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.
Those 2 situations are not the same, but lets say I agree for a second. Do you really want to live in a "right of conquest" world ?????
I guess you have no problem with it when Russia annexes Crimea and threatens eastern Ukraine, or when China annexes Tibet. In those cases Crimea didn't attack Russia and Tibet didn't attack China. The Arabs did attack Israel, repeatedly. They had a right to attack, and to lose. Do they get the status quo ante after a failed attack?
No, they do not. And that's the obvious truth the anti-Semitic left doesn't comprehend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Those 2 situations are not the same, but lets say I agree for a second. Do you really want to live in a "right of conquest" world ?????
Didn't the U.S. win California, New Mexico, and Arizona in a war with Mexico? Thats what happens in wars.
(And in Israel's case, Israel was attacked by enemy Arab states and they won despite being outnumbered.)
The people of the area have by and large supported their governments in their attempted elimination of Israel. The people may have to overcome a lot of misery from those failed conquest attempts. Or they should move.
Oh well, I'm now among the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel bigots
You offer a crumby reason for Trump to make his decision. Unless he has reasons other than the obvious --- to help Netanyahu's reelection --- to formally acknowledge the de-facto reality of Israel's dominion over Golan, how does it help the U.S., or for that matter, Israel.
During Net's visit, Trump could announce a mutual defense pact with Israel and joint military exercises in Golan. That would really expose us anti-Semitic bigots
You can run but you cannot hide! From these sorts of ridiculous unjustified accusations, but hey. I think being an anti-Semitic bigot isn't quite as bad as "anti-Semitic hate." Could be worse IOWs, and if you want to see worse, just wait for the next moronic comment to come along. Never have to wait too long here...
You're babysitting for five kids, three white and two black. All five go careening into your favorite vase, with one of the white kids smashing into it first. You grab the black kids, and start berating them for being so careless. When they ask why you aren't yelling at the whites, you tell them....." I'm focused on YOU. You were careless!" (And then, you organize a movement to warn people that black kids have no respect for private possessions and they break things - and action should be taken to teach them a lesson.)
Why would you single out the black kids and never say a word about the whites?
The settlements are controversial within Israel. Here are some recent stats, with those expressing concern certainly not all self-hating Israeli Jews:
In your opinion, from today’s perspective was various Israeli governments’ policy of building settlements in Judea and Samaria wise or unwise in terms of Israel’s national interest? (The Peace Index, May 2017)
Israeli Jews: Very wise 27.2% - Moderately wise 23.6% - Moderately unwise 22.5% - Not wise at all 18.6% - Don't know/decline to answer 8.1% https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...s-2009-present
As for security:
Indeed, while roughly four-in-ten Israeli Jews (42%) said that the continued building of settlements helps the security of Israel, three-in-ten (30%) said the settlements hurt the country’s security, while a quarter (25%) said they do not affect Israel’s security one way or another. Roughly a year earlier, Israeli Jews were less sanguine about the benefits of settlement building: In 2013, only 31% said such construction improved Israel’s security. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...n-security/Out
As for what they do for Israeli-Palestinian relations, at one point the Government proposed building an entirely separate road network for settler use. The populations had to be kept divided for security. The idea was rejected as impracticable.
Is it just me or are you attempting to promote this sort of alternative discussion despite the topic, title, of this thread? Two very different subjects, and attempting to discuss one in light of the other is a very, very difficult challenge, as I believe is all too often the intention. To offer any facts or opinion with the constant need to address whether the issue is born of "self-hating Israeli Jews," for example, is mentally exhausting and offensive.
It's something like offering facts and opinion suggesting O.J. Simpson might not be entirely innocent of any and all wrong-doing, but always having to argue you are not a racist first and the entire time while doing so...
Yes, I know about the creeping Antisemitism in the Democrats. I'm not sure it's any worse than the antisemitism in the Republican party though. Even if it is, it's certainly not anywhere near the level to warrant calling all Democrats Anti-Semites which is what the note I responded to said.
It's a problem, and it will eventually reach a head and be dealt with inside the party. Not a single Democrat would ever defect to the GOP over this. I'll bet you a beer on that.
Edited to add: Keep in mind that every Jewish member of Congress is a Democrat.
I'd like to first and foremost honestly and truthfully reaffirm I am not a Jew hating anti-Semite before I offer the following to consider that will nevertheless cause SOME to make that unjustified accusation as always. Is it "creeping antisemitism" or "Israel-Hatred fueled by antisemitism" or something else really?
Is something else really not even possible to consider?
"Democrats are looking to come together as a unified party to beat President Donald Trump. But first they’re looking at a bitter, divisive debate about a subject most in the party would rather duck: Israel.
In recent decades, including under President Barack Obama, Democrats largely endorsed a bipartisan “pro-Israel” consensus that meant lending Israel both material and rhetorical support, despite some significant tensions beneath the surface and complaints around the world about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
But that’s changing. It’s changing because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has become increasingly comfortable with the idea of a strict partisan alignment with the Republican Party, even though American Jews vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
And it’s changing because a rising tide of progressive politicians want to challenge a consensus among Democratic Party elites, a consensus that no longer reflects the views of Democratic voters.
The change is set to emerge at the top level of American politics over the course of the 2020 presidential campaign. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) broke significant taboos around this issue in 2016 with his pointed, strident criticism of the Netanyahu government. And looking ahead to 2020, he’s charted a break with past Democratic administrations by signaling a willingness to impose real consequences on Israel if it doesn’t change course on the occupation — even telling the Intercept’s Mehdi Hassan in a September 2017 interview that cuts in US financial aid and arms sales could be on the table."
How neatly you pick out your time periods so that only Israel becomes illegitimate. While we are at it where are the protests of China's violating Tibet's right to self-determination?
Objection. I merely picked examples of history that transpired once upon a time that today would not transpire in any similar fashion. History that goes back to before Israel was even born, because one thing is history that occurred back in the 1700s and 1800s versus modern day times in the 1900s up to present day. Also because the person I was addressing was using history going back to the 1700s to justify what is happening in modern day times.
"Might makes right" is not exactly the best justification for what transpires either way but so it seems is the thinking of the person I was addressing.
Also ironic that you comment about Tibet after I also posted an article about that problem earlier too...
I notice the same type of thing. If I point out that Arabs expelled nearly a million Jews from Arab countries and stole their property, I hear.....well, that was decades ago. There are excuses and rationalization for every country. Except Israel. Of course.
I've noticed many a thing from your comments too, but how many times can I explain that pointing at other topics is neither justification or defense related to the topic at hand! Again and again, if you/we want to focus on criticism related to other events going on elsewhere, no problem! Start the thread. Let me know what it is!
Meanwhile the topic here is Israel and/or anti-semitism. Right?!? Accordingly, that is my focus HERE AND NOW.
Imagine if every time I criticized America's relationship with Saudi Arabia, someone argued "but what about North Korea," and then accused me of being a Sunni Muslim hater. Just how dumb can this sort of tactic be and still be repeated over and over?
Again please have mercy...
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.
