Comments on: Saif Ammous on Squaring Progressive and Zionist

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I don't get it.

What is being said?

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Saif,
Ethics is looking at yourself.

If Jack adopted YOUR plans, would that be progressive?

Sincerely. (Please don't rest on the easy to rationalize. Actually bother to look.)

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Phil,
If you sincerely regard the two-state solution as most appropriate, why the absence of backbone on it?

Why is it stated as relevant as the choice of fish or chicken for dinner?

Have you not thought about this enough to actually put your weight into a goal?

Why would you so vehemently savage Seliger for caring about Israel AND Palestine?

By: sword of gideon

sword of gideon — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Rich, I really hate to sound repetitious but you just don't want to see your friend Phil for what he really is. A Jewish anti-semite in the classic sense. We've always had these people and we probably always will. Here is a guy who is an advocate of assimilation out of existence and the destruction of Israel. And embraces his popularity among out and out Jew baiting anti-semites. And if that isn't the correct term for a guy like Martillo then Yassir Arafat didn't like to fuck young boys.

By: LeaNder

LeaNder — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

.. had to read it twice too.

Saif asks Ralph Seliger, if Ralph would support Jack, a British citizen & firm supporter of Christian religion & culture, in his endeavor to separate Christian Americans from non-Christian Americans and if he would still define himself as a progressive, if he did.

I don't feel very comfortable with the paradigm. It pushes Ralph into a corner with almost no room to move. It's basically a rhetorical question.

But yes Saif: it is odd that American Jews with no apparent relation to Israel beyond religion have more rights in Israel and the occupied territories, including the right to discuss its future without any outside interference, than the people who once lived there and their descendants.

By: Eva Smagacz

Eva Smagacz — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

What we are talking about is USA with gated communities exclusively for Christians - right?
With USA ID documents and car number-plates identifying Christians and non-Christians at a glance.

And with USA
law that allows Christians to marry and bring their brides back to America, but denying this to non-Christians.

And of course, allowing ALL Christians, anywhere in the world to settle in America with no questions asked, and the state allocating them resources to build on any non-christian land they choose for themselves........

And then drafting Army to protect the Christians only...

Very progressive vision indeed.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

And, in Palestine currently?

Lebanon? (Do Palestinian children born in Lebanon have Lebanese citizenship?)

By: sword of gideon

sword of gideon — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Eva,the flaw in your stunningly stupid analogy is htath the United States is a country where people aren't trying to kill Christians at every opportunity. BTW How did your family make out at Jedwebne. Or whatever village where they turned in their Jewish neighbors to the Germas.

By: Joachim Martillo

Joachim Martillo — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

And how many Poles or Ukrainians did SOG's Soviet Jewish commissar relatives shoot, send to Siberia or starve?

Auden's poem has some problems, but it is hard to argue with:

Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

By: Richard Witty

Richard Witty — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Any Soviet "Jew" that shot anybody did so as Soviets.

Only racialists would say they did so as "Jews", whether those racialist (fools) were Russian, Polish, Nazi, or "American" revisionist.