Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 874 (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 874 - 801
Page:

  • US Jewish leader expresses compassion for refugees at US border-- and contempt for Palestinian refugees
    • Hughes,
      We have no idea what the Palestinians in the Arab countries would like to do. The host countries have not offered them options. We don't know if they would rather return or resettle.
      It is not hypocrisy, but rather consistent to assert that receiving countries offer fair treatment and normality to those seeking refuge. Rather, the hypocrisy is demanding that the US treat it's refugees in a manner that you do not demand of Lebanon, Syria, etc.

      If the US kept refugees in camps for decades in order to preserve their right of return the progressives would be howling.

  • Palestinian official links US withdrawal from UN human rights body with US taking 'crying babies from their parents’
    • Eljay,
      Should refugees be offered he choice to become citizens?

    • Eljay,
      I don't think conflate means what you think it does.
      Conflate-"​to combine two or more separate things, especially pieces of text, to form a whole"

      Asylum seekers and refugees are not two distinct groups.
      A refugee is simply a verified asylum seeker.

      When I speak of verified asylum seekers, it is the same as refugees.
      It is a transition from one to other if criteria are met.
      "An asylum seeker is an individual who is seeking international protection. In countries with individualised procedures, an asylum seeker is someone whose claim has not yet been finally decided on by the country in which he or she has submitted it. Not every asylum seeker will ultimately be recognised as a refugee, but every refugee is initially an asylum seeker."
      https://www.amnesty.org.au/refugee-and-an-asylum-seeker-difference/

      So, as I said, if these asylum seekers are legitimate, and therefore refugees, they should be integrated into the US. It doesn't matter what Mexico or other countries do. It doesn't matter if some other country won't take them back. If they are refugees we should integrate them.

    • Marnie,
      Perhaps you misinterpreted my comment, I said "I think we should embrace these folks, integrate them into American society, provide them citizenship, give them the ability to work, and not insist that they return to their original villages.
      Those who are genuine asylum seekers should be treated as such."

      If that's unclear, I simply mean that the United States should grant asylum and all privileges and rights of citizenship to bonafide asylum refugees. I also happen to believe that Israel should grant the same to the bonafide Sudanese asylum seekers. What I don't understand is why so many here do not believe that Syria or Lebanon should offer the same to the Palestinians.

      Can you explain to me why Lebanon keeps its refugees in such conditions?

    • Eljay,
      No, and neither do I think we should arm those from Mexico or Guatemala. I'm not sure why we would do so? It didn't work out well for us when we armed the Cubans despite giving them citizenship.

      I think we should embrace these folks, integrate them into American society, provide them citizenship, give them the ability to work, and not insist that they return to their original villages.
      Those who are genuine asylum seekers should be treated as such.

      What's your opinion?

    • Eljay,
      I don’t think I mentioned Israel in my post.
      However, I do agree with you that Israel is no more or less legitimate than say Mexico or Guatemala.

    • I agree that separating these families is unconscionable.

      Perhaps we should admit them, segregate them into refugee camps for generations, deny them citizenship, prohibit them from working, allow them to organize themselves into armed movements, and encourage them to attack Mexico, Guatemala etc in order to regain their rights. Anything less would be enabling a victory of the 'illegitimate' regimes they are fleeing. We must preserve their right to return.

  • 'Let them eat candy' – Israel’s ideological war against incendiary kites from Gaza
    • Talkback,
      I didn’t use the word “terrorist”.
      To clarify, if a person who is dressed indistinguishable from a civilian who is not carrying arms openly then engages in an attack on an enemy soldier- that person has performed a criminal act, not ‘resistance’?

    • Talkback,
      "Someone who resists occupation is not a terrorist whether he is wearing a uniform or not. And his not “unlawful” if he has a right to resort to violence which he has if he is under occupation."
      Incorrect.
      A civilian who does not qualify as a legal combatant may be prosecuted for the simple act of participating in hostilities. Soldiers may not. Civilians may not be attacked when not participating in hostilities. However, there is no immunity for a civilian partaking in hostilities.

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

    • Echi,
      "b. the civilian population settled by the occupier in the occupied areas"

      Incorrect
      "Various Palestinian organizations offer different arguments in an attempt to justify the targeting of Israeli civilians, including that “all is fair” in the fight against the occupation, or that the illegality of the settlements justifies targeting settlers.

      These arguments are baseless and untenable. Attacks that target civilians subvert every human, moral and legal norm. There is no justification for the wilful killing of civilians, nor can there be. That is why international humanitarian law defines such attacks as grave breaches that constitute war crimes and cannot be justified, whatever the circumstances."
      https://www.btselem.org/israeli_civilians
      "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories are unlawful under the provisions of international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of civilians from the occupying power’s territory into the occupied territory (Article 49 (6)). However, the unlawful status of Israeli settlements does not affect the civilian status of settlers. Settlers, like any other civilians, cannot be targeted and only lose their protection from attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities (Article 51 (3) Protocol 1). Similarly, Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza are civilians benefiting from the protection of the Fourth Geneva Convention unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities. [...]"
      https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/amnesty-international-breach-principle-distinction

      "Now occupation personnel are illegally there, so they have no right at all to do anything to the occupied, anything at all."
      Incorrect.
      "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. "
      "Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing infor- mation or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack. They may, however, be in contravention of security laws passed by the occupying power. In that case, they can be tried and sentenced or their freedom of movement restricted."
      https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

      Anything that supports your position other your opinion?

    • Talkback,
      "Someone who resists an occupation doesn’t attack. The occupier is the aggressor. "
      There is no such category in IHL. There are those who participate in hostilities and those who don't.
      Qualified combatants who participate in hostilities gain certain rights such as immunity from prosecution and release when hostilities end.
      Civilians who participate in hostilities but who do not meet qualifications of combatant status may be treated as criminals and prosecuted for acts that could be prosecuted if they were soldiers. In addition, these criminals may be held beyond hostilities. Being a civilian who participates in hostilities does not mean that you cannot be arrested or shot.

    • Talkback,

      Lawful combatants must be treated as soldiers. Civilians as civilians. Civilians who participate in hostilities who do not meet the criteria of lawful combatant are not afforded the protections of soldiers and are therefore subject to criminal laws. A soldier who kills another soldier cannot be prosecuted for murder. However, a civilian who kills a soldier but does not meet the criteria of lawful combatant may be tried for murder. There is no distinction in IHL of resistance.

      "at the heart of ihl lies the principle of distinction between the armed forces, who conduct the hostilities on behalf of the parties to an armed con ict, and civilians, who are presumed not to directly participate in hostilities and must be protected against the dangers arising from military operations. "
      https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf

      "Not only do civilians who participate directly in hostilities become legitimate targets,11 they may also be prosecuted under national laws on the basis that they are not combatants who are entitled to so participate.12"
      https://www.icrc.org/en/download/file/20820/irrc-872-3.pdf

      "In situations of international armed conflict, individuals not belonging to a party to the conflict who act on a merely spontaneous, sporadic and unorganized basis – unlike organized resistance fighters who take up arms in a situation of occupation – lose their protection as civilians. "
      https://www.icrc.org/en/international-review/article/editorial-direct-participation-hostilities

      "ihl provides an express “right” to directly participate in hostilities only for members of the armed forces of parties to international armed conflicts and participants in a levée en masse.223 this right does not imply an entitlement to carry out acts prohibited under ihl, but merely provides combatants with immunity from domestic prosecution for acts which, although in accordance with ihl, may constitute crimes under the national criminal law of the parties to the con ict (the so-called combatant privilege).224 e absence in ihl of an express right for civilians to directly participate in hostilities does not necessarily imply an international prohibition of such participation. indeed, as such, civilian direct participation in hostilities is neither prohibited by ihl225 nor criminalized under the statutes of any prior or current international criminal tribunal or court.226 however, because civilians – including those entitled to prisoner of war status under article 4 [4] and [5] Gc iii – are not entitled to the combatant privilege, they do not enjoy immunity from domestic prosecution for lawful acts of war, that is, for having directly participated in hostilities while respecting ihl.227 consequently, civilians who have directly participated in hostilities and members of organized armed groups belonging to a non-state party to a conflict228 may be prosecuted and punished to the extent that their activities, their membership, or the harm caused by them is penalized under national law (as treason, arson, murder, etc.).229"
      https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf

  • Imagine the KKK doing a biopic of MLK and you get... 'Fauda'
    • Echi,
      You let your hatred blind you. It was Marnie who brought up MLK and stated that it would be BS to call him a Zionist. I am simply setting the record straight.

    • Marnie,
      We have been through this before too many times to count here.
      MLK was most certainly a Zionist.
      From an interview a few days before his death.
      "Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous ex ample of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality."

  • 'Disappearing Palestine' maps must spotlight Jaffa
    • The first map legend says, "Jewish settlements, Palestinian land". So the map purports to show ownership of the land. The Jewish ownership shown is only that of private or private agencies, the Palestinian land is private and PUBLIC lands. The portion of the land then owned by the state was shared by all citizens.

      The second map addresses a proposed UN partition. The legend is "Israeli land and Palestinian land". This map does not show ownership, but rather sovereignty.

      The third map has the same legend, but labels the green area Palestine. I assume it again is trying to show sovereignty, but the lands in green at this time were not ruled by Palestine, but rather Jordan and Egypt.

      The fourth map again changes the legend. This time it says, "Israeli and occupied land". So now the map purports to show neither ownership, nor sovereignty, but rather control.

      The four maps use the same colors to show three different (and possibly 4) aspects of the situation. Using the same color scheme to depict different attributes in adjacent maps is misleading.

  • Portman and Perlman, and the liberal Zionist awakening
  • Debunking 18 claims justifying this week's Gaza massacre
    • Annie,
      The question is ridiculous. Of course I am much happier now that the suicide bombings have stopped. As I have said before, I don't want bloodshed of anyone.
      You continue to seem to miss my point so I'll try one more time.
      1. The author says that no Palestinian parent would put their child in harms way if they could avoid it.
      2. I present evidence that some parents did just that.
      3. I don't think this necessarily reflects upon Palestinian society as a whole.

      Once again, I don't want suicide bombings anymore than you want dead 8 month olds in Gaza.

    • Annie,
      “if palestinian teens started blowing themselves up again, would that make your job, as a propagandist for israel, better or worse? ”
      It’s a bogus question.

    • Hughes,
      As always a thoughtful reply. Disruptions by themselves are neither positive or negative. Although peace is far off, I don't see a reason why all Israeli citizens can't live equally in a Zionist state along side a Palestinian state (details to follow).

    • Annie,
      The original article claims, "am not sure how I can explain that no sane human being feels at ease endangering their kids, no matter what outcome they are expecting. No one can do this. None. "

      I am not providing examples to justify Israeli actions, but rather to demonstrate that not only do some human beings justify endangering their children, but some actually sacrifice them knowing that they will not return.

      You can't claim that something is purely a myth if it actually occurs. The suicide bombings were a well documented example of the behavior.

    • Cigar,
      I post because I hope some day that folks of differing thoughts can find common ground. That people can realize that those we disagree with are not necessarily our enemy. That we can hopefully find a place where all can live in peace and not demonize the other.

    • Annie,
      "zionists are the same as it pertains to believing in a jewish state at the expense of palestinians"
      That's just incorrect.

    • Eljay,
      "in as much as possible of Palestine, "
      Last time we had this discipussion you couldn't define this phrase for me. Since you are using it again, can you tell me what it means?

    • Echi,
      "All Zionists of course are all Zionists!"
      But are they all the same?
      Are all Christians the same? Or all capitalists, socialists, etc?
      I know you want to put people into easy to categorize groups, but people just are not that simple.

    • Donald,
      I'm simply responding to the article's assertions. I don't disagree that this is not the discussion we need to have, but if you write an article saying A, you should be prepared to defend the assertion of examples of not-A.

    • Echi,
      "Oh, and what about the 8-month-old girl just suffocated day before yesterday in her sleep by Azraeli gas? Not in harm’s way. eh?"

      Do you mean the 8 month old who was being watched by a 12 year old who then put the baby, who had a heart condition, on a bus to the riot?

      Certainly a tragedy, but quite an error in judgement.

      "Layla was dozing at their home in Gaza City when a call went up: A bus was waiting, outside a nearby mosque, to take residents to the border fence, where the protest was raging. Her 12-year-old uncle, Ammar, bundled her up in his arms and carried her out the door."
      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/world/middleeast/layla-ghandour-gaza.html

    • Donald,
      Please reread my post. I do not believe that I have drawn any broad conclusions based upon anecdotes. I do believe that the statement that no parent would put their kids in intentional harms way is patently false.
      However, I would appreciate your thoughts on the many posts here which take the actions of a handful of Israelis and then assume that all Israelis or Zionists are the same.

    • Annie,
      How about Human Rights Watch.
      "Most Palestinian armed groups claim to disavow the use of children in military activities, but at least 10 children have carried out suicide attacks in Israel and the Occupied Territories since October 2000."
      http://pantheon.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2004/11/02/isrlpa9591.htm
      My point is not that Palestinians don't love or care their children. Obviously most do like most parents around the world. But I don't think it's out of line to raise the question of why children are being allowed/encouraged to be in the midst of a riot.

    • Tiger. Hungry. Out of its cage.
      Presumably searching for a veggie burger?
      "Once they detect prey, they lurk silently at a considerable distance, camouflaging themselves with the tall grass. Then they surprise their victims attacking from behind or from the side giving them a powerful bite on the neck that breaks the vertebrae causing death by strangulation or by the rupture of the spinal cord."
      https://www.tigers-world.com/tiger-feeding/

    • Claim 5: Palestinians hate Israelis more than they love their kids.
      "I am not sure how I can explain that no sane human being feels at ease endangering their kids, no matter what outcome they are expecting."
      "According to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, in the al-Aqsa Intifada, children were used as "messengers and couriers, and in some cases as fighters and suicide bombers in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians" during the al-Aqsa Intifada. Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine have all been implicated in involving children in this way. "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli–Palestinian_conflict

    • 1."They are not animals, neither are they cannibals! Palestinians are the not encaged blood-thirsty animals that will prey the first thing they witness once they are out. "

      Somebody should tell that to Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza. He thinks they are animals ready to kill.
      ""I told Mladenov: there is a hungry tiger blockaded for 11 years. Now this tiger is out of its cage. No one knows where that tiger is heading," Sinwar said."
      https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2018/05/10/610062464/hamas-leader-implies-hundreds-of-thousands-of-palestinians-may-breach-israel-bor

  • Stars — They’re Just Like Us: Celebs outraged over Gaza are speaking out
    • Stephen,
      "Zionists say that onlookers did nothing to save Jews from the Holocaust"

      Imagine what it would might look like if Zionists acknowledged that non-Jews risked their lives to help.

      Yad Vashem would have made such recognition a priority.
      "One of Yad Vashem’s principal duties is to convey the gratitude of the State of Israel and the Jewish people to Righteous Among the Nations who took great risks to save Jews during the Holocaust."https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous/about-the-program.html

      Israel would name streets after rescuers.
      https://unitedwithisrael.org/israel-names-street-after-japanese-diplomat-who-saved-jews-in-holocaust/

      Or imagine a big time Jewish Zionist Hollywood director making his only film about the Holocaust centered on a non-Jewish rescuer. And if a guy like that made such a film, there is no way that Zionist Hollywood could give it any awards.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List

      Just inconceivable.

  • Here are the questions any journalist talking to the Israeli military should ask
    • Inbound,
      You wrote,”Israel was accepted into the United Nations on condition that it accept the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees.”
      You have not presented any evidence of this and are now on to another argument.
      Can we agree that Israel was not admitted with any conditions related to adherence to 194?

    • Inbound,
      "The preamble to the resolution admitting Israel to United Nations
      membership specifically referred to Israel’s undertakings to
      implement..."

      That is just not correct.
      The specific language is "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947[3] and 11 December 1948[4] and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel[5] before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
      The plain meaning is that Israel made declarations and explanations regarding the implementation of the resolutions. It does not say what those declarations and explanations were. If you read the minutes of the debate over Israels admittance, you will see that the declarations and resolutions did NOT promise to implement 194.
      If there is evidence to the contrary I am happy to admit my mistake, but you just keep referencing the declarations and resolutions without a link or quote that supports your position.

    • Inbound,
      Once again. The preamble says "taking note" with regard to Israels explanations of the resolutions. Those explanations do not make any promises to fulfill 194.
      However, "State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations". Here Israel undertakes to "honor" or fulfill its obligations to the charter.
      The resolution does not note that Israel agrees to follow 194. The Israeli rep essentially said, 'we will do our best' and the UN said 'good enough'. That is not a conditional admittance.

    • Inbound,
      There is nothing in the resolution that states Israel has agreed to comply with 194.
      It says, "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,"
      The Israeli representative's responses to the ad hoc committee were "The statements of the representative of the applicant State on the status of Jerusalem and the Holy Places had clearly been in opposition to General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948. His assurances had been vague and evasive, and their execution was by no means guaranteed." According to Mr. Abbas, the Iraqi rep.
      https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/0B3AB8D2A7C0273D8525694B00726D1B
      From the debate linked above you can see that the opposition to Israel's membership was largely because Israel would not assure compliance and disagree with aspects of 194.

    • Inbound,
      I didn't not see any documentation of such a contingency. In fact, the admission of Israel was opposed by several states because they believed that Israel was not committed to following UN 194.
      For example, here is the Lebanese rep, "An objective examination of the evidence revealed that in its structure, acts and declared intentions, Israel did not yet seem to conform to those earlier United Nations wishes and decisions. While those considerations were admittedly outside the scope of Article 4, the interpretation of that Article rendered by the International Court of Justice [1/ See Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, Article 4), Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1948, page 57.] supported me view that they were relevant to its application in the case before the Assembly: If they had been allowed to take effect in the minds of the members of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, the Lebanese proposal to defer action on the admission of Israel until the fourth session of the Assembly would have prevailed.

      On two important questions, namely, the return of the Arab refugees and the internationalization of Jerusalem, the Lebanese delegation could draw no satisfactory conclusions from the statements made by the representatives and leaders of Israel. It could not conclude that the refugees would be permitted to return to their homes, if they so desired, to live in peace with their neighbours, nor could it conclude that Israel would not incorporate into its territory the New City of Jerusalem. Yet both those requirements had been specifically laid down by General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) and 194 (III). To admit Israel &t that juncture would be to encourage it to continue to disregard the decisions taken on those two cardinal points."
      https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/0B3AB8D2A7C0273D8525694B00726D1B

  • Ending seventy years of exile for Palestinian refugees
    • Eljay,
      "It’s clear that Israel does not have the will to repatriate non-Jewish refugees back to their homeland."
      I agree. Israel will not allow any refugees entrance without a comprehensive agreement that ends the hostilities.
      Whether you call it validation or definition, some criteria need to be agreed upon in determine who has a valid claim.

    • Eljay,
      "Israel didn’t need an “agreed definition” in order to drive Palestinians out; IMO it doesn’t need an “agreed definition” in order to start bringing them back in."

      Of course it does. Otherwise anyone who claims to be a "refugee" could simply enter. Then it's just an open border.

    • Eljay,
      We still are facing the central issue that before any repatriation, we don't even have an agreed definition of who is or is not a refugee. UNWRA defines Palestinians who have accepted alternative citizenship as refugees, but common usage does not.
      Personally, I think Israel should allow repatriation and citizenship to any individuals who resided in the area that is now Israel prior to 1948 and who are willing to live in peace with their neighbors. But neither the definition or policy is up to me.
      Do you have any thoughts on why UNWRA A would have this policy?

    • Eljay,
      "Since they’ve acquired citizenship elsewhere, they’re not refugees."
      Apparently that rule does not apply to Palestinian refugees although you would think so.

      "More than 2 million registered Palestine refugees live in Jordan.

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

    • Pj,
      The Brexit examples are sovereign rights of a country/people.
      Miranda was one example of a right that can be waived. Individuals waive rights to many things all of the time.
      It's not waiving a right if its coerced. But individuals may waive for many reasons.

    • Pj,
      "a people cannot give away their rights"
      People waive their rights for many reasons. Individually or collectively.
      For example, you may waive your right to remain silent during a police interrogation.
      One of the reasons for Brexit is the desire of Britain to regain control of isome of its rights to immigration and border policy. Rights which it gave up and relegated to the EU.
      https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/waiver

    • Mist,
      What were the "declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation.."
      Did Israel promise to fulfill the return of the refugees in these statements?

  • Mahmoud Abbas seals his intellectually impoverished legacy
    • Hughes,
      “I sometimes wonder why the Zionists so dislike the Khazar hypothesis“

      Personally I neither like nor dislike it any more than I do global warming any other scientific hypothesis. If it’s correct, than it’s correct. I’m not a geneticist but it seems that this one is far from a scientific consensus.

    • The last line of the paper you link to is "We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaized Khazars, Greco–Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews, and Judeans and that their population structure was formed in the Caucasus and the banks of the Volga with roots stretching to Canaan and the banks of the Jordan."

  • The 'fake news' story is fake news
    • Eljay,
      "|| Jon66: As much as possible is not the same as wanting one to exist. … ||

      No kidding."

      So do we now both agree that the desire for as much as possible is NOT a part of Zionism?

    • Eljay,
      "The fact that Zionists may have different ideas on how large that “Jewish State” should be (“as much as possible of Palestine”) doesn’t change the fact that they all want one to exist."

      As much as possible is not the same as wanting one to exist. If you order a small pizza, say 4 slices, you could eat all 4. That's as much as possible. If you decide to give me 1, 2,or3 slices you still have pizza, but it's not as much as possible.

    • Eljay,
      "I don’t think that and I’ve neither stated nor implied it. “As much as possible of Palestine” means different things to different Zionists but it’s what every Zionist wants."
      If the phrase has no defined meaning than how could every Zionist want it. if you can't define it than I don't know that it is definitional to Zionism.

    • Eljay,
      So which part of full equality is supremacist?
      Why do you think all Zionists are expansionist?
      Why can’t a state be based upon a set of religious and ethical teachings from a particular religion but still be equal for all? Aren’t most western states based upon some significant Judeo-Christian precepts? Does that make these states supremacist?

    • Roha,
      Perhaps I missed the joke. I thought of it as more of a shortcut to avoid an actual analysis or engagement.

      Eljay,
      Can't a Zionist believe in "THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open to the immigration of Jews from all countries of their
      dispersion; will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be
      based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew Prophets; will uphold the full
      social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee
      full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability
      of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter
      of the United Nations."
      Now it may be that like "all men are created equal" the country has not lived up to its ideals.

    • Eljay,
      I don't hold all of anyone responsible for the actions of everyone, (Zionist, American, Boy Scouts, etc.)
      Not all Zionists share the beliefs that you outline.

    • Donald,
      I don't think Eljay means it ironically. That is saying "hate" when he means the opposite.

      Eljay,
      I don't know what motivates others unless they state their reasons. So I would prefer not to speculate. You want to paint all Zionists as having the same ideas and motives which is both simplistic and incorrect.

    • Roha,
      Eljay's questions assume "hate" as the motive for certain actions or positions. These are examples of exactly the sort of lazy thinking you were describing. An assumption of hate rather than an actual analysis. The arguments hop from A to B to this must be motivated by hate without any evidence.

    • Eljay,
      I think the answer to your question is,
      "I see you are following the depressing modern fashion of attributing ‘hate” to those you disagree with.

      I suppose it is easier than researching real motives, and avoids the danger of finding out that your opponents might have a point."

    • Annie,
      Have you met Eljay?
      "Why does jon s hate America so much?!"
      "I get why Zionists hate non-Jews, but I still can't figure out why they hate Jews so much."
      "I seriously cannot comprehend why Zionists like you hate Jews so much."
      "It's not surprising that you hate non-Zionist Jews but Naftush is a "Zionist, observant Jew, Israeli". Show your co-collectivist some respect."
      "Why do Zionists hate Jews so much?!"
      "He's a Zionist and - for reasons I still cannot comprehend - Zionists seem to really hate Jews."
      "I don't understand why Zionists insist on hating Jews so much"
      Etc, Etc...

  • The struggle of Palestinians is the struggle of Native Americans
    • Annie,
      I understand your viewpoint. But regardless of whether or not you agree with Jackdaws statements, I believe that Eljay’s statement misinterpreted Jackdaw’s. No one believes that individuals alive today of any group were alive hundreds or thousands of years ago.

    • Eljay,
      I think that’s a misinterpretation if Jackdaws comment.
      In this article, Ms. Miles States,”can often mean that a group of people is deprived of the right to use a valuable resource that they have known to have accessed for thousands of years.”
      I do not think that she means that members of her tribe have individually accessed these resources for thousands of years. She means that the Nez Perce as an ethnic group have. Jackdaw is referring to Jews in the same regard.

  • Las Vegas print shop refuses to print JVP banner over Israel politics
    • Roha,
      The problem with your "moral" argument about non-service are the practical effects. Prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act a business could refuse service in most states to anyone they chose. Atter the passage of the Act with Johnson's pressure it became illegal to refuse service based upon a number of characteristics, e.g, race, religion. The libertarian position that patrons may go elsewhere is a minority view here.
      Here is an example of some of the difficulties inherent in your position.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book

    • Annie,
      If I walked into a Palestinian sympathetic bakery and asked for a cake decorated to explicitly celebrate the Balfour declaration would they be obligated to make me one?

    • Annie,
      Governmental entities such as muni transit or public universities have different obligations than private business.

    • Echi,
      I am opposed to government restrictions on free speech, whether it is activists I agree with or not. My positions have always been consistent.
      With regards to BDS, it depends upon whether or not you view it as a political free speech act or discrimination based upon national origin.

    • In the US, freedom of speech means a restriction that applies to the government not private businesses. The author is completely misinformed in trying to apply the concept to a private business.
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
      If the State of Nevada tried to ban the banner that would be a free speech issue.

      The Colorado bakery case in completely different. The case is not about free speech, but rather public accomadations. Colorado has a state law that bars discrimination based upon sexual orientation. The baker refused a service he normally provides, making wedding cakes, to this couple based upon their sexual orientation. He would have been well within his rights to refuse them service based upon some non-protected status, for example pro-NRA, pro-choice, Communist, etc. https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
      For the author to mix the two issues shows a fundemnental misunderstanding of our civil rights.
      If you want to address freedom of speech, perhaps a good place to start would be with someone like Nada Elia, a frequent contributor here. She believes, "There is no such thing as “non-violent hate speech.”"
      She has trumpeted the suppression of speech as laudatory, "The other significant victory was the shutting down of the scheduled Milo Yiannopolous talk at the University of California in Berkeley. "
      http://mondoweiss.net/2017/02/cannot-protect-ourselves/
      Because UCB is a public institution it is required not to restrict free speech. Regardless of the hideousness of Mr. Yiannopolous's speech, shutting him down is wrong. It is the ideas we hate the most that we must take care to protect.

  • 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
    • Eljay,

      The comments draw wide conclusions about Israeli society based upon grave desecration. I don't think it's whataboutism to compare this to the reaction to similar behavior amongst Palestinians. For example, here is a recent MW article comparing Israeli and Palestinian offenders and their sentences. http://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/israeli-community-service/
      Is this whataboutism also? Can you explain to me why it's invalid to compare these actions? If a commenter mentions "Zionist terrorism" in the 1940s in an article detailing with a current Palestinian terror attack is that whataboutism also?

    • Amigo,
      Assuming your info is correct, there may be many reasons why Israel is "hated". You have one theory, but I don't see where you have any evidence.

      It might be nice if you addressed the two circumstances and explained why they differed instead of telling me that I don't want to draw comparisons. I do wish to draw a comparison in these narrow circumstances and would like to know why it is appropriate to draw wide conclusions about these acts from Israeli actions but not from essentially the same Palestinian/Jordanian actions?

      BTW, Terry still agrees with me.

    • Amigo,
      I spoke with Terry. He agrees with me.

    • Annie,
      I believe it has quotes because they were quoting a source.
      When you consider that there are estimates that there may be over 200,000 graves there the numbers don't seem extreme.

    • Eljay,
      If you had read my replies you will see that I am not justifying the behavior. In fact, I condemn it. But you avoided my point, which is why does this behavior say something profound about Israeli society, but the same behavior is not taken to hold the same diagnosis of Palestinian society?

      The principle seems to be that if an Israeli does it its indicative of a deranged society and if a Palestinian does it its either justified or irrelevant.

    • Ossinev,
      I agree. Whatever may have happened decades ago, it is unacceptable to desecrate any grave today.

    • John,
      I agree. I think it's horrible for anyone to do that to a cemetery.

      But, in the first comment on the article, "vandals and criminals as officers – sick people from a sick society." LH takes this specific instance and draws conclusions about larger Israeli society. I point out these other examples to see if LH or the others wish to draw similar conclusions based upon similar acts by Palestinians. Or is it only Israelis who are judged broadly by this behavior? Are Palestinians "sick people" also?

Showing comments 874 - 801
Page: