The New York Times covers Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat's US barnstorming tour today. During a description of the mass house demolitions taking place in Palestinian neighborhoods Ethan Bronner quotes Yakir Segev, the person Barkat has put in charge of East Jerusalem:
Jerusalem is a laboratory. If we succeed in solving the conflict with
the Arabs of Jerusalem, it will also be possible to solve it everywhere
in Israel.
Bronner explains that this refers to "both improving services for the Palestinians and ending any ambiguity about Jewish dominance." The first point is questionable, the second not so much.
New news of the day
Israel arrests 20 Hamas leaders in West Bank
So, Israel takes Hamas guys, to put pressure for Shalits release…
who was kidnapped to help release Palestinian prisoners, and Israel used Shalit's kidnapping as causus belli to level half of Lebanon.
Palestine no longer on Obama's primary agenda?
http://justworldnews.org/archives/003459.html
After the Gaza massacre, the Palestinians SHOULD have released the terrorist Shalit.
First, they should send home his hands.
Then his eyes.
Maybe at some point, his head.
Let me get this straight: Ethan Bronner reports as credible the claim that "improving services for the Palestinians" is on the agenda for the Jewish state while it simultaneously pursues an agenda of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians by demolishing their homes? Not only is this guy a PR agent for Israel, but he's a lousy reporter to boot. Or, perhaps the reason he was sent there is because his NYT bosses knew he was both un-objective AND a lousy reporter: just the man for a Zionist snow job.
Rykart,
Idea of returning a hostage in pieces is satisfyingly medieval, but does nothing to the change hearts and minds of people who could influence the end to Israeli Occupation.
I am not sure if indignation at barbaric behaviour should take shape of fantasies of more barbaric behaviour.
end of something else: someone's life:
Foreign(but jewish) Soldier Shoots American. What will Obama Do?
By Stanley Heller
Mar 18, 2009, 01:39, axis of logic
"On Friday March 13 Tristan Anderson was shot in the head by a new generation high velocity tear gas canister in Ni'lin in the West Bank. The canister can travel 500 meters. The force of the shell shattered his eye and entered his brain. (Bloody youtube video here.) In an operation, part of his frontal lobe had be removed. This 37 year old man will likely suffer many more operations.
Ironically the shooting of Anderson occurred nearly six years to the day that Rachel Corrie was murdered by Israelis (March 16, 2003). Corrie was run over by a bulldozer as she tried to prevent the destruction of a pharmacist's house in Rafah on the Gaza Strip. The Bush Administration and Congress betrayed the Corrie family, accepting the feeble Israeli excuse that it was an accident despite the testimony of several eyewitnesses. Her death merited a perfunctory "investigation" and a concluding whitewash.
Ni'lin is near Ramallah on the West Bank. It's a village whose land is lusted for by Israeli settlers(jewish squats).
time to carpet bomb the shitty entity.
I am not sure if indignation at barbaric behaviour should take shape of fantasies of more barbaric behaviour.
I agree Eva.
"After the Gaza massacre, the Palestinians SHOULD have released the terrorist Shalit.
First, they should send home his hands.
Then his eyes.
Maybe at some point, his head."
How long would Hamas leadership live after that? They could dress up like women and hide in hospitals, but it wouldn't matter, they would be dead within a few days.
2 wrongs don't make anything right… israel has 'almost' all the power, thus it decides to 'arrest' 20 hamas.. they may as well have kidnapped them, but since they essentially 'own' gaza, no need to call it a 'kidnapping'… meanwhile the only semblance of power palestine can show is in holding onto gilat and for that this is what they get… one can see how very lopsided power is and how very lopsided the language is that is used to define what is going on here…. too bad israel is unable or uninterested in resolving conflicts that involve not only the palestinians, but themselves.. the power has gone to their head, but it is plain to see it will end badly…. power is a brutal mistress…
"I am not sure if indignation at barbaric behaviour should take shape of fantasies of more barbaric behaviour."
Eva
Well put, Eva. Rykart, do not lose sight of the fact that calls for extreme barbarity as a response to Israel's transgressions is a stock Hasbara trick.
It's not pleasant to wonder if a post is from an anti-Zionist, or a Zionist-supporter seeking to show anti-Zionists as extremist barbarians. It's a variation on the response "you all want Israel to be destroyed and all the Jews killed" riff, to any suggestion that Israel moderate or change its behavior. Instead, when Israel transgressions or crimes are noted, Hasbaraists respond with calls for barbaric retribution as if that was the only possible response to it!
I wouldn't say stuff like that either Ry. Don't give scumbags like Julian any rhetorical inches.
Y'all are right. I agree with Eva….well stated.
But the Israelis genuinely nauseate me. I've really gotten to loathe just about all of them. If I catch them selling that volcanic facial mask at the mall, I make a point of harassing them.
"Take your Nazi mud and go back to Naziland. We're not buying any crap from Israel!"
On campus, the Hillel goons are always trying to sell food or sell something. I like to go over and say "I hope you are sending the proceeds to Gaza! "
Israelis need to be declared persona non grata in this country.
They SMELL.
They are disgracing the Jews!!
Of course I meant they should be declared personae non gratae.
Sorry.
"The New York Times's resident expert on the Middle East is a fellow called Ethan Bronner. Ethan Bronner sits on the editorial board, and he writes all the Time's editorials on the Israel-Palestine conflict. So Ethan Bronner writes a review of Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel, and he thinks that this is a wonderful book – a brilliant book he tells the readers of the NYT. The book is a sheer fraud. What does it tell you when the NYT's resident expert and authority on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the fellow who writes the editorials, doesn't have the vaguest idea – doesn't have a clue – as to the actual historical record or the human rights record of Israel in the occupied territories. Anyone who knew anything about the topic – I mean a fifth grade knowledge – would know immediately from reading Dershowitz's book (assuming he wrote it, and being generous and calling it a book) would know that Dershowitz's book is sheer nonsense. But the Times gives it a rave review, which tells you something about their intellectual, moral and political standards. "
–norman finkelstein
Ethan Bronner actually does have a clue as to the actual historical record of the I-P conflict. Norman F is sugar-coating the reality. Look to Bernays (American Jew, pioneer in marketing–sold the US on the glamour of smoking cigs) & his unintentional student Goebbels (seat since taken by Hasbara teachers).
@ Citizen
Good point. Do you think the real reason Norman Finkelstein shrinks away from the truth of Bronner's bias is because Bronner is a Jew, and Finkelstein doesn't want to be accused of anti-Semitism? If so, why doesn't Finkelstein just say Bronner is bias because he’s Jewish Zionist? Besides, he’s going to be accused of anti-Semitism either way.
Weiss doesn't seem too worried about connecting the dots between the hidden hand of Jewish Zionism and the often subversive motives of even Joe Average Jew, even on issues only tangentially related to Zionism. I don’t know why Finkelstein wouldn’t want to connect the dots in such an obvious relationship. I guess he’s playing by old school rules. But the world can’t afford to play by those rules anymore. There’s too much at stake, and the Jewish Zionists are far too dangerous to be treated with kid gloves anymore.
Finkelstein says (and I tend to agree) that it's a misnomer to call most of the pro-israel gang "Zionists." He says it implies they are idealogues with a developed perspective. To Finkelstein, these are merely thugs who care about one thing: power. Whether it's Ethan Bronner or Abe Foxman or Edgar Branfman…these guys couldn't tell you the first thing about real zionism, zionist history, et if their life delended on it. They pursue power and they're basically gangsters. Calling them "Zionists" is giving too much credit—like calling Dick Cheney "a Straussian."
Zionism has a long record of criminalism, going all the way back to its inception in Israel, and before. I don't know why Finkelstein would think gangsterism and Zionism are mutually exclusive, other then the fact that Finkelstein is left-leaning, and doesn't want to acknowledge that the early Zionist were both authentic Socialists and authentic gangsters. Perhaps Finkelstein wants to believe that authentic Socialists can’t also be gangsters. History shows otherwise.
Norman embellishes like any other person. In this case I think he was presenting a plausible scenario that anyone could believe had they not looked into it more in-depth. That's not to say he's lying rather the difference between Bronner being an ideologue douche who enjoys his position at the Times – and hence, will do w/e to protect that position – and a Zionist goon who steals someone elses country and enjoys his position there – and hence will do w/e to protect that position – is minuscule.
When a people become a "problem," genocide is sure to follow.
If I read him right, Finkelstein's point is that discussions of Zionism (about which he wrote his Princeton doctoral thesis) detract from the Palestinian struggle which should be based on a strict recounting of the record of human rights violations and the absolute illegality of the Occupation. He feels that it's more or less irrelevant whether Israel's criminality is rooted in Zionism or Hinduism. It's illegal, it's immoral, it's vile and it has to end. I think that's a perspective about which reasonable people can differ.
Supporting his point that most of the pro-israel vermin are not really Zionists in any meaningful sense, he point to the absolute silence of these same individuals and groups in America concerning Israel UNTIL their '67 victory. They never spoke of Israel before that…they never gave a damn. Israel was totally irrelevant to their thinking until Israel became a major regional player and strategic ally of the US. Then–mostly out of greed for power, they decided on the sanctity of the Jewish people and their "homeland" etc etc.
i think he makes a strong point. Chaim Weitzman was a Zionist. Ben Gurion was a Zionist. Jabotinsky was a Zionist. Dershowitz and Pipes would be supporting Peru if it sold books and gave them the attention and worldly status they maniacally crave. They're thugs and political opportunists–nothing more.
Should we be glad that he is implicitly acknowledging that they are usurpers, like the European colonialists in America were?
Yes, and the parallels with the "pilgrim" conquest of New England are compelling. Guess what was the original for John Winthrop;s "City Upon a Hill"? There is a Canaan, a Salem, a Jericho in nearly every Northeast state. And what a totally slanted and biased article in the Philadelphia paper to begin with.
It's actually a valid parallel, except for the fact that he is ignoring how the world has changed since Iroquois territory was taken by European colonists. It's as if Israelis actually owned Palestinian slaves and he were sneering at us for criticizing Israel on the grounds that America used to allow slavery too. Sure, we did, but we freed our slaves nearly 150 years ago, and if some country has slavery today, we can and should criticize them for it. There's nothing hypocritical about that. The message would be, "We've cleaned our house in this regard, now we want you to clean yours." All nations derive from conquest, if you go back far enough. But things change. There was no United Nations and no international agreements about human rights back when the Iroquois (and other native American tribes) were conquered. There is now. How is the world ever to improve if the crimes of the past are an eternal justification for the crimes of the present?
The Associated Press is no friend of Israel, but here is the latest news from AP all the same. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4y97UO2Mw8 Check out the number of bullet holes in private homes. Palestinean Hamas and Palestinean Fatah murder each other. Typical.
If the barbarism of a people is proven by inter-factional violence, then what are we to think of the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by another Israeli Jew?
Wow, that's exactly as I said facetiously earlier. I posited that "the Jews" only having got their Jewish State in 1948, any attempt to change the imperialist or colonialist practices of man's history at this time must be anti-Semitic! Is it fair to stop acquisition by force, collective punishment, all that before the Jewsih State has her shot? It leads perfectly to, and Jake will vouch for, the fact that any attempt at social or historical justice is anti-Semitic. You got to screw the Iroquois, why don't we get to screw the Palestinians? Must be anti-Semitism!
Daniel Seamen is beyond chutzpah.
The other interesting question in this regard is, if the fact that some type of action was committed in the past makes it okay to do it in the present, then do the massacres documented in the Jewish Tanakh (called the Old Testament by Christians) justify the Holocaust? "After all," the Nazis might have argued, "if it was okay for the Hebrews to slaughter people, why isn't it okay for us to slaughter Hebrews?" I don't think Daniel Seamen realizes where his own logic is leading.
Jacob Israël de Haan That assassination took place in the 1920s, but E. European Jews political and criminal violence (as well as general financial malfeasance) had already been quite extensive since the 1840s. (See Roots of Jewish Zionist Aggression.
Is there any rational reason for the US to be allying itself with Zionist sickos (see FailedMesssiah.com: Chabad Rabbi: Destroy Muslim Holy Sites) except for Jewish Zionist subversion?
The main difference is that Native Americans can live wherever they want in the US, unlike the Palestinians in their native land, and they have all the same rights as individuals (and some extra ones as tribes) as everyone else in the US, also unlike the Palestinians.
And if they didn't, you would be criticizing Fatah for not reining in the terrorist infrastructure. Either way, you're going to de-humanize them, because that's what racist supremacists do.
No one cares where Jews live in Jerusalem. The conflict is about Jerusalem becoming a part of the Israeli state, which could only occur because of the military occupation of Jerusalem by Israel, and that some of the Jews want to remain in Jerusalem as Israelis.
Like many apologists for jewish colonialism, Mr Seaman is searching for a permission slip for contemporary jewish chauvinism in all the world's previous butcheries.
Two wrongs certainly don't make a right, and someone remind Daniel Seamen that we live in the age and era of I N T E R N A T I O N A L L A W , obviously something Israelis have been dismissing since their inception.
Duh! One incident does not a rule make. However, when it comes to internecine warfare, Pals are tops. Yasser Arafat killed more Pals than anyone else ever did.
Dehumanize? The animals do it themselves quite well without anyone else's help. The Pals have been given autonomy – and they are in worse condition than ever. Attempts to blame everyone else wont' help them, either.
What the fuck is he talking about? The Iroquois were Canadian until the borders changed. Idiot.
Sarah, you are so ignorant. Arabs live in the West Bank, of course in Gaza, in Jerusalem and also in Israel's major citries of Haifa and Tel Aviv. In large numbers, too. It is JEWS who are not allowed to live anywhere. Not in Gaza, limited in the West Bank. So who is a bigot?
International law? Have you asked Hamas in Gaza about International law? They kidnapped Gilad Shalit and have held him in violation of Geneva Convenctions without visitation rights from the red cross. How about Iran? Saudi ARabia? Sudan/Darfur? You are barking up the rwong tree.
Does Gaza or the West Bank belong to Israel? Do you think Israelis should also be allowed to settle in Jordan, Syria and Egypt?
That's the usual tactic, try to distract attention from your own side's crimes by pointing out that the other side isn't perfect either. If you want to complain about Hamas' offenses, clean up your own house first.
The animals do it themselves This is a typical Israeli attitude towards their Arab neighbors. More and more Americans are beginning to see what the Israelis really are. The day is approaching when the US will terminate its unconditional support for Israel. Jake you should post in more mainstream publications. It will make our job easier.
The comparison with the Native Americans at least shows some honesty about how Israel was established, but there are a couple of limits to the analogy that Mr Seamen probably wouldn't like. First, just because someone once did something doesn't mean it's OK now. We used to hang children for stealing a loaf of bread, but we don't do it now. We used to keep slaves, but that doesn't mean people find slavery OK now. And we ethnically cleansed the Native Americans, but that doesn't ethnic cleansing is OK now. In fact we – i.e. the US – insisted that the repatriation of ethnically cleansed people is now a prerequisite to resolving international conflicts, like Kosovo and East Timor. And although it's impossible to undo the past and restore Native Americans and North America to what it was before European immigration, we did allow for a more equitable present and future for both the indigenous and immigrant populations by making Native Americans full citizens of the state that now exists where they lived first. Does Mr Seamen really like an analogy that ends with full citizenship for indigenous and immigrants alike? Second, the big difficulty for anyone who wants to evoke the "it's just like the Native Americans " defense for Zionism is the demographic one. Native Americans were a sparse population that was overwhelmed by an unending tide of white European immigrants, whereas most Jews never made and never will make aliya, so that Palestinians – even with millions exiled over the last 60 years – are again becoming the majority, if they aren't already. Prof Ian Lustick published a paper earlier this year about the importance of demographics in settler societies. Settler societies that succeeded in their opening phase of immigration in reducing the numbers of the indigenous population to an insignificant minority survived, and over the course of time became modern, somewhat liberal democracies – like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. But Israel doesn't belong to this group. Zionism's numbers were never enough to overwhelm the Palestinian Arab majority population, so Zionist Israel belongs instead to the group of settler societies that didn't succeed in achieving an overwhelming demographic advantage early on. The more applicable historical analogy for Israel is not with the United States and its Native American population, but with the other settler societies that failed to achieve numerical superiority i.e. the Crusader Kingdoms, Rhodesia, apartheid South Africa and French Algeria….
The animals? Shut the hell up you Nazi piece of garbage. You're only able to butcher these people because of money. You think Israel's power implies virtue? You're the scum of the Earth.
Kidnap? When your Nazi State releases the THOUSANDS of Palestinians imprisoned for NOTHING then maybe people will give a damn about an enemy soldier in captivity. Until then, take your sanctimonious bullshit back to JPost.
I note your use of the word "animals" in reference to the human beings who are of Palestinian origin, Jake. And by doing so, you prove my point about your being a racist supremacist. Autonomy? What does that mean? Do people who have no control whatever over their external borders, their air space, their water resources, their coastline, and their roads have autonomy? Do people whose homes are being bulldozed by the thousands by an external occupying power for the purpose of building settlements and roads that they themselves are not allowed to live in or use, have autonomy? Would you consider your country to have autonomy if you were living under those conditions? I think not.
You are inaccurately conflating ethnicity with nationality. Israeli Arabs live in Israel because they are Israeli citizens, living in their own homes where they have been at home long before there was a state of Israel. (And the Jewish state allows them to stay in those homes only because they were reduced by ethnic cleansing in 1948 and by the exclusion of the refugees ever since to such an extent that they no longer have the numbers to democratically challenge Jewish dominance). They are Israelis, and they live legally in Israel, just like Israeli Jews. As for Gaza and the West Bank, you are quite wrong to say that "JEWS" can't go and live there. It is not JEWS who may not go and live legally in the West Bank, it is Israeli citizens. Israelis may not simply go and live in the Occupied Territories because the Occupied Territories are not in Israel. Just as I – being American – cannot simply head over the border and settle in Canada whether the Canadians want me there or not. The settlers may be Jewish, but it is not their Jewishness that makes their presence illegal, it is their Israeli-ness. The Occupied Territories are not part of Israel, but under its belligerent military occupation, and it is illegal under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer part of its own population – whatever their religion – into occupied territory. Pretending it is the Jewishness, rather than the Israeli-ness, of the settlers that makes their presence in the Occupied Territories unacceptable, is simply a device to scream antisemitism at anyone who inconveniently points out that Israelis are colonizing land they hold under military occupation, in contravention of international law.
Even Jeffrey Goldberg is becoming alarmed at the rhetoric coming from the Netanyahoo govt. He thinks that the extremists might snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if they continue to claim 100% of the Westbank. (umm, Somehow I am unable to paste the link in this environment ). However, he appears in the Atlantic. He is the moderate zionists. Here he is asking the settlers to calm down, because everybody knows that Israel will get to keep most of the settlements in any two state solution and that the permanent boundary will be the "fence". If everyone includes Clinton and Obama and knows this in advance I think the Palestinians are going to crushed yet again.
you're simply wrong, Jake. I've traveled all over the Middle East, and Jews do live there, and their lives are far better than the non-Jews of Palestine. Get some facts, man. Remember, they always used to tell us: South African Blacks are better off under apartheid than in any other African country. Gee, turns out they were wrong. Most Africans outside South Africa had more freedom, dignity and opportunity than in apartheid South Africa.
Hey Jake, Are you counting the 11,000 Gilad Shalits held by Israel?
My goodness, people of all religions just might have to live in legal equality in "the only democracy in the middle east". And whoever doesnt like it can leave.
Strahl, listen to me. Phillip Wiess is in Palestine now. I doubt he has time to read comments now. How do you think he will react upon coming home from Gaza and meeting up with Jake? My kaballah tell me that we may not be enjoying Jake's comments for too much longer.
Strahl, this is all about changing hearts and opening minds. If you really care about helping correct injustice instead of just venting anger, you should rein in your language. Calling people 'scum' and 'garbage' isn't helping at all. The extremists love it when their opponents talk like that. Excessive anger clouds judgment, and those without it lose to those who do. Fight smart.
It is JEWS who are not allowed to live anywhere. Not in Gaza, limited in the West Bank. You forgot about the colonies in Occupied Palestinian Territory. It must have, in a Kids-in-the-Hall sense, 'slipped your mind'. Israeli Settlements on Palestinian Land http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/settlements....
They kidnapped Gilad Shalit and have held him in violation of Geneva Convenctions without visitation rights from the red cross. Hamas' refusal to allow a visit from the Red Cross is indeed a violation of the Geneva Conventions. However, it is complete nonsense to think of him as some innocent guy who happened to get 'kidnapped'. He was a soldier engaged in the siege of Gaza, and he was captured. Israel has been fighting a war, in one way or another, against the people of Gaza since 1967. He gets so much attention because he is the only captive the Palestinians have. The many thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons held indefinitely without charge or on ridiculous trumped up nonsense are in exactly the same situation. You are both doing wrong, and you are no better than them. Israel pretends to have the moral high ground, but it is they who have signed the Geneva Conventions. Maybe the Palestinians could sign too if they had a state?
RE: "I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem." FROM 'CODE PINK': Tell Obama Where To Go. The President will be in Egypt next month and we want him to visit Gaza and see how the Israelis are using the yearly $3 billion military aid from U.S taxpayers. Sign our petition to the President today! *TO SIGN PETITION – http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/424/t/8434/p...
RE: "…Somehow I am unable to paste the link in this environment ). However, he appears in the Atlantic." THE ATLANTIC: "The Unbearable Narcissism of the Settlers", by Jeffrey Goldberg, 06/01/09 LINK – http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2...
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.
I agree with Strahl and I dont need to prove to any body that Iam a civilised human being.As a matter of fact,it's a waste of time and brain cells power talking to jackass jake.calling him names is'nt that harsh.A real human reaction with a baseball bat will do.Think of it,he and his elk,are killers,racists,theives,liers,cheats,and yes scum of the earth.And THAT is his mission.Be nice to him? so he can have more time to plot more killing and stealing? No chance.AND please don't ask were is the palestinian Gandi,IAm sick of this fluffy question.Were is the Israeli gandi? Oh there is one.one of their more notorious murdering generals calls himself Gandi.
I really admire all of you guys on this blog.But it seems to me that jackass jake got you all commenting to his really stupid views.There are more important things to do .DO you really think that he beleives his bulshit?He is getting you of the real issues,just as that seamen guy.
Not Valid- Its a Rhetorical Fallacy. Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.
EFG is the actual reply in that no crime was commited by the accused party. Throwing the critique back up the ass of the idiot who attempted to throw it in the first place is mere justice.
Strahl I think Mooser and Colin made the point well. But I will add this point. In the 1970s their was a political movement to equate zionism with racism. This was an abstract point. And it failed. The zionist defeated it in the UN. As a result this defeat left in the minds of the public that zionism was NOT racism. Let us forget about yesterdays battles. Today we have Jake openly callling the Palistinians animals. Please, let him talk. Let today's zionist make the case. The more that the American public here from Israeli zionist, the less likely they will support them. Please do not discourage him from posting here. Also your insults are completely gratuious if not self defeating. Jake is making our case, let him do it.
Lukid in full meltdown. Keep talking Israelis, keep talking,keep insulting, show us what you really think of America…….heheheh. Once upon a time a little fox came out of his hole and saw he cast a big shadow in the morning sun. When he saw his big shadow he said I think I will have a camel for lunch today!!! The fox hunted all day long with no success,he wasnt' able to bring down anything he chased. As the day grew shorter and the sun was setting and he headed back to his den he saw his much shorter shadow cast in the waning sun…….. And said maybe a mouse will do. Do the Israelis even have the brain of a 17 lb. fox.?……not so far.
What do you mean "we've cleaned our house in this regard…" How have we cleaned our house?
I just saw this review of an event at Augsburg College in Minneapolis about Native Americans and Palestinians: http://www.southsidepride.com/2009/06/articles/Am... We haven't come close to "cleaning our house."
Its a Rhetorical Fallacy. A really bad one. The analog itself is weak.
Strahl, why do you even bother responding to them? Ignore. As soon as you read their names, scrol past the comment. It's just a vicious cycle, there's no conversing with people like that.
Israel, the "most moral country in the world" has a "morality" that's 2,000 years out of date. There is no shortage of rabbis who still think they are fighting the Amalekites, and think it perfectly right to deal with the Palestinians accordingly. But I am waiting for some clever fellow to ask "How can America criticize what Israel does to the Palestinians when America supports Israel?" That somehow seems a more appropriate comeback than invoking our past with the Iroquois.
The UNGA did pass a resolution declaring Zionism to be racist. At the start of the Oslo Process the UN voided or withdrew the resolution.
Very easy…Americans don't support Israel, that's a myth. Only politicans and jewish zionist and nut bag christian evangelicals support Israel, …..and the evangelicals only support it because they want the Jesus hating jews fried by the blast off of their space ship to God from the Temple Mount. I've never found anyone who supports Israel that wasn't a mental case…or an AIPAC politican
I said the parallel was valid (except for the fact that things have changed in the last 200 years), not that it was a valid defense of Israel's current actions. Those are two different things. The parallel pertains to the question of whether it is hypocritical of Americans to be criticizing israel, not whether what Israel is doing is wrong. My view is that he might have a point regarding our putative hypocrisy if we were still conquering native lands and slaughtering the tribes (which we are not).
If you'll re-read my comment again, you'll see that I was talking about slavery of blacks, not our treatment of the native American tribes. We don't own slaves anymore. As to the tribes, we have been at peace with them and allowed them a significant degree of internal sovereignty for quite some time now. One can debate whether this is an ideal solution but the issue is nevertheless basically settled and there have been no armed conflicts between the United States and the tribes in a long time. This is quite different from the situation in Palestine.
Ok, but we Iroquois won't be paying for it anymore! Oh, and yeah we Iroquois finally made all people equal before the law. So our society isn't structured as a race war, one group against another. A society set up like that has no viability, no future.
Craig11 has succinctly stated the macro concern. Israel has been sleeping with Goering's ghost for so long it does not smell itself.
David Bedein, who wrote this article, is a well known settler propagandist. I wouldn't take a word he writes as truth without reliable confirmation. I.E., who knows what U.S. policy is regarding settlements in occupied Jerusalem?
"…the security fence marks the de facto border of the state of Palestine."
Zionism is unjust. Therefore, all instances of injustice, past and present, reinforce it. They prove to the Zionist that justice doesn't exist, or that it is arbitrary, which amounts to the same. Yet, the murderous past of America did not simply disappear; it still finds its way today, through the foreign policy of intervention. Remember the million of Iraqis who died. This is justice at work. All evil spreads. Zionists believe otherwise: One man rose immediately after Stone’s talk to retell the biblical story of “the Jews who were told to go into Canaan and wipe out all the people in Canaan.” The man said “the Jews survived that spiritually and physically, and we’re here today and we’re still a moral light in this world.” The Great Zionist Coverup, Edwin Wright, p 82 The above is an extract from an article of the Washington Post, by Jay Matthews, from the November 11 of 1974 issue.
Arabs are currently being ethnically cleansed from the West Bank and Israel proper, and they are being eliminated through a process of attrition and genocide from Gaza. Jews can and do live wherever they want, and Israelis can and do live in the occupied areas, both in settlements as well as in Palestinian villages (as equals, rather than as occupiers). I think it would be worthwhile to point out that as we speak, there are quite a few Jews residing, at least for a while, in Gaza. Philip Weiss is one of them. The only thing Jews have not yet been able to do is build settlements in which only Jews can live in all of the West Bank and in Gaza. But that is rapidly changing. It's definitely you who are the bigot, since you believe that the only way a Jew can live in the West Bank or Gaza is in a Jewish-only settlement. However, having said all of that, my point was that each individual Native American in the US can live wherever in the US they want to live. The Palestinians have very limited choices, individually, about where they can live. In most cases, they cannot live in any of the West Bank settlements (there is a small handful of Palestinians living in Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem) , West Bank Palestinians cannot live in East Jerusalem, or in Israel proper, Gaza Palestinians cannot live anywhere but in Gaza, Palestinians who live in the West Bank cannot live with their spouses in East Jerusalem or Gaza (and vise versa), Palestinian refugees cannot return to Israel, and even internally displaced Palestinian refugees, those who are still in Israel, have never been allowed to return to their homes in Israel. This is the difference, and what makes Israel an apartheid state, and not a democracy.
We have as much right to dictate to Israel as there are dollars in the foreign aid we send them.