Skip to main content

I don't intend this to be a long diary, in part because it's not a particularly long (or new) story: once again, the United Nations has proven itself to be completely unfit to act as a remotely neutral arbitrator of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The latest evidence: the profoundly anti-Israel actions by the U.N. General Assembly on December 10th.

At this point, it's hardly surprising that the United Nations spends an inordinate amount of time criticizing Israel, a troubled but democratic nation which is fully engaged with the rest of the world, even while it all but ignores horrific human rights abuses almost everywhere else. Last Friday's set of 28 resolutions by the General Assembly illustrates this point quite handily.

Consider the U.N.'s own description of its acts:

Acting on the recommendation of its Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization), the General Assembly this morning adopted 27 resolutions and 1  decision, nine among them concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict, by which it deemed "extremely detrimental" Israeli settlement policies and activities on efforts to resume and advance the peace process and on its credibility.

As in past years, those updated, but traditional, resolutions forwarded to the world body by the Fourth Committee required recorded votes.  Other texts covered decolonization, outer space, atomic radiation, information and public outreach, and peacekeeping.  Recorded votes were required for more than half.

That count of 9 doesn't include the additional "anticolonialism" resolutions, which I strongly suspect were linked to the criticism of Israel in the mind of many delegates.

No other country was singled out for even slight rebuke on Friday. Hamas (with its abysmal human rights record against its own people) and Syria (which has been on the U.S. government's list of "state sponsors of terrorism" since 1979) are in the General Assembly seen only as victims of Israeli aggression. Of China, of Iran, of North Korea, of the other despotic repressive nations without vote or free press, not a mention.

Why would Israel's government, and its people, ever trust the United Nations to keep peace, fairly investigate, or otherwise serve as a "neutral" party in peace discussions, when the organization is so clearly and undeniably set in its anti-Israel ways?

Perhaps the next time Israel rejects the U.N.'s "help," or calls its investigations "flawed," the DKos community may remember December 10th, 2010, and understand a bit more why it does so.

Originally posted to JonathanEzor on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 01:54 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (14+ / 3-)

    "The perfect is the enemy of the good." -- Voltaire (Find me on Twitter as @ProfJonathan}

    by ProfJonathan on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 01:54:58 PM PST

    •  Uprated for an unjustified HR (13+ / 0-)

      The U.N. is biased against Israel - Do you really think they are not. According to the ADL an organization which I think under Abe Foxman has taken a right wing turn, still...

      Examples of institutionalized bias against Israel include:

      From 2009-2010, the U.N. General Assembly (GA) continued to spend a disproportionate amount of time focusing on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, passing 22 resolutions which are one-sided or blatantly anti-Israel.

      Indeed, of 10 emergency special sessions called by the GA, six have been about Israel. No emergency sessions have been held on the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or the two decades of atrocities in Sudan.

      Are these numbers wrong? Have there been emergency sessions on these other issues? Are the numbers on China/Tibet, Darfur, Saudi Arabia, or other human rights violations even the same ballpark, much less on the table?

      I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

      by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:43:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not that I know of... (6+ / 0-)

        and in fact, Saudi Arabia, where women can't drive, vote, are required to cover their faces when in public, among many sexist laws present in that kingdom, is a member of the UN Human Rights Council. Countries like Russia, China, and Libya are members of that Council. So is Uganda, which is debating whether homosexuality should be punished by life in prison or death.

        Congress shall make no law...

        by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:50:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just to be clear (14+ / 0-)

        The diarist (and you, apparently) lump into category if "biased against Israel" any resolution which Israel votes against.  

        Here is one of the things you consider "biased against Israel:"

        First, by draft I, on assistance to Palestine refugees, the Assembly would stress the imperative of resolving the Palestinian refugee problem in the interest of lasting peace.  It would also affirm the need to continue UNRWA, pending the achievement of a just solution, and called upon donors to be as generous as possible.  Also by that text, the Assembly would renew the Agency’s mandate until June 2014 and invite Kuwait to become a member of the Advisory Commission.

        The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 1 against (Israel), with 8 abstentions (Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States).

        In other words, providing support for Palestinian refugees and urging "resolving the Palestinian refugee problem in the interest of lasting peace," a thing that only Israel opposes, is biased against Israel.  This is what you are reduced to claiming, that if a Palestinian, anywhere in the world, is provided basic food and shelter, then this is proof of bias against Israel.  

        "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

        by weasel on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:52:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Does it not strike you as remarkable (8+ / 0-)

          when you consider the state of the world, that the UN would devote so much energy to Israel?

          That's not saying that the Israelis don't do a lot of bad shit. But they're by no means the only ones.

          Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

          by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:58:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What energy? (9+ / 0-)

            What energy did they devote?  That ONE DAY was spent on the report from the "Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization)."  That committee's report was split into 28 separate resolutions, but basically passed en masse with only the US and Israel in oppostion (mostly, a few European nations opposed other decolonization issue reports).  

            Understand what is going on here: the diarist is complaining that the UN passed the Fourth Committee's report in 28 separate motions, instead of lumping it together and passing it all at one time.  That is what his complaint amounts to.  

            I don't expect it of most people here, but you at least should be serious enough to read what was passed.  

            "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

            by weasel on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:02:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm speaking (7+ / 0-)

              generally of UN resolutions, not just this specific instance. For example, the odious - and since withdrawn - resolution in the seventies to the effect that Zionism is racism, the various Durban conferences, and so on.

              As far as this diary is concerned, you'll recall that I noted you had a point with the absence of any actual discussion of the resolutions themselves :-)

              Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

              by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:07:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  this energy... (9+ / 0-)

              the UNHRC. as of the fall of last year,  has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning israel than all the other 191 UN member states combined. over the past 3 years prior, it has issued 25 resolutions against individual states: 20 of them directed at israel. i should note that to me, its not just because they target israel, its also because they fail to address human-rights violations the world over. so its not just the resolutions, it the weighing of opportunity costs to this body which are troubling. some of israel's action do warrant criticism, strong ones. but does israel warrant 80% of a world bodies energy? apparently so.

              "Every morning I awake torn between a desire to save the world and an inclination to savor it. This makes it hard to plan the day." -- E.B. White

              by canadian gal on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:12:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  OOPS... Some folks must've missed this (6+ / 0-)

                I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:15:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  BINGO. (8+ / 0-)

                If only the condemnations were proportionate and not doled out by hypocrites...

                Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                by hikerbiker on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:12:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I logged back on to comment here (8+ / 0-)

                because I keep imagining a scenario in a classroom where one child is singled out for condemnation when every other child in the class misbehaves similarly.

                Imagine getting a call from the principle that your child is in big trouble at school.  Then imagine your child being condemned by all the parents of the other kids in the class who also misbehave.  None of those parents heard a word from the principle about their own children.

                Anyone who thinks that people here in this thread are defensive or paranoid need to imagine that scenario.  

                Imagine that you try to teach your child good values and behaviors and you want more than anything for them to act nicely in school.  Yet you cannot completely control your kid, especially in an environment that is chaotic and filled with bad behavior on everyone's part.

                Normally, you would want to address the problem directly and immediately.  But given that your kid was obviously singled out, the issue becomes clouded.  It's hard to confront your kid, especially in front of the others, knowing that he or she was the only one singled out for criticism.  Suddenly, you feel protective.  

                Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                by hikerbiker on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:21:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  interesting analogy, (0+ / 0-)

                  and I think you really do it justice, but it is a bit unreal.

                  It's more like this: You child has been beating the shit out of kids in school for years and stealing their lunch money and you don't want to deal with it because it would mean admitting your own shortcomings. Instead, you make excuses, pretend 'everyone else is doing it' when, maybe, at most, it is less than a few isolated cases.

                  Fact is, Israel has been beating it's wife for 43 years and hasn't stopped yet. It deserves all the attention it gets and needs until it stops. No excuses.

                  Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

                  by borkitekt on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:00:50 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  No, because (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            capelza, crose

            ..as goes the ME so goes the oil dependent world.

            Many countries are bad, but Israel's actions in the ME that might spark an event are a more pressing concern than other countries because a huge portion of the world would be affected more by a ME eruption than by human rights abuses or conflicts in other countries.

            "Something happens. Then you have to make a choice and take a side."...."The Quiet American", Graham Greene

            by renfro on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:26:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The I/P conflict (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            capelza, unspeakable

            is central to a lasting peace in the ME among how many countries? How many potential and ongoing conflicts would be nullified by an I/P peace? The UN should be concentrating on many areas of human rights problems but I/P is a big one in the sense that so much depends on it.

        •  You are about as clear as a (5+ / 0-)

          Muddy River with this statement:

          The diarist (and you, apparently) (vb1 emphasis) lump into category if "biased against Israel" any resolution which Israel votes against.

          This would be what's called in Baseball a BIIIIG Swing and a Miss...

          Israel does do bad stuff and the Occpation is a blight on the country. At the same time there are far more egregious things done in the world that get little to no attention. Now, I realize certain people here and apparently you, think what Israel does is worse than anyone else (see how that works), but that is just not true. Blame Israel for what it does wrong but, if you are going on a human rights crusade it sure looks more genuine if you condemn ALL H.R. violations not just something from one country.

          BTW, I am looking at the sheer volume of complaints against Israel yet lack of complaints about anyone else. Do you deny there is disproportionate action taken?

          I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

          by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:50:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  uhhhh (7+ / 4-)

            there has been NO action taken against Israel.

            Zip, zero, nada, nothing. What are you Zionists complaining about? Israel gets to violate human rights, bomb people, occupy people, evict them from their homes, discriminate against them because they happen to be Arab, and nothing is ever done about it. You guys should be celebrating, not complaining like you constantly do. The world coddles Israeli crimes.

            •  Oh Seriously???? (7+ / 0-)

              wow,...... You are saying the Israelis and their supporters just love to bomb, occupy and everything else just because the people they are doing it to happen to be Arab? Really?

              CRAP HOW DID YOU FIND US OUT?

              nathan this is seriously tinfoil hat time. You are not at your finest right now.

              I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

              by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:05:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And are (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zannie, capelza, sofia, unspeakable

                you actually saying that Israel does not violate human rights? It does not bomb people? it does not occupy people? It does not evict them from their homes because they are Arabs? It does not discriminate against them because they are Arabs?

                Please, answer. Love to hear this.

                •  Oh no, Israel does violate (7+ / 0-)

                  human rights in certain cases. I think what is happening in Silwan is an example of that.

                  Does Israel bomb people because they are Arab? NO, they generally only bomb people when those people start bombing or attacking Israel first.

                  Does Israel occupy people? Yep, that happens when you lose a war, particularly when the side opposite Israel wanted to annhilate Israel. Should they still be occupying that land - generally no but some parts (the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, the Holy Basin, the approaches to Har Ha'Tzofim, Ramot Eshkol and some areas right on the Green Line yes. Does it occupy them because they are Arab.. No.. It occupies that land because a nation attacked them. Those nations do not have to be Arab to be occupied, they only needed to attack Israel for that to happen.

                  Does Israel evict people from their homes because they are Arab? Yes, in certain cases they do. Their civil rights record wrt their Arab population is not great. They should not do that at all, and there are many Israeli groups that fight against that.

                  Discrimination is a major problem in Israeli society. No one denies that. Discrimmination though can be fixed and there are people in Israel that want to fix it.

                  I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                  by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:23:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                    •  Of course you would say that... (7+ / 0-)

                      As I said... Tinfoil time....

                      I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                      by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:40:39 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  boop! (8+ / 0-)

                      irony

                      "Every morning I awake torn between a desire to save the world and an inclination to savor it. This makes it hard to plan the day." -- E.B. White

                      by canadian gal on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:20:30 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Uprated. (6+ / 0-)

                      The hypocrisy of this comment being HR'able, while two days ago sortalikenathan and all the other Arab American kossacks were called "radicals from the Middle East" is astounding.

                      Sorry, that's not how it works. If racialized statements about us are from the pro-Israel hooligans, then calling one them a "brainwashed Zionist" is perfectly acceptable as well.

                      Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                      by unspeakable on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:42:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  this "hooligan" stands by her hiderate (10+ / 0-)

                        FAQ tells us that trollish comments

                        should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie.

                        Nathans's "brainwashed Zionist blathers"  is an inflammatory lie, intended to derail the conversation, and is therefore HRable.

                        I'm not going to go back and search for the offensive comment you referred to, but if there is an argument to be made for HRing that one, too, go ahead and make it.  I expect that you would present a well-reasoned and persuasive argument which people here would benefit from seeing.

                        Each comment should stand or fall on its' own.

                        Less name-calling on both sides would be helpful.

                        Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                        by hikerbiker on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:56:19 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  what conversation? (4+ / 0-)

                          there is no conversation, hiker.

                          Would it help if I prove it?

                          Oh no, Israel does violate (2+ / 0-)
                          human rights in certain cases. I think what is happening in Silwan is an example of that.

                          In "certain cases"? Yesterday, volleyboy said that Israel has some "unfair" laws. Unfair? They directly discriminate against people based on ethnic origin. That is not "unfair", that is racist.

                          Does Israel bomb people because they are Arab? NO, they generally only bomb people when those people start bombing or attacking Israel first.

                          I did not say Israel "bombs people because they are Arab". So this is a case of volley completely distorting what I said. And it is demonstrably true that Israel does not "only bomb people" in self-defense.

                          Does Israel occupy people? Yep, that happens when you lose a war, particularly when the side opposite Israel wanted to annhilate Israel. Should they still be occupying that land - generally no but some parts (the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, the Holy Basin, the approaches to Har Ha'Tzofim, Ramot Eshkol and some areas right on the Green Line yes. Does it occupy them because they are Arab.. No.. It occupies that land because a nation attacked them. Those nations do not have to be Arab to be occupied, they only needed to attack Israel for that to happen.

                          I did not say it occupies them because they are Arab. More distortion from volley.

                          In 1967, the side "opposite Israel" did not attack Israel first. And if a naval blockade is considered an "attack", then Israel continues to attack Gaza today and none of you say a damn thing about it.

                          Does Israel evict people from their homes because they are Arab? Yes, in certain cases they do. Their civil rights record wrt their Arab population is not great. They should not do that at all, and there are many Israeli groups that fight against that.

                          Discrimination is a major problem in Israeli society. No one denies that. Discrimmination though can be fixed and there are people in Israel that want to fix it.

                          It will never be fixed as long as the state's laws privilege Jews over non-Jews. Whitewashing and diminishing the reality of the discriminated against minority is, indeed, the result of being brainwashed by nationalist fervor.

                          There ya go hiker. Thanks for the HR. It's extra special coming from you.

                          •  Now I feel just a little guilty for hr-ing you (5+ / 0-)

                            but I will leave it there anyway.  (I will never forget how you supported me during my one-word outburst but thinking back I realize that you were probably more driven by principle than by any allegiance to me in particular.)

                            But back to the HR:  How dare you suggest that I and others should be celebrating bombings, evictions, and human rights violations???

                            And where is this big "world" that "coddles Israeli crimes"???

                            Look at the UN votes.  Look at BDS.  Watch all those youtube links constantly posted here.  Israel doesn't have a lot of friends, much less coddlers.

                            You know, it would be very easy to avoid knowing what's happening in Israel and Palestine.  The injustices aren't exactly on the front page of the NYTimes on a daily basis.

                            But I and others (the "brainwashed" among us) come here to dkos and read the diaries and click on the links and try to stay informed.  We expose ourselves to perspectives and views that we might otherwise not be exposed to in our regular lives.  In fact, we seek it out, or at least I do.  And it's painful to confront all the contradictions and the cruelty.  It's a complete mind-fuck a lot of the time.

                            So, don't have a pity party for the disillusioned, but have just a little respect, especially for those who open their minds to see and hear other perspectives.

                            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                            by hikerbiker on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:30:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  what's the point (6+ / 0-)

                            of coming here to stay informed if you (not you, specifically, but generally) take no measurable action to oppose injustice? Even worse, many of the posters here know precisely that they support laws and policies which discriminate, and believe it is a price worth paying for the continued dominance of their own ethnic group.

                            So sorry, I am hardly convinced that the people you are talking about are "opening their minds". There is no dialogue here, and you know that.

                            As for Israel, once again, never has Israel paid any price for any human rights violations. It has been shielded entirely by the US and Europe.

                            My point about "celebrating" was clear enough; isn't this what all of you want? Isn't that what this diary was about? At the UN, Israel is protected by the US and Europe. This diary is complaining that the UN is biased against Israel because of the General Assembly, which has no power at all.

                            And let's be honest: most of the posters here who support Israel not only support the continued protection of Israel at the UN, but oppose any actions that would punish Israel economically, politically, or militarily. So what are we supposed to believe? That you want an end to the occupation when you're unwilling to support any concrete measures to end it? Because let's be clear: wanting to end isn't enough.

                            So I stand by my comment. Israel pays no price for anything it does, and that is a state of affairs Israel's supporters support. And that is why BDS even exists--because of the failure of the world to stop Israeli human rights violations.

                          •  very rarely do i feel an overwhelming (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sortalikenathan, Peacenick

                            sense of pride for being the first rec of a post. you massively blow my mind, everything about the way you think and express here turns me on. there are numerous segments i could blockquote just for the pleasure of seeing it in my own post.

                            anyone reading this i urge you to re review the parent.

                            never has Israel paid any price for any human rights violations...Israel pays no price for anything it does, and that is a state of affairs Israel's supporters support.

                            transparently so

                            "As Israel treats Jerusalem, so shall the world treat Israel. As Jerusalem goes, so goes Israel." - B. Burston/Ha'aretz

                            by zannie on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:34:50 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have difficulty expressing.... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, MBNYC, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            ....how disturbing this post is.

                          •  Your first sentence is a dialogue ender. (4+ / 0-)

                            How dare you assume that I or anyone else takes "no measurable action to oppose injustice"?  Speaking only for myself, you know absolutely nothing about what action I take in my life.

                            And if you believe that I celebrate cruelty and injustice, than there is no basis for this conversation.

                            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                            by hikerbiker on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:35:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well then tell me (3+ / 0-)

                            what do you do?

                            I would like to know.

                            And do you support any economic, political, or military sanctions against Israel? Do you support an end to US military aid to Israel? If not, how then do you expect Israel to change its behavior toward Palestinians? States do not change unless forced to.

                          •  My 11 year old son (4+ / 0-)

                            recently came home from Hebrew school, very upset.

                            He said to me, "How can we expect to ever have peace if they are always telling us that we won every war because we are so XXXX and the Arabs are so XXXX??!"

                            This, and other disturbing incidents reported by my kids, together with the last straw -- the decision to NOT share our building with the local Muslim community on Fridays, against the will of the majority of congregants -- has led me to begin a search for a new synagogue and Hebrew school.

                            My son's disgust with things he heard in class is a reflection of the values I have instilled in him and the experiences and insights I have shared with him.

                            This may be my greatest legacy, but it's not the only one.

                            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                            by hikerbiker on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 01:53:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  hiker (6+ / 0-)

                            you know I like you (even if you HR me, :)), so I have no doubt that you are instilling in your son the great progressive and humanistic principles of Judaism. That I have no doubt about. And the irony of the discussions here is that I imagine that all of us who are at each other's throats here are, in our own communities and lives, fighting the kind of ignorance you describe.

                            This semester in the course I was teaching on the Middle East, I had several international students from the Arab world take my class. One week of the course was designated to a discussion of Palestine/Israel, and I found my students' complete ignorance about the history of anti-semitism in Europe to be astonishing, so I spent the better part of the week educating them out of their ignorance and trying to combat what was a not so thinly veiled anti-semitism that tried to diminish Jewish persecution.

                            I imagine each person who posts in this blog faces these kinds of internal challenges within his/her community.

                            But...and I say this with a great deal of respect, at the political level, very little is changing at the level of US policy toward uncritically supporting everything Israel does. And this uncritical support for Israel is perpetuating the conflict. It simply is. And it is frustrating for many of us to see how Israel's supporters here claim to want peace but stop short of doing anything concrete to pressure Israel to change course. And by concrete I mean an end to US military aid, some form of diplomatic or political sanctions, etc. I think that kind of direct action from you and others here would be a wonderful way to translate what you are teaching your son into the political realm where it will have even more of an impact.

                          •  We do like each other (0+ / 0-)

                            but we are never going to agree on everything.

                            Don't we all have friends and relatives who share a lot with us but also differ?

                            I sincerely appreciate your efforts to educate your students.  If we ever meet in person, I'd love to hear more about that.

                            I agree with so much that you wrote it your last comment to me -- especially when you acknowledged that we all have work to do within our own communities.  Perhaps more discussion of this type of thing might help to bring people here on the blog together.  

                            No community is a monolith, and each of us can only represent ourselves as individuals.  I think that one of the major problems with the I-P debates here on the blog is that many people generalize about others and forget to recognize the incredible diversity of viewpoints represented by individuals on all sides of the debate.

                            I will never feel comfortable listing my political actions here in this I-P forum, and I wouldn't expect anyone here to do so.  That said, I have been inspired to sign petitions and contribute to organizations and causes that I've only learned about through the I-P threads.  But I believe that there are many different ways to contribute to moving forward toward peace, beyond the list that you suggested.  There are also many ways to "pressure Israel to change course" that are outside the realm of your list.

                            I think it's presumptuous and patronizing to judge the real-life actions of people you don't even know in real life. You wrote that

                            it is frustrating for many of us to see how Israel's supporters here claim to want peace but stop short of doing anything concrete to pressure Israel to change course

                            but actually you aren't in any position to make those judgments or generalizations.  Members of my own family and close friends of mine don't know half the things I do;  so how could you?

                            ps:  what's a couple of hiderates among friends?  :)

                            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                            by hikerbiker on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 06:50:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  You know what? (3+ / 0-)

                          I had a list of instances in which you engaged in name-calling (and in one instance was defended by sortalikenathan!) or where you uprated comments that shouldn't have been uprated, but that's a pointless game to play. So I'm just going to say, I don't need any lectures from you or anyone else about civil discourse.

                          Given that your buddy who you've rushed to defend here was one of the upraters of the "offensive comment [I] referred to," I couldn't give less of a flying monkey shit about "derailed conversations."

                          There is no conversation to be had with people who are OK with dog whistles that accuse Arab Americans of disloyalty.

                          Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                          by unspeakable on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:18:59 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Amazing! (6+ / 0-)

                            Are you actually saying that you had a list of instances in which I engaged in name calling?!  I'm kind of flattered, if that's true.  And I'd love to see the list.  You are welcome to post it here if you wish, and if it exists.  I never claimed perfection;  I reacted to your use of the word "hooligan" which actually made me laugh.

                            And I do believe that each comment should stand on it's own, even though we also use precedent and rules here in an effort to make sense of things and keep the discourse flowing.

                            I remember well when sortalikenathan defended my use of an objectionable word and I appreciated that at the time and stand by my use of that word still today.  In fact, I'm often tempted to use that same word to describe that same poster, a year later.  Her behavior here constantly reminds me of that moment when I earned my first and only HR but I control my fingers and avoid the b key.

                            I am genuinely confused by the rest of your comment.  Are you accusing me of being ok with anti-Arab dogwhistles?! Have I accused any Arab Americans of disloyalty???

                            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                            by hikerbiker on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:32:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, callmecassandra

                            as far as I know, you haven't made such accusations, but volleyboy1 and other members of your crowd have, including the latest example in "the offensive comment [I] referred to."

                            I have no interest in civil discourse with people who find these sorts of comments acceptable, and they should not expect anything less thrown back at them (not that what sortalikenathan wrote in any way equates to the anti-Arab comment from this weekend).

                            I remember well when sortalikenathan defended my use of an objectionable word and I appreciated that at the time and stand by my use of that word still today.  In fact, I'm often tempted to use that same word to describe that same poster, a year later.  Her behavior here constantly reminds me of that moment when I earned my first and only HR but I control my fingers and avoid the b key.

                            How generous of you. I suppose this passive-aggressive paragraph, in which you discuss why you still think zannie is a bitch, isn't inflammatory and uncivil at all.

                            Are you actually saying that you had a list of instances in which I engaged in name calling?!  I'm kind of flattered, if that's true.  And I'd love to see the list.

                            You flatter yourself by misreading what I wrote.

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:40:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ooooo, you know you were just looking for a good (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            livosh1, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            excuse to type that naughty word!  

                            Uh, you wrote this: I

                            had a list of instances in which you engaged in name-calling (and in one instance was defended by sortalikenathan!) or where you uprated comments that shouldn't have been uprated, but that's a pointless game to play.

                            So how did I misread?

                            You know that I have no problem HRing offensive comments from my "crowd" as you call it.  But I'm more likely to miss seeing it than to mistakenly uprate it.  Please point me to comments which I should know about, when they appear.  I'm sure you see more of what goes on here in these filthy threads than I do.  I can't remember the last time I actually read an entire I-P thread from top to bottom.  Bizarrely enough, life keeps getting in the way of the blog.

                            That said, I need to be up for the day in just 5 hours.  These conversations tend to interfere with my real life needs and responsibilities, which is one reason why my participation here is flimsy and sporadic.

                            Goodnight.

                            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                            by hikerbiker on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 11:08:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  heartbeat (0+ / 0-)

                            thanks

                            "As Israel treats Jerusalem, so shall the world treat Israel. As Jerusalem goes, so goes Israel." - B. Burston/Ha'aretz

                            by zannie on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:55:45 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you were in this diary (0+ / 0-)

                            That's the best you can do? (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                               MBNYC

                            Several snarky comments, and then there's The Convalescent?

                            You're a joke, I have more respect for rat shit.

                            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                            by Paul in Berkeley on Sat Dec 11, 2010 at 10:06:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                            hmm.

                            should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie.

                            apparently pathetic is more inflammatory as rat shit.

                            "As Israel treats Jerusalem, so shall the world treat Israel. As Jerusalem goes, so goes Israel." - B. Burston/Ha'aretz

                            by zannie on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:49:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  'than' rat shit... (0+ / 0-)

                            that was nathan he was talking about btw. not an hr in the house.

                            "As Israel treats Jerusalem, so shall the world treat Israel. As Jerusalem goes, so goes Israel." - B. Burston/Ha'aretz

                            by zannie on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:00:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  It's purely sectarianism (6+ / 9-)

                      a fixation on a single sect. its well being. its place in the world.
                      its power. its domination of Palestine.

                      while if you look around here the principle supporters of anti-islamophobia
                      are ethnicaly Christian Arabs who because they are genuinely leftist reject sectarianism, tribalism, oppression. The reject the legitimacy of sectarian and tribal power. and they support the Palestinian cause (which mainly is an issue of the well being of muslims in palestine) because they don't have a sectarian bone
                      in their bodies.

                      the people that HRed this comment
                      livosh1, JNEREBEL, thebluecrayon, hikerbiker

                      including the person you are talking to
                      volleyboy1

                      are simply and exclusively sectarian motivated. that's the only thing that drives them.

                      less than paul from berkely but equally motivated by consideration of sect as
                      that anti-Arab fellow  MBNYC who spews some European inspired racism here daily.

                      Previously I posted under the user name palestinian professor, which is now deprecated. I now post under my late grandfather's name simone daud.

                      by simone daud on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:09:13 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  What does this have to do with (5+ / 0-)

                    what sortalikenathan said?

                    Does Israel bomb people because they are Arab? NO,

                    sortalikenathan didn't say Israel bombs people because they are Arabs.He said Israel bombs people.
                    He said Israel discriminates against Arabs  and evicts them from their homes because they are Arabs.

                    A guilty conscience never feels secure.

                    by Flyswatterbanjo on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:28:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  HR'd for "You guys should be celebrating . . ." (8+ / 0-)
      •  Abe Foxman? Seriously? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weasel, zannie, capelza, corvo

        Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

        by borkitekt on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:14:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Considering the sources used by Team P (4+ / 0-)

          you have an issue with the ADL? Really????

          But beyond that, is the information wrong? I checked and was not able to confirm anything regarding it being wrong. Can you show me where it is?

          I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

          by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:22:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  and have you actually looked to verify this (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zannie

            or do I need to do this for you?

            It'd be a bit silly if both you and the diarist are don't have a grasp of what you are claiming to be true.

            Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

            by borkitekt on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:42:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Sounds like he has an issue with Abe Foxman, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            zannie, capelza, borkitekt

            Just like many people who support the ADL do.

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            A guilty conscience never feels secure.

            by Flyswatterbanjo on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:50:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  apparently not (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zannie, capelza, Flyswatterbanjo

              Foxman has lost all credibility with me (4+ / 0-)
              and many on the progressive Zionist side. I don't know what the heck he is doing but it sure doesn't make sense.

              I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

              by volleyboy1 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:35:29 AM SWT
              [ Parent ]

              Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

              by borkitekt on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:58:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I do have an issue with Abe Foxman (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Corwin Weber, Mets102

              he is a disaster for the ADL. But I asked bork a simple question, can he show me that the info. is wrong. I understand the questioning of an editorial stance BUT... this is a question of hard numbers. Can he show me where this is wrong?

              I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

              by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:59:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  (you're supposed to go look yourself) (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                capelza

                The answer is no.

                lets take the second part of the quote:

                Examples of institutionalized bias against Israel include:

                From 2009-2010, the U.N. General Assembly (GA) continued to spend a disproportionate amount of time focusing on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, passing 22 resolutions which are one-sided or blatantly anti-Israel.

                Indeed, of 10 emergency special sessions called by the GA, six have been about Israel. No emergency sessions have been held on the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or the two decades of atrocities in Sudan.

                Emergency special sessions

                The General Assembly may take action on maintaining international peace and security if the UN Security Council is unable, usually due to disagreement among the permanent members, to exercise its primary responsibility. If not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in emergency special session[7] within 24 hours of the request. Such emergency special sessions are to be called if requested by the UN Security Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority of the Members of the United Nations.

                The "Uniting for Peace" resolution, adopted 3 November 1950, empowered the Assembly to convene in emergency special session in order to recommend collective measures – including the use of armed force — in the event of a breach of the peace or act of aggression. As with all Assembly resolutions, two-thirds of UN Members 'present and voting' must approve any such recommendation before it can be formally adopted by the Assembly. Emergency special sessions have been convened under this procedure on ten occasions. The two most recent, in 1982 and 1997 through 2003 respectively, have both been about the State of Israel.

                Yes, 10 have been called, of those, 6 involving Israel. Of those, 3 were called by the Security Council and 3 by the USSR, Senegal and Qatar- the latter two concerning the same issue. The first one involved the Suez crisis with the US on the side asking Israel to remove it's troops from Egypt- not that that was a bad thing.

                Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

                by borkitekt on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:45:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  I would prefer if the UN held the rest of the (14+ / 0-)

    world to the standard to which it holds Israel, rather than allowing its standards for Israel to backslide to those applied to Syria, Iran, et al.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 01:57:55 PM PST

    •  Geek! (6+ / 0-)

      You're on fire today. Well done, sir.

      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

      by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:03:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque, volleyboy1

      but I tend to think the Veto system makes this impossible and lends an air of illegitimacy to any decision taken by the security council.  Considering Israel, Iran and North Korea are the sources of so much of the controversy, nothing will be able to get out of the council since they all fall in a major power's sphere.

      Pretty much the Iraq war run-up as well as Bosnia in the 90's have made me a complete skeptic when it comes to the security council.  The complete General Assembly has never really been taken seriously other than as fun theater as one delegation or the other walks out.

      "Raise your hand if you think Social Security and Medicare are Socialism."-Lawerence O'Donnell

      by AZphilosopher on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:38:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Impressive (16+ / 0-)

    You managed to entirely avoid any discussion of the content of the resolutions, and whether they were accurate or needed in the context of the 43-year-old Occupation.  On some level, that is quite impressive, to write a diary without once ever touching the subject manner.  Instead, we have the attempted tautology: the UN passed a resolution, Israel didn't like it, therefore the the UN is biased against Israel (and left unsaid, the resolution must be inaccurate ad unwarranted).

    "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

    by weasel on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:03:31 PM PST

    •  *Whatever* the substance of the resolutions... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hikerbiker, volleyboy1

      ...my point was rather the decision to focus almost 33% of its resolution efforts on directly criticizing Israel, and use none of those efforts to make even a token criticism of any other nation, even those whose practices are undeniably undemocratic, unjustified by any actual threat and in explicit violation of all human rights laws and practices.

      Are you truly denying the anti-Israel bias of the United Nations? Or do you simply agree with that bias, so you don't care? {ProfJonathan}

      "The perfect is the enemy of the good." -- Voltaire (Find me on Twitter as @ProfJonathan}

      by ProfJonathan on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:07:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Weasel has a (smallish) point, though. (5+ / 0-)

        It would be helpful to know what the resolutions were.

        Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

        by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:22:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Incredibly dishonest (11+ / 0-)

        After review, this diary is INCREDIBLY dishonest.  Did you even read your own sources?  The UN received two reports on matters related to Israel (NOT DIRECTLY ON ISRAEL IN BOTH CASES), and acted on them, breaking things up into a total of nine resolutions:

        Of the five resolutions contained in the Report of the Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian Peoples and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories...

        Also adopted were four texts on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)..

        Beyond harshly criticizing the settlements (which is ENTIRELY appropriate), what did these resolutions do?  Things like:

        In the text on UNRWA’s operations, the Assembly renewed the Agency’s mandate until June 2014 and invited Kuwait to become a member of the Advisory Commission.  It reaffirmed that the Agency’s functioning remained essential in all fields of operation and asked the Secretary-General to support its institutional strengthening through sufficient resources from the United Nations regular budget.

        This is the kind of shit you declare to be "criticism of Israel."  The fact that the UN must pass numerous resolutions to keep UNRWA going, to help the refugees that Israel created, you use as an excuse to damn UN.  

        You are so reflexively anti-UN that you didn't even read the resolutions.  I'm HRing this diary for the total dishonesty.

        "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

        by weasel on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:24:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How would you know? (11+ / 0-)

        It seems as if you are completely unable to gauge whether or not Israel even merits 33% of their resolutions.

        I personally can't think of any other country than us who is occupying 40% of some other people's land, carrying out ethnic cleansing of said land, bombing  said inhabitants and neighbors Lebanon, Syria, and an African country for good measure,) frequently, all the while threatening Iran publicly for several years.

        Serioulsy, this is rather trollish and almost merits an HR.

        Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

        by borkitekt on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:25:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Go UN! (18+ / 0-)

    In one such text, adopted by a recorded vote of 169 in favour to 6 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 3 abstentions (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Panama), the Assembly demanded the immediate and complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan.  (For details of the vote, see Annex VII)

    That is pretty stunning.  On the question of settlements, in all the world, ONLY the US and those votes controlled by the US support Israel.  Everyone else is against the settlements.

    There are only 2 possibilities:

    1. the Israeli settlements are clearly wrong, or
    1. the entire world outside of the US is biased.

    For the diarist, option 2 is the only possible option.  Option 1 is apparently inconceivable.

    "How did you go bankrupt?" "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." - Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

    by weasel on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:06:44 PM PST

  •  It is quite inaccurate to (6+ / 0-)

    view the "UN" as being the General Assembly.  The GA is a talk shop, with little real authority and almost no power under international law except the power to make the UN's budget.  

    The peacekeeping forces are not in any way under the authority of the GA.  They are under the Security Council, which jealously guards its perogatives.  

    So, your theory that GA resolutions mean that the "UN" cannot be trusted to administer a peace is based on a faulty assumption about the nature of how the UN operates.

    That is not to say that UNGA's one-sided resolutions vis a vis Israel should not be subjected to criticism, but your basic thesis is undermined by the facts.

    God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon Oct. 9, 1940 - Dec. 8 1980

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:09:38 PM PST

    •  This is just one example. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fizziks, volleyboy1, Mets102

      Certainly, the dismal and telling record of the various U.N. Human Rights organizations demonstrate at least as strong an anti-Israel/ignore-others bias. The mandates for the Goldstone and flotilla investigations, whose language prejudged the outcome against Israel, are others. {ProfJonathan}

      "The perfect is the enemy of the good." -- Voltaire (Find me on Twitter as @ProfJonathan}

      by ProfJonathan on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:11:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That is not accurate (0+ / 0-)

      There is a whole bureaucracy subsidiary to the GA, which sets the agenda through its approvals, resolutions and declarations.

      The actual law, through treaties, often arise from the GA.

      The only thing the SC deals with is peace and security, while the GA has general jurisdiction.

      •  No, you are incorrect. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MBNYC, volleyboy1, Mets102

        Treaties and actual law do NOT arise from the GA.  GA resolutions have no effect of law.  Only SC resolutions, in particular when the Council is acting under Chapter VII authority, have the effect of law and are in any way binding upon other states.  GA resolutions can only express the sense of the international community.  

        As for the Secretariat (the bureaucracy), they report to the Secretary-General.  The GA can influence the work it does through its resolutions (mostly by calling for studies), but their policy role is quite limited, particularly with any issue having to do with international peace and security, which is the sole province of the Security Council.

        God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon Oct. 9, 1940 - Dec. 8 1980

        by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:58:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is flat wrong. (0+ / 0-)

          Multilateral treaties are adopted by the GA, without which they would never be subject to ratification by states.

          They clearly arise from the GA, which either itself or its subsidiary organs form the conferences where these treaties are crafted.

          Then there are soft law declarations which, though not binding, have large influence over states and UN functions.

          You discount the power of the GA by a longshot.  

  •  Because the UN is realistic, while israel leaders (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    borkitekt, daliscar

    Are quite possibly nuts?

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:16:12 PM PST

  •  Who would you have (8+ / 0-)

    as an arbiter - Likud?

    Sanctimonious, Self Satisfied, Liberal and Proud.

    by stevej on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:17:31 PM PST

  •  So, you support Israel's actions then? (11+ / 0-)

    Like the occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians off their land?

    Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

    by borkitekt on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:17:51 PM PST

  •  Sorry to interrupt your IP Fight, (9+ / 0-)

    But Assaf has a wonderful diary asking for aid support for a project involving Palestinians children in the Hebron area and this is a worthy cause and that diary could use a little more attention, lest a fight be more important.

    I'm planning on donating €100 and wonder if anyone will join me?

    Listen to Noam Chomsky's Necessary Illusions. (mp3!)

    by borkitekt on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 02:31:10 PM PST

  •  The UN (12+ / 0-)

    is biased against Israel? Really?

    Let's see now: in the Middle East, one country occupies and settles land it conquered during war and faces no economic or political or military consequences at all. When another Middle Eastern country did that (Iraq invading Kuwait), not only was the most severe and destructive economic embargo in modern history applied to Iraq, but Iraq was bombed back to, as James Baker said, "the pre-industrial age", all authorized by this biased UN that is a paper tiger.

    As Israel continues to flout international law and faces no consequences, Zionist propaganda wallows in perceived victimhood and persecution in order to deflect from the reality on the ground, where the material dispossession of indigenous Palestinians continues.

    •  Funny I was thinking the same thing (5+ / 0-)

      as this:

      Zionist propaganda wallows in perceived victimhood and persecution in order to deflect from the reality on the ground, where the material dispossession of indigenous Palestinians continues.

      just with a different emphasis..

      I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

      by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:06:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ah really? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weasel, zannie, corvo, unspeakable

        where would your emphasis be, oh liberal one?

      •  And I was thinking about how he... (8+ / 0-)

        lost all credibility in my book when he suggested arming Hezbollah with nuclear weapons and how 9 people recommended that comment:

        yes (9+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weasel, zannie, Jagger, dancewater, skywriter, callmecassandra, Dexter, OrganizedCrime, simone daud
        nukes are bad across the board. Were it that supporters of Israel agreed with me.

        Until they do, I advocate Iranian nukes in the hands of Hizballah to neutralize the capacity of Israel to commit its massacres against Arabs (emphasis my own). If the US government and so called liberals don't take a stand against Israeli crimes, there is no other way. Sorry.

        Have a good one.

        by sortalikenathan on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:26:20 PM EST

        Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and their proxy Hezbollah is a foreign terrorist organization.

        Congress shall make no law...

        by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:16:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yawn (7+ / 0-)

          Losing credibility in your eyes is a badge of honor, Mets. Keep thinking about me, it's flattering!

          Run along now.

          •  And I consider not having any credibility... (5+ / 0-)

            in your eyes a badge of honor on my end. And sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think about you. I have much better things to think about, along with much more important things to think about.

            Congress shall make no law...

            by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:25:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  for someone (4+ / 0-)

              who doesn't think about me, you do go out of your way to quote me. I'm honored Mets, really.

              •  Well... (6+ / 0-)

                When one suggests that a state sponsor of terror with a president that has called for wiping another country off of the map obtain nuclear weapons and then give those nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization it's hard not to forget.

                Congress shall make no law...

                by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:46:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  great (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  unspeakable

                  glad it made an impression. :)

                  •  An impression - certainly... (5+ / 0-)

                    A good impression, not so much, but then again you don't really care, something indicated by that statement in and of itself, and given the sanctions against Iran that have been passed by the Security Council, I would imagine much of the world shares in my opinion.

                    Congress shall make no law...

                    by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:52:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  hey now (5+ / 0-)

                      I thought the dastardly UN was anti-Israel? So, Israel has nukes, world ignores it. Iran has a nuclear program, UN imposes sanctions. That is some might bias against Israel.

                      You're right, I don't care a fig about what people who support racist laws in Israel think.

                      •  Please do elaborate... (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        JNEREBEL, MBNYC, Corwin Weber, volleyboy1

                        on how any Israeli nuclear weapons violate international law? Oh wait! You can't! Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, so they have the right under international law to develop nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, last I checked, Iran was an NPT signatory.

                        Congress shall make no law...

                        by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:01:09 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  who said (5+ / 0-)

                          anything about international law?

                          This is about nuclear proliferation, something I oppose, as I have repeatedly stated my support for a nuclear free Middle East, and something that you and other supporters of Israel oppose selectively and hypocritically.

                          If you're going to base your opposition to Iran's nuclear program on it violating international law, my gosh, there's a whole body of international law that Israel violates routinely and daily, but, once again, you conveniently ignore the "international law" that Israel violates.

                          •  You oppose nuclear proliferation (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            livosh1, JNEREBEL, MBNYC, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            anywhere BUT... you support Hizbollah and Iran having nukes. Yeah that makes sense. Oh I know it is to balance out your perceived fiction regarding Israeli use of nukes even though they have never used them, shown them, threatened publicly with them... but....  what is reality right.. overrated?

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:09:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  oh (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, unspeakable, Flyswatterbanjo

                            liberal one, why is the concept of support for a nuclear free Middle East so difficult for you? Why should only your people in the Middle East have nukes? You don't think that we Arabs feel threatened by Israeli nukes? You think only Israelis should be protected from nukes, and not Arabs and Muslims? Why?

                            I love that your rationale for Israel having them is that "they have never used them"! Well, neither has any other country in the world, except, of course, for Israel's greatest ally.

                          •  They never threatened the countries (0+ / 0-)

                            around them with annhilation. So yes, I want the Israelis to have nukes. If the entire Arab / Muslim world all signed peace treaties and had normalized good relations with Israel I would not have a problem with a nuclear free Middle East. But, please tell me when an Israeli official goal was the annhilation of a neighboring country?

                            I don't generalize on what Arab people think but it is my opinion that you, nathan, are bummed by these nukes because they make a war of annhilation against Israel entirely too costly.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:32:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  uhhh (4+ / 0-)

                            But, please tell me when an Israeli official goal was the annhilation of a neighboring country?

                            Heh. And you ask this seriously? Why don't you ask a Palestinian about that.

                          •  I didn't know there was a country (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            livosh1, MBNYC, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            called Palestine. Nor did I know Israel was trying to annhilate them. If they are they really, really suck at it </snark>. You do realize that the Palestinian population both in Gaza and The West Bank is rising.

                            Now you were saying?

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:44:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Israel (5+ / 0-)

                            has dispossessed the Palestinian people and forced them into exile. Call it annihilation if you will. Palestinians do not have a homeland, do not have a state, and the majority of them are exiles and refugees. They are the new Jews of the Middle East and the world, thanks to Israel.

                            That's what I was saying.

                          •  I can understand that perspective (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            (even if I don't agree with it) so like the new Jews of the Middle East wouldn't accepting partition as the Jews did be a rational choice. The Jews of the Yishuv wanted a homeland that was their first and foremost concern. It happened.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:46:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it sure did (4+ / 0-)

                            at the expense of another people.

                            Accept "partition"? Who is offering them a real state today? Certainly not Israel.

                          •  you can take the people out of their homeland (0+ / 0-)

                            but you can't take the homeland out of the people.

                            palestinians do have a homeland.

                            "As Israel treats Jerusalem, so shall the world treat Israel. As Jerusalem goes, so goes Israel." - B. Burston/Ha'aretz

                            by zannie on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:25:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Question... (4+ / 0-)

                            I don't generalize on what Arab people think but it is my opinion that you, nathan, are bummed by these nukes because they make a war of annhilation against Israel entirely too costly.

                            Are you suggesting that nathan desires the annihilation of Isarel, the genocide of Jews?

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:44:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •   NO!!!! In no way do I think nathan (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, thebluecrayon, Mets102

                            wants genocide of the Jews. Kinda reaching here aren't you? Are you equating Israel with all the Jews in the world?

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:58:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Perhapas, I'm just confused by your phrasing... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, unspeakable

                            is my opinion that you, nathan, are bummed by these nukes because they make a war of annhilation against Israel entirely too costly.

                            Why would nathan be bummed that a war of annihilation against Israel is too costly?

                            Are you equating Israel with all the Jews in the world?

                            How many Jews live in Israel? And when Hitler slaughtered 6 million of your people in Europe, was it genocide or just mass murder? Now, in my opinion, the high body count indicates genocide or the very least, an attempt at such. But I can't speak for you, though. YMMV.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:21:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Perhaps"... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, unspeakable, sortalikenathan

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:22:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  To clarify (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            I believe nathan wants Israel to not exist as a Jewish State. It is my opinion given his writing here that he would support a military option to end the existence of Israel as a Jewish State. I also firmly believe that if he felt that could be accomplished peacefully with no injuries to anyone (Jew or Arab) that would be his preferred option.

                            I see the connection you are trying to make, but, it is a false connection. I would never think nathan wants to kill all Israeli Jews. He just wants a change in the make up of the region. If he could accomplish that peacefully with no one dying I believe that would be his preference. As for Hitler.. I think that was attempted Genocide. The Nazis killed something like 90% of Europe's Jewish population. AND they wanted to kill more beyond Europe. I don't think nathan wants to hurt anyone outside of Israel.

                            However, you have not answered my question... Do you conflate the worlds Jewish population with Israel? I am trying to get how you came up with my comment saying I thought nathan wanted to kill all of the worlds Jews... SOMETHING I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:31:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, unspeakable

                            you certainly are wrong about what I believe, but don't let that stop you from projecting.

                          •  Oh really.. .what part am I wrong about? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            You want Israel to remain a Jewish State?

                            Am I wrong about this:

                            I also firmly believe that if he felt that could be accomplished peacefully with no injuries to anyone (Jew or Arab) that would be his preferred option.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:58:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You know what (4+ / 0-)

                            I believe, we've had this conversation ad nauseum. I support Israel and Palestine being the homeland of Jewish people and the Palestinian people (all of them). I have no interest in seeing anyone go anywhere. I do not support Israel remaining an exclusive Jewish state because it governs non-Jews as well, and I support dismantling all of its sectarian laws, ending the occupation, and treating Palestinians with the exact same rights it affords to its Jewish citizens.

                            Not sure why we have to keep repeating this.

                          •  Well, I guess we have it because (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Corwin Weber, hikerbiker, Mets102

                            I don't see how realistic that is. The Israelis are simply not going quit a Jewish State. There is only one way for the result you want to happen and it is not peaceful.

                            What you want and the reality of what you advocate are two very different things. I am going with the reality part.

                            As I said to Flyswatter today... I want a world as portrayed by the United Federation of Planets, however that is not realistic. There is no precendent for it and I have no belief that it will happen anytime in the near future. So great where does that leave us.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:21:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again (4+ / 0-)

                            I never asked Israelis to quit a Jewish state. I suggest they reverse discriminatory laws and laws that privilege Jews over non-Jews. Since we constantly hear how Israel is "secular," this shouldn't be such a difficult proposition. Now, I'm aware that full equal rights between Jew and non-Jew in Israel is not something you can accept, but I do believe it will happen eventually, perhaps not in my lifetime though.

                            Your 'reality' is endless discrimination and racism and dispossession for Palestinians.

                          •  Not really.... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            My "reality" is the Palestinians will have their own nation side by side with Israel. Hopefully in Peace. The E.U. and the U.S. are working towards this end, so I see that it has a possibility (if not small) of occuring.

                            Israel may be secular in most respects but it is not the U.S. of Israel, nor should it be.

                            In Israel (my reality) the only right Palestinians would not equal to their fellow Jewish citizens would be Hoq Ha'Shvut. BUT in my reality (which is far more likely than yours) they would have it in Palestine. I think that hardly makes me racist or supporting continual discrimination.

                            Your vision might happen in 1,000 years when humanity has progressed beyond what it is now. In that case I would join you in that hope. Until then (whether it happens in 2012 or 3010) I think my version is far more likely and reasonable.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:42:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I love the notion (4+ / 0-)

                            that one should not advocate for equality and human rights and justice because the "reality" is that such things are not achievable. I hate to break it to you, but your "version" is as much a fairy tale as any.

                          •  Far less of a fairy tale so than you and the (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            One Staters you agree with.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:08:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And do you believe that the equal rights in your (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            fantasy state will be accorded to everyone?  

                            Will the likes of Hamas and Hezbullah be inclined to protect the rights of the (eventual minority) Jewish population in this egalitarian state you envision?

                            At what point do you believe the Israelis will choose to willingly give up control of their state and willingly become a minority within it?

                            These aren't snarky questions.  I would love to be persuaded that your vision of peace is more than mere fantasy.

                            Do you really believe that the right-wingers/religious extremists on both sides will just lie down together like the lion and the lamb?!

                            Given the realities and the differences, wouldn't a plan involving some territorial compromise be necessary in order to approximate your vision of peace?

                            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                            by hikerbiker on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:06:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  first of all (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, capelza, sofia, callmecassandra

                            Hizballah is not Palestinian, so they have no role in any peace process between Israel and Palestinians.

                            The fastest way to destroy Hamas is to reverse discriminatory laws against Palestinians and reverse the occupation.

                            At what point do you believe the Israelis will choose to willingly give up control of their state and willingly become a minority within it?

                            At what point will Jewish Israelis begin to recognize that "their" state is not simply Jewish, but has a 20% Arab minority that deserves access to institutional power in the same way that Jewish Israelis have? I am not obsessed with demographics, hiker. I don't base my politics around my ethnic group being dominant over another. I find such an approach nauseating. And before you tell me that Jewish people do not have that luxury, Christian Iraqis are being murdered in their churches in Iraq as we speak and ethnically cleansed from their homes. It is an ethical position that one takes to oppose ethno-nationalist extremism.

                            Do you really believe that the right-wingers/religious extremists on both sides will just lie down together like the lion and the lamb?!

                            There are progressive Israelis and Palestinians who work together. The vast majority of both Israelis and Palestinians do not want to kill each other. If you have faith in this basic principle, then joining progressive Palestinians and Israelis who work together makes much more sense than basing your politics around fear.

                          •  We agree on much. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            And much more than you realize.

                            But to answer briefly:  Hizballah has great potential to disrupt any peace process, so whether they have any actual "role" in the official process is irrelevant.  My family and friends who have had to flee Hizballah rockets in Northern Israel can attest to this.  No one can predict the precise circumstances or motivation for the disruption.  But I don't see any reason to expect good will toward Israel from Hizballah.

                            I understand the ethical position you describe and I share the theoretical values.  But I also don't believe in national suicide and I have yet to be convinced that any significant majority anywhere (Palestine, Israel, US facilitators) is committed to a peaceful one-state vision.

                            So, if no real player in the peace process even considers anything other than a two-state vision, why continue pushing from the sidelines with a one-state fantasy?

                            From the majority Israeli perspective, this is really destructive, as it feeds the worst fears and inhibits movement toward peace.

                            I have described my hybrid vision of peace here before.  I envision two binational states, with special protections for the Palestinian and Israeli minorities within each.  Each state would have a vested interest in making it work, with cooperation at all levels and freedom of movement between the (confederated?) states.  I think the ultimate peaceful arrangement will need to be a combination of the best elements of both one and two-state visions, not really either-or.

                            Consider adopting a homeless pet at PAWS.org (Progressive Animal Welfare Society)

                            by hikerbiker on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:52:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am rec'ing your comment for the (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            spirit of it but I fully disagree with your conclusion about a bi-national State unless I am reading you wrong. Anyway, you are dead on in parts particularly as it relates to the One State solution.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 07:58:15 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again... (5+ / 0-)

                            it is my opinion that you, nathan, are bummed by these nukes because they make a war of annhilation against Israel entirely too costly.

                            ...why would nathan be concerned with a war of annihilation against Israel? Why would he be bummed that Israel's nukes prevents Israel's annihilation?

                            I don't think nathan wants to hurt anyone outside of Israel.

                            And here you are suggesting that nathan wants to hurt people in Israel? That's what this comment suggests.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:04:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            Are you conflating Israel with all of the worlds Jews? Is this a tough question for you?

                            As for this:

                            I don't think nathan wants to hurt anyone outside of Israel.

                            Apparently you missed this comment:

                            I also firmly believe that if he felt that could be accomplished (the end of Israel) as a Jewish State peacefully with no injuries to anyone (Jew or Arab) that would be his preferred option (vb1 emphasis).

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:16:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •   Are you trying to manufacture outrage? (4+ / 0-)

                            Are you conflating Israel with all of the worlds Jews?

                            Cause there's nothing I've said that would lead you to believe that I conflate Israel with Jews.

                            Moving on...

                            I didn't miss the comment you blockquoted above. I'm wondering why you would say this...

                            it is my opinion that you, nathan, are bummed by these nukes because they make a war of annhilation against Israel entirely too costly.

                            and this...

                            The Nazis killed something like 90% of Europe's Jewish population. AND they wanted to kill more beyond Europe. I don't think nathan wants to hurt anyone outside of Israel.

                            ...in the first place.

                            And I notice you're working damn hard to avoid what you've put down in print.

                            Your comment was foul and you know it...

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:52:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually no I am not trying (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            manufacture anything. Here is your exact quote...

                            Are you suggesting that nathan desires the annihilation of Isarel, the genocide of Jews?

                            I said it was opinion that nathan would support the annhilation (end of existance) of the State of Israel. My comment said nothing about nathan wanting to genocide Jews. You tossed that in there.

                            I am not working hard to avoid anything. I made my points clearly. Just because you missed them is not my problem.

                            However, you seem to be doing your best to be avoiding my question. All you said was:

                            Cause there's nothing I've said that would lead you to believe that I conflate Israel with Jews.

                            but above you said this:

                            Are you suggesting that nathan desires the annihilation of Isarel, the genocide of Jews

                            Are you still wondering what would lead me to believe that you were conflating Israel with Jews. I am just curious if you actually think that way. You still haven't answered. Again.

                            you not recall that?

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:14:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re-posting... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            capelza, sortalikenathan

                            ...your words:

                            it is my opinion that you, nathan, are bummed by these nukes because they make a war of annhilation against Israel entirely too costly.

                            Even though this is your opinion, opinions must originate from somewhere. So how did you come about accusing nathan of desiring a war of annihilation (meaning: nothing left, including life itself) against Israel? And why would nathan be bummed that Israel's nuclear arsenal prevents a war of annihilation against it?

                            The Nazis killed something like 90% of Europe's Jewish population. AND they wanted to kill more beyond Europe. I don't think nathan wants to hurt anyone outside of Israel.

                            So nathan isn't as bad as Hitler because he only wants to hurt Jews inside of Israel, not outside? Is that it?

                            I get that you don't care much for nathan. But damn...

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 09:36:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Reposting here: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            However, you seem to be doing your best to be avoiding my question. All you said was:

                            Cause there's nothing I've said that would lead you to believe that I conflate Israel with Jews.

                            but above you said this:

                            Are you suggesting that nathan desires the annihilation of Isarel, the genocide of Jews

                            Are you still wondering what would lead me to believe that you were conflating Israel with Jews. I am just curious if you actually think that way. You still haven't answered.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:00:18 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, you misunderstood. (5+ / 5-)

                            My previous post was mostly rhetorical.

                            It's clear that you think of nathan as a genocidal-loving, Jew-hating Arab.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:03:41 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I can't HR you for this lie but hopefully others (7+ / 0-)

                            can.

                            I understand... you get to fling whatever crap you can, and then when you get called on it - you just

                            A. claim it was mere rhetoric

                            and

                            B. Make shit up.

                            So yet again...

                            Are you conflating Israel with all of the worlds Jews?

                            Is this a tough question for you?

                            You can't answer that so then you say in a complete and total lie:

                            It's clear that you think of nathan as a genocidal-loving, Jew-hating Arab.

                            Of course I wrote this yesterday:

                            NO!!!! In no way do I think nathan wants genocide of the Jews.(vb1 emphasis)

                            I understand, cassandra that reading is tough for you, and, I thought I was clear but allow me to repeat myself for the third or fourth time (since you missed all the earlier ones)...

                            I also firmly believe that if he (nathan) felt that (the end of Israel) could be accomplished peacefully with no injuries to anyone (Jew or Arab) that would be his (nathans) preferred option.

                            and of course you missed this comment:

                            I see the connection you are trying to make, but, it is a false connection. I would never think nathan wants to kill all Israeli Jews. He just wants a change in the make up of the region. If he could accomplish that peacefully with no one dying I believe that would be his preference (vb1 emphasis).

                            How do you manage to miss all of that? It boggles the mind.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:33:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  HR'ed for this... (9+ / 0-)

                            It's clear that you think of nathan as a genocidal-loving, Jew-hating Arab.

                            You know very well that volley said the following:

                            NO!!!! In no way do I think nathan wants genocide of the Jews.

                            And the reason you know this, is because you replied to that very comment.

                            It is a knowing smear of volley on your part. Donutted accordingly.

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:14:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            psychodrew, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            I am not sure how she missed all of those comments.

                            And yet she still NEVER answered whether she conflates all Jews with Israel. I am not sure why she won't address that question. I can't imagine why.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:24:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not a problem... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, volleyboy1

                            That knowing smear deserves every last donut that it receives. And I'm still waiting to see what her answer on that question is as well.

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:30:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just so we're clear: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Terra Mystica, sortalikenathan

                            You're actually trying to compare a manufactured outrage (manufactured by volley) to that of his quite real accusation that another poster desires the genocide of Jews through a war of annhilation against Israel in a post that you didn't even uprate?

                            You know, it used to be that pro-I folks were more clever than this and gave others something to think about.

                            But this...it's just, sad.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:58:37 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ahh so the lie continues. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            Because remember no matter how many times you lie it still is won't become true. Since you want to keep it up... let's look at your comment:

                            Are you suggesting that nathan desires the annihilation of Isarel, the genocide of Jews?

                            The original comment said nothing about Jews. You brought that in. So cassandra you keep dodging the question but here it is again:

                            Do you conflate Israel with Jews?

                            Pretty simple question cassandra, for the life of me I can't understand why you don't answer.

                            Now as to your vicious lie:

                            You're actually trying to compare a manufactured outrage (manufactured by volley) to that of his quite real accusation that another poster desires the genocide of Jews through a war of annhilation against Israel in a post that you didn't even uprate?

                            Here is my response to your original comment:

                            NO!!!! In no way do I think nathan (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by: Mets102

                            wants genocide of the Jews. Kinda reaching here aren't you? Are you equating Israel with all the Jews in the world?

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:58:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                            Now I thought you missed this but you actually answered the post. So which words do you not understand was it the "No" or was it "In no way do I think nathan wants genocide of the Jews". Just curious.

                            Seemingly you got this:

                            I don't think nathan wants to hurt anyone outside of Israel.

                            but you missed this:

                            I see the connection you are trying to make, but, it is a false connection. I would never think nathan wants to kill all Israeli Jews. He just wants a change in the make up of the region. (vb1 emphasis) If he could accomplish that peacefully with no one dying I believe that would be his preference

                            Now you were saying something about manufacturing outrage. cassandra, this is pathetic. I have seen you do better. The only outrage being manufactured here is by you, and it is a sad pathetic thing to see.  

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:25:21 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Tell me Metz... (3+ / 5-)

                            They never threatened the countries (0+ / 0-)
                            around them with annhilation. So yes, I want the Israelis to have nukes. If the entire Arab / Muslim world all signed peace treaties and had normalized good relations with Israel I would not have a problem with a nuclear free Middle East. But, please tell me when an Israeli official goal was the annhilation of a neighboring country?

                            I don't generalize on what Arab people think but it is my opinion that you, nathan, are bummed by these nukes because they make a war of annhilation against Israel entirely too costly.

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 06:32:41 PM CST

                            Why didn't you uprate volley's smear of nathan? Or a better question, why didn't you HR it?

                            Or this one?

                            The Nazis killed something like 90% of Europe's Jewish population. AND they wanted to kill more beyond Europe. I don't think nathan wants to hurt anyone outside of Israel.

                            Which can be found in volley's "clarification" post in the same thread. Desiring the slaughter of 6 or 7 million Jews constitutes a desire for genocide. Don't you think? You do consider Hitler to have been genocidal, no?

                            So yeah, since volley has yet to retract his smear(s) of nathan, then one can only conclude that he considers nathan to be genocidal-loving, Jew-hating Arab.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:51:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  HR'ed for reiterating this smear... (7+ / 0-)

                            one can only conclude that [volley] considers nathan to be genocidal-loving, Jew-hating Arab.

                            Donutted per the reasoning stated above.

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:55:45 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Re-posting the reasons for my conclusions... (6+ / 2-)

                            They never threatened the countries (0+ / 0-)

                            around them with annhilation. So yes, I want the Israelis to have nukes. If the entire Arab / Muslim world all signed peace treaties and had normalized good relations with Israel I would not have a problem with a nuclear free Middle East. But, please tell me when an Israeli official goal was the annhilation of a neighboring country?

                            I don't generalize on what Arab people think but it is my opinion that you, nathan, are bummed by these nukes because they make a war of annhilation against Israel entirely too costly.

                            Why didn't you uprate volley's smear of nathan? Or a better question, why didn't you HR it?

                            Or this one?

                            The Nazis killed something like 90% of Europe's Jewish population. AND they wanted to kill more beyond Europe. I don't think nathan wants to hurt anyone outside of Israel.

                            Which can be found in volley's "clarification" post in the same thread. Desiring the slaughter of 6 or 7 million Jews constitutes a desire for genocide. Don't you think? You do consider Hitler to have been genocidal, no?

                            So yeah, since volley has yet to retract his smear(s) of nathan, then one can only conclude that he considers nathan to be genocidal-loving, Jew-hating Arab.

                            I really do hope I run you out of donuts so others can enjoy a few hours of peace without your jacking...

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:07:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not wasting any more donuts on this. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            thebluecrayon, Mets102

                            If your allies believe your comments deserve uprates, I'm not going to argue with them.

                            I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. Deal with it.

                            by psychodrew on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:09:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Considering that 80% (or so) of HR ratings... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, psychodrew, Mets102

                            ...in I/P diaries are based solely on disagreement with the commenter (and this applies regardless of which side HRer is on), a retreat from donuting would be an excellent idea. This is not directed at you personally, psychodrew, but to everyone who engages in this tit-for-tat ratings abuse.

                            Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 10:08:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I completely agree. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Mets102

                            I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. Deal with it.

                            by psychodrew on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 11:51:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you find the 80% in I/P (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            to be reflective of the phenomena in dKos as a whole or is it unique to I/P only?

                            "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

                            by JNEREBEL on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 01:58:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't get to HR (4+ / 0-)

                            people you're in an argument with and you know that.

                            Uprated to counter your HR abuse.

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:10:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not in an argument... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, Corwin Weber, volleyboy1

                            Where do you get that from? State exactly why I am in an "argument" with her.

                            My only comments have been to explain my HRs, nothing more, nothing less. She has engaged me in conversation, but that does not mean I am in conversation with her. If someone walks up to you on the street and says something to you they have engaged you in conversation. However, if you do not reply you are not engaged in conversation with them.

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:14:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes in fact.. (3+ / 0-)

                            She has engaged me in conversation, but that does not mean I am in conversation with her.

                            it does.  It doesn't matter that you didn't respond to her question.  You Hr'ed the comment that she directed toward you.  From that point on "you are in conversation" and should not be doing the Hring.   MB has addressed this before.  

                          •  I'll defer for the time being... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, volleyboy1

                            as a show of good faith, but will write MB seeking clarification. If he indicates that such an HR is acceptable I will put it back in place. At the same time, as a similar show of good faith, I would hope that unspeakable pulls his uprate of the comment, as well as the initial comment that I HR'ed.

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:29:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No MB was clear and supported your position (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            but now let's see if unspeakable backs up that lie or pulls his uprate now that you pulled your HR.  

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:33:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And I just fired off my email to MB... (3+ / 0-)

                            seeking that clarification. I've always understood the rule to be that one must return the engagement in conversation in order for it to be considered an argument that precludes further use of a donut.

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:36:06 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My uprate of (6+ / 0-)

                            callmecassandra's truthful comment is not related to Mets HR abuse.

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:38:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think that... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, volleyboy1

                            your previous words disagree with your current assertion.

                            I've demonstrated that I am acting in good faith by retracting my donut and emailing MB seeking clarification on the issue. How about you showing similar good faith by retracting your uprate pending clarification from MB?

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:41:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Can you please direct me to a comment... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, thebluecrayon

                            where MB says such? In the meantime, I've emailed him seeking clarification on the matter. Thanks.

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:37:11 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No.. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            callmecassandra

                            ..I don't have the time to search through a zillion of his moderation comments.   That's what I recall and my understanding of the rule.   What is your big rush anyway?   He'll respond.  Clarification is good.

                          •  Her replying to his explanation of his HR (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            doesn't constitute an argument.

                            Your better than uprating that kind of trash.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:17:14 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have to wonder if he's mistaking me for volley (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, volleyboy1

                            who is in an argument with cassandra, and accordingly has not donutted cassandra.

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:18:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sofia, callmecassandra

                            her comment was a response to yours, and you HR'd it.

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:24:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You know what? (4+ / 0-)

                            There is no denying that volleyboy1 said this:

                            it is my opinion that you, nathan, are bummed by these nukes because they make a war of annhilation against Israel entirely too costly.

                            and this:

                            The Nazis killed something like 90% of Europe's Jewish population. AND they wanted to kill more beyond Europe. I don't think nathan wants to hurt anyone outside of Israel.

                            Those are disgusting accusations, and callemcassandra interpreted them correctly.

                            After being called a "radical from the Middle East" (a clear attempt at accusing me and others of being unAmerican and disloyal to this country) and having that trash uprated by assholes, all sorts of things are now acceptable.

                            Keep your moralizing to yourself, Red Sox.

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:23:18 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, if being accused of something (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            like being a "radical from the Middle East" makes "all sorts of things are now acceptable," then Cassandra's fit and your apologia for that would give Volley carte blanche. And then when Volley uses that license to slander someone else, they'll have carte blanche. And so on, and so on...

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:27:04 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sortalikenathan

                            callmecassandra's comment is OK because she interpreted volleyboy1's comments correctly. His attempts to walk his accusations back don't hold water.

                            I was simply responding to me being "better" than uprating "trash." The truth is not trash, Red Sox.

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:33:05 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think you are better (4+ / 0-)

                            than uprating trash. This thread is hopefully the exception rather than the rule on that front.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:45:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My rule is to (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Red Sox, Terra Mystica

                            uprate truthful comments from good people. Callmecassandra is generally speaking good people and she was speaking the truth. There are no exceptions here.

                            In any case, I'm uprating your comment because generally speaking you're good people, too.

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:10:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And I'm uprating you (0+ / 0-)

                            because I think you're swell.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:52:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You umm must've missed the part where (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Red Sox, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            I said this:

                            NO!!!! In no way do I think nathan
                            (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by: Mets102

                            wants genocide of the Jews. Kinda reaching here aren't you? Are you equating Israel with all the Jews in the world?

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:58:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                            and this:

                            I see the connection you are trying to make, but, it is a false connection. I would never think nathan wants to kill all Israeli Jews (vb1 emphasis). He just wants a change in the make up of the region. (vb1 emphasis) If he could accomplish that peacefully with no one dying I believe that would be his preference

                            You are a pretty smart guy... how did you miss that. Oh... I see you have meme to push instead. Well keep trying... I suppose.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:32:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't get to make (4+ / 0-)

                            disgusting accusations, then walk them back and expect us to accept it.

                            The fact is the words I quoted and the words you quoted directly contradict each other. That makes callmecassandra right. My uprate stands and proudly so, but then again I'm just a radical from the Middle East, right, volley?

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:36:18 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know what you are (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            but here was your original statement:

                            You don't get to HR (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by: sofia

                            people you're in an argument with and you know that.

                            Uprated to counter your HR abuse.

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:10:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent | Reply to This |Recommend Hide  ]

                            And then you said this:

                            My uprate of

                            (0+ / 0-)

                            callmecassandra's truthful comment is not related to Mets HR abuse.

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:38:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent | Reply to This |Recommend Hide  ]

                            Could you ummmm make up your mind.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:43:31 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Very simple. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sortalikenathan

                            Mets broke the rules and I called him out on that. Callmecassandra was speaking the truth, and I uprated her wrongly HR'd comments.

                            Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice. -- Clark's Law

                            by unspeakable on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:04:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ummmm really? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            Because Mets did not break the rules. Just because cassandra posted in reply does not mean they are in conversation. Mets HR'd and explained the HR that was it. Sorry, you are wrong.

                            Second. You specifically said first:

                            "Uprated to counter HR abuse"

                            Then you said:

                            "My uprate of cassandra's comment is not related to Mets HR abuse"

                            Those are specific. But Mets' HR was perfectly within the rules. He was not in a conversation with cassandra. The fact she responded to him does not make them in conversation. He would have had to respond back then you could make that argument.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:12:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cass, just stop (4+ / 0-)

                            you're making an absolute fool of yourself. Your hysterics are extremely unbecoming.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:06:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't do hysterics, Red. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Terra Mystica, sortalikenathan

                            I prefer logic and reason.

                            But, it's nice to see you...;)

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:12:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Indeed (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            I prefer logic and reason.

                            And it would be nice to go back to that, rather than your unfortunate hysterics aimed at volley.

                            Hope your day improves...

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:15:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Still don't know me yet, Red? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Terra Mystica, sortalikenathan

                            I have no attachments to volley. I neither like nor dislike him. So I can't have hysterics where he's concerned. But I'll call him out on his lies from time to time.

                            And this lie was particularly foul which he made against another member in a post that none of you uprated. Accusing nathan of desiring a war of annhilation against Israel. Genocide. Impress me with your impartiality and HR that comment.

                            Or ignore it if you want, just don't expect me to do the same.

                            Have a nice one...

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:32:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL please show me where I (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber

                            Said nathan wants genocide. Yet again you lie.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:34:54 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dude.. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Terra Mystica, sortalikenathan

                            the fact that not even the Likudnik uprated your original comment should tell you something.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:01:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who's the Likudnik? nt (5+ / 0-)

                            I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. Deal with it.

                            by psychodrew on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:19:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's probably a reference to Mets (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, psychodrew, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            Some of the anti-Zionists here like to refer to him as the Likudnik even though he has made it clear on numerous occassions that he is no longer a supporter.

                            Just another of their silly little games . . . no harm.

                          •  That's what I figured. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            livosh1, JNEREBEL, Mets102

                            I just wanted to see if she would just come out and say it.

                            I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. Deal with it.

                            by psychodrew on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 04:39:30 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What Likudnik? Who is a Likudnik here? (5+ / 0-)

                            Again... you seem to be evading the question.

                            Do you conflate Jews with Israel? Why is this so tough a question for you that you have to continually dodge answering?

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:28:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm curious.... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sofia, Terra Mystica, sortalikenathan

                            Why are starting your own blog?

                            Is it so you don't have to deal with folks condemning Israel's racist laws or challenging your support for these laws? Do you intend to allow criticism of Zionism on this site?

                            Can I join? I won't come unless I'm invited. Wouldn't want to be rude...

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:51:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You can post but no you can't call (4+ / 0-)

                            Zionism racism. You can however post critiques of Zionism as long as they are well thought out and don't use inflammatory language.

                            BTW, I don't plan on allowing Right Wing talking point bullshit either.

                            I am doing my own Foreign Policy, I/P blog because I feel that there is far too much toxicity in our discussions and I want that to end. I fear we have all become too reflexive (myself included) and rather than engaging in meaningful discussion we pie fight.

                            It's funny, (and charliehall2 talked about this) when I am talking with Wingers I find myself very critical of Israeli policies. But here, I find myself very defensive. I suppose if I felt that I could be critical of Israel and not have that used by Palestinian One-State supporters or people that I think don't like Israel I would be more critical. But make no mistake, I support the idea and State of Israel. I am against the Occupation and a lot of the things that the current government does, but, I am not willing to toss aside Israel for that. Rather, I would just like to see it change to a more humanistic approach on almost every front.

                            Take BDS for instance. If.. it were only against the settlements and not Israel in general, and it was a Zionist movement then I could support that (similar to the artist boycott of Ariel by the Israeli Peace Camp which I do support). Once non-Zionists and anti-Zionists step in though, it becomes something else and it becomes something I cannot work with.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:15:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah... (4+ / 0-)

                            What do you hope to accomplish with this site other than camaraderie?

                            I suppose if I felt that I could be critical of Israel and not have that used by Palestinian One-State supporters or people that I think don't like Israel I would be more critical.

                            ....

                            Take BDS for instance. If.. it were only against the settlements and not Israel in general, and it was a Zionist movement then I could support that (similar to the artist boycott of Ariel by the Israeli Peace Camp which I do support). Once non-Zionists and anti-Zionists step in though, it becomes something else and it becomes something I cannot work with.

                            So, you're more concerned about political views than the humanitarian issues and you wonder why people question your sincerity or write you off as petty.

                            An anti-Zionist asks for your help in boycotting settlement products of an occupation that you condemn and you still refuse to participate because this person is an idealist?

                            Or how about this.  How callous would it be to consider the political ideas of Jews before helping them when they're in need? Should the Palestinian firefighters that Israel refuses to let out of their cage have considered the political ideology of the residents of Haifa and Carmel?

                            Dude, you and those like you will never be a part of ending this conflict because you're unwilling to work with anyone unless they're in lock-step with your ideas. This is a conflict where the parties have an array of views and ideas and opinions and backgrounds all in opposition. Zionists will not save the day. Neither will anti-Zionists, post-Zionists or non-Zionists.

                            JVP should be your model if you're sincere:

                            Q: Are you Zionist, anti-Zionist, post-Zionist or something else?

                            A: JVP is an organization with a wide spectrum of ideological diversity. Our members hold a wide variety of views on many issues involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This diversity has been a great source of strength for JVP. The organization welcomes people from many different political points of view, asking only that they hold to our core principles.

                            And the reason you're able to criticize right-wing Zionists is because, in the end, you essentially agree on the things that matter to you. A Jewish state that rejects and denies the human rights of Arabs in order to maintain a Jewish majority. The only difference between you and a right-wing Zionist is that the latter comes right on out with the hatred against Arabs whereas you support laws and policies that target Arabs out of fear of what might happen. It's easy for you to condemn hatred of Arabs. But you won't condemn racist laws that will insure an artificial Jewish majority.

                            Good luck with the site though.  Don't worry, I was joking about an invitation.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:37:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  To answer (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            What do you hope to accomplish with this site other than camaraderie?

                            I hope to provide a place where people can honestly discuss the issue without recrimmination or villification. I think there is value in a discussion about this, but, I think it has to be moderated and nutured.

                            So, you're more concerned about political views than the humanitarian issues and you wonder why people question your sincerity or write you off as petty.

                            I actually don't wonder at what people that don't agree with me think of me. I don't really care. I view myself on the right side of humanitarian issues in this case. What can I tell you.

                            An anti-Zionist asks for your help in boycotting settlement products of an occupation that you condemn and you still refuse to participate because this person is an idealist?

                            Simply put, Yes. More to that though, if they are anti-Zionist they oppose me and my beliefs. Why would I work with them or want their help? I can oppose something without their help.

                            Or how about this.  How callous would it be to consider the political ideas of Jews before helping them when they're in need? Should the Palestinian firefighters that Israel refuses to let out of their cage have considered the political ideology of the residents of Haifa and Carmel?

                            Poor framing. First of all Seven of the Ten were allowed into Israel, and the three that were stopped were due to a "technical error". HOWEVER... that is a prime example of the flaw in Israeli policy regarding the occupation. Those firefighters like firefighters the world over are hero's. They did not deserve to be kept out.

                            cassandra, I generally have no love for what you write or believe in this situation, but if you were being attacked by someone at random and I was there I would not hesitate to jump to your aid. That is a ridiculous analogy.

                            Dude, you and those like you will never be a part of ending this conflict because you're unwilling to work with anyone unless they're in lock-step with your ideas. This is a conflict where the parties have an array of views and ideas and opinions and backgrounds all in opposition. Zionists will not save the day. Neither will anti-Zionists, post-Zionists or non-Zionists.

                            I disagree, those who are like me will be the ones to solve the problem. We see things for what they are realistically. It will be those who can see a future of two nationalities each in their own State and are willing to work to make that happen that will solve this issue.

                            JVP should be your model if you're sincere:

                            I personally have no respect for JVP. I simply don't, so I will say no more about them.

                            And the reason you're able to criticize right-wing Zionists is because, in the end, you essentially agree on the things that matter to you. A Jewish state that rejects and denies the human rights of Arabs in order to maintain a Jewish majority.

                            Again ridiculous, rhetorical commentary which borders on outright offensivness and drips with lies. You are so dogmatic that you couldn't see the truth if it jumped up and smacked you between the eyes (rhetorical play on words, I don't advocate smacking you between the eyes). So go on believe your little fantasy about myself and others. You just continue to show why no one in their right mind would take you seriously.

                            Good luck with the site though.  Don't worry, I was joking about an invitation.

                            Thank you for the Good Luck wishes, I appreciate that. As for the invitation I was quite sincere. If you can hold down the ridiculous rhetoric you are welcome to comment as anyone else who will follow site rules.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:47:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Aunt Martha, Terra Mystica, soysauce

                            I hope to provide a place where people can honestly discuss the issue without recrimmination or villification.

                            you want no challenges to your beliefs and opinions. Got it.

                            I actually don't wonder at what people that don't agree with me think of me. I don't really care.

                            Dude, you've shown in this very thread today that you very much care what I, at least, think of you. Wouldn't be wanting to creating a site either, if you didn't care what people thought.

                            ...if they are anti-Zionist they oppose me and my beliefs. Why would I work with them or want their help? I can oppose something without their help.

                            The common ground is ending the occupation, ending the ethnic cleansing, ending the dispossession. Why would anyone's political ideas even matter at all on a humanitarian issue?  Why should you care that you're standing next to an anti-Zionist when protesting an occupation that you both oppose? Useless peeps, instead of one great voice. Really?  

                            First of all Seven of the Ten were allowed into Israel, and the three that were stopped were due to a "technical error". HOWEVER... that is a prime example of the flaw in Israeli policy regarding the occupation.

                            The point was whether Palestinians should have considered the political ideas of Israeli Jews before assisting with putting out the fire in Carmel.

                            I disagree, those who are like me will be the ones to solve the problem. We see things for what they are realistically. It will be those who can see a future of two nationalities each in their own State and are willing to work to make that happen that will solve this issue.

                            No, you will not be solving this problem because you've yet to deal with the reality that this conflict involves a diversity of ideals, positions and beliefs which must be taken into account.

                            I personally have no respect for JVP.

                            Naturally.

                            Again ridiculous, rhetorical commentary which borders on outright offensivness and blah, blah, blah....

                            When you're done sputtering, could you inform us as to how you're fundamentally different than right-wing Zionists?

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:29:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow... wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            you want no challenges to your beliefs and opinions. Got it.

                            Nope. You are wrong.

                            Dude, you've shown in this very thread today that you very much care what I, at least, think of you. Wouldn't be wanting to creating a site either, if you didn't care what people thought

                            .

                            Actually I could give a rat's ass what you think, but, I will keep answering you when you lie about me. You keep lying, I keep showing you for a fool.

                            As for caring what people think.. I do, just not what those who are in opposition to me think. You should learn to read.

                            The common ground is ending the occupation, ending the ethnic cleansing, ending the dispossession. Why would anyone's political ideas even matter at all on a humanitarian issue?  Why should you care that you're standing next to an anti-Zionist when protesting an occupation that you both oppose? Useless peeps, instead of one great voice. Really?

                            Whoosh - missed the point completely.

                            The point was whether Palestinians should have considered the political ideas of Israeli Jews before assisting with putting out the fire in Carmel.

                            Ummm no, just I would not consider that before helping you in a life and death situation. There are some things that transcend politics.

                            No, you will not be solving this problem because you've yet to deal with the reality that this conflict involves a diversity of ideals, positions and beliefs which must be taken into account.

                            HAHAHAHAHAHAHA says Ms. I only consider one side. Are you trying to be funny. If not, you have talent.

                            When you're done sputtering, could you inform us as to how you're fundamentally different than right-wing Zionists?

                            Really? WOW... just wow.... Ignorance is not a mark of pride.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:22:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  BTW, you still never did (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            answer my question about conflating Jews and Israel. Is it really that difficult?

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:50:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't answer... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Terra Mystica

                            because I never made a conflation. Why give weight to something you made up?

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:30:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But you did make (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, Mets102

                            the conflation... Allow me to once again show everyone here:

                            Are you suggesting that nathan desires the annihilation of Isarel, the genocide of Jews?

                            That sure as heck looks like a conflation to me. Can you explain how it is not?

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:29:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                            I actually considered answering this, but no. It's just too stupid to even bother with...

                            Have a nice one, volley.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 08:43:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I can't say (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            livosh1, volleyboy1

                            I much care what you ignore and what you don't. Your predictably tiresome diatribe sort of reaffirms that general ethos.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:48:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You actually do care... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Terra Mystica, sortalikenathan

                            ...or I wouldn't be hearing from you.

                            I predict that when the next troll comes aboard and actually DOES cheer on a war of annhiliation against Israel, this troll will be HR'ed to hell and gone and dismissed as an anti-semite who calls for the genocide of Jews.

                            Furthermore, you'll be there to HR and condemn...

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:59:31 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just as I would if I encountered (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            thebluecrayon, volleyboy1

                            a cheer for a war of annihilation against anyone. It's hardly a revolutionary act.

                            These are the demands and sayings of Lee!

                            by Red Sox on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:53:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Definately not. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sofia, Terra Mystica, sortalikenathan

                            It's hardly a revolutionary act.

                            And it's quite foul to falsely accuse someone of desiring a "war of annhiliation", wouldn't you say? Or to suggest that this person wants to hurt Jews inside of Israel...but not outside? Foul, dude.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:26:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Gee what a surprise an uprate of your (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Red Sox, Corwin Weber

                            vile lie. Interesting. I see now there are two of you who have trouble reading. I am sorry to see this.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:12:41 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You know, it is *possible* (7+ / 0-)

                            to have opinions of someone without taking their ethnicity into account.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:27:31 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're correct... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sofia, Terra Mystica, sortalikenathan

                            It's clear that you think of nathan as a genocidal-loving, Jew-hating Arab.

                            I could've left off the ethnicity in the comment. Still a horrible smear by volley against nathan, though.

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:16:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, but Cass (5+ / 0-)

                            and hon, you know I respect you: sortalikenathan has called for Hezbollah to be armed with nukes. That's just freaking dangerous. This kind of opinion doesn't belong here. Last thing we want is for Breitbart or some other rightwing freak show to pick that bullshit up, especially if it doesn't get hidden, which it did not.

                            But what I'm really concerned about is that we're basically recreating the Mideast conflict right here, with all the deep hatreds that involves. I don't doubt for a second that sortalikenathan, unspeakable and simone daud hate my guts.

                            Where and how do we find any common ground on this? I'm going out right now, but I think it bears thinking about.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:58:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually... (4+ / 0-)

                            ...nathan supports a nuclear-free ME.

                            ...nukes are bad across the board.

                            ...but he also supports Arabs defending themselves against Israel's aggression. A nuclear-free ME or a Cold War situation. Those are the options.

                            As for Breitbart, he hates Arabs. He doesn't need a reason.

                            But what I'm really concerned about is that we're basically recreating the Mideast conflict right here, with all the deep hatreds that involves.

                            There are no better spokespersons for the Palestinian cause and experiences than Palestinians themselves who are here humanizing their side of the conflict and forcing those who still cling to out-dated ideals and debunked beliefs to confront what it is they're supporting and advocating.

                            It's also frustrating to speak of one's experience under Israel's occupation only to have it mocked and dismissed. Worse, the victims of Israel's occupation and aggression are faulted for Israel's behavior.

                            I don't see deep hatreds here. Anger, resentment and frustration, for sure.

                            That's my opinion on it, anyway. I could be wrong...

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 07:59:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, he does not. (4+ / 0-)

                            ...nathan supports a nuclear-free ME.

                            That's just an outright false statement.

                            It's also frustrating to speak of one's experience under Israel's occupation only to have it mocked and dismissed.

                            I'm sure. It's also frustrating to be constantly told that you can't support Israel out of a love and concern for the Jewish people, but that you have to be ipso facto an anti-Arab racist.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 09:51:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  but... (3+ / 0-)

                            In the case of someone (like, oh, yourself) who actually makes anti-Arab comments, and in fact, very offensive ones that if they were made against any other ethnic group would be HR'd, the term 'anti-Arab' is wholly and entirely accurate.

                            And I've stated many times that I support a nuclear free Middle East that includes Israel. You support a nuclear free Middle East with the exception of Israel. So cassandra was in fact accurate, and you are the one lying.

                          •  Yeah yeah (5+ / 0-)

                            just more sophistry from you.

                            You're not anti-racist. There's a ton of material written on this site about race, about privilege, by and for people of color. You don't, to the best of my knowledge, peruse any of that. What you do, rather, is argue exclusively for your own ethnic group, which you seem to value above others, which is of course the quintessence of the racist.

                            I support that with two observations: one, you told a Jewish poster togo learn Arabic. Not just any language, like, say, Spanish or Quenya, but your own ancestral tongue. That's bigoted on its face. It's pure narrow minded ethnic supremacism, precisely the mindset that you accuse Jewish posters of. A classic case of projection.

                            Next, you also don't support a nuclear-free Middle East per se. You support unilateral disarmament, and that's not the same thing. But the Israelis are not going to surrender their (unacknowledged) nuclear deterrent. So you're left with the argument that Iran, the definition of a rogue state, should go nuclear and similarly arm Hezbollah, which this country considers, rightly, a terrorist organization. You do so explicitly because it's an Arab terrorist organization, and you're an Arab as well. Again, ethnic supremacism, and that's without even going into the question of which other Arab terrorist organizations you'd like to see similarly equipped. Maybe you could clarify whether Al Qaeda qualifies as well.

                            But of course, given your demonstrated lack of introspection, you're not even aware of how problematic your views are.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 07:34:30 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well stated. n/t (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, psychodrew, Mets102

                            "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

                            by JNEREBEL on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 07:49:59 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Now you're just simply lying. (3+ / 0-)

                            Sortalikenathan has stated numerous times that he supports a nuclear-free ME.  As it is obviously impossible to have a nuclear-free ME if Israel has nukes, he has also stated numerous times that as long as Israel has nukes he supports Hizballah having them as well.  But those are two very different statements and they are by no means mutually exclusive.

                          •  it seems to me (5+ / 0-)

                            that people cannot understand that for most Arabs, Israel poses a similar, if not greater, threat to their safety and well-being than Hizballah does to Israelis, measured quantitatively by the sheer disparity in the number of Arab vs. Israeli victims of violence.

                            So the entitlement they bring to this discussion is astounding; Israel, a purveyor of an incredible amount of violence toward Lebanon and Palestinians, in their view can possess nuclear weapons in order to maintain the security of its citizens, but any Arab state or group possessing any kind of weaponry that would challenge Israeli hegemony is anathema, and anyone who suggests that Arab lives are entitled to be protected in a similar way that Israeli lives are is met with condemnation.

                          •  Having looked through the whole diary (3+ / 0-)

                            to see what I've been missing, one of the things that struck me is the Manicheanism of the whole thing.  When "we" have them the nukes are good but when "they" have them the nukes are bad.

                          •  I am not 'simply lying'. (5+ / 0-)

                            I made an argument and supported it. That's a subtle difference, but maybe you don't do subtlety as well as you think.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 08:00:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your "support" leaves out all the times (2+ / 0-)

                            that sortalikenathan has said that he supports a nuclear-free ME. So, yes, you are "simply lying."

                          •  ... (5+ / 0-)

                            yes (9+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            weasel, zannie, Jagger, dancewater, skywriter, callmecassandra, Dexter, OrganizedCrime, simone daud
                            nukes are bad across the board. Were it that supporters of Israel agreed with me.

                            Until they do, I advocate Iranian nukes in the hands of Hizballah [sic] to neutralize the capacity of Israel to commit its massacres against Arabs. If the US government and so called liberals don't take a stand against Israeli crimes, there is no other way. Sorry.

                            Have a good one.

                            by sortalikenathan on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:26:20 PM EST
                            [ Parent ]

                            Emphasis added. Nothing further, counsel.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 09:15:37 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's interesting that your own evidence (4+ / 0-)

                            quotes sortalikenathan saying:

                            "Yes, nukes are bad across the board."

                            So thank you proving exactly what I said in my initial comment.  Nothing further, counsel.

                          •  Of course in your hurry to (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, MBNYC, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            defend you miss one important distinction.

                            Israel is not a terrorist organization... it is a country.

                            Hizbollah is a known terror organization that acts as a quasi government in Southern Lebanon.

                            They are hardly the same thing.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 09:50:01 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your comment has nothing to do (3+ / 0-)

                            with the mischaracterization of sortalikenathan's position. But that's okay.

                          •  Oh so we are just discussing that aspect (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, MBNYC, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            ...nathan did say those things about preferring a nuclear free M.E. MBNYC's post confirms that and I remember that. BUT... arguing a terror organization should have nukes just because Israel has nukes is hardly a stable argument, and it puts into question the validity of the statement "Well I would prefer the M.E. was free of nukes".

                            It is a completely irresponsible suggestion at best.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 10:11:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So I'm glad to see that you agree with me (3+ / 0-)

                            that sortalikenathan's position has been mischaracterized:

                            nathan did say those things about preferring a nuclear free M.E. MBNYC's post confirms that and I remember that.

                            If you go back to my initial comment, that's what I said, and I'm glad that you agree with me.  Given that, I'm assuming that you take back your uprate of MBNYC's comments here and here and here and here where he mischaracterizes sortalikenathan's position.

                            As to whether or not one agrees or disagrees with it, that's something completely different.  But that's not what my initial comment was about.  So, yes, I'm happy to see that you agree with what I wrote in it.

                          •  No I don't necessarily believe it (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, MBNYC, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            has... I don't agree that his position has been mischaracterized at all. Please don't "put words in my mouth".

                            Don't count on me taking back those uprates either. I find nathans position of advancing nuclear proliferation in certain instances by giving nukes to a terror organization a rebuke of his position that he prefers no nuclear proliferation at all.

                            Generally if one doesn't agree with nuclear proliferation then no advance in proliferation should be welcome.  

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 11:26:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let's see. (2+ / 0-)

                            Here's from my initial comment that started this whole subthread:

                            Sortalikenathan has stated numerous times that he supports a nuclear-free ME.

                            Here's from you, a little bit up the thread from my comment here:

                            nathan did say those things about preferring a nuclear free M.E.

                            So, no, vb.  I am not putting words in your mouth.  You typed them yourself.  So, as I said, it's good to see that you agree with me that mbnyc mischaracterizes sortalikenathan's position.

                            Have a nice day.

                          •  Again... no need to lie about my position (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, MBNYC, Mets102

                            or "put words in my mouth"... nathan did state that he preferred a nuclear free Mid-East and then turned around and stated that he favored more nuclear proliferation. That is a straight out contradiction in terms. If one disagrees with nuclear proliferation then advancing it is hardly proof of supporting it, AND advancing it by advocating the handing of nuclear weapons to a terror organization is that much worse.

                            Your quote of me lacks context and ignores followup. You should know better than to do that.

                            As an aside, why are you defending this two days after this diary has died? I am kinda curious.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 11:57:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Uh hum. (5+ / 0-)

                            Maybe you should learn how rules of evidence are actually applied, and what epistemology is.

                            But I see that sortalikenathan has recommended a comment, which in turn means he's read this entire exchange, and is likely slinking away in embarrassment at having been so thoroughly and humiliatingly owned.

                            Have a nice day.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 09:51:14 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's very funny. (2+ / 0-)

                            You mischaracterize sortalikenathan's position, and then when that's pointed out to you, you try to change the subject.

                          •  Repeating X (5+ / 0-)

                            does not make X true.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 10:11:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree completely! (2+ / 0-)

                            And obviously, given his comment:

                            nathan did say those things about preferring a nuclear free M.E. MBNYC's post confirms that and I remember that.

                            vb agrees with me as well that you've been mischaracterizing sortalikenathan's position.  So, yes, simply repeating what you've written doesn't make it true.

                          •  No I don't agree with you (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, MBNYC, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            please stop speaking for me.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 11:27:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Since I'm simply quoting you, (2+ / 0-)

                            I'm not speaking for you.  I'm simply serving as the conduit for your own words.

                            Have a nice day.

                          •  You quote me out of context (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Mets102

                            and without the followup I provided. Again... please don't "put words in my mouth" nor state that I agree with you about nathan being mischaracterized. That is a lie.

                            But thank you for allowing me to state my position yet again:

                            ... nathan did state that he preferred a nuclear free Mid-East and then turned around and stated that he favored more nuclear proliferation. That is a straight out contradiction in terms. If one disagrees with nuclear proliferation then advancing it is hardly proof of supporting it, AND advancing it by advocating the handing of nuclear weapons to a terror organization is that much worse.

                            I sincerely hope that you will stop lying that I agree with your position.

                            Oh and of course... Do have a nice day.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 12:02:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Above you complained about... (2+ / 0-)

                            the animosities that have developed between you, unspeakable, nathan and simone.  And yet, here you are spoiling for a fight.

                            You simply can't ignore that nathan's first priority, his preference, is a nuclear free ME. But, just like everyone else on the planet, he believes (and I agree)that his people have the right to self-defense even against our "ally" Israel - a nuclear armed, ethno/religious supremacist nation with a long record of committing acts of terror against civilians. (Ex: Gaza/Cast Lead, July War of 2006)

                            But I don't think you were ever interested in nathan's position. I think you just want him gone. At least be honest about your motivations here...

                            The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                            by callmecassandra on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 10:44:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, come on, cass. (0+ / 0-)

                            You and me have known each other for long enough that we know one another as brutally honest. That's one of the things I value about you. One of them. You and me both are going on five years here as of next month.

                            Nathan is a different story. As far as I'm concerned, he's a compulsive liar with a vindictive streak. Not to mention a bully and a tedious bore.

                            That said, and I'm fully aware that I may just be extremely ungenerous, what we're talking about here is not who he is, but what he says. And I maintain that he's dangerously wrong.

                            Do I want him gone? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it's not in my purview to decide who posts here. Ideally, there would be a vigorous conversation without having crap from a year ago become the focus, or what ethnicity or religion someone is, or whatever ephemera you might care to name. I know, for example, that you're an African-American woman, but I don't recall having ever made that a part of the arguments we've had.

                            But as long as that is not the case, I hold myself at liberty to utilize the same tactics. That doesn't make me, I think, a bad person, any more or less than my jaundiced view of Nathan is authoritative.

                            I hope that clarifies things. Be well.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 12:02:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You may be right (3+ / 0-)

                            I don't know MBNYC's motivations but he certainly has not taken kindly to any of us calling him out when he has made anti-Arab comments. However what we can say with certainty here is that partisanship has triumphed over basic reading comprehension skills.

                            "I have a vision of our rights as indigenous people. We didn't migrate to Israel; it is Israel that migrated to us." Haneen Zoabi, interview in the New Stateman

                            by Fire bad tree pretty on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 02:35:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  wrong (0+ / 0-)

                            it's that your deficient reading and comprehension skills do not even merit a response. You're simply lying here, and you were caught lying, and I saw no point in furthering a conversation with a compulsive, Arab hating liar like yourself.

                            Get over yourself. My lack of response to your silly bullshit is explained not by my "embarrassment" over anything, but by my not giving a shit about you or what you write about me.

                            mmmkay?

                            Now get a grip and move on already, this diary is days old and you're still trying to distort my positions here. Get a friggin life.

                          •  Whatevs. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            livosh1, JNEREBEL, Mets102

                            My lack of response to your silly bullshit is explained not by my "embarrassment" over anything, but by my not giving a shit about you or what you write about me.

                            Yeah, I can tell. Haha!

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 05:43:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The thing about nathan's desire (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, MBNYC

                            to give nukes to Hezbollah, is that Hezbollah isn't even the government of Lebanon. It isn't the country of Lebanon. It's a warlord entity that has terrorized the Lebanese government to the point that Lebanon dares not send its military into the south of the country. Afghanistan isn't the only "country" that has been divided into separate fiefdoms by warlords with their private armies. Lebanon is Afghanistan-lite.  And not only is Hezbollah recognized as a terrorist organization by the civilized international community (which apparently excludes nathan and his morally-bankrupt cheerleaders), it also has been implicated in the murder of the Lebanese prime minister.  

                            This is the organization nathan wants to give nukes to, because hey, Arab solidarity, beotches!

                            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                            by Paul in Berkeley on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 09:16:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Exactly. (1+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Paul in Berkeley
                            Hidden by:
                            soysauce

                            And I'd really like to know if Al Qaeda is on his nuke Christmas gift list, too.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 06:35:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I wonder (0+ / 0-)

                            if supporting Israel bombing more Arabs that you hate with white phosphorus is on yours?

                          •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

                            But if you must know, I'm saving up for a Battle Star. American jobs, baby.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 08:42:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More anti-Arab rhetoric from MBNYC. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sortalikenathan, soysauce

                            First sortalikenathan is a "radical[...] from the Middle East" and now this?  Both uprated by Paul as well.

                            I'm reporting this to Meteor Blades; your not so subtle insinuations of sortalikenathan as a terrorist are way over the top.

                            The only reason I'm not HRing this is because of our own subthread conversation.

                          •  don't worry (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            soysauce

                            about it. Meteor Blades doesn't care. He allows MBNYC's racism against Arabs and therefore condones it. The Arabs who post here are "angry Arabs," we are "radicals from the Middle East" despite being American citizens, our cultural/civilizational contributions do not meet MBNYC's European standards, and based on his "al Qaeda" comment, I am sympathetic to all Islamic fundamentalist groups, despite being an atheist of Christian descent, and despite the fact that any person with an ounce of knowledge knows that Hizballah and Al Qaeda have little in common, but I suppose if you are MBNYC, all Muslims and Arabs are the same.

                          •  We'll see what happens. (0+ / 0-)

                            In the meantime, I would suggest disengagement from this diary.

                          •  Um. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL

                            If you think Meteor Blades 'condones racism', you might want to take a look in the mirror, pal.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 12:10:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What insinuation? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, Mets102

                            This one?

                            yes (9+ / 0-)
                            nukes are bad across the board. Were it that supporters of Israel agreed with me.

                            Until they do, I advocate Iranian nukes in the hands of Hizballah to neutralize the capacity of Israel to commit its massacres against Arabs. If the US government and so called liberals don't take a stand against Israeli crimes, there is no other way. Sorry.

                            Have a good one.

                            by sortalikenathan on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 06:26:20 PM EST
                            [ Parent ]

                            So until Daily Kos Israel supporters like presumably myself agree to scrap the Israeli nuclear deterrent (this assuming that I have much of a voice in how Jerusalem arms itself), sorta advocates for nukes in the hands of a terrorist organization. Given that, it's entirely legitimate to ask whom else he would similarly favor.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 11:27:47 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "All options are on the table" (4+ / 0-)

                            and other similar statements are threats. To claim otherwise is semantic gymnastics.

                            Additionally, Iran has of yet not displayed the ability to even enrich to medical use levels, so I would not be so sure that they want or intend weapons.

                            To assume, even if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon or two--which is about all the uranium they have--that they would give it to Hezbollah is also quite a stretch.

                            How about addressing actual capabilities and actual nuclear weapons--I believe Israel has in the 100s.

                            You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

                            by FrankCornish on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:25:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  one is too many for Iran and/or Hezbollah. n/t (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Corwin Weber, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

                            by JNEREBEL on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:31:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and how many (5+ / 0-)

                            is too many for Israel?

                          •  Agreed wholeheartedly n/t (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, Corwin Weber, volleyboy1

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:33:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  First of all, (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            capelza, callmecassandra, unspeakable

                            I do not concede for a second that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons. They really don't do anything for them strategically, and they paint an even bigger target on their forehead.

                            I think they are pursuing the Japan option--which is to control the fuel cycle and be able to develop weapons if the US and Israeli threats get serious at some point in the future. As it is, the "nuclear issue" is much beloved by the current ruling clique in Iran as it gives them a perfect example of "Western Imperialist Hypocrisy." They'll keep playing this game as long as we keep playing--it only helps keep them in power. In any case, aside from the current regime, there is widespread support for nuclear power in Iran from all political directions. Shit, they could bring back the Shah's fat and useless twit of a son and they would still support nuclear power. Nuclear power independent of Western supply--that is.

                            You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

                            by FrankCornish on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:39:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Since we are speculating.... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            I believe the current regime of Iran fully intends to develop nuclear weapons if possible. They have a tremendous amount to gain for themselves if they do. And as you say, there is no incentive within the country to halt their announced nuclear program so it really is a win-win for the regime.

                            "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

                            by JNEREBEL on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:39:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, it's speculation, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Terra Mystica

                            but the fact remains that they do not have a nuclear weapon, and they cannot at this point even enrich uranium to medical use level (20%) so I would say that your speculation and the hyperventilation of the US government over the last few years is highly suspect. If Iran is in violation of the NPT, and I have yet to see any clear evidence that they are, the US is in clear violation through their threats against Iran as an NPT member. Moreover, the stuxnet virus was clearly directed at Iran's nuclear program, and one could easily argue that it is an attack as clearly as a military one--where did that virus come from?

                            I've had quite enough of the bluster, bullshit, and double standards. Israel has no right to complain about any of it, since everyone knows they have nuclear weapons and that they are not part of the NPT to begin with. Israel suspects Iran of doing exactly as they did--how convenient. Pot meet kettle. One standard will do just fine for me. You can take your American and Israeli exceptionalism and stuff them.

                            You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

                            by FrankCornish on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:56:01 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Iran has threatened Israel (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            first. I bet if they made offered a Peace treaty or even just shut up about the destroying the "Zionist Entity" this wouldn't be an issue. But generally when people claim they want to kill you.. it is a good idea to take them at their word.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:35:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So we should have wet our pants (5+ / 0-)

                            when Kruschev pounded the table with his shoe and said "we'll bury you." ?

                            Even Ehud Barak admits that Iran does not present an existential threat to Israel. Israel uses Iran as the new bogeyman in the ME to replace the formerly Soviet-backed Arab radicals. The end of the Cold War seriously threatened Israel's special relationship with the US, but the ubiquitous Muslim fear-mongering has replaced it.

                            Sorry, but I just don't take a country that spends as much as Sweden on their military as a serious military threat.

                            You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

                            by FrankCornish on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:44:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well that is good that you don't take them (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            seriously but, if you don't mind.. well even if you do (it doesn't really matter) we as Jews take them deadly seriously. Oh and according to wikileaks so does most of the rest of the world. Whoops.

                            And as far as them not wanting to develop a bomb... heh...

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:48:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Spare me the theatrics. (5+ / 0-)

                            When the US and Israel stop their thinly veiled threats that no one but you seem to deny, then you can bitch about whatever crazy utternace comes out of Ahmadinejad's mouth. Ahmadinejad, a former Basiji, who has NO WAR POWER AT ALL.

                            Call me when they have one stinking bomb, against the few hundred in Israel's stockpile and the thousands that could be launched in seconds from the US Triad.

                            And don't give me that "Mad Mullah" shit, most of that ruling clique has become quite wealthy and they have no intention to make an early exit from this world.

                            You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

                            by FrankCornish on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:57:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okie dokie I will be calling (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            I didn't realize fear of annhilation was theatrics. I guess I should say the same to you:

                            Call me when they have one stinking bomb, against the few hundred in Israel's stockpile and the thousands that could be launched in seconds from the US Triad.

                            Call me when Israel attacks. I guess you take this

                            When the US and Israel stop their thinly veiled threats that no one but you seem to deny

                            seriously but when Israel complains out threats it is merely theatrics.

                            Got it. Thanks.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:01:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When a country with nuclear weapons (4+ / 0-)

                            threatens, yes it is different. Are you so obtuse that you can't see that?

                            A twelve year old can threaten the crap out of me, but I think I would ignore it. Now if I threaten a twelve year old, he might feel threatened.

                            I'm sorry I entered into this pointless discussion.

                            You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

                            by FrankCornish on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:05:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry Frank but Iran (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            is not like a 12 year old. They are arming Hizbollah and have Guards on the ground in Lebanon. They are trying to arm Hamas. If Iran wants peace with Israel why are they not signaling that? NO.. they want a fight with Israel, and we both know that. I am not sure at this point they want to destroy Israel as they need it as "bogeyman" for their regional plans, but, that could change.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:14:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If Isreal took a real shot at peace, (6+ / 0-)

                            Hezbollah and Hamas would fade away.

                            The ball's in your court. There will come a time when the US can no longer really help Israel because we won't be a world power. It won't be next year, but 20 years from now?

                            I would never say that Iran is some benign influence in the region, but Israel is the source of more of their own problems than they care to admit.

                            You may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

                            by FrankCornish on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:20:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I actually agree with that statement (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Mets102

                            with the caveat that both sides I think have to take a serious shot not just Israel.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:32:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well said. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankCornish, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            I would never say that Iran is some benign influence in the region, but Israel is the source of more of their own problems than they care to admit.

                            Bingo.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:51:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I was only asking you to expound... (5+ / 0-)

                            because you have referred to international law in the past when referring to Israel actions, so I was wondering why you did not apply international law to the Iranian regime, which has taken upon itself to sign the NPT and accordingly voluntarily renounce the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Therefore, any Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons is in violation of international law to which it voluntarily acceded.

                            However, my opposition to Iranian nuclear weapons does not stem from international law. Rather, it stems from the fact that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, including the terrorist organization which you favor them giving nuclear weapons to, Hezbollah.

                            Ultimately, this comes down to the fact that in the absence of getting your way on a nuclear-free Middle East you support the nuclear armament of a terrorist organization. Giving such an organization nuclear weapons, under any circumstances, is not only beyond dangerous, it is beyond any notion of reasonability and beyond any notion of responsible action by nation-state actors.

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:13:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yawn (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, unspeakable

                            thanks for your input. Duly ignored.

                          •  I'm not the one... (5+ / 0-)

                            that supports taking actions that would move the Doomsday Clock to 11:59 p.m. and 59 seconds, because that's what putting a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist organization is tantamount to, which is what you support doing if you do not get your way.

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:20:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  oooooh (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, callmecassandra, unspeakable

                            scary!!!!  Didn't know you manned the Doomsday Clock. You forget Likudnik, I don't give a fig what a supporter of a racist anti-Arab party thinks buddy. And before you deny affiliation with Likud and blather on about your glorious political transformation from far right to right,  Kadima and its piece of shit founder Ariel the terrorist Sharon is just as bad.

                          •  Actually... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Corwin Weber, volleyboy1

                            I'm liberal, thank you very much, not rightist. And what's with the need to call me a rightist or to call volley brainwashed? I'm just curious, what political party that identifies as Zionist do you not consider rightist? Is Labor rightist in your opinion? Is Meretz? Also, what do you consider a non-brainwashed Zionist?

                            Congress shall make no law...

                            by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:32:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The need is the same kind of thing (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            that people do when they buy big trucks and jack them up with huge tires. They are making up for some inadequacy.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:51:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But don't you see (4+ / 0-)

                            the brilliant logic of it?

                            Israel is evil and racist and oppresses Arabs qua Arabs, ergo, nuclear proliferation into the hands of terrorists makes the world less evil, less oppressive and less racist!

                            So simple you have to wonder why nobody thought of it before nate came along.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:31:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm just following (5+ / 0-)

                            the logic that Israel and its supporters use regarding power and self-defense.

                            I figure hey, if it's good enough for Israel, it's good enough for my people too.

                          •  Hezbollah (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            is 'your people'? Is that what you're saying?

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:39:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Arabs (5+ / 0-)

                            are my people. Problem with that?

                          •  Not at all. (4+ / 0-)

                            But at the same time, I have a problem with nukes in the hands of genocidal, anti-Semitic terrorist organizations.

                            But I understand that opinions may differ on that.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:43:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you're entitled to that (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, callmecassandra, unspeakable

                            I have a problem with nukes in the hands of a racist, anti-Arab state, apartheid state that bombs women and children routinely. But I understand that opinions may differ on that.

                          •  Right. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            Be sure to tell your friend simone daud that you just love - love ! - the idea of nukes pointed at his house. And don't forget to tell the other one million Arabs in Israel and the two and a half million in the territories the same glorious good news.

                            You have officially lost your marbles.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:00:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well (4+ / 0-)

                            I'm just a silly radical angry Arab from the Middle East who speaks an anti-semitic language (despite it being semitic). How's your bigotry coming along? What's your next gem of racism?

                          •  Oh, I don't know. (0+ / 0-)

                            I think I'm going to tell the Arab posters here to go learn Hebrew and then start getting all hot and bothered about wiping out a couple of million people with nukes.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:30:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I do (4+ / 0-)

                            speak some Hebrew, so at least three of the Arab posters here are either fluent in it or are at the intermediate level. Nothing at all wrong with telling us to learn Hebrew, it's a beautiful language.

                            If thinking about wiping people out with nukes is what gets you hot and bothered bro, I'd say you're the one who's lost it.

                          •  Very cool of you, bro. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, Mets102, canadian gal

                            By the way, the angel of irony just flew by. She says to say 'hi'.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:42:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Weren't these guys bitching yesterday (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, MBNYC, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            that we were sectarian?*

                            *heh, and you aren't even Jewish, although being a New Yorker is 96%

                            In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

                            by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:17:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Remember (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Paul in Berkeley, MBNYC, Mets102

                            IOKIYTP

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 12:33:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Caucasians are my people.... (7+ / 0-)

                            ...partially.  You're not going to see me suggesting that the world would be a better place if the Tea Party had nukes.

                          •  Yup. (5+ / 0-)

                            Aryan Nations. I don't think they should have nukes, either. Or the Mexican drug cartels, Operation Rescue, ETA, any of the groups like that.

                            And if sortalikenathan thinks that he needs to stand in solidarity with terrorists because he's an Arab, it doesn't really reflect well on other Arabs, even if they would very likely be horrified by the idea.

                            The teabaggers, of course, love this kind of thinking, because it validates their bigotry, too.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:31:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  hey buddy (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Aunt Martha, soysauce

                            you stand in solidarity with terrorists in Israel and they DO have nukes.

                          •  Right, 'buddy'. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL, volleyboy1

                            Funny that the U.S. government doesn't see it that way.

                            Legal Ramifications of Designation

                            It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as " any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’

                            Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).

                            Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

                            But that's probably just because State is a bunch of Arab-hating racists, right?

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 09:46:06 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I know I didn't..... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:03:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Facts are boring..... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Corwin Weber, volleyboy1, Mets102

                            Facts seem to make you sleepy when they do not support your polemics.

                            "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

                            by JNEREBEL on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:29:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  facts? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            zannie, unspeakable

                            More like Zionist lies and propaganda, as usual.

                          •  Yeah, and we all know (5+ / 0-)

                            that all Zionists are liars and racists, so you're absolutely right.

                            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                            by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:38:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As I told zannie... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                            you should get some sleep if you have to "Yawn" through this.

                            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:49:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  OOOPS he must've (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          JNEREBEL, MBNYC, Corwin Weber, Mets102

                          forgotten that one. Dangit..

                          I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

                          by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 04:07:34 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  *"it's hard to forget." n/t (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JNEREBEL, MBNYC, volleyboy1

                  Congress shall make no law...

                  by Mets102 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:49:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Heh. (4+ / 0-)

          Don't you have a language course to go to?

          Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

          by MBNYC on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:26:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  he lost it long, long ago for me. n/t (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MBNYC, Corwin Weber, volleyboy1, Mets102

          "Stay close to the candles....the staircase can be treacherous" (-8.38,-8.51)

          by JNEREBEL on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 03:33:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  wow. (6+ / 0-)

          i'm speechless. is MB on holiday?

          "Every morning I awake torn between a desire to save the world and an inclination to savor it. This makes it hard to plan the day." -- E.B. White

          by canadian gal on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 05:26:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You've highlighted the wrong thing (3+ / 0-)

          You should've been highlighting this:

          nukes are bad across the board. Were it that supporters of Israel agreed with me.

          Because sorta's support for others having nuclear weapons in the Middle East rests only on the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons. His preference would be that the region becomes nuclear-free.

          Mets, you might try putting comprehension skills before the need to misrepresent the views of others.

          "I have a vision of our rights as indigenous people. We didn't migrate to Israel; it is Israel that migrated to us." Haneen Zoabi, interview in the New Stateman

          by Fire bad tree pretty on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 05:16:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here's the difference and it is big (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            Israel is a State recognized by the World Community. It has never threatened another State with total annhilation and it does not carry a policy of doing that.

            Hizbollah is a terror organization. There is no country called Hizbollah. It is not a State organization.

            This is a big difference.

            I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

            by volleyboy1 on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 09:47:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your argument is complete rubbish (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              capelza, callmecassandra

              since you avoid the fact that sorta wants a nuclear-free Middle East. Like I said, Mets and now you are misrepresenting his views. Please stop the lies.

              "I have a vision of our rights as indigenous people. We didn't migrate to Israel; it is Israel that migrated to us." Haneen Zoabi, interview in the New Stateman

              by Fire bad tree pretty on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 02:26:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  It is funny (5+ / 0-)

    normally when you ask an American who opposes Israel why is it right to devote so much time to one relatively small country with all of the countless human rights terrors in China, Sudan, the Gulf States, etc... they will invariably respond with something like:

    "My disproportionate outrage is justified because Israel gets a disproportionate share of US foreign, military, and diplomatic aid"

    So what about the UN?  I don't think anyone could say that Israel gets a disproportionate share of help from the UN, so how is the disproportionate outrage justified?

  •  OH Boy - Evil Zionist alert (9+ / 0-)
    It seems the Tel-Aviv City Council issued the following comment regarding that bullshit Rabbi's letter:

    Meanwhile, the Tel Aviv city council has unilaterally endorsed a motion by Meretz's Ahmed Mashharawi to denounce the rabbis' letter. "I'm proud to be the resident of a mixed, pluralist city that has a place for all religions and nationalities," Mashharawi said.

    I'm not a little giant... I'm a freakin' leprechaun

    by volleyboy1 on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 08:26:56 PM PST

  •  Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. (4+ / 0-)

    There is no point in negotiating with people who won't acknowledge that fact.

    I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. Deal with it.

    by psychodrew on Mon Dec 13, 2010 at 10:31:42 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site