Ah, the irony of defending a Jewish state by suggesting that Muslims will have to change their religion before they can be accepted as proper non-threatening people.bearnation93 said:
Only when these countries either reform their strains of Islam and start living in the 21st Century, or throw off Islam completely (as in convert to Christianity like past Roman emperors and kingdoms in Europe in the centuries following the Crucifixion of Christ) will they ever stop being a threat to Israel and will they ever become shining cities on a hill as Israel is today.
Did Trump Use His Influence With Israel To Bar Two Congresspersons From Visit?
15,300 Views |
145 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Anarchistbear
sycasey said:That doesn't necessarily disprove that idea that the Palestinians are an oppressed minority. There were black people serving in Congress at the same time Jim Crow laws existed in the South.bearnation93 said:
Contrary to the propaganda that you've been fed, Israel is a democracy...a real democracy with popularly elected Arabs serving in the Knesset.The UN and Red Cross would disagree.bearnation93 said:
And there is no occupied territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories
Very misleading post and with factually deficient information.
After the Civil War there were a number of Blacks who were elected to Congress (and a couple to the Senate although back then they were elected by State Legislatures which thankfully Republicans controlled during Reconstruction).
However, after Reconstruction ended in 1877, only 5 blacks -- all from either North Carolina, South Carolina or Virginia -- were elected to Congress during a small 10-year window from 1888 to 1898 (2 years after SCOTUS ruled "separate but equal" was the law of the land) until the full weight of the Democrat Party's Jim Crow Law regime set in to make it impossible for Blacks to get elected to Congress. There wouldn't be another Black from a former Confederate State elected to Congress until 1972. There were two Blacks elected to Congress before World War II but they were from northern states without Democrat Party Jim Crow Laws.
Since 1929 there have been a total of 127 Blacks elected to Congress. Currently, there are 52 elected Blacks serving in Congress. Compare that to Israel which currently has 12 elected Arab members serving in the Knesset and since 1949 has had a total of 88 Arab members elected to the Knesset. Of course, Israel's population is only 9 million people while the United States population is 329 million so I would say that Arabs have a healthy participation in the political process in Israel.
Moreover, you cherry-picked my comments and left out that I noted that the individual rights of Arabs have been jealously guarded the same as those for Jewish citizens. Arabs in Judea and Samaria, under Palestinian Authority control or in Gaza under Hamas control, have fewer rights and protections of their rights in those areas than Arabs who live in Israel. To be very frank, and it's sad to say, but Arabs/Muslims living in Israel have more rights and better protections for their rights, and live freer and more prosperous lives than Arabs/Muslims living in any other Arab/Muslim-majority country anywhere in the World. And think for a moment how at anytime from Israel's creation in 1948 until today, particularly after each time Israel was attacked by its Arab/Muslim neighbors, that Israel could have ordered all non-Jews, particularly Arabs/Muslims to be removed from the country, or harrassed and persecuted them enough to make them want to leave -- as so many other Nations throughout ancient and recent history have done with religious, racial and ethnic minorities -- but yet, Israel has never done this! And I would further observe that in 1967, when Israel defeated Jordan and re-took East Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple Mount/Al-Aqusa Mosque, they easily could have destroyed and torn down the Mosque but ultimately decided not to. I still hope they do someday as they have the perfect right to do so since it was Jewish holy site long before it was a Muslim holy site. In fact, the Muslims tore down a Christian church on the site (after it was Jewish Second Temple on the site was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD) in order to build their current Mosque.
Last, you mention that the UN and [International] Red Cross say that Israel is an occupier. I would say this: screw these anti-Semite organizations and what they think, particularly the UN whose membership is littered with anti-Semitic countries. Who cares what they say or think!
Feels weird to agree with bearnation93, but it certainly seems like there is this sentiment out there that if Israel were to change the way they deal with Palestinians that all of Israel's regional problems would suddenly disappear. For whatever reason people tend to forget the historical context, the presence of terrorist organizations (which historically have not necessarily been rooted in the Palestinian population) and the fact that a number of countries in the Middle East would like nothing more than the destruction of Israel.
This isn't meant to minimize the damage that Israel has inflicted (and continues to inflict) on the Palestinian population, but it's far from one-sided.
This isn't meant to minimize the damage that Israel has inflicted (and continues to inflict) on the Palestinian population, but it's far from one-sided.
sycasey said:Ah, the irony of defending a Jewish state by suggesting that Muslims will have to change their religion before they can be accepted as proper non-threatening people.bearnation93 said:
Only when these countries either reform their strains of Islam and start living in the 21st Century, or throw off Islam completely (as in convert to Christianity like past Roman emperors and kingdoms in Europe in the centuries following the Crucifixion of Christ) will they ever stop being a threat to Israel and will they ever become shining cities on a hill as Israel is today.
Yes, similar to the Reformation and similar to the Roman pagans who embraced Christianity. There are alot of good Muslims but they are part of a still far too tiny/far too inconsequential Muslim minority who have actually reformed their Muslim faith ... think of someone like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.
For the past four or five hundred years, Islam has been on a steady decline and it generally has sucked over the last 150 years and continues to exist in an 8th or 9th Century mindset. How is it that Islam was once supposedly so great and dominant in culture and yet, in the early to mid-20th Century, Muslim-majority countries with vast oil resources were completely feckless in being able to get this oil out of the ground without the expertise of Western/Christian nations? Without oil, think of how bad off the entire Muslim-majority nations would be? They would be like Oman was before Sultan Qaboos overthrew his father in 1970. If you want to educate yourself on this it would be very good reading for you but sadly you've probably never even heard of Oman or the Sultan.
I certainly don't think that.Unit2Sucks said:
Feels weird to agree with bearnation93, but it certainly seems like there is this sentiment out there that if Israel were to change the way they deal with Palestinians that all of Israel's regional problems would suddenly disappear.
UrsaMajor said:That's a specious argument. Judea and Samaria were Canaanite well before they were Jewish. The United States was Native American (or First Nation) well before the white man came. Does that mean you have no rights here?bearnation93 said:Another Bear said:
I was listening to KPFA today while in the car and they got into Reps. Talib and Omar and the ban...and I broke out laughing because one guest said Israel is an ethno-religious apartheid state, and not a democracy. I had to agree..but other countries in the region are the same, like Saudi Arabia...just no Palestine and occupied territory.
Contrary to the propaganda that you've been fed, Israel is a democracy...a real democracy with popularly elected Arabs serving in the Knesset. And Arabs have the same rights as Jews and those rights are just as jealously protected for them as for Jews. In fact, if you talk privately to many Arabs in Israel they would much prefer a Jewish government to an undemocratic, corrupt, tyrannical Arab government like the Palestinian Authority or other regional Arab governments.
Of course, I'm sure Jews living under Saudi and Palestinian and Lebanese/Hezbollah governing authorities would have thses same freedoms as Arabs in Israel...NOT!!!
And there is no occupied territory...Judea and Samaria have been Jewish lands way before any Arabs ever arrived on the scene. Have to know your history.
That's silly ... then let the Canaanites have the land!
Oh wait, there are no more Canaanites (an ethnicly Semitic group like the Israelis)! Guess that means the Israelis will have to do!
The Idiot in Chief decided that Jews that vote for Democratic candidates are either disloyal of or lack the requisite knowledge. Can this child ever pull his head out of his ass long enough to understand that the suggestion of divided loyalties is insulting to Americans who practice the Jewish faith.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-suggests-dems-jewish-voters-lack-knowledge-or-show-great-disloyalty-amid-omar-tlaib-feud/ar-AAG4UgG?li=BBnbcA1
Saying that there are no occupied territories is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png#/media/File:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-suggests-dems-jewish-voters-lack-knowledge-or-show-great-disloyalty-amid-omar-tlaib-feud/ar-AAG4UgG?li=BBnbcA1
Saying that there are no occupied territories is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png#/media/File:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png
In Trump's world, non-Trump only exist to benefit Trump. So of course he doesn't consider anything he says in any other context. He figured this was a great opportunity to re-brand the democrats as the party of Omar/Tlaib (which isn't even remotely true) and to see if he can con any Jewish people to support an objectively horrible and anti-Semitic president rather than support anyone else. The fact that Trump managed to convey it in an offensive manner is just the pice de rsistance for an addled dotard.
Careful, according to bearnation93 this statement might make you anti-semitic like the UN and Red Cross.BearNIt said:
Saying that there are no occupied territories is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png#/media/File:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png
Palestinians call it the occupied territory, Israelis call it a settlement.
It's very much like Trump to accuse someone else of being antisemitic while also going out of his way to insult American Jews.Unit2Sucks said:
In Trump's world, non-Trump only exist to benefit Trump. So of course he doesn't consider anything he says in any other context. He figured this was a great opportunity to re-brand the democrats as the party of Omar/Tlaib (which isn't even remotely true) and to see if he can con any Jewish people to support an objectively horrible and anti-Semitic president rather than support anyone else. The fact that Trump managed to convey it in an offensive manner is just the pice de rsistance for an addled dotard.
When you say things like this: "Last, you mention that the UN and [International] Red Cross say that Israel is an occupier. I would say this: screw these anti-Semite organizations and what they think, particularly the UN whose membership is littered with anti-Semitic countries. Who cares what they say or think!"bearnation93 said:sycasey said:That doesn't necessarily disprove that idea that the Palestinians are an oppressed minority. There were black people serving in Congress at the same time Jim Crow laws existed in the South.bearnation93 said:
Contrary to the propaganda that you've been fed, Israel is a democracy...a real democracy with popularly elected Arabs serving in the Knesset.The UN and Red Cross would disagree.bearnation93 said:
And there is no occupied territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories
Very misleading post and with factually deficient information.
After the Civil War there were a number of Blacks who were elected to Congress (and a couple to the Senate although back then they were elected by State Legislatures which thankfully Republicans controlled during Reconstruction).
However, after Reconstruction ended in 1877, only 5 blacks -- all from either North Carolina, South Carolina or Virginia -- were elected to Congress during a small 10-year window from 1888 to 1898 (2 years after SCOTUS ruled "separate but equal" was the law of the land) until the full weight of the Democrat Party's Jim Crow Law regime set in to make it impossible for Blacks to get elected to Congress. There wouldn't be another Black from a former Confederate State elected to Congress until 1972. There were two Blacks elected to Congress before World War II but they were from northern states without Democrat Party Jim Crow Laws.
Since 1929 there have been a total of 127 Blacks elected to Congress. Currently, there are 52 elected Blacks serving in Congress. Compare that to Israel which currently has 12 elected Arab members serving in the Knesset and since 1949 has had a total of 88 Arab members elected to the Knesset. Of course, Israel's population is only 9 million people while the United States population is 329 million so I would say that Arabs have a healthy participation in the political process in Israel.
Moreover, you cherry-picked my comments and left out that I noted that the individual rights of Arabs have been jealously guarded the same as those for Jewish citizens. Arabs in Judea and Samaria, under Palestinian Authority control or in Gaza under Hamas control, have fewer rights and protections of their rights in those areas than Arabs who live in Israel. To be very frank, and it's sad to say, but Arabs/Muslims living in Israel have more rights and better protections for their rights, and live freer and more prosperous lives than Arabs/Muslims living in any other Arab/Muslim-majority country anywhere in the World. And think for a moment how at anytime from Israel's creation in 1948 until today, particularly after each time Israel was attacked by its Arab/Muslim neighbors, that Israel could have ordered all non-Jews, particularly Arabs/Muslims to be removed from the country, or harrassed and persecuted them enough to make them want to leave -- as so many other Nations throughout ancient and recent history have done with religious, racial and ethnic minorities -- but yet, Israel has never done this! And I would further observe that in 1967, when Israel defeated Jordan and re-took East Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple Mount/Al-Aqusa Mosque, they easily could have destroyed and torn down the Mosque but ultimately decided not to. I still hope they do someday as they have the perfect right to do so since it was Jewish holy site long before it was a Muslim holy site. In fact, the Muslims tore down a Christian church on the site (after it was Jewish Second Temple on the site was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD) in order to build their current Mosque.
Last, you mention that the UN and [International] Red Cross say that Israel is an occupier. I would say this: screw these anti-Semite organizations and what they think, particularly the UN whose membership is littered with anti-Semitic countries. Who cares what they say or think!
You lose all credibility.
The world calls it an occupation.Another Bear said:
Palestinians call it the occupied territory, Israelis call it a settlement.
Some of the greatest institutions in the United States could be considered anti-Semitic or racist when their history is examined closely. U.S. policy regarding various people of color or admissions policies in the Ivy League weren't exactly without raging bias and racism sprinkled throughout, yet these institutions still persist much like the U.N..
bearister said:
If I do make it in the HOF on the 8th ballot, I will choose B.A. Bearacus as my Presenter and I envision it looking something like this:
calpoly said:When you say things like this: "Last, you mention that the UN and [International] Red Cross say that Israel is an occupier. I would say this: screw these anti-Semite organizations and what they think, particularly the UN whose membership is littered with anti-Semitic countries. Who cares what they say or think!"bearnation93 said:sycasey said:That doesn't necessarily disprove that idea that the Palestinians are an oppressed minority. There were black people serving in Congress at the same time Jim Crow laws existed in the South.bearnation93 said:
Contrary to the propaganda that you've been fed, Israel is a democracy...a real democracy with popularly elected Arabs serving in the Knesset.The UN and Red Cross would disagree.bearnation93 said:
And there is no occupied territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories
Very misleading post and with factually deficient information.
After the Civil War there were a number of Blacks who were elected to Congress (and a couple to the Senate although back then they were elected by State Legislatures which thankfully Republicans controlled during Reconstruction).
However, after Reconstruction ended in 1877, only 5 blacks -- all from either North Carolina, South Carolina or Virginia -- were elected to Congress during a small 10-year window from 1888 to 1898 (2 years after SCOTUS ruled "separate but equal" was the law of the land) until the full weight of the Democrat Party's Jim Crow Law regime set in to make it impossible for Blacks to get elected to Congress. There wouldn't be another Black from a former Confederate State elected to Congress until 1972. There were two Blacks elected to Congress before World War II but they were from northern states without Democrat Party Jim Crow Laws.
Since 1929 there have been a total of 127 Blacks elected to Congress. Currently, there are 52 elected Blacks serving in Congress. Compare that to Israel which currently has 12 elected Arab members serving in the Knesset and since 1949 has had a total of 88 Arab members elected to the Knesset. Of course, Israel's population is only 9 million people while the United States population is 329 million so I would say that Arabs have a healthy participation in the political process in Israel.
Moreover, you cherry-picked my comments and left out that I noted that the individual rights of Arabs have been jealously guarded the same as those for Jewish citizens. Arabs in Judea and Samaria, under Palestinian Authority control or in Gaza under Hamas control, have fewer rights and protections of their rights in those areas than Arabs who live in Israel. To be very frank, and it's sad to say, but Arabs/Muslims living in Israel have more rights and better protections for their rights, and live freer and more prosperous lives than Arabs/Muslims living in any other Arab/Muslim-majority country anywhere in the World. And think for a moment how at anytime from Israel's creation in 1948 until today, particularly after each time Israel was attacked by its Arab/Muslim neighbors, that Israel could have ordered all non-Jews, particularly Arabs/Muslims to be removed from the country, or harrassed and persecuted them enough to make them want to leave -- as so many other Nations throughout ancient and recent history have done with religious, racial and ethnic minorities -- but yet, Israel has never done this! And I would further observe that in 1967, when Israel defeated Jordan and re-took East Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple Mount/Al-Aqusa Mosque, they easily could have destroyed and torn down the Mosque but ultimately decided not to. I still hope they do someday as they have the perfect right to do so since it was Jewish holy site long before it was a Muslim holy site. In fact, the Muslims tore down a Christian church on the site (after it was Jewish Second Temple on the site was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD) in order to build their current Mosque.
Last, you mention that the UN and [International] Red Cross say that Israel is an occupier. I would say this: screw these anti-Semite organizations and what they think, particularly the UN whose membership is littered with anti-Semitic countries. Who cares what they say or think!
You lose all credibility.
Hahahaha...what idiotic statement! The UN is filled with tons of anti-Semitic nations and instead I'm the one -- not the UN -- that doesn't have any credibility?
Let me be very gentle and kind in how I say this: you're an idiot making that observation.
Sad.
BearNIt said:The world calls it an occupation.Another Bear said:
Palestinians call it the occupied territory, Israelis call it a settlement.
Some of the greatest institutions in the United States could be considered anti-Semitic or racist when their history is examined closely. U.S. policy regarding various people of color or admissions policies in the Ivy League weren't exactly without raging bias and racism sprinkled throughout, yet these institutions still persist much like the U.N..
The evil sad truth is that virtually every Muslim-majority country believes the land occupied by the State of Israel in its original borders is tantamount to an occupation and they want nothing less than Israel, in any form, to be wiped from the face of the map.
BearNIt said:
The Idiot in Chief decided that Jews that vote for Democratic candidates are either disloyal of or lack the requisite knowledge. Can this child ever pull his head out of his ass long enough to understand that the suggestion of divided loyalties is insulting to Americans who practice the Jewish faith.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-suggests-dems-jewish-voters-lack-knowledge-or-show-great-disloyalty-amid-omar-tlaib-feud/ar-AAG4UgG?li=BBnbcA1
Saying that there are no occupied territories is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png#/media/File:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png
What a stupid argument to point to a map on Wikipedia. But let's look close at that map.
First, the Golan Heights are now a part of Israel, as it should be. Syria attacked Israel and they lost and that's the way it goes when you start a war with another country that did nothing to you and you lose.
Second, the area of Judea and Samaria (aka "West Bank") was formerly part of Jordan. But like Syria, they started a war they got their ass beat in and they lost it ... as they deserved to. Most of this area should be a part of Israel proper as this was an original part of ancient Israel. Cities like Hebron (as in a derivative of the word Hebrew), Jericho and Bethlehem are Jewish cities and this should stay that way.
Third, until attacked by Egypt in 1967, this territory was governed by Egypt. It should go back to Egypt and Egypt should go in and annihilate the Islamo-Nazis (aka Hamas) who currently control the area.
So not sure what you mean by occupied unless you mean any part of Israel's borders would be deemed to be an occupation of land that does not rightfully belong to Israel. It's no more occupied than California or Texas is occupied by the United States, although it wouldn't be surprised if you probably believe that.
Let me be very clear: I don't give a rats ass about you opinion. Anyone that calls the red cross and the UN anti-Semitic is a putz.bearnation93 said:calpoly said:When you say things like this: "Last, you mention that the UN and [International] Red Cross say that Israel is an occupier. I would say this: screw these anti-Semite organizations and what they think, particularly the UN whose membership is littered with anti-Semitic countries. Who cares what they say or think!"bearnation93 said:sycasey said:That doesn't necessarily disprove that idea that the Palestinians are an oppressed minority. There were black people serving in Congress at the same time Jim Crow laws existed in the South.bearnation93 said:
Contrary to the propaganda that you've been fed, Israel is a democracy...a real democracy with popularly elected Arabs serving in the Knesset.The UN and Red Cross would disagree.bearnation93 said:
And there is no occupied territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories
Very misleading post and with factually deficient information.
After the Civil War there were a number of Blacks who were elected to Congress (and a couple to the Senate although back then they were elected by State Legislatures which thankfully Republicans controlled during Reconstruction).
However, after Reconstruction ended in 1877, only 5 blacks -- all from either North Carolina, South Carolina or Virginia -- were elected to Congress during a small 10-year window from 1888 to 1898 (2 years after SCOTUS ruled "separate but equal" was the law of the land) until the full weight of the Democrat Party's Jim Crow Law regime set in to make it impossible for Blacks to get elected to Congress. There wouldn't be another Black from a former Confederate State elected to Congress until 1972. There were two Blacks elected to Congress before World War II but they were from northern states without Democrat Party Jim Crow Laws.
Since 1929 there have been a total of 127 Blacks elected to Congress. Currently, there are 52 elected Blacks serving in Congress. Compare that to Israel which currently has 12 elected Arab members serving in the Knesset and since 1949 has had a total of 88 Arab members elected to the Knesset. Of course, Israel's population is only 9 million people while the United States population is 329 million so I would say that Arabs have a healthy participation in the political process in Israel.
Moreover, you cherry-picked my comments and left out that I noted that the individual rights of Arabs have been jealously guarded the same as those for Jewish citizens. Arabs in Judea and Samaria, under Palestinian Authority control or in Gaza under Hamas control, have fewer rights and protections of their rights in those areas than Arabs who live in Israel. To be very frank, and it's sad to say, but Arabs/Muslims living in Israel have more rights and better protections for their rights, and live freer and more prosperous lives than Arabs/Muslims living in any other Arab/Muslim-majority country anywhere in the World. And think for a moment how at anytime from Israel's creation in 1948 until today, particularly after each time Israel was attacked by its Arab/Muslim neighbors, that Israel could have ordered all non-Jews, particularly Arabs/Muslims to be removed from the country, or harrassed and persecuted them enough to make them want to leave -- as so many other Nations throughout ancient and recent history have done with religious, racial and ethnic minorities -- but yet, Israel has never done this! And I would further observe that in 1967, when Israel defeated Jordan and re-took East Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple Mount/Al-Aqusa Mosque, they easily could have destroyed and torn down the Mosque but ultimately decided not to. I still hope they do someday as they have the perfect right to do so since it was Jewish holy site long before it was a Muslim holy site. In fact, the Muslims tore down a Christian church on the site (after it was Jewish Second Temple on the site was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD) in order to build their current Mosque.
Last, you mention that the UN and [International] Red Cross say that Israel is an occupier. I would say this: screw these anti-Semite organizations and what they think, particularly the UN whose membership is littered with anti-Semitic countries. Who cares what they say or think!
You lose all credibility.
Hahahaha...what idiotic statement! The UN is filled with tons of anti-Semitic nations and instead I'm the one -- not the UN -- that doesn't have any credibility?
Let me be very gentle and kind in how I say this: you're an idiot making that observation.
Sad.
calpoly said:Let me very clear: I don't give a rats ass about you opinion. Anyone that calls the red cross and the UN anti-Semitic is a putz.bearnation93 said:calpoly said:When you say things like this: "Last, you mention that the UN and [International] Red Cross say that Israel is an occupier. I would say this: screw these anti-Semite organizations and what they think, particularly the UN whose membership is littered with anti-Semitic countries. Who cares what they say or think!"bearnation93 said:sycasey said:That doesn't necessarily disprove that idea that the Palestinians are an oppressed minority. There were black people serving in Congress at the same time Jim Crow laws existed in the South.bearnation93 said:
Contrary to the propaganda that you've been fed, Israel is a democracy...a real democracy with popularly elected Arabs serving in the Knesset.The UN and Red Cross would disagree.bearnation93 said:
And there is no occupied territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories
Very misleading post and with factually deficient information.
After the Civil War there were a number of Blacks who were elected to Congress (and a couple to the Senate although back then they were elected by State Legislatures which thankfully Republicans controlled during Reconstruction).
However, after Reconstruction ended in 1877, only 5 blacks -- all from either North Carolina, South Carolina or Virginia -- were elected to Congress during a small 10-year window from 1888 to 1898 (2 years after SCOTUS ruled "separate but equal" was the law of the land) until the full weight of the Democrat Party's Jim Crow Law regime set in to make it impossible for Blacks to get elected to Congress. There wouldn't be another Black from a former Confederate State elected to Congress until 1972. There were two Blacks elected to Congress before World War II but they were from northern states without Democrat Party Jim Crow Laws.
Since 1929 there have been a total of 127 Blacks elected to Congress. Currently, there are 52 elected Blacks serving in Congress. Compare that to Israel which currently has 12 elected Arab members serving in the Knesset and since 1949 has had a total of 88 Arab members elected to the Knesset. Of course, Israel's population is only 9 million people while the United States population is 329 million so I would say that Arabs have a healthy participation in the political process in Israel.
Moreover, you cherry-picked my comments and left out that I noted that the individual rights of Arabs have been jealously guarded the same as those for Jewish citizens. Arabs in Judea and Samaria, under Palestinian Authority control or in Gaza under Hamas control, have fewer rights and protections of their rights in those areas than Arabs who live in Israel. To be very frank, and it's sad to say, but Arabs/Muslims living in Israel have more rights and better protections for their rights, and live freer and more prosperous lives than Arabs/Muslims living in any other Arab/Muslim-majority country anywhere in the World. And think for a moment how at anytime from Israel's creation in 1948 until today, particularly after each time Israel was attacked by its Arab/Muslim neighbors, that Israel could have ordered all non-Jews, particularly Arabs/Muslims to be removed from the country, or harrassed and persecuted them enough to make them want to leave -- as so many other Nations throughout ancient and recent history have done with religious, racial and ethnic minorities -- but yet, Israel has never done this! And I would further observe that in 1967, when Israel defeated Jordan and re-took East Jerusalem, and specifically the Temple Mount/Al-Aqusa Mosque, they easily could have destroyed and torn down the Mosque but ultimately decided not to. I still hope they do someday as they have the perfect right to do so since it was Jewish holy site long before it was a Muslim holy site. In fact, the Muslims tore down a Christian church on the site (after it was Jewish Second Temple on the site was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD) in order to build their current Mosque.
Last, you mention that the UN and [International] Red Cross say that Israel is an occupier. I would say this: screw these anti-Semite organizations and what they think, particularly the UN whose membership is littered with anti-Semitic countries. Who cares what they say or think!
You lose all credibility.
Hahahaha...what idiotic statement! The UN is filled with tons of anti-Semitic nations and instead I'm the one -- not the UN -- that doesn't have any credibility?
Let me be very gentle and kind in how I say this: you're an idiot making that observation.
Sad.
Hahahaha! Sure, Pal, the UN isn't filled with anti-Semitic nations and bureaucrats! Again, you're a blithering idiot!
B.A. Bearacus said:
Another incoherent post from Mr. T. Way to have an intellectual discussion. Typical Lib. All hat and no cattle.
B.A. Bearacus:
*....but I never had a kid with that crazy broad.
*....but I never had a kid with that crazy broad.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
I am so impressed by 93 that I'm considering voting for the Jewish guy for President
I love the fact that that you called the use of the Wikipedia map of the occupied territories a stupid argument and then in the same breath you use it to make your point, now that's "stupid". By your logic the United States should have occupied, and annexed Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, the Slovak Republic, and Croatia after WW II as "they got their asses beat" and they "deserved it", am I right? They started it and they lost so we own it? They should all be part of the United States at this present date.bearnation93 said:BearNIt said:
The Idiot in Chief decided that Jews that vote for Democratic candidates are either disloyal of or lack the requisite knowledge. Can this child ever pull his head out of his ass long enough to understand that the suggestion of divided loyalties is insulting to Americans who practice the Jewish faith.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-suggests-dems-jewish-voters-lack-knowledge-or-show-great-disloyalty-amid-omar-tlaib-feud/ar-AAG4UgG?li=BBnbcA1
Saying that there are no occupied territories is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png#/media/File:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png
What a stupid argument to point to a map on Wikipedia. But let's look close at that map.
First, the Golan Heights are now a part of Israel, as it should be. Syria attacked Israel and they lost and that's the way it goes when you start a war with another country that did nothing to you and you lose.
Second, the area of Judea and Samaria (aka "West Bank") was formerly part of Jordan. But like Syria, they started a war they got their ass beat in and they lost it ... as they deserved to. Most of this area should be a part of Israel proper as this was an original part of ancient Israel. Cities like Hebron (as in a derivative of the word Hebrew), Jericho and Bethlehem are Jewish cities and this should stay that way.
Third, until attacked by Egypt in 1967, this territory was governed by Egypt. It should go back to Egypt and Egypt should go in and annihilate the Islamo-Nazis (aka Hamas) who currently control the area.
So not sure what you mean by occupied unless you mean any part of Israel's borders would be deemed to be an occupation of land that does not rightfully belong to Israel. It's no more occupied than California or Texas is occupied by the United States, although it wouldn't be surprised if you probably believe that.
By occupied it is widely accepted under international law to mean, a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. Using California and Texas in the context of the United States as an example to argue your point that there are no occupied territories is ludicrous as neither Texas or California is placed under the authority of a hostile army. We don't bomb the residents of California or Texas, we don't eliminate Californian or Texan political or militia members who disagree with the United States of America, and we don't restrict the travel of the residents of these two states via travel bans.
Israel has every right to defend itself against attack but, at some point they are going to have to relinquish control of the occupied territories. Some day an Arab country will have a nuclear weapon then what, mutual destruction?
IMO a two state solution will be the only way forward to a lasting peace in the region but, I will leave that to the experts.
This is head spinning. Now, Trump is accusing Democrats of being disloyal to Israel. Forget for a minute that this is a laughable charge; rather, when is being loyal to a foreign country a key precept of MAGA and our nationalist President?
Most people here know their history. You want this both ways. If Israel took land 50 years ago, it's Israel's. If the lands were Jewish 2000 years ago, it's Israel's.bearnation93 said:Another Bear said:
I was listening to KPFA today while in the car and they got into Reps. Talib and Omar and the ban...and I broke out laughing because one guest said Israel is an ethno-religious apartheid state, and not a democracy. I had to agree..but other countries in the region are the same, like Saudi Arabia...just no Palestine and occupied territory.
Contrary to the propaganda that you've been fed, Israel is a democracy...a real democracy with popularly elected Arabs serving in the Knesset. And Arabs have the same rights as Jews and those rights are just as jealously protected for them as for Jews. In fact, if you talk privately to many Arabs in Israel they would much prefer a Jewish government to an undemocratic, corrupt, tyrannical Arab government like the Palestinian Authority or other regional Arab governments.
Of course, I'm sure Jews living under Saudi and Palestinian and Lebanese/Hezbollah governing authorities would have thses same freedoms as Arabs in Israel...NOT!!!
And there is no occupied territory...Judea and Samaria have been Jewish lands way before any Arabs ever arrived on the scene. Have to know your history.
How many situations in world history have ever occurred where land that had been predominantly lived on by one people for centuries was essentially taken from them to give to people who hadn't been a majority presence in that land for 1800 years? Actually, under western property law, if the Jewish people were individuals, they would have no claim to the land. Under western property law, if you occupy a land for a certain period of time, it's yours. If Israel was a piece of property in America (or perhaps more relevantly, England) a Jewish claim to the land would not have survived summary judgment.
The Nations that made up Native Americans occupied the land that is the United States for thousands more years than Jewish people made up a majority of Israel, and that occupation ended more than a thousand years after Jewish occupation of Israel ended. They have a stronger claim to the United States than Jewish people had to Israel.
That does not mean I do not support a Jewish homeland in Israel. I do. But the argument that they were Jewish lands before therefore they have prior claim is legally incorrect and completely not helpful to the situation. The authority that Israel has comes from the legal rights that European powers, and particularly the British gave to them in the 20th Century. But there is no more moral claim to land that one's ancestors lived on 1800 years ago than there is to land one currently lives on and whose ancestors have lived on for 700 years. We were here first doesn't fly. It is an easy way to dismiss the claims Muslims had and to avoid the fact that Muslims got royally screwed in this process.
To oversimplify, Europe took the land from the Jewish people 1800 years ago. Europe lost the land to the Muslims 1000 years ago. Europe treated Jews horribly for 2000 years. Europe tried to make amends by giving the land they took from them back when Europe didn't live there anymore. And when they did so, they did nothing to deal with the people who actually lived on the land.
Given the history of treatment of Jewish peoples world wide, I think it was very important they have a homeland. I think it was logical that the homeland be Israel. It was a great day for the Jewish people when they were given a homeland. Jewish people were justifiably excited by this fact and moved there and built a strong and vibrant country. But I also acknowledge that the people that were living there got screwed in this deal. I would also acknowledge that if Donald Trump decided that to make amends to Native Americans by giving the California, I'd like to think Californians would not meekly go away but would fight for their land. I don't think it is helpful to the situation to say that Muslims "deserved" things for fighting back. I also see that Israel is in a difficult position having to balance humanitarianism with protecting their own safety. It would be tough for anyone to get that balance right. But under the current regime, I find it hard to argue they have done a good job. Which doesn't mean I support Muslim groups in this situation. It's been a century. Israel will not be removed from the land. Violence at this point feels a lot more like petty revenge than fighting for your people. The failure of any Palestinian leadership to lead their people to a constructive solution is massive.
What I see as an outsider is both sides historically got a pretty crappy deal here and neither side wants to acknowledge that fact for the other side. Neither side wants to say "you know what, this sucked for both of us, but it is about time we make the best of this". What I see is a lot of arguments on all sides, whether at American college campuses, or in serious political arenas that range from completely oblivious to the other side's issues, to borderline offensive portrayals of the other side, to full on offensive portrayals of the other side (and your tropes about Muslims fall into the latter, by the way).
I see nobody dealing with the issues with any sort of reasonableness. Both sides just want to argue claims that are anywhere from 50 to 2000 years old. Until both sides are willing to remotely see what the other side has gone through, and actually discuss a reasonable resolution, they are stuck where they are at. I don't see that happening anytime soon. So frankly, I wash my hands of the whole thing. Just try not to blow up the world while you work this out.
This whole thing looks a lot like, Turks and Greeks, Irish and English, Croats and Serbs, etc. "Those who in quarrels interpose, must often wipe a bloody nose". I think a lot of the world is tired of bloody noses.
I don't see how a two state solution will solve Israel's real problem in the Middle East which is that most of the other countries there want to destroy it.BearNIt said:
IMO a two state solution will be the only way forward to a lasting peace in the region but, I will leave that to the experts.
I'm not saying that the Palestinians shouldn't have some sort of state, but I don't think that will do anything to create lasting peace for Israel or anyone else. I also don't believe that a two-state solution will satisfy hamas, hezbollah, or any of the other splinter terrorist groups that want to exterminate Jewish people and eliminate Israel.
I think people should be realistic. The region is f*cked and always will be. There are no good solutions, only slightly less terrible ones. Israel's far right, like the far right pretty much everywhere, has done more damage than good, but that doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't 't have a reasonable interest in ensuring any two-state solution is a net positive to its self-preservation .
OTB - I love you man but I don't feel like you are accurately representing the creation of Israel. Britain was given control of Palestine and funds were set up to purchase large tracts of land for Jewish settlement. Ultimately the UN votes to partition the region into Israel, Palestine and Jerusalem but this caused discontent in the Arab community and led to the war.OaktownBear said:
Most people here know their history. You want this both ways. If Israel took land 50 years ago, it's Israel's. If the lands were Jewish 2000 years ago, it's Israel's.
I don't have enough historical perspective to say whether or not Jewish people would have really accepted a multi-state solution back then or whether they ultimately would have gone to war to secure the land, but I believe it's a mistreatment of history to ignore the context and state flatly that Israel took the land (or was handed the land by Europe) because it ignores the purchase of lands and the fact that Israel fought a war defensively because the multi-state solution was unacceptable to its Arab neighbors.
I don't have a problem with your position on the whole mess, but I did think it important to note that it's messier (as everything is in this conflict) than the simple position of Israel having stolen land from the Palestinians.
"President Trump has doubled down on his comments about American Jews, even as he insists anti-Semitic tropes aren't anti-Semitic when coming from him.
Trump yesterday: "I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty."
Trump today: "If you want to vote Democrat you are being very disloyal to Jewish people and Israel."
Why it matters: The "dual loyalty" trope has long been used by anti-Semites to question the patriotism of American Jews, and dates back to centuries of global anti-Semitism.
Trump denied that his comments were anti-Semitic, telling a reporter: "It's only anti-Semitic in your head."
The Anti-Defamation League disagreed: "He should apologize immediately," ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted this morning.
The big picture: Pew reports Jewish Americans voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in the 2018 midterms, with an estimated 79% compared to 17% for Republicans." Axios
Trump yesterday: "I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty."
Trump today: "If you want to vote Democrat you are being very disloyal to Jewish people and Israel."
Why it matters: The "dual loyalty" trope has long been used by anti-Semites to question the patriotism of American Jews, and dates back to centuries of global anti-Semitism.
Trump denied that his comments were anti-Semitic, telling a reporter: "It's only anti-Semitic in your head."
The Anti-Defamation League disagreed: "He should apologize immediately," ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted this morning.
The big picture: Pew reports Jewish Americans voted overwhelmingly for Democrats in the 2018 midterms, with an estimated 79% compared to 17% for Republicans." Axios
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
But wait...there's more!
Quote:
Trump says he wanted to give himself Medal of Honor
President Donald Trump claimed to laughter on Wednesday that he sought to give himself a Medal of Honor, but decided not to after being counseled against the move by aides.
The offhand remark from the president came during his address to the 75th annual national convention of American Veterans, a volunteer-led veterans service organization also known as AMVETS.
At the event in Louisville, Kentucky, Trump singled out for praise WWII veteran and Medal of Honor recipient Woody Williams.
"Thank you, Woody. You're looking good, Woody. Woody's looking good," Trump said.
"That was a big day, Medal of Honor. Nothing like the Medal of Honor," he continued. "I wanted one, but they told me I don't qualify, Woody. I said, 'Can I give it to myself anyway?' They said, 'I don't think that's a good idea.'"
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/21/donald-trump-give-himself-medal-of-honor-1470950
...and more...
Trump wanting to buy Greenland is yet another sign of Putin's puppetry
When it was announced Trump wanted to buy Greenland I wondered why? Also why are the Danes in charge of Greenland?
Then I realized, Denmark is very close to Russia geographically and a strong NATO ally, and why the Danes oversee Greenland. As a key geopolitical location, it's why the U.S. has an U.S. Air Force base there..like duh.
So the Russians are reshaping its nuke arsenal and rebuilt their Arctic Circle military base...as the Northern shipping routes open due to massive ice melt.
Yeah...the U.S. still has a big Russkie problem.
Trump wanting to buy Greenland is yet another sign of Putin's puppetry
When it was announced Trump wanted to buy Greenland I wondered why? Also why are the Danes in charge of Greenland?
Then I realized, Denmark is very close to Russia geographically and a strong NATO ally, and why the Danes oversee Greenland. As a key geopolitical location, it's why the U.S. has an U.S. Air Force base there..like duh.
So the Russians are reshaping its nuke arsenal and rebuilt their Arctic Circle military base...as the Northern shipping routes open due to massive ice melt.
Yeah...the U.S. still has a big Russkie problem.
Unit - I think we have a misunderstanding here. I never said Israel stole land from the Palestinians. My statement above saying "If Israel took land 50 years ago..." was in reference to 93's discussion of Israel justifiably taking land as spoils of war in wars they didn't start. I was not referring to the origins of the Israeli state. Israel received the land through legal means as I stated in my post that their claim dates to the first half of the 20th century.Unit2Sucks said:OTB - I love you man but I don't feel like you are accurately representing the creation of Israel. Britain was given control of Palestine and funds were set up to purchase large tracts of land for Jewish settlement. Ultimately the UN votes to partition the region into Israel, Palestine and Jerusalem but this caused discontent in the Arab community and led to the war.OaktownBear said:
Most people here know their history. You want this both ways. If Israel took land 50 years ago, it's Israel's. If the lands were Jewish 2000 years ago, it's Israel's.
I don't have enough historical perspective to say whether or not Jewish people would have really accepted a multi-state solution back then or whether they ultimately would have gone to war to secure the land, but I believe it's a mistreatment of history to ignore the context and state flatly that Israel took the land (or was handed the land by Europe) because it ignores the purchase of lands and the fact that Israel fought a war defensively because the multi-state solution was unacceptable to its Arab neighbors.
I don't have a problem with your position on the whole mess, but I did think it important to note that it's messier (as everything is in this conflict) than the simple position of Israel having stolen land from the Palestinians.
I said my other statements were an oversimplification, but I think it is a reasonable one. The process was started under the League of Nations under a British request. Europe was the driver. If Europe and specifically Britain had not wanted a Jewish state established, no Jewish state would have been established. Yes, the process was complicated. Yes it involved international purchases and Agreements. It also resulted from the usual for the era of Britain taking what wasn't theirs. And then Britain made promises to both sides to give them the land causing much of the strife.
But on the ground, it was pretty simple. Muslims who lived on the land for generations were one day told that because of a big war among nations, their land belonged to Britain now. And then they were told that Britain was allowing Jewish people to migrate to their land. And then they were told it was going to be a Jewish nation. Great that a bunch of governments made a bunch of complicated deals, but the Muslims that actually lived their got screwed.
And the Jewish people got screwed too. Because of how mismanaged the situation was, and doing basically nothing for the actual people that lived on the land, the Jewish people inherited an almost impossible situation.
If anybody stole the land, it was Britain (and given that they only had claim to the land by force, I would argue they did steal it and paper over it with treaties and purchases). Israel did not steal the land.
Funny - just had a conversation with my teenage kids about Trump's Greenland proposal. They said "we can't buy Greenland. People live there" I said, well, no we could buy it if denmark sells it. They were outraged that theoretically some day the US could just sell California to Mexico, and we'd have to just accept being Mexican or get out. I honestly think that is a natural reaction. Governments could do what they want, but you can't expect no problems to occur when you do what Britain did in Palestine. I'm sure the people that lived there would have voted overwhelmingly against it had it been a democracy.
The British Museum: a salute to Britain's looting of the Middle East.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Well the sun has set on the British empire. Methinks Brexit is the karmic payback.
Featured Stories
See All
Washington Safety Tristan Dunn Signs With Cal
by Jim McGill
Bears Raise the Bar in Decisive 89-63 Win Over Temple
by Jim McGill