Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 811 (since 2014-06-05 03:23:18)

I am a husband, father, and surgeon. I was raised in a Zionist household and am interested in a peaceful solution.

Showing comments 811 - 801
Page:

  • Influential rabbi teaches would-be Israeli soldiers: Genocide is a mitzvah
    • Roha,

      I think we paid them back twice over.

      "After President of France Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from the common NATO military command in February 1966 and ordered all American military forces to leave France, President Johnson asked Rusk to seek further clarification from President de Gaulle by asking whether the bodies of buried American soldiers must leave France as well.[19] Rusk recorded in his autobiography that de Gaulle did not respond when asked, "Does your order include the bodies of American soldiers in France's cemeteries?""https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Rusk

  • On the 'double standard' for Israel
    • Roha,
      I still disagree.
      The role of a policeman is not isolated, but rather a piece of the justice system. If the police are biased then the system is unjust.

    • Roha,
      The question is not whether or not the accusations are false. Let's assume that some/most/all are true. It's the idea that Israel is uniquely attacked for these 'offenses'. There are worse offenders both in scale and breadth who are not made this focus.

      Let's say you were a prosecutor in Montgomery in 1962 and you prosecuted every black man who spit on the sidewalk, but did not prosecute white men who did the same or worse. Spitting on the sidewalk is still vile, but the idea that it is only an offense when a black man does it or that it is to be more harshly condemned is the problem. It's not that Israel is perfect, no country is, but rather that Israel is uniquely criticized and singled out for criticism.

  • The barriers
    • "Well algebra and zero. Arabs invented that."
      Algebra yes
      Zero, not really. It seems it was the Indians.
      "“Brahmagupta’s text Brahmasphutasiddhanta, written in 628 A.D., is the first text to talk of zero as a number in its own right and to include a discussion of the arithmetic of zero, including the dangerous act of dividing by zero,” he said.

      Historians theorize that zero was spread from northern India by Arab traders along the Silk Road, an ancient trading route that connected Europe and Asia, and may have helped to develop more complex schools of mathematical thought."https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/09/origin-zero-bakhshali-manuscript-video-spd/

  • Video: Israeli police destroy Palestinian tombstones in Jerusalem cemetery
  • Clashing with the Jewish state: ultra-Orthodox Israelis who reject Zionism
    • Roha,
      These guys don't approve of women's rights or secularism. Not just for themselves, but for anyone. They oppose allowing women or "gentiles" access to the Western Wall and have tried to segregate the public sidewalks amongst other noxious ideas.

      A real jewel in the crown of anti-Zionism.

  • Rabbi Cardozo: outlawing circumcision would 'end the state of Israel'
    • Echi,
      I sent that letter. I'll let you know if I hear back about the wall idea. I even included a sketch and suggested a name. Hadrian's Wall II.

    • Echi,
      Now you have me even more confused.
      Which party is the modern equivalent of your boy Hadrian and his Romans who conquered Britain and then built a wall to keep out the barbarians?

    • Echi,
      i think I'll write to the Israeli and Palestinian governments and suggest a wall to separate them. Thanks for the idea. It might catch on.

    • Echi,
      "Hadrian is to be highly commended for his civilizing behavior against religious fanaticism/Zealot fundamentalism..."
      Wasn't he the guy who built a wall to keep the barbarians separated from the civilized people? It's an interesting idea don't you think?

  • 'I faced my Jewish racism' -- an alumnus's call to Jewish students for Israeli Apartheid Week
    • Hughes,
      " if you are a refugee you have a refugee’s right of return. If you accept a new nationality you are no longer surely a refugee."

      That would seem to be the case. However, if a State of Palestine wished to give preferential treatment for citizenship to people who have ancestors who lived in the country that would be the choice of the state. Many countries take this approach.

      Another interesting point is that Palestinian refugee status is patriarchal. " and descendants of fathers fulfilling the definition." Having a Palestinian mother and a non-Palestinian father does not qualify you. https://www.unrwa.org/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questions

    • Eljay,
      “The rape analogy is not meant to titillate. It’s most certainly not intended as a “fantasy”.”
      Not my thing, but whom am I to judge as long as you limit it to an ‘analogy’.

    • Eljay,
      “As far as I can tell, he’s just making a point of reminding people that he’s a Jewish supremacist.”
      Can you point to a quote in this thread that is ‘supremacist’? If not then it might be a good time for one your trademark rape/bondage fantasy things. Fifty Shades of Eljay and all.

    • Paranam,
      My point is that many of the refugees have citizenship. That's it.
      These definitions are by nature political, not scientific facts.
      The UN refugee convention in part defines a refugee, "; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence..."
      The majority of Palestinians in Jordan have Jordanian nationality, but still define themselves as refugees with a right of return. So, having citizenship and nationality elsewhere does not seem to negate the refugee status.

    • Hughes,
      I agree with your general take. If your a citizen of another country your not really a refugee. It just goes to show that the definition of refugee is a political construct with an agenda, a definition that varies by who is granting it.

    • Paranam,
      Once again.

      “Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship.”
      https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/jordan

      “In Jordan nearly 95% of all Palestinian refugees have been given citizenship and are able to participate in Jordanian political and economic life. Most registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan (over 80%) also do not live in the ten UNRWA run camps located in Jordan. “https://www.afsc.org/resource/palestinian-refugees-and-right-return

      Mist,
      I’m just pointing out that Hughes is in error when he says that citizenship negates the right of return.

    • Roha,
      I get it. And so Nakba denial is merely bad history, not racism.

    • Hughes,
      “That right lapses when full citizenship elsewhere, implying rights and duties the same as the existing citizens, is offered and accepted”

      UNWRA doesn’t categorize them that way. They recognize them as refugees even if they have citizenship.
      “More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.

      Most Palestine refugees in Jordan, but not all, have full citizenship. There are ten recognized Palestine refugee camps throughout the country, which accommodate nearly 370,000 Palestine refugees, or 18 per cent of the country total. Jordan hosts the largest number of Palestine refugees of all of the UNWRA fields.”

    • A refusal to recognize the vailidity of another position.

      I think the author said it best, "The truth is, all people are vulnerable to ways of thinking that leave others less deserving than themselves."

    • "If you think we have an obligation to remember our homeland while Palestinians should be encouraged to forget theirs – that’s racism.

      If you think our Jewish ‘right of return’, after two thousand years’ absence is sacred and undeniable, but the right of return for Palestinians, and their descendants, who fled their homes in 1948 is illegitimate– that’s racism.

      If you memorialise atrocities carried out against the Jewish people throughout our history but downplay or dismiss the Palestinian Nakba– that’s racism.

      If you think Jewish national self-determination is an incontestable right but Palestinian national self-determination must be negotiated and offered only as a ‘reward for good behaviour’– that’s racism."

      If these are all reciprocal, then I agree we have a great place for a discussion and understanding for all people to live together and recognize each ones aspirations.

      So how about this:
      If you think we have an obligation to remember the Palestinian homeland while the Jewish people do not have a homeland in Israel – that’s anti-semtism.

      If you think the Palestinian 'right of return’ is sacred and undeniable, but the right of return for Jews is illegitimate– that’s anti-semitism.

      If you memorialise the Nakba, but deny or minimize the Holocaust – that’s anti-semtism.

      If you think Palestinian national self-determination is an incontestable right but Jewish national self-determination is 'colonialism’– that’s anti-semtism.

  • Message from Massachusetts: When we fight we win!
    • Echi,
      “Obviously one can boycott anyone! Duh. “
      Do you can refuse service service at your lunch counter to African-Americans, or refuse to let ethnic Chinese stay at your hotel, or not hire women as a boycott for some political purpose? When does a boycott become unlawful discrimination? I’m not a lawyer. I don’t have the answers. But it seems to me that it’s not that clear cut.

    • Eva,
      In your first example, those are legally allowed discriminations.
      The US Supreme Court has ruled that you may legally discriminate using a politically motivated economic boycott. In Claiborne, the NAACP boycotted white owned businesses, not because the owners had any political positions, but because by boycotting white owners they thought it would pressure on the politicians.

      Would it be OK for me to organize a boycott against people whose national origin was Poland because I was unhappy with some law in Poland? Can I ethically organize a boycott against the shopkeeper in my neighborhood, the lawyer down the block, or the musician who happen to be of Polish national origin because I am upset with the laws of Poland? If anti-immigration groups want to boycott any Dreamers of Mexican birth and deny them services or jobs until Mexico changed its immigration policy would that be OK?

    • New Orleans City council passes this, "Consistent with its responsibilities to residents,” the resolution reads in part, “the City of New Orleans has social and ethical obligations to take steps to avoid contracting with or investing in corporations whose practices consistently violate human rights, civil rights or labor rights, or corporations whose practices egregiously contradict efforts to create a prosperous, educated, healthy and equitable society.” and that's 'good'. It is then reversed and that's 'bad'.
      Massachusetts considers passing this to prohibit doing business with people who, "(2) They do not currently, and will not during the duration of the contract, refuse, fail, or cease to do business with any other person when that action is based upon such other person’s race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, gender identity or sexual orientation." It fails to be approved and that's 'good'.
      Can someone explain why it's OK to prohibit business with companies that violate human rights, but not OK to prohibit business with individuals who wish to discriminate based upon race, color, creed, etc?

  • Resisting 'the new normal'
    • John O,
      No.
      I support their right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean that I wish them well in achieving their goals. I hope they fail.
      For example, I support the right of a speaker or movement to be pro-life, but I do not wish to see Roe overturned.

    • Inbound,
      I support the right of BDS to be critical of Israel. I just don't agree with their tactics or positions. I think the analogy you are making is erroneous and I find no honor in this line of criticism.

    • Ossinev,
      I am personally opposed to BDS as I am to Nazis speaking.
      The question of whether economic activity is "speech" has been answered by the Supreme Court as protected. In Katzenbach the court upheld the Civil Rights Act and required public places to not discriminate. The question of how to balance the right to boycott and the non-discrimination based on national origin is the heart of the matter. I am curious to see how the court rules on the wedding cake question. Can a baker boycott supplying a cake to a gay couple based upon religious views or is that protected speech.

    • " As founder and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights, Marcus has spent much of his career endeavoring to suppress the free speech rights of students and faculty who support Palestinian rights. "

      From a prior post by Ms.Elia, "The other significant victory was the shutting down of the scheduled Milo Yiannopolous talk at the University of California in Berkeley. Anyone who would blame the protestors for “violence,” rather than resistance, is assuming that the promotion of hatred is non-violence. But that assumption, quite simply, is wrong. There is no such thing as “non-violent hate speech.” Hate speech has direct consequences, all of which are violent. ...Preventing Yiannopolous from speaking at Berkeley was direct action to shut down fascism."

      So she has no problem with shutting down speech when it is speech that she disagrees with. All of these attempts to supress speech betray our core American values.

  • Palestinian-American businessman, 57, is arrested by ICE in Cleveland, shocking supporters
  • What's wrong with colonialism?
    • Annie,
      The 'rape' is allegorical but the crimes against civilians actual.
      I thought the point as Avigail said was, "Everyone’s focus should be the crime. If we don’t do that we imply that there are worthier victims than others and that somehow perpetrators committing the same crime should also be treated differently. Surely we don’t want to say this, do we?…"
      "Settler-colonialism (or colonialism in general) can no more be justified than a child abuser, a rapist, or a home invader excused for having had a tough childhood. "
      Can we really excuse men like Kuntar because they may have had a 'tough childhood'.

    • Annie,
      I did not mean to emphasize the question if ancestors, but rather the justification/mitigation of violence against civilians.
      To rephrase it, In order to further your political aims: Does the motivation mitigate acts morally equivalent to rape? Can you mitigate/justify violence targeting civilians?
      Are acts ‘morally equivalent to rape’ more or less severe than actual acts of murder or violence?
      But I don’t see how you can condemn Goldstein and not condemn Mughrabi. Is the killing of Mohammed Khdeir worse than the killing of Einat Haran? There is no justification for targeting civilians.

    • Eljay,
      “The Palestinians don’t just have ancestors in the area – they are in the area. ”
      That avoids the question.

    • Hughes,
      "How can one possibly argue that an act morally equivalent to rape is mitigated by the fact that the perpetrators had ancestors in the area?"

      How can one argue that ACTUAL hijacking, murder, suicide bombing, indiscriminate rocket attacks, stabbings, etc., are justified because one had ancestors in the area?

    • Avigail,
      "Do you believe that it’s OK to hurt other people for the Jewish people to survive?”

      'Do you believe that it's OK to hurt other people for the Palestinian people to survive?

  • Trump's line on 'shithole countries' is a mainstream view in Israel
    • Annie,
      That's just ludicrous. There is a difference between quoting a phrase verbatim in quotation marks and using one word within a sentence without any obvious antecedent reference or obvious source.
      If I wrote a sentence and referred to someone using the N-word, but put it in quotes because some guy in my mind used it 3 years ago, it would still be offensive.

    • Eljay,
      "I pointed out that your fellow Zionist, Zionist Jew, was responsible for the term"
      And that's were we differ. I think the person who uses the term is responsible for it.

    • Annie,
      OK, I give. If everyone else here thinks it's fine, I'll go along.
      It might be helpful to get a list of the countries we are talking about so we are on the same page. I wouldn't want to miscategorize a "hell-hole" country as one of the "best" or vice versa.

    • "It’s Zionist Jew’s characterization. If you have an issue with it, take it up with him."

      From an earlier quote by Eljay,
      "It's funny how Zio-supremacists never pick a relevant example such as, say, Denmark, Austria or Canada when it comes to defending their oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.

      It's always Mali or Saudi Arabia or African "hell-holes", and always about being just a little bit better than the worst rather than being as good as the best."

      As you see, he is using the pejorative to describe those countries that are "worst". The use of the phrase reinforces the description. If you don't agree with it, don't use it. It's BS to say, "If you have an issue with it, take it up with him.". Eljay is the one perpetuating the term.
      Personally, it's not something I would say.

      Echi,
      "nobody said the characterization itself is racist"
      I think most people think the characterization is racist.

    • Eljay,
      It’s not the list it’s the characterization. You have consistently used the term. Are you saying that you disagree with the terminology but just use it?when you use it it’s nit racist?

    • I think he was just paraphrasing Eljay,
      “being less bad than Saudi Arabia, Mali, African “hell-holes”, China and 19th-century America. ”.

  • What MLK's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' tells us about Ahed Tamimi in a cold Israeli cell
    • LH,
      I have never quoted from that letter. My quotes are from undisputed sources. I have never began the reference to Dr. King, rather, my posts are in response to pro-Palestinian commenters who bring up MLK. They assume that he would have supported their cause and I provide actual quotes which show his pro-Zionist stance. My posts are in response to the misuse of MLK. The fraud being perpetuated is the assumption that MLK did/ or would currently oppose Zionism.
      BTW, do you have the same objections when commenters here post quotes from Einstein, Freud, etc 'opposing' Zionism?

    • Echi,
      For the authors to use MLKs letter to speak about Ms. Tamimi without noting his support of Israel’s Security seems an intentional oversight.

    • Mist,
      Your entire thesis is conjecture without proof.
      The evidence we have, which includes unequivocal statements by MLk, are that he suppported Zionism. He may have changed his position, but he also may have grown into a stronger Zionist.
      There is no evidence to support your fantasy.

    • Cig,
      “So, MLK wasn’t immune to Zionist propaganda.”
      Or, he was an educated man who had traveled to the area, was an expert on human rights, and was a Zionist.

    • I don't know what Dr. King would have thought about Ms. Tammimi.
      But, we do know what he thought about Israel and its need for security.
      "I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can almost be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality."
      http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/assets/public/resources-ideas/cj/classics/1-4-12-civil-rights/conversation-with-martin-luther-king.pdf

  • Privileged American Jews are safe thanks to 'Israel's might'-- Roger Cohen
    • Cigar,
      That's not true.
      "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

      1. From its founding July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence until the second constitution became effective in 1789 there was no reference to 3/5.
      2. Free blacks were apportioned the same as free whites.
      3. The 3/5 is used for apportionment of representatives and taxes. Not "personhood". Slaves were not considered even 3/5 of a white man.

  • 'Curricularizing Israel'-- the Hebrew program in suburban Chicago schools
    • Amigo,
      I think it's appropriate to learn a bit about the political system and culture of a country if you are studying the language of that country.
      Would you object to learning about the history of modern Poland and its quest for self determination in a class teaching Polish?
      When I took Spanish in high school, we read materials in both English and Spanish discussing a number of South American/Central American countries and there economy, history, political philosophy, etc. Learning about Zionism in relation to learning about the culture in Israel seems appropriate. Learning about Zionism isn't necessarily promoting it.
      However, in my experience, most foreign language instructors have an affinity for the people and culture of the language they teach. It would be odd to have an Italian teacher who did not have warm feelings about Italy.

    • Amigo,
      "Jon 66 . The author wrote Zionist curriculum. Not Hebrew language curriculum.

      Read the article again .if in fact you read it at all."

      Yes, but that's not what you wrote. I was responding to your comments, not the authors. Perhaps you could be more precise in the future.

    • Annie,
      From Amigo, “...without the history lesson on zionism.”
      He is objecting to the teaching. He does not say promoting.

    • Amigo,
      "It is supposed to be a Language class.

      If I as a non Jew wanted to learn Hebrew , should I not expect to be taught Hebrew , (in a safe place ) without the history lesson on zionism."

      Do you think a class teaching Polish or Swedish would not have components dealing with the history, politics, and culture of Poland or Sweden?
      The curriculum in the Chicago Public Schools foreign language programs:
      "Includes the studies of customs, history, and art forms of the culture(s) associated with the language"http://cps.edu/Pages/WorldLanguagePrograms.aspx
      It's hard to teach the history of Israel or Modern Hebrew without teaching some Zionism.

  • Israel issues BDS blacklist against 20 organizations-- 'badge of honor,' Munayyer says
  • If you genuinely back the Palestinian cause, you must support the right of return
  • Israeli prosecutors try to make Ahed Tamimi a terrorist
    • Talk,
      “It makes no difference, if anyone is Jewish or not.”
      I agree
      Prosecution does not equal execution. Was Ms. Tamimi executed? Are there significantly more killings than arrests?
      Suspects who are not or are no longer a threat should be arrested. They should be treated humanely.
      I don’t make excuses for the bad things Israelis do. They should change their behavior when it’s incorrect
      If your looking for someone to justify all of Israel’s actions it’s not me. We approach these incidents with different assumptions. You assume that the IDF is criminal and therefore all actions taken were intentional and not sincere mistakes. That is not my perspective.

    • Talk,
      "Does that mean that every Israeli soldier is a legitimate object of attack?"
      Of course not. The ones with continuous combat functions. And anyone who attacks them is also a combatant who may be killed in defense. A photographer on the beach is not a legit target. Nor a roomful of men praying at a mosque.

    • Annie,
      "if you tortured Col. Ilan Malka for a few weeks, like they’ve tortured palestinian suspects for decades to get confessions, do you think he might “admit” he knew he was targeting civilians"
      I thought this was rhetorical.
      I have no idea.

      I am not defending the Samouni attack. You asked if it was terrorism and I said it depends upon the details and intentions. In order to classify it as a war crime you have to make assumptions. I don't know enough about it.

    • Annie,
      The deaths of the Samouni family are tragic. But, "One soldier later testified to Breaking the Silence that soldiers had received information that a rocket-propelled grenade squad were located in the area. On seeing the drone photographs, the Israeli commander called for a missile strike against the men outside the house; they ran into the Samouni house for shelter, which was then struck twice with subsequent missile fire."
      Breaking the Silence is hardly a pro-IDF PR Machine.

      Whether it's Goldstein, Mughrabi, or McVey, these folks intentionally targeted civilians and state it. It's not disputed.
      If the soldiers intentionally targeted the civilians without a legitimate military target then it's a war crime.
      There are schools etc named after Mughrabi, you can't even name the people you identify as "heroes".

    • Eljay,
      I understand that you think ‘n’ should be3-4, but would 1 be legit?

    • Eljay,
      “secular and democratic Israel”

      I agree with you that I want to live in a secular democracy. However, this is not the only form of government that is legitimate. Many countries have constitutional monarchies, republics, or even technocratic rule. I leave it up to the people’s of each country to decide for themselves, although I agree that democracy and secularism hold significant benefits.

      “all people indigenous to and up to n-generations removed from Israel”
      Can we define ‘n’ =1 and indigenous = being those born in a place?

    • Marnie,
      "Because he lives in his hysterical homeland. Because he has no problem living in someone else’s home. "
      You appear to be confused and your reply incoherent.

      I live in America. I am American as were my parents and grandparents. I don't know of anyone else claiming the right to my house, except for the mortgage company.

      You may have me confused with someone else, but then again why bother to identify individuals when you can group everyone into categories of 'good' and 'evil'.

      As to your point about the Palestinians, of course I recognize their suffering and rights. I would like to see two independent states to fulfill the needs of both peoples.

      I also recognize that celebrating or conding the deliberate slaughter of civilians by any party is repugnant. Do you?

    • Annie,
      If the perpetrator admits to targeting civilians like Mugrahbi’s group that’s terrorism. Just like Goldstein or the Jewish attacks on Arabs during the civil war in the 30’s-40s.
      If a soldier kills civilians accidentally that is not terrorism. How do we know the intent? I’m not certain a bit in the first instances the perpetrators declared their intent. It’s a war crime to target civilians. It is not necessarily a crime if civilians die during a legitimate military attack.
      Personally I would be happiest if people would stop killing each other for any reason.

    • Annie,
      I read your link.
      "take away the lawyers and what do you have?"
      The laws of war assume that we will have conflicts and that some behaviors are regulated and allowed and others are not. The role of these lawyers seems to be to screen the behavior of the military to respect the law and advice where it will be crossed. If the lawyers never prohibit an operation or modify it, but only justify it, then they serve no purpose. But your link says the lawyers are there to delineate and expand the legal limits of military behavior.
      If the boys were identified and targeted then it is crminal and those responsible should be prosecuted.

    • Talk,
      "Can we agree that any violence against civilians, whether deliberate or taken into account is wrong? "
      Targeting civilians is illegal and a crime.
      "When military objectives are attacked, civilians and civilian objects must be spared from incidental or collateral damage to the maximum extent possible."
      https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law1_final.pdf

      "Can we also agree that long term occupation is wrong?"
      Yes. I want to see an end to the occupation. We disagree on the causes of the continued occupation. There was no occupation before June 1967 and there wasn't peace.

      "That expulsion and keeping rrefugees expelled is wrong? "

      UN 194. "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, ". I have not seen evidence of the peace wish.
      In addition, I think we define refugee differently.
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/palestinian-refugees-and-the-un/2012/05/14/gIQAgFW0OU_blog.html?utm_term=.e84cc82b6667

    • Amigo,
      "These attacks were deliberately carried out against “Arab ” Markets with the explicit goal of Killing (murdering ) Arabs.What part of “Thrown into an Arab Market ” do you not understand.Jewish terrorists drove by Arab Markets and threw bombs into the crowd and sped off .Google my last sentence and see for yourself."

      Attacks like these were terrorism. Violence against civilians for a political purpose.
      Same as Goldstein in Hebron.
      It is despicable that anyone can approve of what he did.

    • Annie,
      “i’m curious how you know Dalal asked Gail Rubin where they were on the beach.”

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalal_Mughrabi

      As to your other points, are you saying that there are no standards or laws regarding war? Are you saying that Israel does it so the Palestinians can also? I really don’t get the principle.

    • gamal,
      Sorry to capitalize your name. I didn't realize it was offensive.
      You really shouldn't sell yourself short. I think you are entitled to a full opinion even if I disagree with it.

    • Echi,
      "It is dangerous and that must be repeated ad nauseam, at every opportunity."
      There are many dangerous situations. This isn't skydiving. One person has decided to intentionally target and take the life of another. The victim is unarmed and defenseless. She didn't walk into the middle of a minefield. If I visit a friend in a dangerous neighborhood no one has the right to murder me. It's one of those "niceties" that most folks agree with.

    • Amigo,
      "Jon S , how do you expect to be taken seriously here when I provide you with a list of crimes committed by Jewish terrorists , your response is prefaced by!"
      Many of the attacks younlist simply give the ethnicity and the number killed. There is no detail. I have no idea if it was a firefight between two armed forces or a terrorist attack. I don't know how you could know either. But if they are attacks on civilians then they should be condemned.

    • Amigo,
      "When have I ever suggested that bombing civilian buses is acceptable."
      Excellent. I'm in agreement as well.
      But there are others here who don't feel the same.

    • Gamal,
      She shot and killed an unarmed photographer. The bus was filled with bus drivers and their families out for a day trip. They also attacked random civilians in cars. Which aspects of this are not terrorism? These were not military targets.
      "They then walked less than a mile up to the four-lane highway, opened fire at passing cars, and hijacked a white Mercedes taxi, killing its occupants.[6] Setting off down the highway toward Tel Aviv, they hijacked a chartered bus carrying Egged bus drivers and their families on a day outing, along the Coastal Highway. During the ride, the militants shot and threw grenades at passing cars, shot at the passengers and threw at least one body out of the bus. At one point they commandeered Bus 901, traveling from Tel Aviv to Haifa, and forced the passengers from the first bus to board it.[6]

      At one point, the bus stopped, and one of the perpetrators got out and fired directly into a passing car, killing a teenager, Omri Tel-Oren, and injuring his father Hanoch. Sharon Tel-Oren, Omri's mother, testified: "We were in our station wagon, driving along the coastal highway. We saw something odd ahead – a bus, but it seemed to be stopped. Then we saw someone lying on the road. There was shattered glass all over, children screaming. Then we heard the gunshots. Omri was asleep in the back seat. The bullet passed though the front seat and hit his head, killing him instantly. My husband was shot in the arm, and lost the movement in his fingers."[14][15]"

    • Amigo,
      I can’t find details in your reference, but if these attacks were against civilians than they were wrong. I don’t have a problem condemning attacks targeting civilians by Israelis. They are a violation of the laws of war. I believe that these apply not only to the Palestinians but the Israelis as well. I can’t justify the targeting of civilians and won’t.
      Can we agree that bombing a civilian bus is terrorism and wrong?

    • Mahmoud,
      This Mughrabi?
      “Landing at the beach, Mughrabi's group met American photographer Gail Rubin, who was taking nature photographs on the beach, and asked her where they were, after which they killed her.[13] Both surviving members of the group later confirmed that it was Mughrabi who killed Rubin,”
      “A total of 38 Israelis, including 13 children, were killed”
      She did not attack soldiers or settlers, she landed in Tel Aviv. She did not attack the Ministry, but did kill a taxi driver.
      That’s your hero?

    • Echi,
      "Well, John66, we know you have a problem with every kind of resistance..."
      That's incorrect.
      One area in which we differ is the limitation of legitimate resistance.
      For example, i do not believe that killing a wheelchair-bound retired American on cruise ship is legitimate. Or, bombing a civilian pizzeria. Or, hijacking a neutral parties airplane. Or, firing an anti-tank missle at a school bus carrying children. Or, stabbing a 13 year old boy in a candy store. Etc.
      I believe that resistance is not a limitless category.
      Although off topic, I think it's also illegal for an army medic to shoot a disarmed attacker and the medic should be sentenced to prison.

    • Amigo,
      That quote and the other reference were amongst those that confused me about the difference between martyrdom operations and martyrdom.

    • Amigo,
      "Palestinians could very well mean the same and why not "
      They could, that's why I asked the question.
      KS actually answered it.

    • KS,
      Thanks for the answer.

    • Jonathan,
      I don't speak Arabic, but there seems to be a difference between 'martyrdom' and 'martyrdom operations'.
      The term 'martyrdom operations is conventionally understood to mean suicide bombing.
      I have not seen the death of Mr. Thuraya referred to as an operation.

      "The term "martyrdom operation" refers to when the Mujahed (the one who fights for the cause of Allah) puts explosive materials in his car or encircles himself with, sneaks into the enemy land, then blows it up where he determines their harm, killing some of them and is killed as well."
      http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/62P52.htm

      "Martyrdom or self-sacrifice operations are those performed by one or more people, against enemies far outstripping them in numbers and equipment, with prior knowledge that the operations will almost inevitably lead to death.
      The form this usually takes nowadays is to wire up one's body, or a vehicle or suitcase with explosives, and then to enter amongst a conglomeration of the enemy, or in their vital facilities, and to detonate in an appropriate place there in order to cause the maximum losses in the enemy ranks, taking advantage of the element of surprise and penetration. Naturally, the enacter of the operation will usually be the first to die."
      https://www.religioscope.com/pdf/martyrdom.pdf

      Do you have examples in which The term 'martyrdom operations' is used when referring to someone killed NOT as part of a suicide bombing or other attack.

  • Why liberal Zionists have nothing to say about Ahed Tamimi's slap and arrest
    • Talkback,
      I said none of those things. As you say, "Source please.".
      Your hatred appears to be blinding you.
      Have a nice day.

    • Echi,
      Perhaps shorter next time.
      You could say something like, 'I don't have anything specific to cite which supports my opinion so I'm just gonna throw around the word '"Nazi" and hope that works.'

    • Echi,
      Other than your 'new math', do you have a reference for your "fair game" opinion?

    • Talk,
      "There are Palestinian local courts in the Westbank. So it’s a violation of the Geneva Conventions to:
      1.) try her at a military court..."
      That's not true.

      "Any breaches of the penal provisions promulgated by the occupying power for its security may be prosecuted by its own military courts.
      Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities against the occupying power may be prosecuted."
      https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

    • Echi,
      You are all about the ‘law’, except when it doesn’t support your opinion. Then you resort to ad hominem attacks. Once again no facts to back up your position, just name calling.
      Once again, you have no support to your opinion.

    • Echi,
      "So add it up: protected person + right to resist by all means available = anything against invading soldiery goes (and other personnel, too.)"

      That's incorrect.
      "After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, organized resistance movements and genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation. If they do so, they must distinguish themselves from the civilian population, or on the basis of GP I, at least carry their weapons openly during attacks and deployments.
      Civilians who take a direct part in such hostilities lose their protection against attack for the time of their direct participation, but not their civilian status. If they do not participate directly in hostilities or no longer do so (for example, if they are hors de combat), they are protected against attacks. "

      "Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities against the occupying power may be prosecuted."
      https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

      She is a civilian who may be prosecuted.

  • Writing about what should be done to girls in the dark is incitement to sexual assault -- Shany Littman to Ben Caspit
    • Annie,
      I was responding to Mist when you jumped in.
      Once again, my point in asking the question was to see if Mist had any reason for believing his assertion that the Israeli army was using rape as a tactic.

    • Annie,
      “Beginning in early 1948, rape and the threat of rape were used extensively by Zionist forces as a means of forcing Palestinians to flee from their lands and properties.”
      What evidence is there to support this statement? My point is that there is evidence of rape, which you contend has been covered up, but is apparently easily accessible in a number of history books. The rape seems to be a consequence of war, not a tactic as Mist claims. Same as other conflicts.

    • Talkback,
      It's bigotry to focus on the actions of one ethnic group in order to generalize about that group without understanding the incidence in other groups. Rape is a war crime. It is labeled such because it happens during wars. Israel is not unique in this respect. Israelis are humans and share the same defects as other humans. It's perfectly acceptable to condemn the Israeli forces for war crimes committed during the 48 war, but it is bigotry to pretend that this differs from other armies of the period or that it makes a statement about the moral compass of this military, but not about the others. So, you need a comparison or directive from the leadership to assert your claim that rape was a tactic of the army and not a consequence of war as is the case in other contemporary wars.

    • Annie,
      Yes.
      "After the fighting moved on to German soil, there was a good deal of rape by combat troops and those immediately following them. The incidence varied between unit and unit according to the attitude of the commanding officer. In some cases offenders were identified, tried by court martial, and punished. The army legal branch was reticent, but admitted that for brutal or perverted sexual offences against German women, some soldiers had been shot – particularly if they happened to be Negroes. Yet I know for a fact that many women were raped by white Americans. No action was taken against the culprits. In one sector a report went round that a certain very distinguished army commander made the wisecrack, 'Copulation without conversation does not constitute fraternisation.'[57]"
      "As in the eastern sector of the occupation, the number of rapes peaked in 1945, but a high rate of violence against the German and Austrian populations by the Americans lasted at least into the first half of 1946, with five cases of dead German women found in American barracks in May and June 1946 alone.[55]"
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
      Rape is a horrible war crime. America apparently didn't prosecute its white GIs either.
      That's not an excuse for acts of the Israelis, but it needs to be understood in comparison.

    • Mist,
      Rape is a war crime and should never be condoned and should always be prosecuted. But how do these stats compare to other modern armies? Is this higher than the US occupation or Germany?

  • Israeli lawmaker calls Palestinians visiting relatives in Israeli prison 'beasts' and 'human scum'
    • Talk,
      "Don’t you think that it is quite silly to expect an Israeli soldier to be treated according to a convention which the Junta does not even accept to be applicable ..."
      I don't. Israel has allowed the ICRC to coordinate visits between Palestinian prisoners and families for decades.
      There are now civilian Israelis apparently being held by Hamas who have no visitation rights or family communication. Hamas is also holding the body of two Israelis and two live civilians. As I have said before, I think the practice by both Israel and Hamas to hold bodies is despicable.

      "The enemy will not get information about the four without paying a clear price before and after the negotiations,” he added."
      https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-netanyahu-lying-to-israelis-about-talks-to-free-captives/

    • Annie,
      The question I posed concerned the status of IDF soldiers.
      Echi responded with "regular uniformed murderer, taken hostage by the civilian resistance in a war of aggression. Not a protected person". I may not agree, but it's a answer within the common terminology in this context.
      Talk responded with "Institutionalized settler terrorists.". So I can either presume he means something similar to Echi, that is not a recognized member of a military unit or I could ask for clarification.
      Since Echi's response is in variance with the recognized rules/laws of war, I didn't want to presume Talk's was as well.
      When we are speaking of the categorization of people in the context of the laws of war, they do havre to fall within one of the accepted categories in order to determine legality of treatment.
      By IHL, "All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel."https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule3
      I'm not trying to be annoying, but if I assume that Talk means that Shalit is not a POW that is different than if he does. Echi does not believe that he does, but I still don't know if Talk agreees with me (a POW) or Echi (a murderer).

    • Annie,
      "you ask his opinion, now you want to know if it’s defined as a category? strange."
      I asked for further clarification because he used a term that doesn't seem to be either standard or accepted in common usage. Using an original term makes it difficult to understand the laws which apply.

    • Talk,
      "Institutionalized settler terrorists."
      Do you have a reference for this category? I can't seem to find it defined as a category?

    • Talkback,
      Do have an opinion as to the status of IDF soldiers adjacent to the Gaza border?

    • echi,
      "did you properly inform yourself once in your life?"
      So, you have no actual backup for your opinions just name calling and vitriol. Just labeling something as Nazi isn't actually a reasoned response.
      At least you could begin with, 'IMHO, which no authority on Earth agrees with....'

    • John,
      Are you saying that your references in your response where you mention Shalit are actually references to the British Army? You did not mean it in reference to Israel and Hamas although the rest of your response was in reference to Israel and Hamas?

    • Echi,
      "Not a protected person"
      But he is a prisoner of war.
      "“Prisoners of war” are combatants who have fallen into the hands of the enemy, or specific non-combatants to whom the status of prisoner of war is granted by international humanitarian law.
      The following categories of persons are prisoners of war:

      members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict, including members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces (this includes members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or authority not recognized by the Detaining Power);"
      https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/prisoners-war

      "In international armed conflicts, belligerent parties also have to allow representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross and Protecting Powers access to all places where prisoners of war or protected persons may be. The names of the representatives appointed must be approved by the detaining power. "
      https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/access

      "did you properly inform yourself once in your life?"
      These are some of my sources. Do you have a source to support your view?

    • John
      "I did not say that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, nor that Israel is a democratic state."

      Than who are referring to when you said, "a democratic state’s actions should be singled out for praise because they happen to be a bit more humane than those of a terrorist organisation"

    • John,
      There is no excuse for the slurs, but I have seen Israelis called much worse on these discussion boards. I don't think that screaming insults at people is appropriate and condemn it.

      The bus was part of an ICRC program for families to visit prisoners. Israel allows these visits. Hamas does not. This MK was there protesting the Hamas policy.

      I am glad that we agree that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that Israel is a democratic state. So we do have some common ground.

    • How many family visits did the ICRC coordinate for Gilad Shalit?

  • Israeli journalist who called for unspeakable acts against Ahed Tamimi tries, and fails, to backpedal
  • Pop star 'Lorde' honors BDS call, cancels Tel Aviv concert
    • Kaisa,
      From the BDS website.
      "BDS does not target artists. It targets institutions based on their complicity in Israel’s violations of international law."
      Are you saying that BDS should target individual Israelis who are private citizens not sponsored by the Israeli government?

  • The New York Times tries to make the Ahed Tamimi story go away
    • Echi,
      I don’t view gay rights, women’s rights, workers rights, civil rights, or the environment as “vanity” issues.

      I think you are confusing Marxist with progressive.

    • Echi,
      You have me even more confused.
      So there are no issues that are progressive? Gay rights, income inequality, environmentalism. The progressives view these issues as problems which require solving. Conservatives don’t view them similarly. A progressive is not someone who takes a different approach to achieving gay rights, but rather is someone who views gay rights as the issue/goal. You seem to be reducing the definition of progressive to a set of tactics. Marriage equality in America was a progressive issue, conservatives don’t have an approach to solving it because they don’t view it as a legitimate goal.
      How would you define a progressive?

Showing comments 811 - 801
Page: