"Liberal" American Jew equates civic equality with genocide

[spidergoat]

Why do we discriminate against illegal aliens? Is that lack of "civil equality"? No, they aren't equal because they aren't citizens. Non-Israeli Palestinians are not acting like they deserve citizenship, they are acting like it's us or them.

 

[pjdude1219]

Why do we discriminate against illegal aliens?

So people whose families have lived their for 100's of years are illegal aliens? and you wonder why people say zionism is racism.

Is that lack of "civil equality"?

yes not allowing the native population to be a part of a country because their upset about being conqured is civic inequality.

No, they aren't equal because they aren't citizens.

that's the problem you and yours conquered the country in a war of conquest that they choose and than refused to allow them to be citizens. hell yous fucking golden country SHOT THEM WHEN THEY TRIED TO GO BACK TO THEIR HOMES. so don't whine that they aren't citizens when you won't let them.

Non-Israeli Palestinians are not acting like they deserve citizenship, they are acting like it's us or them.

No that how the ISraeli are acting. the palestinian deserve citizenship in what ever country is on palestinian soil. thanks for once again showing how morally and intellectually bankrupt ISrael's supporters are. its the Israelis that don't act like they desreve citzenship but since their their the thugs in ocntrol they get to exclusde their victims and than jackass's like you say its ok for ISrael to treat the palestinians like shit when they aren't citzens while ignoring the fact they aren't allowed to be citizens.

 

[Bells]

If you don't want to do anything, that's fine, string. But when someone hits the bigot button, I hit the report button.

Ermm okay..

You boob! Tiassa wasn't even speaking to you. So why do you assume that when someone says "bigot" or "usual suspect" that they are talking about you in particular?

Show me where in this post, is your name mentioned? Anywhere at all? That was the first post where "usual suspects" was mentioned in this thread. Nowhere is your name mentioned, nor are you brought up. But no, you seemed to assume it was about you. Then Tiassa used you as an example, in his response to someone else, because you and that other individual seem so wounded by what Sam says about issues that do not really concern you. And we know you are wounded by it because you hit the report button so much and complain so much. And that was it.

Now lets look at this post by you, a little way later, where the paranoia really comes to the fore, and this is after Tiassa reminded you about how much it was NOT about you:

OMG - it's not a "poor me" argument when your line starts with "usual suspects" and ends off with "whatever the fuck you're ranting about, Geoff" and then on to the inevitable accusations of bigotry and all the rest of it.

(Source)

This was how you interpreted the post to Tiassa where he mentions "usual suspects" and mentions your name about you being wounded (and we know you are because you report just about every second post).

The above kind of points to your paranoia... Not everything is about you Geoff. But when you insert yourself into things that aren't about you and demand they be about you, then yes, focus will be switched to you.

Now you are either an attention whore or you're a bit of a tosser with paranoid personality issues. Whichever it is, stop.

It's a serious accusation, and it can get your ass kicked off the forums. Ergo, CYA. Ja?

Nein!

He didn't accuse you of being a bigot until you demanded he did.

My god!

This is frigging hilarious.

As for "give friendly": hey, when you start with "usual suspects" and end with pointless accusations of "bigot", don't be surprised when they kick back.

HAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!

So why did YOU kick back?

He wasn't talking about you or to you.

You inserted yourself into what he was discussing with others and virtually begged him to say that you're a bigot because you seem to think anytime anyone says the word "bigot", it means you.

Our rules run hot and cold: report, fire back, don't do anything. Shall I flip a coin?

What?

Not happy that he's asked you to stop spamming the report button?

Stop being such a tool. Seriously, stop demanding that every time anyone says the words "usual suspects" or "bigot" that it means you and then get pissy when they give in to your wishes and report.

Go hit some squares or something with the sound turned up.

In other words, stop obsessing that everything is about you or to you.

 

[Gustav]

my brain automatically associates any slur i see on sci with geoff
its how i am built
its who i am

:shrug:

here
i'll show ya

bells
lets free associate
throw a slur at me

 

[Bells]

my brain automatically associates any slur i see on sci with geoff
its how i am built
its who i am

:shrug:

here
i'll show ya

bells
lets free associate
throw a slur at me

You're a poopoo head!

 

[Gustav]

poopoo head?

geoff!

 

[quadraphonics]

I actually see it much differently. Much more simply. The underlying question is, "How, exactly, is this supposed to work? And does it?"

Said "question" is quite obviously rhetorical. It's troll food - you start with a stilted premise (backed by next-to-nothing - a muddled quote or two from nobodies in some publication that nobody reads), and then coyly demand an explanation for such. Fools then bite with their pet explanations and so implicitly legitimate the underlying premise. I'd hope that you'd recognize such tactics by now - they're pretty standard.

I do not see, in the opening post, the "specific, limited, factual assertion that the liberal wing of American Jewry equates 'one state solution' with 'genocide.'"

As I said, it's presented as a rhetorical question. By taking such seriously, you miss the whole point.

The thread title is pretty difficult to miss, however.

The article then quotes one Ben Cohen, "a writer who has focused on American Jewish responses to Israel".

Had anyone here ever heard of this guy before this thread?

So, whence the premise that he represents anything, and so requires explaining? Again, the whole tactic is to skate past that fundamental question by manufacturing a politicized argument with it taken as granted. It should be pretty clear how such works as a strategy for stilting discourse.

The proposition thus rests on an alleged specialist depicted in a newspaper published by a Jewish immigrant-advocacy organization:

Exactly - hence my distaste at everyone's willingness to skip right over the question of the relevance or authority of such, in their zeal to embrace the proposition.

The proposition is not, as you have suggested, "a very specific, limited, factual assertion that the liberal wing of American Jewry equates 'one state solution' with 'genocide.'"

The proposition of the linked article, you mean. Sure, there's a bit more than that in there. But I'm talking about what S.A.M. is proposing in the OP, and throughout. Which is that we take the above proposition for granted, and seek only to explain how exactly it came to be and works out.

Again, a glance at the thread title is instructive. You might also notice the elision between "one-state solution" and "civic equality" present therein - yet another pair of stilts.

What we have, then, are competing propositions. Vilkomerson, the activist, suggests one cannot in the current discourse, criticize Israeli government action without being denounced as anti-Semitic.

Not particularly at issue in this thread. Or anyway, not a point S.A.M. is pursuing as such. She's been very specific about the part she's interested in, no?

Beckerman asserts that the distinction between those two conditions is not even widely acknowledged by allegedly liberal American Jews.

And that without any support whatsoever, we might note. Not even any suggestion that he's entitled to speak for them. This is one guy, somewhere, saying that he thinks liberal American Jews equate a one-state solution with genocide, and we all validate this dubious premise in our rush to explain it. Nobody stops to question whether it's accurate, or representative, or basically worth addressing to begin with. This occurs because it's calculated to appeal to a variety of known, strong prejudices, and so evoke a predictably emotional, short-sighted response from the audience. It's not as if S.A.M. hasn't tested these waters before.

(3) A question regarding whether or not American Jews generally consider the proposition raised by the mix of Vilkomerson, Beckerman, and Cohen. That is: "Do American Jews now consider it illiberal to receive the same civil rights as non-Jews?"

Again, obvious troll-bait. In the first place, nothing in the article addresses "same civil rights" as such - the supposition is that a single state would be a communal bloodbath, absent meaningful "rights" for anyone. So we already see her going to some efforts to confuse and inflame the issue right there.

And in the second place, the supposition that S.A.M. is speaking out of simple, genuine curiosity is just preposterous. The coyness is pretty obvious, even if one hasn't seen her run this game before, and be told the answers by credulous types like yourself, literally hundreds of times here. Do you really expect us to believe that she was just going about her day, reading a Jewish NYC newspaper for no particular reason, happened upon something that confused her, and turned here for help? Come on, man. Aren't you the one always going on about "context?"

(4) A follow-up question entirely dependent on an affirmative answer to the prior inquiry.

Again, rhetorical questions are not genuine questions, and you do yourself no favors by defending them as such.

If you find such positions so offensive, and if you actually give a damn about the Jews, Israel, or whatever, I would think your issue would lie with Beckerman, to start, and then perhaps Cohen. Maybe you could bitch-slap Vilkomerson for good measure, but I think when you're starting with S.A.M. it has more to do with egotism and other personal aspects than anything real and factual.

As I've tried to make plain, I am indeed aiming at the assertions of that troika. I'm explicitly demanding that people evaluate and address them, instead of taking them as given, no?

And in the way of that is the wall of trollery that SAM has characteristically erected on top of them - an extension of their joint assertions, polished up and erected to other the Jews. So, yeah, I want to drive a truck straight through that and into the underlying source.

And I outright reject the assumption that my egotism is somehow exclusive of reality and fact.

At the heart of the question is an outcome some find bizarre: Even liberal Jews, apparently, will accept ethnic cleansing.

It's bizarre because it's obviously false. That's how you can tell that the questions of such aren't serious. This isn't rocket science, or even some remotely new troll tactic. It would be nice if you'd get hip to it - then maybe we could at least get trolled in some new, inventive ways for a change.

Perhaps there is something about the American Jewry she's missing.

I reject the implication that there's anything so bizarrely exceptional about American Jews. Again, bigoted on its face.

Or the supposition that an Indian Muslim should be expected to have any trouble understanding such. Who's the liberal, and who's the anti-Muslim bigot here, again?

Would it help if I add that I know several Indian Muslims, in real life, and that none of them have ever evinced any such difficulties?

And if I'm facepalming, Quad? If I'm disappointed in anything? It's simply that someone like you would buy into the constant chorus of hatred.

And I am disappointed by your ongoing susceptibility to the canard that anyone who doesn't like SAM's hate speech is joining some anti-Muslim crusade. That's one of the key factors that enables her trolling: subverting your fear of being seen as anti-Muslim in order to get you to not only tolerate, but actively defend, her trolling and bigotry. When what you should be doing is rejecting the premise that she somehow speaks for or represents Islam to begin with. You aren't saving any Palestinians by enabling her anti-Jew trolling.

Just stop. Take S.A.M. out of the equation. Look at the actual elements of the issue in front of us.

S.A.M. is one of the elements in front of us. Quit trying to decontextualize this. You're canny enough to recognize the games she's long played here, so why are you going to such lengths to avoid admitting such?

But, as far as that goes, I'd say the same thing if it were another poster. And more-or-less have, to the extent that comparable examples are available.

She'll figure it out eventually,

No, she won't. She's not in that business, here. Obviously: she's been doing this topic to death for years now, with zero visible sign of any progress.

Not that I necessarily credit the coy ignorance she displays as genuine - it's obviously a tactic - but that's irrelevant to her persona here or its effects.

When will you figure this out?

But, yes, for all the times I've told my colleagues in the back room how to deal with S.A.M., and for all the times I might go through it with my neighbors in the general membership, it seems almost a lost cause.

Your approach is a lost cause, and always has been. You're being played for a sucker. It's very clear that you don't know how to deal with S.A.M., so why would anyone listen when you tell them how to do so?

All you've got is a set of excuses for not dealing effectively with S.A.M., or even recognizing what she's doing, that apparently sound good to you. You should not expect anyone else to be interested.

And I just don't see how communicating with her is a particularly onerous task.

Well, then, so much for the credibility of your sight, when it comes to such matters.

But as concerns Israel and Palestine, yes, I can see that, as long as there exists an officially Jewish state, a homeland confiscated from people who happened to be Muslim, there will always be a functionally valid claim to a Palestinian homeland for Muslims.

Palestinian != Muslim.

Although perhaps it will be before much longer, if that particular vicious dialectic is left to run its course.

If the basic topical issue is screwy, is that necessarily S.A.M.'s fault?

As it applies here: yes. She selected the screwy quotes, pretty obviously for their prejudicial qualities, put them up on stilts and ran with that. She had the option of pursuing a reasonable reading of the source, or a good-faith presentation of the material. She chose not to do those things. Posters bear a certain responsibility for the thread topics that they instantiate.

I mean, it couldn't be the activist, who made a comment; or the article writer, who connected the comment to another; or the specialist who made that other comment. If the writer adds up two and two and gets five, and S.A.M. asks whether that equation seems strange to anyone, it's obviously S.A.M.'s fault for saying that two and two equals five.

It's S.A.M.'s fault for dressing that assertion up as requiring an answer, and then coming here to demand such, in prejudicial terms guaranteed to avoid the question of whether the assertion is worth a damn in the first place. That said assertion jibes with her long-expressed negative views of the Jews makes the motive for such pretty obvious - not to mention, her long history of running basically this same game over and over again.

There's something I've noticed about those who'd play Protector of S.A.M. and offer these intellectualized defenses of her: she almost invariably undermines them, and typically pretty directly and quickly. To the point where I wonder whether she does it on purpose, exactly to reject the premise that she needs the protection of whatever high-handed self-appointed saint has decided to ride to her rescue. Which is to say that I expect her to produce some fairly unequivocal antisemitic assertions in short order. I await them with baited breath... but what sort of contortions can I expect from you, to avoid them?

We've tried that, in order to accommodate the pro-Israelis, the Judeosupremacists, the Zionists, the anti-Zionists, the pro-Palestinians ... in the end, it doesn't really matter because it's not a question of whether a thread topic is irrelevant to its contents. Rather, it's whether critics like yourself decide to fill a thread with a bunch of irrelevant bullshit and then complain about the irrelevance.

At last, Tiassa shows some teeth.

Except I fail to see how such is an argument against sequestering such topics in a thread of their own. And I chuckle at the supposition that this thread consisted of much besides horseshit before my arrival.

I'm sorry, dude, but you fucking blew it this time.

Not from where I sit. As for you, well, you aren't supposed to like it.

But, hey, at least you got to criticize S.A.M., so it wasn't a total loss, eh?

It's interesting that you're using the past tense there. Does it seem like I'm finished?

I also count our little engagement here as a success, not to mention my brief interaction with CaptBork, and my choice zingers at Bells. And the oblique barbs traded with Geoff, for that matter. But, yeah, it is pretty important that somebody demonstrate to S.A.M. that they recognize her tactics and will respond accordingly. Otherwise she tends to fill a lot of threads with total shit. And if you and the rest of the "moderators" aren't going to handle that, well, I've again demonstrated both my willingness and the downside to your abrogation of responsibilities.

The difference between me being a loony liberal and S.A.M. being an anti-Semite is exactly the difference between the fact that I am an American bastard and she an Indian Muslim. Coming from me, people might try the liberal extremist bit, but they sure as hell wouldn't try to rest on their laurels while screaming about anti-Semitism.

Sorry, was there supposed to be an answer in there somewhere?

I don't claim to know why S.A.M. is an anti-semite, or why you're a loony liberal. But I can observe both - they're visible, obvious features. If I've ever attributed her bigotry to her religion (or your politics to your nationality), I'm unaware of it. Can you show me where I have? Or are you just going to level unsubstantiated accusations at me? Or retreat into obtusity?

Oh, right: anybody who doesn't like S.A.M.'s antics is a proud member of some global anti-Muslim conspiracy, determined to impute all bad acts everywhere to Islam, or something. Obviously that's my intent - despite a total absense of any support in my output - because I'm friendly with GeoffP, the arch-nemesis of Islam. Or, what?

Geoff is his own question.

Yeah, that's what I said. So kindly stop confusing that question, with me.

If I treat S.A.M. as you do, I have to treat her in a manner that is specifically different from how I treat anyone else.

Yeah, still not buying that assertion. The differences in treatment are pretty obvious, whether you want to aknowledge them or not.

Actually, you are. Now, perhaps that's not your intention, but it's what you're doing.

So don't tell me you're not.

Tell you what: I'll stop telling you to stop extending extraordinary credulity to SAM, if you stop telling me that you don't. Deal?

Otherwise, I can perfectly well go on trading bald counter-assertions indefinitely. Up to you.

Yes, and apparently I have to do a much deeper analysis than you're willing to put up.

That you have to search so far and wide to shoehorn the situation into your favored terms is no criticism of me - rather the opposite. The relevant stuff is all right there on the surface. By all means, stop beanplating and get down to business.

Dude, look: You want a piece of S.A.M.? Go get one.

Isn't that what I'm doing?

She avoids directly engaging me, lately. Hasn't gone well for her the last few times. So now she tries to work around me, and I thwart those efforts.

You want everyone to throw the fight for you from the outset?

Given that the "fight" is an issue of framing, that's something of an obtuse criticism.

Some of us aren't in for the fix, and there's no amount of whining you can do that will convince us to join you in that corruption.

Would be a great barb, if only it didn't come on the end of such a long, consistent effort to fix everything for S.A.M.'s ugly little bash-the-Jew program. Maybe some day you'll grow a backbone and give some weight to that little outburst of hollow self-congratulation, there.

No, I think your reading of the situation is monumentally stupid. Criminally stupid. So fucking stupid I find myself wondering what your malfunction is. Ridiculously stupid. Shamefully stupid. The kind of stupid that makes me wonder how I never noticed before, or why I made so many goddamn excuses for that kind of pathetic grease-spot of an intellect smeared all over the goddamn highway.

Ah, how nice it is to interact in a place with no tolerance for insult. Twas truly worth the various bannings I've taken, to enshrine such a standard of respect.

Honestly? I have always thought you more intelligent than the shit you're shoveling in this discussion. And yes, it would trouble me greatly to be wrong about that.

It's going to trouble you even more to find out that you were right about that, and wrong about the source of the shit-shoveling. Because you clearly don't want to come around to that realization the easy way. Why are you so invested in this position on S.A.M.? Doesn't add up.

Depends on the terms of those relationships. People who don't approach me looking specifically for a fight tend to view me much differently than the belligerent sorts. To the belligerent, I'm an asshole. To everyone else, I range betweeen village idiot, the guy who's fun to smoke dope with, and brilliant; from timid to tempermental to tempestuous. In other words, the only generally consistent view of me I ever hear about comes from those who are looking for a fight.

And that is worth exactly what it's worth.

I'll take that as a "no," coupled with a lack of stomach for admitting such.

If you say so. After all, you ought to know. A noob like me could never have any idea what's going on around here, right?

I didn't say you were a noob. I said you had a blind-spot. And you do:

“ S.A.M. wears her anti-Jewish bigotry on her sleeve, quite proudly. ”

If you expect for even the passing of a heartbeat that I would buy into that pathetic attempt to pass Israel off as the whole of Judaism, you are sadly mistaken.

... ah, so misdirected. It is exactly the general anti-Jewish bigotry, above and beyond any objection to Israel, that so bothers me about her. And it's pervasive in her output: just look at this very thread. Or any of hundreds of others. Heck, even if we replace every instance of "Jew" in her output with "Israeli," her parallel hatred of Americans still pretty much adds up to bias against the entirety of the world's Jews.

I'm going to predict that this particular canard - that SAM hates only Israel, not Jews as such - is exactly the place we'll first see her undermine your defense of her. Frankly I'm blown away that you've somehow managed to maintain such an illusion for so long - must take a lot of mental resources.

True. You have Muslims to hate more than Jews, so for once you can imagine yourself in the noble role.

Except I don't hate either of those groups more than the other (or more than Christians or any number of other groups).

And I don't see any nobility in sight - just the pretense of such on your part. I'm happy to operate in the gutters, since that's where the discourse here resides. I have no patience for pretension.

Really, where is this stuff coming from? Projection? Confusing me with (your strawman of) Geoff again? The combination of shrillness and obtusity is pretty funny, at least.

No, seriously, look at you. Anti-Jewish is apparently interchangeable with anti-Israeli.

Oh dear, you are really setting yourself up for a hard fall with this one. Like I said: blind spot. How else to explain it?

Well, it's good to know I'm nobody.

You're not nobody. You're just dealing with some fantasy of S.A.M. as you'd like her to be. And not with S.A.M. as she is.

No, really: "Because I say so," doesn't work for other arguments. Why should I let it this time?

Because it's S.A.M.? Because it's in defense of the poor Jews in Israel who are so oppressed and have no choice but to take lessons from tyrants?

No, really, Quad. What, aside from your say-so? I go through this with my colleagues all the time. Getting them to cough up an example is hard enough. Getting them to cough up an example that doesn't depend on a "Because I say so" indictment? Yeah, right. That'll be the day.

Quite simply, if it was so goddamn easy, someone would have pulled it off by now.

LOL there are easier ways to reject peoples' observations, than to launch into some stilted rant about formal argumentation. No, I didn't make an effort to definitively prove my observation to you. That's because I didn't want to - I simply wanted to state my perspective. You can take it for what you will, but please spare me the accusation of having arrogated myself some role as binding arbiter of reality simply for having called it as I see it. There's plenty of unsupported perspective in your own output as well, after all.

It's an interesting proposition. But I'm not sure I like your terms. Make sure to lay out which Jews are credible and which aren't, and which ones we need to blame S.A.M. for.

For the time being, I'll stick to undermining stilted misrepresentations of such, thanks.

Although, rule of thumb: if S.A.M. is running with some perspective as representative of Jews, it's a good bet that it is not. Such being her whole game. She does this with various other identity groups, as well. It's classic trolling.

No, that's what you need S.A.M. to be pushing here. Anything else defies your prejudice. And, well, since your prejudice simply can't be wrong ....

It's only "prejudice" in that it's a judgement formed prior to the start of this particular thread. Which is to say that it's based on years of direct observation and interaction. And, again, it's pretty obvious stuff - I'm not imputing why she holds the views she holds, or what they say about her religion or nationality, or any of that. Just noting the obvious, vocal, consistent antisemitism.

° killing Jews — Oh, I'm sorry, does that offend you?

Not really. The implication lacked force, and I'm hardly one to get worked up about some overheated wording.

What? What's wrong? I'm not playing nearly as loose with your words or Bork's as you would with S.A.M.'s. So keep dehumanizing the Jews in order to hate S.A.M. Go on. Have your fill. And then get this through your skull: Israel is not Judaism! One would think that obvious, but, then again, one would think hating Jews passé. Life goes on. Well, for the living.

Dude, you're so far off base with this nonsense. Both the pre-emptive addressing of some strawman of my imagined reaction, the weak-suck attempt at inversion, and the laughable premise that SAM is some principled critic of Israel without any animus towards Jews as such. Take a deep breath and try to get it together. You're going to need all your faculties when S.A.M. kicks the stilts out from under you with her next iteration of rabid Jew-baiting.

 

[Bells]

Well, I think part of what you're seeing is an expected result, and that's not a negative thing. The basic paradox you're describing is pretty blatant, so people are grabbing onto things that aren't quite so obviously resolved: Yes, there is something counterintuitive about civic equality equating to genocide.

But here's the thing: Especially for a Jew.

Yes, the cutural allusion is clear, but it is also counterintuitive. That is, we cannot limit an American Jewish identity politic strictly to its Judaism. It is also American, and thus entitled to be as apparently counterintuitive, openly dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American, or otherwise bogglingly self-contradictory as any other identity politic.

It's not fair to the black guy to expect him to view the police department with an automatically cynical eye. It is not fair to the woman to oblige her to feminism. And it is not fair to the Jew to expect the Holocaust to have any logical place in the identity politic. We cannot bind all Jews to Hitler for all time.

We cannot insist that any given Jew always share the picture frame with Hitler and Sharon.

American Jews are American, and one of the great quirks of American culture is that people often come to demand of our American system exactly what they're entitled to, even though they don't actually believe people should have all those rights to begin with. An American is predisposed toward spending what is theirs while saying they shouldn't have it in the first place.

Look at the title of this thread. One can argue the same point on any given day without the words "liberal" or "Jew" in the sentence.

So, first: Yes, people see exactly the problem you're pointing to.

And then: But the phenomenon exists in the American culture regardless of political, cultural, or ethnic identity factors.

That's where you're running into that crippling dissonance. You're not actually supposed to wrap your head around it. The question—



—can be written without mentioning Jews. Or blacks, or indigenous tribal descendants.

Or anyone, really, more specifically than Americans. And if we pause to consider the number of people from nations abroad who would disagree with American decadence but also, should circumstance ever find them in such a situation, invoke every last right they could find in the American judicial system civil or criminal, we don't even need to make it about Americans.

Is there not something paradoxical about anyone, anywhere, who might ever have said jack squat about justice ... &c.?

Now, let's just add a bit of sweetener: It's you. Do you really think, in any weather, given so obvious a thread focus and that craven need to find some reason to disagree wtih you ... okay, that's not entirely fair. It only counts for the usual suspects.

But, yes, people are eggshelling it for, well, varius reasons. But it starts with the facts of how obvious is the problem you're referring to, and, well, the fact that it's you, and thus the one thing some folks won't do is simply shrug and move on.

AMG!

He's right!

How could I have not seen it before....

I was so so wrong..:bawl:

 

[chimpkin]

Bork...the reason I'd like to see one government is because I'd like to see the Palestinians not get repeatedly treated like less-than humans by the Israelis.
Since the Israelis seem to be happy to inflict "collective punishment" on a civilian populace.
Not that that's a guarantee.

The only other way I've thought of guaranteed to protect Palestinian rights is forcible partition from the outside...and that's actually more likely to work, just cost someone a lot.

As far as the Arab states losing, yes...the US's ability to pour modern armaments into Israel isn't so far surpassed.
This is an ethical argument for Israel how?

Neither side has clean hands...but ATM Israel has more money and more power.
Admittedly the surrounding Arab states could take in the Palestinians...but it's Israel that evicted them...

If nothing else Israel ought to compensate them...ought to let them have a decent -sized state and then stop displacing them and bulldozing their houses:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-...ian-homes-demolished-without-warning-20080311
http://thetimesofpakistan.com/2011/04/08/israeli-army-bulldozes-palestinian-homes/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8303355.stm
http://www.thenational.ae/news/worl...dozes-palestinian-homes-in-occupied-jerusalem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/13/palestinian-homes-bulldozed-israeli

Also their infrastructure projects, and villages:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bab...freedom-road-succumbs-to-israeli-dictate.html
http://gulfnews.com/news/region/pal...-demolishes-two-palestinian-villages-1.717958

I'm actually with the people who think that Israel's use of Caterpillar 'dozers to destroy houses, orchards, and occasionally run people down mean that it's a violation of US law to sell said bulldozers to Israel.

 

[Bells]

The only other way I've thought of guaranteed to protect Palestinian rights is forcible partition from the outside...and that's actually more likely to work, just cost someone a lot.

Won't happen.

Neither side has clean hands...but ATM Israel has more money and more power.
Admittedly the surrounding Arab states could take in the Palestinians...but it's Israel that evicted them...

If nothing else Israel ought to compensate them...

Compensation means nothing if the land grab for new settlements continue and if more and more are forcibly evicted from their lands and denied even basic rights.

What we are seeing now is colonisation at it's finest, in modern times and supported with modern weapons. So how long did it take previous colonists to recognise natives as being human beings worthy of equal rights?

Couple of hundred years?

And how much compensation has been paid to native people's around the world? $0.00.

 

[chimpkin]

I know all that, Bells...but I'm not enough of a jackass to say it approximates right or good.

Or that because of the Holocaust, the Jews get to evict the Palestinians from their homes.
The Palestinians were there for what? 1000 years the second time?
Not counting the first Jewish invasion, since the bible/talmud isn't accurate.

But I'm not quite sure what to do...I just know what we are doing sucks ass.
So I want to try something radically different.

 

[GeoffP]

Usual suspicious mods

Sorry; no time for a proper, sweaty fisking. These pearls will simply have to suffice.

I don't treat you that way; I don't see your words with the same presumption of evil. And I know damn well how much it offends people to be looked at like that. Hell, I'm only halfway there with Geoff, and look how easy it is to work him up into a froth.

Well, when it's primarily you doing the frothing...:shrug: I was fascinated by the post in which you tried to assert your somehow-ecumenicality by rattling off a list of neighbours whose association with you is necessarily marginal, and even more marginally connected to anything related to the thread. Give us your provisos, Tiassa: they are as meaningless as much of the things you write and think. As flip-outs go, it wasn't even very glib: repetition make truth?

Show me where I've ever attributed anything about S.A.M. to her religion, or engaged in any such stereotyping of Muslims generally.

Geoff is over there, and your strawman of him even farther over that same way.

A clarification: in point of fact, I suppose on reflection that Sam's religion is indeed a first pass. What can I say? How many Mawdudists are Methodist? Sikh? Myuunitarian? If I'm criticizing Falwell, do I take up the position that he's the result of a bad strain of Buddhism? As for generalizing: I don't. The closest I come is talking about proportional representation. This is an issue Bells and Tiassa don't understand, mind.

Ermm okay..

You boob! Tiassa wasn't even speaking to you. So why do you assume that when someone says "bigot" or "usual suspect" that they are talking about you in particular?

What, are you serious? In the former, he was responding directly to me. You'd have to be a pretty surprising dullard to fail to...oh. Right.

As for the usual suspects: duhr, no idea why I mighta thunk that 'un. It's a mystery.

And we know you are wounded by it because you hit the report button so much and complain so much. And that was it.

So you do understand that bigot was directed at me, but before you didn't and - ah, fuck it. No, I'm not much wounded by it these days. I mean: look at the accusers. A permanently confused bloggist and a deluded housewife with oppression issues? Really? Fuck that.

Nein!

He didn't accuse you of being a bigot until you demanded he did.

Wow. You can't read?

 

[S.A.M.]

If anyone is still interested in the original topic, here is something similar from a "progressive" Australian Jew:

“Liberal” Zionist refuses to condemn occupation (and Murdoch provides platform)

Most people understand that Jews can expect another genocide under the “single state solution” proposed for Israel by the “watermelon” Greens.

http://antonyloewenstein.com/2011/0...emn-occupation-and-murdoch-provides-platform/

From Anthony Lowenstein:

Sadly, in Australia we have seen exactly the same kind of Zionist advocacy, with Zionist lawyer George Newhouse shamefully writing this week that the NSW Greens support “genocide” by advocating a one-state solution (which they don’t, by the way; official Greens policy is a two-state solution).

http://antonyloewenstein.com/2011/0...rael-is-doing-in-palestine-no-didnt-think-so/

 

[Gustav]

haha
thats some funny shit sam

look at newhouse equivocate about a boycott....

Since 586BC, when they were forced into exile from Israel, the Jewish people have been the canaries in the coalmine for extremism. Their treatment is a measure of the society in which they live. Modern history demonstrates that the persecution of Jews is not limited to fascists and the Right. Stalin and the Left perpetrated murderous campaigns against Soviet and other Jewish communities. Most people understand that Jews can expect another genocide under the “single state solution” proposed for Israel by the “watermelon” Greens.​

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/greens-boycott-rebounds/story-e6frg6z6-1226041184878

so i am stalin?
because i am a lefty supporting a boycott of isreal?

But Jewish groups argue the motives of the campaign are far from peaceful. Peter Wertheim, the executive director of the Council of Australian Jewry argues the movement is a front to delegitimise any Israeli state.

"The BDS movement is deliberately and deceptively slippery about its real aims. Even when its proponents appear to formulate their goals, they do so in a way that intentionally leaves much unsaid, and much unexplained," he says.

"Well-intentioned people are lulled into supporting BDS by being told this is a peaceful alternative to the decades of conventional wars and terrorism that Palestinian and Arab leaders have used to try to wipe Israel off the map​

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-picking-on-jews/story-e6frg6zo-1226036877841

umm
you get to keep your state
your govt and murderous policies?
no
think south africa
its still around, ja?

frakkin zionist trolls

 

[Gustav]

i like this marrickville council in sydney....

The Greens have threatened a trade boycott against the world’s second-largest economy in an attack on China by one of its high-profile NSW candidates. Marrickville Mayor Fiona Byrne, who is running for the state seat, has revealed her council would consider boycotting China out of sympathy for Tibetans. Labor labelled the policy as “stupid and dangerous” and warned such a ban could threaten Chinese trade with NSW – worth more than $3.2 billion to the state’s economy – and damage cultural and student ties with China. “This is one of the most destructive policies announced by any mayor in Australia’s history,” Labor’s campaign spokesman Luke Foley said. He has called for Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown to step in and rule out suggestions of a boycott of Australia’s largest trading partner.​

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ayor-fiona-byrne/story-e6freuy9-1226012222348
.

Greens Candidate for the seat of Melbourne Adam Bandt With Fiona Byrne greens Marrickville Candidate outside State Parliament


the face of a terrorist..?

....seems like it

/chortle

 

[Gustav]

ok
you zionists won
for now

IN the end, not even celebrity bleeding hearts John Pilger and Naomi Klein could save "brave" Marrickville Council from itself.

The tiny Green inner-western Sydney council on Tuesday night buckled to pressure not to boycott Israel.

During a fiery meeting that lasted more than three hours, eight of 12 councillors voted to abandon the council's controversial support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, which would have cost ratepayers as much as $3.7 million.

"I personally don't understand why we've had a sledgehammer used to crush the little egg of Marrickville Council," lamented Green Mayor Fiona Byrne.

Common sense won the night but it took more than three hours of self-righteous grandstanding and heartfelt oratory as more than 400 people packed the chamber and spilled down two flights of stairs onto the street, where police waited in case of unrest.

Julia Gillard may think the Greens in her coalition are extreme, but they are nothing on the public gallery at the Marrickville council meeting, where even some Greens councillors were denounced for not being extremist enough.

Activists waved "Free Palestine" banners and Israeli flags, shouted, harangued, jeered and even walked out, as Byrne at times struggled to keep control and threatened to expel the entire public gallery.​

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/israel-debacle-ends-greens-dream/story-e6frfifo-1226042409327

ja
we will be back

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm I read Lowenstein off and on, but clearly there is much more Zionist advocacy in Australia than I thought. Do they have a Zionist lobby as well?

Any idea who the major players are?

edit: never mind

http://antonyloewenstein.com/2011/03/23/australias-zionist-lobby-worried-bds-may-be-catching/

 

[fedr808]

Is there any particular reason I should actually care?

 

[S.A.M.]

Is there any particular reason I should actually care?

Thats not a question that anyone else can answer for you, I think. Only you know if you should care or not.

 

[Bells]

Sorry; no time for a proper, sweaty fisking. These pearls will simply have to suffice.

That is how you view your leavings?

What, are you serious? In the former, he was responding directly to me. You'd have to be a pretty surprising dullard to fail to...oh. Right.

He responded to you after you virtually demanded he did.. His post where he makes mention of "usual suspects" and then mentions your name in passing as an example, were not directed at you and he was at this point, pretty much igoring you. Yet you acted as if he was attacking you personally with the comment "usual suspect" and then you took his comment about you to being something completely different and ran with it like it was a pair of sharp scissors. I had to agree with him originally when he asked you what the hell you were on about. He hadn't even acknowledged you, spoken to you or even addressed you and you carried on as if he'd launched missiles at your home and family. Seriously? What the?!?

But then, if that wasn't bad enough, because you apparently did not get the hint about what he was talking about and to whom when he first told you directly, you then interpreted it all as being this:

OMG - it's not a "poor me" argument when your line starts with "usual suspects" and ends off with "whatever the fuck you're ranting about, Geoff" and then on to the inevitable accusations of bigotry and all the rest of it.

You took two words he said to a different poster, your name not even mentioned and automatically attributed it to you and I'm betting hit the report button? Yes? That's your usual thing isn't it? Anywho, you then seemed to think that when he initially said "usual suspect" and that was the only time he'd said it, you seemed to think it was the start of a 'line' and that line ended with "whatever the fuck you're ranting about, Geoff"..

Is there no end to this delusion?

And then, when he again asks you what you're on about, you whine because you feel he's attacking you, when you went after him first and abused him for something you obviously did not understand and automatically attributed to you - abusing him for it and then getting pissy when he responded in kind.

What do you think 'play nice' meant?

As for the usual suspects: duhr, no idea why I mighta thunk that 'un. It's a mystery.

'Cos ya paranoid?

Maybe?

Ja?

So you do understand that bigot was directed at me, but before you didn't and - ah, fuck it.

You mean after you virtually begged him to do it after he reminded you to stop being an attention whore?

No, I'm not much wounded by it these days. I mean: look at the accusers.

Of course you're not.

/Pat

A permanently confused bloggist and a deluded housewife with oppression issues? Really? Fuck that.

I'm glad to see that you are not annoyed at all that a "confused bloggist" and a "deluded housewife" are laughing our collective arses off at your delusions. Not at all.

Wow. You can't read?

This coming from the guy who hit the report button because someone dared say "usual suspect" and assumed it had to be about him? Are you sure you're one to ask?

Now.. this ends here.

Discuss the topic at hand or shut up.

The topic is not you. If you wish to discuss your needs further and not continue to derail this thread as you have been with your whines, please take said complaints and whines to the appropriate subforum. Okay?

Excellent fellow!

Now toddle off now..

Good boy..

Buh bye!:wave: