Mar 8 77 Comments
TOP 77 Comments
- Facebook PeFn27This isn’t anti semitism. If you want a discussion at least put together some thoughts.
- I am acknowledging the root which as I have said , in my view, is occupation and continued apartheid-like conditions. I disagree with you that the “root” is that Palestinians are all uniformly antisemetic out of the blue.
A democratic process is not a panacea like your straw-man of my argument - it is the only way to actually begin to address the imbalance in power and bring people together on a mutual basis. The two state solution is not really two states or a mutual solution - it’s moving people to shrinking reservations. Anyone in the US who knows something of our own history should be able to recognize the pattern of colonists graciously giving dispossessed people a reservation... then sending in the troops and moving them again when settlers decide the reservation land is still valuable.
- Except it predates those things. You seem to be unaware this was tried before and failed before for THIS reason, long before the occupation.
In any case wherever it came from and for however many decades or centuries it's there now and it's entrenched deeply in Palestinian culture--antisemitism is taught in school--and it makes a merged state impossible.
I agree the occupation needs to end. I just want a realistic option and you're not presenting one.
- Then I repeat: When was this age of democracy you speak of... when it was a British territory?
And as I’ve said I don’t think a landlocked reservation-state and an Israeli state is a realistic option. Only through a fair democratic process could issues begin be addressed in ways that true fair compromise can be worked out in that process.
- The original partition plan divided Palestine into two states. One was nearly 100% Arab and became Jordan. The other was a 50/50 split between Jews and Palestinians that was intended to create a democratic state where each group would have sufficient representation to protect their interests.
It lasted one day. The Palestinians launched a war of ethnic cleansing to annihilate the Jews because they didn't want any kind of power sharing arrangement. They eventually lost that war, but when they started it everyone assumed they would win, and for at least the first eight or nine months they were actually winning--until the (in)famous "plan D" changed the tide of the war. It wasn't at the time a forgone conclusion before that the Jews were going to survive, and in fact most observers expected the Arab's superior numbers would prevail.
So when you say you think this Palestinian antisemitism is somehow the product of the last few decades it just highlights to me that you don't know the history.
In any case, it's also not even useful to debate where it came from. It's there now. Even if your incorrect claim that it was produced by the occupation were true, it's there now.
With the level of hate that the Palestinians teach their children today (and then), with the prevalence of committed terrorists who pervade their community and are honestly openly supported by it, it's just there.
You can't take that dynamic and put it into some kind of forced democracy and expect anything other than bloodshed.
Which is why I think the right next step is to move sideways and maybe change the conversation.
Instead of demanding that Israel expose itself to almost certain genocide a much better proposal is to try and ease the tension and hope the next generation of Palestinians can grow up with less hate.
So maybe the right next step is to transition the occupation to other states. Let the Jordanians take over security in the West Bank, or the UN, or some other group, to get Israeli soldiers out. Someone who might actually better look after the Palestinians as they try and figure out how to create a state.
Maybe we don't need to get to a state in one step. Maybe we need to build up the people and reduce the conflict for awhile.
Then maybe it's still occupied, maybe for another ten years, maybe twenty, but maybe then we can then have more productive conversions about what happens after that. Maybe some form of unification is eventually possible, but you can't get there from where we are today.
Demanding that Israelis commit national suicide is a popular topic with idiotic lefties in the US, and one gleefully promoted by the openly antisemitic in Europe, but it's completely unrealistic and so it just delays conversations that might actually lead to successful solutions.Mar 102
- fy76Y is accurate in his description of the history and current realities, unfortunately. As individuals, Palestinians can be great people. As an aggregate people, their racist hatred of Jews predates recent decades and the lefties who keep trying to blame Israel cant seem to ever propose a good solution to the situation. I don't support the Likud government, but the shift right in Israel has come out of the Palestinians refusal to accept a two state on multiple occasions. Kids these days don't seem to remember the multiple efforts under Rabin etc. to create a Palestinian state that could peacefully coexist with Israel.
- Yes, yes, the real problem is the savagery of the heathen natives. Why they burned the farm of a local family just last spring. Their hatred is irrational.
UN resolutions from other countries is not a democratic process. When did powerful countries patrician their colonies peacefully? India?
This is the root of the ongoing conflict. This is why the US has had a bi-partisan commitment to Israel, right or wrong. Not lobbyists, not secret string-pullers, but because Israel is a strategic piece in a post-war arrangement of former colonies that favors the US.
A democratic reckoning doesn’t mean a US or French President signs some documents with representatives from Israel and Palestine. It means making a whole society from the bottom up. A quick thing would be shifting US military and other aid to building homes and receiving the crisis in the overpopulated bombed over ghettos; rebuilding infrastructure, jobs, agriculture agriculture aid and providing direct relief. It means building a single government that is seen as legitimate enough to find popular compromises when needed.
- You think you can just deny it and be taken seriously? No.
Refusing even to discuss the problem renders your opinion irrelevant. You can't just hand wave away the violence and the hatred and just pretend it will go away. It won't go away. It will in fact quickly wreck your solution.
For example, you proposed building homes. Great idea! Israel tried that as well, and guess what happened?
The Palestinians violently resisted the construction of homes for Palestinian refugees in Gaza and the West Bank and grieved it to the UN where they got a resolution passed condemning it. If you go ahead with your plan to build homes the builders will likely be killed.
Their position is any attempt to build homes for the Palestinians living in those squalid camps is an attempt to prevent their "return" to Israel and thus reduces their chance of destroying Israel.
See how fucked it is?
- I am not ignoring the root issue: we disagree on the root issue. You believe it is hatred out of the blue whereas I think the root issue is patrician and an ongoing state of apartheid.
And yes, democracy and the end of apartheid would mean refugees could live where they choose rather than being relocated.
- Yeah you are ignoring it.
First it's false that the occupation is the cause. I have shown you in great detail that is wrong. You don't care. You ignore the evidence and continuously repeat this false claim.
Second it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter how the Palestinians came to be violent antisemites. Their violent antisemitism makes a merged state impossible regardless of why.
Third, your use of the word "apartheid" is offensive and hateful. You must relish the destruction of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of Jews or you wouldn't l adopt such hateful language.
But back to your core fiction:
You claim "democracy" would mean the mass immigration into Israel of terrorists and militants determined to kill Jews along with millions of people who openly support terrorism. That wouldn't be "democracy", the word you want is "genocide".
Democracy requires as a precondition a commitment to non violent politics and that precondition is simply not met here. It won't be a democracy.
Maybe the Palestinians in a state of their own could come up with a democracy and commit to non violent politics but they are not interested in that when it comes to sharing power with Jews.
- Microsoft DangerRngrAwkkkk://www... do you need a hug?
Also a training on what racism really is?
- Ellis, she has a different rule for herself and for Jews. American citizens who have an opinion on the conflict in the middle east are "foreign" if they are Jews, but not if they are Muslims.
This woman joined the BDS movement which is run out of Ramallah, Palestine. Yet she calls American citizens foreign if they support an alliance with Israel? So it's ok for her but not for them? And their org is an American PAC funded and supported by American citizens while she literally joined a foreign organization.
She uses the word "Israel" to mean "Jew" and we all know it.
- Rep Omar: “Being opposed to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and the occupation is not the same as being anti-Semitic. I am grateful to the many Jewish allies who have spoken out and said the same,"
Israel certainly is not all Jewish Americans and pro-Israel political advocacy groups do not represent all Jews - and for decades speaking out against Israeli policy as a Jew earned scorn an accusations of being a “self-hating Jew”. Despite that pressure, that is changing as is liberal acceptance of war on terror arguments in general - that’s why she’s being attacked and why Democrats are trying to ban 1st amendment BDS actions.
Imo she put too much emphasis on lobbying which misses the mark. The US supports Israel and its war crimes for US strategic reasons, not lobbying.Mar 83
- You're ignoring the point. She called AMERICANS foreign agents because they are Jews who support Israel, meanwhile she support Palestine herself. So how is she not a foreign agent according to her own "logic"?
You can't go around denouncing Jewish Americans for supporting Israel while you yourself are a Muslim American supporting Palestine. It's either ok for Jews as well or its not ok for her.
I'm not going to debate one side or the other but you can't have it both ways. She's a blatant antisemite.
- Match / EngulcM52Dual allegiance of Jews to the zog or whatever is the oldest antisemetic trope in the book. Insinuating that a Jewish politician or any politician has dual allegiances to Israel because of their secret sworn allegiances to another government or the Benjamin's is classic antisemitism. As if someone cant support Israel the same as they support Canada or the UK. If you support Canada do you secretly report to Trudeau? Maybe you support Canada or Israel for perceived similar values and shared interests. Also noone ever said you cant criticize or not support Israel or any other country. Its American you're free to choose.
- Democrats have a problem with antisemitism.
Republicans have a problem with anti Hispanic and anti Muslim racism.
- Yeah it's always been that way. From the very earliest days unions have been intensely antisemitic and it's been passed down to progressives today.
It's confounding because in theory it's the kind of bigotry they are supposed to be ideologically opposed to, but it's a clear historic and modern fact that they are blatantly antisemitic.
Republicans who want to gloat about it need to check their own attitudes towards Muslims.
It's sad but both parties harbor bigots.
- Apparently Obama was next:
“We can’t be only upset with Trump ... His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was ... And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.”
I support that statement 100%
- Cool, screw the political brand cola wars! This is exactly what she was talking about - look at the policies not the surface advert copy. Obama or Clinton or any of those other anti-immigrant/tough on crime/war on terror/pro-pentagon/pro-wall street politicians are not “our own”.
Let’s have a left-populist political war on both parties.