Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 17 (since 2009-08-22 23:09:26)

nathan stuckey

Nathan Stuckey is a volunteer for the International Solidarity Movement

Showing comments 17 - 1

  • Didn't they learn anything from Egypt?
    • I'm confused, you "will not sanction forced removal of 500,000 for really any prior wrong, especially if the prior wrong is NOT as clearly oppression as you presume, but mostly conflict." Yet you clearly sanction the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. Seems like a slight double standard.

  • The Meaning of Budrus
    • The biggest reason you don't see Hamas flags at the demonstrations is that the PA doesn't allow them. At least this what I was told by my friends in Bilin.

  • It's all spin: Not one of Goldstone's 37 factual assertions has been rebutted
    • In all seriousness, Witty, you should consider getting your own blog. I get the feeling that you are getting trapped in the medium, and as a result you aren't developing any new thoughts. I understand the appeal of just commenting on other blogs, I'm lazy too, but it occurs to me that one of the nice things about blogs is getting to watch the authors grapple with things intellectually and evolve through that effort. You spend god knows how many hours a day commenting on blogs, yet you never seem to have any intellectual growth.
      I used to think that I would read your blog if you had one, but I've come to realize that I would have to wait at least six months, until the discipline of producing something, resulted in some new thought. The discipline of thinking something through would probably be good for you (and probably for most of the rest of us, but most of us don't spend all day commenting on other blogs). Kind of like how writing a book makes you work through what you really think.
      You might even find people who agree with you, that would probably help with your martyr complex. It might even help you to think, hearing thoughts similar to yours come from another pen.

  • Huffpep
    • Sorry, the above should read, "the refugees should be allowed tourist visas to visit their former homes."

    • Witty, your bravery is an inspiration to us all. I would worry that people would think I was crazy if I posted so much disjointed self speak (or is it self talk, I can never remember the langauge you speak). Why, if those cowards like anarchists against the wall, the demonstrators in Bilin and Nilin, were only as brave as you. The number of people I have seen you convert to your way of thinking is nothing less than inspiring.

      And not just brave, a true humanitarian. To have advanced the belief that it is wrong for the ethnically cleansed refugees from Palestine to be allowed tourist visas to visit their former homes. Amazing. After all, they shouldn't live in their homes, because that would be unfair to them, they would be a minority in a democratic state.

      You truly are an inspiration for the masses.

  • English skinheads wave.... Israeli flag!!!!
    • I'll just take a wild guess, it was part of the divestment campaign? Did they compare Israel to South Africa? The horror...

  • 'LA Times' says Toronto has lit a 'prairie fire' against a 'pariah' state
    • I don't deny that Israel receives a lot of aid from the US, or that much of it semi hidden, I merely ask that you try to post things that are factually true. It doesn't do the anti-occupation/anti-zionist movement any good when people post things that aren't true. Whatever the true cost of Israel to the US might be, it is painfully obvious that it isn't 30,000$ per Jewish citizen of Israel annually.

    • I'm well aware that various estimates, using various methodologies can be made about how much Israel costs the US. This really doesn't change the fact that the original post was factually incorrect, and even worse, obviously incorrect. Try to take your opposition to the occupation or zionism or whatever seriously. The first step is understanding the facts.

      Even if Israel has cost the US 1 trillion dollars over the last 60 years, and one could certainly make that arguement, that doesn't come anywhere near 30,000 per Jewish citizen of Israel annually. Nor does a cost to the US logically equal a subsidy to Israel, some things are just costs. Isn't it enough that we have to deal with Witty's inability to speak standard english? I really can't keep up with New Speak (or Self Speak, or whatever Witty's new language is) and New Math at the same time.

    • I'll quote your own sources " Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since World War II (not counting the huge sums being spent in Iraq). The $3 billion or so per year that Israel receives from the U.S. amounts to about $500 per Israeli."

      If every Israeli Jew were to receive 30,000$ annually their total aid bill would be 180 billion dollars per year. 30,000 x 6,000,000 = 180 billion

      Do you really believe that Israel receives 180 billion a year?

    • Um, do the math. Even if Israel recieved 15 billion dollars a year, that would only be 2,500 for each Jewish citizen, or 2,000$ for each citizen if you include the non Jewish ones. I assume you are getting the 36,000 from the Traficant video? I assume he got the number by dividing 15 billion by the number of citizens in his district.

  • In the Washington Post, Carter speaks of the 'more likely' solution: one state
  • An arrest on the West Bank
    • I think you need to learn the definition of ancestor. The word you are looking for is descendant.

      Witty writes "It is an irrational and frankly illegal demand."

      What is irrational and illegal about demanding that refugees be allowed to return to their homes? Please explain. I can understand how you think that it is a demand that Israel is unlikely to agree to, but "irrational and illegal"?

      When I first posted that you were against the right of return you claimed that I was either a liar or misunderstood you. Do you still think that I misunderstand you? Was I lying? Given your positions on the issue I don't really understand at all why you would be against the seizure laws. On Tikun Olam you said that the right of return disappeared in 1968, I ask again, what changed?

      To be honest I now think that you were even more extreme than I thought. It wasn't until this past month that you were moved by some anecdotes (I'll try to leave out jokes about how you don't think anecdotes of Palestinians lives are useful) to consider allowing the refugees into their homeland even on tourist visas. That's cold, not only are you a refugee you must never even be allowed back to visit your cemetaries. And you complain about shunning?

      Witty, you claim to be of the left but I don't see any evidence of that. I have never seen you say anything even remotely leftist. But, even if you really are Mr.
      Leftist himself, I don't really care. I care about what you believe, and why. This blog is subtitled "the war of ideas", ideas are what people come here to discuss, not whether you still have your order of lenin prize or whether you were the secretary of your SDS chapter.

      If my friends stopped talking to me I would probably wonder if it was something I said or did. I have to give you credit, you don't suffer from any self doubt.

      Witty writes "The way that Palestinian refugees are treated where they are still actual refugees, is a crime perpetrated by the host countries, not Israel. For example, three generations of individuals born in Lebanon STILL do not have civil rights there."

      Something like "I might have stolen your house and land, but all the red cross gave you was a tent! The nerve of them..."

    • Sigh, Witty, could you just try to show the slightest amount of intellectual respect? You really don't understand what is meant by the right of return? You manage to write extremely lawyerly responses to questions that show a high level of understanding to the issue, and the extreme importance of exact wording in these discussions, and then you tell me that you don't know what the phrase means? If you would show some respect for the people you wish to argue with you would get a lot more respect in return. As my 4th grade teacher said, "to have a friend you have to be a friend."

      You write "After hearing of some Palestinians’ personal experience first hand of being prohibited from visiting their parents’ gravesites, families, former homes, I concluded that it would be much preferable if boundaries did not exclude relatively free movement for Palestinians to travel through Israel."

      It isn't about getting a tourist visa, you know that. It is about the ability to live in their homeland.

      You write "The world has changed since 1948. The right of return for ancestors of former Palestinian residents is not an easy question, nor is any expectation of return of property to former homes."

      Actually, that is an easy questions, most of the ancestors are dead, the question is what to do with the descendents of the former Palestinian residents. Humanitarian that you are, you feel that they should not be allowed to return to their homeland because you wish to spare them the pain of living as a minority (see Tikun Olam thread referenced earlier) in their homeland. Presumably this pain is far less when they live as a minority in someone elses homeland.

      As I, and many others have asked you to do over the last months/years, tell us what you believe. Tell us why. Show us some respect. I've read realistic dove, so I know that if you put your mind to it you can write english that isn't completely stunted and repititive. The internet should be paradise for a guy like you, you like to talk about what you believe, and people are interested in what you believe. Have you noticed that people ask you questions all the time? To make it work all you have to do is show some respect for the rest of us. It seems immensely sad that it never occurs to you that so many people have stopped talking to you (Phil and Richard Silverstein come to mind) because of the way you present yourself.

      That being said, it is unlikely that we will agree. Most people (I think) that post on this website are concerned with justice. You, not so much. That might be fine, we don't all have to be concerned with the same thing. I think that we all realize that justice is unlikely. It does, however, present a problem for you, you have to make a special effort to cross that barrier. You wish to convince us to accept something that most of us find morally repugnant. I don't envy you. It isn't easy, but if you're serious you have to make the effort.

    • Witty, we could have all saved a lot of time if you had told us up front that your talk of dialogue wasn't directed at us, you only really want to talk to Phil. You have to make yourself clearer.

    • Witty, I tried hard to engage you on what you believe beyond your endless repitative slogans. You can find it at
      link to

      where you wrote "July 11, 2009 at 2:56 AM
      I don’t believe that the right of return, now 60 years (3 generations) past 1948 is valid any longer. It would have been in 1968, but not now.
      The only conditions that I would consider a right of return to Israel perse would be in specific cases, where the overwhelming balance of title questions on specific land claims overarch the relative rights of current residency.
      I do believe that compensation for all title claims should occur, resulting from all expropriations.
      All nomadic peoples are in a difficult state, now that the world is very crowded. There isn’t much room for nomadicism in the modern world."

      I understand this as pretty much being against the right of return. Maybe I misunderstood, but I don't think so, you didn't change your answer any later in the discussion. If you believe what you said, I don't see how you could have a problem with the ILA, it holds the land until the title is perfected and compensation to the owners can be worked out. No problem in your world. I still leave you the question, what changed between 1953 and 1968?

      As I suggested on Tikkun Olam when I pressed you on what you actually believe, start a blog. Write a manifesto. Endlessly repeating the same five lines on 20 different blogs makes a real chore to learn what you believe. I certainly didn't know until this thread that you don't think that oppression is the main problem, indeed, it is only a conflict, where both sides have more or less equal responsiblity.

      I really don't get the feeling that people misunderstand you, it is more that we disagree. You prefer to believe that oppression isn't the problem, it is merely a conflict. I think that conflict is an outgrowth of the oppression. For all of your lectures about what you believe you make no effort to convince anybody that you are actually right. You don't really make arguements, you don't bring new facts to the debate, you just repeat yourself.

      And what in the world is a "dissenter"? A dissenter to what?

    • Witty, what is a "dissenter"? How do I know if I or my neighbors are one? Help a guy out...

    • Witty writes
      "Personally, I find the 1950’s laws that prohibited return, prohibited Palestinians assertion of land rights in the Israeli courts, and then expropriated to state title any land that had been “abandoned”, to be worse and more consequential. "

      Witty, I've tried hard to understand what it is you believe, you don't make it easy. On a different website you said that you believe that Palestinian refugees lost any right to return to their homes in 1968. I asked what so special about that year, no answer. Here you complain about laws that forbid their return. What changed in the intervening years? The end of martial law for Palestinian citizens of Israel?

      Here you complain about laws that passed control of abandoned properties to the ILA. Usually you talk about the "perfection of title" (I don't know what that means, and you refuse to explain it) and the compensation of previous owners. As I understand it the ILA holds all land until a compensation agreement is reached. Why would you oppose that? That is the reason that most land is Israel is administered by the ILA, because it was land seized from the areas previous inhabitants by laws passed by knesset of Israel.

Showing comments 17 - 1