Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I ask you again. Do you have any criticism to level at the Palestinians? What kind of state do you think they're going to set up? A Muslims only hellhole or a utopian leftist paradise? Or have you simply not bothered to give the question any thought?
The Jewish writer Noam Chomsky represents my views and answers your question for the 3rd time in this thread.
"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century."
The Jewish writer Noam Chomsky represents my views and answers your question for the 3rd time in this thread.
"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century."
Noam Chomsky
It's almost amusing you think that a refutation of your obvious anti-Semitism and decision to stand with those who want to establish a judenrein sexist Islamic state.
Tell me why I should side with them. You can't. A handful of Jews are not responsible for the problems of the ME.
Here's a quote that more aptly sums up the thoughtless viewpoint you keep ranting about:
To be sure, it never stops being remarkable to me that anyone who professes to care about human freedom – especially someone who is gay and a woman and a Jew! – can be anything but a fervent supporter of Israel, a small free country surrounded by Jew-hating, woman-oppressing, gay-killing neighbors that are intent on destroying it. But then this is what happens, alas, when a mind is so besotted with ideology as to blind itself to even the most obvious of realities.
You are shamefully on the side of genocidal, racist theocrats.
As Israel has became more Russified it has become less democratic and is becoming more of a Putinesque thug state with only the facade of democratic institutions. It is not there yet but it is headed in that direction. As it is now it is a compromised democracy much like its neighbor Lebanon.
The Jewish writer Noam Chomsky represents my views and answers your question for the 3rd time in this thread.
"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century."
The Jewish writer Noam Chomsky represents my views and answers your question for the 3rd time in this thread.
"My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century."
Noam Chomsky
It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.
Abbas Rejects Bid to Resume Negotiations
(Monday, May 14th, 2012)
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) has rejected the offer to return to the negotiating table with Israel after Yitzchak Molcho traveled to Ramallah on motzei Shabbos to meet with the PA leader and hand deliver a letter from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, as was reported by YWN-ISRAEL.
From the PA’s point of view, Israel must accept the fait accompli, a return to the pre-1967 borders and the establishment of the State of Palestine with Jerusalem serving as its capital as a prerequisite. From the prime minister’s point of view, if this is the case there is no logic to entering into talks since the outcome will be decided before they sit down and exchange ideas and offers.
In a related matter, a bill presented by MK Miri Regev to annex Yehuda and Shomron as integral portions of the State of Israel, as was done in the Golan Heights was defeated. After it appeared to have the support of a number of cabinet ministers, the prime minister intervened to topple the bill.
I'm sorry... now who is refusing to negotiate in good faith here?
Quote:
As Israel has became more Russified it has become less democratic and is becoming more of a Putinesque thug state with only the facade of democratic institutions. It is not there yet but it is headed in that direction. As it is now it is a compromised democracy much like its neighbor Lebanon.
Your source for this assertion? Clearly, anti-semites are entitled to opinions, too. But please be clear between the difference between opinion and fact. My 2nd grader is learning that distinction in school right now.
This is an interesting thread. Whenever the topic sways to the facts of land ownership and land rights, the Israel hatred in this thread tries to steer the conversation towards their opinions that Israel is an apartheid state or that they are Putinesque thugs. No facts to back this up, just hatred.
How about we debate the facts here, and leave your opinions of hatred to the side.
Bump. LifelongMOGirl, are you ready to apologize yet for criticizing my grammar when my post was grammatically correct and yours was not?
... Bueller?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, I love that quote. We ALL should take heed.
