Change the name of Israel

[Brian Peacock]

My view is that the moral and ethical failings of one party, or even the crimes thereof, are not mitigated, offset, or downgraded by the failings or crimes of another. It matters not one jot who has killed more Palestinians, the point is that those who have done so carry sole responsibility for their acts. As I said, you're portraying having a low opinion of Israel, and in Svarty's case a particularly low opinion, as an act of racial and/or religious hatred - perhaps even one bordering on an act of violence.

That's not really my point...

No it was my point, about what you said in response to Svarty, and my comment there on. You likened criticism of Israel to "Advocating the destruction of the world's sole Jewish state, the Middle East's only democracy, by its Arab neighbours, revolting regimes..." Not only is this rather blunt hyperbole but it's also a strawman which invokes religious identity and equates criticism of Israel with an act of violence against that identity. Again, I'll grant that Svarty has a pretty low opinion of Israel but you'll not find him condemning the actions of Israel on the basis that it's a Jewish state - "the world's sole Jewish State" as you said - but because he strongly disagrees with what has been done in the name of the state. You all but called him a racist for expressing the strength of his disagreement. I feel that that was an overreaction.

My point is that if stuff done by one group of people exercises you more than the exact same stuff (or worse) done by all other groups of people, then that is a double standard. If the people you're applying a double standard too just happen to belong to a specific race of people... well, conclusions can be drawn.

Again, that's appears to be a strawman that places a condition on the criticism of others, which indeed you are: one must demonstrate (presumably to your satisfaction) that one is equally critical of this-or-that other bad thing before you will allow criticism of some another bad thing. It is not a double standard to not conform to such conditions - it is just a failure to conform to the standards that have been placed on the expression of the views of others. Ultimately, this is a way to deflect or avoid addressing that "some other bad thing." It is overreaction which ramps up disagreement, perhaps even to a point where constructive discourse becomes impossible.

[Strontium Dog]

No it was my point, about what you said in response to Svarty, and my comment there on. You likened criticism of Israel to "Advocating the destruction of the world's sole Jewish state, the Middle East's only democracy, by its Arab neighbours, revolting regimes..." Not only is this rather blunt hyperbole but it's also a strawman which invokes religious identity and equates criticism of Israel with an act of violence against that identity.

Er, no. He was the one who said that he wanted Israel to be destroyed by its Arab neighbours. That's not "criticism of Israel" - it's advocating genocide against Israel. If I have invoked religious identity, it is because it is those Arab states which expressly identify themselves with fundamentalist Islam.

Again, I'll grant that Svarty has a pretty low opinion of Israel but you'll not find him condemning the actions of Israel on the basis that it's a Jewish state - "the world's sole Jewish State" as you said - but because he strongly disagrees with what has been done in the name of the state. You all but called him a racist for expressing the strength of his disagreement. I feel that that was an overreaction.

It's not a matter of merely disagreeing with what has been done in the name of Israel. It's a matter of what the consequences would be if the course of action he advocates occurred, and Israel was destroyed.

Again, that's appears to be a strawman that places a condition on the criticism of others, which indeed you are: one must demonstrate (presumably to your satisfaction) that one is equally critical of this-or-that other bad thing before you will allow criticism of some another bad thing. It is not a double standard to not conform to such conditions - it is just a failure to conform to the standards that have been placed on the expression of the views of others. Ultimately, this is a way to deflect or avoid addressing that "some other bad thing." It is overreaction which ramps up disagreement, perhaps even to a point where constructive discourse becomes impossible.

It's not a straw man though, is it? All of these states are players in the same game. It's absolutely appropriate to ask why their actions attract no criticism.

It's like a football match where the referee only awarded free kicks and red cards against the black players, but allowed white players to do what they liked. "Oh, but the black players fouled their opponents, so I was within my rights to send them off" - yes, that may be true, but that's NOT THE POINT.