Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 8975 (since 2009-12-17 04:46:00)

Showing comments 7500 - 7401

  • It is time to recognize the US-Palestinian conflict
  • 'NY Times' trivializes UN abstention, reducing it to 'tense and tetchy' relationship between Obama and Netanyahu
    • Yes. That's usually done while the old PM is packing his socks, underpants, and the Present From Margate mug he kept his pens in.

    • Only to be expected from the absurdly long gap between the election and the inauguration.

      In Britain, if the PM's party loses the election, s/he concedes on election night. The moving van arrives at Number Ten the next morning. By mid-afternoon the new PM is having tea and bikkies at the Prime Ministerial desk. It is similarly brisk and brutal in Australia. (We don't even bother with elections to chuck out PMs.)

  • Breaking: UN Security Council passes historic resolution against settlements as two-state solution 'slips away'
    • "The knowledge to supply clean water was understood centuries ago, thanks to Anglo/European and mainly Christian engineers and scientists. "

      Pre-Christian Romans supplied plentiful clean water to their cities,for drinking, cooking, baths, laundry, industry, and to flush out the sewers. Ancient Chinese cities had pretty good water supplies as well.

    • If I ever attain Enlightenment, I'll let you know if it's worth it. No sign in the offing of even the preliminaries to Enlightenment, so you may have to wait quite a few lives.

    • Though dying is an even more common practice than dyimg. I've no enthusiasm for that, either.

    • "the discovery that we'll all die,"

      Not new. People have been claiming this for centuries, but no-one has proved it yet. Dyimg is, I admit, a trend, but I, for one, have no intention of following the fashion.

    • And a Merry Christmas to all!

      (Including, Yonah, if he isn't too offended by the compliment.)

  • Forced existence
    • "I am not sure on which planet you live, but NO RELIGION EVER has the right to set up its own State on someone else’s land. "

      I am not sure in which universe you saw me suggest that any religion has the right to set up a state, but it certainly isn't this one. My argument is that if (do you understand "if"?) Poles who happen to be Jews have a right to set up a state in Palestine, so do Syrians who happen to be Muslims or Christians. This does not imply that the states are religious.

    • ‘Until 1974 there was no any “Palestinian people”.’

      So what? They were people living in Palestine. They were denied their rights. They were driven out of their homes, and their farms and businesses were stolen. What does it matter whether or not they had a “Palestinian identity”? They were treated unjustly.

      “Only few inhabitants, Jews, Muslims and Christians, settled on that deserted region under the oppressive Ottoman administration. The great numbers of Arabs flooded into Western Palestine (as to all the Arab occupied lands all around the Middle East and North Africa. …only after the first Zionists immigration settled on the land.”

      It looks as though you have been reading Joan Peters.

      But let us pretend to believe that for a minute.

      (a) If it is true, it means that the main mass of Arab immigration occurred during the last years of Ottoman rule and the earlier years of British Mandate, and at the same time as, or even a bit before, the main mass of Zionist immigration. Why would not this give the Arabs at least the same right to live in the land as the Zionists had?

      (b) An argument commonly offered by Zionists (though you may not accept this argument ) is this:

      P. Since ancient times, there has always been a small number of native Palestinian Jews living in Palestine.
      C. Therefore, foreign Jews have a right to live in Palestine, and set up a state there.

      But this Zionist argument undermines Zionism, for it is also the case that

      P’. Since ancient times, there has always been a number of native Palestinian Muslims and Christians living in Palestine.

      So it seems we can conclude that

      C’. Foreign Muslims and Christians have just as much right to live in Palestine, and set up a state there, as foreign Jews do.

      How C is derived from P is a mystery, but, until that mystery is explained, we should either reject C or accept C’.

      So either foreign Jews had no right to Palestine, or the alleged foreign Arab immigrants had an equal right.

    • Cavafy wrote in Hebrew?

  • 15-year-old Ahed Tamimi denied visa by State Dept for US speaking tour
  • Hell just froze over: the New York Times runs an article saying Zionism is racist
    • "On your way " means "take a number and hang around in the waiting room while the bureaucrats have their tea break".

    • I'm not sure I understand the question, but, if I do, "pure dumb luck" might be the answer.

    • "So I can attend my own funeral? "

      Maybe. I think you are more likely to be on your way to your next life, but I don't know (even pre-Gettier) that. Take your chances, and don't try suing me, either.

    • So was I, with that line.

    • "Supported by a ton of empirical data, no doubt."

      Astonishingly little, actually. There is some data (which is better than most people think it is, but nowhere near as good as I would like) to support the idea that at least some people have had previous incarnations, but that does not imply "always existed".

      Knox's argument does not imply previous incarnations, though it does not exclude the possibility. Nor, he notes, does it offer any firm assurance of continued existence in the future. Knox does point out that, if you have managed to keep existing up to your present embodiment, this rather suggests that you are the sort of thing that can exist without it, and thus might continue to exist when your current body expires.

      But he offers no guarantee. So, if you do cease to exist, don't try suing him.

      Nor will it be easy to find empirical evidence against it. It seems, at first blush, to make no testable predictions, so it cannot count as a scientific hypothesis.

      If we could prove that consciousness, first person point of view, etc., are emergent phenomena from brain activity, and cease when that brain stops functioning, that would prove Knox wrong. But to say "such a proof will never be found" does not count as a testable prediction.

      And yet Knox's conclusion seems to be a meaningful claim about reality, which suggests that not all such claims are scientific hypotheses.

    • "When the self ceases to exist, you sort of lose your identity. "

      Parfit, among others, disagrees.

      "After that , well, you start to smell bad,"

      This could be poor personal hygiene, or it could be a result of being dead. Neither situation necessarily implies that the self has ceased to exist.

    • "modern philosophy and neuroscience both struggle to explain what consciousness is, in fact, we are at a dead end – is it real?"

      Not sure of the relevance of this to the freedom of speech question, but I am more certain of the existence of my own consciousness than I am of anything else.

      " Is me from yesterday the same as me from today? "

      I wrote a book about this. If, by "me", you mean "this stream of consciousness/first person point of view", then the answer is "yes, if you existed yesterday".

      Read it and see whether you agree.

      Actually, there is a damned good argument to the effect that you (in the same sense of "this stream of consciousness/first person point of view") have always existed, or, at least, if time had a beginning, existed from the beginning of time.

      John Knox. Jr. “Pre-existence, survival and sufficient reason”. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1995, V. 32, n. 2, p. 167-176.

      I find it totally convincing.

      And I am glad to see that you agree with me that freedom of speech should allow even unpleasant things to be said.

    • "In the final analysis, therefore, it does come down to content which can be empirically evaluated, not intent, which is much more difficult to ascertain."

      Content certainly is part of it. I have tried investing “cats like plain crisps” with as much anti-Semitic intent as I can manage, but it still isn't as vicious as I want it to be.

      The content will have to actually mention Jews or something obviously connected with Jews.

      But aside from that requirement, I am not certain how it can be empirically evaluated. It seems to me that a judgement of intent has to be made, even if we have a pattern "of behavior within which individual instances may be evaluated."

    • "You can denote something correctly and have antisemitic intent."

      Thank you. It is nice to see someone actually answer one of my questions. That is an interesting and useful point. The anti-Semitism lies not in the content of the claim, but in the intent of the person making the claim.

      (a) On that basis, we can say that making a true claim is morally permissible, but making it with anti-Semitic intent is not, since anti-Semitism is not morally permissible.

      (b) That seems to make the anti-Semitism independent of the content of the claim. If I make the claim "cats like plain crisps" with anti-Semitic intent, it becomes an anti-Semitic claim. But when MHughes makes the same claim, it isn't anti-Semitic because he has no anti-Semitic intent. And neither does his cat.

      (c) If we shift the focus to the hearer/reader of the claims, the question of whether or not to condemn anti-Semitic claims arises. As Keith points out, most of us do not know the intent of others, so we will find it difficult to judge. (This is not a problem for hophmi. Who knows what anti-Semitism lurks in the hearts of men? Hophmi knows, and he knows it lurks in all of us.)

      (d) Let us suppose that a true claim has been made with anti-Semitic intent. Let us further suppose that we have judged it correctly, and condemn it as morally wrong. Should that claim be forbidden, or allowed under principles of freedom of speech?

    • Hophmi, perhaps you can explain what anti-Semitism is. I thought it involved animus directed towards Jews, not towards their religion. Perhaps you could also tell us whether or not a claim can be both anti-Semitic and true.

      I also ask the mods to tell us whether the claim "Islam is silly and repugnant" counts as Islamophobic, and if it is permitted on MW.

    • Echinococcus,

      Americans allowed to exist as individuals? What a charming fantasy!

    • Mooser, I am not concerned with what Yoni actually said. I am interested in what any of us is allowed to say. This question starts with hophmi's condemnation of the claim, regardless of whether Yoni made it or not.

    • I take a fairly strong stance on freedom of speech, and I am unhappy about the current threats to it. The biggest threat is the enthusiasm governments have shown for proposals to ban "fake news". (Aside from the government-approved fake news, of course.) Less blatant, and perhaps less dangerous, is the whining about offence.

      I agree that lies that will harm a person should not be permitted. (Though this does not necessarily imply agreement with any existing set of libel laws.)

      I'm not sure I understand this fashionable concept of "hate speech", but if it is what I think it is, then I think it should be permitted.

      Incitement to violence is a tough one. If I stand on my soapbox and urge the crowd to lynch fat people (for sound aesthetic reasons) and the crowd then lynches some, it looks as though I bear some responsibility. But if the crowd responds with raspberries, and shows no inclination to improve the world, what harm have I done? To ban speech because it might lead to harm seems morally dubious, but so does allowing incitement. And if, from my soapbox, I urge the government to make war on San Marino (for sound geopolitical reasons) I am inciting to violence. Yet that sort of incitement is common in politics.

      One bit of censorship I do approve of, though. The ABC refused to broadcast an episode of Peppa Pig because, in that episode, Daddy Pig said, "Spiders can't hurt you."
      This is not a message we want promulgated in a country where spiders carry away small children to feed their young.

    • Mooser, the issue I am interested in is what we are allowed to say.

      When hophmi says a claim is anti-Semitic, he clearly intends to forbid us from making that claim, regardless of whether it is true or not.

      Are we allowed to say any religion is silly and repugnant? If not, why not? Are we only forbidden to say that of Judaism? If so, why the special treatment for Judaism?

      I'd love to see hophmi answer, but I won't hold my breath.

      "we all have a right to an opinion of our own religion, don’t we?"

      I'll forgo discussion of whether we have rights to hold opinions, and assume we do. If we have a right to hold an opinion of a religion, why not a right to hold an opinion of any religion, not just one's own?

      But in Yoni's case, it looks as though he has rejected Judaism, so it can hardly be his religion.

    • "It’s now apparently ok to refer to Judaism as “silly and repugnant”. That apparently is not antisemitic."

      Does it matter whether or not it is anti-Semitic?

      Surely the interesting question is whether or not Judaism is silly and repugnant.

      The same interesting question can be asked about Christianity, Pure Land Buddhism, Cao Dai, Subud, Happy Science, Islam, and any other religious movement.

      Is that question to be forbidden, or just the answer "Yes"?

    • "I think that there are nearly 200 or so states in the world, most of them nation-states ."

      If by "nation-state" you mean a state set up by and largely populated by what I call "n-nations", I'd like to see you list those so that we can see whether they are a majority or not. A large number of sub-Saharan African countries are not nation-states of that sort. Nor are Brazil, China, India, Canada, the USA, Australia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Malaysia, Belgium, or Switzerland.

      "Why is it ok for all those nations,"

      What do you mean by "OK"?

      "but not for the Jews to have a nation-state?"

      Under may interpretation of "OK", it is not OK because, in order to create this "Jewish nation-state", it is neccessary to either expel or subjugate the native inhabitants of the territory. And their rights to live in their territory, as equal citizens of any state that may be established there, are equal to any Jewish rights to live there, and outweigh any putative "Jewish national rights" when those putative rights infringe the rights of the natives.

      "And even if you say that the Jews are a religion and not a nationality"

      Jews are certainly not an n-nation.

      " there’s room, and justification "

      What justification?

      "for one (1!) small Jewish state, located in part of the Jewish historic homeland."

      How depressing. You have been reading MW for some years now, and you still fall back on this nation/homeland tripe.

    • But if you are old, sick, miserable, and living inauthenticiallly and in angst, it is still more convenient to suffer in riches than in poverty.

    • "Whatever a Goth was in the third-century kingdom of Cniva, the reality of a Goth in sixth century Spain was far different, in language, religion, political and social organization, even ancestry. "

      And a modern Goth is very different from a sixth century Goth.

    • Saleema, a former contributor to MW, summed up the Zionist mind-set as "we matter and you don't."

      I think that covers the important points.

    • The news about Hell is a disappointment. Up to now, when contemplating my future state, I have at least been able to assume that I would be warm.

  • David Friedman is out of step with American Jews and dangerous for Palestinian human rights
  • Israel threatens to toss Antony Loewenstein after he asked Lapid question about apartheid
  • Historical evidence does not support Zionist claims re the Western Wall
    • " the three abrahamic faiths"

      Four, at least.

      " the unique jewish connection to the city and its temple."

      Of course "unique" means "the only one of its kind*", but the fact that the Jewish connection is unique does other groups from having a unique connection. And the Christian connection is also unique. It is a different sort of connection from the Jewish connection. The Islamic connection is different again. (I don't know about the Baha'i connection, if there is one.)

      So uniqueness is not, in itself, sufficient to give Jews any special rights to Jerusalem.

      (* "Very unique" make about as much sense as "very twelve".)

    • The court jester was officially classsed as being insane. Thus, he was permitted to tell the king uncomfortable truths without being punished, especially if he presented it as a joke.

    • "Judaism and Jerusalem are linked beyond doubt."

      So are Christianity and Jerusalem. The Crucifixion and Resurrection are deemed to have taken place there.

      Islam has a link with Jerusalem, too.

      Most important, though, is the link with the worship of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

    • A mere 2 billion? Didn't you notice I recently boosted the numbers up to 87 quadrillion?

  • Israel's free ride on the F-35
    • "Israel will acquire two squadrons of the world’s most advanced aircraft for free "

      Australia and Britain will have to pay full whack for the bloody things. But we aren't the bestest ever ally. We only send troops, ships, planes, etc, in support of American wars.

      I would like to think this is actually a Cunning Plan on the part of the Americans.

      1. Give F35s to Israel.
      2. Israel sells the technology to China.
      3. China incorporates it into its own planes.
      4. Chinese Air Force rendered useless.

      Yes, that's what I'd like to think.

  • Adelson and Saban were kingmakers, now they're beggars
  • Stephen Cohen calls out liberal media for demonizing Russia, slurring Tillerson and stigmatizing all dissent
    • "By giving them a tremendous tax cut."

      You'd think they'd be happy to see him, wouldn't you? Instead, they are running around desperately throwing everything they've got into the "stop Trump" project.

      Part of this panic comes from the fact that they have had two major defeats in a row. First the election, then Aleppo.

      "But just be aware, that once Trump becomes President..."

      That's "if Trump becomes President". Cup has not yet reached lip.

    • Mooser, I hope that you are right, and Trump does become President.

      I have to say that all these attempts to block him are so spectacularly crazy that they convince me that the elite see Trump as a major threat to their plans and position. And I hope the elite are right, too.

    • "The chances of Trump not starting a war with someone imo are 0%."

      Well, he is an American.

      But it probably won't be nuclear war with Russia, and, since Russia and China have strong economic ties, he might hold off from war with China as well. We can hope for that much mercy, at least.

    • I don't know who Keith Olbermann is. (Don't forget that a big name in the US can be a complete unknown out here in the real world.)

      But it certainly looks as though every stop is being pulled out in an attempt to somehow deny Trump the presidency.

    • "Stephen Cohen calls out liberal media for ... slurring Tillerson"

      They slur a lot of words. Clear enunciation is no longer required for media persons, it seems.

    • "you can lump all liberals in the msm in one basket."

      In the light of recent performance, probably a good thing to do.

  • Israel plunders West Bank tourism economy as part of 'creeping annexation' of Palestine
    • "If COGAT really wanted to change that impression, and help the Palestinian economy, it would encourage tourists to stay in Palestinian cities such as Hebron, Nablus, Ramallah and Jericho. And meet actual Palestinians."

      Heavens, no. The tourists might decide that Palestinians are marginally less repulsive than Israeli Jews.

  • Theresa May adopts a definition of anti-Semitism that demonizes Israel's critics
    • People used to be interested in the truth of such claims, but those particular issues were argued out before the practice of using "racist/sexist/" accusations to enforce silence on dissenters became the norm.

    • "Zionists have , from the very beginning, thought that Zionism is an excuse for antisemitism. "

      And vice versa.

    • “So the idea of standing in opposition when you can just adjust the relationship may not seem necessary. ”

      Maybe not. And, for all I know, it might be the case that the world’s 14 trillion Jews silently repudiate Israel and all its works. But while the “official ” Jewish organisations and Jewish leaders (whom, I know, you honour and revere) continue making so much noise, the impression still stands that Jews in general give Israel wholehearted support.

      I know that there are groups like JVP which occasionally wag an admonitory finger at Israel, but I only know this from reading MW. They make no impression on the wider world. Even when Israel is slaughtering Gazans, such groups get no mention in international media. I have never seen them or heard their name on British or Australian TV news. (Currently telling us that Assad and the Russians are war criminals for taking Aleppo.)

      So until the 87 quadrillion stop being silent and make their position clear, the negative attitudes will persist.

    • "What specific “evil” of “Zionism” (a term people understand in many different ways) are you saying the “vast majority of Jews” support? And, most importantly, what evidence to you have to substantiate that claim?"

      I'm not saying that they do support Zionism and all its evils.

      I'm saying that's the way it seems.

      And I get that impression from the way that "official" Jewish groups leap to the defence of Israel every time some criticism is made, from the Israeli flags that decorate synagogues, from the actions and attitudes of the likes of Sheldon Adelson and Johnathan Sacks. To the outside observer, Jewish based criticism of Israel is almost invisible.

      Now I know that lots of non-Jews also have favourable attitudes to Israel, but their position is mostly passive. They are not the ones we see (e.g.) attacking a cartoonist for an accurate cartoon.

      Nonetheless, their approval is a reason for negative attitudes towards them, as well.

    • "I’m saying you can’t hate Jews for the actions of the Israeli govt or Catholics for the action of the Church. "

      Jon, I'm neither Catholic nor Jewish, so I look on as an outsider.

      It seems to me that the vast majority of Catholics are horrified by the paedophile priests, and want the Church to prosecute rather than protect. This means that the Catholics do not support the evil, and so do not attract obloquy for that support.

      But it also seems to me that the vast majority of Jews do support the evil of Zionism. This might not be a sufficient reason to hate them, but it certainly is a reason for negative attitudes.

      You may not like this idea. The moderators may not like this idea. But until we see large numbers of major, "official", Jewish organizations speaking out against Zionism, those negative attitudes will persist.

    • "isn’t the hatred of all Jews for the actions of Zionism anti-semitism or bigotry or whatever. ... I think it’s better to condemn the hate."

      I think it's better to stop faffing about "hate" and concentrate on stopping the evil actions of the Zionists.

    • "If the accusation is falsely made, that’s anti-Semitic. If it isn’t falsely made, it’s not anti-Semitic."

      Hold on, there, eljay. Think of all the times you have heard or read the protest "That statement is anti-Semitic/racist/sexist/anti-Kiwi/Islamophobic/[fill in the blank]!"

      Have any of the protesters ever shown any interest in the truth of the statement, let alone acknowledge that truth could be a defence?

    • 'prohibitions that are so vague that they could be, and have been, “construed to silence any criticism of Israeli policies.”'

      Gee, I wonder why they were written so vaguely?

      'the IHRA definition....
      – Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination'

      I don't even have to wait for the US extradition request. I'll be picked up next time I get off the plane at Heathrow.

  • Barghouti warns Trump that moving embassy to Jerusalem would be shocking violation of int'l law
    • "It is all too easy to stand on principles when you are sitting in an arm chair."

      Standing while sitting isn't that easy. I've just tried it, but I don't have the necessary athletic skills.

  • Israel lobby resorting to censorship and blacklisting as it loses control of mainstream discourse
  • Israel advocates worry Trump's pick for State has anti-Israel bias
  • Unsettle Zionism, champion humanity
  • Jewish brawl on CNN signals breakup of the pro-Israel monolith in the Trump era
    • "Judith Butler says ..."

      Exactly. I have to agree with her because I've said the same thing, often, right here on MW. And I generalise to all ideologically based charges, including "racist", "not in line with Party doctrine", "Marxist", and (most damning of all) "unfashionable".

    • Say goodbye to your kneecaps.

  • 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' -- Really?
    • "First nature and the cosmos were desacralised and almost entirely extirpated from the religion."

      Bigotry and discrimination!

      In Australia we all know that nature hates us and wants to kill us, but that is no reason for desacralisation. And excluding the cosmos from your religion is downright foolhardy! The cosmos might reciprocate by excluding you and your religion from it. Then where would you be?

    • I'm anti-nearly everyone, remember?

      I've even been known to make snide remarks about Canadians.

    • "Judaism can be a very nice religion (if you keep it under control"

      I think this applies to a lot of religions. It's the keeping under control bit that is tricky.

    • Another reason to hate the Aztecs.

    • I wouldn't want to belittle them. The nasty things are already too small.

    • But they are not good exemplars of morality.

    • It's an - um - interesting interpretation of "skilful means".

    • "Lot was the ancestor of the Moabites, a thoroughly misbegotten bunch. "

      I'm shocked to see such a bigoted and racist generalisation on this site!

      MW should not allow such anti-Moabism to be published.

    • First you have to find and tame the ox. Then you can ride on it, playing your flute. Eventually you forget the ox, and yourself, return to the source, and go into the village with helping hands.

      Perhaps you will be able to help the guy complaining about his cow. Or maybe help the cow to attain Enlightenment.

    • I've already covered Lot.

      "insulting Judaism, Jewish characters, Jesus"

      I'm simply presenting them as they are in the Scriptures. Take your complaint to the authors of those Scriptures. And don't forget that these people are revered by Christians, Muslims, and Baha'is as well as by Jews.

    • Hmmmn. Noise? Toys? Ploys?

      Nope, can't think of anything that would fit the context.

    • "If it were not for Jews, there would be no concept of human dignity, of meaning and purpose, of the right of every person to education and knowledge, of social justice and of the value of world peace."

      Thank Heaven for the Jews. Without their instruction, Master Kong, Master Meng, the Buddha, and the great Stoic masters would have only spent their time hitting each other over the head with large, comically vulgar, sausages.

      " These (along with psychology, relativity, quantum physics, anthropology, Hollywood and superheroes) are among our many vital contributions to the world.”

      And cherry tomatoes. Don't forget the cherry tomatoes.

    • "the three greatest people that ever lived, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob "

      Abraham was a contemptible coward. He pimped out his wife from fear, abandoned one of his children (and the child's mother) because his wife told him to, and was prepared to kill another because a sky dictator told him to. He failed his duties as a husband and a father.

      Isaac also pretended his wife was his sister.

      Jacob tricked his blind old father by pretending to be Esau.

      It takes a fair amount of moral blindness to see these three as "the greatest".

  • Why a Texas rabbi keeps losing a debate over Israel with a white nationalist leader
    • You are an anti-Semite, Smithson. You are suggesting that the merely imagined specialness of those groups is similar to the super-specialness of the Jews. Which is, of course, very special and very real indeed.

    • "I don’t think studying other people’s religions is at all necessary for loving other cultures, or practicing tolerance."

      Can be counter-productive. I have found that the more you learn about other people, the more you realise that they are as bad as you are.

  • 'NYT' bias amazes: long article about online incitement in Israel/Palestine only blames Palestinians
    • Pabelmont, don't you remember that, in the nineteenth century, hordes of Palestinian Arabs left Palestine, moved to Europe, and descended on the Jews of Poland, Ukraine, etc., and began destroying their houses and seizing their farms and businesses?

  • I hereby chuck my right to Jewish national self-determination
    • For those who are not familiar with it, this is a reference to the koan:

      A monk asked Zhàozhōu, "Does a dog have Buddha nature or not?"
      Zhaozhou said, "Wú".

      (In full:








      The answer "無" is pronounced "Wu" in modern Chinese, and "Mu" in modern Japanese. However, I am given to understand that in Zhàozhōu's time, it was pronounced more like "mew". When a dog attains Enlightenment, it becomes a cat.

    • It's a famous koan from the Huwenhao collection.

      A monk asked, "Does a cow have Buddha Nature?"

      Loha replied, "Moo."

      Contemplate that while we wait for the devastating arguments for the right of nations to self-determination.

    • I'm glad you have no mallets, Mooser. They're just not cricket.

    • Perhaps not now, but once I've spent a few years asking "Does a cow have Buddha nature?" and attained Enlightenment, I'll look very Buddhist indeed.

      First, though, I need to have my ego crushed by those Zionist arguments about nations. I'm sure the arguments will be presented soon.

      Any minute now, actually.

    • Yonah, do I read you aright? You seem to be saying "Don't blame the Zionists. The poor dears couldn't help it. The Dictates of History made them do it."

      Who else can use that excuse?

    • Eljay, echinococcus, do you mind?

      The Zionists are busy putting together a set of arguments that wil completely destroy my position on self-determination. With all the commas in the right places.

      I will be totally crushed and humiliated. I will have to retire to a Buddhist monastery and seek Enlightenment.

      And I don't want to miss this because of your everlasting Punch and Judy show getting in the way.

      So, for the sake of my future Buddhahood, give it a rest, guys. Please.

    • "when giving the “Jewish component of their identity the possibility of more complete realization,” consists of destroying the Palestinians and stealing their stuff, not every Jew will find that as self-actualizing as you do."

      Can you be sure of that, Mooser? Maybe you should try it, first. Sure, you think it's a bit repugnant, now, but if you loosen up, get a few drinks inside you, who knows? Aren't you just a little curious about what it's like?

    • " the right of nations to self-determination."

      You and your Zionist ilk keep claiming this right, but I never see you give any arguments for it.

      You never provide a moral argument for the right as a moral right. You never discuss any possible moral limitations on the right.

      You claim it is a right in international law. Can you tell us:

      (a) Where the right of nations to self determination (where self determination includes the right to set up a state) is documented in law?
      (b) What the definition of "nation" is in that law?
      (c) How "the Jews" fit that definition?
      (d) Whether the right is an absolute or limited right?
      (e) If limited, what legal limitations apply?

      Of course, even if it is an absolute right in law, that does not mean it is morally permissible. (I might have an absolute legal right to throw the elderly widow out of the house, but exercising my right may be totally immoral.)

      "It is this right the Palestinians (and Roha) must recognize if they want to get beyond the current stalemate. "

      Flattering to see that my recognition is also required. I didn't realise I was so powerful.

      But the obligation is not on the Palestinians to recognise this imagined right, but on the Israeli Jews to develop a sense of morality, and recognize that they have find a way to realise "the Jewish component of their identity" that does not infringe the rights of the Palestinians.

    • "this renunciation somehow bolsters the “rights” of Israelis and settlers."

      I don't think he got that bit from me.

    • It looks as though Mr Cohen has been reading and memorising my comments. I am glad he has learned from them.

      But he can't renounce his right to Jewish national self-determination. There is no such right to renounce.

  • Washington Post promotes shady website attempting to smear independent journalism as Russian propaganda
  • ADL's Greenblatt is the one who needs to express 'contrition' for accusation of Keith Ellison
    • "“Yonah” is not a fan of the English language."

      I've noticed. But the apology was a touch of grace that deserved acknowledgement.

    • On behalf of the English language, apology accepted.

      And, yes, it was you who inferred it. Ellison may or may not have implied it.

Showing comments 7500 - 7401