Skip to main content

View Diary: Israel's 4 yr. Blockade of Gaza unravels as Egypt opens border crossing (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really now.... That is the biggest bullshit HR (10+ / 0-)

    written on this site:

    What do you call soysauce's call for a One State Solution:

    Nobody I've encountered on this website would deny the Jewish People (or even only the Israelis) the right to self-determination.

    What the hell is that? You do know what a One State Solution is, do you not? I means no more Jewish State.

    What you're conveniently forgetting is that Israel is and has been for 44 years denying the Palestinian People their legitimate right of self-determination.

    Oh really.... then I guess you haven't read a FUCKING. THING. I. HAVE. EVER. WRITTEN.  Of course you forget that I completely support the Palestinians very legitimate right to self determination in the form of a two-State solution. I write diaries on that subject. Just because you are too dumb to read them doesn't mean that I don't do that. Here let me enlighten you with this comment I wrote to soy yesterday...

    ....So let's set the record straight.. I support a true two State resolution (unlike you soy) where both the Palestinian People and Jewish people can realize their legitimate rights to self governance (again unlike you).

    I believe that both people need these homelands in light of historical denials to self rule. Further, I support the same favorable immigration policies for both Israel and the future State of Palestine.

    Feeling TEH STOOPID YET.

    Finally, the UN Charter forbids annexation of territory by use of force.  Israel is a signatory to the UN and freely bound itself to the UN Charter.  There was no UN when the US took over much of the American southwest.  There is a UN now.  Stalin annexed much of Eastern Europe by force, but that didn't make it right.

    Congrats you are now pathetic.

    So because the U.N. says something that magically makes it all better. Good to know.

    DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

    by volleyboy1 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 02:37:58 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting, though. (7+ / 0-)
      Of course, this seems to apply only when Israel has done something blatantly condemnable.

      So when something is not blatantly 'condemnable', we can blame all Jews. It's a difference of degree, not kind.

      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

      by MBNYC on Thu May 26, 2011 at 04:23:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, yes! Really. Now and for always. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Euroliberal, poco

      You cite soysauce's alleged desire for a "One State Solution" but I believe that soy has called only for RoR.  Even if soy HAS advocated for the One State, she is joined by many Zionists who campaign for a Greater Israel - "from the Med to the Jordan."  This is also a One State Solution.  Are these Zionists advocating for stripping the Jewish People of their right to self-determination?  It would seem so!

      The problem with your citation is threefold:
      1.  I asked you who "they" are.  You're claiming that one person advocating for the One State is "they".  Nope.

      2.  You further claim that the One State means the end of Israel.  This is not a foregone conclusion at all - except maybe in your head.

      3.  None of this proves that anybody wants to take away the rights of any Jews - anywhere.
      .

      Now, on to your next bit of fluff:

      Of course you forget that I completely support the Palestinians very legitimate right to self determination in the form of a two-State solution.
      And for that, I applaud your conviction, VB.  But, your conviction does not change the fact that I presented and which you quoted.  That being:
      What you're conveniently forgetting is that Israel is and has been for 44 years denying the Palestinian People their legitimate right of self-determination.
      The State of Israel isn't paying any attention to your conviction and hasn't been doing so for over 40 years.  Your support for anything changes nothing about Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.
      .
      Feeling TEH STOOPID YET.
      Yes, it comes through in every word you type.
      .

      And now, the coup de grace:

      Congrats you are now pathetic.

      So because the U.N. says something that magically makes it all better. Good to know.

      The UN Charter - the document to which all members pledge adherence in order to be admitted as members - is not something that the UN simply "says".  It is a set of rules and principles (Hey, Israel!  Check it out - principles!) which must be followed.  This is much more important than a GA or SC Resolution.  The UN Charter carries more weight than anything else the UN "says".   It carries more weight than even UNGA Resolution 181.  Israel committed itself to following that document - all of it - when it became a member state.

      No magic.  Not pathetic.  International Law.  Law that Israel has committed itself to following, but isn't.

      This means that your question, "Where are the calls to return CA to Mexico?" has been answered.  You wouldn't be asking that question if you didn't want Israel to keep the West Bank.  Since you asked, you obviously DO want a Greater Israel from the Med to the Jordan.  Else, why make that argument at all?

      So!  Let's try this again, shall we?

      1.  Who are "they"?
      2.  How are "they" going to strip the Jewish People of their right to self-determination?
      3.  Why can't Israel let the Palestinians have what the Israelis (well, most of the Israelis) already have - the right to self-determination and a nation of their own?

      Please address these 3 issues.  Real, direct answers - simple or complex - will be appreciated.

      Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

      by Celtic Merlin on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:21:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know I thought of ragging here and then (0+ / 0-)

        decided to address your points straight up:

        soy's support for One State is not alleged. Here is a diary she just wroteand a passage from the introduction:

        Palestinian community leader, Mazen Qumsiyeh, sent out the following appeal today calling for people of conscience around the world to support efforts to create real justice and equality in Palestine and Israel through a one-state initiative.

        I agree that she is joined by many Zionists who want this on the Right as well... though they think they can have what would become an Apartheid state for permanent. I oppose this meme completely.

        You further claim that the One State means the end of Israel.  This is not a foregone conclusion at all - except maybe in your head.

        How is the One State solution NOT an end to Israel as a Jewish State. On what planet, in what Galaxy, in what Universe does this not resonate with you. Are you actually serious in this question?

        None of this proves that anybody wants to take away the rights of any Jews - anywhere.

        In the real world the one State solution takes away the right of the Jewish people's legitimate right of self determination. Even soy admits that though she does State that she feels that the Jewish right of self-determination can't come at the expense of another people's rights. Of course, she refuses to address the converse of that but that is for another argument.

        What you're conveniently forgetting is that Israel is and has been for 44 years denying the Palestinian People their legitimate right of self-determination.

        This is just a throw away comment. I am well aware that the Palestinian People have their rights to self determination denied, but, that is not all Israel over history. It is a alot of things including themselves. However, in the here and now, Israel plays a major role in this.

        No magic.  Not pathetic.  International Law.  Law that Israel has committed itself to following, but isn't.

        All I can say about this is find me ten nations outside of Andorra, Luxemborg, and Monte Carlo that follow International Law. Hell, find me one governing entity of the Two in the Palestinian polity that follow international law.

        Like it or not the world doesn't always follow international law. You just ragged on me because what I support is not happening yet you then harp on this issue? Seriously?

        You wouldn't be asking that question if you didn't want Israel to keep the West Bank.  Since you asked, you obviously DO want a Greater Israel from the Med to the Jordan.  Else, why make that argument at all?

        Simply put here Two Things: A. Don't tell me what I believe and B. Don't be Dumb.

        I asked because it's a hypocritical or worse argument to insist on one thing but not another. That is my point and you should know that. Now, I happen to NOT believe in a One State Israel solution, so just cut this shit out right now.

        And despite your blathering in that last comment I will answer your questions:

        1. Who are they: Just to name a few, soysauce, sortalikenathan, weasel, daud, Prob Stat, callmecassandra, Aunt Martha....

        2. How are they going to strip peoples rights? They aren't. But they advocate that.

        3. Why can't Israel let the Palestinians have self determination? I don't know, I advocate for it but I am not Israeli nor am I part of the Israeli government. You will have to ask them - you are asking the wrong guy.

        DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

        by volleyboy1 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 10:43:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This one is no shorter than the others. (0+ / 0-)
          soy's support for One State is not alleged.
          Yes, that diary was clear.

          .

          How is the One State solution NOT an end to Israel as a Jewish State.
          Because the people with the guns, tanks, artillery, fighter jets, and attack helicopters will ensure the establishment of a blatantly-Apartheid state.  Period.  End of sentence.  And you know this is what will happen - don't try to deny that.  After all of the fighting over the last 60 years, the Jewish Israelis are gonna just roll over, give up all they fought for, and not continue to oppress the Palestinians into remaining in their role as second-class citizens?  Don't make jokes like that.  They're not funny.

          .

          In the real world the one State solution takes away the right of the Jewish people's legitimate right of self determination.
          In the real world, Jewish-Israeli domination of that region continues unabated and with full US financial, economic, military, and diplomatic support.  The Palestinians would never receive fully-equal rights in all respects.  Who are you trying to kid?

          Secondly, If "Israel" doesn't mean "Jews" (as I've seen here so many times), why is it that you seem to be making the argument that Arab control of Israel would mean the end of self-determination for "the Jewish People" - as in "all Jews world-wide"?  Are not Jews living outside of Israel still members of that group, "the Jewish People"?  I've always thought they are such members.

          .

          What you're conveniently forgetting is that Israel is and has been for 44 years denying the Palestinian People their legitimate right of self-determination.

          This is just a throw away comment.
          No, this is not a "throw-away comment."  That is a statement of factual reality.

          Your attempt to blame the victims of oppression for their own oppression . . .  

          It is a alot of things including themselves.
          . . . sounds like something Bibi would say.
          However, in the here and now, Israel plays a major role in this.
          In your ability to understate this, you are truly gifted.

          .

          All I can say about this is find me ten nations outside of Andorra, Luxemborg, and Monte Carlo that follow International Law.
          "Johnny does it, why can't I?"  "That other fellow over there is jaywalking, why should I obey any of the laws, officer?"  The US is about the worst offender.  So, your solution is to flush International Law and just pry the lid completely off?  Nice.

          .

          You just ragged on me because what I support is not happening yet you then harp on this issue? Seriously?
          I said that DESPITE your support, Israel doesn't give a rat's ass.  PART of that problem is that they refuse to follow the laws that they pledged to follow.  Break one of those Int'l. Laws against Israel, though, and I'd bet bucks against bagels (plain or egg only, please) that they'll scream like a scalded cat.  But that UN Charter thing about conquest of land?  Don't bug them about it.

          Re:  The giving back of Calif. to Mexico: You brought it up as some example of why Israel should keep the WB for their own.  I told you why it is wrong in today's world since 1945.  Don't use examples like that if you can't support them or you WILL look like you're arguing in favor of militaristic land grabs.  This is why I'm trying to teach you about the UN Charter.  It applies now.  It didn't exist in the 1800's.

          Simply put here Two Things: A. Don't tell me what I believe and B. Don't be Dumb.
          A. Don't present arguments which contradict what you say you believe.  B. Stop with the ad hom - this is your second "stupid" and "dumb" against me.  If you can't argue facts, don't resort to personal attacks.  Just quit instead.
          I asked because it's a hypocritical or worse argument to insist on one thing but not another.
          That's wrong.  As the societies of the world mature, we outlaw things.  Burning at the stake, genocide, hacking off of limbs, and acquisition of land by military conquest.  Giving the WB to the Palestinians is not hypocritical just because the US kept Calif.

          .
          Finally, you list the names of people who you claim want to see the Jewish People be stripped of the right of self-determination.  Without clear statements from each of them which show this to be true, you can't make this claim about them.  You certainly can't make this claim against a generic "they".  That's broad-brush, and you know it.  This is why your got an HR and why it stands.

          The "they advocate for it" claim also cries out for evidence.

          Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Please leave a message.

          by Celtic Merlin on Fri May 27, 2011 at 01:18:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is silly and you are spinning like a 78 (0+ / 0-)

            but listen, you are within your rights to HR me whenever you like. You actually broke the rules by engaging me but honestly, I am glad you did engage me so at least I could see what you were thinking and how far that thought process is divorced from reality.

            Anyway, on one side note - ask yourself this... Do you think that if I broke the rules of HR'ing your folks wouldn't be screaming bloody murder? I can show you instance after instance where that is exactly what they did. However, in this diary and this comment thread, not a peep. Interesting how that works - isn't it.

            Anyway, I am taking off for the weekend so by the time you see this I will be gone until Monday. Respond or not, that is up to you, but, I thought you should know that I will not be around to respond should you chose too.

            DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

            by volleyboy1 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:58:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  so annexing land taken by force is acceptable to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Celtic Merlin

      you then. At least, that's how I interpreted your final three sentences.

      How about if we annexed Iraq? I mean, sure, we signed and ratified the UN charter and made ourselves part of the this funny collective security system, but hey whatever.  All the cool kids are doing it?

      •  Wow.... no (0+ / 0-)

        I am a solid opponent of our involvement in Iraq.

        Why to take that comment to some other dimension though. Kudos.

        DK4: For those times when pissing in the hummus isn't enough

        by volleyboy1 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:59:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  an opponent, I'll take you at your word (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Flyswatterbanjo, Celtic Merlin

          But right or wrong, good war/bad war, since we are there, would it be within US rights to annex land that it occupies by force?  Can it fly in US citizens to colonize Iraqi land occupied by US forces.

          This is not an issue of whether you agree with our invasion and occupation of Iraq; it is about whether you fundamentally agree on whether a nation has the power, post-1945 (age of the UN Charter) to annex and colonize land it occupies by force.

          I'm not quite sure how else to take this:

          Finally, the UN Charter forbids annexation of territory by use of force.  Israel is a signatory to the UN and freely bound itself to the UN Charter.  There was no UN when the US took over much of the American southwest.  There is a UN now.  Stalin annexed much of Eastern Europe by force, but that didn't make it right.

          Congrats you are now pathetic.

          So because the U.N. says something that magically makes it all better. Good to know.

          How else am I supposed to take those last three sentences?
           

          •  Don't bother. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Celtic Merlin

            He suffers from severe cognitive dissonance.

            That's all it takes, really...pressure and time.

            by Flyswatterbanjo on Fri May 27, 2011 at 09:32:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Arguments that annexation has occured in the past (0+ / 0-)

              so it's legit now totally ignored the big changes that have occurred in the international system, especially after 1945 and the establishment of the UN.  Norms of proper behavior, international laws, and practices have changed; the international system is not as it was even 150 years ago.

              Sorry, but there is no basis in this day and age to argue that colonizing and/or annexing land taken by force is in any way, shape, or form acceptable or legal.

              Perhaps there is some heavy cognitive dissonance at work here, Flyswatterbanjo

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site