Swedish Paper Accuses Israel of Organs Harvest

Noobi Zubi · September 13th, 2009, 10:09 AM

Hold your horses buddy,
I'm having a hard time answering all of your claims.
A quick googling of the words "anti zionism anti semitism" will provide you with as many studies as you'd like, here's one of them:

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-wistrich-f04.htm

Take note that this is a political science and at the same ease I found an article supporting my claim you can find an article negating it.

my argument regarding the UN decisions against Israel didn't come to justify any of it's deeds, but it surely shows that Israel is judged with a different perspective than any other country in the world.

[quote/]
Could it be due to the UN disapproving of Israeli politicies?
[/quote]
Could it be due to the UN disapproving Israel?

[quote/]
Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with it because it is Israel as a nation and institution that is attacked, not the Jews within Israel.
[/quote]

I didn't see a single anti Sudanian decision about the Darfur genocide, even though 400K Africans were murdered there in the last two-three years. I did see plenty of anti Israeli decisions taken in that period while in which less than 2000 arabs were killed during the anti terror fighting Israel has to do. Do i justify the harm of innocent here? No.
Do I think that Israel has the right to defend itself against terror? Yes.
Do I blame Israel for harming innocent? No! If a guerrilla organization is using civilian population as human shields and attack cities of any country (more than 5000 rockets were shot on Israeli cities during the last 8 years) than they are the sole responsible for any civilian casualties on their side.

As to your last request - if you accept the assumption that the modern anti-zionism is a form of anti-semitism, you don't need me to show you anything.
It is well known that being anti semetic is a dark and evil thing to do, but being an anti zionist is cool, so why don't we be anti-zionist instead?

I find it hard to show you that the writer is anti-semitist according to his past, mostly because he is a photographer that published cookbooks!
When you accuse a democratic country with such horrors with no prove what so ever, it shows you either hate that country and everything it stands for, think that country isn't really a democracy or both.

Let me give you a good motive for the Sweden's refusal of condemning hte article: Sweden has more than 300K Muslims living in it, a very large group in a 9 million democracy. the Muslims are more than third of the population of Malmo and when the Swedish tennis team hosted the Israeli team in Malmo the riots almost ruined the city. As I recall, the game was forced to be played with no audience and the Swedish team lost because of it.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025140.php
Or a Swedish exhibition glorifying an arab female martyr (look for "snow white" in wiki).
You can also see that http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4700414.stm
Why do I bring all that up? To show you that the Swedish government is quick to succumb to it's Muslim population. Now try to prove me wrong.

I'm sorry if I didn't answer everything you said, as I previously said, it's hard for me to follow so much text.

The Israeli rage isn't pointed at the newspaper only - as you said it's a tabloid and do it's best to sell, it is pointed at the government that don't care and hide behind the "freedom of speech" excuse.
the fact they closed a website for publishing Muhammad caricatures prove they can limit the freedom of press when they want to.

Zixinus · September 13th, 2009, 03:28 PM

Quote:

A quick googling of the words "anti zionism anti semitism" will provide you with as many studies as you'd like, here's one of them:

You made the claim, you prove it. Why should I go and try to prove your claim?

Quote:

Take note that this is a political science and at the same ease I found an article supporting my claim you can find an article negating it.

Articles are not proofs. Articles are just a few pages worth of one opinion.

You mentioned studies. Articles are not studies because articles are not scientific. Show me a scientific study.

Quote:

my argument regarding the UN decisions against Israel didn't come to justify any of it's deeds, but it surely shows that Israel is judged with a different perspective than any other country in the world.

And these decisions are? Could you list them? Can you show the anti-Semitic intent in them?

Quote:

Could it be due to the UN disapproving Israel?

Could it be that UN disapproves of Israel because of its policies and actions?

Quote:

I didn't see a single anti Sudanian decision about the Darfur genocide, even though 400K Africans were murdered there in the last two-three years.

Red Herring. We're not talking about the Darfur genocide.

We're talking about an article within a tabloid newspaper. You claim that it is anti-Semitic. Show me where are anti-Semitic sentiments within the article. You failed to do so.

Quote:

I did see plenty of anti Israeli decisions taken in that period while in which less than 2000 arabs were killed during the anti terror fighting Israel has to do. Do i justify the harm of innocent here? No.
Do I think that Israel has the right to defend itself against terror? Yes.
Do I blame Israel for harming innocent? No! If a guerrilla organization is using civilian population as human shields and attack cities of any country (more than 5000 rockets were shot on Israeli cities during the last 8 years) than they are the sole responsible for any civilian casualties on their side.

Red herring again. We're not talking about Israel's anti-terror policies and actions. The actual horrors that Israel did is not the topic at hand. We're talking about a single article.

Quote:

As to your last request - if you accept the assumption that the modern anti-zionism is a form of anti-semitism, you don't need me to show you anything.

Oh dear Lord and Mother in heaven, why should I automatically assume that? Why?

Quote:

I find it hard to show you that the writer is anti-semitist according to his past, mostly because he is a photographer that published cookbooks!

There you are then. The author is not anti-Semitic unless proven otherwise.

Quote:

It is well known that being anti semetic is a dark and evil thing to do, but being an anti zionist is cool, so why don't we be anti-zionist instead?

So you cannot be philosophically opposed to the principles of Zionism but still not be prejudiced against the Jewish population?

I do concede that some genuinely anti-Semitic people will hide their true opinion behind anti-Zionist stances, but that does not mean that everyone that dislikes Israel's policies or even don't agree with the principles of Zionism is automatically fantasying about recreating the Holocaust.

One can express anti-Zionist sentiments and turn out to have anti-Semitic sentiments. While the second easily leads to the first, the first does not automatically lead to the second.

Quote:

When you accuse a democratic country with such horrors with no prove what so ever, it shows you either hate that country and everything it stands for, think that country isn't really a democracy or both.

Or that you're a bad journalist that is willing to make a hack work just to get a few bucks from a magazine that has a well-known anti-Israel stance?

I admit that you may have a point there, the author certainly does not show much love for Israel. But that's about it, he accuses and repeats ill-fated rumours about organ harvests. That makes him a bad journalist, not necessarily an anti-Semitic.

Quote:

Let me give you a good motive for the Sweden's refusal of condemning hte article: Sweden has more than 300K Muslims living in it, a very large group in a 9 million democracy. the Muslims are more than third of the population of Malmo and when the Swedish tennis team hosted the Israeli team in Malmo the riots almost ruined the city. As I recall, the game was forced to be played with no audience and the Swedish team lost because of it.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025140.php
Or a Swedish exhibition glorifying an arab female martyr (look for "snow white" in wiki).
You can also see that http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4700414.stm
Why do I bring all that up? To show you that the Swedish government is quick to succumb to it's Muslim population. Now try to prove me wrong.

Interesting.

So there is a strong pro-Muslim political movement within Sweden. You think that this may have influenced the politicians when asked to comment on the article? Possibly. That's politics for you. I do concede that this may be a influencing factor for the politician's action of refusing to comment. However, refusing to comment shows that they do no wish to accept a stance, nothing more.

Quote:

Or a Swedish exhibition glorifying an arab female martyr (look for "snow white" in wiki).

Snow White is all that I could find.

Again, if you have proof, show it to me, don't expect me to go and find it for you.

Quote:

The Israeli rage isn't pointed at the newspaper only - as you said it's a tabloid and do it's best to sell, it is pointed at the government that don't care and hide behind the "freedom of speech" excuse.

How is it pointed at the government? Please elaborate.

Quote:

the fact they closed a website for publishing Muhammad caricatures prove they can limit the freedom of press when they want to.

And doing so, the person responsible was resigned and the party charged with unconstitutional actions. What they did was not legal.

The government should have not interfered. That is also quite possibly a factor at why the politicians distanced themselves from the article. They don't want to repeat that bullshit all over again.

Are you advocating that the article should be limited from freedom of press? Why are you afraid of this article so much? The politicians admitting that the article is stupid or that they don't think its true unless investigations show otherwise, but doing otherwise, that I understand. But why do you want this article and its website shut down? It's stupid and baseless, yes, but so are most creationist websites yet I don't see much of a move to shut those down (even though the creationist claim otherwise, but that's another matter).

[quote]
I'm sorry if I didn't answer everything you said, as I previously said, it's hard for me to follow so much text.
[quote]

Yet I have no trouble with your large block of text.

No, really, this is tiring.

Let me review so far your argument:
You assume that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, even though Israel is not a Jew-only country and there are Arabs within its parliament.
You assume that Jewism and Israel is one, even though there are many Jews living outside of Israel and do not wish to go there.
You assume that all forms of anti-Zionism is automatically and without fail anti-Semitism.
You assume that this is self-evident.

Am I the only one that sees a persecution complex here?

This debate's key is to prove that anti-Israel stance equates to anti-Zionism, as anti-Zionism automatically means anti-Semitism. You told me that there are studies that prove this. You failed to show me these studies you mentioned. Unless you can show me these studies and I want to see proper, scientific studies, I will consider your argument flawed.

Zixinus · September 13th, 2009, 03:28 PM

Quote:

A quick googling of the words "anti zionism anti semitism" will provide you with as many studies as you'd like, here's one of them:

You made the claim, you prove it. Why should I go and try to prove your claim?

Quote:

Take note that this is a political science and at the same ease I found an article supporting my claim you can find an article negating it.

Articles are not proofs. Articles are just a few pages worth of one opinion.

You mentioned studies. Articles are not studies because articles are not scientific. Show me a scientific study.

Quote:

my argument regarding the UN decisions against Israel didn't come to justify any of it's deeds, but it surely shows that Israel is judged with a different perspective than any other country in the world.

And these decisions are? Could you list them? Can you show the anti-Semitic intent in them?

Quote:

Could it be due to the UN disapproving Israel?

Could it be that UN disapproves of Israel because of its policies and actions?

Quote:

I didn't see a single anti Sudanian decision about the Darfur genocide, even though 400K Africans were murdered there in the last two-three years.

Red Herring. We're not talking about the Darfur genocide.

We're talking about an article within a tabloid newspaper. You claim that it is anti-Semitic. Show me where are anti-Semitic sentiments within the article. You failed to do so.

Quote:

I did see plenty of anti Israeli decisions taken in that period while in which less than 2000 arabs were killed during the anti terror fighting Israel has to do. Do i justify the harm of innocent here? No.
Do I think that Israel has the right to defend itself against terror? Yes.
Do I blame Israel for harming innocent? No! If a guerrilla organization is using civilian population as human shields and attack cities of any country (more than 5000 rockets were shot on Israeli cities during the last 8 years) than they are the sole responsible for any civilian casualties on their side.

Red herring again. We're not talking about Israel's anti-terror policies and actions. The actual horrors that Israel did is not the topic at hand. We're talking about a single article.

Quote:

As to your last request - if you accept the assumption that the modern anti-zionism is a form of anti-semitism, you don't need me to show you anything.

Oh dear Lord and Mother in heaven, why should I automatically assume that? Why?

Quote:

I find it hard to show you that the writer is anti-semitist according to his past, mostly because he is a photographer that published cookbooks!

There you are then. The author is not anti-Semitic unless proven otherwise.

Quote:

It is well known that being anti semetic is a dark and evil thing to do, but being an anti zionist is cool, so why don't we be anti-zionist instead?

So you cannot be philosophically opposed to the principles of Zionism but still not be prejudiced against the Jewish population?

I do concede that some genuinely anti-Semitic people will hide their true opinion behind anti-Zionist stances, but that does not mean that everyone that dislikes Israel's policies or even don't agree with the principles of Zionism is automatically fantasying about recreating the Holocaust.

One can express anti-Zionist sentiments and turn out to have anti-Semitic sentiments. While the second easily leads to the first, the first does not automatically lead to the second.

Quote:

When you accuse a democratic country with such horrors with no prove what so ever, it shows you either hate that country and everything it stands for, think that country isn't really a democracy or both.

Or that you're a bad journalist that is willing to make a hack work just to get a few bucks from a magazine that has a well-known anti-Israel stance?

I admit that you may have a point there, the author certainly does not show much love for Israel. But that's about it, he accuses and repeats ill-fated rumours about organ harvests. That makes him a bad journalist, not necessarily an anti-Semitic.

Quote:

Let me give you a good motive for the Sweden's refusal of condemning hte article: Sweden has more than 300K Muslims living in it, a very large group in a 9 million democracy. the Muslims are more than third of the population of Malmo and when the Swedish tennis team hosted the Israeli team in Malmo the riots almost ruined the city. As I recall, the game was forced to be played with no audience and the Swedish team lost because of it.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025140.php
Or a Swedish exhibition glorifying an arab female martyr (look for "snow white" in wiki).
You can also see that http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4700414.stm
Why do I bring all that up? To show you that the Swedish government is quick to succumb to it's Muslim population. Now try to prove me wrong.

Interesting.

So there is a strong pro-Muslim political movement within Sweden. You think that this may have influenced the politicians when asked to comment on the article? Possibly. That's politics for you. I do concede that this may be a influencing factor for the politician's action of refusing to comment. However, refusing to comment shows that they do no wish to accept a stance, nothing more.

Quote:

Or a Swedish exhibition glorifying an arab female martyr (look for "snow white" in wiki).

Snow White is all that I could find.

Again, if you have proof, show it to me, don't expect me to go and find it for you.

Quote:

The Israeli rage isn't pointed at the newspaper only - as you said it's a tabloid and do it's best to sell, it is pointed at the government that don't care and hide behind the "freedom of speech" excuse.

How is it pointed at the government? Please elaborate.

Quote:

the fact they closed a website for publishing Muhammad caricatures prove they can limit the freedom of press when they want to.

And doing so, the person responsible was resigned and the party charged with unconstitutional actions. What they did was not legal.

The government should have not interfered. That is also quite possibly a factor at why the politicians distanced themselves from the article. They don't want to repeat that bullshit all over again.

Are you advocating that the article should be limited from freedom of press? Why are you afraid of this article so much? The politicians admitting that the article is stupid or that they don't think its true unless investigations show otherwise, but doing otherwise, that I understand. But why do you want this article and its website shut down? It's stupid and baseless, yes, but so are most creationist websites yet I don't see much of a move to shut those down (even though the creationist claim otherwise, but that's another matter).

[quote]
I'm sorry if I didn't answer everything you said, as I previously said, it's hard for me to follow so much text.
[quote]

Yet I have no trouble with your large block of text.

No, really, this is tiring.

Let me review so far your argument:
You assume that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, even though Israel is not a Jew-only country and there are Arabs within its parliament.
You assume that Jewism and Israel is one, even though there are many Jews living outside of Israel and do not wish to go there.
You assume that all forms of anti-Zionism is automatically and without fail anti-Semitism.
You assume that this is self-evident.

Am I the only one that sees a persecution complex here?

This debate's key is to prove that anti-Israel stance equates to anti-Zionism, as anti-Zionism automatically means anti-Semitism. You told me that there are studies that prove this. You failed to show me these studies you mentioned. Unless you can show me these studies and I want to see proper, scientific studies, I will consider your argument flawed.

Noobi Zubi · September 13th, 2009, 03:59 PM

I don't seem to see the problem with the article I gave you - it was written by PROF. ROBERT S. WISTRICH (copied from the article itself), was published in the Jewish Political Studies Review (which I have no idea what it is, but it is written there too) and " This article was originally presented as a written statement at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, and published in its official record on 10 February 2004. "

I just mentioned that the internet is full of such studies.

As I said before, it isn't math or physics where all studies must eventually come to the same conclusion, but POLITICAL SCIENCE. And the article was written by a Professor as a part of a study.
too bad you didn't bother reading it/ checking about it before you published your reply.

Zixinus · September 19th, 2009, 10:04 PM

Are you familiar with the phrase "appeal to authority"? Look it up. I don't see why I should bother explaining my reply when I can get you to do it for me.

If you see the flaw in that, you'll see why what you say is not an answer.

Since I'm not you, I'll tell you why I dismiss this article:

"Appeal to authority" is a flawed logical tactic that assumes that pointing to an authority is the same as providing proof.

Insisting that he's a professor does not change much. Professors are very knowledgeable people and often are intelligent, but they're still people and thus subject to bias by political, emotional and ideological influences.

Yes, I have read the article. It is not a study, it is the personal opinion of a professor who is talking about anti-Semitism (I've done a google search on his name and it appears that this topic is a bit of a berserk button for him). His article is tiring, a without much visible structure to it and reads more like a well-spelled ramble than a study.

He has a point that the propaganda of openly anti-Semitic Arab nations is recycled among Western anti-Semitic groups (which is true), but this fails to prove that all forms of anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

Hell, he even admits this, in the very second paragraph:

Quote:

My answer to such objections is that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two distinct ideologies that over time (especially since 1948) have tended to converge, generally without undergoing a full merger. There have always been Bundists, Jewish communists, Reform Jews, and ultra-Orthodox Jews who strongly opposed Zionism without being Judeophobes. So, too, there are conservatives, liberals, and leftists in the West today who are pro-Palestinian, antagonistic toward Israel, and deeply distrustful of Zionism without crossing the line into anti- Semitism. There are also Israeli "post-Zionists" who object to the definition of Israel as an exclusively or even a predominantly "Jewish" state without feeling hostile toward Jews as such. There are others, too, who question whether Jews are really a nation; or who reject Zionism because they believe its accomplishment inevitably resulted in uprooting many Palestinians. None of these positions is intrinsically anti-Semitic in the sense of expressing opposition or hatred toward Jews as Jews.

If anything, it looks like it is you that has not read the article properly.

Closing:
I have not mentioned a crucial element to your argument.

You believe that Israel can do no harm.

Several human rights associations, including those lead by Jewish people, say otherwise.

Among others, this is why there was talk about Israel in the Duban Conference.

You insist different however, trying to mitigate the events of its "anti-terrorist" actions, you appear to assume that anyone who criticises Israel opposes everything it stands for as it is a Jewish state and therefore necessarily anti-Semitic.. Your argument appears to be politically loaded.

Frankly, I do not have the patience to continue this. You failed to show me the studies I have demanded. You insist that I should do your research for you. You appear to ignore my points and concede nowhere. You do not even appear to read my post properly. You repeatedly go off-topic and try to drag it into a different direction.

I do not have the time nor energy to waste for arguing with you. I heavily suspect that you will drop back to a rigid, ideological stance and no doubt I will be labelled anti-Semitic in short order. This very post took about 20 minutes to write, possibly more. I find this debate tiring and pointless.

Simply put, I have better things to do. Have a nice day.

Noobi Zubi · September 22nd, 2009, 12:46 PM

I tried to reply to that but was signed out during the writing and it was all lost.
that is what you get when you write a post using Microsoft Internet Exploader from work

don't have the time to rewrite it so I just hope you have a good day and don't take any of this discussion personally.

you mentioned HRW, here are two links i managed to salvage
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...p/pollak/76201
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/09/...4471253018865/

giving you a taste of "objective" covering to Israel...

Zixinus · September 23rd, 2009, 11:38 AM

No one said that the Human Rights Watch is perfect. It doesn't necessarily mean that everything they say is wrong and I have linked several other organizations other than Human Rights Watch.

Noobi Zubi · September 23rd, 2009, 01:06 PM

how do you do all these links?

I've missed them when i read your post (just clicked on the human rights part)

the Amnesty page you gave don't describe any crime against humanity and can describe any warzone in the world.

gush shalom is not a human rights organization, but an Israeli radical left wing group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Shalom#Criticism

ICAHD isn't a human rights group either, look at that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAHD
and a more specific look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAHD#Criticism

It's the first time I hear of RHR, but here is their WIKI page, seems as if they are busy in all sorts of illigal activities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbis_for_Human_Rights
btw, i failed to find accusations of war crimes they posted against Israel in the link you provided.

and let me quote that page:
"Rabbi Ascherman and RHR expressed concern about the second Durban conference, saying "that Israel has committed human rights violations [is an issue that] can appropriately be discussed at a conference like this. But if you allow the conference to be hijacked as if Israel is the only place in the world where there are issues of racism and human rights, then it makes a farce of the whole thing. We're not trying to protect Israel from being criticized, but as people who are really concerned with human rights and racism, and think it is important that there be a body among the community of nations dealing with these things, we don't want to see another hijacking."

sounds a little like me...

btw, this wiki link contains both sides at the anti zionism question we argued about. as everything in wiki, it is covered with documantations for both side. the side that claims the anti zionism is a form of anti semitism has studies support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zi...d_Antisemitism

god, this argument is really tiring...

Zixinus · September 24th, 2009, 07:03 PM

Quote:

god, this argument is really tiring...

Which is why I told that I refuse to go on with it. It is obvious that you believe that Israel is incapable of doing wrong as a nation and that you use dishonest cherry-picking tactics to further your argument (several points in your reply is an outright lie, how can Gush Shalom be a terrorist group if it has done no terrorist actions?) and systematically ignore every single one of my own. I am also suspect of your reading comprehension.

I do not have the patience, time or even reason to go with it. I can only hope that life teaches you truth. Have a nice day.

Noobi Zubi · September 25th, 2009, 09:37 AM

And now you lie, what a pity - we had a nice argument until now.

a. please quote the place i wrote that Gush Shalom are a terror group. they are a radical left wing group and as such they cannot present any objective report.

b. where did i say that Israel is a pure angel that can't cause any harm?
Israel is a country that has been bombarded during the last eight years, as such it has a right to defend itself.

I don't know where is it you live, but I doubt your country would have waited 8 years of constant bombarding to retaliate.

If Hamas is shooting at civilians from inside a civilian area or from the UN buildings they are the sole responsible for the civil casualties that will come after that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpNLY...eature=related
explosives were stored in houses and schools.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-network.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglMONFb7K0

It is a pure hypocrisy to say that Israel is doing horrors when your country isn't under any threat and to completely ignore the way the other side is acting.

My reading comprehension is perfectly fine, it seems that your scales of judgment need some rebalancing.