British students: Israel is worse than ISIS

[whichphilosophy]

Seems fairly straightforward. They want to condemn Israel to make it clear to Israel that their behaviour is losing them public support in an officially friendly country. Condemnation of Israel is normal (in student politics) and fairly straightforward, there's a wealth of information available and people know what they're voting about.

ISIS on the other hand, is less well known. There's no obvious handle that the UK has on ISIS, and it's not clear what political pressure, if any, a vote against ISIS would actually bring to the organisation itself. What is might do, however, is give cover to other political groups with no particular relationship or involvement with ISIS, but who want to use condemnation of a radical Muslim group abroad to justify military action in other countries, or bigotry at home. As such a vote against ISIS may have political consequences that are deeply undesirable.

Seems fairly straightforward for me. It's not a show of support for ISIS, any more than protesters against the Iraq war were supporters of Saddam Hussein.

This is Monty Pythonesque bollocks.

Perhaps John Cleese wrote it.

 

[fromderinside]

But they have been known to send the Mossad to assassinate people, so criticizing Israel is pretty much like shouting fire in a crowded theatre and the victims are responsible for the violence.

That's cheaper than nukes and blowing up hotels.

there's a capitalist in the room.

 

[untermensche]

Being anti-Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Any nation behaving as Israel does deserves great condemnation.

The continual denial of rights and theft and violent brutality ARE no better than ISIS.

It is no better to blow somebody up than to slit their throat.

Condemnation of Israel is indeed not necessarily anti-semitic. But it is the condemantion of Israel in conjunction with a refusal to condemn a group which is at least as bad which is suggestive of bias of some sort.

It may show some hypocrisy, but the condemnation of Israel is well earned.

One need not be the least bit antisemitic to do it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Condemnation of Israel is indeed not necessarily anti-semitic. But it is the condemantion of Israel in conjunction with a refusal to condemn a group which is at least as bad which is suggestive of bias of some sort.

It may show some hypocrisy, but the condemnation of Israel is well earned.

One need not be the least bit antisemitic to do it.

There is very clear hypocrisy since if they were rational they would condemn both. Isis is worse in that it is a threat to European security. Israel poses no threat. Both can be condemned for the deaths they have caused. The Palestinians have a right to bear arms to protect their land but those who recklessly fire rockets anyway that hit civilian targets are also equally to blame.
At this level of bigotry anti-semtism is more likely even if this was instigated by a fringe group.

 

[arkirk]

Being anti-Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Any nation behaving as Israel does deserves great condemnation.

The continual denial of rights and theft and violent brutality ARE no better than ISIS.

It is no better to blow somebody up than to slit their throat.

Condemnation of Israel is indeed not necessarily anti-semitic. But it is the condemantion of Israel in conjunction with a refusal to condemn a group which is at least as bad which is suggestive of bias of some sort.

The language in the proposal to condemn ISIS also contained a statement of solidarity with a Kurdish faction fighting ISIS, the morality of that group was not examined. I think linking a statement of solidarity with an unknown to condemnation of a known may have had something to do with it not passing. The rejected resolution had "good guy--bad guy" language which is used regularly to fuel unnecessary violence.

Of course, this OP came from Mr. Good Guy/Bad Guy himself. I feel this Student group should get back to the drawing board and do their resolution without the support for another group we know is about equally violent as ISIS.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Condemnation of Israel is indeed not necessarily anti-semitic. But it is the condemantion of Israel in conjunction with a refusal to condemn a group which is at least as bad which is suggestive of bias of some sort.

The language in the proposal to condemn ISIS also contained a statement of solidarity with a Kurdish faction fighting ISIS, the morality of that group was not examined. I think linking a statement of solidarity with an unknown to condemnation of a known may have had something to do with it not passing. The rejected resolution had "good guy--bad guy" language which is used regularly to fuel unnecessary violence.

Of course, this OP came from Mr. Good Guy/Bad Guy himself. I feel this Student group should get back to the drawing board and do their resolution without the support for another group we know is about equally violent as ISIS.

There's an article from the SECULAR SOCIETY
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2...n-iraqikurdish-solidarity-citing-islamophobia

They seem to have a thing about Islamaphobia

 

[Bomb#20]

http://ukmediawatch.org/2015/06/03/...passed-motion-boycotting-israel-beyondparody/

And people say there isn't an antisemitism problem over there???

Condemnation of Israel is indeed not necessarily anti-semitic. But it is the condemantion of Israel in conjunction with a refusal to condemn a group which is at least as bad which is suggestive of bias of some sort.

There is very clear hypocrisy since if they were rational they would condemn both. ... At this level of bigotry anti-semtism is more likely even if this was instigated by a fringe group.

Why are you guys assuming the blatant hypocrisy and bias against the Israelis is due to antisemitism? There are a million differences between Israelis and Islamic Staters. Jumping to the conclusion that the NUS idiots must be bigoted against Israelis specifically for being Jews is no more logical than jumping to the conclusion that they must be bigoted against Israelis for not executing homosexuals. And the antisemitism hypothesis is wildly implausible on its face. If antisemitism were the correct explanation for their bigotry, then that would imply that if only Palestine had been colonized by Dutch Protestants instead of by Russian Jews, then the NUS buffoons and their innumerable less fringy cohorts would judge the colonists' descendants by the same standard they apply to IS. That would be highly out of character, don't you think?

Making the antisemitism charge too easily without first thinking carefully about what it is your opponents are bigoted about is self-defeating.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Condemnation of Israel is indeed not necessarily anti-semitic. But it is the condemantion of Israel in conjunction with a refusal to condemn a group which is at least as bad which is suggestive of bias of some sort.

There is very clear hypocrisy since if they were rational they would condemn both. ... At this level of bigotry anti-semtism is more likely even if this was instigated by a fringe group.

Why are you guys assuming the blatant hypocrisy and bias against the Israelis is due to antisemitism? There are a million differences between Israelis and Islamic Staters. Jumping to the conclusion that the NUS idiots must be bigoted against Israelis specifically for being Jews is no more logical than jumping to the conclusion that they must be bigoted against Israelis for not executing homosexuals. And the antisemitism hypothesis is wildly implausible on its face. If antisemitism were the correct explanation for their bigotry, then that would imply that if only Palestine had been colonized by Dutch Protestants instead of by Russian Jews, then the NUS buffoons and their innumerable less fringy cohorts would judge the colonists' descendants by the same standard they apply to IS. That would be highly out of character, don't you think?

Making the antisemitism charge too easily without first thinking carefully about what it is your opponents are bigoted about is self-defeating.

To focus back on the actual issue the bigotry is self evident inasmuch as the reasoning for not condemning ISiS for its acts as it would cause "Islamaphobia." Then by the NUS own LOGIC condemning Israel would suggest this would cause anti-Semitism. Yet suppressing one motion was okay and pushing the next motion was equally okay. Whether anti-Semitism was intended, by the NUS own logic such a motion would cause it.

 

[Archimedes]

Who is this thread responding to? Who has said "there isn't an antisemitism problem over there" that this is supposed to prove wrong?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Who is this thread responding to? Who has said "there isn't an antisemitism problem over there" that this is supposed to prove wrong?

My point addresses the expressed logic that condemning ISIS causes Islamaphobia. So applying this logic in condemning Israel would imply anti-Semitism.

 

[Bomb#20]

To focus back on the actual issue the bigotry is self evident inasmuch as the reasoning for not condemning ISiS for its acts as it would cause "Islamaphobia." Then by the NUS own LOGIC condemning Israel would suggest this would cause anti-Semitism. Yet suppressing one motion was okay and pushing the next motion was equally okay. Whether anti-Semitism was intended, by the NUS own logic such a motion would cause it.

This presupposes that the NUS has logic. The NUS are imbecilic fundamentalists. They're following the formula of their religion. They won't condemn ISIS, most probably, because ISIS is non-western and they regard western civilization as the root of all evil. "It would cause Islamophobia." is transparent rationalization, mere window dressing. Israelis are fair game for condemnation because they're westerners. Those who play the "1. Identify the bearer of privilege. 2. Hold the privilege-bearer responsible." game tend to be bigoted, primarily, against westerners who won't.

 

[whichphilosophy]

To focus back on the actual issue the bigotry is self evident inasmuch as the reasoning for not condemning ISiS for its acts as it would cause "Islamaphobia." Then by the NUS own LOGIC condemning Israel would suggest this would cause anti-Semitism. Yet suppressing one motion was okay and pushing the next motion was equally okay. Whether anti-Semitism was intended, by the NUS own logic such a motion would cause it.

This presupposes that the NUS has logic. The NUS are imbecilic fundamentalists. They're following the formula of their religion. They won't condemn ISIS, most probably, because ISIS is non-western and they regard western civilization as the root of all evil. "It would cause Islamophobia." is transparent rationalization, mere window dressing. Israelis are fair game for condemnation because they're westerners. Those who play the "1. Identify the bearer of privilege. 2. Hold the privilege-bearer responsible." game tend to be bigoted, primarily, against westerners who won't.

Of course the reasons why they did not condemn ISIS make no logical sense. Condemning one and not the other also suggests double standards. I think you are taking on a difficult task if you are looking for any rational action.

I have this article

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/nus-will-condemn-israel-and-ukip-but-not-isis--lJLK98e7Ul



NUS will condemn Israel and Ukip but not Isis
They also condemned a black MP called David Lammy.

Have you ever watched any old Monty Python sketches on TV or Youtube.

 

[bilby]

The NUS is an organisation whose sole function it to lobby for the rights of students at UK universities.

They have no reason whatsoever to make any kind of comment on international affairs. But they constantly do, because they are narcissistic morons.

It is hilarious that anybody is dumb enough to take anything they do in this field seriously. It makes about as much sense to care about what nations or quasi-national organisations the NUS does or does not condemn as it does to worry about which criminals a four year old wearing a Batman costume wants to see imprisoned.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The NUS is an organisation whose sole function it to lobby for the rights of students at UK universities.

They have no reason whatsoever to make any kind of comment on international affairs. But they constantly do, because they are narcissistic morons.

It is hilarious that anybody is dumb enough to take anything they do in this field seriously. It makes about as much sense to care about what nations or quasi-national organisations the NUS does or does not condemn as it does to worry about which criminals a four year old wearing a Batman costume wants to see imprisoned.

There's no harm in students taking an interest in world affairs but per your point I don't see Netanyahu shaking in his boots after this.

 

[Axulus]

Being anti-Israel has nothing to do with antisemitism.

Any nation behaving as Israel does deserves great condemnation.

The continual denial of rights and theft and violent brutality ARE no better than ISIS.

It is no better to blow somebody up than to slit their throat.

What would ISIS need to do to be worse? If the mass kidnappings for purposes of sexual slavery, including of under aged girls, attempted genocides, mass executions in cold blood, deliberate destruction of ancient artifacts, and fascist imposition of theoracy across all of society doesn't do it, one must wonder what would?

Also, if you had a choice between the two following scenarios: Israel possesses nuclear weapons or ISIS possesses nuclear weapons, you would have no preference? Israel possessing nuclear weapons is just as bad a scenario as ISIS possessing nuclear weapons? It would be a coin toss on which scenario you'd prefer?

 

[Axulus]

Six weeks ago, Human Rights Watch documented a “system of organized rape and sexual assault, sexual slavery, and forced marriage by ISIS forces.” Their victims were mainly Yazidi women and girls as young as 12, whom they bought, sold, gang-raped, beat, tortured and murdered when they tried to escape.

In May, Kurdish media reported, Yazidi girls who escaped or were released said they were kept half-naked together with other girls as young as 9, one of whom was pregnant when she was released. The girls were “smelled,” chosen and examined to make sure they were virgins. ISIS fighters whipped or burned the girls’ thighs if they refused to perform “extreme” pornography-influenced sex acts. In one instance, they cut off the legs of a girl who tried to escape.

http://nypost.com/2015/06/07/as-isis-brutalizes-women-a-pathetic-feminist-silence/

The continual denial of rights and theft and violent brutality ARE no better than ISIS.

Seems like a clueless statement to me. No one will take what you say seriously.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What would ISIS need to do to be worse? If the mass kidnappings for purposes of sexual slavery, including of under aged girls, attempted genocides, mass executions in cold blood, deliberate destruction of ancient artifacts, and fascist imposition of theoracy across all of society doesn't do it, one must wonder what would?

Also, if you had a choice between the two following scenarios: Israel possesses nuclear weapons or ISIS possesses nuclear weapons, you would have no preference? Israel possessing nuclear weapons is just as bad a scenario as ISIS possessing nuclear weapons? It would be a coin toss on which scenario you'd prefer?

What would ISIS need to do to be worse? They would need to do what they are doing but in higher numbers and over a longer period of time. They would also need to infect the west so that people over here actually defend their actions. And they would need to gain enough power to be considered a "nation" and have that level of power over their surroundings.

ISIS is like stabbing with a knife. It is quick, blatant, and dramatic. Those that it kills are front page news. Israel's actions are more like infecting with a fatal disease. It is quieter, taking a much more long term approach, people in the west try to justify it, and its victims are mostly kept nameless and faceless. Both ISIS and Israel appear to be engaged in attempted genocide. Only one has any real chance of success.

 

[Axulus]

What would ISIS need to do to be worse? If the mass kidnappings for purposes of sexual slavery, including of under aged girls, attempted genocides, mass executions in cold blood, deliberate destruction of ancient artifacts, and fascist imposition of theoracy across all of society doesn't do it, one must wonder what would?

Also, if you had a choice between the two following scenarios: Israel possesses nuclear weapons or ISIS possesses nuclear weapons, you would have no preference? Israel possessing nuclear weapons is just as bad a scenario as ISIS possessing nuclear weapons? It would be a coin toss on which scenario you'd prefer?

What would ISIS need to do to be worse? They would need to do what they are doing but in higher numbers and over a longer period of time. They would also need to infect the west so that people over here actually defend their actions. And they would need to gain enough power to be considered a "nation" and have that level of power over their surroundings.

ISIS is like stabbing with a knife. It is quick, blatant, and dramatic. Those that it kills are front page news. Israel's actions are more like infecting with a fatal disease. It is quieter, taking a much more long term approach, people in the west try to justify it, and its victims are mostly kept nameless and faceless. Both ISIS and Israel appear to be engaged in attempted genocide. Only one has any real chance of success.

What is your definition of genocide? What is your empirical evidence of the attempts at the genocide? Why are both population levels and life expectancy of Palestinians increasing if a genocide is being attempted? Or is this like one of those instances where a shock word is redefined for political purposes, resulting in a watered down meaning of "genocide"?

I'll ask you the same question I asked unter: if you had the choice to pick ISIS or Israel owning a dozen nukes, which one would you pick and why (if you had to pick between one of them)? How is that answer consistent with your definition of Israel being worse?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What is your definition of genocide? What is your empirical evidence of the attempts at the genocide? Why are both population levels and life expectancy of Palestinians increasing if a genocide is being attempted? Or is this like one of those instances where a shock word is redefined for political purposes, resulting in a watered down meaning of "genocide"?

My definition of genocide is the goal and effort of eradicating a population. That Palestinian population level and life expectancy is increasing (cite?) does not show that Israel lacks this goal or effort. Just that they aren't doing it very effectively. They are doing it slowly and as politically as they can, so they can get away with it and still have people around the world supporting them. International support was vital, and still is important to them. Isis is also doing a poor job towards their goal of eradicating those that disagree with their philosophy.

Israel has the power, resolve, and support to do a better job of it than Isis does though. Isis is just one of a long line of crazy violent fanatical groups in the region. Israel is there to stay, and Israel's position of neither allowing a Palestinian state nor offering Palestinians full equal citizenship is longlived. Its incursions in building settlements is also longlived. it is slow and gradual, but the end goal is obvious.

I'll ask you the same question I asked unter: if you had the choice to pick ISIS or Israel owning a dozen nukes, which one would you pick and why (if you had to pick between one of them)? How is that answer consistent with your definition of Israel being worse?

Israel is safer with such power than ISIS is, of course. And given equal power and support of the international community, ISIS would be far far worse. But ISIS doesn't have that. You seem to have skipped the bulk of my post regarding that.

 

[arkirk]

The NUS is an organisation whose sole function it to lobby for the rights of students at UK universities.

They have no reason whatsoever to make any kind of comment on international affairs. But they constantly do, because they are narcissistic morons.

It is hilarious that anybody is dumb enough to take anything they do in this field seriously. It makes about as much sense to care about what nations or quasi-national organisations the NUS does or does not condemn as it does to worry about which criminals a four year old wearing a Batman costume wants to see imprisoned.

And of course, YOU AREN'T?