Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 16 (since 2012-08-28 16:14:56)

Leopold Bloom

Showing comments 16 - 1
Page:

  • The mainstreaming of Palestinian genocide
    • If this is "genocide," wouldn't the most prudent course of action be for Palestinians to emigrate? If a Jewish prisoner in Auschwitz had a chance to escape, would you advise him to wait until conditions improved?

      Unless, of course, it isn't really "genocide" and you're only using that word for its emotional effect.

  • Scenes from Gaza on the last day of 2016
  • A Palestinian defends violent resistance to occupation
    • "Hasbara" defined as "any argument which presents Hamas as anything less than saints, while failing to equate the IDF with the Wehrmacht."

    • Fine, violent resistance is justifiable. And the escalated response it provokes is also justifiable. Look at how Assad is dealing with the violent resisters in Syria.

      When these people give up their dream of pushing the Jews into the sea, they might have a chance of gaining self-determination. After almost 70 years, clinging to the rhetoric of Israel's complete destruction and the death of every Jew in the world should be seen as counter-productive.

  • Gaza 2014 has clarified the international struggle
    • What ISIS is doing to the Yazidi is a preview of what they will do to Shiite, Jews, Christians, atheists, Buddhists, and anyone else they can get their hands on.

    • Because ISIS' goal is the complete obliteration of the Yazidis - killing every single one of them. Israel's goal is not to kill every Palestinian, so calling the current war in Gaza "genocide" would be inaccurate. The birth rate in Gaza is among the highest in the world, so if Israel's goal is "genocide" there, they're doing a terrible job.

    • The popular image of the "Satan" character was copied from the "horned god" of pre-Christian Europe. The early church cast this character as the "devil" in their efforts to discredit the indigenous religion they were trying to replace.

  • Judith Butler responds to attack: 'I affirm a Judaism that is not associated with state violence'
    • The Palestinians have not been subjected to the same treatment that Native Americans suffered, including total genocide of many tribes and near-total loss of cultural and linguistic continuity for most others. But it's pointless to argue over whether the Native Americans had it worse than the Palestinians, or the Australian Aborigines, or maybe your own ancestors in Ireland or Wales at the hands of the British. There is plenty of misery and oppression to go around, and none of it is justified.

      Reparations for Native Americans and Palestinians? Great! What about the Israeli Jews who are descended from people who purchased their land from the Ottoman Empire, or who have lived in the area since Roman times? And as far as the U.S., if "reparations" require you to relocate to another part of North America or Europe to make way for Native Americans who may want to re-inhabit the area where you live, without any Wasichu present, are you OK with that? It's very convenient for you that there is absolutely no chance of this ever happening. So by your standard, if the Israelis can just hang on for another 30 to 50 years, and do a more effective job, you will be just fine with the situation. You're the apologist for genocide, not me.

      My solution, by the way, is two states, like India and Pakistan. Jews will probably have to vacate all or part of the West Bank, as they did Gaza. I wouldn't expect many Israeli Arabs to relocate to the new country of Palestine, however. Jerusalem would have to be jointly administered, probably with UN involvement, as the place is important to many people outside of the area. In return, Israel gets guarantees of peace and full diplomatic recognition.

      The Israelis that want a "greater Israel" will have to abandon their dream, along with their counterparts who want to "push the Jews into the sea."

    • I'm not using the United States' genocide of Native Americans to justify Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. I'm using it as an example of the disgusting hypocrisy shown by many people on this thread.

    • Not now, but they were for many years. They do not have complete control over the areas surrounding the reservations, for example, they can prevent liquor stores from opening within reservation boundaries, but have no authority over stores in neighboring towns, despite the effect this has on the community.

      Also, Native Americans were subjected to systematic genocide on a level far beyond anything the Palestinians have experienced.

      The attitude of many posters here shows the typical "Israel is evil and the Palestinians are blameless." Also, I always hear "criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic," yet one of the first responses was to bring up a "pilpul package," whatever that is.

    • How would that look?
      Make future aid contingent on certain concessions? It worked with Egypt.
      Or do you have something else in mind?

    • So the idea is for the Palestinians to live anywhere they want in Israel, for the Israeli government to compensate them for past and present injustices, and for any Jewish Israelis to return to whatever country their most recent ancestors came from. If you're in favor of an equivalent scenario in the United States, at least you're being consistent. Otherwise, yes, you are being hypocritical. And by the way, I haven't been inside a synagogue for 20 years, and have never held a Talmud in my hands, let alone studied it. There's more of value in the writings of James Joyce than in the Bible, Qur'an, and every other "sacred" book combined.

    • Really? So the Cherokee who were forcibly removed to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears can return to Alabama? I suppose there's nothing stopping them (at least, not now, over 150 years after their removal), but they would have to purchase the land back from the people living there now. So the modern analogy would be for Israel to allow Palestinians to do the same. Kind of like reparations, only the money would be flowing in the opposite direction.

    • Got it - 1948 is in the memory of many living people, while Wounded Knee and the 400 years preceding happened far enough in the past to be irrelevant. Very convenient for you.

      I have no problem with reparations to Native Americans. I assume you're fine with your taxes being raised to pay for it. This is the first time I've heard the proposal that Israel pay off the Palestinians. If it would result in a permanent peaceful solution, it's worth considering.

    • You're being sarcastic, right? If not, I would recommend that you read Dee Brown's "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" for a refutation of your entire posting.

    • I am just curious if anyone commenting here is living in the United States on land that once belonged to Native Americans. If so, please indicate when you plan to relocate to your ancestors' country of origin, and if you do not plan to do so, please explain how your situation differs from that in Israel.

Showing comments 16 - 1
Page: