Swedish Social Democratic anti-semitism

[DrZoidberg]

I think you're putting me inside a box that I don't fit. Yes, obviously it goes both ways. And both sides suck.

But does it go both ways? I keep on asking what it is that Palestinians need to do for peace negotiations to start, and the best we've so far come up with is that they refuse to make a statement in principle that they surrender all their claims before the negotiations start?

You compare that to the settlement program, and conclude there are faults on both sides? Really?

Yes. I think it's a fair deal. A two state solution will have to mean that Palestinian territories are evacuated by the Israeli settlers and Israel renounce all claims to that land. In return Palestine renounce all claims to the Israeli land. And then both sides do their damndest to keep their own side in line. I'd say that's a good start if they're serious about this deal. Until then peace is fucked and will continue to be fucked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The majority of the Palestinians support continued war after a "peace" deal. It's not just a few rabid ones.

That depends on the peace deal. The only peace deals Israel has indicated a willingness to accept is one that allows Israel to continue to build settlements, seize more territory, control the Palestinian aquifers, destroy Palestinian homes and infrastructure, develop Palestinian resources for the benefit of Israelis, etc. If that's the peace deal then the Palestinians will be forced to fight just to survive, so of course they are prepared to continue fighting. What other option do they have, roll over and die?

Evidence???

The reality is that the Israelis won't accept a peace deal that would destroy them (the right of return) and they've been burned enough in the past that they're not likely to accept another agreement that's highly front-loaded. (The Palestinians get things now in exchange for a promise of better behavior.)

Exactly. The Palestinians go out of their way to ensure that anything positive from Israel doesn't improve the situation. Is it any wonder that they engage in fewer and fewer positive things?

Can you give an example of something positive from Israel that the Palestinians ensured would not improve the situation?

Oslo. The Gaza pullout. Allowing in construction materials under NGO supervision.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The majority of the Palestinians support continued war after a "peace" deal. It's not just a few rabid ones.

I'd like to see such a poll after a real peace deal is made. Until then, this is all propaganda.

Asking the Palestinians what they want is propaganda?

 

[laughing dog]

I'd like to see such a poll after a real peace deal is made. Until then, this is all propaganda.

Asking the Palestinians what they want is propaganda?

No, your naive representation of bs polls is .

 

[Togo]

But does it go both ways? I keep on asking what it is that Palestinians need to do for peace negotiations to start, and the best we've so far come up with is that they refuse to make a statement in principle that they surrender all their claims before the negotiations start?

You compare that to the settlement program, and conclude there are faults on both sides? Really?

Yes. I think it's a fair deal. A two state solution will have to mean that Palestinian territories are evacuated by the Israeli settlers and Israel renounce all claims to that land. In return Palestine renounce all claims to the Israeli land. And then both sides do their damndest to keep their own side in line. I'd say that's a good start if they're serious about this deal. Until then peace is fucked and will continue to be fucked.

But it's not in return (my bold above), is it? You're condemning the Palestinians for not really wanting peace because they haven't renounced any and all claim unilaterally ahead of any negotiations. And you're equating not doing that with a gradual program of ethnic cleansing being carried out by the Israelis?

I'm just not getting why you see those as equivalent. In fact, I'm not seeing why you're suggesting that a failure to give up everything before negotiations start as being an impediment to peace at all. How does it stop negotiations starting, even a little bit?

 

[angelo]

The Israel-Palestine conflict is purely a nationalistic conflict. The war is motivated by hereditary claims to land. So in this conflict it is crucial that a peace is coupled with the combatants giving up on whatever hereditary claims they've had on each other's land. They need to prove to each other they are serious about it.

OK, this is making more sense. So in a conflict where Israel is systematically settling Palestinian land, peace talks can't proceed because a group of Palestinians won't sign a bit of paper giving up all claim to Israel in advance of the talks taking place. You're saying this is an obstacle that Palestinians have put up that makes peace talks impossible?

Can you talk me through your logic here, because it seems terribly one-sided?

The Palestinian demand for "right of return" must be dropped as that means the end of the Jewish State. That's for starters. There are many other unpalatable clauses in Palestinian demands that Israel without wishing to commit suicide just cannot be met and they know it!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes. I think it's a fair deal. A two state solution will have to mean that Palestinian territories are evacuated by the Israeli settlers and Israel renounce all claims to that land. In return Palestine renounce all claims to the Israeli land. And then both sides do their damndest to keep their own side in line. I'd say that's a good start if they're serious about this deal. Until then peace is fucked and will continue to be fucked.

But it's not in return (my bold above), is it? You're condemning the Palestinians for not really wanting peace because they haven't renounced any and all claim unilaterally ahead of any negotiations. And you're equating not doing that with a gradual program of ethnic cleansing being carried out by the Israelis?

I'm just not getting why you see those as equivalent. In fact, I'm not seeing why you're suggesting that a failure to give up everything before negotiations start as being an impediment to peace at all. How does it stop negotiations starting, even a little bit?

I'm not saying that's the only thing they have to do, or the only thing that is necessary. But they'll need to bring something to the table that is credible. Their offers now aren't. Politics is full of empty words, outright lies and bullshit. At some point politicians need to get creative if they want to prove they're serious.

Also, there's another mechanic of politics. There's basically two different types of political propositions. If you're serious in trying to pass something, you call up the leaders of the other side before putting it forward, the deal is negotiated in advance. Only after an agreement is made is it made public. The public debate and voting is basically just political theatre. But still important. Because the various sides show in these debates that they're serious about it.

The other type of propositions are pure propaganda pieces. They're not intended to pass. They are not negotiated with the other side before being put forward. They're just put out there in order to sway opinion to some direction.

This last peace offer from Hammas is clearly of the second kind.

 

[Togo]

But it's not in return (my bold above), is it? You're condemning the Palestinians for not really wanting peace because they haven't renounced any and all claim unilaterally ahead of any negotiations. And you're equating not doing that with a gradual program of ethnic cleansing being carried out by the Israelis?

I'm just not getting why you see those as equivalent. In fact, I'm not seeing why you're suggesting that a failure to give up everything before negotiations start as being an impediment to peace at all. How does it stop negotiations starting, even a little bit?

I'm not saying that's the only thing they have to do, or the only thing that is necessary. But they'll need to bring something to the table that is credible.

And we're back to this. Every time we discuss what it is that needs to happen it turns out that the obstacle is your attitude to the Palestinians. Not to their actions, but your view of what it going inside their heads.

Is it fair to conclude that there is no action the Palestinians actually need to carry out, and that the only obstacle is your beliefs about Palestine?

Also, there's another mechanic of politics. There's basically two different types of political propositions. If you're serious in trying to pass something, you call up the leaders of the other side before putting it forward, the deal is negotiated in advance. Only after an agreement is made is it made public.

Such as the recent Hamas negotiations with Mossad agents under the auspices of the Egyptian government? So the reason why Palestinians are responsible for the lack of peace negotiations is because Israel won't agree to a settlement?

This last peace offer from Hammas is clearly of the second kind.

And yet again, we see that the only obstacle to peace is how you feel about Palestinians.

Do you really not see why that's worrying? That you can't identify a single concrete action that the Palestinians should carry out to bring peace, and yet you hold them equally if not principally responsible for the conflict?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not saying that's the only thing they have to do, or the only thing that is necessary. But they'll need to bring something to the table that is credible.

And we're back to this. Every time we discuss what it is that needs to happen it turns out that the obstacle is your attitude to the Palestinians. Not to their actions, but your view of what it going inside their heads.

Is it fair to conclude that there is no action the Palestinians actually need to carry out, and that the only obstacle is your beliefs about Palestine?

Also, there's another mechanic of politics. There's basically two different types of political propositions. If you're serious in trying to pass something, you call up the leaders of the other side before putting it forward, the deal is negotiated in advance. Only after an agreement is made is it made public.

Such as the recent Hamas negotiations with Mossad agents under the auspices of the Egyptian government? So the reason why Palestinians are responsible for the lack of peace negotiations is because Israel won't agree to a settlement?

This last peace offer from Hammas is clearly of the second kind.

And yet again, we see that the only obstacle to peace is how you feel about Palestinians.

Do you really not see why that's worrying? That you can't identify a single concrete action that the Palestinians should carry out to bring peace, and yet you hold them equally if not principally responsible for the conflict?

At this point I think it's best to just agree to disagree. We don't view this the same way. I think you're off in fantasy-land. Our views of the situation are so different that I doubt there's any way we will get any closer.

 

[angelo]

^^^ There's reasons why some managers refuse to employ some people. Some are too set in their ways to ever change and just won't work in a new environment.

 

[4321lynx]

Dr Z said

At this point I think it's best to just agree to disagree. We don't view this the same way. I think you're off in fantasy-land. Our views of the situation are so different that I doubt there's any way we will get any closer.

Kind of like the Israelis and the Palestinians, don't you think? (I almost said 'Don't you agree?').

 

[DrZoidberg]

Dr Z said

At this point I think it's best to just agree to disagree. We don't view this the same way. I think you're off in fantasy-land. Our views of the situation are so different that I doubt there's any way we will get any closer.

Kind of like the Israelis and the Palestinians, don't you think? (I almost said 'Don't you agree?').

ha ha... but who the fuck cares what we think? It's their problem to solve. And as long as they keep letting their extremists do the talking for them (on each side) any attempt to come up with solutions is a waste of time.

 

[4321lynx]

I am not convinced that it was not motivated by anti-semitism. There was some back-pedalling and some apologizing after the statements, but that's routine procedure. Proves nothing. I know Europeans well, being one of them, and I know that a nod is as good as a wink etc... sly lot of bastards we are, some of us more hypocritical and self-righteous than others. Anti-semitism was the default mindset of most Europeans, they have worked very hard since the atrocities of WW II to correct that setting, but not all of them have succeeded or want to succeed.

Thank you Sabine Grant for the link. Interesting that two groups claimed what they said was "credit" for the action, and in fact a third small group was responsible. That in itself speaks volumes.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I am not convinced that it was not motivated by anti-semitism. There was some back-pedalling and some apologizing after the statements, but that's routine procedure. Proves nothing. I know Europeans well, being one of them, and I know that a nod is as good as a wink etc... sly lot of bastards we are, some of us more hypocritical and self-righteous than others. Anti-semitism was the default mindset of most Europeans, they have worked very hard since the atrocities of WW II to correct that setting, but not all of them have succeeded or want to succeed.

Thank you Sabine Grant for the link. Interesting that two groups claimed what they said was "credit" for the action, and in fact a third small group was responsible. That in itself speaks volumes.

The political party in power is the Social Democrats. They're the softest of all lefty liberals imaginable. Their platform is to be the least racist of all political parties. It was the Social Democrats and it's leader who kept Sweden out of WW2 in spite of a popular opinion of joining the Germans. It was the Social Democrats who okeyed and promoted all of the Jew-saving Swedish initiatives in WW2. They all had support from the government. In Sweden the Social Democrats can afford recognising Palestine because they're about as far above anti-semitism as it's possible to be in Sweden. Nobody, not on crack, would accuse them of anti-semitism. At least not if you understand Swedish poltics. Yes, we have racists and racist political parties. But racists wouldn't be found dead voting for the Social Democrats. It just won't happen.

This was also supported by the Swedish communist party. One of it's main figureheads is Dror Feiler. A jew born in Israel. Also found on the ship to Gaza.

There is not a trace of anti-semitism in this. If anything it's motivated by some sort of anti-islamophobia. Right now liberals all over the world are struggling to prove which one of them is the least Islamophobic. I'd put this in that category.

I'd say that anybody who still wants to accuse the Social Democrats of anti-semitism in spite of knowing the reality behind it doesn't really care about the truth. They just like accusing people of anti-semitism

 

[4321lynx]

I am not convinced that it was not motivated by anti-semitism. There was some back-pedalling and some apologizing after the statements, but that's routine procedure. Proves nothing. I know Europeans well, being one of them, and I know that a nod is as good as a wink etc... sly lot of bastards we are, some of us more hypocritical and self-righteous than others. Anti-semitism was the default mindset of most Europeans, they have worked very hard since the atrocities of WW II to correct that setting, but not all of them have succeeded or want to succeed.

Thank you Sabine Grant for the link. Interesting that two groups claimed what they said was "credit" for the action, and in fact a third small group was responsible. That in itself speaks volumes.

The political party in power is the Social Democrats. They're the softest of all lefty liberals imaginable. Their platform is to be the least racist of all political parties. It was the Social Democrats and it's leader who kept Sweden out of WW2 in spite of a popular opinion of joining the Germans. It was the Social Democrats who okeyed and promoted all of the Jew-saving Swedish initiatives in WW2. They all had support from the government. In Sweden the Social Democrats can afford recognising Palestine because they're about as far above anti-semitism as it's possible to be in Sweden. Nobody, not on crack, would accuse them of anti-semitism. At least not if you understand Swedish poltics. Yes, we have racists and racist political parties. But racists wouldn't be found dead voting for the Social Democrats. It just won't happen.

This was also supported by the Swedish communist party. One of it's main figureheads is Dror Feiler. A jew born in Israel. Also found on the ship to Gaza.

There is not a trace of anti-semitism in this. If anything it's motivated by some sort of anti-islamophobia. Right now liberals all over the world are struggling to prove which one of them is the least Islamophobic. I'd put this in that category.

I'd say that anybody who still wants to accuse the Social Democrats of anti-semitism in spite of knowing the reality behind it doesn't really care about the truth. They just like accusing people of anti-semitism

I'll take your word for it then, as I know SFA about present day Sweden and only snippets of its history. It certainly sounds as though your SD's are unlikely to be antisemites.

I did not realize the popular sentiment in Sweden in WW II was as you describe it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The political party in power is the Social Democrats. They're the softest of all lefty liberals imaginable. Their platform is to be the least racist of all political parties. It was the Social Democrats and it's leader who kept Sweden out of WW2 in spite of a popular opinion of joining the Germans. It was the Social Democrats who okeyed and promoted all of the Jew-saving Swedish initiatives in WW2. They all had support from the government. In Sweden the Social Democrats can afford recognising Palestine because they're about as far above anti-semitism as it's possible to be in Sweden. Nobody, not on crack, would accuse them of anti-semitism. At least not if you understand Swedish poltics. Yes, we have racists and racist political parties. But racists wouldn't be found dead voting for the Social Democrats. It just won't happen.

This was also supported by the Swedish communist party. One of it's main figureheads is Dror Feiler. A jew born in Israel. Also found on the ship to Gaza.

There is not a trace of anti-semitism in this. If anything it's motivated by some sort of anti-islamophobia. Right now liberals all over the world are struggling to prove which one of them is the least Islamophobic. I'd put this in that category.

I'd say that anybody who still wants to accuse the Social Democrats of anti-semitism in spite of knowing the reality behind it doesn't really care about the truth. They just like accusing people of anti-semitism

I'll take your word for it then, as I know SFA about present day Sweden and only snippets of its history. It certainly sounds as though your SD's are unlikely to be antisemites.

I did not realize the popular sentiment in Sweden in WW II was as you describe it.

In WW2 Russia and Finland were at war. Finland was allied to Germany. At that time most Swedes viewed Finland as basically another part of Sweden. There was simply no way in hell we could have joined that war on any other side than the German one. It was that or stay neutral. The word "Brödrafolket" (brotherpeople) was used about Finns. That is about as strong as it gets.

Sweden has had very close cultural ties with Germany for over a thousand years. One clue is the language. Sweden has never been conquered by any Germanic tribe. In spite of this old Norse went almost completely extinct. The Swedish language (as well as Norwegian and Danish) are basically just a German dialect. We only have very few Norse words left. If you go to North Germany and order their local national dishes foods, they are identical to anything we in Sweden identify as typically Swedish. People look exactly the same. It feels almost like the same country. So our love for Germany goes pretty deep in lots of subconscious ways. After WW2 this love for Germany was effectively broken. And our right-wingers switched to worshipping USA.

To complicate matters regarding political Swedish acronyms. The Social Democrats are shortened to just an S. The political party Sweden Democrats are shortened to SD. They are unquestionably racists and a lot of them are probably anti-semitic. I'd say anybody anti-semitic has voted for them. Even though they got 13% in the last general election they have been effectively shut out completely from power. Nobody wants to have them in any governing body. So these guys had nothing to do with recognising Palestine. If these guys would have done it then anti-semitism might have been a reason. But they weren't. So it wasn't.

 

[4321lynx]

Maybe this thread should be detached from the Swedish Antisemites one, that subject seems to have been settled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It should be said that the stupidity of Hamas tactical actions does much to explain the tone of self-righteous entitlement of the pro-Israeli faction on these fora. Israel's actions, however, can only be compared to the Nazi German actions in WW2, when they would execute up to 100 civilian hostages for every one German soldier killed by "terrorist bandits" - patriotic guerrilla fighters for us on the other side.

Israel's record on avoiding civilian casualties is the best in the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Hamas is a bio product of Israeli colonization but more so the flip side of Zionism.

Hamas is a product of Islamism. They can't stand to lose territory they considered conquered.

 

[Sabine Grant]

TFT Moderation Team.

 

[Sabine Grant]

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-Swedish-Social-Democratic-anti-semitism-quot

TFT Moderation Team.