Alright. Can't say this is coming as a surprise but.
Although I truly didn't stop here to joust:
"the implication of your introduction to our site is that we gather together to hate under the banner of caring about human rights."
I don't believe such thing is/was implied. But clearly, it is now being inferred that it is/was.
"i’m just curious, under these circumstances, why you’d believe any response one might offer?"
Some questions are hard, not designed to make friends; you know before asking them that they won't be liked by the questioned. Guess I was uninterested in pretending that I was so innocent as to believe that my "butting in" on this platform with my question about BDS was going to win me a popular contest. Am still curious, though.
"“Push them into the sea”? Heavens, no. Why they can do whatever they want, go, or stay. Nobody could dissuade the Zionist from deciding they had the strength to take Palestine, and I doubt anybody will be able to make them stay once they are done."
"Once they are done" doing what?
What's there to say about the above? Nasty? Lamentable? t's hard to decide whether such narcissistic cynicism in response to what is after all a very serious issue - Well, millions of people future lives and well-being is at stake, whichever side of whatever fence or BSD one is on - is sad or nauseating. But here it is. Proud point scoring before coherent argument. In what place is it that folks live so happily and safe that they are so full of certainties and contempt about others? Which corner of the planet do they come from that throughout history the land they sit, work, love and hate on never belonged to anyone else but them?
"” Like-minded folks have always liked to gather together, and to hate Israel”"
What exactly is the point of misquoting? Because it's painless to paste, and in the name of optimism, here is the full quote again, which goes on past the word 'Israel', as may be noticed this time round: "Like-minded folks have always liked to gather together, and to hate Israel is, I guess, a legitimate excercise, not unlike hating Cuba, China or, say, Hungary, Iran or Russia."
Sorry again for butting in. Will look for answer elsewhere.
Hi there. Guess I should apologize for butting in uninvited, but I just came across this site somewhat accidentally today and, having read a handful of pieces, thought I'd spend a few minutes registering to ask a simple question, which - think of it! - might actually not led to a torrent of abuse.
Ok. So, from my one brief visit here so far, it would seem this site is very much an anti-Zionist pro BDS haven, not to say a mutual appreciation society on such matters.
Fair enough. Like-minded folks have always liked to gather together, and to hate Israel is, I guess, a legitimate excercise, not unlike hating Cuba, China or, say, Hungary, Iran or Russia. Not being all that "au fait" with Middle-East politics, though, what I am somewhat confused about is the proposition known here (and elsewhere) as BDS, because, looking at Israel's position or side of the argument, there appears to exist an existentialist dimension to what is being proposed.
It seems most folks here happily and fully embrace and promote boycotting , divesting and sanctioning Israel, the goal being - under the banner of protecting the Palestinian people human rights and championing their Right of Return - to in effect have the Israeli government and its people surrender their current country to the Palestinian people. From the river to sea, as the slogan says.
It's an interesting notion, especially when combined with the idea that the people supporting this BDS exercise present themselves as human right advocates, rather than mere old-fashioned anti-Semites. Which brings me to my question. If it is to be Palestine from the river to the sea, what is to be done - humanely - with the 6 or so million Israeli Jews currently living on that land: push them into the sea?