, David.

Highlights:
1) “Love it so change it” point is a valid one, I’ll try to incorporate it. Two qualifiers:
a) Internal criticism distinct from external (America is my country, so disproportionality towards it is more justified than towards another country–Israel can, should, and does have the internal debate as well)
b) Grossly disproportionate criticisms don’t work under “love it so change it,” because they don’t think that Israel is anything special (in fact, they think its qualitatively worse than other countries), so they can hardly justify holding it to a higher standard than its neighbors on the grounds of its relative enlightenment.

2) Popular discussion of anti-Semitism may be more vigorous than anti-Arabism, but Google doesn’t reflect the academy, and I was talking about academic inquiry on the subject. 80% of the country hasn’t heard of Orientalism, but if you’re doing any academic work in an even remotely linked field, you can’t escape it.

“You don’t see an problem there?”
I do. And it’s one diificult to solve. When are armed underground groups legitimate, when, not? It can only be decided on a case by case base, and every choice will be somewhat arbitrarily. Taking the history of the first Lebanon war into account, and acknoledging that the weak governement of Lebanon has proven to be utterly incapable of protecting his citizen in the south, I’m not inclined to see Hezbollah simply as a terrorist organisation.

The logical problem is, do you think Israel is justified in retaliating and calling for the destruction of Hezbollah? Where is the difference? That Israel is a nation and Hezbollah a regional movement?

Uh, yeah, that little detail. If a ‘regional movement’ is allowed to create and use an armed militia, hiding it within the civilia population, then there is no accountability. The actual govt of Lebanon can deny responsibility for anything Hezbollah does, yet take advantage of it’s military protection. You don’t see an problem there?

Yet the Kyoto treaty would let them continue to fry the atmosphere while blind folk like you stand around bashing the USA for its role and say……OH its okay if they destroy the planet but Death to the USA after all its per captia you know.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.htm

Do some real research instead of pointing to an outdated Wikipedia article as the basis of your Masterful, mindnumbingly Scholarly analysis of Global warming and greenhouse gas emmission.

Im sure that if you took a tour of the facts with an open mind you would be horrified and like me would be trying to bring pressure on other countries besides the USA to end co2 emmissions.

“Strictly defensive”? Who said that?
However, “the US being the greatest terrorist state”, this is a serious statement that can be discussed. Because of US backing of fashist dictators in Latim America, hundreds of thousands people died there. I wouldn’t go as far as Chomsky, but it is debatable.

“Likewise, I am critical of some Israeli policies but it should never be said that Hamas or Hezbollah is justified in retaliating with deliberate attacks on civilians, calls for the destruction of Israel, or other acts of terrorism.”

The logical problem is, do you think Israel is justified in retaliating and calling for the destruction of Hezbollah? Where is the difference? That Israel is a nation and Hezbollah a regional movement? Well, I seem to remember Israel has what some would call a terrorist past, too…

I think the nuance is that you should be able to say “Israel/the US/X nation is doing something horrible! It should be ashamed!� but not “Israel/the US/X nation does the worst things in the world!� That would be a loss of perspective, which I agree happens all too often.

Lynx,
In addition to that though, there’s also context. Some people only choose to speak out against the US or Israel, and even if their statements were justified its the repetition of only the wrongdoing of those countries (no recognition of the good, and no recognition of the wrong acts by other, less powerful nations) that makes the situation anti-American or anti-Israel in some cases. It’s like a newspaper editorial staff that focuses exclusively on scandals of one party and ignores those of the other party: they are clearly showing a bias, even if each editorial on its own was a legitimate criticism. Sometimes its what you don’t say that matters, too.

And don’t misunderstand…I’m very critical of many US foreign policy interventions. But these criticisms shouldn’t be intertwined in with the terrorist acts against the US in order to soften the criticism of the perpetrators. Likewise, I am critical of some Israeli policies but it should never be said that Hamas or Hezbollah is justified in retaliating with deliberate attacks on civilians, calls for the destruction of Israel, or other acts of terrorism.

No. That’s simply the other side of the medal.

Right…it’s ONE side. That’s the point: many people point out the fault on the side of the more powerful (which I have no problem with) but fail to point it out on the other side. Do both and I’m not complaining (oh, along with giving the powerful nations credit for the good that they do and the degree to which they do uphold individual liberties and human rights).

No. That’s simply the other side of the medal. If you don’t uphold high ideals, like a ban on torture, a regard for international treaties, or the laws of other countries regarding highjacking, you’re setting an example for rogue nations that it’s totally ok to behave in this way. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And the world is totally right in condemning this erosion of standards in the sharpest way possible.

It’s one thing to say that we could (and should) do better, but some people seem to feel that we’ve already completely failed and that the US is the biggest threat to human rights around the world (and likewise, the criticisms of Israel as the main aggressor.)

And then too, what I’m still trying to determine is whether David sees the parallel in the criticisms of Israel and the criticisms of America, which he’s said in the past are NOT anti-American. So, I’m trying to get to his reasoning for feeling differently about criticism of Israel, or if I’m misunderstanding his position on this, then a clarification to point out where I’m misreading him.