More Straussian hidden meanings. David Brooks, whose indirection I have blasted in the past (a whole book about the lifestyle of the meritocracy that includes many references to declasse WASPs but none to the spectacular Jewish rise into the Establishment), who surely justifies his indirection by telling himself there will be pogroms if I tell people what I really mean, has a wonky piece about American ethnic trends that contains this buried show-stopper:
Therefore, the first rule of policy-making should be, don’t promulgate a policy that will destroy social bonds. If you take tribes of people, exile them from their homelands and ship them to strange, arid lands, you’re going to produce bad outcomes for generations.
I think he's talking about the Nakba. I think he's blaming Israel? I think he's saying they should have let the refugees have their homes back? I think he's for the Right of Return!
Oh, no, I think he's talking about the Zionist project, about the Jewish Agency's effort to move European refugees to Palestine in the 30s and 40s?
Oh no, he's talking about the Mizrahi Jews being forced from Arab countries post-48 and going to Israel?
Ah, indirection.
Principles that multiple applications are “indirection”?
He is speaking in opposition to a theme that you referred earlier, which was the desirability of dividing families, with the indirection of multiple meanings.
Really? You don’t understand the meanings of the phrases “ethnic cleansing” or “justice,” can’t wrap your mind around the specific details of BDS and so constantly libel the movement, and the Geneva Conventions are nigh inscrutable to you — and then refuse to acknowledge a statement that is deliberately (I think) ambiguous as ambiguous?
As Phil obviously knows but some readers may miss, Brooks is clearly talking about Native Americans in the singled out paragraph.
And where are you typing from, EEE?
Did you miss the memo to ignore me?
Go take a nap.
Ah, I see you are protected by gentile arms. Keep napping; you’re safe.
Pingback: I need some redecorating ideas about a tool shed? | outdoor storage shed
Indirect? You mean like The Graduate? Where’s Dustin when we need him and where’s that WASP lady? Did Phil find her? We know Witty did not.
And we know Witty’s son believes that gentiles have animal souls, yes? And he’s over there in an Israeli settlement, while Dad’s in Vermont?
That’s Witty’s spiritual Vermont of course. Don’t tread on me.
Yes, Citizen, when Witty pleads for understanding for the settlers, it’s a very special pleading.
“Witty’s son believes that gentiles have animal souls, yes?”
Only an animal would have drawn those things on his son’s notebook. And what else could Witty tell his issue and heir? He had to be honest, and tell him those drawings meant the boxcars were on the way. ‘Flee, my son, my son!’ he said, ‘I must stay here and do the quarterly tax statements for my clients, but you run to Israel and save yourself!’
I wonder how he felt, leaving his little boy’s behind?
Ach, it’s such a heart-rendering story Witty told us about modern day anomie, anti-Semitism, and a father’s pretenses. Maybe he could tell it again? I wouldn’t want to get the details wrong. But for one brief, shinink moment, it was 1938 all over again, and that makes it all worth it.
Gee, I see the only problem is that the wrong people were put in the boxcars reserved for animals. Just a matter of the proper spreadsheet accounting. Imagine Witty as POTUS. He surveys the catagorical boxes and columns in the spread sheet…. If he didn’t make the right decisions, how could he have profited on his own sticking into bins for clients? Last I heard, he was not among the US destitute.
You guys are not smart enough to address arguments?
Your only options are to assault persons?
What are the libel laws associated the web?
Your only options are to assault persons?
You mean assault as in calling people “reptiles” as you do?
What are the libel laws associated the web?
Nice, now you want to police the web. That isn’t maximalist in the least bit…
“What are the libel laws associated the web?”
ROLLING ON THE FUCKING FLOOR, LAUGHING MY SKINNY JEWISH ASS OFF!!!!!!
No, let’s be serious, Rosebuck! You go right on down to the District Attourney, Witty, and you tell him that Chaos, Mooser, Shingo and Citizen are libeling you. Hell, we’ll be on the gurney, waiting for lethal injection, before you can say Micheal-michem-pim-sh’mya!!!
You can always tell how badly persecution has damaged us Jews. It shows in the way we always figure that all we have to do is invoke authority or the law and this will immediately chasten those who harass us. Cause, you see, two thousand years of persecution has proven to us this is true.
Witty, you are a riot!
Sorry, Witty. I’ll be serious, you be Roebucks. We’ll start a store.
Atta boy, Witty, threaten us with a libel lawsuit. Make a call to the ADL and SPL first, to get ahead of the game. Support the First Amendment! Salute Vermont! Creep.
And we we will only put brass tacks where you want them in our jeans. OK?
Sorry for only reading the bible 14 times instead of 15 by the time we were age 15. We love Truman too. Can we too be like that ancient Persian king?
Why doesn’t the need for American Jews to go to Israel and the occupied territories in order to act out their white racist fantasies, reflect badly on what they learned from their parents during their upbringing?
Of course there is a link between how we are brought up, and what we become. There are other factors as well – like what our peers believe and what the values of society are. There are also internal factors – our own personal values.
We are not required to become who our parents are, and some of us don`t. In that sense I think I would be cautious about making a generalization. It is always possible that a racist would have wonderful progressive parents. It is also possible for a wonderful progressive person to have racist parents. Our parents don`t condemn us. At some point we become responsible for who we are, no matter who our parents are.
Certainly, parents who bring up their children to be racists, and their children grow up to be racists is no random accident.
Well, Dick Witty, for example, has brought his son up to be an orthodox jew who believes gentiles have animal souls, at least 5 degrees less in quality than the son’s own superior soul.
I’m sure ML King would agree; after all, Witty Dad did get not killed for his
thoughts.
Citizen,
Do you have evidence that RW’s son believes gentiles have animal souls? Or are you a lying slandering filthy and demented old man?
Of course he is lying.
Its more than just lying about my son. He is actively searching for some “hidden truth” about Jews to present in a derogatory manner to promote (more than justify) bigotry.
He is actively searching for some “hidden truth” about Jews to present in a derogatory manner to promote (more than justify) bigotry.
In this condemnation, you are vehemently opposing him.
Your condemnation excludes reform, it only criticizes.
It confirms your own bigotry, in the name of opposing bigotry.
Sherbrsi,
You filthy piece of Aryan Brotherhood shit, how can you support Citizen saying these awful things about RW’s child?
You may not like RW’s ideas but slandering him and his kids? What kind of racist filth has your skank mother raised?
Please keep it clean.
I wish that citizen would present his reasoning candidly and clearly so that it could be the subject of reasoned argument.
People could adopt his reasoning if they found it compelling and sought to accomplish good goals.
Or, they might find that other reasoning was more compelling.
RW,
I will respect your wishes but please notice that the low lifes pick on you because you are extra nice and civil.
eee,
Please control your language. It is not civil, it is disruptive. You are showing your roots.
As far a Witty is concerned, I am merely saying that he is adopting a maximalist language that is unhelpful towards reconciliation and winning hearts.
I believe that my perspective is convincing on the merits of the reasoning, and that is where I want to leave it.
As I am not trying to “win”, kicking someone’s ass is of no use.
I believe that my perspective is convincing on the merits of the reasoning, and that is where I want to leave it.
That is not helpful Witty.
You call people “reptile” and leave it at that.
You accuse people of bigotry, in the name of opposing bigotry.
That is not only unhelpful but destructive of dialogue.
Sherbrsi,
“Please control your language. It is not civil, it is disruptive. You are showing your roots.”
Yes, I am showing my Jewish or Israeli roots, another bigoted remark by Sherbrsi of the Aryan Brotherhood.
“As far a Witty is concerned, I am merely saying that he is adopting a maximalist language that is unhelpful towards reconciliation and winning hearts.”
Yeah, you are trying to ridicule him while supporting the trash Citizen spews.
Sherbrsi,
You don’t believe that lying about my son is worthy of some comment on your part at all?
Are you only at war?
Yes, I am showing my Jewish or Israeli roots,
Actually I was indicating the utter hypocrisy of your comments.
I was taught to make slandering remarks against people’s sons according to you. That is still infinitely preferable to supporting your burning other children with white phosphorus or terrorizing them in concentration camps.
Yeah, you are trying to ridicule him while supporting the trash Citizen spews.
What trash and what ridicule?
If you can’t bring forth any arguments without name calling and swearing, then don’t engage in dialogue.
At least Witty is coming forth with his bigotry (if only in the name of opposing bigotry).
You don’t believe that lying about my son is worthy of some comment on your part at all?
Thoughtful dialogue, meaningful, cohesive, restrained. I respect such dialogue.
Without these elements, the comments devolve into name calling and swearing, such as eee displays.
“Actually I was indicating the utter hypocrisy of your comments.”
“What trash and what ridicule?”
Sherbrsi, Citizen wrote not more than 10 comments above:
“Well, Dick Witty, for example, has brought his son up to be an orthodox jew who believes gentiles have animal souls, at least 5 degrees less in quality than the son’s own superior soul.”
You support these comments as your questioning of what trash Citizen spews proves. If that is not trash, I do not know what trash is. You deserve every name I called you and a little more. But in respect to RW, I will leave that to another thread.
Sherbrsi, you’ve mastered Richard-speak.
On the subject of Richard’s son, I think Richard is right to complain. I don’t know where all this stuff is coming from–do people have any basis for the things that have been said? IMO, it doesn’t really hurt Richard at all–it makes the person using these arguments look bad.
But I still appreciate what sherbrsi is doing. Learn something from this Richard. This is exactly how you sound when someone makes a serious moral argument against Israel’s behavior. Citizen is saying things about your son which are really insulting and when you justifiably complain and use strong language sherbrsi uses your own rhetorical style against you. He is evading your questions and pretending to do it in the name of peace and reconciliation. Actually, of course, he’s doing an absolutely perfect job of mimicking you and your own behavior.
eee,
I do not know what trash is
Indeed you do not.
You cannot be reasoned with right now. I suggest you look at the racism within yourself before accusing others. Those are your roots, clearer now more than ever.
eee, you complete moron – Sherbrsi is being ironic. Can’t you tell he’s mimicking Dick Witty? God, I know you’re a total crook and liar, but at least acknowledge a good imitation when you see it.
Please restrict your commentary to calling everyone here a Jew-hater. Beyond that, you have no entertainment value. Douchebag.
“You cannot be reasoned with right now. I suggest you look at the racism within yourself before accusing others. Those are your roots, clearer now more than ever.”
Why would I want to be reasonable with someone who supports Citizen’s comments on RW’s kids? You are a racist bigot as your support for these hateful words prove.
Ridicule is fine. But the fact that you chose this opportunity to use it proves you are rotten to the core.
Donald,
Does RW attack people’s kids when they make a moral argument against Israel? I never saw that.
How can you appreciate what sherbrsi is doing? She is justifying what Citizen said. That is very low.
Cliff “the Aussie med student who has never met a Jew”,
Did you not get the memo about not feeding the troll? You were instructed to ignore me. And don’t forget to take your meds or I will ask your supervising nurse to limit your internet time. I am starting to believe that you and Citizen are the same person following a lobotomy. You are one side of this person’s disconnected brain and Citizen is the other side.
Citizen didn’t insult RW’s son. What he did was make a facetious comment about how RW may RAISE his son. We know RW, we do not know his son.
Like you, RW is a racist, Jewish supremacist who does not believe in the rule of law or any kind of moral standard. Only what is best for fellow Zionist Jews – according to pro-Apartheid, pro-racism, pro-colonialism, hateful and cowardly freaks like you eee.
That being said, you have no moral authority to chastise people here. You regularly spew forth lies and propaganda laced with blatantly anti-Islamic and anti-Arab conspiracy theories.
Go slither back to FrontPageMag with the other Zionist cultists.
RW doesn’t attack people’s kids. He rationalizes Israeli war crimes There’s apparently a kind of tradeoff here, though it seems to me one could avoid both attacks on people’s kids and rationalizing war crimes.
As for sherbrsi, he or she (I don’t know the gender) is doing a perfect imitation of how Witty treats critics of Israel, whether human rights organizations, people here, journalists, whatever.
It’s been impossible to reach Witty on this, to convey how he comes across. People have tried in numerous ways, ranging from shouting (my preferred method sometimes) to calm reasoned argument–there are even folks who compliment him on his “courage” (which I see as more a serene sense that he is morally superior to all the peons here). Pitch perfect ridicule hasn’t been tried (though I’d considered it, while doubting my ability to pull it off). If sherbrsi can get through to RW about he comes across by treating him exactly the way he treats us when we talk about war crimes, he or she (don’t know the gender) will have done Witty a service.
Donald,
Let’s be precise. So RW has not attacked anyone’s kids. His only fault is that he is a supporter of Israel and that merits the following according to you:
“Well, Dick Witty, for example, has brought his son up to be an orthodox jew who believes gentiles have animal souls, at least 5 degrees less in quality than the son’s own superior soul.”
eee, no one here – NO ONE – is fooled by your petty rhetorical tricks.
Do you know what the word ‘superficial’ means? Look it up.
You have just spouted some superficial truths.
Yea, but he does not need to attack (intellectually) someone’s kids to still be considered a liar and crook and supporter of war crimes and injustice.
And it’s also superficial to say he is SIMPLY a supporter of Israel. So is Goldstone. But Goldstone and Dick Witty differ greatly.
You can support Israel and criticize it harshly.
Dick Witty does not criticize Israel. He obfuscate, disassociates blame, and issues red herrings when Zionist crimes are exposed.
Just as you exhibit the same kind of PATHOLOGICAL narcissism and self-centered world-view – Dick Witty thinks the world must revolve around Zionism.
No one is falling for your bullshit, you lying Zionist freak.
“He is actively searching for some “hidden truth” about Jews to present in a derogatory manner to promote (more than justify) bigotry.”
It ain’t nothin’. You should hear what they used to say about the Communists, and what they say about Muslims today. This ain’t nothin.
I been trying to tell you guys, when you get into the colonial-settlement, armed-sovereign-nation game, it’s rough, and there are no garauntees. People will say most anything about you. And then there’s all those war crimes and little atrocities. People are gonna say stuff.
“Yes, I am showing my Jewish or Israeli roots, another bigoted remark”
That’s funny, my parents made it very clear that a Jew was expected to keep a civil tongue in his head. And I, and my family, are way more Jewy than you could ever hope to be, “eee”.
SuperJewy, as a matter of fact. You couldn’t come close.
“And don’t forget to take your meds or I will ask your supervising nurse to limit your internet time.”
Oy, it hurts me every time I see how the years of persecution have destroyed Jewish trust in authourity, and made us so wary of accessing them.
Was it hard for you in the camps, eee?
That’s a neat trick triple e. I say Witty’s family shouldn’t be dragged into this and you say I said I did. Can I play? How about I say you are a passionate supporter of suicide bombing against Israeli children? Why not? It’s not true, but that’s not stopping you and I don’t see why I shouldn’t get to play by your rules.
I’d repeat what I said earlier, but you’re arguing in bad faith, so there’s no point.
“eee” this “soul” business is difficult for everyone, Jewish or Gentile. And so often I have to ask my very own self: “Are you a man or a moose?” And many people say to me: “Funny, you don’t look Moosish”
On the other hand, I don’t think anybody could mistake you for anything but what you are. Too bad, isn’t it?
I want to thank Donald for urging that my family not be brought into the discussion, especially not for the purpose of intentionally lying about them, and particularly in a mean derogatory tone.
Sorry, Dick Witty, for bringing your son into this thread, however if you look at my comment you will see I was wondering if you and he had a talk about his chosen sect of Judiasm and what they believe. You brought that subject up yourself on this blog.
A logical trail from that might lead to this:
link to en.allexperts.com
Citizen,
You are a demented asshole clutching at straws. This is what you wrote:
“Well, Dick Witty, for example, has brought his son up to be an orthodox jew who believes gentiles have animal souls, at least 5 degrees less in quality than the son’s own superior soul.”
This has nothing to do with RW’s son and everything to do with RW. You are claiming that RW believes gentiles have animal souls. How else could he have taught this to his son? So if you want to apologize, apologize to RW for slandering him.
And what logical trail may lead to some idiocy that may be written in the Tanya (a book specific to chabad and not Judaism in general)? What logical trail are you talking about? That of being an orthodox Jew? That is like arguing that being a catholic logically leads to being a pedophile.
” I don’t know where all this stuff is coming from–do people have any basis for the things that have been said?”
We sure as hell do! Richard told us the story himself, brought it up himself, supplied the details himself, as if this story of a son’s disintegrating personality and derailed life and a father’s willingness to see his own son’s life ruined to serve his own pretenses reflected some sort of credit on him!
So yes, we have a basis for these things, it all came from Richard Witty, and nowhere else. If he is sensitive about it (or ashamed, as he should be, at his lack of concern and complete immersion in his own pretenses over his son’s welfare) maybe he shouldn’t have mentioned it!
But once he told the story he can’t complain because others don’t see it the same way. I do have some sympathy with Witty; extensive psychotherapy and counseling is expensive, and the outcome uncertain, whereas once the kid is off chabading, he’s no longer a burden. It was a practical solution, if you don’t care about the victims.
Did RW say he raised his children to believe gentiles have no souls?
Your attempt at spinning this is despicable.
None of us would never have known Witty even produced an heir (his conception amidst the yak-butter lamps and cardamon seeds during a wild night of chai-tea drinking is not something I wanted to dwell on, certainly) and issue if Witty hadn’t brought it up.
And he wouldn’t have bropught it up if he didn’t think the story supported some aspect of his contentions. Other’s disagree, and have a perfect right to say so.
The best way to preserve your privacy is not to mention the things you don’t want discussed. Witty brought it up, it’s on the table now. Sorry.
And Donald, you can judge for yourself how your laudable desire to not traffic in the personal was used by eee.
So the fact that RW said he had children justifies inventing tall tales about what he teaches his children?
Are you sure you are a Jew? Which rabbi taught you that?
“You are claiming that RW believes gentiles have animal souls.”
Goddammit, Citizen, you gotta admit that’s a big step up from having no soul at all, which is the way I heard it when I was a kid. So love and ecumenical fellowship is bustin’ out all over!
Sure, maybe I’m a little hung up on this incident with Witty’s son because if Witty’s desription of the incident is accurate, the exact same thing happened to me in my young adolescence. No matter what, I will always be grateful to my parents for not allowing this minor and meaningless incident to become a jumping-off point for Jewish self-pity, exclusivism, exceptionalism, and general personality disintergration, ending up with me in a settlement. No, they set me straight, right away. As I recall, they administered a lot of good, sensible advice with each klopf on my backside, to wit:
1) “What the hell are you complaining about? Anybody sending you to a gas chamber, like thousands upon thousands of Jews in previous years? For you to obsess on this incident is an insult to the extremity of prejudice and assault those Jews suffered. Anybody lynching you? No? Then you are doing a hell of a lot better than thousands of people right here in the US!”
2) “You want to avoid anti-Semitism completely? Okay boychik, never associate with anybody except other Jews! So go break up with your girlfriend!” That one checked me, right there! (As I mentioned previously, that girl later left me for another woman, but what can you do?)
“Are you sure you are a Jew?”
Every time I look past my navel, yes. But now that you mention it, maybe it’s not true. Maybe my great-grandparents were Catholic or Protestant in Europe, and life was just too dull for them. One day they were passing a Shtetl and saw a pogrom, and said “well, that looks interesting, at least life is never dull for these people! Who wouldn’t leave the security and privilege of the Christian establishment for the life of a Jew?”
Or maybe they just wanted to get in on the quarterly profit-sharing, the free parking, and a charter membership to the Fruit-of-the-Month Club.
Hmmm, “Gravenstein”. Does that sound like a Jewish name to you?
“Are you sure you are a Jew? Which rabbi taught you that?”
Whereas you, “3e” (I still don’t think that’s a Jewish name, pal) consult the Sanhedrin and the Knesset on your every post?
Than why did you tell us the story of your son, the anti-Semitic notebook, and his flight from reality to Chabad and the settlements?
If the poor kid was showing previous signs, previous to the incident you described of emotional disturbance and character disintergration, I congratulate you. Slick way to get him off your hands, and out of your life. Besides, that settlement will make a real macher out of him, sun, rough agricutural work, fending off the older guys who scent fresh meat, all that. It’ll be a growing experience!
“That is like arguing that being a catholic logically leads to being a pedophile.”
Show a little respect for religion, eee! The word is usually capitalised, out of respect, just as I would expect “Jew” to have a capital J.
So next time, hit the shift-key before that first “P”!
Pingback: Tweets that mention Is David Brooks talking about the Nakba? -- Topsy.com
Phil:
I think you’ve got way to thin a skin on this one. Isn’t the point of the Brooks article that culture will assert itself inspite of policy, that the first rule of policy should be to do not harm, and that any policy that breaks up social bonds is a policy that does harm. For that purpose his example serves well enough. Neither the article nor the example is about the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Of course, if you wan to view the example as referring to the Nakbah, the right of return (which would surely negatively affect social bonds in Israel?), the Babylonian Exile, American Indians (as eee would have it), the Chinese Cultural Revolution, or etc. , etc. . . . that all works. So what’s wrong with it? The very ambiguity is what serves the point.
Wonkish (from Urban Dictionary): “the design of policy solutions that are too complex and subtle for the victims — er, I mean the public, to understand. ”
Straussian: I see Leo Strauss is another Jewish refugee who settled at the Chicago school and is known for his argument that the works of ancient philosophers contain deliberately concealed esoteric meanings whose truths can be comprehended only by a very few, and would be misunderstood by the masses (‘hidden meaning’ thesis).
You accuse Brooks of being Wonkish and Straussian. I don’t see it; not in accordance with the above definitions. There is no hidden meaning to worry about in the example Brooks uses here because the referent doesn’t matter, it’s not the point. This site nothwithstanding . . . the world, in fact, doesn’t revolve around the Israel/Palestine conflict.
>> Second, try to establish basic security. If the government can establish a basic level of economic and physical security, people may create a culture of achievement — if you’re lucky.
“Try” to esablish security and “if” the government can do it, people “may” create a culture of achievement “if” you’re lucky. Nothing like complete wishy-washiness to give a “rule” validity.
>> Third, try to use policy to strengthen relationships. The best policies, like good preschool and military service, fortify emotional bonds.
Military service is a “best policy” for developing relationships? That’s just plain fucked up.
If the world does not revolve around the I-P conflict, pray tell us why the entire US Congress, regardless of party, takes the same position on it. Please keep in mind this is the parliment of the only superpower on earth at this time.
“the world, in fact, doesn’t revolve around the Israel/Palestine conflict.”
That’s true, but a fair amount of what happens in US politics seems to be connected with it and you get a really creepy near-consensus from Congress about what a wonderful ally Israel is, how we share values, etc…
And we do share values–unfortunately some of those values seem to involve killing or oppressing uppity Arabs.
The New Yorker article on Saban (I just read it) may show how some of the mechanics of this works.
IB, your criticisms aside, Brooks’ ‘cultural’ analysis (or at least the report he relies on to the extent he explains it) is pretty weak: For example, he does not provide any demographic information regarding the ‘Swedes’ who immigrated to the US. Instead he simply compares the end results and makes an assumption about ‘Swedish’ culture and its effect on rates of poverty. (If it turned out that the immigrating Swedes came from a sub-population with a poverty rate twice the Swedish national average, then something occurred in the US causing the decreased poverty level, whether it’s policy or not.)
Agreed. It’s a column filling opinion piece, not to be taken too seriously.
I suspect that we are reaching the maximum life span that can be obtained without some sort of breakthrough outside of drugs. At a certain point our bodies just plain wear out. What becomes important, from a first world perspective is not life expectancy, though 2.7 years is significant, but healthy life expectancy.
Also of interest is a better view of how US and Swedish life expectancy values have differed.
While this is a full article in itself, a sneak preview can be obtained by looking at information from the World Health Organization.
link to who.int
page 36 has some wonderful statistics available – including health rates for the US and Sweden.
There has been major shifts in health care and life expectancy since 1950. Getting information from that far back is difficult.
Looking at some life expectancy numbers that are a bit more recent:
1990
US 75 years
Sweden 70 years
2000
US 77 years
Sweden 80 years
2006
US 78 years
Sweden 81 years
So in the recent past there has been a swing of 8 years, not 2.7 years as proposed by Brooks. A significant part of the story has been omitted.
The World Health Organization uses a second method to compare health care – and that is Healthy Life Expectancy (HALE) – how many years of healthy life does an individual have?
Here are the figures for 2002 (the last year available)
US 69 years
Sweden 73 years
The difference is now four years. That is getting significant for the worlds most expensive health care system.
Looking specifically at rich and poor, the following tidbit provides some rebuttal to David Brooks:
While it is true that
his conclusion:
Looks like it may be the result of some cherry picking.
unreferenced quotes from
link to emaxhealth.com
“I suspect that we are reaching the maximum life span that can be obtained without some sort of breakthrough outside of drugs.”
In that case, I’m gonna live forever! I’m gonna learn how to fly!
Anyway, glad to see “eee” and Witty finding each other, and recognising soulmates. People shouldn’t be alone.
Your comment is wierd, Mooser.
EEE spoke in terms of the land being Israel. I speak in terms of the green line being Israel.
We have very different political views.
We do agree on the pattern of abuse of anyone with any sympathies to Zionism or Israel here. And, we do agree substantively on the need to actually take the time to distinguish what is reasonable and legitimate defense on the part of Israel, particularly relative to the shelling of civilians from Gaza.
“We do agree on the pattern of abuse of anyone with any sympathies to Zionism or Israel here.”
Oy! I hate it here! The food tastes like poison, and the portions are so small! And they don’t let you leave, either! They got this thing that keeps you from going to any other website! There oughts be a libel law against it on the web!
I’m sorry you are forced to be here and take abuse. You have my permission to leave. No, I don’t care how many people here abuse me for saying it, but I have to be truthful; Richard, you don’t have to stay here, you can go!
(He and “eee” and the rest would sooner have their eyes plucked out by rabid birds than not come here. They know where the action is, they couldn’t stay away if they tried. They are traitors-to-Zionism in training)
“what is reasonable and legitimate defense on the part of Israel, particularly relative to the shelling of civilians from Gaza.”
Cause if there is one thing that can be discussed as reasonable and legitimate defense of Israel, it’s shelling civilians from Gaza!
For Christ’s sake Richard, is it your mission in life to portray Zionists as oily sleazebags who delight in vicarious brutality? Anyway, it’s nice to know that a lucky few of us can fulfill their fondest hopes, cause you have suceeded beyond your wildest dreams.
Yeah, Mooser, I see what you mean. That nasty shelling from Gaza to Israel is the whole puzzle. Why it’s every lemon and fig tree in the forest, indeed, the whole forest, the big picture! What’s left? Planting more Arizona pine trees and having American tax dollers spent on visiting them in Israel?
“And, we do agree substantively on the need to actually take the time to distinguish what is reasonable and legitimate defense on the part of Israel, particularly relative to the shelling of civilians from Gaza.”
Well, yes, you both agree on the importance of the right of self-defense against shelling that comes FROM Gaza, but show absolutely no interest whatsoever in the right of self-defense against shelling or blockading or arbitrary oppression that goes in the opposite direction.