Orthodox rabbi marries gay couple in historic wedding in DC

[King_David]

For the first time in history, Steve Greenberg, an openly-gay American rabbi ordained by the Orthodox movement, has officiated at a same-sex wedding ceremony.

On Thursday night at Washington DC’s “Historic 6th and I Synagogue,” Greenberg stood under the chupah, a traditional Jewish wedding canopy, as newlyweds Yoni Bock and Ron Kaplan tied the knot before some two-hundred guests. Recognizing the unique – and controversial – moment, Greenberg’s voice notably cracked when near the end he stated, “By the power invested in me by the District of Columbia, I now pronounce you married.”

Greenberg gained notoriety following his role in the 2001 documentary by an American filmmaker, “Trembling Before G-d,” which portrayed the conflicts of gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews trying to reconcile their religious convictions and sexual orientations. After the films successful release, Greenberg traveled with director Sandi Simcha Dubowski, screening the film globally. He was approached by Bock and Kaplan about a year ago and was asked to perform the ceremony, to which he agreed

The couple had dated since 2005. They agreed to get married in 2008 while on a bike ride, but wanted to wait until doing so was actually legal. A recent change in Washington DC’s laws paved the way for them to do just that.



We were encouraged by the legislation of same-sex marriage in our home ‘state’ of Washington, DC,” Bock and Kaplan noted in the evening’s program guide. “At the same time, both of us wanted a ceremony that would be meaningful halachically (in terms of religious Jewish law) and create a set of Jewish legal obligations between us.

While a number of same-sex couples – many of them Jewish – have now married in US areas that recently legalized gay and lesbian unions, none were officiated by a rabbi who holds Orthodox ordination. The movement maintains a strict interpretation of Jewish law, including the biblical verse found in Leviticus 18 which refers to a man lying with another man as an abomination.

Greenberg assisted Bock and Kaplan in creating a ceremonial text that reflected the uniqueness of the event while incorporating the traditional elements of a Jewish wedding. Those familiar with the latter would have noticed an alteration in many of the texts, including the changing of genders for several of the pronouns. “Harey at mekudeshet li,” or “Behold, you (female) are consecrated to me” thus became “Harey atah m’kudash li,” or “Behold, you (male) are consecrated to me.”

http://972mag.com/orthodox-rabbi-marries-gay-couple-in-washington-dc/27424/

[King_David]

1. Sundown: Landmark Orthodox Gay Wedding

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/83107/sundown-landmark-orthodox-gay-wedding/

[holdencaufield]

2. Much have been some simcha... NT

[Ken Burch]

3. Good to hear...this has nothing to do with the I/P issue, however.

Israel and Judaism are not interchangeable.

[King_David]

5. Huh?

Israel us the Jewish State .

This website is all about Israel.Most Jewish websites are.

[Ken Burch]

7. The wedding occurred in Washington, D.C., not Tel Aviv or Jerusalem

And this is the Israel/Palestine forum, not the LGBT forum.

The occurrence of a same-sex wedding in the United States, wonderful as it was, has nothing to do with the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. And it does not make a case for supporting what the Israeli government is doing in the West Bank.

Does that clarify the matter for you?

[oberliner]

8. The article is from 972mag

From their about us:

+972 is a blog-based web magazine that is jointly owned by a group of Israeli journalists and bloggers. The writers’ goal is to provide fresh, original, on-the-ground reporting and analysis of events in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

http://972mag.com/about/

[Ken Burch]

15. Still, it was an event that occurred in Washington, D.C., NOT ISRAEL

King David is trying to use this to score points in the I/P debate, and it has nothing to do with that debate.

The fact that an AMERICAN Orthodox rabbi does something enlightened(for which that rabbi should be praised, obviously)does not make a case, which the "King" here would like it to, that people who support LGBT rights should take the Israeli "side" in the dispute, and should look the other way about the Occupation and the illegal settlements.

I'm happy that the wedding did occur but it should be in the LGBT Forum. It has nothing to do with the I/P issue at all, since this wedding could not have occurred in either Palestine OR Israel.

Does that clarify what I was saying, oberliner?

[King_David]

26. Again you make shit up

Do you ever learn?

[Ken Burch]

29. Nothing I posted there was made up.

You've frequently misused the LGBT issue to push people into unquestioning support for hardline Israeli "security" policies.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

32. I'm not complaining about forwarding an LGBT agenda

I support LGBT rights as much as you, and have proven it. Don't ever accuse me of not supporting LGBT rights again. It's a lie every time you say that about me.

We've put the "you have to oppose Palestinian independence until Palestine has gay rights" thing to rest already. No, you don't have to. It's enough to support LGBT rights everywhere, and it's not appropriate to use that issue to keep Palestine under military occupation, since continuing military occupation CANNOT lead to the creation of LGBT rights in Palestine. You know it can't as well as I.

If you were serious about LGBT rights for Palestine on the merits of that issue, you'd support something along the lines of what I suggested--the removal of 10,000 illegal West Bank settlers for every article of a Bill of Rights established by the PA. That would be a constructive proposal. Continuing the Occupation can't achieve LGBT rights or greater democracy in Palestine. All sensible people know that.

Israel didn't have a gay rights law when IT gained independence, and didn't get even semi-official tolerance of such rights until eighteen years or so after independence(I got that from one of YOUR posts).

By the logic of your argument, I'd have had to support keeping British troops in place and continuing the British Mandate UNTIL the Zionist movement announced it would recognize LGBT rights. Yet you yourself would NEVER accept that as a valid position. Your demand that the Occupation be continued until Palestine has an LGBT rights law is exactly equivalent to that scenario. Remember, in 1948, there was no gay rights movement among Zionists.

Most of the nations that are independent as of now did not have LGBT right legislation at the time they gained independence. Does that mean that none of them should have gained independence until they did? Or do you ONLY insist on that for Palestine, for some reason?

And again, this wedding occurred in Washington D.C.-NOT in Israel. You can't claim every progressive thing any Jewish person anywhere on the planet does as something the state of Israel deserves credit for. Israel and Judaism are not interchangeable.

[pelsar]

34. this is simple...i'll keep as three sentences:

1) Israel the country in its foundation has the basic laws that are used to ensure and expand upon civil liberties

2) the PA that your are so fond of, has religious law as its foundation (The principles of Islamic Shari'a shall be the main source of legislation.) which by definition negates civil rights.

3) whatever your for or against, your mostly for the creation of a state that clearly in its very foundation has put civil rights as secondary to religious law, commonly known as fascist law that you have clearly 'proven" time and time again.
______________________________________________________


a notation:
PA shari law.....bad for gays, women, and short people
PA has declared shari law its main source for legislation
Palestenians will be/are governed by shari law

shari law (as are all religious laws) bad for gays and other minorities....and the world as a whole

you promote the establishment of a new state that will have shari law as its foundation....that is NOT a liberal view (perhaps a progressive view).

[Ken Burch]

35. I'm against sharia law and you know it.

Keeping the West Bank under IDF Occupation can't make sharia law go away(and, for that matter, to my knowledge the Israeli government hasn't actually made sharia in the West Bank an issue, to my knowledge(do you know for sure if they actually have, btw?)but the last thing Palestinians would ever do is change something because the force of the IDF was being used to make them change it.

It would be far more effective to propose, for example, that 10,000 West Bank settlers be repatriated to Israel in exchange for every secular provision in the Palestinian constitution-that could work-continuing the Occupation never could.

The only other thing that can get the PA to make the changes you and I(and, I suspect, a lot of Palestinians themselves)would want is to give them breathing space. Ease off one level of restrictions of the Occupation in exchange for each liberalizing measure. Unlike perpetuation the Occupation, this would actually give the PA an incentive to change.

But my main point remains-the changes can only come from within Palestinian political culture itself-they cannot be made to stick if anyone attempts to use coercive measures from without to cause them. Palestinians who push for liberalization or secular values will have no chance of making their case if it looks like they are asking Palestine to give in to Israel on the matter.


On a personal note...

please stop already with the condescension-The fact that I disagree with you does not entitle you to act as if I'm a simpleton.
I never personally attacked you, but, instead, always made a distinction between you as an individual and the state you live in. That's how civilized, pro-democracy people conduct debate.

And I'm not your enemy. I don't want Israel to be destroyed, and nothing I support can cause it to be destroyed. The status quo, on the other hand, is doing and will continue to do severe damage to Israel, because perpetuation the Occupation is causing massive decay to the democratic values of Israel itself.

[pelsar]

39. now you want israel to "bribe the PA"....

but but but i though interfering in somebody else culture was as "no no"...

that 10,000 West Bank settlers be repatriated to Israel in exchange for every secular provision in the Palestinian constitution

i though you were against the colonialist telling the locals how to live?
________

you may be against "sharil law" but not that much.....since you are willing to support the creation today of a state based on shari law.....so i'm not sure just how much your really against it

you are supporting the creation of a Palestinians state today based on the PA....correct?

as far as being my "enemy"..no, your just a very naive person that has little understanding for the consequences for the actions that you would like to set in motion.....and those consequences can be very very deadly for me, my family and my society.....democracy in small countries are very personal

[Ken Burch]

40. I'm willing to respect the wishes of the Palestinian people

And, unlike you, I'm not willing to cynically invoke the rhetoric of human rights to keep one nation under the occupation of another nation's army.

It's just as pro-rights to support self-determination AND democratization as part of the development of that nation. That's how it worked in the U.S.

And that's a big issue for me on this:

What right do I have to demand more from another nation as the price for recognizing its right to self-determination than I would have demanded of my own? If I couldn't have demanded(and truthfully, I'd have had no right to make this demand)that the Thirteen Colonies remain under British rule until slavery was abolished, I can't demand that Palestine remain under Israeli rule until there's a guarantee that sharia will not be imposed(btw, you haven't answered as to whether or not the Israeli government itself is making non-adoption of sharia a condition of withdrawing the IDF, so I'll assume based on that that you're admitting that Bibi and Co. aren't making any such demand).

If my country wasn't at the peak of democratic perfection when it started, how can I legitimately demand that from Palestine?

See where I'm going with this?

And Israel wasn't perfect on human rights when IT gained independence. It didn't stop discriminating against gays and lesbians until many years after its independence...kept the Israeli Arab minority, a group the Israeli government already knew had accepted and recognized Israel and thus no longer deserved to be treated as an enemy, living under racially-specific martial law for eighteen years, and destroys Bedouin villages today for no good reason(and I'm not even talking about the West Bank).

It's not a betrayal of any commitment democracy to reject the idea of keeping one nation under military occupation until it satisfies the nation occupying it that it has achieved democratic purity. It's enough to support the building of democracy in Palestine whenever it happens. My commitment to democracy is just as pure as yours is. I just don't believe that keeping the IDF in the West Bank can ever be an effective means of getting Palestine to be as democratic as I'd like it. Deep inside, I strongly suspect that you yourself know accept that Occupation can't democratize the future, but pride forbids you to admit that you realize this to be true.

Besides, there's no reason to think a Palestinian state that was fully democratic from the start would be incapable of going to war with Israel. After all, the United States is democratic and it goes to war with other countries all the time. So is Great Britain. So are a lot of other countries I could name of.

The key to preventing war between Israel and an independent Palestinian state is to establish normal diplomatic relations and a mechanism for both countries to resolve disputes without war-NOT keeping Palestine occupied until the most inflexible people in Israeli politics say that the IDF doesn't have to stay there anymore.

[pelsar]

43. you keep arguing with yourself......

i'm sure that is very very comfortable since it means you don't have to face up to your contradictory views...If you would actually read what i write and not add anything you'll find yourself in a box, perhaps thats why you don't do it:

lets start with the use of the word perfect... i never used it, but i do know why you do....since nothing is nor can it be perfect you get to use that as an excuse to explain how wrong i am because as you explain it i'm asking for perfection.

so why did you suddenly use the word perfect? (look through my posts and when you can't find it ever, then explain yourself.....and rather than apologize just "promise to respond only to what i write without adding anything...and try to do it)

[Ken Burch]

52. I proved I wasn't being contradictory.

I'm being consistent.

If I couldn't be against my own country becoming independent while slavery remained in place, then I can't be against Palestine getting independence until it promises not to impose sharia.

It's the same thing-and in fact, my country was actually WORSE than Palestine on the democratic scale.

Please stop acting as if Palestine is the most repressive place in the history of the universe.

And it would make no difference to Israel's security whether Palestine was a democracy or not-the way for Israel to truly be secure is to actually address the legitimate grievances Palestinians have about the situation-you end wars by dealing with what people have a right to be angry about.

[pelsar]

86. your a mass of contradictions...one example

1) you state: 'its up to the Palestinians to decided what kind of govt they want, israel has no right to pressure them

then you state:

2) Israel should remove 10,000 settlers for every secular provision in their constitution....
____________________________________
1 and 2 contradict one another..you do see that don't you?...this is pretty hard to miss



do i really have to explain to why the founding documents of the US are so very different from those of a govt based on shari law?..you do know about things like "separation of church and state, the bill or rights,....the foundation of the US-now find those things in shari law (perhaps you don't believe in them, at least not for all people, is that it?

another ridiculous statement from you
Please stop acting as if Palestine is the most repressive place in the history of the universe.


and finally
And it would make no difference to Israel's security whether Palestine was a democracy or not

and finally you get to the heart of the matter....it makes all the difference in the world, if you claim that Palestenian people are no interested in fighting israel, then their govt best be built upon their needs and not the needs of some religious elite, that you are so willing to accommodate and infact appear to promote (ugh!)


i tell you what were learning from you: you simply don't believe that all people on this earth have as their first and and most important right to live in a society that is based on civil rights for all.......you don't believe in the superiority of western secular govts over religious govts

our conclusion? that you would equate the taliban style of ruling with the US constitution, after all who are you to tell them different? (is that not the core of the multiculturalism that you believe in?)

[Ken Burch]

88. "our conclusion" who is this "our"? You don't speak for everybody in Israel

If the Israeli government really cared about democracy in the Middle East, it wouldn't have embarrassed itself by hysterically denouncing the people's movement that overthrew the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt, or denounced the rest of the "Arab Spring" uprisings that occurred throughout the region.

But those uprisings threatened Israel's narrative: It's arrogant claim to being "the only democracy in the Middle East", and the even more arrogant insinuation that it was the only democracy that ever COULD exist there. At some point, the Arabs were going to prove that they were and are just as capable of democratizing on their own as anyone else is. And the rise of the Arab Spring is actually the greatest threat to the spread of sharia. Sharia and the fundamentalist movements in the Islamic world were only going to grow as long as the governments of Islamic countries were controlled by regimes that tolerated no dissent and used brute force to maintain power, with the population living in mortal fear of the security forces of those states. That fear has gone now, and as it has vanished the people of those countries are realizing that they can rule themselves, that they can change their countries without the guidance of some sort of imported religious extremist movements, and so the whole narrative of the irredeemability and unchangability of the Arab and Islamic world is falling apart. Arabs and Muslims are showing themselves to be normal, non-barbaric human beings like anybody else. And you can't stand that, because it challenges all your prejudices and puts makes it impossible to make the case for all your paranoia-based positions on "security".

It's a different world in the Middle East, and you're not going to be able to reduce it to "Israel good-everybody ELSE evil" any more. A person with a positive outlook on life would be glad of this, because such a person would WANT the region where they live to be turning into a more reasonable and less fearsome place.

[pelsar]

89. JFC (another acronym)

where do you get this stuff from?...some kind of "automatic responder"....if the subject is not on your menu list of automatic responses all you can do is make up accusations and rant?

there is no israeli govt on the DU....they seem to be ignoring us, so you can ignore them as well...i do.

you imagination at work:
insinuation that it was the only democracy that ever COULD exist there----- try to find it where i insinuate it

they can change their countries without the guidance of some sort of imported religious extremist movements,----the MB/hamas/ etc are not imported they are home grown and local (wait you don't respect the will of the people that are pro MB?)

Arabs and Muslims are showing themselves to be normal, non-barbaric human beings like anybody else. And you can't stand that . IDC (incredibly dumb comment)
______________

i did notice how you had to avoid the comparison of the taliban and their culture to the US constitution and bill of rights. so shall i assume you believe that they are of equal standing, since you do believe, as in i understand, in multiculturalism

and its not nice to avoid the parts where you "leave the reservation" and get caught up in conficting views (should israel interfere or not...which is it, you've said both).

[Ken Burch]

95. Of course I don't think the U.S. Constitution and the Taliban are of equal standing

What I said was that the U.S. was a very, very repressive place IN PRACTICE at the time it gained independence, and that it was by no means clear that any of the repression that existed at that time would end(there was no reason to think that slavery would ever be abolished, and the persecution of Native Americans had barely begun).

Therefore, I do not hold the view you falsely accuse me of holding.

And my suggestion about removing settlers in exchange for liberalization was about a humane alternative to keeping the settlements in place and the IDF in place. What I suggested was not the same thing as saying "no independence until we SAY you can be independent". It was an incentive as opposed to coercion.

[pelsar]

102. so lets that this very slow...baby steps

so we can assume that you believe the US constitution is a more "moral" document for the foundation of a state that what the taliban have to offer

is that a fair statement?

just answer the question: avoid words such as Palestinians, occupation, IDF.....we're tying to figure out how you define multiculturalism.....how much moral superiority over other cultures you have....


____

and you "incentive" as you call it, to pressure the Palestinians to develop a secular document is other wise known as interference in their own political process. Guess we can conclude that you are also for meddling in their politics to produce a result you prefer....(thats what incentives do, they are designed to achieve a certain result.

so at least we have cleared that up.

[King_David]

104. He doesn't use fabrication though

;)

[Ken Burch]

106. And neither do I.

n/t.

[King_David]

107. umm

ok

[shira]

46. Respect the wishes of WHICH Palestinian people in particular? Those for sharia or against?

Here's my opinion...

It's pretty clear that Leftists today don't respect the wishes of Arabs(whether rightwing or leftwing, seculars or liberals) throughout the mideast today fighting to survive against their sharia masters - and don't care if the Arab Spring turns into a Muslim Brotherhood Winter. As I see it - and anyone here should feel free to correct me - the Left doesn't care about secular and liberal Arabs suffering under their dicatators without basic civil rights in Libya, Syria, or Egypt, so there's no reason to believe Leftists care about Palestinian civil rights under the sharia enforcement of the PA or Hamas. The Left has no problem betraying seculars and liberals within the mideast suffering under extreme, hard Rightwing tyrannies. They're not going to change course and start caring for Palestinians...

So I can't say I buy that Leftists give one rip about Palestinian civil rights. The Left seems FAR more interested in mideast regimes being anti-West, anti-American, anti-Capitalist, anti-Israel and will not only overlook all their mass human rights abuses, but assist these regimes in diverting attention away and almost entirely onto the West and all their perceived misdeeds, even making all kinds of shit up when it comes to Israel...so fanatical and irrational is their hatred for the liberal West. Anything to deflect and divert from tyrannical, totalitarian regimes. They then label any criticism of these regimes racist or bigoted, these regimes get off the hook and can continue to do what they want. Screw the people suffering under them. That's how I see it, correct me if I'm wrong...

The enemy (radicals of both the far Left and far Right) of your enemy (the liberal West) is your friend and they can literally get away with all the murder and mass human rights abuses they want. Anything goes. So long as they're assisting in the "revolution" against the liberal West, the hard Left will join their enemies on the far Right.

I personally have absolutely no reason to believe Leftists would do anything at all to help Palestinians gain civil rights within the territories once the PA and Hamas have their own states. No mass protests. No flotillas. Zero. Nothing. Just like WRT Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Iran. That's not what they're about. It's not what they do.

[Ken Burch]

50. What do you want me to do?

I'm against sharia. Keeping the Occupation in place can NEVER be an effective way of fighting sharia. And it could never be acceptable to have the IDF retake Gaza.

[shira]

53. Start organizing mass civil rights protests against sharia and stand up for secular/liberal Arabs...

..all across the mideast. Get the flotillas floating...

Wouldn't you rather side with those who suffer under sharia than their oppressive leadership? I thought the Palestinian cause was all about civil/human rights and fighting against mean, extreme rightwingers (Hamas and the PA included).

:shrug:

You can't lecture others about Palestinian civil/human rights and do zero about those oppressing Palestinians the most (their leadership).

Maybe the fact that there aren't enough Leftist groups out there working against the PA/Hamas and for Palestinian human rights (with mass protests, etc.) goes to show that the hard Left isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Just saying. As it is, they're just doing Hamas' and the PA's work for them, demonizing and delegitimizing Israel with bogus charges of racism and apartheid.

Maybe you should stop accusing the IDF and Israel of trying to deny Palestinians a state with endless occupation and start admitting you understand Israelis are very reluctant to hand over land without some solid assurances that Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem won't become like Sderot. Be reasonable and show some empathy and compassion to the VAST majority of Israelis who believe that almost immediately after a pullout, rockets will start falling on their homes. Israelis have human rights too.

You could start there...

[pelsar]

47. can't resist.....and i apologize ahead of time

Deep inside, I strongly suspect that you yourself know accept that Occupation can't democratize the future, but pride forbids you to admit that you realize this to be true.

AYOOYFM!!!!!

(i don't know if that is an acceptable/known acronym, but it works for me. What i have "deep inside" you 'll never know, plus for the zillionth time, its not the job of the occupation nor of the IDF to democratize the Palestenians...how many times must that be written to you

i'll write it again:
its not the job of the occupation nor of the IDF to democratize the Palestinians

and again:
its not the job of the occupation nor of the IDF to democratize the Palestinians

and again
its not the job of the occupation nor of the IDF to democratize the Palestinians

should i write it again?

[Ken Burch]

51. Then stop demanding that I support delaying Palestinian independence

because delaying Palestinian independence AUTOMATICALLY means keeping the Occupation in place.

[shira]

54. Palestinian independence at the cost of thousands of rockets on Tel Aviv/Jerusalem is unacceptable

Do you understand that? Because you SHOULD!

Hamas and the PA have given ZERO reason for Israelis to believe they'll live in security without rockets once the IDF is completely out of the WB.

Once Israelis have real, empirical evidence showing they can safely turn over the WB without the entirety of Israel becoming the hell of Sderot, you'll have a better argument for ending the occupation.

For some reason, however, I don't think you can give the vast majority of Israelis the benefit of the doubt, empathize with them, and demonstrate that you realize why they feel the occupation must continue. What's that reason, Ken?

[Ken Burch]

56. I can empathize with Israelis.

I want everybody on both sides to live in safety.

It's disgusting that you'd imply that I don't empathize with Israelis, and that you'd further imply(with your ugly "why is that?" question)that there's a particularly dark reason for my alleged lack of empathy. You owe me an apology for implying that since you know I oppose all forms of bigotry.

I don't have to support preserving the Occupation to prove I empathize with Israelis.

The people who DON'T empathize with ordinary Israelis are those(like Bibi)who STILL haven't given up on preventing a Palestinian state from ever coming into existence-the ones who care more about "winning" short-term battles and having something to gloat about than about actually resolving the dispute.

The way to stop groups like Hamas is to stop perpetuating the injustices that give those groups the support levels the receive-you stop those groups by giving ordinary Palestinians breathing space, by admitting that ordinary Palestinians have a right to regard the Occupation and the settlements as injustices, and by addressing those injustices in various ways.

And it's silly for you to keep acting as if what Hamas does is more important than any other issue in this situation-Hamas' existence does not JUSTIFY perpetuating the status quo- rather, the status quo keeps Hamas alive(and the Israeli government KNEW Hamas would behave in this way when it started giving aid and comfort to Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO back in the day, so you need to call out all the Israeli politicians and intelligence types who thought building up Hamas, rather than doing what they should have done and negotiated with the PLO when it was at the peak of its influence, was anything like an effective strategy). Is there any reason for anyone to think that, if Hamas WERE to collapse, you wouldn't just switch to some OTHER reason to keep defending the Occupation?

I want all of the violence to end. The way to end the violence is to end the injustice. Keeping the IDF in the West Bank feeds extremism in the West Bank...it perpetuates rage among Palestinians, since any people living under the guns of a foreign army will always feel rage at their occupiers...and it makes it hard for those Palestinians who do oppose Hamas to do so in anything like an effective way, because the presence of the IDF makes them look(unfairly, but it's how it does make them look)like collaborationists. It's time to stop holding all Palestinians collectively responsible for Hamas, shira-it's unfair and it simply doesn't work.

And it's a repugnant assertion to imply that an independent Palestinian state would subject Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to massive rocket fire. Palestinians are not berserkers- they are not devoid of humanity- they just want not to be living at the mercy of another country's army. Is this so hard to understand? You are essentially arguing that Israelis are civilized but Palestinians aren't. Believing that is no way to work for any peaceful resolution of all of this.

The truest empathy is to recognize the true causes of the misery-not to pretend, as you do, that it's all the OTHER sides' fault.

[shira]

70. Not once in your reply did you empathize with the vast majority of Israelis who fear...

...that all Israel will become like Sderot if the IDF were to evacuate without any change from Hamas and the PA.

Is the problem...

a) that you don't feel their fear is justified?

b) that you doubt the vast majority of Israelis have this fear of a rocket barrage?

c) that the vast majority of Israelis are racists and bigots for not trusting Hamas and the PA not to incite and reward terror and rockets on Israel once the IDF pulls out?


==========

Please answer that first.

In reply to one of your points, NO, once Hamas is out it's not as though Israelis can rest more easily. It's not just about Hamas. There's still Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs, etc.. who'll take over for them. The PA is still inciting hatred vs. Jews and the eventual destruction of Israel. I don't see why you think Israelis should just ignore all that and pretend the PA, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc... are good people deep down. One way to know the PA and Hamas really suck WRT Israel is the way in which they treat their own people. And t hat's like shit. Why should the hated Jews feel they'd be treated better by Palestinian leaders than Palestinians under Hamas/PA control? Especially given the fact Hamas and the PA have given Israelis no reason to trust they wouldn't rain thousands of missiles/rockets over the green line?

[Ken Burch]

76. Israel's leaders have incited just as much hatred against Palestinians

As any Palestinian leaders ever have against Israelis. It goes both ways on that.

Indeed, your posts as a private individual do that on a regular basis.

I empathize with Israelis because I don't want them to suffer. To avoid that, they need leaders who won't keep doing the things that CAUSE Palestinian extremism.

It's just that I know that your approach can't possibly achieve what you say you want it to achieve. It can only make things worse.

If Israeli governments had negotiated with the PLO in the 1980's(the PLO was willing to recognize Israel the moment the talks started, which would have been just as good as recognizing it before talks)there would be no Hamas and none of the other crazies.

Please stop acting as if Palestinian extremism happened for no reason and with no provocation. The Israeli political leadership WANTED it to happen, in order to justify perpetuating the Occupation and continuing to build what it knew were illegal settlements in the West Bank and(at that time)Gaza.

Palestine needs better leaders, as does most of the world. Why can't you accept that keeping IDF troops in the West Bank can't possibly cause that to happen?

And why can't you stop with the "they KNOW what they have to do to stop this" meme-it's not that simple, and Palestinians have no reason to trust any Israeli political or military assurances that they'd get different treatment if their leadership changed. They have as many reasons for suspicion and as much right to see themselves as victims as do ordinary Israelis. BOTH sides are badly served by their leadership.

You get peace by building justice...not by perpetuating injustice. And it's important to let go of being able to say "we won, we won!". "Victory" or "Defeat" in the military sense are no longer meaningful concepts in this dispute. Nobody CAN "win".
It has to end in a face-saving draw for both sides.

[shira]

78. Oh sure, of course they have. Constant incitement for Kahanists to hate/kill Arabs...

Inciting, rewarding, and cheering on the Baruch Goldsteins and honoring those people with streets and sports stadiums named after them. Paying religious leaders to preach non-stop hate and intolerance in Synagogues. Kids TV shows with suicide bunnies blowing up Palestinian daycares....

Yeah, Israel does that and far worse.

:eyes:

See, it's made up bullshit statements like that from you which lead me to believe that when it comes to Israel, you know nothing more than demonizing, making shit up, and delegitimizing the state. Israel can do no right and your criticism of the Jewish state is hardly better and certainly no more rational than criticism coming from the most extreme Palestinian rightwingers.

======

Oh, and you didn't answer my question to you from the last post. The one I wanted you to answer first and foremost before replying to anything else.

[Ken Burch]

80. That question is inflammatory and demagogic-no decent person would answer it in that form.

It's bullshit for you to describe Israelis as "the hated Jews", or to assume that Palestinians see them as "The Jews" and have no issues here other than their feelings about that. Palestinian resistance was NEVER based primarily on antisemitism-yes, there are Palestinian antisemites, but in no greater number than antisemites anywhere else-and it has never been the case that if it weren't for antisemitism Palestinians would never have done any of the things they've done-it was and is based on the suffering Palestinians have experienced. Why do you still refuse to accept that Palestinian grievances are legitimate? Agreed they could use different tactics-but we both know that Palestinian tactics aren't the main issue and that those tactics didn't CREATE this situation.

The way to end the conflict is to address the grievances...NOT to keep pretending that Israelis have suffered and Palestinians haven't-or to cynically argue that Palestinian suffering was caused by "the Palestinian leadership" rather than the continuation of the Occupation.

[shira]

90. So don't answer it, but try to elaborate on why you dismiss the vast majority opinion...

...of Israelis who fear ending the occupation will lead to the rest of Israel becoming like Sderot. How do you respond to these people and show you empathize?

As to the rest of your post, it appears you think Palestinians and their Hamas/PLO leadership are one and the same and that Hamas/PLO really and truly represent the interests of Palestinians. Here's what a fellow leftist has to say about this...

Yes of course Diane, the Left such as the Socialist Workers’ Party and George Galloway defend Islamism – and of course some more than others. Even so, the far-right - my enemy’s enemy - doesn’t make a friend.

But that doesn’t mean that I think the sad excuse of much of the European Left is any better (even though I myself am on the Left).

It is an anti-colonial movement whose perspectives coincide with that of the ruling classes in the so-called Third World. This grouping is on the side of the ‘colonies’ no matter what goes on there. And their understanding of the ‘colonies’ is Eurocentric, patronising and even racist. In the world according to them, the people in these countries are one and the same with the regimes they are struggling against just as the ‘Muslim community’ here is one and the same with reactionary Islamic organisations, Sharia councils, and parasitical imams. Which is why at Stop the War Coalition demonstrations, they carry banners saying ‘We are all Hezbollah;’ at meetings they segregate men and women and urge unveiled women to veil out of ‘solidarity’ and ‘respect’.

This type of politics denies universalism, sees rights as ‘western,’ justifies the suppression of rights, freedoms and equality under the guise of respect for other ‘cultures’ implying that people want to live the way they are forced to and imputing on innumerable people the most reactionary elements of culture and religion, which is that of the ruling class.

In this type of politics, the oppressor is victim and any criticism racist…

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2009/10/pathetic-excuse-of-much-of-european.html


That describes you and the movement to which you belong perfectly, now doesn't it?

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

96. No, it does not. And I didn't find anything in Ms. Amnamazie's post

in which she called for keeping the IDF in the West Bank and sending it back in to Gaza. She doesn't hold those views.

[Ken Burch]

85. Oh, and the creation of the settlement movement in the West Bank

was, in itself, incitement to hatred, since the Israeli government deliberately recruited right-wing Arab-hating crazies and territorial revanchists to be settlers. A good number of those people moved in with the INTENT of starting confrontations with the Palestinians and taking land away from them-you could put anyone who kept using the inflammatory terms "Judea and Samaria" in that category.

(And yes, there are some settlers who don't fit that category as individuals, but the whole put of putting even them there was to incite violence and pointlessly exacerbate tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, thus giving the government an excuse to delay negotiating with the Palestinian side for decades).

After 1967, the Israeli government had no right and no legitimate argument for doing anything other than have troops at the borders between Israel proper and the territories. There was never an actual security justification for intentionally moving what ended up being 250,000 Israeli citizens into the West Bank. If they had to move anyone else in, it would have been enough to ask for the repatriation of the indigenous pre-1948 Jewish population of the West Bank. THOSE people had a legitimate claim to a right to live in those lands...none of the others who were brought in as "settlers" did.

[shira]

91. Did you just make that up? I want proof of that...

Oh, and the creation of the settlement movement in the West Bank was, in itself, incitement to hatred, since the Israeli government deliberately recruited right-wing Arab-hating crazies and territorial revanchists to be settlers. A good number of those people moved in with the INTENT of starting confrontations with the Palestinians and taking land away from them-you could put anyone who kept using the inflammatory terms "Judea and Samaria" in that category.

How'd the leftwing Israeli government of the time go about doing this? Did they send out application forms in order to identify the most rightwing Arab hating crazies and territorial revanchists? Questionaires?

Maybe they did it like in 'Blazing Saddles'...

Taggart: What do you want me to do, sir?
Hedley Lamarr: I want you to round up every vicious criminal and gunslinger in the west. Take this down.
(Taggart looks for a pen and paper while Hedley talks)
Hedley Lamarr: I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists.
Taggart: (finding pen and paper) Could you repeat that, sir?

So that's how the Israeli leadership rounded up the worst of the worst to become settlers, right?

[pelsar]

87. you should demand a society based on equality.....

in your impatience for removing the occupation, you're all for creating a facist state.....for that you should be ashamed of

[Ken Burch]

94. That is a lie.

I do support equality for all.

[shira]

100. If you support equality for all Palestinians under their own leadership, then what are you doing...

...about it now?

What are your totally awesome, morally white as the driven snow Leftist comrades doing about it now?

The answer is...

ZERO.

Just as you guys do nothing about Arabs suffering under their totalitarian regimes throughout the mideast now, you're not doing anything to help Palestinians either. No mass demonstrations, protests, flotillas, demanding UN action...

NOTHING.

The Left sees Hamas and the PA as allies against the liberal, capitalist West - right? So why would you criticize them? :shrug:

[pelsar]

103. you support equality for all and a facist state...

so how does that work?

the upcoming PA state is primarily based on shari law...as far as their present documents show, as well as events within the PA and Hamas today, a state that you support.

so please explain how you can claim to support equality for all, and support a state which is explicit in proclaiming religious law is the primary law, which is in effect anti equality for all.

how do you support both?

and why is nationalism more important to you than equality?

[King_David]

41. TLDR. nt

[holdencaufield]

45. " I support LGBT rights as much as you..."

Unless, of course, they conveniently get in the way of destroying Israel.

[shira]

48. + Infinity. When it comes Israel, nothing is sacred.

Perceived human rights abuses are but an excuse to attack, demonize, and delegitimize Israel. The accusers (both far Leftist and far Rightists) could care less about the human rights of Palestinians - or anyone else for that matter - under their oppressive totalitarian regimes.

More shameful is the fact that hard Leftists will gladly betray and sacrifice liberal and secular people suffering under ME regimes if it helps in the effort to destroy Israel. Not to mention sacrifice the most sacred leftwing and liberal causes like gay rights, women's rights, children's rights, socialism, etc...

-------------------

Do you recall the wonderful, morally pure, global Left cheering on Israel's recent J-14 social protests that united some 300-500,000 Israelis (both Jews and Arabs) out of a country of 7-8 million?

:shrug:

I don't.

So much for the Left being bigtime supporters of socialist causes, hmmm? So what do we make of a "Left" that couldn't give a shit about socialist causes as well as civil rights?

Rightwingers.

Correct?

Just making the case that the "Left" is indistinguishable these days from the hard Right. Am I wrong? :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

58. Palestine's leadership CAN'T be changed by keeping the Occupation in place

You know that, shira. If it could be changed(at least for the better)it would have been, at SOME point in the past forty-four years. Yet it hasn't. Why can't you see that that is PROOF that the Occupation can't democratize Palestine?

Palestine needs democracy-but it can only properly democratize if it isn't being forced to live at the mercy of another country's army, and to do so in a way that Israelis are never forced to experience by anyone else's army.

You're trying to turn "democracy" into a spoil of conquest-that, shira, is a recipe for making ordinary Palestinians HATE the idea.

Just let them do it on their own terms---is that asking so much?

You can't assume that Arabs are pathologically incapable of creating democracy on their own. They are doing just that all over the Arab world-and they're doing so faster than the United States did in its early years, years in which only a tiny handful of Americans could vote, an anti-democratic system of presidential election was imposed(and still, for no good reason, exists)and during which slavery was expanded into new states and Native Americans were brutally dispossessed- while women, gays, and working people had no real rights at all.

If you really want a democratized Arab world and a democratic Palestine(as you claim)then you have to give up your prejudices about Palestinians and other Arabs-they're just normal human beings like anybody else.

[shira]

74. You can change it by loudly protesting against it. But you won't.

The Left should perhaps consider mass rallies against Hamas and the PA, and protest for the basic civil rights for all Palestinians. Send flotillas. Demand UN action.

Embarass the hell out of those extreme rightwingers...

[Ken Burch]

81. Flotillas against whom? Palestine isn't blockading ITSELF, for God's sake

What the Palestinian leadership does or who it consists of is NOT the central issue here. The extremists on the Palestinian side would never have gained any traction within Palestinian society if it weren't for the Occupation and the settlements-yet you keep pretending that those things have nothing to do with the conflict at all, and that Palestinians have no legitimate grievances against the Israeli government at all.

What does Israel have to lose by admitting that, at the very least, they've at times inflicted suffering on Palestinians that Palestinians AS A COLLECTIVE ENTITY didn't necessarily deserve? Most Israelis agree that that's the case, you know.

[shira]

92. Flotillas against Hamas and the PA, the fascists running Palestine and making life miserable...

...for Palestinians under their boot.

But you see Hamas and the PLO as truly representative of all Palestinians and a voice for Palestinians in general, don't you? That's why you see the Palestinian leadership as victims who shouldn't be criticized or pressured to change. Am I warm?

[Ken Burch]

97. I don't have to put removing Hamas above EVERYTHING ELSE

Just to prove I'm a democratic universalist.

Groups like Hamas can only exist while things like the Occupation exist. They feed off of the sense that a community is living at the mercy of another community. Changing THAT perception is the key to getting rid of Hamas.

[shira]

99. You should put the welfare of Palestinians above all else if you claim to be pro-Palestinian...

No one claiming to be pro-Palestinian can lecture others about civil/human rights when it appears obvious they are only using civil/human rights as a stick to beat Israel with.

I expect more from pro-Palestinians who say they care for Palestinians who are suffering. But as it is, I can't for the life of me see any of you guys demonstrating for them against their Sharia masters. It's not like they can protest b/c the rightwing fascists in charge (the PA and Hamas) won't allow freedom of speech/assembly. I understand why they can't speak up. But...

...what's your excuse?

[Ken Burch]

98. I cheered those protests on, and there were a lot of threads on DU that did so as well.

Those protests were heroic. A lot of us were stoked about them.

All that you didn't see were people saying that the protests somehow VINDICATED the Occupation, because they don't. They happened in significant measure because the current Israeli government has wasted resources that could have helped the people of Israel by focusing solely on dealing with the I/P dispute in military terms.

[shira]

101. Where are all these threads on DU where Israel's harshest critics cheered J-14....

...social protests?

I'd be shocked to see any of the usual anti-Israel crowd cheering that on.

[King_David]

65. +1

That goes for most 'progressive' anti Israel types.

Progressive wrt Palistine, but when it comes to minority rights? Well that is expendible.

[King_David]

68. Extreme Right and Extreme Left meet where it comes to

Hatred of Jews and Hatred of Gays.

Gay hatred :Cuba ,Gaza, Palestine,Saudi Arabia ,Iran ,North Korea,Uganda etc etc etc

[shira]

72. I honestly cannot distinguish between the extreme hard Right and hard Left. n/t

[Ken Burch]

69. Ending the Occupation would NOT "destroy Israel"

Keeping the Occupation in place isn't actually protecting Israel. it perpetuates the injustice that keeps groups like Hamas in business.

Without the IDF presence, Hamas would plummet in support. Hamas and others like it only gain adherents when Palestinians are persuaded by Israeli government intransigence that they have nothing to gain by even trying to work with Israel.

BTW, if you really want a two-state solution, you have an obligation to denounce both the Occupation and the settlement project(as well as Bibi's arrogant insistence on keeping the settlement blocs in place under a two-state arrangement AND his demand that a Palestinian state be permanently encircled by IDF battalions). All of those demands are designed to make a two-state solution impossible, since accepting them would instantly discredit any Palestinian leadership that did so and thus perpetuate the conflict. You do realize that, right?

[shira]

73. What a load of shit. "Without the IDF presence, Hamas would plummet in support."

Is that what happened in Lebanon WRT Hezbollah after Israel pulled out?

Why not?

BTW, if you really want a two-state solution, you have an obligation to denounce both the Occupation and the settlement project(as well as Bibi's arrogant insistence on keeping the settlement blocs in place under a two-state arrangement AND his demand that a Palestinian state be permanently encircled by IDF battalions). All of those demands are designed to make a two-state solution impossible, since accepting them would instantly discredit any Palestinian leadership that did so and thus perpetuate the conflict. You do realize that, right?

I've already told you I'm against occupation and am all for Israel pulling out of 60% of the West Bank, which was offered last year and which the PA rejected. That 60% is a start and it's oddly something you're against, for someone claiming to be against occupation. So imagine that. I'm all for the end of occupation on 60% of WB land but you and your like minded friends are all for maintaining it and against any compromise.

And here's the rub. Israel can do all those things you're asking but that wouldn't end the conflict. Do you really not realize why? Look around the mideast at the Muslim Brotherhood Winter for an answer to that...

[holdencaufield]

75. The Occupation has nothing to do with it ...

... and you know it well.

There was no occupation before 1967 -- except in the minds of Palestinians who believe Occupation occurred in 1948 (or before).

The PLO was founded to remove the Jews from "Palestine" three full years BEFORE there was a single Jew standing in Gaza or the West Bank (when they were the occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively).

The "occupation" is over and Gaza and the day it ended violence ESCALATED, it didn't disappear. Point to a single Jewish soldier stationed in Gaza and I'll retract that claim.

Israel has offered, in good-faith, the remove the majority of settlements (the remaining border settlements to be compensated by land swaps for portions of Israel proper) and recognize Palestinians sovereignty over a negotiated territory -- no deal. This offer has been extended, by the way, multiple times by both left and right Israeli governments.

Until the Palestinian Leadership gets it out of their head that they are going to destroy Israel, this conflict will go on-and-on -- with the Palestinians suffering much more than the Israelis.

[oberliner]

38. Right - but it deals with a debate that is ongoing within Israel

I think that the issues raised by the article carry over to issues that are relevant for Israel.

[King_David]

9. Nope

And it is written on Israeli blog.

Got that?

Good

;)

[azurnoir]

10. such a shame the ceremony couldn't have been done in Jerusalem

of course having been done elsewhere it would have been 'recognized' there but not in Miami or Arlington or Baltimore (albeit Maryland is working on it)

[oberliner]

11. Are you implying that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel?

Or was that just a slip?

[King_David]

12. Well it is the Capital of The Jewish State

Jerusalem.

[Ken Burch]

16. West Jerusalem is. And that part of Jerusalem is enough.

BTW, Uri Avnery recently wrote that he and those who fought alongside him in the Zionist cause did not see themselves as fighting for "a Jewish state"(a term that implies a religious base to the state)but a "Hebrew state", a state in which many of them envisioned egalitarian relations between Jews and Arabs.

[King_David]

18. Undivided Jerusalem

The parts of East Jerusalem that will eventually be Palistinian are the same that Pres. Clinton laid out during his tenure.

Thats it I am afraid.

[Ken Burch]

19. It's better to have West Jerusalem and peace than the whole thing and have the war never end

You know perfectly well it's unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to give up East Jerusalem, that no "swaps" can possibly make up for that.

They have roots in the land just as deep as Israelis do. At some point, you're going to have to accept that and admit, once and for all, that they aren't just "generic Arabs" who were shipped in at the last minute by the other Arab countries out of mustache-twirling evilness.

[King_David]

27. What rubbish nt

[holdencaufield]

44. Jerusalem was divided by a war

A war STARTED by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.

Why would Israel recognize a division of one of her own cities forced on her at the barrel of a gun?

[azurnoir]

14. Neither why ever would you think such a thing?

Jerusalem however is the leading city of the Jeweish religion something that seems to have gotten past you?

[oberliner]

36. Because you replaced DC with Jerusalem

DC is the capital on the United States.

You seemed to be saying that if this can go on in the capital of the US, why not the capital of Israel?

[azurnoir]

55. apparently you did not read the entire comment or your simply latching on to straws?

as I also named 3 places in the US that it could not have been done either

[oberliner]

62. The only one in Israel you listed was Jerusalem

And it was in parallel with DC in the US.

But, no worries, I'm straight on your opinion. You don't think Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.

Got it.

[azurnoir]

79. so now your psychic too ? you claim you know what I meant and then claim

you know I do not think Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but then claim I listed Jerusalem in some sort of parallel to DC sounds rather contradictory or nonsensical?

[Ken Burch]

20. You know perfectly well he wasn't implying anything of the kind

He said "Jerusalem" because it's a far more familiar place name in most people's minds than "Tel Aviv".

[oberliner]

37. Jerusalem is a more familiar place name than Tel Aviv?

On this board I would think Tel Aviv is pretty familiar place name.

[Ken Burch]

59. Not sure on this board...but in most people's minds.

Why were you so eager to try to imply that that poster was taking a position you KNEW the poster wouldn't take?

[oberliner]

61. I disagree with your premise

I have no way of knowing one way or another what position that poster would take.

Also, I think the poster is, or at least claims to be, a she, not a he.

[Ken Burch]

63. I've corrected the gender thing.

But that poster has never accepted the "Jerusalem Undivided" position, and you know that as well as anyone else. Whatever your intentions, it came off as if you were trying to trap that poster into changing her position on the issue.

[oberliner]

66. Could be that they believe W Jerusalem is the capital of Israel

Not necessarily an "undivided Jerusalem" as the more hardliners argue.

Seriously, no trap meant - it just sort of jumped out at me.

But I guess I made something out of nothing.

[Ken Burch]

67. It's possible they meant West Jerusalem(since it's where the Knesset meets)

And thanks for agreeing that "undivided Jerusalem" is a hardline, antipeace position.

[oberliner]

71. That would be an example of your reading something in a post that isn't actually there

No offense, but you have a tendency to do that sometimes.

[King_David]

13. Who want's to be married in Jerusalem

Barmitvahed yes.

[Ken Burch]

17. OK...you lost me there...why bar mitzvahed but not married?

also, why bar mitzvahed but not bat mitzvahed?

[shaayecanaan]

28. Because its a bit of a hole, in all honesty...

I still have the plastic crown of thorns that I bought off some street vendor, purely for the kitsch value. Its the only thing from Jerusalem that has stuck with me.

You get some mileage out of people watching, but otherwise the appearance of the place is a bit underwhelming. One of the ironies of Jerusalem is that the only iconic piece of architecture that exists is the Dome of the Rock. So you have Mr and Mrs John and Betty Sloan from Fort Little having their happy snaps taken with the Dome in the background, because there's not much else available.

In all fairness, Bethlehem is a bit of a damp squib as well. However the tourist trash in Bethlehem is much cheaper than the same crap for sale in Jerusalem.

[azurnoir]

33. well in 'self defense' I was going to say Tel Aviv or Netanya

much more upscale but seeing as how this couple seemed to be religious Jerusalem seemed more proper:)

plastic crown of thorns really? reminds me of a Passion week procession I saw in Minneapolis where the cross 'Jesus' was dragging had little training wheels attached to the end

[King_David]

42. Netanyahu ?

Obviously you never been to Israel

[oberliner]

49. It's not a "bit of a hole"

It is one of the most beautiful cities in the world and has stuck with me for decades.

If you want to visit a damp squib with no iconic architecture, perhaps a visit to Beirut would be in order.

[shaayecanaan]

57. Well, in fairness to Beirut, it used to be the Paris of the middle East...

whereas Jerusalem has always been a hole.

Of course, I suspect you have never been to Beirut, and I dare say your opinion of Jerusalem might be a tad coloured, whereas I am too jaded and world-weary to be parochial about architecture.

[oberliner]

60. Jerusalem has never been a hole and Beirut has never been the Paris of the Middle East

If you've ever actually been to either place, you would know both of those things to be true.

Of course, your other assumptions are wrong as well. I daresay I've spent more time in Beirut than just about anyone else on this board. And my opinion of Jerusalem is not "a tad coloured" by anything.

I can't even imagine what you would think it would be coloured by.

Jerusalem, incidentally, was once known as the "city of peace" - that's about as accurate a description as calling Beirut "the Paris of the Middle East". By my count there have been about a dozen or more "Parises" of various places. Mostly French colonial PR BS.

I would also mention that you were the one who brought up architecture in the post I responded to - so perhaps you are more parochial and less world weary than you think you are.

[shaayecanaan]

77. Well, I'll bite...

By my count there have been about a dozen or more "Parises" of various places.

True, enough, and they are all lovely towns, by and large. But I doubt that Jerusalem is in danger of being called the Paris of anything anytime soon. Or the Venice of anything, for that matter.

Of course, there are places much preferable to Jerusalem in Israel. I was quite impressed by Caesarea, although Roman ruins aside it is a bit of a tourist trap. Israel's north coast is quite lovely (Achziv etc), in fact the country gets prettier the closer you get to Lebanon, which is natural enough I suppose.

"I daresay I've spent more time in Beirut than just about anyone else on this board."

Well, my interest has been piqued. What brought you to Beirut?

[Ken Burch]

105. If you were there during the worst of the fighting, that would color your opinion

A bombed-out city isn't going to look very good.

[shaayecanaan]

25. Maybe one day

[oberliner]

64. What is it now?

The capital of Israel, I mean. Because the majority of Israelis think it's Jerusalem.

[Ken Burch]

82. Give it a rest.

n/t.

[King_David]

83. Why ?

He is not fabricating anything.

Not making shit up.

[Ken Burch]

84. There's no reason for him to keep pressing this point.

It's simply not worth it.

[King_David]

93. Look in mirror when you talk not worth it nt

[holdencaufield]

21. Nothing that happens in Washington...

... effects Israel?

You might get an argument from the legions of "Evil Jewish Lobby" posters that seem to skulk around here.

[Ken Burch]

22. I didn't SAY that nothing in Washington affects Israel.

What I said was that this wedding, enlightened as it was, has nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine dispute.

And the occurrence of this wedding is NOT a case for giving Israel a pass on the Occupation or the settlements, neither of which had anything to do with the fact that this wedding happened.

It simply doesn't belong in the I/P forum. OK?

[no_hypocrisy]

4. In 1992 I attended my friend's gay wedding, officiated by a rabbi.

After the ceremony, I exclaimed, "I can't believe you got a rabbi to marry you!". He replied, "It wasn't hard to find one in (Greenwich) Village." I countered, "No, I meant I can't believe you found a rabbi who would marry you to a Goyim . . . . "

[holdencaufield]

24. You can't find a rabbi...

... who will marry you to goyim. Because having multiple spouses is against the law.

Goyim is a plural. I believe you meant Goy

[Ken Burch]

30. What if it's a Mormon rabbi?

:sarcasm:

[azurnoir]

6. well that's great that the ceremony could be done in DC

and that should be true for all of the US

[Ken Burch]

23. Agreed.

n/t.