|
Xander77 posted:Sadly, the Israeli lobby controls both major parties in US politics, and the United States is subservient to the Zionist government. A) Accept a whole bunch of money from these guys who have the support of a bunch of key constituencies in various states or B) Go against them because this is the moral thing to do, but in doing so having all that money and whatnot going against me What a hard choice."
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:Sadly, the Israeli lobby controls both major parties in US politics, and the United States is subservient to the Zionist government. I don't think the Israeli lobby has particularly much to do with it so much as the Evangelist lobby does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I don't think the Israeli lobby has particularly much to do with it so much as the Evangelist lobby does. AIPAC and the "Jews are going to hell, but we need Israel for Armageddon" fundies are peas in a pod. Not being sarcastic, they freaking love each other. See the VICE episode with the Fundi tours of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I don't think the Israeli lobby has particularly much to do with it so much as the Evangelist lobby does. Perhaps the evangelical lobby is the more important of the two in the GOP, especially after the waning of the Neoconservative movement, but in the Democratic Party which is still 100 percent pro-apartheid, the more traditional Israel lobby(eg., AIPAC) is far more powerful. It's also not so much that the Israel lobby is all powerful but rather that it has no counterbalancing force; there is no major pro-Palestinian, anti-apartheid organization with anything near the clout or resources of AIPAC or other Zionist organizations. CAIR is the closest thing to a mainstream, well-funded pro-Palestinian organization but Palestine is at the bottom of their list of priorities. Instead, pro-Palestinian activism is largely done through grass-roots organizations with no major lobbying capacity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:What exactly are you trying to disagree with and what makes you think there is room for debate on this? You clearly did not read the quote from Colin Powell's aide, and the Forward story doesn't support your reading either. I urge everyone to read those directly. quote:1) "The nature of the US/Israel relationship is one of complete subservience by the latter to the former. Please pay no attention to the last 8 years!" Also if anyone does buy this argument that Israel apparently has no national interest and just does whatever the USA wants, you seem to be shooting yourself in the foot. The USA wanted to invade Iraq. As a subservient nation that just exists to help the USA out, surely it therefore helped the USA to invade Iraq by your logic? You are completely incoherent. Israel is a US client state, and the loudest deniers of this are the Valerie Plame types who don't want to face the truth of American's colonialism and imperialism, instead arguing for the insanity that we could somehow be tricked and misled into war by a fifth column. It must never, ever be that we're actually in the wrong. Israel being unwilling to cross America publicly in fact completely refutes your argument. The only way to actually refute those articles would be if there were credible sources who claimed that Ariel Sharon was an ardent supporter of the war. When people say Israel supported the war, they are being lazy and conflating Israel with Netanyahu/PNAC, which is bullshit. Disinterested posted:The idea that Israel is subservient to the United States is frankly so absurd on its face it doesn't really require an adult response. It's from Chomsky.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Sadly, the Israeli lobby controls both major parties in US politics, and the United States is subservient to the Zionist government. This is a silly overstatement (or mildly silly hyperbole), and I'm solidly of the opinion that we need to give waaaay less priority to Israel than we do. (Also something about apartheid atrocities and so on but that's not the only thing factoring into strategic priorities) Fake edit fb, by the guy who put it more along the lines of "Israeli lobbies are unduly influential and there is no serious counterbalance whatsoever". One does wonder what the path of least resistance to a counterbalance would be. Maybe just the population (or the left) getting fed up with Israeli occupation policy? Which is conveniently sort of happening a little bit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
ariel says it's beneath his dignity to even comment on whether he really supported georgie's dumbass war
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:You clearly did not read the quote from Colin Powell's aide, and the Forward story doesn't support your reading either. I urge everyone to read those directly. Netanyahu was willing to cross Obama though on the Iran deal though. I refer to his Congressional speech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:This isn't an argument about Zionism though, because that ideology would want Ethiopian Jews to have as many children as possible. It wouldn't, because white supremacy is central to modern Zionism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:You clearly did not read the quote from Colin Powell's aide, and the Forward story doesn't support your reading either. I urge everyone to read those directly. Is this going to be another case of you insisting imaginary writings are real? Feel free to quote any point of the Forward article you think supports your claim. You won't be able to because it doesn't and if you think otherwise I can only imagine you googled a few relevant words, took one look at the headline of the article and then didn't bother to read the text. The article is entitled "Sharon Warned Bush". So what did he warn him against, going to war? No, specifically the occupation. The article cites Sharon as stating that Iraq is a threat and armed with WMDs but advises Bush to avoid an occupation. He does not warn him against going to war, this is not at any point mentioned in the article but instead is advising him "not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy". According to your article he offered strategic advise on the best way to go to war with Iraq and did not argue against it. The commondreams.org link you can be ignored as we know from the other provided sources that it doesn't match reality quote:You are completely incoherent. Israel is a US client state, and the loudest deniers of this are the Valerie Plame types who don't want to face the truth of American's colonialism and imperialism, instead arguing for the insanity that we could somehow be tricked and misled into war by a fifth column. It must never, ever be that we're actually in the wrong. Israel being unwilling to cross America publicly in fact completely refutes your argument. I can only assume you live in bizarro world where Obama and Netanyahu haven't clashed for the last 8 years, where Israel doesn't regularly prioritise it's own national concerns over the USA's, where Israel hasn't been criticised for spying on the USA or selling it's military technology to China, where Israel won't agree to basic conditions the USA asks for like "stop building settlements", etc. You also haven't actually added in the logic that makes your argument relevant. As mentioned in my last post, if you actually believe Israel is completely subservient to the USA then that would mean they would have supported the USA's desire to go to war with Iraq. If you want to get a look at incoherent, look to your own posts. "1. The nature of the US/Israel relationship is one of complete subservience by the latter to the former. This norm was damaged by Netanyahu's idiocy, but returned this year when Netanyahu wouldn't even condemn Trump's embrace of neo-Nazis. Israel is not in a position to criticize the US. 2. Think of the practical consequences. The security establishment aren't run by religious Zionists or neoconservatives. They're run by sober realists who want to withdraw from most settlements, support the Iran nuclear deal, and take similar steps to ensure Israel's long term survival and stability. What's the benefit in removing Saddam? As we saw, his removal was an utter disaster for Israel that caused it demonstrable harm." One moment you say Israel is completely subservient to the USA, then the very next you talk about how it's patently obvious that Israel is going to follow it's own independent agenda based on it's needs. These are two completely contradictory positions and you move between them without a moment's thought. That's of course not even mentioning that the article you have now twice cited specifically congratulates Israel for not being completely subservient to the USA: "when Israel takes its distance from American policies, this at least reflects a capacity on the part of the Israeli national security leadership to independently assess and act upon the country’s vital strategic interests" quote:The only way to actually refute those articles would be if there were credible sources who claimed that Ariel Sharon was an ardent supporter of the war. When people say Israel supported the war, they are being lazy and conflating Israel with Netanyahu/PNAC, which is bullshit. You've already been provided with a articles citing Sharon and Peres supporting the war. You just ignored them and carried on peddling bullshit. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
ariel didn't want tel aviv to be hit with a chemical weapon, so he told bush to do what he must but don't gently caress it up. unfortunately bush did gently caress it up, deliberately, because he never cared about chemical weapons, he cared about oil. ariel and bush may have been on the same side regarding iraq, but their reasons for wanting to take saddam out were very different - ariel's priority always was and remains the safety of the jewish people, to whom saddam was a viable threat. even so, at the time he urged bush to concentrate on iran rather than iraq, because iran is also a viable threat to israel; and iran's threat to israel has grown exponentially, both because now they have a no man's land in syria to do whatever they want, and because israel without ariel grew monstrous and full of hubris, a cancer on the region that will inevitably be excised because they turned their backs on g-d and out of fear gave their crown to wicked murderous men remember, ariel was a military genius. he was a very, very smart man. he knew exactly how badly an american occupation of iraq would gently caress up the middle east, and he didn't want to gently caress up the middle east and would have done everything in his power to prevent it from happening while still maintaining israel's relationship with america (without which israel literally cannot survive). but saddam gassed the kurds and in time he would have gassed the jews, and there would be no more jews gassed on ariel's watch. the old ceremony fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
one day i will die and then we can finally be together
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
toc, I'd say you're blowing your cover, but at this point your cover is well on its way to Great Britain
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
it'd be pretty funny if there were two of us though sharon mania sweeps the nation
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
heivenu sharon, sharon, sharon aleychem
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Netanyahu didn't condemn Trump's embrace of neo-Nazis for the same reason American Orthodox Jewish support for Trump has actually increased since he took office. They are willing to look the other way as long as Trump makes the right noises about Israel. http://religionnews.com/2017/09/13/most-us-jews-oppose-trump-but-the-orthodox-stick-with-him/
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Netanyahu was willing to cross Obama though on the Iran deal though. I refer to his Congressional speech. Netanyahu is an idiot who endangered/endangers Israel security in many ways, I conceded that point. He violated longstanding norms. Your Parents posted:It wouldn't, because white supremacy is central to modern Zionism. Your statement is so profoundly idiotic in many ways. Such as the Mizrahi majority of Israeli Jewry, the fact that white supremacists despise Jews/Israel and think Zionists control world government, the fact that Zionist Jews were and remain at the forefront of civil rights movements and fights against racism. Zionism has nothing to do with race; it's a nationalist movement. Jews and Arabs are extremely close genetically both per scientific evidence, and according to Zionist ideology. team overhead smash posted:Is this going to be another case of you insisting imaginary writings are real? Looks like another case where you handwave away credible sources, completely lie about their content, and argue with a strawman. Sharon publicly fellating Bush has zero pertinence to his actual position given the unfeasibility of actually going against Israel's patron and benefactor. The fact that removing Saddam was completely contrary to Israel's interests is directly relevant to the case. If Israel had any degree of independence, it would have tried to sabotage the war effort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
White supremacists actively use Israel as a positive example all the time, with poo poo like the wall or as an example of a country "For the Volk, by the Volk" as Richard Spencer kinda put it. Mobileposting, but basically they see them as bad people doing "good" things, rather than the reality of it being the other way around
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:the fact that Zionist Jews were and remain at the forefront of civil rights movements and fights against racism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Sharon publicly fellating Bush has zero pertinence to his actual position given the unfeasibility of actually going against Israel's patron and benefactor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:the fact that Zionist Jews were and remain at the forefront of civil rights movements and fights against racism. Palestinians can tell you all about how much they get to enjoy their civil rights and about the lack of racism in Zionist society. Kim Jong Il posted:Zionism has nothing to do with race; it's a nationalist movement. A nationalist movement for a nation that defines itself by its bloodlines is a racist movement. Zionism is an ethno-religious supremacist ideology; that has everything to do with race. Kim Jong Il posted:Jews and Arabs are extremely close genetically both per scientific evidence, and according to Zionist ideology. No, Zionist ideology is that Arabs must be evicted from the Promised Land by any means available, and also that they are vipers rather than human beings. Specifically, Zionism is the ideology that a particular ethnicity is entitled, based on religious beliefs, to take over a given land and expel its inhabitants of other ethnicities. It is a justification of colonial conquest with about as much merit as "manifest destiny" or "white man's burden". It is not, never has been, never will be, and cannot conceivably be, progressive in any way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Looks like another case where you handwave away credible sources, completely lie about their content, and argue with a strawman. Sharon publicly fellating Bush has zero pertinence to his actual position given the unfeasibility of actually going against Israel's patron and benefactor. The fact that removing Saddam was completely contrary to Israel's interests is directly relevant to the case. If Israel had any degree of independence, it would have tried to sabotage the war effort. If you're going to carry on the argument, carry on the argument. Don't just poo poo and run by hurling some unsubstantiated accusations. As always when challenged on your lovely ridiculous claims, you've revert to whining and throwing complaints. I substantiated my argument, walking through the reasoning and providing relevant quotes as evidence. You disagree with what I've said? Then form an argument rather than this childish "No, you are wrong and awful because I say so" bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
quote:Such as the Mizrahi majority of Israeli Jewry, Who were heavily discriminated against on their arrival, with the Zionist movement generally seeing them as half-savage because they spoke Arabic, had darker skin and maintained Middle-Eastern and not European customs. quote:the fact that white supremacists despise Jews/Israel and think Zionists control world government Actually, Zionism and antisemitism have a long history of collaboration. Zionists wanted to move the Jews out of Europe and the Americas and into Palestine; antisemites wanted to remove Jews from their societies and so there was a convergence just like you saw between back-to-Africa black nationalists and white supremacists. More pertinent to the modern day, though, your statement is not really true. Yes, there is an old guard of neo-Nazis and Klansmen who hate Israel, but the majority of white supremacists support it. Partially because they might want Jews out of their communities and across the Ocean. But most importantly because supporting Israel is a socially-acceptable way of advocating anti-Arab and Islamophobic bigotry: apartheid Israel is a model for their kind of society. There's a reason why Richard Spencer refers to his vision of a white supremacist America as "white Zionism." Different legal statuses based on race/religion, state-sponsored housing and education segregation, outright contempt for refugees(at least of the non-Jewish variety who are referred to as "infiltrators"), an immigration policy that openly discriminates and excludes based on race/religion, a highly militarized and jingoistic society in which dissent is less and less tolerated, an atmosphere in which civil rights are readily sacrificed in the name of national security and the maintenance of one race's domination over another. It doesn't take a genius to realize this is also a white supremacist's dream as well. That's why every major white supremacist of note, from Spencer to Farage to Le Pen, is also a vocal supporter of Israel; they want to do to non-whites in their country what Israel did/does to non-Jews. quote:the fact that Zionist Jews were and remain at the forefront of civil rights movements and fights against racism. And many Zionists are also at the forefront of the Alt Right. And while there is a long history of Jewish civil rights activism, many of those activists were not Zionist. Jewish radicalism and Zionism were traditional enemies, especially before '67. quote:Zionism has nothing to do with race; it's a nationalist movement What? Zionism is the belief that the land of Palestine belongs to one racial/religious group and that only they have a right to full citizenship and civil participation in the state. It's inextricable from racial discrimination. quote:Jews and Arabs are extremely close genetically both per scientific evidence, and according to Zionist ideology Race is a social construct, not a genetic one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
I'm still not sure why the Ashkenazi welcomed the Mizrahi and Sephardim to come to Israel. My guess is they needed their manpower for their military and economy, but maybe they knew that they would be heavily prosecuted in their own countries after Israel was formed and felt bad for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
qkkl posted:I'm still not sure why the Ashkenazi welcomed the Mizrahi and Sephardim to come to Israel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:White supremacists actively use Israel as a positive example all the time, with poo poo like the wall or as an example of a country "For the Volk, by the Volk" as Richard Spencer kinda put it. That's far outweighed by the stormfront types screaming about ZOG 24/7. Xander77 posted:Ah? Do tell about the noble Israeli Zionist involvement in progressive battles? Where'd I say Israeli? team overhead smash posted:If you're going to carry on the argument, carry on the argument. Don't just poo poo and run by hurling some unsubstantiated accusations. Jesus gently caress, pot meet kettle. I laid out an argument about the actual cost/benefits of war to Israel and their inability to go against their patrons that you utterly refused to engage in any capacity, and then you proceeded to talk at a wall arguing about points I never made. Blathering on about public statements has nothing to do with their actual thoughts or actions that were being debated. Wilkerson, who had as good of a vantage point at anyone at State, backs up the Israeli sources on this, which you handwave away with zero justification in fact. You haven't
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Who were heavily discriminated against on their arrival, with the Zionist movement generally seeing them as half-savage because they spoke Arabic, had darker skin and maintained Middle-Eastern and not European customs. And now it's completely reversed after decades, with widespread marriage between the groups, and Tel Aviv Ashkenazim funding Peace Now and NIF while Mizrahim vote in lockstep for war and militarism. The Mizrahim, after being ethnically cleansed by pan-Arabists, voted and they voted overwhelmingly and enthusiastically for Zionism. quote:Actually, Zionism and antisemitism have a long history of collaboration. Zionists wanted to move the Jews out of Europe and the Americas and into Palestine; antisemites wanted to remove Jews from their societies and so there was a convergence just like you saw between back-to-Africa black nationalists and white supremacists. This has nothing to do with the point being made. Richard Spencer concern trolling that he's just like a Zionist doesn't change that the overwhelming majority of white supremacists despise Israel. The discrimination that does exist in Israel proper is largely a result of pandering to anti-Zionist haredim and should be immediately eliminated, and while unacceptable in any capacity, is par for the course for the rest of the west. You're ignoring David Duke, Don Black, Andrew Anglin, Jean-Marie Le Pen - you're giving heed to the telegenic, media-savvy racists, and ignoring the ugly ones who make no bones about their anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. quote:And while there is a long history of Jewish civil rights activism, many of those activists were not Zionist. Jewish radicalism and Zionism were traditional enemies, especially before '67. There's a minuscule minority of Jewish civil rights advocates who oppose Zionism, and an overwhelming majority who do not. The same for mainstream American Jewish society which sees zero contradiction between Zionism and anti-racism (because there is none; explicit, exclusive opposition to Jewish self-determination is distilled, pure racism.) In fact, Jewish opposition to Zionism pre-1967 wasn't really a radical movement, it was from Americanized German Jewish immigrants who weren't that fond of Eastern European Jews to start off with, and mainly wanted to assimilate. quote:What? Zionism is the belief that the land of Palestine belongs to one racial/religious group and that only they have a right to full citizenship and civil participation in the state. It's inextricable from racial discrimination. This is a blatant, ugly lie. Zionism does not make exclusive claims about anything. Strains of expansionist Zionism make claims on Palestinian territory, but most do not. If they're representative, then Hamas vowing to commit genocide every day is representative. The majority of Zionist Jews, in Israel or the US, support a two state solution. They want a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state in the Palestinian territories. Opposition to Zionism is the belief that Jews, unique and exclusively among all peoples, must be denied their right to national self-determination. If you actually oppose Zionism, and not some cartoon strawman, that's what you support. quote:Race is a social construct, not a genetic one. Modern white supremacism is grounded in racial pseudo-science. Zionists make no racial claims on anything. Cat Mattress posted:No, Zionist ideology is that Arabs must be evicted from the Promised Land by any means available, and also that they are vipers rather than human beings. Oh really, I must have missed that in Herzl's memoirs. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Jesus gently caress, pot meet kettle. I laid out an argument about the actual cost/benefits of war to Israel and their inability to go against their patrons that you utterly refused to engage in any capacity, and then you proceeded to talk at a wall arguing about points I never made. Blathering on about public statements has nothing to do with their actual thoughts or actions that were being debated. Wilkerson, who had as good of a vantage point at anyone at State, backs up the Israeli sources on this, which you handwave away with zero justification in fact. You haven't Maybe instead of just patting yourself on the back and saying how great you arguments are and how awful any criticism is you can actually respond to said criticism. The idea that I have "refused to engage" is loving ridiculous o I'm just going to requote my previous post that you've refused to respond to below. RE Wilkerson, the quote of his statements isn't really relevant. Him: "Wilkerson describes the Israeli message to the Bush administration in early 2002 as being, "If you are going to destabilise the balance of power, do it against the main enemy." Me: "Basically in early 2002 Israel had no real issues with war with Iraq but wanted the focus on Iran if they could arrange it. Later in the year they were giving it full-throated support to war with iraq e.g. "Sharon urges America to bring down Saddam". Later on in 2002 and by early 2003 they were still fully behind war with Iraq but toned down the public rhetoric because there were people increasingly identifying Israel as a key impetus behind the war and Israel didn't want that association." I didn't dispute it because it agrees with the argument I've laid out. In early 2002 Israel wanted to focus on Iran. That changed later into 2002 which there isn't anything in Wilkerson's quote to dispute. So back to the argument you've ignored and not responded to beyond general moaning: Kim Jong Il posted:You clearly did not read the quote from Colin Powell's aide, and the Forward story doesn't support your reading either. I urge everyone to read those directly. Is this going to be another case of you insisting imaginary writings are real? Feel free to quote any point of the Forward article you think supports your claim. You won't be able to because it doesn't and if you think otherwise I can only imagine you googled a few relevant words, took one look at the headline of the article and then didn't bother to read the text. The article is entitled "Sharon Warned Bush". So what did he warn him against, going to war? No, specifically the occupation. The article cites Sharon as stating that Iraq is a threat and armed with WMDs but advises Bush to avoid an occupation. He does not warn him against going to war, this is not at any point mentioned in the article but instead is advising him "not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy". According to your article he offered strategic advise on the best way to go to war with Iraq and did not argue against it. The commondreams.org link you can be ignored as we know from the other provided sources that it doesn't match reality quote:You are completely incoherent. Israel is a US client state, and the loudest deniers of this are the Valerie Plame types who don't want to face the truth of American's colonialism and imperialism, instead arguing for the insanity that we could somehow be tricked and misled into war by a fifth column. It must never, ever be that we're actually in the wrong. Israel being unwilling to cross America publicly in fact completely refutes your argument. I can only assume you live in bizarro world where Obama and Netanyahu haven't clashed for the last 8 years, where Israel doesn't regularly prioritise it's own national concerns over the USA's, where Israel hasn't been criticised for spying on the USA or selling it's military technology to China, where Israel won't agree to basic conditions the USA asks for like "stop building settlements", etc. You also haven't actually added in the logic that makes your argument relevant. As mentioned in my last post, if you actually believe Israel is completely subservient to the USA then that would mean they would have supported the USA's desire to go to war with Iraq. If you want to get a look at incoherent, look to your own posts. "1. The nature of the US/Israel relationship is one of complete subservience by the latter to the former. This norm was damaged by Netanyahu's idiocy, but returned this year when Netanyahu wouldn't even condemn Trump's embrace of neo-Nazis. Israel is not in a position to criticize the US. 2. Think of the practical consequences. The security establishment aren't run by religious Zionists or neoconservatives. They're run by sober realists who want to withdraw from most settlements, support the Iran nuclear deal, and take similar steps to ensure Israel's long term survival and stability. What's the benefit in removing Saddam? As we saw, his removal was an utter disaster for Israel that caused it demonstrable harm." One moment you say Israel is completely subservient to the USA, then the very next you talk about how it's patently obvious that Israel is going to follow it's own independent agenda based on it's needs. These are two completely contradictory positions and you move between them without a moment's thought. That's of course not even mentioning that the article you have now twice cited specifically congratulates Israel for not being completely subservient to the USA: "when Israel takes its distance from American policies, this at least reflects a capacity on the part of the Israeli national security leadership to independently assess and act upon the country’s vital strategic interests" quote:The only way to actually refute those articles would be if there were credible sources who claimed that Ariel Sharon was an ardent supporter of the war. When people say Israel supported the war, they are being lazy and conflating Israel with Netanyahu/PNAC, which is bullshit. You've already been provided with a articles citing Sharon and Peres supporting the war. You just ignored them and carried on peddling bullshit. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Opposition to Zionism is the belief that Jews, unique and exclusively among all peoples, must be denied their right to national self-determination. If you actually oppose Zionism, and not some cartoon strawman, that's what you support. There are lot of other people who are persecuted and denied their right to national self-determination. The Roms, the Kurds, the Tibetans, the natives of Australia and the Americas, and so many more. The thing is that none of them are claiming that their national self-determination must pass through the destruction of the national self-determination of another people, like in some game of musical chair. Kim Jong Il posted:This is a blatant, ugly lie. Zionism does not make exclusive claims about anything. Strains of expansionist Zionism make claims on Palestinian territory, but most do not. And yet every month new Israeli settlements are built in Palestinian territories, while Palestinians see their houses and orchards torn down by bulldozers. Actions speak louder than words. And Zionism does make claims about a specific territory, considered to be the "historical Israel", with the goal of establishing Jewish sovereignty on it. Problem is, this territory was not empty (the bride was already married) and so establishing sovereignty of a specific population on a territory with another population on it requires either expelling or disenfranchising that other population. There's no two way about it. Zionism is at its core about the expropriation of Palestinians because it is the necessary condition to build Israel on the ashes of Palestine. Any claim otherwise is sophistry and hypocrisy. Kim Jong Il posted:If they're representative, then Hamas vowing to commit genocide every day is representative. Representative of what, by the way? Because you're comparing apples and pandas here. Zionism is an ideology; Hamas is an organization. Kim Jong Il posted:The majority of Zionist Jews, in Israel or the US, support a two state solution. They want a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state in the Palestinian territories. No, they don't want a Palestinian state in Palestinian territories; they want Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. You refuse to look at the facts on the ground, trying to make it some abstract intellectual debate about what so-or-so said instead of what actually happened; what people actually did, and are still doing to this day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Zionists want Israel to extend from the river to the sea, with only Israel in it, and they will never stop unless they're made to stop. They're enacting literal genocide on the current inhabitants because they don't want to share.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
ariel hates you all. he says you're a swarm of idiot americans and none of you have ever killed a man, you've never calved a cow, you couldn't even dig a hole without injuring yourselves, and you come on an internet forum and talk like you understand the middle east and the art of war when all that any of you really understand is how to flip a burger and that's all that you're good for, you morons, you blithering pack of putzes, you can all go to hell
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
what do any of you even know? nothing! suburban rich kids! you were born in the back of a chevrolet and grew up with aircon and cartoons and ice cream whenever you wanted it, your mothers never had to sleep with a rifle in case the arabs came to kill the family in the night, you went to college and studied some bullshit, you with your nintendos, your sugar cereals, your kentucky fried, your freezing malls, your shops that sell only lycra, what do any of you know? americans! he hates americans! he always hated americans! it is enough to make him spit on his own grave!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
oy
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:what do any of you even know? nothing! suburban rich kids! you were born in the back of a chevrolet and grew up with aircon and cartoons and ice cream whenever you wanted it, your mothers never had to sleep with a rifle in case the arabs came to kill the family in the night, you went to college and studied some bullshit, you with your nintendos, your sugar cereals, your kentucky fried, your freezing malls, your shops that sell only lycra, what do any of you know? americans! he hates americans! he always hated americans! it is enough to make him spit on his own grave! Tell us about the Gaza Greenhouses. (it's a good example of how the story on the surface differs from the reality). I'm old, by the way, so I didn't have AC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
It's entirely true that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want a two state solution. But then break down the terms they want and you'll find that Israelis really want the Palestinians to take the whole burden of compromise to achieve it. The devil is in the details.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Tell us about the Gaza Greenhouses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:There are lot of other people who are persecuted and denied their right to national self-determination. The Roms, the Kurds, the Tibetans, the natives of Australia and the Americas, and so many more. This is not the claim of Zionism. quote:And yet every month new Israeli settlements are built in Palestinian territories, while Palestinians see their houses and orchards torn down by bulldozers. Actions speak louder than words. This is the logic used to blow up Gaza after one terrorist attack. quote:And Zionism does make claims about a specific territory, considered to be the "historical Israel", with the goal of establishing Jewish sovereignty on it. Problem is, this territory was not empty (the bride was already married) and so establishing sovereignty of a specific population on a territory with another population on it requires either expelling or disenfranchising that other population. There's no two way about it. Zionism is at its core about the expropriation of Palestinians because it is the necessary condition to build Israel on the ashes of Palestine. Any claim otherwise is sophistry and hypocrisy. I didn't say Zionism didn't make claims, I said they didn't make exclusive claims. It's not a zero sum game. There was plenty of room for everyone, and it's a tragedy that reactionary shitheads made that impossible. Zionism is about restoring the historical Jewish homeland in Israel, and nothing about that necessitates an exclusive claim to anything, which is why the majority of Zionists support a two state solution. Failures of the Israeli political system where minority coalition partners can extract massive concessions in the Knesset does not change this. "Palestine" is the West Bank and Gaza. Any revanchist claims beyond that are tantamount to demanding ethnic cleansing. starkebn posted:Zionists want Israel to extend from the river to the sea, with only Israel in it, and they will never stop unless they're made to stop. They're enacting literal genocide on the current inhabitants because they don't want to share. The only people talking about the river to the sea were the Democratic Socialists of America conference attendees who were shouting their pro-ethnic cleansing anthem. There's nothing to suggest that Israel has any intention of genocide. You could argue that they want to commit ethnic cleansing, although that largely isn't true, at least not any more than Palestinians want to commit ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The only people talking about the river to the sea were the Democratic Socialists of America conference attendees who were shouting their pro-ethnic cleansing anthem. There's nothing to suggest that Israel has any intention of genocide. You could argue that they want to commit ethnic cleansing, although that largely isn't true, at least not any more than Palestinians want to commit ethnic cleansing. somebody please inform Likud that their founding document does not exist, it will make them extremely confused
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
https://imgur.com/gallery/L86hXg4 Israel is and always has been an apartheid state. Zionism has many strains, and the strain that is practiced in Israel is the Jewish Supremacist one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:08 |
|
|
Israel realized it needed to control the West Bank so it could act as a buffer zone against potential future invasions. Modern Zionism thus is incompatible with a two state solution where Israel loses part or all of the West Bank. There could still be a two state solution with Gaza as the Palestinian state though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 03:37
|
|