The Liberal Case for Israel

[oberliner]

Excerpt:

Rather, as a card-carrying member of America's center-left -- those of us who call ourselves liberals, progressives and/or mainstream Democrats -- I write to share with my ideological fellow travelers a much-under-publicized reality: That Israel is not simply the region's only democracy and the U.S.'s strongest ally; but that the Jewish State also models liberal and progressive values as well as -- or even better -- than any other nation today.

I don't pretend that Israel is perfect. Like the U.S., a vocal minority of Biblical literalists hold disproportionate sway over public policy. Like the U.S., far-Right politicos stoke public anger by demonizing minority groups. And like the U.S., terrorist attacks on the homeland sometimes provoke official overreaction. (Of course, in Israel, every day is 9/12).

But flaws and all, the state of Israel is a modern exemplar of the liberal credo proclaimed by the dying Happy Warrior, Hubert Humphrey, in 1977:

The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life -- the sick, the needy and the handicapped.


My recent trip to Israel illustrated eloquently how that country aces Humphrey's moral test.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathanmiller/the-liberal-case-for-isra_b_1114880.html

[Violet_Crumble]

1. That's quite a silly article, imo...

From the OTT hyperbole of 'Of course, in Israel, every day is 9/12', to the just outright incorrect 'Israel's reluctant occupation', it reads as the desperate attempt of someone to argue that because Israel, like many other countries, has some good things about it, we should focus on them lest we be accused by him of being persistantly preoccupied with the Occupation. I could rattle off a very long list of positive things about the US, but if I'd popped into a discussion about the US invasion of Iraq with platitudes, I'd expect people would have viewed me the same way as I view what he wrote.

[King_David]

4. I did not think it 'silly' at all. nt

[oberliner]

5. The US isn't really attacked on the same existential level as Israel

In spite of the fact that the US has invaded and occupied foreign countries and killed countless numbers of civilians in illegal wars over the years, there does not seem to be as widespread a movement calling into question the right for the US to exist as currently constructed in the same way that such calls are heard with respect to Israel.

Were there a similar degree of questioning, I would think it would be fair to rattle off a long list of positive things about the US in defense as this article does for Israel.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. There are many differences between the US and Israel

:-The US was created by colonisation and ethnic cleansing hundreds of years ago; it has broadly speaking accepted that it owed the natives an apology for this, and the descendants of the indigenous people are mostly proud citizens. Israel was created by colonisation and ethnic cleansing within living memory; it is still in denial about this, and most of the indigenous inhabitants and their descendants are not even allowed to live in the country.

:-The US makes a practice of invading other people's countries, killing some people and then leaving. Israel has invaded someone else's country, ethnically cleansed large swathes of it, and is attempting to keep it permanently.

:-The US is a state for all its citizens. Israel is a state for its Jewish citizens, and views its Arab citizens as unwelcome guests.


Yes, there is much to admire in Israel's treatment of its Jewish citizens. No, that does not excuse its treatment of the Palestinians.


>The US isn't really attacked on the same existential level as Israel

Neither the US nor Israel should ever have been founded. The foundation of the US is now ancient history, with no relevance to modern politics. The foundation of Israel was within living memory, and still needs to be apologised and atoned for.

[oberliner]

8. Each of your statements is demonstrably false

Literally everything that you wrote above is not correct. One wonders from where you get your information.

The last one is the most laughable (both sentences).

It is really staggering that a person can believe the things that you have typed here.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I am overwhelmed by the force of the evidence you cite.

I'm afraid everything I said was demonstrably true.

[Shaktimaan]

62. You think?

OK, let's pick one of those statements.

The US makes a practice of invading other people's countries, killing some people and then leaving. Israel has invaded someone else's country, ethnically cleansed large swathes of it, and is attempting to keep it permanently.

The US makes a practice of invading and staying indefinitely, not leaving. Have we left Japan yet? How about South Korea? Germany? Saudi Arabia? And we tend to kill LOTS of people. Millions in fact. You seem to gloss over this fact as though it is irrelevant. The US doesn't just kill "some people." It slaughters countless thousands of them. Israel OTOH, has one of the lowest casualty rates from any conflict anywhere throughout history, despite the decades long timeline of the fighting. It's really impressive... Jordan killed many many more Palestinians within a month of fighting than Israel has over 65 years.

Now, whose country are you saying that Israel invaded and ethnically cleansed? Because the only places that remotely fit that description would be the Sinai in Egypt, which Israel left decades ago. The West Bank certainly isn't someone else's country, there's never been an independent country there. Nor has Israel ethnically cleansed large sections of it. Israel hasn't even ethnically cleansed small sections of it. The Arabs, OTOH, DID ethnically cleanse areas of it of its Jewish inhabitants. Jews have since moved back into those areas which is really just correcting a wrong. I'm not really a fan of settlements myself. But there's no way to really argue that an area that was inhabited by Jews for thousands of years should automatically be considered Arab land without the benefit of negotiations or a peace agreement. That kind of reasoning would mean that all of Jerusalem should belong to Israel exclusively along with an explicit right to ethnically cleanse it of all non-Jews.

Now, what is Israel trying to keep permanently? The 1.5% of the West Bank where those settlements exist? OK, it's fine to oppose that, I can see why people do. But the West Bank still was never "someone else's country", Israel did not ethnically cleanse it and 1.5% isn't ever considered a "large swath" of anything.

And here's the funny thing... ALL your statements are just as wrong as this one was. I'm just too lazy to tear them all apart as thoroughly as I did this.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. Yes, I think.

>Have we left Japan yet? How about South Korea? Germany? Saudi Arabia?

Yes, all of those countries are no longer under US occupation, and have military bases there only by consent.


>Now, whose country are you saying that Israel invaded and ethnically cleansed?

The Palestinians, of course. Yes, it wasn't a state. No, that's just wordplay. Yes, there are still some Palestinians in Israel, but in the Nakba hundreds of thousands of people were removed from their homes and prevented from returning, by force or the threat of force, with the goal of altering the ethnic makeup of Israel, and creating more space for settlement by the preferred group. That's ethnic cleansing, plain and simple.

>Now, what is Israel trying to keep permanently? The 1.5% of the West Bank where those settlements exist?

Far more than that, of course. I don't know where you get the 1.5% number from; Israel have never suggested it would settle for less than far more than that (I can't tell you a precise number without reading Netanyahu's mind, and it will vary from regime to regime). Not only that, but most Israelis, fairly clearly including Netanyahu and the majority of the Knesset, are opposed to Palestinian statehood at all.

[Shaktimaan]

67. So were you talking about the west bank or Palestine (Israel) in general?

Yes, all of those countries are no longer under US occupation, and have military bases there only by consent.

We weren't discussing occupation. You said that US policy was to go somewhere, kill a few people then leave. I pointed out that this is usually not the case at all. The US often kills obscene numbers of people, then stays.

The Palestinians, of course. Yes, it wasn't a state. No, that's just wordplay.

What's wordplay? That Palestine was never an actual state? I think that's far more than mere semantics. When Zionists began immigrating to Palestine there was no indication of a future nation (or even nationality) comprised by that exact area's inhabitants. Palestine was a small piece of a much larger whole. Most Arabs living there considered themselves part of Syria, there was no inkling of a national Palestinian movement until much, much later. Remember that Palestine used to be MUCH bigger, before 70%+ became Jordan one day. The key difference between Palestine and Jordan?... Jews were never allowed to immigrate to Jordan. (Point being that Palestinian nationalism came into being as a reaction to Zionism. Which certainly doesn't make it invalid, but it does mean it didn't exist in the 1920's.)

Yes, there are still some Palestinians in Israel, but in the Nakba hundreds of thousands of people were removed from their homes and prevented from returning, by force or the threat of force, with the goal of altering the ethnic makeup of Israel, and creating more space for settlement by the preferred group. That's ethnic cleansing, plain and simple.

Except that isn't a fair account of what happened. Your narrative is of Zionists invading an existing country and evicting the original people to make room for themselves. In reality Jewish immigrants legally purchased land that wasn't affiliated with any existing nation, with the support of both the existing government, the sole international coalition of nations and one of the only Arab leaders with the authority to make such an agreement. It was hardly invading.

Now the Nakba came about due to a civil war begun by the Palestinians themselves. With very few exceptions they left of their own accord... they weren't forced out. They WERE prevented from returning which is for all practical purposes the same thing with one key difference. Forcing out an ethnic group to "cleanse" a region is FAR different than dealing with the demographic aftermath of a civil war split down ethnic lines, particularly one that was started by the other side. Israel also didn't evict the Arabs who remained behind. They became equal citizens and form a significant percentage of the population.

So it isn't ethnic cleansing, plain and simple. There was a war and the population in question remained very hostile to the new state of Israel. Israel offered to let a large number return in exchange for a comprehensive peace agreement, which was rejected by the Arab League. And Jews living on the other side of the green line (and eventually, anywhere else in the Arab world), were themselves stripped of their land and expelled. So a far better term for these events involving refugees from both sides would be "population exchange," which was a common enough occurrence during nation-building of that era.

I'd also like to point out that the Palestinians were not expelled from their home state but internally displaced. The fact that Palestinians relocated to Gaza and the West Bank never established their own state is hardly the fault of Israel. Palestinians in the WB were later granted Jordanian citizenship, mentioned here because I find it somewhat hypocritical to wear the label of refugee while simultaneously enjoying the benefits of citizenship.

Not only that, but most Israelis, fairly clearly including Netanyahu and the majority of the Knesset, are opposed to Palestinian statehood at all.

This is just flat out untrue. I can't speak for Bibi, but decades of polling show us an Israeli public supportive of a two state solution. Not to mention past Israeli politicians who were eager to trade land for security, including some who tabled actual offers which were rejected by the Palestinians.

[shaayecanaan]

69. By that logic, just about every country is "staying" in every other country...

For example, Israel has a military attache stationed at most of its major embassies worldwide. If "staying" in a country simply means having some military presence there, then Israel would be just as guilty of this as the US. Obviously, its pretty absurd comparing this to a hostile occupation.

"Now the Nakba came about due to a civil war begun by the Palestinians themselves."

A rather silly statement. By the time the UN partition plan was announced the civil war was already well under way.

"With very few exceptions they left of their own accord... they weren't forced out."

By that logic, then one could say that with relatively few exceptions, Jews left Morocco, Egypt, Iraq and the West Bank of their own accord. The only Jews who were actually expelled were those from Iraq in 1951, and even then they were allowed to remain if they renounced Zionism.

[Shaktimaan]

100. not really.

Nope, it is a difference of both degree and kind. Having a small security detail is significantly different than maintaining bases from several different branches of the military. Besides, embassies are technically sovereign land belonging to the nation using it. It is not considered having a military presence in the country itself.

A rather silly statement. By the time the UN partition plan was announced the civil war was already well under way.

Ummm, no it wasn't. The civil war's start is pretty much universally agreed upon as November 30th when Palestinians attacked several busses that were transporting civilians. That was the day after the plan was voted up.

By that logic, then one could say that with relatively few exceptions, Jews left Morocco, Egypt, Iraq and the West Bank of their own accord. The only Jews who were actually expelled were those from Iraq in 1951, and even then they were allowed to remain if they renounced Zionism.

Haha, yeah right. I forget, in which of those countries did the Jews flee to avoid the effects of a civil war they began to avoid sharing land with inhabitants of other ethnicities? It was probably the one where the Jewish inhabitants initiated the violence by ethnically cleansing and massacring the local Arabs who were living there first, without cause. They probably also passed discriminatory laws preventing those same Arabs from buying land or immigrating in before the war began.

Oh wait, it's not the same. There are still tons of Arabs allowed to live in Israel while pretty much every Jew in the entire Arab world was either killed or expunged. And the Arabs who did leave weren't forced to leave their entire bank accounts and savings behind as well. But yeah, everything else seems pretty much exactly the same.

:sarcasm:

[shaayecanaan]

139. The difference between a military base and a hostile occupation...

is a difference of both degree and kind.

"The civil war's start is pretty much universally agreed upon as November 30th when Palestinians attacked several busses"

The Nakba didnt start that day, nor the day or the week or the month after that. It started six months later, and the precipitating event was not a massacre of six people on a bus the year before, but the British withdrawal from Palestine, the outcome of a long string of terrorist attacks by the Irgun, Lehi and Stern Gang against British forces.

The use of a single massacre - and a rather small one by the standards of the time- as some kind of moral alibi for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine would be laughable if it wasnt so disingenuous. There was plenty of tit-for-tat violence in 1947 leading up to the Naqba, not least of which was the Baldat al Sheikh incident in January, 1947 that killed about 80 Arabs and about 20 Jews (about 16 times as much as the November 30 incident). In addition to this were the increasing Irgun attacks on British forces. Presumably, if a massacre of six people justified the ethnic cleansing of 750 000 Arabs, the killing of over fifty British soldiers by Jews during the last six months of 1947 would have excused a similar action by the British.

"while pretty much every Jew in the entire Arab world was either killed or expunged."

This is absolute and utter nonsense.

The largest contingent of Mizrahi Jews were from Morocco (over 40% of Arab Jews). The indigenous leader of Morocco at the time was Sultan Mohammed V. He was quite philo-semitic and actually made a point of inviting Jewish dignitaries to functions against the will of the pro-Nazi Vichy French colonial authorities during WW2. While Jews steadily emigrated to Israel from Morocco post-1948 this was for economic opportunities as much as anything, and by 1960 there were still 200,000 Jews living there. Morocco actually banned emigration to Israel in 1956, allowing it again only in 1963. The current government has attempted to encourage Moroccan Jews to return to the country, though not with much success.

Of course, Morocco was probably the most benevolent country, it genuinely wanted to retain its Jewish population. In other countries the attitude ranged from negative acquiescence (Tunisia and Algeria, for example, were still under the control of the French colonials, with whom Jews had a rather testy relationship following the Vichy period) to Egypt, where the impetus for large scale Jewish emigration was a false flag terrorist operation executed by the Israelis themselves (the Lavon affair).

As I stated above, the only Arab state which positively expelled Jews was Iraq. Your assertion is quite false.

[sabbat hunter]

302. according to historian benny morris

There probably was an equal number of Arabs forced from what is now Israel, that fled on their own or fled at the behest of invading Arab armies.

No they did not all flee by request of the Arab armies as some would like to believe, but many did.

And what of the Jews forced from Arab countries after Israel was founded?

The people who were forced to flee by Israeli forces should be monetarily compensated.

[shaayecanaan]

19. That is a pathetic non-response (nt)

[shira]

22. Do you agree with Donald's points? n/t

[shira]

25. Donald, when you argue from a viewpoint that denies Israel's very legitimacy, why do you believe...

...you should be taken seriously?

FFS, you don't believe Jews have any legit claims whatsoever to any part of the land. They're mostly all "colonists" to you. Israel is "racist and evil". We all know that means it has no right to exist and Palestinians should feel - in your opinion - entitled to believe forevermore that they have all that land coming to them someday. Basically permission to "get even" with those evil zionists by reversing 1948.

BTW, the League of Nations approved of Zionism and Israel well before 1948. That makes Israel more legit than most other countries. They admitted the Jews have a strong historical claim to the land.

I'll just go for one thing in your post that's absurd...

Israel has invaded someone else's country, ethnically cleansed large swathes of it, and is attempting to keep it permanently.

Who invaded? Holocaust survivors? Refugees escaping pogroms? They dared to actually purchase land?

You make it sound like Israel carried out an ethnic cleansing out of pure malice, with the intent to just steal land. Remember, it was the Palestinians who started a civil war in 1948. Wars in that time period resulted in 10's of millions of displaced people. Israel is no more evil than any other nation. In addition, Palestinians could return to Gaza and the W.Bank and live within a few miles of where they lived up to 1948. Besides, what kind of ethnic cleansing is it when the Palestinian population doubles every 20 years in Gaza, the WB, and Israel since 1948 or 1967? That's the worst ethnic cleansing ever.

Lastly, if Israel attempted to keep land beyond the green line permanently, they wouldn't have agreed to the Clinton Parameters in 2000, would they? Arafat rejected the Clinton Parameters but later regretted doing so. Olmert offered Abbas more than what Arafat later regretted rejecting. You should blame the Palestinian leadership - not Israel - for a lack of peace the last 10 years but that's a complete and utter narrative buster, isn't it?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. Oh, Shira, are you ever going to stop telling deliberate, knowing lies?

>FFS, you don't believe Jews have any legit claims whatsoever to any part of the land.

Like this one. I don't believe that, I've never said anything to that effect, it's just something you've made up and lied about my believing. I don't believe Israel should be a Jewish *state*; I do believe Jews native to Israel have as much right to live and own land there as anyone else, and Jews native to the occupied territories have a right to live in Israel.

>Lastly, if Israel attempted to keep land beyond the green line permanently, they wouldn't have agreed to the Clinton Parameters in 2000, would they?

Or this one. Israel keeping large chunks of land beyond the green line was *part* of the Clinton parameters!

[shira]

53. You don't believe Jews have any right to self-determination...

...in any part of the land. That's more like it, right? A subtle difference, but basically the same point.

As for keeping settlement areas in parts of the WB permanently, Israel agreed to land swaps. You're mistakenly under the assumption Israel has ZERO rights to land beyond the green line, not the Western Wall nor the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, or other areas Jews were ethnically cleansed from in 1948. An arbitrary armistice line is the border. Your thinking goes something like - Jews have zero self determination in any part of the mid east, therefore even if Israel existed on one square inch of land, that would be stolen land in your opinion. It's all Palestinian for some reason. They deserve self-determination but Jews do not. Therefore Jews are certainly not entitled to any part of the land beyond the green line. It's all Palestinian land.

Along those lines, you realize the League of Nations ruled Jews have legit historical connections and rights to the land there. That makes the League of Nations Zionists - supporters of evil, racism, and bigotry. Correct?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. For the love of all that's holy, please stop lying about what I believe!

Stick to telling me what *you* believe, and what you think of what *I've* said I believe. *Don't* make up false, dishonest claims about what I believe. I realise that, having been asking you to stop telling lies for so long, it's unlikely to sink in more generally, but can you at least avoid the specific "you think X" kind of lie from now on, please? Do you think you can manage that?

>Your thinking goes something like - Jews have zero self determination in any part of the mid east, therefore even if Israel existed on one square inch >of land, that would be stolen land in your opinion.

No, my thinking does not go anything remotely like that. It goes "All people have a right to be full equal citizens of the state they are native to, so any state which proclaims itself "The state of the Jewish people" has no right to control land to which any non-Jews are native."




>You don't believe Jews have any right to self-determination in any part of the land. That's more like it, right? A subtle difference, but basically the >same point.

No, it's a completely different point, and even then you're wrong about what I believe. I don't believe that *the* Jews have any right to self-determination qua Jews; I believe that Jews have exactly the same right to self-determination as anyone else - one vote, in a state for all its citizens. The only legitimate basis for statehood is geography; Israel must be an Israeli state, which means a state for all Israelis, including non-Jewish ones, equally.




>You're mistakenly under the assumption Israel has ZERO rights to land beyond the green line, not the Western Wall nor the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, or other areas Jews were ethnically cleansed from in 1948.

Yes, for once you're not lying about me: I do believe that, but no, I'm not mistaken, it's basic international law. Israel's border is the green line, period.





> That makes the League of Nations Zionists - supporters of evil, racism, and bigotry. Correct?

1) Hell yes, and supporting Israel is a million miles from being the worst thing the League of Nations/UN has or hasn't done. I admire much of the work less political bodies like the WHO and the WFO (and the UNWRA) do, and I think the ideals and principles of the UN are broadly good ones, but no organisation where Russia and China hold vetoes is ever going to be much good on human rights. I agree with much of what the UN says about Israel, but I don't give much weight to its views.

2)Back when Israel was founded pretty much *everyone* was deeply racist and bigotted by modern standards...

3) Of course Jews have historical connections to Israel (just as the ancestors of the Palestinians do); saying that does not make one a bigot. Those connections are ancient history, and arguing that they mean that that land should be a Jewish state rather than a state for all its citizens *is* bigotry.

[shira]

70. You just wrote "I don't believe that *the* Jews have any right to self-determination qua Jews"

That's exactly what I meant and what you admit as an anti-zionist. It's obvious to anyone with any reading comprehension ability that I was referring to national self-determination, not individual. Here's what I wrote:

>Your thinking goes something like - Jews have zero self determination in any part of the mid east, therefore even if Israel existed on one square inch >of land, that would be stolen land in your opinion.

>You don't believe Jews have any right to self-determination in any part of the land. That's more like it, right? A subtle difference, but basically the >same point.

I'm not telling any lies or putting words in your mouth. We all believe individuals have a right to be full, equal citizens in any country they live in, free of discrimination. The problem is that Jews historically haven't fared well even in those societies. Ergo, the necessity for national self-determination.

Whether you believe the League of Nations was racist or not, the fact is that at that time the WORLD backed Zionism. That makes Israel's founding as legitimate as any other nation's, and more legit than most.

Do you believe Palestinians merit national (not just individual) self-determination?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

97. No, I'm unenthusiastic about the Palestinian's *national* self-determination.

The only reason I favour a two-state solution with an independent Palestinian state over a one-state solution with Palestinians voting for a joint Israeli/Palestinian government, or for that matter over the West bank and Gaza being absorbed by Jordan and/or Egypt, is that it appears to be the most practical and popular (and because Jordanians don't have full self-determination).

I actually think a one-state solution would work a lot better than a two-state one because it would undermine both Israeli and Palestinian nationalism, and a secular state would be better for all concerned than a Jewish and a Muslim one, but the two fatal flaws in a one-state solution are 1) most Israelis don't want it and 2) most Palestinians don't want it.

I think a Palestinian state is likely to have an overly Islamic and non-trivially corrupt government, and not to be a great place to live by any means, but unfortunately that doesn't mean the Palestinians don't have a right to vote for whoever's going to rule them.

[pelsar]

101. so your justifying the creation of a dictatorship...

under the guise of "right to vote"....how do you justify that. They have the right to vote in a government that we all agree that, as a dictatorship will not allow the next round of elections..i.e. they too won't have a say in who's going to rule them.

that makes sense to you?.....worse we all know it won't even be stable with another violent round coming from within and then probably from israel as chaos starts.....and this your for all because of single election cycle?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

98. Do you acknowledge that Israel does not grant Palestinians the right you describe?

>We all believe individuals have a right to be full, equal citizens in any country they live in, free of discrimination.

Do you agree that Israel discriminates against its Palestinian citizens on a massive scale, officially and openly, in provision of state services, in granting of planning permission, in treatment by the police, and in national iconography and symbolism?

[shira]

105. Palestinians within Israel are guaranteed those rights by law. One great thing about Israel...

...is that citizens enjoy the perhaps the highest level of freedom of expression (right to criticize) on the planet. They can fight the system and work to reverse discrimination. They can go to a very willing and eager press to make their case and sue for damages in courts that tend to tilt liberal/progressive.

That speaks to Israel's greatness. The ability to criticize, change, and work to make things better.

It's definitely not as you portray it, as though there's no hope...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

153. Ooh, there's a nice sidestep.

Do Palestinians *have* those rights in Israel? Or are thy merely technically guaranteed by law, but not granted in practice?

[shira]

155. Of course they have those rights, every bit as much as minorities in the UK and US have those rights

Israel's courts are very liberal/progressive too, which rightwingers loathe.

[pelsar]

272. by law?...of course not

if your asking is there illegal discrimination in israel by its citizens and by its institutions, the answer is yes..but this just a waste of bandwidth, we all know the answers, we all know any attempt to compare israels basic western laws to the Palestinians shari law base system doesn't work, given that religious law is racist from its base....and most important of all, we know that israel has been steadily improving over the years in regards to its arab minority precisely because of its civll law structure.


so why are you promoting the creation of a state who's very base is racist (shari law), something you can't find within the general zionist philosophy which is western socialist as it base

and you don't "hate" that?

[shaayecanaan]

45. By and large, yes

although I disagree that the US or the other post-colonial countries have really apologised to their indigenous people in a sincere way.

But they are further along than Israel. Perhaps 50 years ago or so the US still had a "cowboys and indians" view of itself, as having been established by intrepid white pioneers battling the underhanded native hordes. I think most Israelis are still very much stuck in that mentality.

[shira]

55. Well then WRT Israel vs. the USA, let's see if you agree...

On issues like gay rights, freedom of expression, the death penalty, and healthcare, Israel is more progressive. Israel's more progressive than the USA in that it's not fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's also more socialist than the USA. And in more progressive form than the USA, and from the OP, "Israel is the only nation in world history to deliver huge numbers of black men, women, and children out of slavery in Africa, into freedom abroad."

=========

Can you admit this?

=========

In addition, the PLO and Hamas are the antithesis of everything progressive. WRT everything progressive Israel does, Palestinians should emulate Israel rather than continue with their regressive, extreme rightwing ways.

Can you agree to that?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Yes, no, no and yes.

Israel does better on gay rights and healthcare. However, the US only executes people after a trial, and doesn't defund schools that don't whitewash the Nakba.

[shira]

71. Donald, you said let's not deny Israel is right when it's right...

What specifically is Israel right or not right about in that last post?

[LeftishBrit]

297. 'doesn't defund schools that don't whitewash the Nakba'

Well, at least until quite recently American schools and media didn't just whitewash America's own 'Nakba' - indeed, true genocide against Native American populations - but romanticized it. Many still regard Andrew Jackson as a hero, for instance.

The curriculum in American schools is more determined by state and local government than national government, and while some states and boards are very enlightened, some are quite the reverse: e.g. those that insist that creationism be given equal time with evolution in science classes. Or see the following right-wing rewriting of American history, which is now essentially compulsory in Texan schools:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

Not saying that any of this excuses the less progressive actions of Israel, the UK if it comes to that, or any other country; but certainly some parts of America are not at all progressive.

[oberliner]

299. You've got to be kidding about US schools

Have you read the standard issue American history books at most public schools?

[shaayecanaan]

65. Depends on how you pick your cherries...

Israel doesn't allow trial by jury. It expels the children of citizens based on the nationality of their other parent, something that no other OECD country stoops to doing. It occupies people in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Nazi party was one of the first governments in the world to allow workers paid annual leave. They also introduced pioneering animal welfare legislation. Did this make them "progressive"?

[shira]

72. From that post, what can you admit that Israel does right? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

73. While Israel and the US differ markedly, singing their praises can't defend their actions...

And unfortunately, while the author claims not to be doing that, his own words in the article show otherwise. He claims to aim his words at those who he say are the 'Far Left' and have a 'persistent preoccupation' with the Occupation, assuming that people who are critical of the Occupation aren't aware of positives about Israel. He's not aiming his ire at those folk who question the right of Israel to exist, and if he was, he'd be wasting his breath, imo. While pointing to the positives of a country and its people is, imo, crucial to having an understanding of conflicts around the world (Iran is just one example where I wish more people would do this), I'm sure I'm not the only person with an appreciation of positives about Israel to be left cold by his attempt to turn those positives into something that should be focused on over and above the Occupation. If all the positives are pointed out to me like that, my response would be to point out that Israel would be more than capable of doing those things without continuing the Occupation. The Occupation tarnishes Israel's reputation, and has caused damage within Israel itself. Trotting out lists of good things about Israel isn't going to make that vanish. When it comes to the Occupation, the reality is that there's no way of defending it, and lists of good things about Israel is in no way any defence at all...

[shira]

79. So what does Israel do right? Name 3-5 things, please. NT

[Violet_Crumble]

81. That's easy...

No death penalty
A thriving democracy
Reproductive rights for women
Health-care
Lets its citizens protest, unlike the US...

Now, if yr response isn't to reciprocate by giving me a list of positives about Palestine, but to demand another five or so good things about Israel, I'll leave you to yr own devices from this point...

[shira]

83. Thank you. I must say I'm impressed you could easily admit to those 5 things.

Your colleagues here seem unable.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. Shame you can't supply a few good things about Palestine...

And it's a good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting....

Also, I didn't 'admit' anything. That makes it sound like I grudgingly admitted something, which of course isn't the case at all. You asked a simple question that took all of 0.05 seconds to come up with an answer to. Because I don't run round like a Pomeranian on heat humping Israel's leg, I do have the time to get myself a pretty good undersstanding of many of the positive aspects of Israel....

[shira]

89. I gave you one positive. That's one more than you're able to supply.

Imagine that.

A big time enthusiastic supporter of Palestine such as yourself....unable to list anything good that is liberal/progressive about Palestine.

Not even one thing?

:shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

90. I supplied you with a list of five positive things about Israel...

As I said further down in the thread, where yr simultaneously carrying on with the same silliness, I asked *you* to list a few positive things about Palestine due to yr incessantly negative comments about them. Unlike you, I don't indulge in such behaviour, which makes yr rather mindless demands that I supply you with yet another list even more silly and pointless than yr usual fare.

I'll leave you to talking back and forth to yrself and running round doing a victory lap shrieking that YOU WON! YOU WON! After all, that's what 'debate' in the I/P forum is all about nowadays, thanks to yr unceasing efforts...

[shira]

91. And I supplied you with an answer to your question in post #75, in which you asked for 1-2 things.

Don't pretend I didn't answer you.

And BTW, I'm still waiting for a list of positives from you WRT Palestine since that should be easy for an enthusiastic supporter of Palestine such as yourself.

:eyes:

Maybe you should ask your friends here for help since you can't think of anything.

[Violet_Crumble]

92. It'd help if you got someone to read the posts yr replying to for you...

For a start, I didn't pretend you didn't answer.

Secondly, you can sit there and hold yr breath and wait seeing as how I've made it so clear even Blind Freddy could see that I'm not interested in yr fucking stupid games and there's no logic at all in what yr demanding.

And a correction. I can think of things. There's a difference between that and not being bothered with yr idiotic 'games'

If you still can't comprehend that, get someone to draw cartoons of it for you and keep on staring at them until it finally seeps in.

As usual, thanks for doing nothing else but help build my post count. Goodnight...

[shira]

95. IOW, you've got nothing. Thanks. n/t

[shira]

18. Israel should be supported and lauded for its good things in opposition to anti-zionists...

...and hateful delegitimizers.

Who in their right mind would support 2 states but allow the delegitimizers to continue to portray Israel in as negative a light as possible? Those for 2 states living in genuine peace with each other can't have their cake and eat it too. Meaning they can't say they're for 2 states but also join forces with anti-zionists and rejectionists committed to destroying Israel by labeling it apartheid, racist, nazi-like, and hopelessly evil from conception. A state described in that manner isn't worthy of living side by side in peace with its neighbor.

The OP is very much a response to rejectionists and delegitimizers who can find nothing right with Israel and wouldn't mind seeing its destruction.

Those for 2 states living side by side in peace shouldn't have a problem pointing out the many things Israel does right. After all, these are things Palestinians should aspire to also. By making Israel out to be evil in every way, Palestine would have no reason to become as "evil" and liberal as Israel. In fact, just the opposite. They could stay as they are and still harbor bitter feelings and resentment. Forever against its apartheid, racist, nazi fascist neighbor that doesn't deserve to exist. The conflict would rage on...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

52. Failure to hate evil is immoral

Yes, I hate zionism. That's because it's evil, racist and bigotted; not hating it doesn't necessarily make one a bad person but is certainly a factor in that direction.

>Those for 2 states living side by side in peace shouldn't have a problem pointing out the many things Israel does right.

Yes, they would. Israel won't make allow two such states if it has any choice, the only way there is to force it. Friends of Israel are obstacles to a two-state solution.

[shira]

54. Then the Left is immoral for failing to hate evil Palestinian leadership...

...that's insanely rightwing and treats Palestinian women, gays, children, religious minorities and its own refugees like shit. There's no question the PLO and Hamas are racist, evil, and bigoted so logically the Left is obligated to hate them...

Right?

If you hate zionism because it's evil, racist, and bigoted then logically zionists should be hated as well for being evil, racist, and bigoted....

Right?

Lastly, since Zionism is evil, racist, and bigoted you're giving the rejectionist warmongering haters in Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc... every reason to believe they're entitled to destroy Israel after 2 states are established. Zionism would be no less evil, racist, and bigoted even after 2 states. You do realize that...

Right?

=================

BTW, thanks for being so open and blunt. It's refreshing around here. Very rare.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. No, you've missed something so obvious I suspect you haven't genuinely missed it at all.

and are just trying to set a trap.

>If you hate zionism because it's evil, racist, and bigoted then logically zionists should be hated as well for being evil, racist, and bigoted....
>Right?

Of course not. Everyone is wrong about some things. Hating people just because they hold a view on one issue I consider wicked would leave me no-one I didn't hate.

Similarly, while there are many things about the PA that I hate, that isn't cause to hate them as people (at least not in all or most cases).

Many (I originally typed most, and I'm reasonably confident it's most, but I won't swear to that) members of Hamas (and some, but certainly not most, members of the PA) support deliberately murdering innocent people, which *is* sufficient cause to hate them as people.



>Lastly, since Zionism is evil, racist, and bigoted you're giving the rejectionist warmongering haters in Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Iran, the Muslim >Brotherhood, etc... every reason to believe they're entitled to destroy Israel after 2 states are established. Zionism would be no less evil, racist, and >bigoted even after 2 states. You do realize that...

They'd probably agree with you about that, but you're both wrong: yes, destroying zionism would be a good thing; no, destroying Israel would not be - Israel should become a secular state for all its citizens, rather than being ethnically cleansed of Jews as e.g. Islamic Jihad would like to see. Even after two states, I'll still hate Israel if it continues to treat its minorities the way it does (out of curiosity, do you acknowledge that a state that treated its Jewish citizens the way Israel treats its Arabs would rightly be branded grossly antisemitic?), but even without them I would oppose its destruction.

Incidentally, the PLO is not a rejectionist organisation - unlike Netanyahu, Abbas clearly genuinely wants a two-state solution.

[shira]

77. How can you not hate Hamas and the PA for their evil treatment of women, children, gays...

...religious minorities, refugees, and political dissidents?

Is their policy not racist, bigoted, or evil? :shrug:

Also, you must have a very low opinion of Zionists for failing to realize how supportive they are of a racist, bigoted, evil agenda. That's like giving Nazis the benefit of the doubt for not realizing how evil, bigoted, and racist Naziism was. But at least you're consistent. Apparently, the higher ups in Hamas and the PLO don't know how evil, racist, and bigoted their policies are either.

How do you destroy Zionism without destroying Israel? The only way Zionism can be destroyed is if Israel is destroyed. Israel will not allow the situation for Jews either within or outside Israel to return to pre-1948 conditions when there was nowhere else to go.

out of curiosity, do you acknowledge that a state that treated its Jewish citizens the way Israel treats its Arabs would rightly be branded grossly antisemitic?

Israel is not grossly bigoted/racist. Discrimination exists, but that's the case in every western liberal democracy. I'd be surprised if any other nation were as tolerant and liberal as Israel if they were similarly under constant attack from their neighbors like Israel has been the past 60 years. Imagine what the USA would do to Canada, Mexico and their citizens were they like Israel's enemies. But I'll tell you this much - I'd gladly settle for Jews historically being treated in other lands as Arabs have been treated within Israel. Israel has far and away treated Arabs much better than the rest of the world has treated Jews. It's not even close. One example. Arabs in Israel don't require security for big gatherings in meeting halls, at their schools or in their mosques. Jews require security worldwide in the USA, UK, Canada , etc... for all big gatherings, in all their schools and synagogues. And the Jews pay for all that. Their security is not covered by the state or government outside Israel. Arabs in Israel don't have to worry about that. Wrap your mind around that one...

Incidentally, the PLO is not a rejectionist organisation - unlike Netanyahu, Abbas clearly genuinely wants a two-state solution.

Yeah, right. Abbas rejected an offer at Annapolis that went further than the Clinton Parameters, which Arafat regretted rejecting. Abbas has also evaded negotiations, even during an unprecedented 10 month settlement freeze. And that's just the tip of iceberg...

[pelsar]

93. just for fun....

Yes, I hate zionism. That's because it's evil, racist and bigotted

can i assume you also hate nationalism?.....as it too has its roots in racism and bigotry, one quick look at any countries citizenship requirements quickly shows racism, bigotry etc

[Donald Ian Rankin]

151. "With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer,

I beg to submit that it is the first."

More generally, I think that particularism of any kind is a bad thing - the difference between a good or at worst misguided person and a bad one is that the former says "what is morally right is what is best for people", and the latter says "what is morally right is what is best for my people".

[pelsar]

221. i beg to differ..your former doesn't even exist....

what is morally right is what is best for people", and the latter says "what is morally right is what is best for my people".

thats one of those fantasies that students get to believe in while in the university, that the professors get to write about...."best for the people"...put the tinyiest bit of pressure on their livelihood, or their lives and they very quickly return to the "my tribe" is most important if that will help them.

do you really need an example?


you seems confused on the that subject as well....it appears that you too believe that tribal identity is a bit more important the "best for the people" philosophy, after all the 'tribe" you rooting for" has a negative record in the "best for the people" where as the Z tribe has shown that its imperfect record is far far better (the z tribe understands why liberty for all is best for them as well).

i assume your not even going to dispute that....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

226. No, I don't give a damn about tribal identity.

I think that in many ways a one-state solution would work better than a two-state one, in large part because it would undercut both Israeli/Jewish and Palestinian tribal identities; the two fatal flaws are a) the Israelis don't want it and b) the Palestinians don't want it.

[pelsar]

235. but you do....

in fact its so important to you, you believe the Palestinians should have their own state based on that very tribal identity...

I think a Palestinian state is likely to have an overly Islamic and non-trivially corrupt government, and not to be a great place to live by any means, but unfortunately that doesn't mean the Palestinians don't have a right to vote for whoever's going to rule them.

it you didn't give a damn about tribal identity and felt that " secular, good for the people" was more important than tribal identity then you wouldn't accept a society that not only is tribal based but doesn't even accept secular values.

to contrast that you "hate" the zionist tribal identity that does include secular values.

it appears that the secular values are secondary to tribal values to you.....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

241. Please stop trying to tell me what I believe; claiming telepathy just makes you look foolish.

Stick to a) telling me what you believe, and b) telling me what you think of what *I've* said I believe. Don't make up lies about me.

I want the Palestinians to be able to vote for whichever government rules over them.

I think that that government being the Israeli government would be a perfectly good solution.

[pelsar]

256. i'm just noting your own contradictions....

you hate zionism for its, as i understand, racist and tribal nature, yet seem to harbor no such feeling toward the Palestinians own version of nationalism with is intact far more racist and tribal than zionsim

care to explain?

[King_David]

123. My pop psychology tells me you hate Zionism for other reasons.

And I aint talking about antisemitism .

[azurnoir]

131. Really what would they be or does your pop psychology

not go far enough to actually enumerate them?

[King_David]

179. Donald gets it.

You do not.

;)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

152. Of course.

The reason I hate Zionism more than I hate other, equally wicked, philosophies, is the amount I see it being defended.

If I spend a lot of time in the company of people who regularly put forward half baked, bigoted and untruthful defences of the regimes in Angola or Burma or Columbia I'd come to hate those regimes more. But Israel receives incomparably more defence from Westerners than any other comparably wicked or worse regime, which means I spend far more time pointing out just why those defences are half baked, etc, and become far more aware of just how stupid Zionism and its defenders are.

Ultimately, I'm a mildly aspergers mathematician. What gets to me most is not human suffering, but faulty chains of reasoning. That Zionism is wrong is merely a fact; what has an emotional impact on me is the stupidity of the arguments used to support it.

[shira]

156. "What gets to me most is...faulty chains of reasoning. That Zionism is wrong is merely a fact".

Without Zionism and Israel, Jews would still be in a the same intolerable they were at during WW2 times.

Do you consider THAT wrong?

Your wish is to correct a perceived wrong by condemning all Jews to another wrong. And not only that, take away freedom from non-Jews in that region they would never have if not for Zionism. Do you ever think of all the good that Zionism has done for Israel's non-Jews? Are you not aware 75% of Israel's Arabs are for a democratic and JEWISH Israel? That makes them Zionists too. Adherents of an ideology you hate and find to be evil. Not only that, I've posted several times a link to a poll showing Palestinians respect Israeli democracy more than any other democracy in the world. How does all this compute with you from a logical perspective?

A liberal/progressive nation in the middle of closed, dark totalitarian regimes is not wrong - it's pretty much the only thing RIGHT about the region.

Your faulty logic is the result of the false premise that Jews as a nation have no right to self determination on even one inch of the soil there. Moreover, Palestinians who would have been happy living in a greater Syria or in Jordan (had Israel never existed) have more rights to the land nationally than Jews.

[pelsar]

161. That Zionism is wrong is merely a fact;

oh...i hadn't realized that you are the arbitrator of "facts"

this "fact" is it based on some kind of physical universal something or other that everybody in the whole wide world agrees upon (like gravity)...or is your "fact" nothing more than a subjective view of the world....based on your particular set of values....

[USA_1]

2. ''Liberal'' Case? Horsebleep

Just because liberal Hubert Humphrey endorsed the state doesn't mean it is an ideal liberal la la land or prove that it is a bastion of open minded tolerance. Quite the contrary, the historical and present record clearly show it is an imperialist, racist state which survives because it leeches off the monies given to it by its puppets in Washington, DC. This goes way back to its very origins: Einstein (along with other Jewish liberals) condemned the actions of Zionist fanatics and viewed them as the closest parallel to fascism anywhere in his famous 1948 letter to the NY Times:

http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/einstein/nyt_letter.html

excerpt:

''Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the Freedom Party (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine. ''

...............


The terrorist state of Israel engages in lies and deception to fool people into thinking that it is a bastion of liberal greatness but, in fact, is cleverly using paid agents to mask their crimes against humanity as shown in the following book by one of its very own agents:

By Way of Deception: The Making of a Mossad officer by Victor Ostrovsky

http://www.amazon.com/Way-Deception-Making-Mossad-officer/dp/0971759502

...............


Israeli is a militarist state that has fomented war all over the world. It was the biggest supporter of Apartheid in South Africa. Also many acts of terrorism in which it was ''attacked'' by Palestinians were fabricated set ups conducted by Israel:

The Israeli Connection by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi

http://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Connection-Benjamin-Beit-Hallahmi/dp/1850430691

...............


Even among Israelis, there remains a wall of separation between Ashkenazi and Sephardim Jews:

http://alfassa.com/haredi_discrimination.html

I could post a few dozen links re other forms of discrimination against minorities in Israel and more examples of its terrible injustices.

Thus, contrary to the nonsense written by the OP, there is no liberal case for Israel. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, nothing in that racist, terrorist state reflects true liberalism nor can it be defended by way of progressive ideology.

[shira]

16. "Nothing in that racist, terrorist state reflects true liberalism nor can it be defended by way of..

...progressive ideology."

:eyes:

Israel is well ahead of the USA on gay rights, the death penalty, healthcare, freedom of expression, and not fighting useless wars in foreign countries that have resulted in 1000x more destruction and devastation than everything Israel has done in its existence combined.

So America is even less liberal and progressive than Israel in your opinion, right?

[USA_1]

31. See Beit-Hallahmi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM7RlfQtzlI

[shira]

41. You didn't answer me, so once again since Israel is far ahead of the USA on many liberal issues...

...it's reasonable to conclude that America is less liberal/progressive than Israel.

Correct?

[USA_1]

57. USA's Rank in this regard is irrelevant

We will stick to the subject and not engage in obfuscation or side tracking.

[shira]

58. LOL, says "USA_1". Remember that saying about people and glass houses?

Remember that next time you try lecturing others in a country that's demonstrably more progressive and less of a "terror state" than your own.

I know, the cognitive dissonance must hurt.

[USA_1]

60. Nice Try at Obfuscation

But all it does is prove you are conceding the point that Israel is repressive towards Palestinians. Thank you for the admission.

[shira]

76. So you concede the USA is far less liberal/progressive than Israel. Thanks for the admission. NT

[USA_1]

102. Ho Hum

Shira - I'm 60 now and have been involved in many debates over the years. I know the tactics of people who win and the tactics of those who cannot win. Obfuscation and side tracking is a sign or rather than admission that you just lost the debate. Anyone who has knowledge of debating can readily see it. For your own good, you would be well advised to stop trying to get the last word.

[shira]

106. Maybe you don't realize it, but you were the one making the claim that Israel is in no way...

....liberal or progressive. You said that, not me. I'm challenging you to see whether you hold other countries to the same standard. First and foremost your own country. You chose USA_1 as your screen name for a reason. You're probably proud of the USA, and for very good reason. I am too.

However, it's obvious you have a double standard, as Israel is clearly more liberal/progressive than the USA is. And yet you cannot allow yourself to judge the USA using the same standards you use to judge Israel.

I'm merely calling you on what you wrote at the end of your first post in this thread.

Thus, contrary to the nonsense written by the OP, there is no liberal case for Israel. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, nothing in that racist, terrorist state reflects true liberalism nor can it be defended by way of progressive ideology.

Now that's demonstrably false, isn't it?

You know very well there's something liberal/progressive about the USA and that's why you're proud of your country. Israel, however, is arguably even more liberal/progressive although you won't admit it. Logically, if the USA is liberal/progressive in some way and Israel is even MORE liberal/progressive than the USA (which it is) then the drivel you wrote in that quote above is nothing but nonsense.

[USA_1]

118. ''Israel, however, is arguably even more liberal/progressive although you won't admit it''

You have yet to present any evidence to prove it. Since you have conceded the point by jumping from subject to subject then we can now address your ramblings.

There were racists and haters who attempted to make the USA into two states in the 1860s. But peace loving integrationists thwarted their efforts. We became a one state democracy where freedom and integration flourishes.

Does your terrorist, hate filled racist state have these great attributes? If so, then why isn't it fully integrated as we are?

Zionism is racist as admitted by a great many Jewish scholars and people throughout the world as shown in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guQE9IRRKM4&feature=related

Make Israel into one state and then you can make the claim that your racist, segregationist state is the equal of mine.

[shira]

119. Gay rights, death penalty, healthcare, more socialist, much more self critical media...

...very liberal court system, far better on environmental issues, leaders in stem cell research, better on immigration (for example from Ethiopia, Sudan), state subsidized public college tuition, better labor unions.

Israel had its first Arab President back in 2007 named Majali Wahabi, lead speaker of the knesset.

Israel had a female PM back in the 70's named Golda Meir.

The Knesset currently has an Islamist party within it (Raam Taal). Imagine the USA with reps in Congress from al-Qaeda bashing US policy on a daily basis.

In combat, Israel's civilian to militant kill ratio is significantly better than the US ratio the past decade and unlike America, Israel doesn't fight wars thousands of miles from its mainland.

====================

As for one secular state, no one is for it on either side. Neither the Israelis or Palestinians say they want it.

You think it's liberal to force that on everyone there?

[azurnoir]

130. Majalli Wahabi, filled in as President of Israel for a day or so in early 2007

because of Moshe Katsav's ahem legal problems (rape) and his deputy being out of the country oh and BTW he's Druze not simply a generic Arab as you seem to think, but I know suc distinctions are difficult for some

yes Golda Meir was PM of Israel but Si Lanka and India had female PM's prior to that those being Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Indira Gandhi oh and when using having a female PM as a mark of being a progressive country let's not forget Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan either

Ra'am Ta'al is like al-Qaeda so in your mind would that make MK Tibi Osama Bin Lauden? well the rightwing in Israel seems to agree with you

On 12 January 2009, the Ra'am-Ta'al list was disqualified from the 2009 elections by the Central Elections Committee. 21 committee members voted in favor of its disqualification, with eight members voting against and two members abstaining. Tibi said the decision was related to Operation Cast Lead, claiming "this is a racist country. We are accustomed to these types of struggles and we will win" and that "this decision strives for a Knesset without Arabs that will only lead to the increased solidarity between the Arab public and its leadership". He said he would appeal to the Israeli High Court of Justice.<1> On 21 January the High Court of Justice overturned the Committee's decision unanimously. Tibi welcomed the decision and said: "We have beaten fascism. This fight is over but the battle is not. Racism has become a trend in Israel… the court's decision has righted a wrong by Kadima and Labor".<2> The list won four seats, with Tibi retaining his place in the Knesset.

This page was last modified on 7 November 2011 at 11:38.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%27al

Israeli politicians are trying to 'reform' the High court as of now aren't they perhaps so this type of thing won't happen again

combat kill ratios yes I guess 100/1 is better than the US glad to see you approve? and no Israel fights closer to home but then again the US is not attempting colonize Afghanistan or Iraq either

and no most on both sides do not prefer a one state solution, but Jordan and Israel is not an acceptable 2 state solution either

[shira]

141. The comparison was between the US and Israel. Israel's ahead of the US on everything mentioned.

You don't think Israel's more progressive/liberal than the US?

Why?

If it's the occupation, then what about the US in Iraq/Afghanistan? Maybe if we take both those things away, call it a wash, and THEN compare, you'd agree Israel is more liberal/progressive?

[azurnoir]

148. oh well of course Israel is more progressive than almost any country on Earth except.........

Iceland

[shira]

157. You didn't answer the question, why? Between the USA and Israel...

...which is more progressive?

[Shaktimaan]

135. But israel is a single state.

There were racists and haters who attempted to make the USA into two states in the 1860s. But peace loving integrationists thwarted their efforts. We became a one state democracy where freedom and integration flourishes.

Actually, there is a tremendous amount of institutionalized racism in america. But you're right, we are integrated and all citizens have equal rights under the law. And yes, Israel also has these same qualities. If you're asking why israel and palestine have not merged into a single state it is because they are two seperate nations. Israel has neither the inclination nor the right to annex the opt and force the palestinians to become citizens. Nor do the palestinians want this. It's not a question of racism, Israel has plenty of Jews who are the same race as palestinian arabs, as well as non-Jews, druze, christians, Muslims, etc of all races and religions.

Zionism is racist as admitted by a great many Jewish scholars and people throughout the world as shown in this video:

Are you serious? You really think that Neturei Karta are Jewish scholars? They are the most radical of fringe movements. They are insane, tiny, and pretty much the opposite of progressive in every way.

Make Israel into one state and then you can make the claim that your racist, segregationist state is the equal of mine.

So, violate the palestinian's self-determination and human rights by forcibly invalidating their elections and government by annexing them, regardless of the wishes of either israelis or palestinians. This will violate the un charter, international law and will negatively affect both populations. THEN you'll consider Israel to be more liberal?

[USA_1]

230. ''two seperate nations''

The USA started out as 13 separate nations. Then it was divided into 2 separate nations which became one once again.


''Neturei Karta''

Insane, tiny ... ? That is nothing more than hate filled pejorative. And they are correct when they say the Bible clearly states only the messiah can reestablish the Kingdom. They have repeatedly challenged Zionists to debates but the latter run away from these truths.


''self determination''

We did that to the Confederate states as well. That was held to be OK.

We could go on and on ......

[Shaktimaan]

74. ha!

Einstein was a huge supporter of Zionism.

It was the biggest supporter of Apartheid in South Africa.

Huh? How did it support apartheid? Israel was one of the first nations to condemn apartheid at the UN. It traded with SA when Arab embargoes limited its other options, sure. But how did it support apartheid specifically?

Also many acts of terrorism in which it was ''attacked'' by Palestinians were fabricated set ups conducted by Israel:

oh yeah? like what?

Even among Israelis, there remains a wall of separation between Ashkenazi and Sephardim Jews:

That article is about Israel enforcing tolerance in the face of racism from a radical sliver of the population. It shows how Israel backs minority rights despite some Jew's entrenched racism.

I could post a few dozen links re other forms of discrimination against minorities in Israel and more examples of its terrible injustices.

So? Racism exists everywhere. That hardly negates the op's examples of Israeli liberalism. There's very little institutionalized racism in Israel.

[USA_1]

103. Einstein did support Zionism

But he CONDEMNED the tactics of the Irgun and called them fascists as you can readily see from the link I posted. The rest has already been addressed.

[Shaktimaan]

107. So he disliked the Irgun...

So what? Most Israelis hated them too. They were fascistic. The Haganah actively hunted them down, arrested them and turned them over to the British during the Mandate era. Ben Gurion used the newly formed IDF to sink the Altalena, an Irgun ship smuggling weapons and explosives into Israel. What does the Irgun's unpopularity 65 years ago have to do with modern Zionism?

The rest has already been addressed.

The rest of what? My comments? Um... no, they have not. You made some wild statements which I either debunked or challenged. Then you said they were "addressed." That is very different from actually addressing them.

[USA_1]

114. Israel's Apologists Are Working Full Time on this Thread

But history and current events are clear enough - there is no liberal case for Israel. On the contrary, there is one for Palestinians.

[Shaktimaan]

116. yeah, well...

when people post nonsense they tend to get jumped on here.
unless you're able to back up your arguments with a modicum of substance you'll just keep getting creamed over and over again.

To be fair though many of the people who frequent this board have been studying the conflict for years and have read dozens of books on it. You're going to have to up your game and learn something legitimate about the conflict before anyone here'll pay you any respect. You kind of talk like someone who's never been outside of the US before... all black and white. No nuance. A shallow interpretation of events that rely on labels more than substance.

Sigh. You'll likely be gone before the week's out.

[USA_1]

120. ''You'll likely be gone before the week's out.''

HAHAHA!!! While that sounds like a threat it is so silly that I won't take it seriously.

You can easily look up the books I've listed previously and links to youtube to prove I know the subject quite well. I note that none of you Israeli apologists have dared to address the substance in them. Naturally, they are documented proofs by Israelis so you would be hard press to disprove them.

OK. I'll wait for your answer to them. Got a feeling it will be a long time before you do so.

Here is more truths about Israeli injustices that the news media and apologists won't tell you:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guM_pU7txW4

Israelis REFUSE to fight in their terrorist wars!

[Violet_Crumble]

136. I strongly disagree...

when people post nonsense they tend to get jumped on here.

No, when people post nonsense, and they combine that with lying about my views, I don't waste my time jumping on them. Unless they make a point of replying to anything I say, I ignore them as the white noise and mindless fury that they assuredly are.

As for respect, take it from someone who's been here a long time. Anyone who'd come to this forum looking for respect is playing a mugs game. It's a tiny forum in a vast sea of the internet that has a small readership. If I want respect, I'll go post on some obscure music forum and boast about being a New Order and Smiths fan v1.0 rather than the johhny come lately upgrages of v2 or 3 that most folk are. I come here because way back when this forum was at its best, I learnt a hell of a lot that held me in good stead when I went on to study Middle East politics and being lazy I opted to focus on the I/P conflict. Now I turn up for entertainment and to see how many seconds it takes to push all the right buttons on some folk. If people want substance with their I/P discussions, this isn't the place they'll get it. Reading books and making sure it's a cross-section that includes opposing viewpoints, following the Israeli and Palestinian media while avoiding partisan 'advocacy' sites online which are useless, and talking to Israelis and Palestinians is what provides substance...

btw, I've been meaning to talk to you about this, and now's the time as it's come to a head in this thread. I doubt yr aware of it but yr unique mannerisms (eg 'retarded' and 'getting creamed') are being mimicked by the minnows I referred to earlier in my post. Is there some way you can take out some sort of copyright on yr cute sayings in order not to see them clumsily wielded by those who struggle to come up with their own thoughts and words? I'm working amongst boring lawyer types nowadays and can put together a really intimidating cease and desist letter for you! ;)

on edit: I almost forget the reason why I'd hit the reply button! I just wanted to bring things back to the OP and point out where I think the writer's gone wrong. I'm guessing I'm not alone in being aware of the positives about Israel while being very critical of the Occupation and Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people. When I read condescending and hyperbolic articles like the OP, if the writer is trying to win hearts and souls, then he's falling flat. All it comes across as is another attempt to have a go at people for criticising the Occupation instead of getting all gushy and gooey about how much they ♥♥♥ Israel. It's possible to be aware of the positives while focusing on a very big negative, and I'd suggest anyone who isn't aware of the positives does need to spend some time learning, but I have a major problem when those positives are used in an attempt to stifle criticism...

[shira]

143. The OP isn't about stifling criticism of Israel's occupation, but rather a response...

...to those who delegitimize Israel, don't think it has any right to exist, and can find nothing liberal/progressive about the nation to justify its ongoing existence.

It's a response to those who try to diminish the fact that Israel is the only democracy in the region. It's not just that, it's a "thriving democracy" as you put it - one that should be imitated by its neighbors in the mideast. Not a nation that should be portrayed as pure evil...

[Violet_Crumble]

200. No, it isn't. He doesn't say that anywhere in the article...

In fact, he clearly states for readers who he's aiming his article at: 'Rather, as a card-carrying member of America's center-left -- those of us who call ourselves liberals, progressives and/or mainstream Democrats -- I write to share with my ideological fellow travelers a much-under-publicized reality'...

My response to gushing and hyperbolic statements of love for Israel that go on about it being 'the only democracy in a sea of dictatorships blah bah blah' is to ask how being a democracy in any way justifies the way Israel has treated the Palestinian people over the decades.

It's not just that, it's a "thriving democracy" as you put it - one that should be imitated by its neighbors in the mideast.

I'm not too sure there's any more room for countries to invade and occupy territory that doesn't belong to it, and to violate international law by settling its citizens in that territory and having two sets of laws - civil law for its own citizens and military law for those it occupies...

[shira]

204. There's nothing in the OP that hints at stifling criticism due to Israel's progressive nature

My response to gushing and hyperbolic statements of love for Israel that go on about it being 'the only democracy in a sea of dictatorships blah bah blah' is to ask how being a democracy in any way justifies the way Israel has treated the Palestinian people over the decades.

There's nothing in the article justifying Israel's treatment of Palestinians. That's nothing but your own spin.

I'm not too sure there's any more room for countries to invade and occupy territory that doesn't belong to it, and to violate international law by settling its citizens in that territory and having two sets of laws - civil law for its own citizens and military law for those it occupies...

That's one load of bullshit there, Violet. It's demonization. Israel just decided one day to invade the West Bank in 1967? Please. And parts of Jerusalem like the Jewish quarter don't belong to the Jewish people? But rather Palestinians who also settled in the area as a result of Jordan's ethnic cleansing of all Jews on their side of the green line in 1948. Come on now.

IMO, the problem you have with the OP is that it doesn't demonize Israel. That's why you don't like it. It tells some truths about Israel's true progressive character that you - and those who demonize Israel - would rather not read about or hear. The Israel you describe may have some progressive traits, but so what? It's not liberal/progressive, but cruel and oppressive due to its "evil" occupation. The truth is that Israel is liberal/progressive by nature.

You know very well Israel has good reason not leave the West Bank as it did Gaza. They don't wish to live life as though they all live in Sderot. When you neglect to mention this - when you refuse to empathize with Israelis and grant them the benefit of the doubt - and choose to only portray Israel's occupation as an act of evil that serves no purpose other than to victimize innocent Palestinians - you're demonizing. You're telling only part of the story. The part that portrays Israel in the most negative light without providing the context.

[Violet_Crumble]

205. Of course there is. Maybe you should try reading the OP?

That claim comes on top of you making a false claim about who he'd aimed the article at. The entire article is peppered with the implication that the focus should be on how absolutely and lovingly wonderful Israel is, rather than on the Occupation. He weaves justification of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (eg the section where he gushes about the separation barrier) throughout. My argument that is like with many other countries, there are positive aspects to the country and its people, but when those positives get used as a weapon to try to stifle discussion of the negatives, that's lame in the extreme....

That's one load of bullshit there, Violet. It's demonization.

What's bullshit or demonising about pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that Israel invaded and occupied territory that doesn't belong to it, and gleefully (not reluctantly as the OP falsely claimed) embarked on a campaign of settlement construction?

IMO, the problem you have with the OP is that it doesn't demonize Israel. That's why you don't like it.

The only problem here is that you insist on creating false arguments where you make up complete nonsense about what people actually believe because it's easier for you to bang away at something that doesn't exist, and is more akin to a mirror image of yr own views, than deal with something that is more balanced and realistic. I've clearly stated several times in this thread what my issues with the OP is. If you don't want to bother reading what I say, that's fine, but don't make up complete crap instead.

You know very well Israel has good reason not leave the West Bank as it did Gaza.

And you know very well that you have no idea what I know, so cut the crap. Israel has very several good reasons to end the Occupation, not least the harmful effects it has on Israel itself, including the economic drain of using the IDF to protect out of control settlers when they attack innocent Palestinians. Occupation corrupts, and as many Israeli writers have pointed out, it corrupts Israel. Another very good reason (and I'm talking in yr language and not showing any concern for effects on the Palestinian people) is that the settlements are illegal under international law, and if Israel were to show good faith and dismantle the settlements and work towards ending the Occupation, it's reputation wouldn't be total shit in the global community. The Occupation ends, a Palestinian state emerges, and Israel turns into yet another country where it has some domestic issues with things like treatment of minorities and asylum seekers, but nothing on the international level that it now is. As to whether the frenetic paranoia that drives Israel to take a crap on nations that are friendly to it by forging their passports when Mossad decides to off someone in a third country would vanish, who knows? But I see that as an issue between Israel and the countries they crap on, not an issue for the international community...

So, the bottom line for me is that I could rattle off a long and detailed list of positives about Israel (I'd hazard a guess it'd be a far lengthier and detailed list than you could muster), but my question would be how does any of it justify the Occupation? There's no way it can be justified, not with the harm it does to both Israelis and Palestinians...

[shira]

210. And once again you failed to address the fear Israelis have of pulling out of the WB...

Israel already did what you suggested they should do. They got out of Gaza in 2005 and they got rockets on southern Israel. They don't really look forward to all Israel becoming like Sderot without making sure there's a very good chance that WON'T happen again once the WB is left to the Palestinians.

So yes, the occupation is something Israel wants to end. The Israelis agreed to the Clinton Initiatives back in 2000, which Arafat rejected and then later regretted rejecting - so apparently it wasn't such a shitty deal. Abbas then rejected an even better deal in 2008 that was compared favorably to the Geneva Accords (by the Geneva Initiative people themselves). It's not Israel's fault the PA didn't come back with reasonable counter-offers to each proposal and publicize those offers to the world in order to demonstrate how much they want peace and an end to the conflict.

But this is all irrelevant to you. You prefer the demonizing narrative and that's why you refuse to empathize with the Israeli people who have good reason to fear ending the occupation. They're mostly all for it if given good reason to trust the rabidly insane hateful SOBs running the PA (and that's not demonizing at all, it's fact and it's criticism you yourself ironically prefer to stifle).

So back to the OP. The focus WRT Israel should be more on the truth of what Israel is all about rather than on the demonizing narrative you insist on. Reasonable people should give Israel more of the benefit of the doubt, realize Israel isn't pure evil and that there's another side to the story. Nowhere does the author imply that criticism of Israel should be stifled or that the occupation is justified. What I just wrote above implies that demonization of Israel should be stifled and that current occupation of the WB is justified in light of the fact the Gaza pullout was a failure that put Israeli lives in danger. But the author of the OP didn't do that, as you claim.

[Violet_Crumble]

212. That'd be because I didn't know that was being demanded of me...

Figures that you with yr endless demonisation of the Palestinians would ignore any concerns about their fears and instead obsess away about Israelis. Fear can't be used to justify continuing the Occupation, which is something you do constantly, and in doing so it's clear that you don't oppose the Occupation at all. Israel has never ended the Occupation, and using Gaza as an excuse for the Occupation to continue in the West Bank is really quite pathetic. Israel must end the Occupation for all the reasons I gave which you promptly ignored...

*sigh* I see yr still trotting out the falsehoods and half-truths about the 'offers'. Y'know, a sign that someone is engaging in demonisation is for them to knowingly repeat the same lies and falsehoods after being corrected about them. At least that's what you claimed not so long ago. Apparently when you said that, you didn't think it applies to lies and falsehoods about the Palestinians. I get a nasty vision of spittle flying all over the monitor whenever you get worked up about the *evil* Palestinians as opposed to the orgasmically *good* Israelis...


So back to the OP. The focus WRT Israel should be more on the truth of what Israel is all about rather than on the demonizing narrative you insist on.

Heh. And only a few posts ago you were trying to tell me that there's no attempt to stifle criticism of Israel, yet here you are trying to do the very same thing. Also, only a complete zealoted moron would view opposing the Occupation and criticising it as demonising Israel.

Reasonable people should give Israel more of the benefit of the doubt, realize Israel isn't pure evil and that there's another side to the story.

Yeah. Thank Dog you didn't ask me to list a few positives about Israel! That would have really shown how demonising and full of hate of Israel I am when I couldn't produce a single one!!! ;)

[shira]

213. Apparently you don't think much of the vast majority of Israelis terrified of rockets...

...that would come from the West Bank onto all Israel, similar to what Gaza has done to Sderot. You certainly cannot empathize with them and grant that they have legitimate fears. You can't even empathize with most LEFTISTS within Israel who are wary of pulling out of the WB due to those fears. That amounts to hate IMO, or IOW, demonization.

I didn't lie about the proposals. Israel has offered to end the occupation. The PA rejected both offers. Arafat even regretted rejecting the Clinton Parameters and Abbas rejected an offer that went further than the Clinton Initiatives. An offer compared to Geneva. These are facts, not opinions or demonizations.

Again, I'm not against criticism but rather demonization. That's what you do, not me.

I've also repeatedly said I'm against the occupation. In fact, I'm all for giving the PA 60% of the WB that Netanyahu, Peres, and Barak offered last year. Ironically, you're the one here against ending that part of the occupation, not me.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

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

[shira]

215. You still can't and won't empathize with the vast majority of Israeli with legit fears...

You should explain why fear of rockets is not a valid excuse.

Is there really no threat? Would the humanitarian situation really improve for all concerned after a pullout if rockets start falling on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?

How is this rational fear not a valid excuse?

[Violet_Crumble]

216. I empathise with them every bit as much as I do with Palestinian fears...

They exist, I'm aware of and have some sympathy for them, but fear can't be used to justify oppression and violating international law. That's the routine of Right Wingers. You need to acquaint yrself with Resolution 242, which states in the preamble the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory in war, and goes on to state that Israel's armed forces must be removed from territory Israel captured in that war. There's no clause in there that says 'If some American keyboad warrior on the internet claims that Israelis are really scared, that justifies the continuation of the Occupation'. And that's because fear from the very people who occupy that territory isn't a valid justification for the Occupation.

[shira]

217. You do realize UNSCR242 never states the occupation is illegal, right? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

218. I don't recall saying it was, so how about focusing on what I actually did say? n/t

[shira]

219. Since it's not illegal, Israel is legally justified in continuing it.

From a moral perspective, it's also justified in that ending it would certainly lead to more deaths on both sides.

[Violet_Crumble]

220. Yet again you don't bother to read what yr replying to...

The Resolution very clearly states that Israel must remove its military from territory it occupies. What bit of that didn't you grasp?

Yes, those who support the occupation tend to trot out the morality like without realising that their own view of morality is extremely skewed.

[shira]

222. It's a legal occupation that is allowed to last until a just peace is negotiated.

It's not Israel's fault that hasn't happened.

Israel is not required to just get out of the OPT in the absence of a peace deal.

[Violet_Crumble]

223. Yet again you don't bother to read what yr replying to...

The Resolution very clearly states that Israel must remove its military from territory it occupies. What bit of that didn't you grasp?

Yes, those who support the occupation tend to trot out the morality like without realising that their own view of morality is extremely skewed.

[shira]

224. You must've missed the part in UNSCR242 which requires withdrawal based on negotiated peace...

See, the occupation is legal. Israel has every right to be there until peace is negotiated. UNSCR242 states as much in the very 1st paragraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#Land_for_peace

You're attempting (and doing a rather lousy job) to argue Israel has no right to be in the OPT and therefore must get the fuck out, and that it should have done so immediately after UNSCR242 was written. The resolution doesn't call for that.

Anything to portray Israel in a very ugly light.

[Violet_Crumble]

242. Yeah, that'd be because it's not there...

Neither the first paragraph of the preamble, nor the first paragraph of the Resolution itself state that withdrawal must be based on a negotiated peace.

Here's the text of the Resolution

NOVEMBER 22, 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

Interestingly enough, it also doesn't contain a word that says if American keyboard warriors claim Israelis are really scared, then that's a justification for continuing the Occupation. I know. There I go again introducing facts into it and in doing so portraying Israel in a very ugly light! ;)

And yet again yr displaying an inability to comprehend what I say. I never said anything about 'immediately'. You should really quit trying to tell others what they supposedly believe and what they're supposedly arguing and just stick to telling people what yr own views are...

What I find hard to understand and I doubt I'll get any assistance from you in trying to understand, is how someone can claim to oppose the Occupation, but then spend an inordinate amount of time arguing that the Occupation is moral and justified. If someone thinks the Occupation is moral, doesn't that mean they're supporting immorality if they say 'I oppose the occupation', even if that short sound-byte is only uttered a few times?

[shira]

243. It must be difficult for you keeping your stories straight...

One moment you're arguing for 2 states and peace, the next you use the delegitimizers demonizing rhetoric and claim Israel needs to get the fuck out without a peace deal. You admit the occupation is not illegal but argue Israel needs to get out as if it were.

:eyes:

That said, when would that be? In 1968? 1982? 1994? When?

Land for peace within UNSCR242 is right here...

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." <3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242#Land_for_peace

Number 1 logically cannot happen without number 2. Israel would have to be moronic to leave the WB (part 1) and expect peace (part 2) in return. Hell, that happened WRT Gaza as Israel did #1, hoped for #2, and got shit on with rockets in return. At least with Egypt WRT the Sinai, it got #2 when it did #1 due to negotiations.

I oppose the occupation but it's not the greater of 2 evils, as the Gaza withdrawal proves. What's worse than the occupation is a withdrawal from the WB that allows for all Israel to become Sderot. That may be fine with you, but I assure you it's not fine with most of Israel's Left. It's not just Israelis who would suffer from such rocket attacks. Lebanon 2006 and OCL 2009 would be a picnic in comparison.

[Violet_Crumble]

244. Not really. I think it's more yr unable to comprehend simple arguments...

Well, that's the first time I've seen the text of UN242 described as 'the delegitimizers demonizing rhetoric'. Tell me, are you of the belief that you score Frequent Sound-Byte points each time you use the words 'demonise' and 'delegitimise'? The only folk I've seen use them more frequently are the extreme RW Israeli government.

It's no good just blindly reposting the bit of the Resolution that you claimed said that the ending of the Occupation was dependent on a negotiated peace. It says nothing of the sort, and no rational person would be the slightest bit interested in yr torturous and twisted interpretation of it.

What makes no sense is that you claim to oppose the Occupation, but never explain why. Instead you spend a lot of time going on about how it's moral and argue regularly as to why it must continue. I guess I'd be holding my breath for eternity waiting for you to explain exactly why you oppose the Occupation?

Who appointed you the person who speaks on behalf of Israel's Left? You have a really silly habit of taking it upon yrself to talk on behalf of a whole lot of people, myself included. Stick to talking on behalf of yrself for a change...

[shira]

245. One thing at a time, about the occupation...

I'm against it and would love to have seen it end a decade ago in a peace deal Arafat rejected but later regretted. I hoped ending the Gaza occupation would lead to something better. I'm all for Israel's offer of a Palestinian state on 60% of West Bank land that Abbas rejected. However, I'm against anymore unilateral withdrawals. They don't work out so well. I'm not for all Israel becoming like Sderot. Once that happens, ALL hell will break loose and it won't just be bad for Israelis. It will be worse for Palestinians. Maintaining the occupation on at least 40% of the land is the lesser evil.

What's odd is that...

1. You still give Arafat the benefit of the doubt for rejecting a 2 state deal he later regretted. Worse, you're against Olmert's offer (similar to Geneva) which was an even better offer. Obviously those deals were fair enough, given Arafat regretted turning down the Clinton Initiatives and Olmert's offer went even further than that. Both deals would have ended the occupation but you object to them. Yet you say you're for 2 states and an end to occupation.

Odd.

2. You realize the Gaza pullout was a failure but insist on more of the same WRT the West Bank and you don't give a shit what that would mean for Israelis and Palestinians as soon as the first kassam touches down in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. And you say you're for peace.

Odd.

3. You're against a Palestinian state on 60% of WB territory with temporary borders. And you say you're for a Palestinian state.

Odd.

4. You say you don't demonize or delegitimize. And yet you give Israel zero credit for anything it has done. As if Israel has done nothing but intentionally tried to harm Palestinians and prevent a future Palestinian state from ever happening. The above measures taken by Israel prove Israel is not in the least preventing Palestinians from having their own state, free of occupation. But you continue to demonize Israel as if it's all their fault.

Odd.

[Violet_Crumble]

248. That's lovely and all, but you still haven't explained *why* you want the Occupation to end...

See, I've given more than a few reasons which you ignored, but you just keep on going on and on about why Israel shouldn't end the Occupation. Someone who opposed the occupation wouldn't do that, nor claim that the occupation is morally right.

I see yr dredging up the same incorrect bullshit from last night. That 60% 'offer' wasn't even for a state, but for autonomy, which is something entirely different. I recall you claiming that getting autonomy should be enough for the Palestinians, but no reasonable person would find that acceptable. It wasn't acceptable for the Zionists when they were offered it prior to the creation of Israel, and for good reason. Why insist the Palestinians should take something which the Zionists themselves rejected?

Uh-huh. I don't give Israel any credit for anything it's done? It must get really hard for you to wipe the memory banks the second you read something that shows I'm quite happy and willing to give Israel credit where credit's due. I'll give you a bit of a reminder. I easily rattled off a list of positive things about Israel in this very thread. Don't make the mistake of thinking that everyone else in this forum ascribes to yr simplistic Israel = Wonderful and Always To Be Defended, and Palestine = Sheer evil that must be hated by all who love Freedom!

Anyway, I've got to head off to the latest Let's Demonise Israel phone-hookup. I'm the secretariat this month!!

[shira]

253. I want the occupation to end...

...because Israel shouldn't rule over another people and it tends to make otherwise good people in the IDF into cruel oppressors who are forced to take and carry out orders they'd hate to do against their own friends and family.

You're wrong. The 60% offer was for a state and it says so explicitly here...

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has rejected an offer by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to establish a Palestinian state with temporary borders on 60% of the West Bank, the London-based Al-Hayat reported Saturday.
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3879974,00.html

"Uh-huh. I don't give Israel any credit for anything it's done?"

You give no credit for its proposals for peace and an end to occupation in 2000 and 2008. The first was an offer Arafat rejected but later regretted. The second was an even better deal than the first and similar to the Geneva Accord.

[Violet_Crumble]

254. Someone who held that view wouldn't try arguing that the Occupation was moral...

I'm not wrong. When I've got time later today I'll go back and find the exchange that discussed it where you claimed that autonomy was an acceptable thing and the Palestinians should accept it...

Yet again, you have no idea what yr talking about, and less idea of what others like myself have posted. I strongly recall stating that Israel deserved credit for how far it went at Camp David, because it was far beyond what they'd done before. Or does that not qualify as giving credit because unlike you I actually criticise both sides and not just the Palestinians?

[shira]

255. When did I ever say that? I've argued it's legal...

And you're wrong because you said the offer of 60% of the West Bank was for autonomy and not a state. The article explicitly says 'state' and there's no wiggle room out of that one for you. Admit you're wrong and let's just move on...

As to Camp David / Taba, Arafat rejected the Clinton Initiatives and then later regretted that. Do you feel he should have accepted based on his regret later on? That's his fault, isn't it? And Olmert's deal went further, similar to Geneva. Did Abbas screw that one up in your opinion? In neither case did Arafat or Abbas come back publicly with a reasonable counter-offer.

[Violet_Crumble]

260. Only about twenty or so posts back...

Sorry, but I lose count of these marathon 'I MUST get the last word in' things...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=374029&mesg_id=374630



Rather that allow you to kick off yet another repetitive bout of ignoring what's already been posted on the topic of that 60% 'offer' you demanded the Palestinians should have accepted, I've found the first thread where it was all laid out very clearly for you. There was no sovereignty at all involved in that proposal. It was to be an interim arrangement with limited autonomy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=364924&mesg_id=367334

Let me remind you of the false claim you made just a few posts ago, and which you've now been corrected on. Admit you were wrong and let's just move on!

Shira: 'And yet you give Israel zero credit for anything it has done.' and 'You give no credit for its proposals for peace and an end to occupation in 2000 and 2008.'

[shira]

261. Good catch, you're right. But is it more moral to maintain the occupation...

...or bring about more war and casualties? How does someone purporting to be pro-peace support moves that will surely bring on war and devastation? I believe maintaining the occupation (as bad as that is for Israel as I explained) is more moral than bringing on more war and thousands of dead civilians.

The article explicitly mentioned 'state'. And the article you cite is from one Khaled Amayreh who has recently written gems like this...

Khalid Amayreh – Castro is right, so is Helen Thomas | Sabbah Report
Thank you, Hamas ~ by Khalid Amayreh | Occupied Palestine

He blogs at:

NAZIONISM – Exposing Israel

What a credible source on the 60 percent offer for statehood, Violet. I'm sure the ISM, FreeGazaMovement, and BDS bigots all love Amayreh as well. ElectronicIntifada sure does.

Okay, I now admit you've given credit to Israel for several things. However, to my knowledge you haven't criticized either Arafat or Abbas for rejecting peace offers without making credible counter-proposals in return. I can only assume that it's your opinion all the blame goes to Israel, none on the PA.

[Violet_Crumble]

274. There's nothing moral about the Occupation, and no-one who opposed it would claim it was...

A stance like yrs is supporting an unending Occupation, because there will never be a time those like you would think there wouldn't be war and casualties. Constructing a brick wall of 'what if's' is a clumsy and intellectually dishonest way of hoping the Occupation never ends...

You should know by now that just because an article says something it doesn't make it hard, cold fact. A state is something where the people living within it's boundaries (and note there were no boundaries of a state being set) control their own destinies, have their own defence forces and where foreign occupiers do not get to continue building settlements for the people of the occupying power. What was being offered was limited autonomy all under the control of Israel...

I find it kind of ironic and just a bit hypocritical that someone who sees no problems at all in posting articles from a blatant Islamophobe like Barry Rubin and admires him would rush to try to shoot the messenger when it comes to articles she doesn't like. Also, boycotting Israel does NOT make someone a bigot, and this sort of thing is where you lose all credibility when it comes to speaking about antisemitism.

[shira]

275. And there you go deflecting once again...

As there's no point going on and on and on and on with the same arguments, let's just go to sources.

Amayreh is an outright hateful antisemite, but rather than comment on your sources and organizations you support like the stinky ISM, FGM, BDS, etc... you deflect.

Rubin distinguishes between Islamists and Muslims, and has written several books criticizing Western policies that favor Islamists and hurt more liberal Muslims and Arabs. He does not subscribe to Eurabia and is not against immigration. Go back in the archives and look once again at the article you and LB said was bigoted. Once again, even there he argues against Western policies that enable and empower Islamists, not Muslims in general.

[Violet_Crumble]

276. Ah, so pointing out that you admire a blatant Islamophobe is 'deflecting'?

Well, here's some more for you to get yr head around:

Barry Rubin is most assuredly an Islamophobe, and does indeed subscribe to Eurabia and is against Muslim immigration. This was pointed out to you in another thread a few months ago, and here's the post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=351222&mesg_id=351628

And in a later thread you appear to be grudgingly acknowledging that he is an Islamophobe, when you claim not to be interested in talk about Eurabia and other bigoted stuff about Muslims and that you don't read him for his views on Muslims, but for his views on I/P.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=359919&mesg_id=360154

Y'know, I'd find it just as disturbing if someone was admiring a writer of something antisemitic and then went on to say they weren't interested in their views on antisemitism, but just read them for their views on the I/P conflict. Not interested usually translates as 'I just don't care about that form of bigotry and likely agree with the bigoted stuff or think claims of bigotry are being overblown blah blah.' That's been my experience when it comes to forms of bigotry like sexism, racism, bigotry against gays, etc.

What's clear is that you set a very low bar when it comes to labelling something bigoted when it comes to antisemitism (eg yr claim only today that boycotting Israel is antisemitic), yet raise the bar to such incredibly high levels when it comes to bigotry against Muslims that only the most extreme stuff that's akin to the crudeness of Der Stürmer can ever hope to get over the bar.

Heh, I'm not into stinky anything and tend to veer away. When it comes to the group, group, movement you listed, as it so clearly upsets you that anyone dare disagree on yr vitriolic and rage-filled views on them, I'm considering going and getting myself membership cards to all of them and scanning them for you to get really worked up about! ;)

[shira]

277. Rubin is not an Islamophobe. Read that article again...

....and you'll find that Western policies support and enable Islamists, not Muslims.

Do you know the difference between Muslims and Islamists, Violet?

=====

And again you're trying to deflect from your support of the ISM, FGM, and BDS movement.

[Violet_Crumble]

278. He most certainly is. Read the link I provided with his quotes...

Seeing as how you won't, I'll repost them for you:

'Even a refusal to limit immigration, promote assimilation, deny special privileges, or ban polygamy can be justified as ways to avoid making Muslims feel "excluded."'

and

'Yet if the main threat is revolutionary Islamism and the collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy, then Europe is in a lot of trouble.'

and

'In other words, the Multicultural, Political Correct, criticism-of-Islam-equals-hate-crime approach is the worst possible policy, undermining the host country, radicalizing the Muslim community, and simultaneously stirring up mutual hatreds. There is nothing more likely to create something that might be called "Islamophobia" in the future than kowtowing to fear of this largely non-existent phenomenon in the present.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=351222&mesg_id=351628

It doesn't surprise me that you'd now try to argue that he's not anti-Muslim, despite having all that right in front of you. And it also doesn't surprise me that like Rubin, you don't differentiate between radical Islamists and Muslims (unless Muslims are killed by radical Islamists and then they get upgraded to victim status). Someone who opposes Muslim immigration to Europe because all those Muslims who immigrate there are proponents of 'revolutionary Islam' which will lead to the 'collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy' in Europe is most certainly indulging in some quite strong anti-Muslim sentiment.

That you claimed in that other thread to not be interested in the Eurabia stuff and other anti-Muslim sentiments doesn't surprise me either. Y'know, if someone ever turns up and responds to clearly antisemitic statements by telling people they're not interested in that stuff, but only read the writer because of their views on the I/P conflict, you'd be the last person to get all angry and bothered about it....

[shira]

279. No he's not. Anyone with reading comprehension ability can see the problem he's describing...

...is Western policies that enable and empower Islamists rather than Muslims in general. Read the whole article.

It's no different than what he writes in other articles about Western policy looking the other way as Hezbollah gains power in Lebanon or Erdogan in Turkey. In both situations, the extremists in power are not only distancing themselves more from the West but also making life miserable for the people there. Unlike yourself, Rubin has real friends and contacts in the Arab and Muslim world who tell him they hate Western policies that empower or enable Islamists. Again, he's written books on the subject. People critical of Islamists are not bigots. Those who tend to lump all Muslims and Islamists together - whether criticizing them or shielding them from any criticism at all - are the bigots whether they know it or not.

==========

And you're still trying to deflect from the fact that you support and endorse horrendously antisemitic, warmongering organizations like the ISM, FGM, and BDS movement. You don't get to lecture others about hate, discrimination, and warmongering when you support such vile organizations.

Why is it so difficult for you to criticize those organizations or distance yourself from them?

[Violet_Crumble]

280. He most certainly is. Read the link I provided with his quotes...

Seeing as how you won't, I'll repost them for you:

'Even a refusal to limit immigration, promote assimilation, deny special privileges, or ban polygamy can be justified as ways to avoid making Muslims feel "excluded."'

and

'Yet if the main threat is revolutionary Islamism and the collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy, then Europe is in a lot of trouble.'

and

'In other words, the Multicultural, Political Correct, criticism-of-Islam-equals-hate-crime approach is the worst possible policy, undermining the host country, radicalizing the Muslim community, and simultaneously stirring up mutual hatreds. There is nothing more likely to create something that might be called "Islamophobia" in the future than kowtowing to fear of this largely non-existent phenomenon in the present.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=351222&mesg_id=351628

It doesn't surprise me that you'd now try to argue that he's not anti-Muslim, despite having all that right in front of you. And it also doesn't surprise me that like Rubin, you don't differentiate between radical Islamists and Muslims (unless Muslims are killed by radical Islamists and then they get upgraded to victim status). Someone who opposes Muslim immigration to Europe because all those Muslims who immigrate there are proponents of 'revolutionary Islam' which will lead to the 'collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy' in Europe is most certainly indulging in some quite strong anti-Muslim sentiment.

That you claimed in that other thread to not be interested in the Eurabia stuff and other anti-Muslim sentiments doesn't surprise me either. Y'know, if someone ever turns up and responds to clearly antisemitic statements by telling people they're not interested in that stuff, but only read the writer because of their views on the I/P conflict, you'd be the last person to get all angry and bothered about it....

on edit: I'm also not surprised to see you now behaving as if you know who I have as friends and acquaintances. Silly me for believing that someone who doesn't know me or anything about me wouldn't have the first clue as to who I have as friends! Then again, I didn't know till yesterday that I'm a Hamas supporter! The things I learn about myself from you in this forum! ;)

[shira]

281. Why is it so difficult for you to detach yourself from disgusting, vile organizations...

...like the ISM, BDS, and FGM? Why support them or be an apologist for their nastiness?

I'm done arguing Rubin with you. Anyone who reads that article in full can see he's criticizing Western policy that enables and empowers Islamists, not more liberal Muslims. But nice try deflecting and making shit up about Rubin so that it appears I endorse bigotry and hate....in order to deflect from your own nasty views. You don't get to lecture others and make shit up about them in order to shield yourself....

You can definitely have the last word.

[Violet_Crumble]

290. Try to focus on what the discussion's about instead of deflecting...

Let me refresh yr memory, Shira. I provided an article explaining why what you think is an incredibly generous offer was in fact an offer of limited autonomy, something which offered to the Zionists back before Israel was created, was knocked back as being a load of complete shit. Instead of taking onboard what was said, you proceeded to shoot the messenger, and I reminded you that someone who peddles a blatant Islamophobe like Rubin shouldn't be doing that with a straight face. You then embarked on a very clumsy attempt to claim he isn't Islamophobic, claiming that when he talks about Europe's culture being destroyed, he's actually talked about a massive influx of 'Islamists', not Muslism. Then to try to divert attention, you embark on yet another frothy rant about groups you have far more interest in than I do....

Anyone who's rational and actually finds not just one form of bigotry offensive, would be very aware from reading those quotes from Rubin that he's a nasty anti-Muslim bigot. That you haven't addressed a single one of those quotes pretty much sums it up, imo...

And let me assure you I'm not in the habit of making shit up, unlike you, who do it constantly when it comes to me and other DUers...

[shira]

294. Your neo-nazi source is not credible. Reports were a state was offered on 60% of the land.

I understand you'd like to pretend no state was offered, just limited autonomy, despite what was reported.

Just as I understand you have your own definitions of terms like 'massacre'.

Same WRT the Olmert 2008 offer that the Geneva Initiative people said was similar to their offer. You say it wasn't.

=======

It's Violet's world.

You know best.

=======

Rubin's article doesn't need to be defended. He is clearly distinguishing between Islamists and Muslims, just as Maryam Namazie does. Neither are disgusting bigots. What's shameful is that it appears you could care less about the nasty sources you use and organizations you support. Rather than just deflect, you should be distancing yourself from those sources and organizations. You're not fooling anyone but yourself. Furthermore, those sources and organizations you like so much are against 2 states. Someone for 2 states should distance themselves from such vile sources and organizations.

Yes, I know. You'll ignore this, avoid it like the plague, and keep deflecting...

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

296. More deflection and evasion from you. No surprises there!

Yr claim that I use neo-Nazi sources is completely untrue and very ugly. Though if I ever did, why would someone who has in the past had no issues with using extremely bigoted anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sources (after all they're read for the 'facts', not the bigotry!) have an issue with someone doing exactly what they themselves do?

I understand you'd like to pretend no state was offered, just limited autonomy, despite what was reported.

There's no pretence involved as what was 'offered' was limited autonomy and not a state. I'll repeat what I said in a previous post: 'You should know by now that just because an article says something it doesn't make it hard, cold fact. A state is something where the people living within it's boundaries (and note there were no boundaries of a state being set) control their own destinies, have their own defence forces and where foreign occupiers do not get to continue building settlements for the people of the occupying power. What was being offered was limited autonomy all under the control of Israel...'

Just as I understand you have your own definitions of terms like 'massacre'.

Was that more diversion or just getting confused about what thread yr in? Go here for the 'discussion' where currently yr insisting that the Oxford isn't a dictionary and yr trying to add words like 'malice' to the definition

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=371809&mesg_id=375530

Same WRT the Olmert 2008 offer that the Geneva Initiative people said was similar to their offer. You say it wasn't.

You can go dig that thread up if you've got some overwhelming urge to talk about it. I've learnt from experience to always wait for a link to find out if what yr claiming is correct or not...

It's Violet's world.

You know best.

Sorry, but you take this whole thing far too seriously. Why is it so difficult for you to come to terms with the fact that on a discussion forum people are going to disagree with you? Getting snarky really isn't the way to handle it...

Rubin's article doesn't need to be defended. He is clearly distinguishing between Islamists and Muslims, just as Maryam Namazie does.

See, this is why I don't think you even bothered reading the blatantly anti-Muslim quotes from Rubin. The post those quotes came from didn't state whether they were from one article or from various ones.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=351222&mesg_id=351628

No-one who's opposed to bigotry in any form would defend those quotes, because they're aimed fairly and squarely at Muslims and not radical Islamists. Let's run through them one by one so others here can see for themselves...

Rubin says: 'Even a refusal to limit immigration, promote assimilation, deny special privileges, or ban polygamy can be justified as ways to avoid making Muslims feel "excluded."

Notice how he talks about Muslims? He's sure not talking about radical Islamists. He wants Europe to limit immigration and is opposed to promoting assimilation. Rather ugly views there...

Rubin says: 'Yet if the main threat is revolutionary Islamism and the collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy, then Europe is in a lot of trouble.'

Europe's Muslim population is a small minority that's blown up and over-exaggerated by the likes of Rubin to try to peddle fear. Just like in immigration from other minority groups, there's no threat to national identity (and there's no state in Europe where its national identity is under threat in any way) and to claim there and also to be opposed to immigration when it comes to Muslims, shows the person saying that seems to be under some delusional fantasy that if an immigrant is a Muslim, they're arriving with the intent of turning Europe into Saudi Arabia v2.0

Rubin says: 'In other words, the Multicultural, Political Correct, criticism-of-Islam-equals-hate-crime approach is the worst possible policy, undermining the host country, radicalizing the Muslim community, and simultaneously stirring up mutual hatreds. There is nothing more likely to create something that might be called "Islamophobia" in the future than kowtowing to fear of this largely non-existent phenomenon in the present.'

Someone who claims Islamophobia is largely non-existent is operating from the same place as someone who claims antisemitism is largely non-existent. IT's an ugly and intolerant place where their hackles are raised by having their views correctly identified as bigoted, so what they do is yearn for a world where such intolerance and hate is seen as legitimate. That world has indeed existed not even a century ago in Europe, and it's disturbing to see someone like Rubin echoing such views...

'The Netherlands is about to be Europe's great experiment: Can a center-right government manage an overblown welfare state, nationally suicidal multiculturalism, and virtually open-door immigration policies in a way that can maintain popular support and solve problems?'

Sorry, but this one's just hilarious. 'Nationally suicidal multiculturalism'? For someone you peddle as being a 'liberal', with views like that he would have been very comfortable as a member of the One Nation party here, which was so extreme that even our remarkably intolerant and immigrant loathing Liberal government at the time distanced itself from.

Hell, everyone knows that the only open door immigration policy in Europe is the free movement of citizens of EU countries within other EU countries, and even then I suspect there'd be some limitations as there are between the open door policy between us and New Zealand (eg having been imprisoned for a serious crime within the last ten years or so)...

So, for someone to have read what Rubin's views are on Muslims and immigration and to then turn around and claim that he's only talking about radical Islamists is like someone reading something saying that Jews shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to Europe because they won't assimilate and they'll destroy the national identity of the state, and then going 'No! That's not bigoted! They're talking about religious extremists only!'

[shira]

298. If you're really interested in discussing sources, I'm more than happy to do so with you...

Are you as interested in defending your use of certain sources as I am of defending my use of Mr. Rubin, for example? I suspect all you're interested in is staying on the offensive and never having to answer for yourself. I'd love to be proven wrong...

A real two way conversation.

You up to it? If so, I'll answer you in detail WRT Rubin in my very next post and expect you to account for your use of Amayreh in the same way.

[Violet_Crumble]

309. I've already pointed out in detail Rubin's Islamophobia. Don't need you for that...

That anyone would sit there and deny he's bigoted against Muslims after having it all explained (not that it needs explaining for most folk) is really rather disturbing....

As for a two-way conversation? Sorry, but I've given you the chance more than a few times before and you've shown repeatedly yr incapable or unwilling to do so. So when it comes to any issue at all to do with the I/P conflict, I'll let you meander off along a path of deflection and diversion and I'll stick to what yr trying to avoid :)

[shira]

310. Nonsense. You went off someone else's cherry picking Rubin out of context...

1. Rubin has actually written books about genuinely moderate Muslims and Arabs who oppose radical Islamists.

The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East
http://www.amazon.com/Long-War-Freedom-Struggle-Democracy/dp/0471739014/ref=sr_1_26?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323576195&sr=1-26

========================


2. Rubin is not against Muslim immigration. That's a fabrication.


========================


3. Here's a long article from Rubin that very clearly distinguishes between many different types of Muslims, radical from liberal to conservative, etc. and it's dated just months before the article you cherry picked from....

What is the Threat: Islam, Islamism, or Western Sins?
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-is-threat-islam-islamism-or.html

And here's a book review from Rubin (a book from another author that he recommends) from May 2010....
BOOK REVIEW: Zeyno Baran, The Other Muslims: Moderate and Secular
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/05/book-review-zeyno-baran-other-muslims.html

I could find plenty more material and quote from his past articles, but I doubt that would make any difference to you. This post in fact isn't addressed just to you. I'll use it in the future in case anyone in the future tries deflecting criticism by portraying Rubin as a racist bigot.

Anyway, Rubin has a history going back many years standing up for moderate Muslims against radical Islamists. I'm fairly certain there's not one pro-Palestinian "Leftist" here who has a history of ever once defending genuinely moderate Muslims or Arab non-Muslims against radical Islamists. AFAIK, it appears to me that you guys can't tell the difference between the two, as you all believe the populace is one with their radical leadership. You certainly don't stand up for moderate Palestinians against their leadership. Sari Nusseibeh was arrested for his views by the PA, but the pro-Palestinian Left could care less. And as you well know, you guys never stand up for Palestinian women against Hamas or children abused and utilized as martyrs, suicide bombers, and human shields. So to be crystal clear, you guys don't get to lecture others about Islamophobia when it's people like yourselves betraying genuinely moderate/liberal Muslims and Arabs.

==================

4. As to the article in question, Rubin argues the problem in the West is that too many concessions are made to enable and empower Islamists rather than more moderate or liberal Muslims. Apparently you don't know the difference, which is no surprise. It's all over the article and even within the sentences you cherry-picked from. A lot of Rubin's other articles also note the very same problem WRT Western foreign policy - appeasing, empowering, and enabling Islamists while ignoring moderate Muslims.

What we are seeing today in the West is a definitional struggle: Is the principal danger to European society "Islamophobia" or radical Islamism? If it is "Islamophobia" then it is possible to rationalize a policy ignoring the roots of terrorist attacks and radical forces in the Muslim community while tending to appease demands for more power, funding, and privileges. Otherwise, it is claimed, Muslims will be tortured, murdered, expelled, and mistreated.

Even a refusal to limit immigration, promote assimilation, deny special privileges, or ban polygamy can be justified as ways to avoid making Muslims feel "excluded."

Indeed, this is largely what's happening in Europe: almost anything is justified to ensure that Muslims are happy. Coming up is where Rubin now distinguishes b/w Muslims in general and Islamists.

Yet if the main threat is revolutionary Islamism and the collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy, then Europe is in a lot of trouble.Maryam Namazie argues this constantly on her blog - cultural relativism or multiculturalism being fascist - and there's no way anyone can accuse her of rightwingery or racism. Rubin goes on to say - and this is what you omitted in your cut-paste hack job....

There is also a different way to look at the situation: By following these policies European governments are likely to increase not only the threat to their own stability, culture, and society from Islamism Again, Islamism not Muslims or Islam in general but also to increase the likelihood of antagonism toward MuslimsThe concern is that appeasing Islamists within Western democracies will adversely affect Muslims in general. After all, increasing power, demands, extremism, and violence from Islamists is going to echo on the other side far more than would a more moderate strategy in dealing with these immigrants and citizens.

Of course, the radicals, militants, and activists cannot be made happy by being given money, privileges, and flattery Again the focus is on radical Islamists not Muslims since their goal is to control their communities and seize more and more power. By making these people look successful by giving them concessions, Western societies ensure that the Muslims (or, more correctly, the leaders who give the mosque sermons, teach in the schools, and represent the community to the government) will continue to shout out new grievances.

In other words, the Multicultural, Political Correct, criticism-of-Islam-equals-hate-crime approach is the worst possible policy, undermining the host country, radicalizing the Muslim community, and simultaneously stirring up mutual hatreds. Reaching out and bending over backwards to Islamists within Western society, not Muslims in general which Rubin says can be justified, is the worst possible policy for reasons given. There is nothing more likely to create something that might be called "Islamophobia" in the future than kowtowing to fear of this largely non-existent phenomenon in the present.

[USA_1]

154. Note How the Israeli Apologist Ignore the Truths in the Videos

The youtube videos I have posted were all created by Israelis who criticize their repressive government. The apologists are too afraid of addressing those truths because they know they are irrefutable.

In the end, whether they like it or not, the truth will always win out.

[shira]

159. Videos from Neturei Karta nuts who love Iran's Ahmanidiot? Oooo, convincing! n/t

[USA_1]

169. Here's Another Convincing Video By Yet Another Israeli

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFsw_VvdJlA&feature=related

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

[shira]

172. No, that's just filth from a very vile individual heavily involved with extremely hateful SOBs...

Yonatan Shapira is directly involved with the ISM and FreeGaza Movement. IOW, friends of Hamas.

Pretty nasty shit...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x373536#374028

And with that, we're done.

When the best you can do is quote from nutters, lunatics, and vile and creepy hateful SOBs...oh, never mind.

[Shaktimaan]

117. So wait...

there is no liberal case for Israel. On the contrary, there is one for Palestinians.

You think that Palestinian society is more liberal than Israeli society?
I can't tell if you're being earnest and are just really clueless or if you're trying to troll and just haven't really figured it out yet.

[Shaktimaan]

108. One more thing...

The author of that book, The Israeli Connection, said in a second book that many of his original statements were deliberately untrue. Even if he had credibility at one point, (and there's no indication that he did), he has since attested that the first book is not really to be believed.

That said, it is a book about the Mossad. I wouldn't expect it to be full of examples about how liberal Israel is. That said it does nothing to undercut the many real liberal policies and movements in Israel.

The OP has many great examples of actual progressive policies and actions taken by Israel. You haven't said anything here to remotely challenge any of those specific examples.

[USA_1]

121. ''You haven't said anything here to remotely challenge any of those specific examples.''

I have allowed Israeli Jews to address those matters including Beit-Hallahmi whose video clearly show he affirms what he wrote previously. You and other apologists can repeat whatever lies you want but you cannot refute what these Jewish truth tellers have said.

Keep trying ...

[King_David]

122. He 'creamed' you without trying.

;)

[pelsar]

173. do you really want an israeli to reply?

it would be like speaking to a 5 year old to explain how a liberal democracy works, how we respect others opinions, how everyone has a right to speak, protest, and attempt to affect change. Liberal democracies encourage its citizens to speak out, and they do, that is what your videos show, but no more than that...Your few examples and they are few because the refusinik movement in israel is very very small. Combat units have too many volunteers and though the IDF is constrip army the reality is that everyone is a volunteer as its easy to get out of serving.

More so the reserve units that also remain filled

and your professor: Beit Hallahmi, the one who claims there is no free speech nor religion in israel?.....well so much for credibility......

taking a few opinions that are of a minuscule minority and believing that they speak for the majority is nothing more than your fantasy.....sorry to burst the bubble




http://books.google.co.il/books?id=lhpSsirAcLUC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=Beit-Hallahmi+claims+that+“the+rights+to+free+speech,+freedom+of+association+and+freedom+of+religion+do+not+exist+in+Israel.”&source=bl&ots=CjReSX3wwg&sig=O9YylDVih9xYoDNls-ZGLVVuOUA&hl=en&ei=DhvYTrCcD4TRhAenxMTdDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[shira]

3. "Feel free to criticize Israel when it's wrong. But let's not fail to celebrate it when it's right".

Those who have an irrational hatred of everything Israel can never ever celebrate anything Israel does right.

That would be anti-Palestinian.

It would "justify" the occupation.

:eyes:

Great article, BTW!

The irrational followup will of course be "The Progressive Case for wholly supporting the Hamas and PLO agenda".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. No, let's not celebrate it even when it's right.

Many countries are right about many more things than Israel; do you make sure to celebrate every one of those?

Obviously, let's not *deny* that it's right when it's right - as, for example, it is on gay rights.

But Israel's treatment of its citizens does not and cannot excuse its appalling treatment of the Palestinians, and we should not use "celebrating" that as a cover to prevent the necessary attempts to pressure Israel to end the occupation.

Yes, life is good for Jewish Israelis. But the only hope for peace is if the continuation of that state of affairs is made conditional on an end to the occupation, and positive PR for Israel undercuts the necessary attempts to put pressure on it.

[oberliner]

9. Basically everything written here is also incorrect

Life is only good for Jewish Israelis?

Where do you get this nonsense?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Did I say that? N.T.

[pelsar]

10. you forgot something...

s made conditional on an end to the occupation,

and what happens if the arab winter of gaza takes over the west bank as per the plan?......will having hamas/mb controlling the west bank make life "good for the Palestenians" and for the israelis next door?

or is this something we're not supposed to consider? or even discuss or mention?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. What plan? Hamas'?

Hamas is becoming increasingly unpopular in both Gaza and the West Bank.

"What happens if Fatah is not able to regain control of Gaza?" is a serious worry. "What happens if Hamas takes control of the West Bank?" is not, at present, thankfully, and unlikely to become so without another Israeli invasion to stir up Palestinian support for militance, I think (although that's looking less unlikely than I'd like).

[shira]

17. Donald, do you believe Israel should immediately end the occupation and risk allowing all Israel...

...to become like Sderot?

Israel should be pressured to allow such a situation to happen?

:shrug:

The vast majority of Israelis wouldn't appreciate being walking bullseyes and are rightfully worried about such a situation. Or do you think they're just wrong, have nothing to worry about, and have ill intent towards Palestinians?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Yes.

Some violence will be targetted at Israel for a generation no matter what Israel does, but probably less if it ends the occupation now than if it doesn't.

As to "ill intent" - yes, I think that a majority of Israelis want large chunks of the settlements to remain, and would do so even if there was no risk of violence.

[shira]

21. Why do you think less violence would result vs. Israel if the occupation ended now?

No peace accord will have been signed. Hamas and Islamic Jihad will be free to take over the W.Bank as they did Gaza and the world will remain silent as Iran exports weapons that will pile up right across the green line within walking distance of major population centers.

You don't seem to get that Hamas and Islamic Jihad's "popularity" among Palestinians doesn't matter. Hamas and Islamic Jihad will take what they want and they will never, ever make peace with Israel.

The worst part is life for Palestinians won't improve if the occupation ends now and you know it. See Gaza, Egypt, and Syria for what to expect. Pure shit. Maybe the world should also pressure the PA/Hamas to become more liberal and progressive in their policies at the same time they pressure Israel. Make a pullout conditional on real change and a real Palestinian commitment to peace (drop RoR, criminalize incitement vs. Jews, civil liberties in Gaza and the WB, etc). What do you think?

[pelsar]

24. reading the future are we?

did you predict that hamas would take gaza? that revolts would take place in egypt and libya? that Assad would kill so many? that the iranian spring would last so short and affect nothing? That MB might turn Egypt into a version of gaza or Iran or switzerland?

is not, at present, thankfully, and unlikely to become so without another Israeli invasion to stir up Palestinian support for militance

and as far as hamas in the west bank....they have support in the west bank today.....New Poll: 73% Of The Arabs in The West Bank Support The Hamas Charter
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-poll-73-of-arabs-in-west-bank.html

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-raids-prove-hamas-growing-more-active-in-west-bank-1.383134

Wednesday's announcement by the Shin Bet security service that it had arrested dozens of Hamas militants from the West Bank, including the terror cell behind the murder in March of a British tourist in Jerusalem, and had prevented a suicide bombing in the city last month, points to an significant uptick in the activity of the military wing of Hamas in the West Bank

----

its never a good idea to let wishful thinking get in the way of reality. Hamas is real, they have support in the WB, they have financial backing from iran and the MB and the only thing you can do is pretend they don't have any influence because if you do believe they are a real option you have a serious dilemma that is the classic of only bad options to choose from...and you don't want to go there or even consider it.

[pelsar]

66. good clear explanation.....good to read...

But the only hope for peace is if the continuation of that state of affairs is made conditional on an end to the occupation, and positive PR for Israel undercuts the necessary attempts to put pressure on it.

its rare around here, where one of the "Pro Palestinians" (I personally think your plans will condem them to a long term dictatorship, which is not very "pro" hence the quotes), but a good clear statement why you and others will find a way to condemn anything good that israel might represent.

i personally like reading that sense of clarity...very rare in these parts.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

94. No, that's an outright lie; I said the exact opposite of that.

I said

>Obviously, let's not *deny* that it's right when it's right - as, for example, it is on gay rights.

You said

>you and others will find a way to condemn anything good that israel might represent.

A more clear-cut, blatant, shameful example of a direct lie about what I said would be harder to imagine.

[pelsar]

68. i probably should add..why it won't work...

positive PR for Israel undercuts the necessary attempts to put pressure on it.

whereas it explains all the demonizations one constantly reads (the latest here being that the blood from the jews that came from africa (ethiopians) was destroyed-hinting that it was because of race...the poster "neglected' to mention that the reason was a reasonable HIV health risk).

that strategy of yours and others only further alienates the israeli left, which is essential for any withdrawl. The constant hammering of israel, even on such clear issues of gay rights for example simply put you in the same camp as those that believe in the protocols of zion, IDF policy of organ stealing, racist blood donor policies, etc

same holds true for those who claim they are for "human rights and civil rights" yet join in on hamas demonstrations....

since you can't even find the tiniest thing good to say/defend about israel (or refuse to admit it, is more to the truth), we find ourselves, in a situation where its our mere existence that is the problem, not the country, not the society.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. The Israeli left is vestigial at best.

In the last election, anti-occupation parties won 14 seats; Labour won 13 and Kadima (which I include in a list of parties that could theoretically be considered left-wing merely out of completeness) 28. The far right won 65, and has since added another 5 from labour. And at the next election it's likely to be even worse.

Moreover, the attitude of those outside the left to the left have increasingly hardened; the majority of Israelis who are not for ending the occupation are increasingly passionately against it, and view those who are as traitors (which I think they should be, but sadly most of them aren't).

Peace through consent is a dead end; Israel will never willingly consent to end the occupation. The only hope, unfortunately, is peace through bullying. That, unfortunately, is not much more likely due to the US's backing for Israel, but with help from the current Israeli government, which appears to be doing its best to alienate as much of the world as possible, there's a slim chance Europe, Russia and China might manage it.


>since you can't even find the tiniest thing good to say/defend about israel

Again, this is a direct lie; in the very post you're replying to I say that Israel is reasonably good on gay rights. But using such things to defend Israel from necessary boycotts is harmful; we should acknowledge that they're the case but make clear that they are not relevant to the need to pressure it.

[pelsar]

99. you should ask rather than make assumptions....

he majority of Israelis who are not for ending the occupation are increasingly passionately against it, and view those who are as traitors

i would guess you prefer to have this true, as it better fits your "zionism is racist" viewpoint. Except the vast majority of israelis who are against leaving the occupation live in missile range of the west bank.


here, i'll educate you about the israeli left: first what killed it was gaza..after all the big words pre gaza pullout by the western left (remember, all those great theories about israel has to break the cycle of violence make the big gesture, blah blah blah). With gaza turning into hamasland as a result, the israeli left realized that the "land for peace" was simply not true. Something rather obvious to those with both eyes open.

the israeli left exists, it just moved more to the center and is simply passive on the settlements. Theres no reason to stop them, since the PA in the WB is hardly a baston of stability and hamas is already there waiting for their turn.

now its you and your friends turn, to turn the PA into a working democracy where the israeli left can get some confidence back in the PA and eventually put some pressure on the Israeli govt and reelect a left ward govt.

your aiding in the creation of a facist theocratic dictatorship in the west bank it hardly an idea we can get behind.

[USA_1]

11. Laughable Propaganda

quote from the link article: "Israel is the only nation in world history to deliver huge numbers of black men, women, and children out of slavery in Africa, into freedom abroad."

The world's biggest supporter of Apartheid (see my link to Beit-Hallahmi) as liberators of Blacks? That's laughable propaganda. Utterly laughable.

[shira]

15. Operation Moses (1985) and Operation Solomon (1991). Look it up.

The cognitive dissonance must be difficult for you to handle.

Sorry.

[azurnoir]

26. ah yes the famed and much touted 'rescue' of Sudanese and Ethiopian Jooz

whom when they arrived in Israel found that the governments Rabbi's may have considered them just that Jooz or Juwes but unfortunately not Jews and more lately have been told that their blood is unaceptable for donation to Israel's blood banks because they're African

[shira]

27. Yes, evil Israel deserves zero credit for anything. Seemingly positive things are really negative.

There's not a thing I could write from a logical standpoint - and no amount of proof - that could change your mind.

Hate blinds.

[azurnoir]

33. Facts do seem to disturb you? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

75. That pretty much sums up yr track record when it comes to Palestinians...

Are you capable of coming up with even one or two positives about Palestine? If you can't, then that's a very good example of *Hate blinds*

[shira]

78. Not at all. In fact, I asked you several months ago to name a few issues in which the PA...

...is to the left of Likud. You had a chance right then and there to make a case for the PA being more progressive/liberal than Likud. The PA basically is Palestine (let's not even get into Hamas).

All you could come up with was that they signed a peace of paper recognizing Israel in 1993. That's the best you could do but I'll give you another chance.

====

Are YOU capable of coming up with even one or two positives about the PA or Palestine?

You missed your chance earlier.

I'll gladly tell you whether I agree or not with what you come up with...

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Bullshit. I've never seen you say anything positive about Palestine...

Which explains why you ignored the simple question you were asked and went off on a tangent about something else. I figured you wouldn't come up with anything positive about Palestine, and I was right...

[shira]

82. It's funny you're asking me to list positive things about Palestine when you're unable to do so.

I'm thinking national healthcare.

Your turn...

Name 3-5 things if you can.

[Violet_Crumble]

84. I'm unable to do what?? Yr not making any sense...

Bottom line is I asked you a simple question. As well as refusing to answer it, you've gone on to bombard me with questions that you demand answers to. You won't answer answer the question, that's obvious, if a bit rude and uncivil, seeing as how I answered the question you asked upthread after you refused to answer mine. Oh, well. Sad to say that I didn't expect much at all and I wasn't let down...

[shira]

85. You're unable to list positive things about Palestine. I gave you one thing...

Health care.

It's still your turn. Surely, a pro-Palestinian advocate like yourself can EASILY think of 3-5 positive liberal/progressive things to say about Palestine....

Right?

[Violet_Crumble]

87. WTF are you babbling about now? I asked *you* the question...

I didn't sit there and ask myself that question. I asked you because you have a nasty habit of being incredibly negative about Palestinians, and come across as the mirror image of that which you claim to despise. So I'm not sure what the purpose of yr game is, and care even less, but feel free to sit there and talk to yrself from this point on coz I'm done with you...

[shira]

88. Maybe your friends here can help you list 3-5 positive liberal/progressive things about Palestine...

...since apparently you're unable to do so and are just stalling and deflecting because you know you've got nothing.

:eyes:

It's funny you expect me to rattle off something positive liberal/progressive about Palestine when you can't do so yourself. Does that indicate blind hatred on your part?

I at least gave you one thing (healthcare) so that's one more than you.

List of positives for Palestine

Shira - 1
Violet - 0

[pelsar]

29. just love the demonizations don't you....just can't quit

blood is unaceptable for donation to Israel's blood banks because they're African

like i've written a good demonization always needs some kernal of truth. In israel donations to blood blanks is a very common practice, as its a way of contributing to the society, (i suspect most don't do that here on the DU...helping their fellow citizens).

Given that those from Africa have a very high percentage of HIV which obvious taints the blood and ignoring that would be incompetence of the highest degree, the medical establishment felt it was best not to use the blood from those that come from Africa

According to the health ministry, the prevalence of HIV infection among the Ethiopian immigrants was 50 times that in the Israeli population .....Dr Ben-David added: “No racism was involved because we also destroy the blood donated by other high-risk groups such as addicts and homosexual

but of course, its important to demonize the israelis and hint that they are all racists, hence the statement with partial information.....i'll catch them everytime, its too obvious, though one must wonder what exactly is the motivation of those that love to demonize israelis,......clearly its something

[azurnoir]

34. No I pointed out the 'ending' of the story seems you do not want that part told? n/t

[pelsar]

48. its only when one demonizes does one tell only part

i believe one should tell the whole story....only then is the truth told...telling a small part is part of the demonization as clearly you chose what appears to be simple evil racism, when in fact if one knows the whole story it turns out to be safe medical practice.

Clearly as per the part that you have written you have a preference that people who need blood transfusions should risk getting HIV as part of the transfusion, rather then risk hurting any particular ethnic/cultural group.

interesting value you have there, i wonder if you had two choices of blood: 100HIV clean or a second one where it might have HIV because no one was turned away, which you would choose?....for what you wrote,i guess you would chose the second.

[shira]

38. No amount of logic or facts can penetrate those who demonize Israel. I cannot recall even once...

...when someone here demonizing Israel was proven wrong and admitted their error. They either divert or go silent, but never admit to buying into hateful propaganda...

I think it's a religious thing. To admit even one time to the most insane hatred of Israel by sources they routinely rely on is a big no-no. Besides, when folks aren't around to challenge them, they can just resurrect any and every dumb, retarded accusation they've utilized against Israel. Good demonizations are great when no one's there to challenge.

And no, it appears they can't help but continue to demonize/delegitimize. Good news about Israel? Fuck that, turn it around and upside down. Deflect, deny, make up shit, etc...

[USA_1]

30. ... after YEARS of Supporting Apartheid

See Beit-Hallahmi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM7RlfQtzlI

Only a right wing hate filled Islamophobic loony and racial separatist would deny this truth.

[azurnoir]

35. What are you blathering on about ?

except a need to pst a youtube vid? you see I denied nothing I told the story of what happened to the people whn arrived in Israel which seems to really disturb some here

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[azurnoir]

37. sorry I misunderstood your intent

Are you a paid Israeli agent? oh dear no but you just cause a collective head explosion among some here thank you

no I have been called in the past things such as a hater of Israel, an antizionist, an antisemite, and a few choice others I forget

[pelsar]

49. you choose....which one?

clearly some one who tells the story of the blood donated by the ethiopians and that it was destroyed by the govt, in order to insinuate racism, and neglects to mention why the health dept decided to do it, has some kind of agenda against something in israel

so which is it?...there must be a reason for the constant telling of half truths......insinuations of racist israelis, blood thirsty IDF soldiers....

[azurnoir]

115. ah you added details not in comment but are you saying the Israeli government allowed African

immigrants to donate blood and then destroyed it? My that's news to me, never heard that particular detail before in the US we something called a 'screening process' that eliminates unsuitable donors prior to donation, no matter what the reason for that unsuitability is, but I'll take your word for it

However you seem to imply that most HIV cariers in Israel are of African origin which could explain this

How Israel stigmatizes and mistreats AIDS sufferers

While AIDS sufferers in the West are treated with miracle drugs and can live normal lives, in Israel, those with the disease are stigmatized and given medicines that don't work.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/how-israel-stigmatizes-and-mistreats-aids-sufferers-1.398575?localLinksEnabled=false

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x374249

because a Gay friendly country like Israel would never ever mistreat its Gay population in such a manner would it? I say this because in the uS AIDs or HIV can be considered a Gay Rights issue albeit that is not always accurate

[pelsar]

133. try again....your not doing so well, but i have some advice

However you seem to imply that most HIV cariers in Israel are of African origin which could explain this

I'm not implying anything...., the result of a medical investigation, discovered a dangerous percentage of HIV amongst the african immigrants which was why the blood was destroyed: (50% of the africans had HIV).

and your asking why was the blood taken in the first place?....so as not to insult the Ethiopians that recently immigrated and were already having a tough time. Its was the israeli government being sensitive to them, until some asshole reporter decided to make a poor value judgement and write about it. Govt making good decision, freedom of speech, ruining it.

and the AIDS problem....ahhh expecting israel to be perfect, above and beyond all other countries..... I realize this is really really really going to hard to understand, but israel is an imperfect democracy that responds to social change. The Gays 15 years ago were still in the closets, social pressure, public pressure and years later they're out and proud. It took time, public exposure etc.

so too with AIDs, as our reporters write about the warts of our society, the pressure will start on the medical and social establishments to correct it.

i'm guessing, perhaps your so enamored with the idea of supporting the creation of a facist, dictatorship from the PA you have little understanding of how democracies actually work, when the govt responds to pressure from the people to change course.

Thats why israel is considered a liberal country....
_____________________________
a foot note

i don't know if you realize it, but the more you respond to my posts, the more foolish and extreme you sound (which apparently is true). if your going to demonize israel and try to show how evil we are, stick to the army in the west bank, you'll have better material, you won't sound so foolish, and i will have a much harder time proving you wrong (in fact many times i won't be able to....)

just stay far away from the social issues, you will only look foolish, israels govt responds to the changing environment relativly fast, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse, but its the ability to change and respond is the character of the govt-be it 4 ladies on a street corner or 500,000 people peacefully in the street.

[azurnoir]

137. No I once again I point to the fallacies in your own post

I never mentioned Israel first taking blood and then destroying it, but thank so Israel did take blood from African immigrants and then destroyed it that is surprising

Is that what sounded foolish and extreme?

[pelsar]

140. it sounds foolish when your caught with only half of the story....

the way you write best fits this sentence:

during the years between 1941 and 1945 the United States of American sent its armies all over the world to kill people and destroy property ..killing millions in the process.

or the Nazis during WWII put the jews in camps where they were fed and clothed during the duration of WWII
________

your so obvious, though you would be a good reporter for the PA or Hamas....or better yet a lecturer at Islamic U in gaza teaching the tricks of demonization/half truths

_____


No I once again I point to the fallacies in your own post
i guess you don't realize that sentence makes no sense to anything here

[azurnoir]

145. ah so now I'm Hamas or a Hamas mouthpiece/reporter?

half the story well you filled in the rest quite well didn't you? Why with those "warts" on Israeli society and all, what's the other half of the story, why does Israel force out dated medications on AID's patients, you do know that if a pregnant women is put on AZT early on the baby will most likely be born HIV negative don't you? I've seen it many times over the years again here in the US we usually don't muck about with let's try this or that first regardless of whether it's a pregnant women or a Gay person or IV drug user

now something you missed completely African Jews when the first waves arrived in Israel were not counted as being Jews the Rabbi's have backed down off that a bit in recent years but marriage to Jews especially outside the African community in Israel is another story requiring some classes and conversions

[pelsar]

149. i can't always tell the difference.....

didn't you buy into the claim that the IDF buried a house in snow in gaza? and with sand twice?.....

why would i have missed out on the rabbis making a big fuss over the ethiopian jews.....It was years ago and i was here and they lost.....but that wasn't the subject matter. But since you've brought it up, once again, your simply highlighting the continual battle between the religious and the secular in israel, democratic countries let all their factions have a say and some get to influence the society

i think what you don't like about it, is that everyone gets a say, including the religious. You do support the PA to govern, which is clearly not democratic and does not allow for freedom of speech. So at least we know where you stand on that. (so you do have somethings in common with hamas and the PA).

As far as AIDs go...if you pay attention you'll be seeing the changes as they happen in israel as it becomes more common knowledge, thanks to our free press and freedom of speech ...thats called democracy in action...

[azurnoir]

164. well now I did say that it was possible that

a house was buried in snow in Gaza seeing as it does snow there now as to buried in sand well you claim there's no sand in Gaza or some such but okay we''ll take your word for

now as for freedom of speech and the freedom of religious parties in Israel, really I would think that to be far more your concern than mine and seeing as how you do not seem concerned so be it

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[King_David]

124. 'even though my ancestry is Jewish '

How about your best friends? Jewish?

HaHa Ha

Heres a good article for you to read ;)

'Why do non-Jews bashing Israel claim to be Jewish?'


http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=233141

[USA_1]

128. ''How about your best friends? Jewish?''

Typical prejudice.

How about this gem in reply:

" We always pull out the holocaust/anti-semitic trump card " ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-GVXunrbE4

[shira]

40. Quote of the day - "Are you a paid Israeli agent"? 'Nuff said. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

50. You are basically quoting a famous man: 'Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists'

[King_David]

126. Another clueless post.

Where do you get your 'facts' from?

You post a lot in this forum but are clueless on IP (and Gay) affairs.

If I were to grade your IP Knowledge,I would say: AZURNOIR IS IN NEED OF MUCH IMPROVEMENT.

[azurnoir]

150. Hardly I've learned much on those subjects from you

would you like to review? last time I asked you swiftly backpedaled away why?

[azurnoir]

23. Mr Miller seems to think that Hamas represents all Palestinians

as quite plainly shown here

The Palestinian flag at a gay rights rally?

It's the iconic ironic image of the New New Left.

The sentiment's familiar: a maltreated minority identifying with the victim célèbre of radical academia.

But the juxtaposition of these two particular causes would be absurdly hilarious if it weren't profoundly tragic: The Hamas regime represented by that flag demeans, oppresses, jails, harrasses, assaults, and tortures gays and lesbians.

Imagine what would happen if you flew a gay rights flag in Gaza City.

(On second thought, don't even imagine it.)

Of course, the flag waving is less likely an endorsement of Hamas than a symbol of the Far Left's persistent preoccupation with Israel's reluctant occupation of lands it captured in its defensive struggle for existential survival during 1967's Six Day War.

but he is a card carrying memeber of the center left? lol by his apparent standards so is Pam Geller

[shira]

28. 73% of West Bank Palestinians support the Hamas charter. What does that mean to you?

http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-poll-73-of-arabs-in-west-bank.html

[azurnoir]

32. Thanks the poll was the one done by Republican strategist Frank Luntz's The Israel Project

which is laughingly referred to as a "left wing think tank" well I guess it is considering some his linked associate blogs quite the honor roll there but here is the link to the poll from the article

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=229493


I believe you yourself ran the thread on that funny you did not link to that

[shira]

39. A poll that you always neglect to say was conducted along with a Palestinian polling firm...

Only one in three Palestinians (34 percent) accepts two states for two peoples as the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to an intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip completed this week by American pollster Stanley Greenberg.

The poll, which has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, was conducted in partnership with the Beit Sahour-based Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the Israel Project, an international nonprofit organization that provides journalists and leaders with information about the Middle East.

Stanley Greenberg is without question a liberal democrat.

But I know, I know....somehow the rightwingers at the Israel Project tricked Greenberg and the Palestinian polling firm. Such is the POWER of the evil zionist entity. I'm betting they used special, undetectable zionist mind rays to confuse Greenberg and the Palestinians at the PCPO and the effects will never, ever wear off...

:eyes:

[azurnoir]

43. well TIP needed some Arabic speakers and it did supposedly give them an 'air' of legitimacy

or something and no but seeing as how you wish to bring up PCPO lets look at their polls the ones not sponsored by a right wing ProIsrael think tank

http://www.pcpo.org/polls.htm

odd that in those polls 1/3 or less Palestinians support Hamas yet you seem to feel that Hamas speaks for all Palestinians ......interesting indeed

[shira]

44. You'd think if it were such a crap poll, PCPO and Stan Greenberg would have said something...

...by now.

:shrug:

But no - the awesome power of the LOBBY has silenced their voices!

====

Of course, it's not only THAT poll that's false but also this one showing 97% of Palestinians have antisemitic views...
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=168176

PEW has sold out to Zionist interests, no doubt. TIP was probably in on that one too.

So it's safe to ignore PEW as well...

Better to demonize and delegitimize Israel than deal with uncomfortable truths, right?

[shira]

42. So the poll means nothing even though Stan Greenberg and the PCPO conducted the survey?

And therefore you don't have to concern yourself one bit about 73% of West Bank Palestinians supporting the Hamas charter.

Correct?

[azurnoir]

46. I think the fact that less than 1/3 of Palestiians polled support Hamas

could be seen as more significant but apparently that means nothing to some

[shira]

47. Those 2 issues aren't one and the same. Supporters of the Democratic platform...

...don't necessarily support one particular brand of Democrat over the other.

Hell, some jump ship and vote independent or repuke-ean. So supporters of the Hamas agenda could just as well vote Fatah.

Try again.

Well nevermind. No amount of logic or reason...

Best to believe polls telling uncomfortable truths about Palestinians are crap, somehow, so one can focus exclusively on the most important task - demonizing and delegitimizing Israel. :eyes:

[azurnoir]

111. that's a pretty thin excuse Democrats that vote Republican aren't Democrats

the majority of Palestinians do not support Hamas, I know that seems to simply not work for you but there it is

[King_David]

125. Oh I see the Rainbow Flag ( Translate :Gay Flag)

Would be ok in Ramallah but not in Gaza ?

:eyes:

You do know the Tooth Fairy is not real?

[azurnoir]

132. I do know however that being Gay is not illegal in the West Bank

This page was last modified on 26 November 2011 at 09:22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory#Western_Asia

and that legality predated Israel's

[shira]

142. That's the whole story? That being gay is not illegal in the West Bank? You're whitewashing...

....the PA for its treatment of gays in the West Bank, you realize that right?

Try speaking as an advocate of gay rights in the West Bank and leave Israel completely out of this. How is life for gays in the West Bank? What do they have to worry about?

[azurnoir]

144. well why don't you tell dear your aching to aren't you

oh I see multiple replies must keep thread kicked post count up but do go ahead I'm waiting........

[shira]

146. Let's see, all you have to say about GLBTs in the West Bank is that it's not illegal being gay?

That's it?

And you consider yourself an advocate for universal human (GLBT) rights?

Are you serious?

For more information, you could just go to wikipedia and find it. But posting anything critical of the PA or Hamas is anti-Palestinian "demonization" in your view, correct? Better to whitewash, ignore...? :shrug: Just asking because it really appears you'd rather deflect any and all criticism of the PA and Hamas (and go even further by making it appear they're liberal on gay rights) rather than advocate for GLBTs in the OPT who are in real danger there.

And then when it comes to Israel, you can't recognize Israel as progressive on GLBT rights. Rather than do that, you come up with stories of Israel being lax on HIV, implying Israel isn't progressive at all on GLBT rights.

So if we summarize your comments on all that is GLBT in I/P, Israel really sucks on gay rights while being gay in the WB is legal.

That's how we're all supposed to see things in your view.

How shameful.

[azurnoir]

147. Got nothin huh well nuthin but your usual accusations about what people think ? thanks n/t

[shira]

158. Here's a WIKI entry on LGBT rights in the Palestinian territories...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Palestinian_territories

It's pretty bad, but that doesn't seem to bother you in the least.

Why do you attempt to portray the situation for LGBTs in the West Bank as something positive while describing the situation in Israel as bad for LGBTs or worse than the situation in the OPT? IMO, doing that is a shameful betrayal of liberal values. You're distracting from the LGBT situation in the WB by throwing up smokescreens trying to portray Israel as being worse on the issue. Nothing good can result from that.

[azurnoir]

160. oh the wiki entry that sites the group who has in the past associated with.........

NAMBLA okee dokee got it

but you see I did not say it was all good and in fact the situation is as bad or worse some places in the US

[shira]

162. You can't advocate for LGBT rights in the OPT or criticize the PA, can you?

And no, you didn't say the LGBT situation was good. The only thing you said, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's not illegal to be gay in the West Bank. That's whitewashing. And by making out Israel is bad on gay rights, you attempt to deflect all criticism away from the PA.

It's hilarious you're comparing the LGBT situation in the OPT to the USA.

Palestine has no specific, stand alone civil rights legislation that protects LGBT people from discrimination or harassment.

So there you go with yet another very poor deflection in an attempt to run interference for horribly oppressive Palestinian policies, by throwing up silly smoke screens. The USA has laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination and harassment. The 2 situations are not alike.

Pathetic.

[azurnoir]

163. What exactly is your purpose here shira ?

It would seem to what? Now it is a given that laws in Israel towards GLBT are far more liberal than in the West Bank I have stated that in the past, and I do support activists such as Haneen Maikey of al Qaws but you seem quite uninterested in that why? Which once again leads to the question what are you trying to achieve here?

[King_David]

180. You keep defending the treatment of Gays in the West Bank

Your on a progressive website.You realize this ?

[azurnoir]

185. I support Palestinian Gay Rights advocate Haneen Maikey, do you?

or will the question be if memory serves too painful answer? Why is yes or no so hard for you? Wait this time what will it be?

[shira]

191. Like 2 peas in a pod, Maikey doesn't see anything liberal/progressive in Israel either...

Living in Israel (not under PA/Hamas rule where she'd never dare utter a word) here's what she has to say:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/stop-using-palestinian-gays-to-whitewash-israel-s-image-1.6887

"It´s really pathetic that the Israeli state has nothing besides gay rights to promote their liberal image," says Maikey. "Ridiculous, and in a sense hilarious, because there are no gay rights in Israel.

She deems it obvious that the State of Israel disapproves of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community, and believes it only uses it as a means of laundering the country's tainted image in the Western world.

She asks what other issues Israel is proactively promoting to fuel the process of goodwill: The feminist cause? The health care system? The moral army?

But the main problem, she says, remains that Israel presents itself abroad as a gay refuge, by exploiting tales of terror of oppressed Palestinians, thus increasing Israel's own sense of self-righteousness.

Her views:

1. Israel is in no way liberal
2. The only reason LGBTs have rights is to cover up the occupation
3. She can't stand that Israelis bring up the issue of oppressed gay Palestinians (who she will not comment on in a society with a free press). Because she believes the evil Israeli bastards only ask about Palestinian LGBTs for hasbara purposes (as is clear in the excerpt below).

So much for her credibility.

Her views are just as repulsive as the recent article in the NYT about "pinkwashing".

One of the biggest nuisances Maikey experiences on a regular basis is the superficial approach of the media to a subject that demands an examination of the complex, but instead is immediately sacrificed on the altar of prejudice.

Each time a journalist from the western or Israeli media talks to Haneen, she hears the same questions: "How many gay people were killed by their families last year?" and "Can you help me find an oppressed gay Palestinian that has suffered an attempted honor killing by his family?"

"This is why we have a clear policy not to speak to the media. Whenever I meet a journalist, it's obvious that the article is already written. Try Googling stories about Palestinian gays. I swear they are all identical."

Shameful.

All she sees is Israeli hasbara. She has ZERO desire to bring the real problem for Palestinians out into the open. Mainly the insanely, bigoted and rabid haters in the PA and Hamas who are in charge. She can't criticize them. She's basically useless to the Palestinian LGBT community, who'll just have to deal with the Palestinian leadership doing more of the same, since apparently no one outside the OPT (like herself who purportedly care for LGBTs) are willing to stand up to the PA or Hamas. So the problem will continue as she and her ilk refuse to criticize the PA and Hamas.

:eyes:

"To be cynical, it would be a major problem for the occupation to end. It's integrated in ourselves and our struggle to the extent that we cannot disconnect from it. I don't mean to romanticize it, but I wonder if in 60 or 100 years the occupation is gone, how I will redefine my struggles and my identities."

IOW, without Israel to blame, who is she and what can she do? How's about putting pressure on the PA/Hamas so LGBTs can live with dignity in a future Palestine?

Dumbass.

Her hatred of Israel blinds her so much, she puts that before LGBT rights under Palestinian rule.

She's a complete fraud.

[azurnoir]

194. Oh you mean she doesn't support the occupation got it

now as to Israeli Hasbara Scandinavian and some other countries have Gay Rights laws are more liberal than Israel's yet we don't see the self congratulatory back-patting from them why is that?

also in your very need to demean Ms Maikey you proved at least one of Sarah Schulman's points in NYT oped last Palestinian Gay Rights activists are ignored or worse by ProIsrael people

Thanks

[shira]

195. Ugh. Shameful. n/t

[azurnoir]

227. yes I would agree it is a complete fraud

especially when links to an article and then puts things in quote boxs that are not in the article but making it appear as though they are

here is some of what Ms Maikey really had to say

Five days later, a still unidentified gunman killed two people and wounded a dozen more in a gay drop-in center in that very same Tel Aviv.

The attack was followed by a myriad of articles on the homophobia haunting Israel and a Haaretz poll showing that nearly half of the Israeli population believes homosexuality is a perversion.

<snip>

But the main problem, she says, remains that Israel presents itself abroad as a gay refuge, by exploiting tales of terror of oppressed Palestinians, thus increasing Israel's own sense of self-righteousness. In the words of the Israeli ambassador to Denmark:

"Most of us take for granted the equality of sexual minorities and the struggle for their rights. Unfortunately reality is different for the majority of homosexuals in most other places in the region (the Middle East), where gays and lesbians suffer from persecution, violence, and murder."

"I refuse to be a part of your campaign," says Maikey. "Stop speaking in my name and using me for a cause you never supported in the first place. If you want to do me a favour, then stop bombing my friends, end your occupation, and leave me to rebuild my community. I'm aware that my society has a long way to go in terms of human rights and social issues, but it's my responsibility, not yours."

[shira]

231. Yes, she's a complete fraud - more interested in demonizing Israel that helping gays in Palestine

Apparently, pointing out the problems within Palestinian society is hasbara.

Better to focus on BDS and Israel's delegitimization, one state, full RoR, and make life for gays in Israel just as bad as it is within the OPT.

Same hateful shit...

What a vile human being.

[azurnoir]

232. she mentions none of those things in the article

but I take it you would support maintaining an occupation that discriminates against Gay and Straight equally? got it

[shira]

233. A quick 2 second google search shows she's for BDS, which calls for 1 state, full RoR, etc.

A state that will run like its other mideast neighbors, making life as miserable for gays within the green line as it is outside it.

When THAT takes precedence over gay rights in the OPT, that's pretty fucked up.

I shouldn't have to remind you about who else supports BDS, like the rabid antisemites in FreeGaza, the ISM, Gilad Atzmon, etc... with their gross connections to the IHH and Hamas.

[azurnoir]

234. Many support BDS but not all support all the things you claim

but your insistence on guilt by association is noted as is your need to demean Palestinian Gays

[shira]

236. Right, like many who support the BNP, KKK, or Hamas but not all the things they call for.

And now I'm demeaning Palestinian gays...

:eyes:

Classic.

[azurnoir]

239. yes you are and your comparing both Palestinian Gays who support BDS to the KKK is beyond the pale

but please do go on it gets more and more revealing as we go

Ms Schulman was spot on IMO

[shira]

240. BDS calls for the end of Israel. And when Schulman/Maikey say Israel only pretends 2 have gay rights

....in order to cover for their evil crimes, that is nothing but pure, rabid, batshit insane, blind and hateful demonization. That's like the whackos who claimed Israel only helped Haiti for the same reasons - also to cover for the occupation. These vile and loathesome excuses for human beings (who masquerade as humanitarians) cannot see anything right with Israel and actually end up making excuses for the way gays in Palestine are treated.

While accusing the government of Israel and pro-Israel activists of deceiving well-intentioned progressives, Schulman and her ilk are in fact using the issue of gay rights to forward an ulterior agenda. So consumed are they by hatred of Israel that they are willing to distort the truth about the horrible repression of homosexuals in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If there’s any cleaning of dirty laundry going on here, it is Schulman’s whitewashing the plight of Palestinian gays.

Schulman’s assertion that homosexuality has been effectively “decriminalized” in the Palestinian territories since the 1950s when Jordan revoked colonial-era sodomy laws, will come as cold comfort to the countless gay Palestinians who have fled to Israel after being tortured or receiving death threats by Hamas or Fatah agents. Schulman’s claim would certainly come as news to Maen Rashid Areikat, the PLO’s ambassador to Washington. When asked earlier this year if homosexuality would be tolerated in a future Palestinian state, Areikat replied, “This is an issue that’s beyond my authority.” Hamas strategist Mahmoud Al-Zahar was blunter. In comments directed toward Westerners, Al-Zahar told Reuters last year that “You do not live like human beings. You do not (even) live like animals. You accept homosexuality. And now you criticize us?” And whatever law might be on the Palestinian Authority books has yet to persuade the leaders of Aswat, a Palestinian lesbian organization, to relocate their headquarters to Ramallah from Haifa. By making the absurd claim that the issue of gay rights is being “manipulated” by the Israeli government, Schulman ends up making excuses for people who kill homosexuals.

...

Introducing the term “pinkwashing” into the mainstream debate about the Arab-Israeli conflict is edifying in at least one respect: It lays bare the delusion, paranoia, and cynicism of the Jewish state’s most earnest detractors. In their minds, any positive statement made about the country is necessarily part of a propaganda campaign in the service of a far-right agenda. For an increasingly large swath of the international left, there really is no good Israel can do, short of disappear.

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/84216/pink-eye/

Now, are we done yet?

[azurnoir]

252. well that would be a point if Ms Schulman or Ms Maikey had actually said those thing so let's review

first Ms Schulman

Last year, the Israeli news site Ynet reported that the Tel Aviv tourism board had begun a campaign of around $90 million to brand the city as “an international gay vacation destination.” The promotion, which received support from the Tourism Ministry and Israel’s overseas consulates, includes depictions of young same-sex couples and financing for pro-Israeli movie screenings at lesbian and gay film festivals in the United States. (The government isn’t alone; an Israeli pornography producer even shot a film, “Men of Israel,” on the site of a former Palestinian village.)

This message is being articulated at the highest levels. In May, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress that the Middle East was “a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted.”

The growing global gay movement against the Israeli occupation has named these tactics “pinkwashing”: a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life. Aeyal Gross, a professor of law at Tel Aviv University, argues that “gay rights have essentially become a public-relations tool,” even though “conservative and especially religious politicians remain fiercely homophobic.”

Pinkwashing not only manipulates the hard-won gains of Israel’s gay community, but it also ignores the existence of Palestinian gay-rights organizations. Homosexuality has been decriminalized in the West Bank since the 1950s, when anti-sodomy laws imposed under British colonial influence were removed from the Jordanian penal code, which Palestinians follow. More important is the emerging Palestinian gay movement with three major organizations: Aswat, Al Qaws and Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. These groups are clear that the oppression of Palestinians crosses the boundary of sexuality; as Haneen Maikay, the director of Al Qaws, has said, “When you go through a checkpoint it does not matter what the sexuality of the soldier is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/opinion/pinkwashing-and-israels-use-of-gays-as-a-messaging-tool.html

nope she did not say pretending she said using as a PR tool and spending so much money do sp would suggest she is tight

now for Ms Maikey

At the recent 'Gay Olympics' - the World Outgames in Copenhagen, Denmark - Tel Aviv was crowned one of the exclusive gay capitals of the world and proudly celebrated by the Israeli ambassador in Denmark.

Five days later, a still unidentified gunman killed two people and wounded a dozen more in a gay drop-in center in that very same Tel Aviv.

The attack was followed by a myriad of articles on the homophobia haunting Israel and a Haaretz poll showing that nearly half of the Israeli population believes homosexuality is a perversion.

For Palestinian gay rights activist, Haneen Maikey, the latter events are an expression of the known reality in Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/stop-using-palestinian-gays-to-whitewash-israel-s-image-1.6887

Ms Maikey said that Israel's PR campaign covered for the reality in Israel, the poll was also mentioned in other publications

Days after a gunman killed two in a Tel Aviv gay youth centre, a poll has suggested that nearly half of Israelis think gays are deviants.

those things along with your own comments and links distorting Schulman's article and the sheer volume of threads we see here about how Gay friendly Israel supposedly is would seem to suggest that Ms Schulman is quite correct


http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-13585.html

http://www.queerty.com/poll-half-of-israel-thinks-youre-disgusting-20090806/

[oberliner]

238. What is with those Scandanavian countries?

Why are they so much more progressive than the rest of us?

[azurnoir]

196. also you dodged my question shir what is your purpose here ?

uncomfortable with telling us? Why?

[shira]

197. Why don't you just answer me first, from #157 above. I have a 4 word answer for you...

...whenever you're ready to respond to #157.

[azurnoir]

198. well actually I did answer you in post #148 however

yes Israel does have Gay Rights laws that are more 'progressive' than alot of places in the US on the same level as others and actually less progressive than some such as Gay couple living in Boston can get married in Boston but if they move to Miami they could have difficulties

Gay Rights laws in the US vary by state so a blanket statement is not applicable

[shira]

199. You didn't answer specifically in #148 or in the post I'm responding to now...

You jumped in a thread in response to this post specifically comparing Israel to the USA - not just on gay rights - but on many progressive issues
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x374029#374348

The question is whether Israel is more liberal/progressive generally speaking than the USA.

So yes or no?

[azurnoir]

206. actually you asked and I answered you do not like the answer it seems

so you'll claim I did not answer a tactic that well I've seen used here before by someone else so please try some originality

BTW when Israel actually elects an Arab citizen as its President get back to me okay?

however you are still dodging my question I'll take that as an answer itself so

TTFN

[shira]

211. Just a simple yes or no. Overall, is Israel more liberal/progressive than the USA?

That was the question way back in #157 above, and you still haven't answered it. My reasoning is that Israel is more liberal/progressive than the USA based on...

Gay rights, death penalty, healthcare, more socialist, much more self critical media, very liberal court system, far better on environmental issues, leaders in stem cell research, better on immigration (for example from Ethiopia, Sudan), state subsidized public college tuition, better labor unions. Israel had its first Arab President back in 2007. Israel had a female PM back in the 70's named Golda Meir. The Knesset currently has Palestinian factions within it opposed to Israel's existance (the more secular Balad and the Islamist Raam Taal). Lastly, in combat Israel's civilian to militant kill ratio is significantly better than the USA and Israel isn't fighting wars thousands of miles away against nations posing no threat to its citizens.

So is Israel more progressive/liberal overall than the USA?

Yes or No?

When you answer that, I'll gladly answer you.

[King_David]

225. I say that anybody that minimizes or

Even supports the medieval barbaric treatment
of gays in the Palestinian territories is no progressive.

We fought long and hard for rights and regressive
bigoted regimes MUST be punished and especially
not rewarded financially nor recognized... Fuck Them.

[shira]

193. You must've missed the memo, Dave. Human rights in the mideast are used..

...as a club to beat Israel over the head with.

If Israel can't be blamed, no need to bring the human rights situation up.

Human rights are only universal to some...

[King_David]

171. You do not know WTF your talking about (again )

Unfortunately the situation in the Palestinian-Arab West Bank and Gaza, and throughout the rest of the Arab World is much worse when it comes to the protection of sexual minorities and gay rights. In the Gaza Strip, controlled by the anti-Israel terrorist group Hamas, homosexuality is illegal. Likewise, in the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank, gays have no legal rights, civil rights, and gay partnerships/marriages performed abroad have no legal recognition. Gay men have even been known to be sentenced to up to 10 years imprisonment for the "crime" of being gay and many gays live in fear of being found out and being killed in "honor killings" by their family and neighbors.

http://israelgaynews.blogspot.com/2010/11/anti-israel-israeli-queers-for.html

[azurnoir]

228. you quote from an article that is demeaning Palestinian Gays for supporting BDS untill Israel ends

its occupation of their country

Thanks so much TTFN

[USA_1]

104. Bottom Line ...

... like it or not, there is no liberal case for Israel.

[shira]

109. Why is it so important for you to portray Israel in the most negative way possible...

...without lauding anything that's right with the country?

Israel's way ahead of the USA on many liberal/progressive issues. THAT is something all liberals/progressives should celebrate, not deny.

I'll tell you one thing that makes Israel a great nation to be proud of. Its freedom of expression (moreover freedom of dissent). No other nation on the planet comes close to matching Israel's openness to criticism and correction. It's press is uber progressive and perhaps more critical of its government than any other nation's media. Its court systems tilt heavily liberal. This allows for great change to be made when necessary. That's Israel's strength and one reason it's a great nation that should be emulated.

If the International Left did their job, working to make Palestine as liberal/progressive as Israel is (by first and foremost demanding complete freedom of expression) and get real results from that, the liberal Israeli populace would - without any question - react in kind and trust the Palestinians enough to vote in a Knesset that would close a peace deal with a more liberal/progressive Palestine that would NOW have the ability - like Israel - to change for the better and live peacefully with their neighbors.

But alas, the International radical Left doesn't seem interested in doing anything to ensure Palestine becomes liberal/progressive in any way. Which goes to show there's REALLY and truly nothing at all remotely progressive/liberal about the pro-Palestinian Left. They're fine with installing a Palestinian dictatorship that will ensure Palestinians live in misery for decades to come, both within Palestine and outside (when at war getting their asses kicked over and over again).

[USA_1]

112. More Horsebleep

What goes in Israel today is the same thing that happened in the South during segregation days and in RSA under Apartheid. Just look up the links already provided - all of whom were created by honest Israelis.

The solution: a ONE STATE deal where everyone gets the same rights. Had we had this in 1967, by now Palestinians would be the majority and Israel would be a true democracy. That is the only true liberal case for Israel. Anyone who denies that is not a true liberal.

[Shaktimaan]

138. This is just so stupid.

What goes in Israel today is the same thing that happened in the South during segregation days and in RSA under Apartheid. Just look up the links already provided - all of whom were created by honest Israelis.

None of your links suggested anything remotely like that. And many actually supported my argument over yours. Not to mention that neither segregation nor apartheid actually exist in Israel.

The solution: a ONE STATE deal where everyone gets the same rights. Had we had this in 1967, by now Palestinians would be the majority and Israel would be a true democracy. That is the only true liberal case for Israel. Anyone who denies that is not a true liberal.

Why would you fold the palestinians into a state that is so different, one which they've been at war with for 75 years? If you NEED to have a single state why wouldn't you just pick Jordan? 50% of jordanians are already palestinian. Since when is it israel's job to annex the OPT and deal with the palestinians? What about that is 'liberal?'

[USA_1]

176. Stupidity is Denying the Value of integration & Democracy

You segregationists have had your way - and what peace has that created?

Have integration like we have in the USA - that will give peace.

[Shaktimaan]

182. You know what I like about this idea?

In proposing something so moronic you are actually creating common ground for the Israelis and Palestinians. Neither group supports your idea.

And while the American civil war was fought to PRESERVE the union, the IP civil war was fought to split the two apart without losing territory. See, the North did not attack the South in the hopes of pushing them into the sea and taking all the land for themselves.

You seem to forget that Israel and Palestine began integrated under the British Mandate. And while we have yet to achieve peace, we have managed to avoid events like another civil war during which 1% of either nationality was killed. But hey, I'm in favor of anything that'll work. Let's look at some areas that HAVE BEEN integrated, k? Like Hebron. How's Hebron doing? Is that kind of like your blueprint for the rest of the forthcoming nation?

Interesting. Bold choice, I'll give you that.

Have integration like we have in the USA - that will give peace.

Sure. Once everyone is dead it'll probably be very peaceful.

[USA_1]

188. ''Once everyone is dead it'll probably be very peaceful.''

Talk about being moronic!

The arguments you use are precisely the same used by KKK. Thank you for making my case.

[shira]

192. Shakti, this guy says your arguments are the same as the KKK. And to think I thought you were OK...

The arguments you use are precisely the same used by KKK. Thank you for making my case.

When did you join the KKK?

I mean, WOW, you really suck.

Your views are so retarded now, you David Duke loving scumbag!

:sarcasm:

[Shaktimaan]

165. yeah, you keep saying that,

but you have yet to make a single argument that supports it in any way.

You posted some statements, current events and a youtube video, none of which make the argument that Israel isn't a relatively liberal/progressive state. Several of them do SUPPORT the argument that Israel IS a progressive state, such as Einstein's (and then, implicitly Israel's) rejection of the Irgun's values, or the article describing how Israel rejected xenophobic practices among some of the ultra-orthodox.

And some of the others are the rantings of the craziest among the crazed right-wing extremist fanatics like Neturei Karta's Yisroel Dovid Weiss (who you have awesomely described as a "scholar"... presumably because he agrees with you), or cherry-picked statements from a book that the author later admitted was largely a fabrication anyway.

By my count there are only two links that are both credible and don't offer evidence refuting your claim. And they are of the Israeli Psychology Professor presenting his opinion and some IDF refuseniks explaining the rationale behind their refusal to serve. Neither of which say anything at all about the state of liberalism/progressiveness in Israel. Nor anything that refutes any statements made by anyone else so far.

Oh, and then you made some wildly unsubstantiated claims such as accusing Israel of faking Palestinian attacks by committing acts of terrorism itself and then framing the Palestinians. You have unsurprisingly been unable to find even a single example of this occurring. Unsurprisingly because you are clearly just making shit up at this point, so why WOULD anyone expect you to have a shred of evidence supporting events that are clearly imaginary. (You haven't even offered us imaginary evidence.)

The only person you cited who even kind of supports your general viewpoint was that Israeli Psychology professor, who doesn't appear to have any formal credentials that would grant his opinion any more credibility than any other random person with a POV. Scores of other professors who disagree with him are prominent names in fields like history, political science or law; fields relevant to the subject under discussion. Is there something that makes this guy's opinion more significant than people who have actually studied the subject matter in question? Or is he just another schmuck who you assumed was a great and famous scholar because you like what he said?

[USA_1]

177. ''single example''

Read the damn book and see for yourself. Are you so afraid of the truth that you close your mind to it because you are so fearful?

http://www.amazon.com/Israeli-Connection-Benjamin-Beit-Hallahmi/dp/1850430691

Let people see it for themselves.

[Shaktimaan]

181. No, I read it last night actually.

Well, the first half anyway, which is what was available as a PDF on google books. I'm not so sure what about it you think is so subversive to Zionism that it would blow my poor little mind to smithereens, but the sections that I was able to read were fairly well-trodden events for discussion. There was nothing he discussed that I found especially problematic, especially compared to some of the more inventive writers' work from more recent years. Ultimately, his core narrative, (that the Israelis are guilty of the key 'original sin' of colonialism WRT European immigration during the Mandate period), is not something that I agree with, but neither is it some kind of wild ideology that I've never encountered before. That story has a lot of different variations, but the basic narrative asserts that Zionists invaded someone else's country with the aim of expelling them in order to steal their land and impose their own state on the newly depopulated territory. Now, I not only find this fable to be about 80% untrue but it also suffers from both gross oversimplification and the greater sin of intentional dishonesty by way of omission. But it's not necessary to go through the motions of reenacting that well-worn debate right now. The various points of that specific polemic have been adequately covered, to no one's obvious benefit.

My biggest issue with this book (aside from it costing $100 new), is that it was published in 1987, JUST before the conflict began to get really interesting. There's no way to discuss potential solutions to the IP conflict without looking heavily at the small successes and pitfalls of the past three decades. WRT the Palestinians, the events that occurred following the first intifada will be exponentially more relevant to the future of both nations than anything that happened during the 40 years before.

So, yeah. I didn't find anything especially groundbreaking in there. If you have any interest in reading something that attempts to recount a more balanced interpretation of this history then you might get a lot out of Schlomo Ben-Ami's book, "Scars of War, Wounds of Peace." He's an Israeli, obviously and one who had the unique perspective of having been on Israel's negotiation team that met with Arafat and Clinton at Camp David. The book is a favorite of many people on both sides of the fence here at DU as Ben Ami doesn't refrain from highlighting any key crimes, travesties or mistakes, regardless of which side they were made by. I personally believe that partisan literature has its place, provided that it is balanced with equally partisan material from the other side. But it hardly makes for a very comprehensive understanding of this long, complex conflict.

That said, I still didn't see how this one guy's opinion is a meaningful refutation of the many undeniably liberal platforms that Israel takes on many issues. The main argument I saw him put forward was that Israel can not be both a democracy while also being a country that explicitly considers itself a Jewish state. His key statement is basically that any state created for the benefit of a single group that exists in a place where a minority population already lives, is inherently undemocratic. Now, this is a really common argument and it's intriguing because it sounds fairly logical, especially to American ears, whose country practices strict civil nationalism, having never had any kind of implicit link to a particular socio-ethnic group.

Where it starts to fall apart is when we think about other states, primarily ones based on ethnic nationalism. The fact is that most nation-states are based on having a connection to a specific ethnicity or socioethnic group. And a common practice of these states is to make the overall welfare of the ethnic nation's members an ongoing concern of theirs; even if those people aren't citizens of the state itself. For example, Italy allows citizenship almost entirely on the basis of jus sanguinis (having an Italian Ancestor). Germany, Greece and Israel have similar policies. And the reality is that ALL of these states have ethnic minorities, many of which are indigenous to the land as well. Look at the Kurds for example, as they inhabit areas sovereign to Iran, Syria, Iraq and Turkey. In Germany the Sorbs are a well-known indigenous ethnic minority. So according to this argument, Germany can't be considered a democracy. In fact, very few nation-states based on ethnicity would be considered democratic under these guidelines.

Fortunately this argument is a well travelled path and there exists an internationally recognized ethical and legal standard. Which is that Ethnic Nationalities may have an interest in non-citizen members of their ethnic group and instating policies to support them is not in any way racist unless it is somehow detrimental to any existing minority groups' rights. It goes without saying that this implies that the mere existence of these minority groups does not violate any ethical standards either. (Nor would it render these states undemocratic so long as the minorities have protected and equal civil rights.)

I've also yet to see any examples of Israel attacking itself to try and frame the Palestinians for terrorism. What's up with that? Bring it on out.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

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

[Shaktimaan]

207. Yeah, I don't know about those...

A Mossad agent was posing as Hamas in order to start trouble? It's certainly possible, but it seems awfully unlikely. I wasn't able to find anything about it, but I'll tell you what strikes me as very suspicious right off the bat. It centers around where this photo was taken... do you know? For the instigation to have any effect that could benefit Israel this would probably have to be happening somewhere in the OPT. While Hamas does have rallies in places like Syria I don't see how they'd be able to get an Israeli there. If they did go to that trouble I imagine they'd tell him to take off his Magen David charm necklace first. So it's gotta be somewhere in the OPT, right?

Well, the problem with that hypothesis is that Mossad is not legally allowed to work in Israel (which, for their purposes, the OPT is considered part of.) They're like the CIA, they strictly do international stuff. Mossad seldom has any cause or opportunity to engage directly with Palestinians... and they never work in the territories.

You also likely remember the scandal of Mossad agents caught with fake passports as they carried out acts of terrorism in France and Europe:

Sure I remember, but they weren't there to commit terrorism! They were there to assassinate Hamas commander Mahmud al-Mabhuh. Sure, it's illegal, but it hardly constitutes terrorism. How is that in any way similar to framing the Palestinians for terrorist acts that were actually committed by Israelis against Israelis? This recent scandal is just an example of agents taking on assumed identities to eliminate an enemy of the state. I mean, I see why the Emirates are pissed, as well as the nations on the fake passports. But I don't consider their actions to be particularly immoral. Unlike a plan to kill their own citizens in order to frame Palestinians which is not only deeply perverse but has only one possible motive, which would be to broaden and extend the conflict itself. An action that can have any number of unforeseen, horrible consequences in addition to the two obvious ones: slowing down any peace process and speeding up the death rate.

and as this article reports, there are numerous photos and claims that have been said to be faked as in the flotilla attacks:

No, not really. That's just from the CommentIsFree section. Nothing there is fact checked, you don't need any credentials to write for them, it's not a place to use as a key factual source even under the best of circumstances. And in this case, the author isn't even saying that there are photos and claims said to have been faked. What he says is that Israel "probably" did this thing... and "the Americans appeared to confirm" such and such other thing... while "the Israeli army all but admitted" something else. He doesn't have any indication of ANYTHING whatsoever. He is just pontificating on what the Israelis could have or might have done. No one is claiming anything. This guy is just saying that someone might claim something, and if they did, he would believe them!

But you can readily get one at a library or order via Amazon for more specific details re faked terrorist actions.

Yeah, but the one false flag operation that Israel WAS caught doing was the Lavon affair, and it was SOOOO publicized that I suspect if the Israelis were caught actually KILLING other Israelis to PROLONG the conflict it would hardly be something that's difficult to find out about. Not to mention, people accuse Israel of all sorts of ridiculous things all the time. Even if this guy did think or write something like what you recall, without corroboration, his word alone is still a far cry from demonstrating that it actually occurred in real life.

[USA_1]

247. You may check his bibliography

... and other data in the book for further verification.

Right wingers in this country still say pretend the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not faked and that somewhere in Iraq WMD have yet to be found. Believe what you want but Beit-Hallahmi is believed by a great many people. And if you don't believe him, go ahead and challenge him to a public debate on the subject. That should prove interesting, I'm sure.

[shira]

110. THE PROGRESSIVE CASE FOR ISRAEL, THE ARABS, AND THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY.

<snip>

II. Israel And Progressive Values

Taken broadly, Zionism represents one of the most dedicated progressive movements of the modern period. One finds in the Zionist movement all the great themes of progressive discourse - the dignity of manual labor, equality before the law, broad consensus that discourse not violence should serve as the means to dispute settlement. Indeed, Zionism has produced a dazzling array of social experiments all of which show the remarkable commitment and will-power exerted in launching and sustaining egalitarian ethics even in the most hostile conditions.

The very ideology of Zionism, in almost all of its variants, represented a systematic rejection of the imperialism and “prime-divider” ideologies of the European world it sought to flee - from the “enlightened” imperialism of the French and the English to the paranoid imperative of the fascist reaction to the victory of civil societies. Indeed one might even say that the very existence of Zionism as a modern, secular, progressive ideology came from the realization of many modern Jews at the turn of 1900, that the mentality of the old world, that of the “prime divider” elites, still had too much strength in Europe to guarantee any reliable support for Europe’s new civic culture to tolerate and defend the newly empowered and astonishingly successful Jews. Indeed, were one to seek some of the most cogent early “deconstructions” and critiques of the imperialism imbedded even in Western modern discourse, one could look with great profit to the writings of the Zionists.

In the following discussion, I only touch on some of the more exceptional elements of this issue, which is summed up (and these days lost) in the comment “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.” These following points, then, represent just the tip of an iceberg of discussions that can and should take place about the difficulties of launching and sustaining a civil society, a discussion that stands at the heart of our ability as human beings to negotiate this process of technology-driven globalization. They will, hopefully, allow us to examine the “Israeli apartheid” argument more specifically at the end.

<snip>

http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=298

[USA_1]

113. Progressive Value:ONE STATE SOLUTION

[aranthus]

127. So that is what "progressive" means.

It's progressive to deny the Jews any state of their own, so that the Arabs can have it all.

It's progressive to let that one state be turned into either a PLO kleptocracy or an Islamist tyranny, rather than let there be even one Jewish state in the world.

In case anyone wonders, the foregoing has not been an attempt at sarcasm.

[USA_1]

129. Ain't Democracy Grand?

[aranthus]

167. Your point has nothing to do with democracy.

The Palestinians can have democracy in their own state (if they can manage it), just as the Jews have democracy in theirs, the French in theirs, etc. The fact that states have national identities is not inconsistent with democratic values.

[USA_1]

175. That's what Southern Segregationists Said

And what the KKK and neo-Nazis say today. Of course, integrationists who believe in democracy affirm the exact opposite. And that's the way it should always be.

[Shaktimaan]

183. the opposite?

So you think the Jews, the French, the Palestinians, etc, asserting individual national identities IS inconsistent with democratic values? Sooo.... the more states we forcibly integrate together ... um... the more ideal the democracy we'll be creating?

Really?

REALLY?

Why exactly do you think having a variety of individual states is bad? I'm failig to see the benefits inherent in forcing bitter enemies into a single nation. Historically, hasn't that usually resulted in long-term civil war, endless bloody reprisals and the eventual unravelling of the very fabric of civilized society returning the remaining citizens to a kind of pre-civilized nightmare where life is brutish and short; where tribalism is the only governmental structure, disease is rampant and a steady food supply is guaranteed only to the most powerful, cruel and violent?

No seriously, do you have an example of this idea working at some earlier point in history?

[USA_1]

203. Has Segregation Worked In Israel & Palestine?

No it hasn't and it won't work.

As a wise man once said, give peace a chance ...

[USA_1]

249. Israeli Government Tells Israelis Not to Marry American Jews

I don't know whether a thread has been started on this but it is an absurdity in that it attempts to promote segregation:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/01/israeli-government-tells-israelis-not-to-marry-american-jews.html

''The Israeli government has launched an aggressive advertising campaign in the U.S. to discourage its expats from marrying American Jews—who some see as not really Jews at all ... Many Israeli writers, thought leaders, politicians, and rabbis believe that assimilated American Jews are not Jews at all.''


Segregation is and will always be an absurdity. Let's hope people will learn from this pathetic example.

[azurnoir]

134. so you deny that Jews already have their own country in Israel? Thanks I never knew

I mean Israel has a Jewish majority Hebrew as its first language, uses the Hebrew calender for many things, Jewish high holidays are national holiday's but yet Jews don't have their own country well unless Palestinians say so is that it?

[aranthus]

166. Of course not. I thought the point was very clear, but I will explain it.

USA_1 supports the creation of a single state in place of Israel. Israel is currently a Jewish majority state. However, if a single state is created, it won't be majority Jewish, as I think you know. So the creation of a single state would deny the Jews the state that they already have in favor of creating yet another Arab state. When USA_1 argues that that is the mainstream progressive position, I believe that he is correct.

[USA_1]

168. Thank You Aranthus

So many Israelis and American right wingers supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan on the grounds that democratization needs to be spread by force for the good of the people in those countries. Well, what's good for the goose is certainly good for the gander. A uniform standard needs to be applied across the board. If democratization needs to be exported (by force if necessary) anywhere, then let it begin in Israel.

The historical record clearly shows a two state solution did not work in the USA during the 1860s. Furthermore, integration and the one state solution has proven to be a great way to strengthen a country through our example. Therefore, everyone who is principled and stands behind these ideals in the USA needs to apply them in Israel as well. Only a racist segregationist will stand with the KKK by disagreeing with this truth.

[aranthus]

170. You have no cause to thank me.

I don't know what you're playing at. You're either a true believer who doesn't recognize the utter rubbish you're posting and are immune to rational argument, or you're just trolling. Either way, I won't be responding to your posts any further. They aren't worth my time.

[USA_1]

174. Democracy Works

And that was my point. Too bad some people can't see it that way.

[Shaktimaan]

186. It has a good track record thus far.

But here's the key. Democracy ONLY works in the event that all of the main factions participating in its application want it more than they do power for themselves. It's a trick that all but mandates making personal sacrafices as a trade-off for a more equitable society further down the road. In other words, the arduous task of building a democracy from scratch requires exceptional leadership of a sort that I feel is seldom seen nowadays.

Now, we know that Israel is capable of doing this thing, building a democratic state, as it has already done so once. But the Palestinians... well, let's just say that they have a less than stellar track record in this department.

Bearing this in mind, what makes you so certain that throwing these two disparate nations together is so certain to result in a democracy? Israel is currently a successful first world country (one which filed more new patents in America last year than most of Europe and Asia, added together.) While Palestine is, uhmmm... somewhat less so. Looking closely at these considerations, I'm having trouble discerning exactly how this is of any potential benefit to Israel at all. Of all the nations in the world, how did you arrive at Israel as the perfect state to wed with the outright travesty that is considered the Palestinian government? I see a lot of risk for Israel here, but wihout any (even potential), advantages. What's in it for them?

I'm sorry but I'm really having trouble getting over just how batshit insane this whole basic concept is, let alone your Barbie Dreamhouse™ fantasy that the result of this experiment is certain to be a peaceful, ideal democratic society. Think about it for just one second. Two long-term bitter enemies have been totally unable to reconcile their differences and come to some kind of peace accord. So ingrained is this conflict in their DNA that it was actually the conflict itself that solidified the Palestinians as a clearly defined nationality unto itself. Usually it is nations that create conflicts. But in this case it was the conflict that created one of the nations embroiled in it! Point being, these are SERIOUS enemies.

Now when faced with this situation your first and only plan to foster peace is to throw the two single-ethnicity-defined nations together into one big multi-ethnic state, so that these two polarizingly different societies will find themselves constantly competing for jobs, political influence, education and any /all of countless other resources... which incidentally are the exact issues that led directly to rioting, massacres, exections, assasinations and terrorism the last time these two disparate cousins were forced to share a single hotel room.

May I ask what your reasoning behind this alarmingly whack-a-doo idea is?

[LeftishBrit]

190. It usually works better than other systems

But there are situations that can prevent it from working.

Attempts at democracy in the 'one-state solution' of former Yugoslavia worked even less well than Tito in power keeping a lid on the violence.

Of course, that's not saying that dictatorship is a good idea; just that some one-state 'solutions' will result either in bloody civil war, or in this being suppressed by a dictator or by colonial rule. In such cases, a two-state/ multi-state solution is the only good possibility.

[LeftishBrit]

189. There again..

a one-state solution didn't work too well in (now former) Yugoslavia.

And most people would say that the break-up of the Soviet Union into numerous different states was not a bad thing.

It depends on the circumstances. Forcing mortal enemies into one state rarely works very well.

[Crunchy Frog]

201. I wish you could communicate that to the settlers and their enablers.

[LeftishBrit]

209. I agree that my comments apply as much to the RW settlers as the anti-Zionists

Not sure that I'd be able to communicate much to either group, however! But I belong to groups such as Peace Now and the Alliance for Middle East Peace, that are trying to.

[Crunchy Frog]

250. Settlers and their enablers are the ones who are doing the MOST

to force a situation in which a single state will become an inevitability.

The anti-Zionists who TALK about a single state solution have no real power or influence to make it happen.

I would say that the focus of communication should be on the ones who have the power to either make it happen or to prevent it from happening. That's the settlers and their allies.

[USA_1]

178. Still Waiting For Proof There Is A Liberal Case For Israel

[Shaktimaan]

184. I'm willing to.

But first I need to understand your definition of "Liberal." It's a subjective word after all and I'd like to agree to the parameters BEFORE I present an argument to you.

I can tell you how I see it... These descriptive words, liberal, conservative, etc., mean nothing on their own. They only gain meaning in comparison to each other. We can't say if an action taken by itself is liberal. We need to look at it within a spectrum of other actions to give it perspective. So we can determine if a state is liberal by looking at its policies and comparing them to other states' actions and seeing if they fall to the left or right. We can also compare outcomes against those that are considered either liberal or conservative.

[USA_1]

187. That's the OP's Job to Do

The OP should first define what is ''liberal'' and how Israel fits that definition. DU is a liberal site and you don't see the entire board rushing to his defense in this thread which proves he never made his case.

Not being a liberal myself (lean more towards the middle) it is not entirely possible for me to give a definitive definition. But one of the key points of liberals is that more often than not they are on the side of the little guy - the underdog. They want to level the playing field so that all have an equal crack at the prize. Therefore, they push for social policies that guarantee equal access for all people. This is why they pushed for progressive legislation such as Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, Gender Equity, and Americans With Disability Act (for the record, I lobbied for all those laws in my many past years of social activism). Therefore, as liberals they would be lobbying for the rights of Palestinians who are the real under dogs in this conflict.

The Israeli apologists on this thread have all said liberalism should be on the side of Israel in this conflict.

How so? Israel isn't the under dog. On the contrary they are the aggressors and have been since Day One (link to Einstein). They have practiced every manner of injustice to Palestinians (links to Israeli activists). They have used every manner of subterfuge in order to disguise their schemes (links to Ostrovsky & Beit-Hallahmi).

In each instance I have used exclusively Jewish sources to back up my claims and to buttress my arguments. Not one source can be said to be ''antisemitic'' so that this often misused card fails in this dispute. There are hundreds more videos and links all throughout the Internet than can be used just as easily in order to defeat the initial argument made by the OP. Instead of presenting evidence in the vain attempt to defend the OP, the excitable and angry Israeli apologists have resorted to emotional arguments, name calling, and personal attacks. They completely disregard the interests of Palestinians and use precisely the same arguments used by the KKK to defend segregation in the South. How can any true ''liberal'' make such vain and indefensible arguments?

No, the OP and the Israeli apologists have not made any valid claim that there is any liberal case for Israel. Instead, their arguments have supported the right wing neocon case. Therefore, their arguments have been an utter FAIL.

[pelsar]

208. the fallacy of group think as an the feeble mind

DU is a liberal site and you don't see the entire board rushing to his defense in this thread which proves he never made his case.

i come across this a lot here.... a redefining of the word "proof' (and fact).

i hate to really ruin your day, but the what certain group thinks has nothing to do with proving anything. the obvious proof of that (you'll note I'm using the word in its proper usage here) is that once the vast majority believed the world was flat-it was later proven to not be.

a vast majority in certain areas believed blacks/jews etc were inferior, later shown to be otherwise, hence the fallacy of what "most think" proving anything.

i'll give you a summary: just because a majority of people believe something, it has no relationship to proving anything at all...the only ones who actually believe that, are the more feeble minded types that are prone to group think and peer pressure and have little ability to think for themselves.

[USA_1]

229. ''feeble minded types''

The KKK certainly fall into this category as did the Nazis. Small wonder why Einstein equated certain Zionists with that latter group. From the puny defenses put up on this thread in favor of a pretended case for liberals in support of Israel, your comments are more apropos for that crowd.

[pelsar]

237. did i quote you correctly?

the feebleminded.....and that includes "progressives" who invoke the "but the majority believes" as proof of something..... just proves that group think can be found everywhere

DU is a liberal site and you don't see the entire board rushing to his defense in this thread which proves he never made his case.

you did write that correct?

[USA_1]

246. "feebleminded" was your term, not mine

Such hate filled diatribes and attempts to lessen people's intelligence and worth is the same tactics used by Nazis and KKK. Israel's apologists on this forum are treading on highly risky grounds when you resort to these degrading tactics. The idea that one is the superior of others and are entitled to greater property or land rights is what the Nazis called Lebensraum. This is precisely the same demanded by racialist segregationists in the South during the 1860s. The world went to world to put a stop this in the 1940s just as we did in the 1860s. Sadly, there are people in this world, and quite obviously on this forum, who fail to take heed of the priceless lessons taught by history.

I urge you to renounce segregation and political repression. Henceforth watch the words you use and be very careful to avoid terms that were used by past haters who earned the scorn of the world for their evils.

[pelsar]

257. yes i used feebleminded to describe those who believe in groupthink

and claim what a majority believe is "proof" as per your own quote.

i believe that is an example of "feeblemindedness".....perhaps you would like to explain how, what a majority believes is proof of something?....

as far as your little rant above, i have no idea how it relates to the question at hand other than attempt to change the subject.

[USA_1]

258. 'feebleminded ... group think'

Both terms apply far more suitably to your side of the aisle. None of you have yet to prove the thread topic's claim or apply even the slightest degree of rationality to it. Obviously your group hatred for Palestinians and other victims of Israels injustices have blinded you to the truth.

Usually when liberals on DU uniformly agree on a topic they will make numerous posts manifestly showing their consensus. I see no such uniformity here. What few posts in defense of Israel there are on this thread are all made by the same people, were all filled with anger, name calling, or other forms of irrationalities, and none have yet to prove there is a liberal case for Israel.

Liberals defend the under dog, the victim, the ones who have suffered majority tyranny. In Israel it is Palestinians and others who have suffered. This even includes Sefardic and other minority Jews. Therefore, liberals defend these victims so that no possible case can be made for the unsupportable claim that there is a liberal case for Israel.

So what ''liberal'' case is there for supporting Israeli tyranny? How does anyone support the notion that you cannot marry American Jews as if they were some form of contamination? How does any true liberal defend the many instances of injustices that I have demonstrated here (bear in mind that each source I used was Jewish)?

So far, your group ''think'' efforts have been a dismal FAIL. So go ahead - try to answer my questions. All the while you will be demonstrating that they represent the truth.

[pelsar]

259. feeble minds also attempt to change the subject....

i see this is difficult for you...i simply commented on something u wrote, nothing about liberals or progressives, or israelis or Palestinians, martians, or the shape of the moon.....

this is now i believe the 3rd time you giving me a whole lot of something that is not relevant, this time its generalities about "liberals" (actually this is more of a "progressive" place, the definition of liberals has been hijacked here).
____

tell you what, you actually answer the original question i asked about your "group think" statement, which was clear as they come as "proof" and then perhaps i 'll explain why liberals defend israel and progressives don't.

BUT i can hardly have a decent conversation/discussion when someone claims something is "proved" just because his/her peer group believes it is.
It goes to show u have a difficulty sticking to definitions and prefer hyperbole and emotion laden communication, that is far better suited for lectures and the religious, than conversations. More so, it really shows that when your caught up in a contradiction, not only can you not admit it, you avoid answering to it....and then you expect me to respond to your lecture?...you can't even give a single response to your own quote, what will happen when i explain the hypocrisy of your lecture?...you'll avoid every contradiction i bring up.

lets start with your first quote about how what a group thinks constitutes proof....

[USA_1]

262. ''change the subject''

In fact that is precisely what your side of the aisle has done on this thread. Then you make projections which you believe make you look like you've won the debate. You have my permission to believe that if you wish.

Therefore, rather than allow you propagandists the privilege of directing the exchange at your whim, I'm sticking with the original theme of this thread. That theme is the ludicrous idea that there is some liberal case for Israel. I say there is not.

My challenge to you is prove your case. The burden of proof is yours since that is the theme of the thread. I have clearly proven there isn't any such scenario and have successfully refuted every claim made by Israeli apologists. Let's see what you got ...

[shira]

263. Israel is more liberal than the USA on these issues...

Gay rights, death penalty, healthcare, Israel started out socialist and still is (moreso than the USA), much more self critical media, very liberal court system, far better on environmental issues, leaders in stem cell research, better on immigration (for example from Ethiopia, Sudan), state subsidized public college tuition, better labor unions. Israel had its first Arab President back in 2007. Israel had a female PM back in the 70's named Golda Meir. The Knesset currently has Palestinian factions within it opposed to Israel's existance (the more secular Balad and the Islamist Raam Taal). Lastly, in combat Israel's civilian to militant kill ratio is significantly better than the USA and Israel isn't fighting wars thousands of miles away against nations posing no threat to its citizens.

If you wish to debate any of these issues, pick one or two, or more...

[USA_1]

268. Repeats

You are merely repeating what you said previously. As others have already noted there are significant shortfalls such as with regard to Ethiopian Falashas, rights of Palestinians, ditto with Sefardic and Orthodox communities. While we have shortcomings in the States, these are social problems, not institutional problems. And we practice one state solution, not two state segregation.

But all of that has been discussed already.

[shira]

271. Discrimination isn't institutional. All citizens of Israel have guaranteed equal rights by law.

If they wish, they can go to Israel's very liberal courts to ensure they get equal rights.

Or they can go to the press, like Haaretz, who will gladly publish their grievances and see to it pressure is applied to the GOI to change policy.

[USA_1]

282. Your friend Hillary Doesn't Quite agree

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8936520/Israel-furious-at-Hillary-Clintons-concern-for-democracy-in-country.html

Israel furious at Hillary Clinton's concern for democracy in country
Israeli government ministers have reacted with fury to comments made by Hillary Clinton expressing her concern for the state of democracy in Israel and the status of Israeli women.

-------

That's right ~ even Washington, DC's biggest neocon questions your so called liberalism.

[shira]

284. Great response from the article you cited...

"There is capital punishment in America, this is not the practice in Israel. America's hard-line Mormons practice polygamy. Which of us is like Iran? We could make many more comparisons which would point out just how ridiculous her criticisms are."

[pelsar]

265. ok..heres the proof...

...... you don't see the entire board rushing to his defense in this thread which proves he never made his case.

well i've got 6 million israelis ignoring the nonsense you write, which proves our point that israel is a liberal country....since cleary groupthink is definitive proof for you i assume that you'll accept the 6 million israelis who are a greater number than your DU members as proof

proof you can hardly ignore.

[shira]

267. lol. n/t

[USA_1]

269. lololololol

We have about another 200 to 300 million here in the USA who are ignoring your claims!

Thanks for making my case!

[pelsar]

273. yes i admit your case has been made.....oh. and the earth is flat....plus

there was a consensus on global cooling in the 70's which turned in to global warming in the 1990's and i believe the consensus today is more of "undecided". We did have a flat earth for a while as the consensus believed, and the common cold was cured by lots of vitamin for a while a least, until the consensus changed their minds, did you know that the sun revolved around the earth, at least for a while it did....

if you believe the proof of anything is based on the numbers of believers in a certain geographic area, i'm afraid there is not much to discuss, but i do have a nice bridge to sell you, but you'll have to hurry because lots and lots of people are interested in buying it....

[shira]

266. You mentioned, if Israel is liberal then they'd have affirmative action for the little guy...

The fact is Israel has affirmative action policies currently in place for Arabs in education, government, and housing. Arabs, unlike Jews, don't have to serve in the IDF either.

Look it up if you don't believe it.

[USA_1]

251. What's the Liberal Case For: "Don't Marry American Jews"

Anyone?

[USA_1]

270. Anyone???

Still waiting .........

[USA_1]

283. Still Waiting ....

... and waiting ....

[shira]

285. Waiting for what? Israel pulled the ads. Tell me, what's the liberal case for America...

...with its death penalty?

Allowing polygamy in Utah?

Lack of healthcare for poor folks?

:shrug:

WTF?

[USA_1]

286. WTF?

''death penalty''

Like Israel's bombing of Palestinians and Lebanon?

http://www.workers.org/2006/world/lebanon-0727/



Israeli children signing a bomb:





Published 00:00 12.09.06
Latest update 00:00 12.09.06

IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon
Phosphorous and cluster bombs heavily used; unexploded munitions litter wide area of Lebanon.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-commander-we-fired-more-than-a-million-cluster-bombs-in-lebanon-1.197099



''polygamy''

Contrary to your belief it is not legal in that state even though it is permissible in the Bible.


''lack of healthcare''

Interestingly, Israel would not have universal health care and its currency would be worthless if it was not for the USA dollar to back it up. By the way, how much health care has Israel provided for the victims of its imperialist aggressions and illegal cluster bombings?

[shira]

288. LOL. Pathetic. And you're wondering why people aren't responding to you?

The USA has the death penalty while Israel does not. If you wish to compare military casualties, Israel has the US beat by miles as their ratio of civilians to combatants killed in war is far better and more humane than America's (as well as the UK, NATO, etc..).

Polygamy is practiced in many parts of America, not just Utah...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_North_America#Polygamy_today

Israel has universal healthcare. America does not despite your lame excuses. If America were to cut off aid to Israel, Israel would then manufacture its own military toys, sell them to countries like China and make even more than the $3billion they get annually.

[USA_1]

291. ''Israel has universal healthcare.'' Paid by USA Dollars

Thanks for admitting your ''paradise'' exists only because of American tax dollars.

And notice how nobody from your side of aisle is even trying to deny that.

[shira]

264. Miraculous: Test Tube Testes Developed by Arab Scientist

What a terrible apartheid state...

In the western world couples who have trouble conceiving go to sperm banks when the male produces no viable sperm. And while these options are available in the Middle East, the more traditional male types here obviously fare better psychologically when the baby is born with his own blood, and DNA. But for men with a zero sperm count, or boys undergoing treatment for cancer, there were no other options – until now. An Arab scientist Prof. Mahmoud Huleihel from Ben Gurion University in Israel has developed an artificial testis in a test tube. It opens a world of possibilities for infertile men.

If the mentally challenged bigots from BDS had their way, this wouldn't have been possible at Ben Gurion University.

[USA_1]

287. Still Waiting ...

... and waiting ...

[shira]

289. How many times does it have to be proven to you? There are many examples in the threads above...

But here's yet another example for you...

Women's reproductive rights.

That's not even a left/right issue in Israel as no one there tries to challenge it. In fact, all Israeli political parties are socially liberal WRT gay and women's rights, social care, health care, food and tuition subsidies. These aren't campaign issues in Israeli politics as they are in conservative America.

You avoided the question before, so here it is again because - like you - I'm still waiting.

Israel's more liberal than America, now isn't it?

[USA_1]

292. Your "Paradise" - financed By OUR Dollars

Thanks for admitting it.

[USA_1]

293. Terrorism From Paradise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kwCVeEF4Q4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgYVz2WlrMs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyL-1ZSdGo&feature=related

While the controlled news media refuse to present these truths, you can see them quite readily all over youtube and other truth sources.

[shira]

295. In other words, you realize Israel is liberal but you hate Israel regardless...

So what other nations in the world do you hate?

Egypt gets the 2nd most $$$ in US tax dollars. Do you hate Egypt too?

:shrug:

[USA_1]

304. More Trouble In Paradise

The Elysian Fields of Heavenly Paradise has violated more UN Resolutions than any other:

http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil3i.htm

''Israel has ignored all of the resolutions of the Security Council, which is a violation of the Charter, and by extension, international law. And it has also ignored all of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court.''

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/rogue-state-israeli-violations-of-u-n-security-council-resolutions/


Islamophobic haters of Peace like Shira celebrate these crimes.

[BanTheGOP]

300. You are 100% wrong. Israel needs to be taken over by the UN and changed to Palestine

Israel is a crime against humanity with its republicanist, capitalist agenda who threatens the very peace and security of the region. The government of Israel needs to be disbanded by the UN in cooperation with the Arab League and perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood, then an interim government needs to be established that will transfer the stolen wealth and land back to a progressive Arab governmental alliance. Finally, the very name of the country needs to be changed to Palestine or any other name approved by the neighboring countries. Mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that Jewish and Palestinean safety is paramount, to repatriate the wealth from the Israeli conservative republicanists, and finally, to ensure that everyone has access to all cities. Conservative Istraeli's, including Netenyahu, need to be brought before a World Court and tried for their crimes against humanity, and stripped of all their ill-gotten wealth. The Israeli military also needs to be decommissioned and disarmed, as there is no need for national defense, as a start toward reparations of military intrusions in the region.

But as long as the American Republican party exists, that won't happen.

[King_David]

301. The Democratic party supports Israel 100 %

Best you find a new party to support?

[LeftishBrit]

303. The post is just ... not from the real world

'a progressive Arab governmental alliance'...

A progressive Arab governmental alliance would be a lovely idea.

Now, where will we find one? Why do you think so many people have been out in the streets during the last year? And, thoguh in some places there are slight signs of improvement, most places still have a long way to go to achieve even basic democracy, let alone progressivism.

'Israel is a crime against humanity with its republicantist, capitalist agenda'

More capitalist than places like Saudi Arabia?

'Repatriate the wealth from the Israeli conserviative republicanists'

Who?

[azurnoir]

306. No I don't think so either but what 'world' produced this

is a matter that is up to the reader

[aranthus]

308. 'tis the season for fruitcakes. n/t

[USA_1]

305. A One State Government Is the Only Solution

If the UN only had the guts to do this in 1967 we would had a true democracy and peace there by now. Only a hater of peace, truth, and democracy denies that.

[Shaktimaan]

311. if only the un had done what?

taken all of the Jordanian citizens living west of the river and forced them to become Israeli instead?

So even the most fundamental laws don't matter to you if you think that you have the right idea?

[Mosby]

307. Free Republic called and wants to know why you haven't cashed the check yet.