Skip to main content

Israeli foreign minister's angry reaction to Israel's diplomatic loss is beyond irrational, it's f-ing nuts!

Israel was not willing to sacrifice its vital national interests and become a “second Czechoslovakia,” he said.

“All expressions and promises of commitment to Israel’s security from all around the world remind me of similar commitments made to Czechoslovakia [in 1938], and the pressure made on the Czech president to partition the Sudetenland.

After all the promises and guarantees that were provided, Nazi Germany occupied all of Czechoslovakia, bringing an end to its existence,” he said.

Let me tell you what's thoroughly nuts about this. It's not that Israel's US-gifted nuclear-capable military is the fourth largest in the world and much more powerful than all its enemies combined. It's not that crazy Lieberman is trashing Europe (except for Czechs) for failing obey Israel and her rich uncle Sam as Tuvalu and Marshall Islands did. No, he already ranted about that a few days ago.

No, he's voicing is a specific objection to European Governments Summoning Ambassadors Over Israeli Settlement expansion.

So, that means Lieberman is equating Nazi Germany's grab of Sudatenland with diplomatic objections against expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land (Illegal under international law, but more importantly under European Court of Justice).

And who are the Nazis in this analogy? Who else could it be other than the Palestinians who keep insisting on getting the West Bank, "encouraged" by cowardly European appeasers, just like pre-WWII?

That's nuts!

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

  •  Lieberman is crazy. That is without a doubt. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    livosh1, Kane in CA, Rich in PA, TLS66

    However, your comment "Israel's US-gifted nuclear-capable military" is totally incorrect.  The US had nothing to do with Israel's pursuit of nuclear weapons.  In fact, the US worked in the 60s to try to prevent it from occuring and the only nation to assist Israel in that pursuit (from all reports) was France.  

    Please rephrase.

    Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:02:13 AM PST

  •  Isn't Israel doing the annexing here? (14+ / 0-)

    Not a great analogy for the foreign minister...

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:16:31 AM PST

  •  Keep electing right-wingers folks (7+ / 0-)

    and feeeeeeeeel the peace.

  •  Nobody is the Nazi's in this equation, and yet (8+ / 0-)

    for all that, someone is still the Czechs.

    And it ain't the Israelis.

    This place needs a PVP server.

    by JesseCW on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:47:59 AM PST

  •  Really, the word "right" in association with (6+ / 0-)

    such people needs to be retired. They are deprivators or abusers, take your pick. They are into abusing people and depriving them of their human rights and should be called as such.
    Deprivation under cover of law means it is legal. We're it not legal--authorized by a legislative body--it would be a crime. 'Cause basically, that's what crime is, a deprivation of human rights without just cause.
    Legally depriving good people of their rights is not new. Our Constitution incorporated it when it recognized slavery as a legal status, which gave the owners of other people additional weight in the eyes of the state. Much more recently, members of the military were legally deprived of their right to speech and association (remember DADT?) by the Congress of the United States of America. Moreover, any numbers of states are legislating the deprivation of medical care from reproducing women, violating their human right to bodily integrity.
    That other humans should be free not to obey or comply with other people's directives is not a welcome principle. Many people prefer to believe that other people have an obligation to obey and deserve to be punished, if they don't. That exacting obedience is abusive is not universally recognized and certainly not appreciated. Some people don't know what abuse is, but the abused are not confused.
    However, it is in the nature of abuse that resistance is futile ( as often as not it results in death) and, in an effort to compensate oneself, the abused often go on to abuse someone else. And so the behavior is passed from generation to generation. Some people even glory in having survived and justify abusing those they love as an effort to make them stronger.
    Anyway, because of the risk of increasing injury, the victim has to rely on an intervention from outside. Abusers will not desist on their own. Some third party has to call a halt. If Israel is outraged, then perhaps this time the message has been heard.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:51:18 AM PST

  •  Some things are too confused to even engage... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    webranding

    ...on their own terms.  Why bother?

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:54:03 AM PST

  •  There are a lot of things wrong with this (4+ / 0-)

    "Sudetenland" had always been part of Bohemia; it had never been invaded, forcibly occupied, and colonized, as the Israelis have done to the West Bank.

    There were a couple million German-speakers living in Bohemia (which with Moravia , Slovakia, and Podkarpatska Rus, made up the post-World War I Czechoslovakia); like their Czech-speaking neighbors they were former subjects of the King of Bohemia (the Austrian emperor) and had never been citizens of the German Reich. Hitler's claim to their lands, which he dubbed "Sudetenland", was simply made up; it had no legitimacy whatsoever.

    If there's any party whose claim to the territory of the West Bank is made up, it is Israel; the Palestinians and their ancestors have lived there since time immemorial. The notion that some Grossarabische Reich is manipulating the great powers to force Israel out of part of its national territory is paranoid fantasy.

    In 1938 there was an army poised to invade Czechoslovakia; in the West Bank, the tanks rolled in 45 years ago; they were Israeli, and they've been there ever since.

    Let no one forget who here are the occupiers and who are the occupied!

    •  Since time immemorial? (0+ / 0-)

      Or maybe one or two hundred years. But what difference does a few thousand years make.

      •  Seriously? We're going to play "Palestinians (11+ / 0-)

        just showed up"??

        This is the equivalent of claiming Israeli Jews are just a bunch of Europeans.

        It's noxious, and it's profoundly ignorant.

        The fact that a people change their language or religion doesn't change who they are - and the facts are clear and not controversial.  Despite waves of conquest and the absorption of communities from all over the region, the core population through the Levant has remained for 3,000 years.

        This place needs a PVP server.

        by JesseCW on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:28:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No it's not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tle

          It's pretty much how it happened. The Palestinians are real people. They are there now. But they haven't been there for thousands of years. Nor is there any evidence that the Palestinians were a distinct people for thousands of years. That neither minimizes nor dismisses their rights as human beings, but claiming their history on that land dates back even a few centuries is more than a distortion of history, it's creating a history when there is none. Two hundred years ago almost no one was there.

          •  People do this really weird thing when malaria (7+ / 0-)

            starts to get under control and food supplies start to stabilize.

            They make a hell of a lot more people.  Populations in the West Bank, for example, have increased more than three fold (despite substantial emigration) in 50 years.

            There was not "no one" there.  

            The rate of increase among Egyptians for the last 200 years is even higher.  The rate of natural increase among Saudis blows both away.

            Is it your contention that both occurred due to mass immigration?

            The genetic and historical records both support a continuity of population to such an overwhelming degree that deny it can only properly be called denialism.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            We could spend awhile arguing about whether a people must embrace an exclusive and nationalist identity to be considered "A People", but the facts are clear - the people who are today Palestinians are in the main (though far from exclusively) descended from people who lived in the same region for thousands of years.

            To deny that is to engage in grotesque revisionism for horrific purposes.

            This place needs a PVP server.

            by JesseCW on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:02:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right (0+ / 0-)

              And also descendants of people who lived in what is now Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon.

              Your claim that it has nothing to do with mass immigration is absurd when taken in the context of the Jewish population growth. The populations grew hand in hand from the end of the 19th century through the early 20th century. One from natural growth and one from immigration? Impossible. Any examples of other populations in that region growing at similar rates during that period? I didn't think so.

              This isn't a racist meme. It's historical fact. The Palestinians are real. As much as a result of their treatment by their Arab neighbors as anything else. I think "historical rights" to the land are bogus, no matter who is making the argument. The land was there well before the people, and will be there long after we're all gone. None of us are anymore than renters. Yet making the "historical rights" argument when history shows nothing of the like creates an appealing narrative. It doesn't make it factual.

              •  It's "impossible" for Palestinian (4+ / 0-)

                populations to have grown as fast as Egyptian populations.

                Because it is.

                Because if it wasn't impossible...well.  Yeah.

                This isn't a racist meme. It's historical fact. The Palestinians are real. As much as a result of their treatment by their Arab neighbors as anything else.
                Do you seriously live in alternative universe in which Palestinians would simply have ceased to be Palestinian (or never become Palestinian???) if not for some undefined action by neighboring states?

                Golda, this shit is seriously unbecoming.

                In 1798 when Napoleon invaded, Egypt was home to 3 million people.  In 1907, it was home to 11 million.

                According to Bernard Lewis, who can hardly be said to be overly sympathetic to Palestinian nationalism, there were 275 people in what later became the Palestinian mandate in 1800, 532 thousand in 1890.

                In the same time period, the Jewish population went from 7 to 43 thousand.  Hardly the same rate of increase.

                 Alexander Scholch and Justin McCarthy also come up with very similar estimates, showing about 350k in the mid 19th century.

                According the League of Nations, there were approximately 700k people in the mandate, 11% of them Jewish (about 76k).

                A doubling of population from 1850 to 1920 is not remarkable.

                During the Mandate,  the Hope Simpson report (1930),the Passfield White Paper (1930) the Peel Commission report (1937) and the Survey of Palestine (1945) all concluded that Arab population growth was overwhelmingly the result of natural population growth.

                1922 to 1947 the Jewish population went from 43k to 630k, while the Muslim population went from 600k to 1.2 million.

                Again - population doubling in the same 25 years that antibiotics and sulfa drugs became available, swamps were drained, famine was essentially ended - this is not by any measure extraordinary.

                Palestinian populations have continue to grow on the same trend lines during the last 45 years despite substantial emigration and a total ban on Arab emigration to Palestine.

                There is no historic or scientific basis for the argument that most Palestinians are not descended from ancestors who have been living there for thousands of years.

                The claim is the mirror image of the claim that Ashkenazim are really just a bunch of European converts.

                This place needs a PVP server.

                by JesseCW on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:58:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  So that means that native Americans have no (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW, corvo

                claims to America? How convienant. And Americans have no right to keep immigrants out of the US because there is no such thing as national boundries. And the Japanese were entitled to invade who ever they wished.

                •  Nice strawman (0+ / 0-)

                  There are national boundries. They're a social construct and have existed for all of recorded history. As are "historical rights" to lands.  Are Native Americans getting all their land back? The Yanomami and their homeland is being wiped out in the Amazon.  They won't get it back either. What is right or wrong has nothing to do with it. It is. Native populations come and go, some as the result of hostile action, some otherwise.

                  •  But national boundaries are artificially imposed. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    corvo

                    The State of Israel exists because of a United Nations treaty. Not a popular mandate. The boundary was drawn by a commission. The British drew the map with regard to the wishes of the people who lived there. Both sides had to accept whatever was imposed on them.

                    Let me give you another example. Ireland is divided into 4 provinces Ulster, Muenster, Connaught, and Leinster. Been that way for thousands of years. In 1922 when independence came to Ireland it was agreed that Ulster would have an election to determine whether she stayed in the UK or became a part of the Irish Free State. Everyone in Ireland knows that Ulster has nine counties. But the British redefined Ulster into 6 counties and those were the counties that voted to stay in the UK. The British redrew the map to exclude as many Catholics from Ulster as they could.

                    By your argument the Irish government should just seize Belfast and ignore the will of the people who would prefer to stay in the UK. If right and wrong have nothing to do with international law I suppose you would not object if an army evicted the Israelis out of Israel. You know the whole GW Bush "Facts on the ground" theory of US response to settlements.

          •  Canaanites . . . (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SCFrog, Diane Gee

            most  Palestinians are Canaanites.  And they have been there longer than the Hebrews, even by the Hebrews own mythology.

            As for two hundred years ago . . . there were at least as many people in Palestine as there had been at any time in the past 3,000 years (arable land was fully tilled), and only a small minority (10-15%) of them were Jews.

            Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

            by Deward Hastings on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:11:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nice invention (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              volleyboy1

              Nice to see you Deward.

              Find a reference to that Canaanite connection that is more than about 15 years old. You can't. It doesn't exist. It's rewriting history. It's a nice narrative. Not surprising you've bought into it.

              •  Try Torah . . . (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Diane Gee, corvo

                It says there were people there before Abraham, and when Moses led the return from Egypt.  The Christian Gospels recount Jesus preaching to many non-Jews . . . the Gentiles (many if not most of whom spoke Aramaic, not Arabic, languages) accounted, in fact, for a majority of his following.  Arabic appeared as a dominant language with the arrival of Islam, not as a result of population shift.  The Crusaders reduced all to Christian, Jew and Muslim (mostly identified also as "Arab", but if you dig deeper into the descriptions, obviously not . . . Saladin, although "foreign", was a Kurd, not an Arab).

                "A land without a people" is the myth . . . a complete invention with no historic justification at all.

                Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                by Deward Hastings on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:45:24 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The bible has nothing to do with it. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  volleyboy1

                  Land without a people is a myth. But debunking that myth doesn't create something that wasn't. The land was sparsely populated in 1850. There was almost no one there, and those that were, were never identified as Palestinians, nor outside of the Bedouin populations, distinct from the Arab populations in surrounding areas. And the populations did not grow solely from organic growth. There was massive immigration in the 70 years before 1920 and both Jewish and Arab populations grew proportionately.

                  •  They did not grow proportionately. NO data from (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    corvo

                    time even suggests that they did.

                    The Jewish population was increasing 4-5 fold each generation while for most of that time the non-Jewish population wasn't even doubling each generation.

                    Please stop repeating shit you heard somewhere as if it were fact.

                    This place needs a PVP server.

                    by JesseCW on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:22:04 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  No, it wasn't "sparsely populated in 1850" (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    letsgetreal, corvo, stargaze

                    The 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (basing its numbers substantially on Ottoman census figures, which in general were pretty accurate) puts the population of Palestine at around 3/4 million people, less than 15% of whom were Jews. It makes no mention of any enormous influx of immigrants in the 50 years preceeding, although Jewish immigration from Europe was already increasing the Jewish portion of the population (and causing well documented friction with Palestinian Jews as well as with Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims).

                    Yes, "land without a people is a myth".  So is "the land was sparsely populated in 1850".  They are obviously and in fact the same myth . . .

                    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                    by Deward Hastings on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 07:34:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Prove that Canaanite connection is bogus. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                corvo, Deward Hastings

                You need the provide some substantial proof of expert opinion and some real history sources to back up these arguments. You have crossed a line and now you need to back up your conjecture.

                When did Israel cease to exist. It is commonly accepted that the Israelite people left Judea by 125AD. They were then scattered. People stayed behind and stopped being Jews others moved in. Jewish people scattered all over the known world. Judaism did not die out but it ceased to exist as a political entity.

                So for nearly 2000 years people lived in the area that came to be called Palestine. Whether they are Arabs, or Semitic peoples does not really matter. They were there and then they were kicked out. The argument about whether or not a separate Palestine culture is irrelevant. The fact is that people were forced out of their homes. International law is different today. The diaspora was wrong 2000 years ago. But that does not make Israeli occupation today right. Israel needs to live by international law of today and not be might makes right.

              •  Who Cares (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                corvo, stargaze, AoT, Deward Hastings

                If the Palestinians were there for "only" two hundred years or for 5000 years they still don't deserve to have their land stolen in the name of someone's paranoid fantasy.  They still deserve to be able to vote to choose the government that rules them and they still deserve to have rights equal to anyone else living in the same area, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

                Relative claims to land based on length of tenure are only relevant to a "two-state-solution."  The two state solution has been dead for decades.

                One state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River with democracy, equal protection of the law and the right of return for all.  That is the only just and humane solution.

                This aggression will not stand, man.

                by kaleidescope on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:26:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deward Hastings
                  If the Palestinians were there for "only" two hundred years or for 5000 years they still don't deserve to have their land stolen in the name of someone's paranoid fantasy.  They still deserve to be able to vote to choose the government that rules them and they still deserve to have rights equal to anyone else living in the same area, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

                  The boss needs you, you don't need him. -- France general strike, May 1968

                  by stargaze on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 12:06:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Only problem with that is (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SCFrog, letsgetreal

              that the Israelites were ordered to exterminate the Canaanites.  We wouldn't want to accuse the Israelites of shirking their sacred duty, now, would we?

          •  Who occcupied the land that God gave Israel (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, corvo

            and told Israel to conquer in order to occupy the land? The Israelis if the Bible is to be believed are not the original settlers in that land. After the death of Moses they had to fight wars of conquest with the people who were in what became known as Israel before the Israelities came in after the Egyptian enslavement.

            There were people in the lands God gave Israel and Israel had to kill a lot of people to get it. Check your Bible.

            Prior to the First World War they was no Palestine. Or Jordan. Or Iraq. Or Iran. Or Lebanon. There was the Ottoman Empire. And the people of the Ottoman Empire saw themselves as Ottomans. They were of different language groups, different ethnicities, and different religions. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire meant that Europe imposed boundaries where there had been none. But the people of the Ottoman Empire remained on their land and adjusted to being under a different government.

            Poland changed hands many times. And Germans and Russians invaded. Like Israel occupied Palestine were they were not before. Just because Poland was under Russian domination does not mean there is no such thing as a Pole. England occupied Ireland for many years. That does not mean the Irish ceased to exist. Like wise the influx of Jews into Palestine does not mean there never were Palestinians or Ottomans.

          •  "Distinct people?" (0+ / 0-)

            They were certainly "distinct" from the invaders who founded the State of Israel in 1948 and took their land. The inhabitants of Palestine may not have been a nation as we understand the term; but they were there, Christians, Muslims, and Jews, speaking the same dialect of Arabic as their neighbors in the rest of greater Syria. They lived as subjects of the Ottoman Empire; prior to the 16th century they were under the rule of the Mamluk rulers of Egypt.

            Prior to that, they were conquered by Europeans who founded the Kingdom of Jerusalem and associated states. And before 1099 they were under various Muslim rulers going back to the battle of the Yarmuk in 636, when the Arabs took Palestine from the Byzantines.

            For our purposes, that is time immemorial.

        •  The Israelis are no more European than we are... (0+ / 0-)

          ... yet Israel was certainly founded by, and settled by, invaders from Europe, much as were the colonies that became the United States of America.

  •  I had a college roommate from the 'Sudatenland.' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fishtroller01, SCFrog, Celtic Merlin

    What a line of friggin' horsesh•t from Lieberman!

    I'm less and less sympathetic for the hole they're digging themselves into.

    Idiots.

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 04:59:17 AM PST

  •  I always forget the run-up to World War II (4+ / 0-)

    When Chamberlain, et al, essentially gave Germany to Czechoslovakia...and then the Prague regime invaded Poland anyway.

  •  Israel's military is (0+ / 0-)

    4th largest in the world? That is simply untrue, not even close. By expenditure they are 17th, by personnel 29th.

  •  The comments at the end of the JPost article (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, corvo, SCFrog, gzodik, letsgetreal

    are even scarier than what Lieberman had to say, if that's possible. Here's a MILD example:

    Wrong, again, Dog's Butt Durson. There is no such place as the West Bank. Well, that could be actually the river bank on the west side of the Jordan River, I guess.
    Chief reason for not doing that( it belongs to them). The chief reason is that the Jews of Israel simply do not want more stinky arabs as citizens of the State.
    You really need to pull your head out of your tuchas and research heavy doses of history and reality.
    What a schmuck you are, Durson.....
    The "votes" after this comment are in unanimous agreement! In fact, almost all the comments echo some form of blatantly anti-Arab racist hate speech. In their minds, they've ALREADY wiped Palestine off the face of the earth. It doesn't exist to them. It's depressing and casts doubt on the possibility of a solution despite the recent events at the UN.

    “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

    by RJDixon74135 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:40:46 AM PST

    •  You're right. That's scary. (0+ / 0-)

      Unfortunately, it's not that unusual. It shows up in comment sections for lots of newspaper sites.

      I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

      by tle on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 05:58:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The far Religious Right in Israel mostly consider (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SCFrog, corvo

      Palestinians to be Amalekites.

      They believe they have to be erased as a People.  They believe it's a sacred duty to do this.

      To be clear, if there's any point to clarity - this doesn't actually mean they have believe they have to kill them all.  Just erase them as a Nation.

      These assholes make up a very small proportion of the population of Israel, but that's still tens of thousands of people who can easily make hundreds of comments a day on-line.

      Jpost attracts more of them Haaretz by far, but they make comments there too.

      This place needs a PVP server.

      by JesseCW on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:08:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  J Post attracts right-wing posters (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, Celtic Merlin

      Because it is a right-wing paper.

      Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

      by Paleo on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:52:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A very poor method to get people on your side (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Florida Democrat

      I've always been one of those Americans who casually supported Israel without being much involved in the situation, but recently I've been exposed more and more to the hard-core Israel supporters, and every one I've met has been incredibly angry and vicious, ready to start a fight with anyone over real or usually imagined slights. They START OFF a debate with insults and attacks, even to basic questions from people new to the problem who are interested in learning - and these responses have been from people on lefty sites, not the right wingers. And due to this I've gone from casual pro-Israel to an eff 'em attitude, based on the quality of people I've met.

      When you present yourself as a representative of a group, political or religious, you've taken on a responsibility to act accordingly and in a light that reflects what that group represents. And when you act like an insane, angry, raving a-hole, what does that make people think about your group?

      "Marco Rubio es un pañuelo Rosa!" - Montgomery Burns

      by Fordmandalay on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 08:14:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lieberman charged with fraud and breach of trust (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, corvo, Celtic Merlin

    Although not with the more serious corruption charges.

    http://www.reuters.com/...

    Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

    by Paleo on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:52:03 AM PST

    •  Oh! That poor man! (0+ / 0-)

      I certainly hope that they put him in the deepest shitpit Israeli jail they can find.  After they convict his fascist ass, of course.

      Celtic Merlin
      Carlinist

      Struggle with dignity against injustice. IS there anything more honorable that a person can do?

      by Celtic Merlin on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 12:35:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The west bank is the sudatenland (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    polecat, corvo

    The Moldovian Bouncer is not very bright.

    Let all the Bush tax cuts expire

    by Paleo on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 06:55:50 AM PST

  •  You messed up the analogy (0+ / 0-)

    Lieberman is equating international pressure on Czechoslovakia to accede to Germany's claim to the Sudetenland with international pressure on Israel to accede to Palestinian claims to settlement territory.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site