December 28, 2016

"No American administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s."

Said John Kerry, our Secretary of State, speaking today.
At the core of Mr. Kerry’s argument on Wednesday was the need for all sides to embrace a two-state solution, with Israel and a Palestinian state recognizing each other....

The speech was intended, a senior State Department official said on Tuesday night, to make the case that “the vote was not unprecedented” and that Mr. Obama’s decision “did not blindside Israel.” Mr. Kerry, the official said, would cite other cases in which Washington officials had allowed similar votes under previous presidents.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a coming speech, said Mr. Kerry would also argue that, with the notable exception of Israel, there was a “complete international consensus” against further settlements in areas that might ultimately be the subject of negotiations.

326 comments:

1 – 200 of 326   Newer›   Newest»
Darrell said...

Shut up, John. Go back to sponging off your wife.

Michael K said...

The experience that Israel has had with Hamas since the Gaza strip was evacuated makes such statements even more stupid than the usual Kerry mush. Hamas has turned Gaza into an armed camp with rocket launchers in schools, terror headquarters under hospitals and absolute violence with tunnels consuming most building materials provided to the Palestinians.

It is insane to expect, or to preach, that the Muslim Arabs in the territories are ready for a peaceful coexistence,

Eventually, unless the Muslims of the west bank come to their senses, they should be forced out and into Jordan, a real nation.

Alex said...

Thank god January 20th can't come soon enough. Can you imagine how the left will lose their minds when we start building the US embassy in Jerusalem?

J. Farmer said...

Given all the discord in the recent presidential campaign, it was often overlooked that there was at least one area in which the candidates seemed to be in total agreement: the need for the US to act in the most, servile groveling manner toward Bibi Netanyahu. The notion that Israel's settler colonies are necessary for the protection of Israel is absurd. If anything, the settlements distract from defending Israel proper, because the settler require IDF forces for protection and to enforce the apartheid-like conditions imposed on the unfortunate Arabs who have the misfortune of living in the settlement areas. Israel is a tiny client-state, and it's absurd the way the US is expected to kowtow to them. Is there another foreign nation on the planet in which US commentators and politicians routinely call for "no daylight between?"

DKWalser said...

The really sad part of all of this is that Kerry believes what he's saying. He, and Obama, are ready to burn Israel down in order to save it.

Lyle Smith said...

So if there is a complete international consensus against the United States and its laws, what happens then President Obama?

Gahrie said...

I used to be strongly pro-Palestinian. however as someone once said...the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

If they had gone the route of Gandhi and MLKjr, and truly desired peaceful co-existence, they would have their country right now.

Gahrie said...

J.Farmer:

Name a Muslim nation that allows Jews to serve in their government.

Lyle Smith said...

How does allowing Iran the ability to build nuclear weapons protect Israel? The stupidity of President Obama is breathtaking.

Patrick said...

This was a cowardly speech,bit just for its content, but also is timing.

damikesc said...

Seriously, fuck these people.

As always, Progressives didn't oppose the Holocaust when it was a relevant issue. They don't seem to have learned much.

All Obama is doing is insuring that we leave the UN and boot the UN out of NY.

Gahrie said...

. Is there another foreign nation on the planet in which US commentators and politicians routinely call for "no daylight between?"

There used to be....the U.K.......

Rocketeer said...

J. Farmer, there's a much shorter way of saying what you really want to say. Why don't you just say it?

damikesc said...

Given all the discord in the recent presidential campaign, it was often overlooked that there was at least one area in which the candidates seemed to be in total agreement: the need for the US to act in the most, servile groveling manner toward Bibi Netanyahu. The notion that Israel's settler colonies are necessary for the protection of Israel is absurd. If anything, the settlements distract from defending Israel proper, because the settler require IDF forces for protection and to enforce the apartheid-like conditions imposed on the unfortunate Arabs who have the misfortune of living in the settlement areas. Israel is a tiny client-state, and it's absurd the way the US is expected to kowtow to them. Is there another foreign nation on the planet in which US commentators and politicians routinely call for "no daylight between?"

I've missed your calls for compensation for the 850,000 or so Jews kicked out of Arab states...

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

That would be true if Obama's actions were later shown to have lead to cleansing of the surrounding countries by neutron bombs.

Gahrie said...

. Is there another foreign nation on the planet in which US commentators and politicians routinely call for "no daylight between?"

Is there another nation on the planet that would be destroyed and its people wiped out without our support?

When there was...Western Europe.....we defended them too......

damikesc said...


Is there another nation on the planet that would be destroyed and its people wiped out without our support?

When there was...Western Europe.....we defended them too......


And those Western Europeans are big on us not doing for Israel what we wasted plenty of money on doing for them.

Perhaps the Marshall Plan was a mistake.

Paul said...

Israel's settler colonies are there cause Israel needs more room.

See Israel WON the last war with the Arab states. The land Israel has is Israel's.

The 'Palestinians' are not truly Palestinians but a conglomeration of Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, etc.. that were left behind when the Arab countries lost and Israel held the land after pushing them back out of Israel.

To me it's tough shit for the Arabs. They won't take back their own people cause that would mean losing a foothold and never getting that land back.

Fuck'em. Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

sparrow said...

J Farmer > Name another nation that is given grief over housing developments. It's absurd. Isreal is held to a unique standard because of worldwide anti-semitism.

Kerry had always been a bizarre liar since "Winter Soldier" and his magic hat. Shame on Mass. for voting for him.

Joe said...

Kerry is an untrustworthy asshole. You do not betray your friends, especially to their avowed enemies (who have sworn to not stop until your friends are dead.)

The Palestinians have repeatedly lied and rejected proposals for a two state solution and have often reacted with violence to those proposals, yet Kerry and Obama tread Israel as the party deserving harsh public rebuke.

With "friends" like them, who needs enemies?

(The article stated that Kerry "has one major accomplishment under his belt — the Iran nuclear deal...." They misspelled "failure" in that sentence.)

David Baker said...

Oh yes, this coming from a man who sung Christmas carols with Buddhists in Cambodia.

Unknown said...

Remember, when Jews are being attacked and murdered, the left never, ever calls for ceasefires. Only when the Jews fight back and are winning do the calls for "peace" and "tolerance" come.

It is a dead, dead certainty that any use of nuclear weapons in the world will be met with universal condemnation by the left... unless the target is Tel Aviv (or, say, Salt Lake City, Dallas, or other red state).

J Farmer should just openly call for the genocide of the Jews. Every other leftist that I'm aware of would practically have kittens if they could go through Auschwitz, Gaza Strip version.

--Vance

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

They say talk is cheap. Under Obama, it's worthless.

Fabi said...

John F'n Kerry lies with as much ease as his boss.

rehajm said...

Shut up, John. Go back to sponging off your wife

Howie Carr calls this Kerry's second wife's first husband's trust fund.

damikesc said...

Remember, Obama is using smart diplomacy, which is largely blasting allies and fellating foes.

I wish Republicans would mention that its funny hearing Democrats bemoan international interference in our election when WE did that to Israel last year.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

"Name a Muslim nation that allows Jews to serve in their government.

Nope. And that doesn't alter one word I wrote.

"When there was...Western Europe.....we defended them too......"

We got involved in the European theatre because Hitler declared war on us due to Japan's involvement in the Tripartite alliance. Our efforts were primarily concentrated in the Pacific, and the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting against Hitler's military in the east, which was always his primary focus.

@damikesc:

"I've missed your calls for compensation for the 850,000 or so Jews kicked out of Arab states..."

You also missed my calls for compensation for Palestinians, because I don't make them, for either side. I am an America and don't have a dog in that fight.

@Rocketeer:

"J. Farmer, there's a much shorter way of saying what you really want to say. Why don't you just say it?"

Unfortunately I haven't mastered the art of mind reading, so why don't you just say what you mean.

MikeR said...

The left has no clue about how the median American feels about the UN. They may be very surprised at what happens - just as they were surprised when Trump was elected, just as they were surprised by Brexit.

Pretty unanimous, says Mr. Kerry - Israel may not build apartments in its capital city. Good luck.

J. Farmer said...

@Unknown:

"J Farmer should just openly call for the genocide of the Jews."

Well that's not too hysterical and unhinged. There are quite a few Israeli Jews who agree completely with my position and don't believe in creating settlements in the West Bank. Again, how moving Jewish civilians into the West Bank increases Israel's security is beyond me.

Gahrie said...

We got involved in the European theatre ....

I was talking about after the war when we were protecting Western Europe from your buddies.....

Darrell said...

Next year in Jerusalem. . .

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Why would settlements be an impediment to peace talks? If the settlements are in the new Palestine then they'll be citizens of Palestine. There are many Muslims living in Israel. Let the parties negotiate and resolve the issue themselves.

It looks like Obama is helping the Palis to keep Palestine judenrein. Nothing antisemitic about that.

How about a resolution that the all Palestinians must accept the right of Israel to exist.

How about a resolution that the right of return is an obstacle to peace.

How about a resolution that states the idealization of terrorists "martyrs" and the payment to their families is an impediment to peace.

I guess those issues don't reflect our values.

Nothing antisemitic about that.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

"I was talking about after the war when we were protecting Western Europe from your buddies....."

Oh, right, my buddies. Well, first of all, there was never a call for "no daylight" between US and the European NATO allies. Perhaps you might recall a relatively well known Frenchman by the name of de Gaulle.

mockturtle said...

Palestinians will never, ever recognize Israel's right to exist. These peace talks and treaties are a waste of time.

Lem said...

Killing Gaddafi improved Israel security...

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

J. Farmer said...

@Bill, Republic of Texas:

The main impediment to peace is the right of return. Palestinians won't give up asking for it, and the Israelis won't concede to it, because to do so would be to commit demographic suicide. Hence, a quagmire. A very unfortunate byproduct of European diplomatic bungling during the first and second wars.

J. Farmer said...

@mockturtle:

No country has a "right to exist." Its an absurd formulation. Countries have the right to defend themselves.

Drago said...

Farmer: "Again, how moving Jewish civilians into the West Bank increases Israel's security is beyond me."

Obviously.

And I doubt even an in depth tutorial would be sufficient to bring you up to speed.

However, you might want to take a look at the patterns of infiltration and missile attacks by Arabs against Israel with a settlements overlay.

You might then do some research on Israeli settlement dismantlings for the Sinai, Gaza and Golan give backs and the actual impacts on attacks against Israel.

But you won't, because you've already got it all figured out don't you Field Marshall?

bagoh20 said...

Obama won well over 2/3 of the Jewish vote and so did Hillary. Why Jews and Blacks support Democrats is a perplexing psychological question.

The Drill SGT said...

J. Farmer said...
If anything, the settlements distract from defending Israel proper, because the settler require IDF forces for protection and to enforce the apartheid-like conditions imposed on the unfortunate Arabs who have the misfortune of living in the settlement areas.


You understand of course that East Jerusalem, which contains the Second Temple, Wailing Wall and the "Jewish Quarter" where Jews have lived for 3,000 years was seized by the Jordanians in 1948, the Jews expelled, reconquered in 1967, and that as a result of the perfidy of the US, now Jews are again forbidden from living in those homes, which by virtue of having been rebuilt after 1967 are "settlements".

By UN definition the Jewish Quarter is an illegal settlement

J. Farmer said...

@Drago:

"And I doubt even an in depth tutorial would be sufficient to bring you up to speed."

Don't need an indepth tutorial. Just write a few sentences on how sending civilians to live among a hostile Arab population improves Israel's security.

Quaestor said...

J. Farmer wrote: No country has a "right to exist." Its an absurd formulation. Countries have the right to defend themselves.

That explains all the nukes we have aimed at the perfidious Canucks.

Quaestor said...

Don't need an indepth tutorial.

Don't need no stinking badges.

J. Farmer said...

@The Drill SGT:

There are many settlements outside of East Jerusalem. But on the topic of East Jerusalem, it has been pretty much widely accepted international opinion, including by the US and our allies, that East Jerusalem would be the capital of a future independent state. The division of Jerusalem into eastern and western halves was concluded following negations with Jordan after the '48 war.

coupe said...

When Mark Twain said he was going to Palestine, he said that like he would say I'm going to Europe.

Palestine is a region, not a state, and not a people. You don't call the people of Manhattan "Manhattans."

Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian. He was thrown out of Jordan and Lebanon, and ended up in the region of Palestine. A vast region of homeless people.

It wasn't until President Clinton ordained him as a "Palestinian", who represented the Palestinians. Before that, he was an Egyptian terrorist.

Palestinians would include all the people of Israel, Arabs, Chinese, French, and Sudanese, Jews, Bedouins, etc, etc. It's a region, not a state.

OK, let's jump to the 21st Century. Forget all the above. These people have no home. They have no place to call their own. It would benefit the world, if we drew out some lines in the sand (like we did for Jordan and Syria), and create a homeland for these people.

Can we do that with Zionists stealing land and building condo's? Therein lies the number one problem.

The USA can drive this game to a finish, by transferring all the money they were going to give to Israel, and instead put it in a trust fund that the trust fund managers can build a new state with. Meter the money out and make sure it doesn't go for weapons.

The so-called two-state solution.

J. Farmer said...

@Quaestor:

"That explains all the nukes we have aimed at the perfidious Canucks."

No idea what point you're trying to make there, but nuclear weapons are a prime example of the point I just made. Countries have a right to defend themselves.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting against Hitler's military in the east

While the Allies cut off the Nazi's supply of oil from the Mideast, provided the Soviets with much needed material assistance, and staged the largest sea born invasion in the history of the world, creating a two front war forcing the Nazis to shift resources from the east to first try to prevent a landing (they spent a lot of resources creating those defenses along Europe's western coastlines and they had to man those guns) and even more once the Allies actually invaded and started bringing in men and material. Oh, and then there was the matter of actually breaking the Nazis supposedly unbreakable code. Oh, and the battle for the Atlantic.

Yes, I know. The Soviets lost 20 million people and their territory was devastated. Nonetheless, the Allies contributions to the European and African theaters (remember that?) were vital and necessary for the defeat of the Germans.

David Baker said...

To clarify my previous post, according to Lt. Kerry (USN), he had crossed into Cambodia in 1968 on a very secret mission - all alone and crawling around the jungle as it were. Where on Christmas eve, while hiding in a stand of palm fronds, he heard Buddhists singing Christmas carols.

Of course, in order to accept Lt. Kerry's Christmas-in-Cambodia story, one must also accept that these particular "Buddhists" were also and concurrently observant Christians. Which certainly explains why they were singing Silent Night and other yuletide favorites.

Quaestor said...

I never pictured J. Farmer as a Hobbesian. Nasty and short, yes. But not brutish. Just goes to show what deformations some people are willing to do to their souls just to blind themselves to the bitter truths of Obama and Company.

David said...

I thought the Obama foreign policy was, at least in part, about a reduction in American arrogance.

Kerry telling Israel that it can either be Jewish or Democratic, but not both, takes the matzo cake. Israel has maintained a rather raucous democracy for almost 70 years while having to remain on constant military alert to defend itself from the racist dictatorships and vicious terrorists in its neighborhood. Kerry's comment is an insult that will not be forgotten.

John Kerry has been out of his depth since he commanded a swift boat. His career is now nearly over. It has lasted far too long.

Whenever you feel like criticizing George W. Bush, remember that he kept John Kerry out of the presidency. No small accomplishment.

Quaestor said...

No idea what point you're trying to make there...

Somehow I do not find this surprising.

Bay Area Guy said...

The reason there isn't peace in the Middle East is because Arabs don't accept Israel's right to exist, regardless of where the border is drawn. Period. Full stop.

Kerry needs to look at a Map of the area. The guy is your classic educated fool.

J. Farmer said...

@Ron Winkleheimer:

"Yes, I know. The Soviets lost 20 million people and their territory was devastated."

Hence my phrase "most of the heavy lifting." Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War makes for very interesting reading on the subject. I don't agree with a lot of Buchanan's assessments, but I do think he provides enough information to defend some thought provoking counterfactuals.

FleetUSA said...

Having achieved nothing but chaos in thr Middle East, our dear leader resorts to a sledgehammer to try the same and turn further chaos over to hie successor

Joe said...

The division of Jerusalem into eastern and western halves was concluded following negations with Jordan after the '48 war.

Not accurate. The 1949 armistice agreement created an arbitrary armistice line, which was pretty much where the front line was when the fighting stopped. Jordan explicitly specified that the line did not delineate future territorial claims.

Further the 1967 Six-day war UN resolution intentionally did not settle and/or specify territorial claims.



Sebastian said...

By simply declaring Israel's leverage illegal, the resolution makes a negotiated two-state solution less likely, thus giving the lie to lying Kerry's statement. Which means that the real purpose, for O and the "international community," is not to promote such an agreement but to impose a settlement at Israel's expense. As always, the world's policy is: screw the Jews.

Michael said...

You could give the Palestinians the money and the materials and the plans needed to build a bicycle and they could, would, not do it. They have no more interest in a separate state which they would have to administer than they do of nurturing the land they occupy. Their only interest is in shrinking Israel until it does not exist and of pilfering the money needed to pay for their Paris redoubts. Fertile and prosperous Israel without Jews would be the desert from which it emerged.

Hagar said...

Yitzhak Rabin might have managed to negotiate a "two-state solution." At least some Israelis thought so too, so they killed him. Now the Sharon and Netanyahu governments have made any such solution impossible. Israel will not and cannot abandon the settlements and the "Palestinians" are not leaving. So they are stuck with each other and will continue to shoot and bomb each other until they both decide enough is enough and negotiate a one-state solution.

wildswan said...

If Obama thought America supported this attack on the Jews in Israel he would have gone to Congress and got a resolution in support of abstaining at the UN. Instead he stabbed in the back, as is his way. And to those of you supporting him, I suggest you keep in mind that backstabbing is his preferred mode of operation and backstabbing his friends and allies is what he likes best of all.

Quaestor said...

Kerry's comment is an insult that will not be forgotten.

Insults that derive from the galling stupidity and shocking ignorance of John Kerry should be forgiven. It's not as though the Israelis are dealing with a mature mind, after all.

wildswan said...

If Obama thought America supported this attack on the Jews in Israel he would have gone to Congress and got a resolution in support of abstaining at the UN. Instead he stabbed in the back, as is his way. And to those of you supporting him, I suggest you keep in mind that backstabbing is his preferred mode of operation and backstabbing his friends and allies is what he likes best of all.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...


Blogger J. Farmer said...


The main impediment to peace is the right of return.
12/28/16, 1:53 PM

I'm not sure I agree to that. That is probably the second most important. The most important is the refusal to accept the right of Israel to exist.

Assuming you are correct, what is the point in all the drama about settlements? Is it just old fashioned hatred of the Jews or Obama is butthurt about Bibi and this is his petty revenge.

narciso said...

Actually the war couldn't have started without the molotov ribbentrop pact, without the reichswehr training in the interwar period, in the soviet union.
Ol

David Baker said...

You don't call the people of Manhattan "Manhattans."

Correct. They are known as liberlites. Of the goo-pot tribe.

David Baker said...

If Obama thought America supported this attack on the Jews...

Actually, Obama could care less what America thinks. And he never did.

Hagar said...

Seems like most commenters hereon also deny the Palestinians' right to exist.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I do think he provides enough information to defend some thought provoking counterfactuals.

Such as? How exactly were we supposed to stay out of WW II?

I'm not big on invading other countries, but a world dominated by the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere in the Pacific and the Third Reich in Europe and Africa is not a world were the U.S. is going to be secure and prosperous.

DKWalser said...

@J. Farmer -- It is possible to make a good faith case that building settlements in the West Bank does not increase Israel's security. It's just as possible to make a similar case that building such settlements does enhance Israel's chances of an enduring peace.

That Obama takes one side of the argument and Israel takes the other is NOT the source of the ire over the recent Security Council vote. The proposal that was adopted by the Security Council last Friday had been proposed numerous times over the last several years. Each time, until last Friday, the US either vetoed the proposal or persuaded the sponsor to withdraw it. Last Friday, the Obama Administration didn't just "allow" the proposal to pass, they found a new sponsor for the proposal after Egypt withdrew it. So Kerry lied when he said this wasn't unprecedented. All the precedents indicated the US would block the resolution's passage by its veto, if necessary.

Now, per the UN, Jewish settlements in the West Bank are not a matter for further negotiation. It's settled law. They're now illegal. The question of whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (a question that for decades the US has refused to take a position on, saying it was a matter for negotiation) is no longer a matter for further negotiation. Per the UN, Jerusalem is not now nor ever can be Israel's capital; nor can Jews build in the Jewish quarter of that city. The Security Council's resolution puts both those things beyond Israel's reach.

So, why, pray tell, should Israel negotiate? What it wants most of all is its eternal capital -- something the UN resolution says it cannot have. Why should the Palestinians negotiate? Israel cannot give them the West Bank, the UN already did that. All the Palestinians need to do is agitate and wait for internal and external pressure to bring Israel to give up the West Bank. So, neither party has as much to gain as it did before the Security Council vote. As a consequence, I don't believe a good faith argument can be made that last Friday's vote enhance the prospects for a negotiated peace.

J. Farmer said...

@Joe:

"The 1949 armistice agreement created an arbitrary armistice line, which was pretty much where the front line was when the fighting stopped."

There were secret negotiations between the Israelis and Jordanians over the division of Jerusalem. They were not merely front lines. See Avi Shlaim's The Politics of Partition for a discussion of the topic.

Further the 1967 Six-day war UN resolution intentionally did not settle and/or specify territorial claims.

No, it was left up to future negations with the belligerent states. But there was wide consensus that implementation of UN 242 would involve Israel's withdraw from the occupied territories.

320Busdriver said...

It's no secret that Obama has opposed the settlements throughout his admin.

It's also not suprising that this was an act of a petulant little bitch. And I am not referring to Ms Powers.

bagoh20 said...

If the Palestinians wanted to build a state, they would already have it. They clearly have other priorities. Those that they state and pursue openly. What more do you need to know other than the history we have watched unfold our entire lives?

coupe said...

Bay Area Guy said...The reason there isn't peace in the Middle East is because Arabs don't accept Israel's right to exist

Sort of. Transjordan annexed the West Bank to form Jordan, and Egypt annexed the the Gaza Strip.

After that, all would have been kosher, except the UN (United States) bullied the Jordanians and Egyptians by rejecting this annexation (which would have solved all the problems). By rejecting the annexations, it led to the 67 war, when Israel took the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Israel had to take the land, as it was a military operation. You don't want the enemy at your door.

It would behoove the world to give the West Bank to Jordan, and the Gaza Strip to Egypt, and apologize to the world. Either that, or form a new state and call it Palestine. Maybe call it Samaria or some cool new name.

Nonapod said...

This administration couldn't leave without lobbing at least one more putrid little hate bomb towards the collective edifice of Western Civilization.

And there's 23 days left! Bring on the appalling pardons! And how many psychopath are still left in Gitmo?

readering said...

The settlements are bad for the future of Israel as a viable nation in the middle east. That's what Kerry is saying and there is really no answer to what he is saying. Brave of him to say it knowing that so many supporters of Israel will attack him, a supporter of Israel, for saying it. But a year from the 50th anniversary of the June '67 war he's looking ahead to what the history books will write in another 50 years, after he and almost everyone commenting on this site is dead.

Michael K said...

The notion that Israel's settler colonies are necessary for the protection of Israel is absurd. If anything, the settlements distract from defending Israel proper, because the settler require IDF forces for protection and to enforce the apartheid-like conditions imposed on the unfortunate Arabs who have the misfortune of living in the settlement areas.

Once again, the hard leftist proposes the leftist surrender and the continuation of the Holocaust.

J. Farmer said...

@DKWalser:

First, think you for a thoughtful, measured response.

Second, I readily agree that the Israel-Palestine conflict is a deeply entrenched quagmire with no easy solutions. As far as I am concerned, the US gains relatively little and pays quite a price for insinuating itself into that mess, and it would be my preference that we were not that heavily involved. I have this really radical notion that American defense and statecraft should be for the benefit and protection of Americans.

Third, just on a matter of fact, UN 242 declared Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, to be illegal in 1979. The illegality of the settlements has wide consensus in international law.

MadisonMan said...

Seems like most commenters hereon also deny the Palestinians' right to exist.

They lost the war. That's what happens when wars are lost. Seems like it happened to the South, too, at the end of the Civil War.

My own opinion is that Palestinians spend too much time fighting against Israel, and in-fighting, and not enough time building up their own people. No wonder they have to have a sworn enemy in the Jews; it distracts their people from the blundering of the leaders -- if they have any.

I will not be sorry to see Kerry swept into History's dustbin.

320Busdriver said...

It would behoove the world to give the West Bank to Jordan, and the Gaza Strip to Egypt, and apologize to the world. Either that, or form a new state and call it Palestine. Maybe call it Samaria or some cool new name.

INDEED

As was mentioned, the Palestinians would already have a state, if they were capable.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

"Once again, the hard leftist proposes the leftist surrender and the continuation of the Holocaust."

And once again Michael K provides nothing of substance to the conversation except the most boring pat cliches one can imagine. Here's the thing, Mikey. Even if I was as a "hard leftist," it would actually make no difference to whether or not any particular argument I was making on any particular subject was right or wrong, valid or invalid. Your incessant need to attack people instead of ideas is unproductive and really quite boring.

narciso said...

That's a ransom of red chief situation, what have the palestinians done with Gaza, what would they do with the west bank.

EDH said...

Kerry delivered that speech with an odd combination of windbag bravado, plaintive whining and immodulation on par with Hillary Clinton's "WHY AREN'T I 50 POINTS AHEAD!"


narciso said...

Stein points out the paradox, Muslims must live the west, Jews cannot leave in the east

rhhardin said...

The settlements are inside Israel.

Raging Arabs with eyes bulging out is not moral authority.

Joe said...

@J.Farmer

"would involve Israel's withdraw from the occupied territories"

Absolutely false. There are plenty of articles on the intentional absence of the word "the" from the resolution.

"There were secret negotiations between the Israelis and Jordanians over the division of Jerusalem."

Irrelevant and missing the point that neither side was interested in declaring official, recognized borders since both sides clearly believed that at a future date they would expand their borders. In 1967, the Arabs attempted to do that and instead lost territory.

If you head down the semantics road of territory lost in a war not really being lost, you'll have to start redrawing all the word's maps.

Jordan renounced their claims over the West Bank, which would suggest that this would void any agreement, official or secret, as pertaining to a border. It is further ironic that Jordan's own borders, like those of most of the former Ottoman empire, are arbitrary.

J. Farmer said...

@MadisonMan:

"They lost the war. That's what happens when wars are lost. Seems like it happened to the South, too, at the end of the Civil War."

Okay then, give the Palestinians in the West Bank Israeli citizenship and annex the territory. Nearly 60% of the population of the West Bank is under the age of 24. Israel exerts tremendous control over the West Bank yet the citizens have no meaningful way to influence Israeli policy.

MadisonMan said...

No American administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s

I note that Kerry does not state whether what's been done is good or bad.

rhhardin said...

Worst president ever, plus being a piece of shit.

Gahrie said...

Meter the money out and make sure it doesn't go for weapons.

How?

The Palestinians take the money we give them now and buy weapons with it and build tunnels to smuggle the weapons into Gaza and the West Bank......

Joe said...

"It would behoove the world to give the West Bank to Jordan, and the Gaza Strip to Egypt, and apologize to the world."

Jordan quite intentionally renounced all claims to the West Bank in 1988 and Egypt has no interest in Gaza. Both countries despise Palestinians almost as much as they despise Israel.

Hagar said...

This resolution was like throwing a M-80 into a henhouse; there is a lot of squawking and feathers flying, but no material results.

Neither Israel nor the Palestinians are going to pay any attention to it on the ground.

rhhardin said...

As Coulter wrote of Jimmy Carter

Carter is so often maligned for his stupidity, it tends to be forgotten that he is also self-righteous, vengeful, sneaky, and backstabbing.

Obama is one up on that.

J. Farmer said...

@Joe:

"Absolutely false. There are plenty of articles on the intentional absence of the word "the" from the resolution."

Let's leave aside the fact that the French version does include the article "the." The point of saying "territories" as opposed to "all territories" was due to the fact that Jordan's irregular border was expected to be normalized with minor and mutual land swaps. It also left open the demilitarization of the Golan and the Sinai. But there was absolutely no expectation that Israel would be permitted to annex chunks of the West Bank for itself. That is the view of the UK's Lord Caradon, who was the principle drafter of the resolution, and of Secretary of State Dean Rusk. I can point you to relevant statements from both men if you are interested.

Gahrie said...

Seems like most commenters hereon also deny the Palestinians' right to exist.

?????

Since when has that been an issue? Who out there is demanding the genocide of the Palestinians?

Nobody disputes the right of the Palestinian's right to exist....we just dispute their right to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.....

Goju said...

John Kerry's speech defending UN resolution condemning Israelis seizure of land and building settlements was interrupted by a phone call from the Cherokee Nation.

Rob said...

Among the consequences of Trump's victory is that we can thank John Kerry for his dubious service, bid him a fond farewell from public life, pipe him aboard his yacht and tell him we'll see him around the Vineyard. Gosh, it feels like I'm winning so much, I'm going to get tired of winning.

mockturtle said...

Here's the stark truth about Arab Palestinians: They want to destroy the state of Israel and exterminate Jews, not live peaceably among them. While Zionists are militantly pro-Israel, they are not genocidal.

Michael K said...

"The settlements are bad for the future of Israel as a viable nation in the middle east."

Says another ignorant leftist.

What you and farmer and the others say is a lie proven by the behavior of Hamas when Bush convinced Sharon to evacuate Gaza and all the jewish settlements.

The Arabs demolished the huge greenhouses that promised a possible economy for the residents. The money and building materials that go into Gaza are used to build tunnels to allow terrorist attacks inside Israel.

There is NO chance that the Palestinians will become a civilized people. let alone negotiate peace with Israel.


These are simply civilized people.

I'm sure there are Muslims who are civilized and capable of modern life, I was a great fan of Fouad Ajami and miss his writing. Sadly, he was one of a small minority.

Michael K said...

Not civilized people.

mockturtle said...

Rob enthuses: Gosh, it feels like I'm winning so much, I'm going to get tired of winning.

I feel your elation, Rob! It's like Christmas every day!

MadisonMan said...

I'm waiting for Cedarford to chime in. Maybe he has under another name.

James Pawlak said...

Abdul Kerry did not mention is that the "charter" or like foundation of the Palestine State, very strongly, declares that the State Of Israel has NO right to EXIST.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

"Says another ignorant leftist."

King of snappy comebacks strikes again!

"What you and farmer and the others say is a lie proven by the behavior of Hamas when Bush convinced Sharon to evacuate Gaza and all the jewish settlements."

Sorry, but can you please quote what I have said that is a "lie?"

J. Farmer said...

@James Pawlak:

The question of Israel's right to exist surrounds the nature of Israel as a Jewish state. Israel's insistence to live as a Jewish state is why both parties are at a standstill over the right of return. Israel is a state with a right to national self-determination within its pre-1967 borders.

rehajm said...

Jeez, you had eight years. If you'd only just solved this we wouldn't be here now, would we?

Darrell said...

Fuck the pre-1967 borders. Let's go back to the original borders of Leftism--a back alley in Hamburg.

sparrow said...

J Farmer : Why shouldn't Israel remain Jewish : who are you to say otherwise?

J. Farmer said...

@Darrell:

Fuck the pre-1967 borders.

Okay fine. Then annex the West Bank and give the inhabitants citizenship and a vote. Oh wait...

Goju said...

The right of return for Palestinians is the god awfullest stupidest idea ever. How can anyone in their right mind believe that it is smart to demand that Israel open its borders to hundreds of thousands of people who claim their primary purpose in life is the destruction of Israel and the death of every Jew?

Dr Weevil said...

One reason "both parties are at a standstill over the right to return" is that the Jews who were driven out of Muslim countries by force have no 'right to return' to them and would be killed if they tried to return to them. Sensible people wonder why the countries that drove their Jews to Israel (those they didn't kill) can't take in the Palestinians. It seems only fair. Why are only Jews required to take in their fellow Jews who have nowhere else to go, while Muslims don't even pretend to care about their fellow Muslims. Granted, they care enough to kill for them, or at least pay others to kill for them, but not enough to have them as neighbors.

mccullough said...

Why does the US and UN get involved in disputes between Israel and the Palestinians? This is a 20th century problem. The US has good trade relations with Israel. The Palestinians aren't a concern for Americans and the actual Arab countries have ISIS and Iran to worry about. If the Palestinians can't work it out with Israel, so be it.

J. Farmer said...

@sparrow:

"J Farmer : Why shouldn't Israel remain Jewish : who are you to say otherwise?"

They are more than entitled to. I already said that Israel within its pre-1967 borders is a state under international law entitled to national self-determination. Conducting an immigration policy in favor of maintaining Israel's distinct Jewish character is fine with me.

Goju said...

"No American President has done as much TO Israeli security." fify

J. Farmer said...

@mccullough:

"Why does the US and UN get involved in disputes between Israel and the Palestinians?"

Exactly. An America with a sane foreign policy devoted to the interests of America wouldn't be so enmeshed in that godawful conflict.

@Goju:

How can anyone in their right mind believe that it is smart to demand that Israel open its borders to hundreds of thousands of people who claim their primary purpose in life is the destruction of Israel and the death of every Jew?

And your source for that claim is what? A fifth of Israel's population is just as Arab as the Arabs of the West Bank. Are they, too, murderously genocidal? Before the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine in the early half of the 20th century, you were much safer as a Jew living in the middle east than you were as a Jew living in Europe.

Sam L. said...

Kerry's an idiot, and Obama is his Master.

hombre said...


Blogger Hagar said...
"Seems like most commenters hereon also deny the Palestinians' right to exist."

No, but we don't minimize their commitment and that of their supporters to annihilate Israeli Jews. This Palestinian "right of return" bullshit is a ruse to destroy Israel. Arabs control 650 times the land of Israel. The Palestinians left in 1948. How many would be "returning, six?"

Here are samples of comments from Israel's Muslim neighbors over the years. There is no moral high ground accompanying this malice:

"Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel." Nasser, 1965

"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified." Iraq, 1967

"We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them." – Shukairy, June 1, 1967, speaking at a Friday sermon in Jerusalem.

I as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." – Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, May 20, 1967

'Rouhani has nonetheless referred to “the Zionist regime” as an enemy nation and pledged to find a wayto achieve Khomeini’s long-term goal of ensuring that Israel ceases to exist." 2013

"The enemies are talking about the options [they have] on the table. They should know that the first option on our table is the annihilation of Israel.”
Ayatollah Hossein Nouri Hamedani, Lecturer at religious seminary in Qom, 2013

" ...we are the soldiers of God/we were sent to eliminate the Zionists/the only language they must understand/is the firing of swords and missiles." Hamas, 2015

"Israel is closer than ever before to its demise,” Lebanese cleric Hashem Safieddine, head of Hezbollah’s Executive Council, said in an interview with Mayadeen TV. 2016

Pookie Number 2 said...

Brave of him to say it knowing that so many supporters of Israel will attack him, a supporter of Israel, for saying it.

Kerry is not a supporter of Israel.

Hagar said...

"International law" and two bucks will get you a styrofoam cup of coffee at the truckstop until someone is willing to enforce it, which with respect to "the Palestinian problem" is no one, so nothing is going to happen regardless of the U.N. palavers.

J. Farmer said...

@Hombre:

The Palestinians left in 1948.

No, they were expelled. Benny Morris, himself an ardent Zionist and supporter of Israel, has laid out the basic evidence for this in numerous works.

sparrow said...

Farmer you just blamed the standstill on Israeli's insistance on remaining Jewish, but no you say you agree with it. Get real its the Palis instance on death of all Jews that's the real barrrier to peace. If the Pali's threw down their arms there would be peace tomorrow; if the Israeli's did that they'd all be dead.

Also the pre 1967 requirement is bizarre, no other state is asked to return land won in a defensive battle. For early every nation earth the lines are drwan by the victors of war: that's the only international law that has real meaning.

Goju said...

J Farmer; the pre-67 borders are a death sentence for Israel. Giving the Golan Heights to Syria would put almost all of Israel within the range of long range artillery and completely within range of present missile technology. And there is no way Syria/Hizbollah would not install missiles and artillery there - no matter how many treaties, agreements, resolutions, etc are signed.

Hagar said...

Oh, .... and able ....

Goju said...

J Farmer Hombre beat me to it. I would also suggest you reference the founding charters of every Palestinian organization. hey specifically call the entire State of Israel an illegal entity and call for its destruction.

MikeR said...

"And your source for that claim is what? A fifth of Israel's population is just as Arab as the Arabs of the West Bank. Are they, too, murderously genocidal? The problem is not that they're Arab, it's that they're Muslim. Presumably you know that, so your point remains obscure unless it's something about linguistics.

"Before the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine in the early half of the 20th century, you were much safer as a Jew living in the middle east than you were as a Jew living in Europe." I don't see a comparison with the Holocaust and pogroms in Europe is an argument for how well we Jews were treated in Muslim countries. We weren't treated that well; we were a usually tolerated and oppressed minority. And we certainly weren't treated that well in the second half of the 20th century or the 21st century, which is our present concern. Unless you want to talk about the Crusades again.

MikeR said...

Missing a " after the word "genocidal?".

zipity said...

J. Farmer said...

@Hombre:

The Palestinians left in 1948.

No, they were expelled. Benny Morris, himself an ardent Zionist and supporter of Israel, has laid out the basic evidence for this in numerous works.

Bullshit. The Arabs told them to leave, so they could exterminate the Jews, and then they could return.

How'd that work out for them again?

Rusty said...

J. Farmer said...
@Gahrie:

"Name a Muslim nation that allows Jews to serve in their government.

Nope. And that doesn't alter one word I wrote.

"When there was...Western Europe.....we defended them too......"

We got involved in the European theatre because Hitler declared war on us due to Japan's involvement in the Tripartite alliance. Our efforts were primarily concentrated in the Pacific, and the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting against Hitler's military in the east, which was always his primary focus.

No. Lend lease was for England and Russia. After we got involved in Europe, the bulk of our war material and men went to Europe. The Pacific war was largely on the back burner until early 1944. All through the war we continued to send material to England an Russia. Stalin's win can be largely attributed to our willingness to be his quartermaster.

J. Farmer said...

@sparrow:

"Farmer you just blamed the standstill on Israeli's insistance on remaining Jewish, but no you say you agree with it."

Those two statements are not at odds. I don't have a problem with Israeli immigration policy favoring its character as a Jewish state. That's what nations do. But that does not abrogate the fact that Israel's insistence on remaining a Jewish statement and its conduct in the West Bank are at odds. Peter Beinart, also a strong defender of both Zionism and Israel, makes this point in his book The Crisis of Zionism.

"Also the pre 1967 requirement is bizarre, no other state is asked to return land won in a defensive battle. "

It has been the broad international consensus for over 30 years. But okay, fine, if Israel wants to annex that territory then it needs to make citizens of that population.

@Goju:

You are correct. Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood, and they have every right to defend themselves. But again, if artillery is the chief concern, then why create settler colonies full of civilians? Also, the potential demilitarization of the Golan was an issue left open in UN 242.

sparrow said...

"Those two statements are not at odds. I don't have a problem with Israeli immigration policy favoring its character as a Jewish state. That's what nations do. But that does not abrogate the fact that Israel's insistence on remaining a Jewish statement and its conduct in the West Bank are at odds. Peter Beinart, also a strong defender of both Zionism and Israel, makes this point in his book The Crisis of Zionism."

Farmer you are very selective in your criticism: does not the Palistinian side have any part in this standstill?
AS for the reliogion of the state: no one has a right to tell anyone else what religion they should be. If they don't like it's there problem. Few things are more fundamental than freedom of conscience.

tcrosse said...

Imagine. We missed our chance to have John Kerry as POTUS. I know people who still have Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers, as if they might some day come back into fashion.

J. Farmer said...

@zipity:

Bullshit. The Arabs told them to leave, so they could exterminate the Jews, and then they could return.

Benny Morris, an Israeli historian at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, has published at least half a dozen books on the topic. What about his evidence do you disagree with? His primary sources have been declassified Israeli government documents.

"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves."

-Benny Morris, interviewed in Haaretz. You can read the full interview here.

sparrow said...

Ugh spelling!

J. Farmer said...

@sparrow:

"Farmer you are very selective in your criticism: does not the Palistinian side have any part in this standstill?"

Here's what I wrote in this thread two hours ago: "The main impediment to peace is the right of return. Palestinians won't give up asking for it, and the Israelis won't concede to it, because to do so would be to commit demographic suicide."

"no one has a right to tell anyone else what religion they should be."

What is that a response to? When did I argue the contrary?

Pookie Number 2 said...

But again, if artillery is the chief concern, then why create settler colonies full of civilians?

Because people shouldn't be prohibited from living where they want because of their religion.

sparrow said...

What is that a response to? When did I argue the contrary?

You implied it was wrong of Israel to insist on remaining Jewish as that caused the standstill. It was indirect, but there clearly.

Goju said...

J Farmer; Israeli citizens are targets no matter where hey live. Babies sleeping in their cribs are not safe from having their throats cut by Palestinian "heroes." These settlements will be no more or less safe than any other area of Israel. The problem is not with Israelis. The problem is the delusional genocidal mindset of the Palestinians.

R.J. Chatt said...

"Before the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine in the early half of the 20th century, you were much safer as a Jew living in the middle east than you were as a Jew living in Europe." What is claimed by @J.Farmer is not actually true. You might do some research into the massacres in Hebron 1834, 1929; looting and massacre in Safed 1834,1929, 1517

Also, for a general understanding of the conditions of Jews living in the Holy Land in the 19th century, see the contemporary account entitled, "Eothen" by Alexander William Kinglake Published 1844 "... in 1834, but about the beginning of that year a highly religious Mussulman called Mohammed Damoor went forth into the market-place, crying with a loud voice, and prophesying that on the fifteenth of the following June the true Believers would rise up in just wrath against the Jews, and despoil them of their gold and their silver and their jewels. The earnestness of the prophet produced some impression at the time, but all went on as usual, until at last the fifteenth of June arrived. When that day dawned the whole Mussulman population of the place assembled in the streets that they might see the result of the prophecy. Suddenly Mohammed Damoor rushed furious into the crowd, and the fierce shout of the prophet soon ensured the fulfilment of his prophecy. Some of the Jews fled and some remained, but they who fled and they who remained, alike, and unresistingly, left their property to the hands of the spoilers. The most odious of all outrages, that of searching the women for the base purpose of discovering such things as gold and silver concealed about their persons, was perpetrated without shame. The poor Jews were so stricken with terror, that they submitted to their fate even where resistance would have been easy. In several instances a young Mussulman boy, not more than ten or twelve years of age, walked straight into the house of a Jew and stripped him of his property before his face, and in the presence of his whole family. 43 When the insurrection was put down some of the Mussulmans (most probably those who had got no spoil wherewith they might buy immunity) were punished, but the greater part of them escaped. None of the booty was restored, and the pecuniary redress which the Pasha had undertaken to enforce for them had been hitherto so carefully delayed, that the hope of ever obtaining it had grown very faint. A new Governor had been appointed to the command of the place, with stringent orders to ascertain the real extent of the losses, and to discover the spoilers, with a view of compelling them to make restitution. It was found that, notwithstanding the urgency of the instructions which the Governor had received, he did not push on the affair with the vigour that had been expected..."

This is all the result of the command contained in the Qur'an that Muslims rule over others and non-Muslims accept Islam or the state of dhimmitude or second class subservience and pay the jizya tax. See Qur'an 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

Has Kerry been too busy to learn about any of this?

rehajm said...

The Obama Fuck You Tour continues until we whack them on the head and dump them into the helicopter to fly them to the next block on Jan 20th.

David Baker said...

Another of life's little ironies: John Kerry is a Jew, descendant of the Kohn clan.

He's also a gold digger, and a traitor.

MikeR said...

"It has been the broad international consensus for over 30 years. But okay, fine, if Israel wants to annex that territory then it needs to make citizens of that population."
No, it should annex the part of the territory that it thinks it needs for its security, and it should offer citizens to Muslims within that territory on condition that they swear fealty to Israel and renounce citizenship of any enemy entities. Their citizenship should be conditional; if one of them shows _treasonous_ attitudes they should lose both citizenship and their right to live in that area.

The "broad international consensus" is exactly the kind of reason that so many of us think that the UN has passed its sell date. Very nice to have a consensus of countries that no one is trying to conquer, putting down stringent and unreasonable requirements on a country where someone is. Obviously they waited till after WWII to make such a consensus. But first they took away part of Germany and never gave it back, part of Poland and never gave it back, took away anything Japan had off of its home islands. India and Pakistan each expelled _millions_ of people of the wrong religion because they wouldn't fit in properly with their countries after the partition.
And then there were close to a million Jews who couldn't live in Arab countries after 1948 because of official antisemitism; no one seems to care about that or think that that was a pretty fair trade for the Palestinians who left Israel.

Pookie Number 2 said...

"The main impediment to peace is the right of return. Palestinians won't give up asking for it, and the Israelis won't concede to it, because to do so would be to commit demographic suicide."

I don't think this is right. There still wouldn't be peace if the Palestinians were granted a right of return to what would eventually be Palestine, because too many of them would still use that territory to attack Israel. That difference is why there's peace with Egypt and not with Gaza.

J. Farmer said...

@sparrow:

"You implied it was wrong of Israel to insist on remaining Jewish as that caused the standstill. It was indirect, but there clearly."

No, I made no moral judgment whatsoever. I described the situation. Israel will not agree to the right of return because to do so would be to commit "demographic suicide." This is a standard consensus.

"Because people shouldn't be prohibited from living where they want because of their religion."

They're not. They're prevented from living there because the territory does not belong to them. David Ben-Gurion himself opposed Israel taking any of the rerrirotires with the exception of Hebron.

sparrow said...

So what I am saying is that if the Pali's object to the Jewishness of Israel it's proof of their unreasonable attitude, which is shamefully supported by the anti-semetic West and Islam, the religion of forced conversions.

R.J. Chatt said...

"43 It was after the interview which I am talking of, and not from the Jews themselves, that I learnt this fact."

JPS said...

Hmm. No American administration has done more for Israel's security?

In the early days of the Yom Kippur war, Israel came awfully close to total defeat. Before they turned things around, they were pleading with us for materiel, an airlift, anything at all we could give them.

President Nixon, with Watergate closing in on him, asked his advisors for recommendations. Some argued for helping Israel. Others argued against, on the grounds that we couldn't afford the resulting ill will with the Arab world. The compromise course of action: Three transport aircraft's worth of materiel. A show of solidarity, but not enough to inflame the near-victorious Arab nations.

That notorious Jew-hater Nixon responded, "Hell, the Arabs will hate us just as much for three planes as for three hundred. Send everything that can fly." And we did. It would be a stretch to say Nixon saved Israel, but his decision enabled it to save itself.

But yeah, clearly Secretary Kerry is right: No administration has done as much as Barack Obama's.

steve uhr said...

The Jews remind the Muslims of their inadequacies.

1.7 billion Muslims
14 million Jews

Nobel prizes for chemistry - Jews 35, Muslims 2
Nobel prizes for physics -- Jews 52, Muslims 1
Nobel prizes for medicine -- Jews 53, Muslims 0
Nobel prizes for economics - Jews 27, Muslims 0
Nobel prizes in literature - Jews 15, Muslims 2
Nobel peace prizes-- Jews 10, Muslims 7

At least they are a peaceful bunch.

Pookie Number 2 said...

They're prevented from living there because the territory does not belong to them. David Ben-Gurion himself opposed Israel taking any of the rerrirotires with the exception of Hebron.

Abbas has explicitly promised a Jew-free Palestine, and his objections aren't predicated on how individual properties were acquired. Many of the settlements were bought by Israelis in voluntary transactions.

sparrow said...

Fair enough Farmer
BTW the second sentence is somebody else's, not mine.

As far as I'm concerned Israel has as good a claim on the entire area it now holds as any nation on Earth. It's only because they are isolated and widely hated due to religous bigotry that the bogus lines arranged by other powers are considered legit. You were closer to the truth when your referred to how badly this was handled by the Europeans after WWI and II

J. Farmer said...

@sparrow:

"BTW the second sentence is somebody else's, not mine."

Sorry, I failed to add "@Pookie Number 2," to whom that comment was meant to be addressed.

"As far as I'm concerned Israel has as good a claim on the entire area it now holds as any nation on Earth."

Okay, fine. If it wants sovereignty over that land it has to incorporate its population as citizens.

J. Farmer said...

@R.J. Chatt:

"What is claimed by @J.Farmer is not actually true. You might do some research into the massacres in Hebron 1834, 1929; looting and massacre in Safed 1834,1929, 1517"

First, I said before immigration in the early 20th century, so let's leave aside 1929. Compare that to the massacres of Jews in medieval Europe and the monarch-wide expulsion of Jews from countries like England in the 13th century, twice in France in the 14th century, and by Spain and Portugal in the 15th century. Martin Luther, not an insignificant figure of history, also advocated persecution and expulsion of Jews. Never mind anti-Jewish activity in the Russian Empire. This all culminated in the Final Solution by the 1940s.

@MikeR:

"The "broad international consensus" is exactly the kind of reason that so many of us think that the UN has passed its sell date."

That consensus includes the United States and its allies.

MikeR said...

"That consensus includes the United States and its allies." Not this person in the United States. Just the kind of nonsense that the United States has gone along with, in order to have a United Nations. But nonsense still.
A gang of a hundred mostly thugs, who made an agreement that they can all keep what they have. Too bad for those who hadn't kicked out their enemies yet.
We kind of hoped that it would keep the Soviet Union in line, but it didn't work.

sparrow said...

BTW the Islamic practice of forced conversions slanders God. No God who created man and gave him freedom would also need the help of men to force others to obey him. Further why would God make men free then supress that freedom through Islam? God becomes irrational or weak and that's blasphemy. Last no God worthy of the name would enjoy the forced "worship" of slaves. That makes God a monsterous tyrant. Allah as portrayed by Islam is a weak, human dependent irrational beast.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Okay, fine. If it wants sovereignty over that land it has to incorporate its population as citizens.

That's not a bad rule overall, but it's unrealistic when, in the aggregate, the population in question poses a credible threat of excessive violence.

jrapdx said...

Always amusing that "leftists" get all on their high horses focusing the minutia of legalities when it comes to Israel and nowhere else, especially when the "legal" framework is the UN, infamous for its extreme antisemitic and anti-Israel bias.

Ultimately, and realistically, what is "legal" in the Israeli situation is going to be determined by Israel. By historic precedent, "to the victor go the spoils", Israel has every reason to handle captured territory to suit itself. The ongoing attempts by most of the world to deprive Israel of the fruits of its victories is of course hypocritical in the extreme and can only represent familiar and filthy prejudices reserved for the Jewish people.

This attitude is painfully obvious in Kerry's speech and participation in drafting the UN resolution Obama was determined to push through. The astonishingly one-sided stance of the UN-Obama conspiracy against Israel thoroughly undermines pretense to a lawful, fair process. But leftist ideology is well-recognized to make a mockery of due process, just recall the "show trials" of communist countries.

The UN is a decent theory but conducts itself in a manner antithetical to its philosophy, consequently promoting its self-destruction. This latest stunt seriously diminishes credibility of the UN leaving many if not most Americans questioning the purpose of it continuing to exist.

To paraphrase Obama, actions have consequences, we reap what we sow.

MikeR said...

"No American administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s." Absurd, as others have pointed out. There are a number of fronts where the US helps with Israel's security. One is military aid and direct help, which has varied a lot based on Congress and other stuff. I think President Nixon during the Yom Kippur war wins that one hands down.
Another is helping Israel cope with the gang of amoral antisemitic thugs that are most of the other nations of the world. It isn't that hard; we just use our veto power to stop the UN from doing what they do. Repeatedly, because they are a gang of amoral antisemitic thugs. On that second front, no American administration has ever done more to harm Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s. They are on the wrong side, and they just made that clear.

Dr Weevil said...

If the Palestinians want sovereignty over Gaza, maybe they should have incorporated the very small Jewish population of the area as citizens. Did they even offer to do so? Did they offer to let them live in a Palestinian-ruled Gaza? Did they even offer to let them die a quick and relatively painful death, without any rape or torture beforehand? How many Jews would have survived their first week in a Muslim-ruled Gaza if the Israelis had not removed them - some forcibly - before handing it over?

Israel's unwillingness to grant citizenship to the Muslim residents of the West Bank is entirely the fault of the murderous assholes who live there and in Gaza.

J. Farmer said...

@MikeR:

"Just the kind of nonsense that the United States has gone along with, in order to have a United Nations."

There would still be an "international consensus" absent a United Nations. The UN is merely a conduit for international relations. You're putting far too much emphasis on the bureucratic structure.

"BTW the Islamic practice of forced conversions slanders God."

Forced conversion of Jews was a regular practice in Medieval Europe.

sparrow said...

Drifted off topic there. Anyway I'm endlessly amazed at how frequently people who have roughly the same general information come to radically distinct positions. We are all so polarized and closed off (battled hardened?) to the point where real conversations are rare.

"Okay, fine. If it wants sovereignty over that land it has to incorporate its population as citizens."

Why should they if that poulation means to do them harm?

sparrow said...

"Forced conversion of Jews was a regular practice in Medieval Europe"

You are right and that was evil as well

Comanche Voter said...

John Kerry--slingin' the bull wherever he goes.

J. Farmer said...

@jrapdx:

Always amusing that "leftists" get all on their high horses focusing the minutia of legalities when it comes to Israel and nowhere else, especially when the "legal" framework is the UN, infamous for its extreme antisemitic and anti-Israel bias.

"Another is helping Israel cope with the gang of amoral antisemitic thugs that are most of the other nations of the world."

So Peter Beinart is an antisemitic thug? Shlomo Ben-Ami, antisemitic thug? The editors of Haaretz, antisemitic thugs? Norman FInklestein, son of holocaust survivors who lost every family member outside his parents, antisemitic thug? Nearly 60% of the Israeli population that supports a two-state solution, anti-semitic thugs?

pacwest said...

I say Obama for Secretary General of the UN. Hurray! Is that possible?

J. Farmer said...

@sparrow:

"Why should they if that poulation means to do them harm?"

Does the existence of murderers and psychopaths in America justify a police state?

MikeR said...

'"BTW the Islamic practice of forced conversions slanders God."
Forced conversion of Jews was a regular practice in Medieval Europe.'
What in the world do you want? Do you know anyone here from Medieval Europe? Why is that relevant when we are talking about today's problems. Muslim antisemitism is one of today's problems, and you're talking about Medieval Europe.

'There would still be an "international consensus" absent a United Nations.' Indeed. That is because they are _a bunch of thugs_, as I said already. They want to keep what they have but don't care if others can do the same. I am not interested in the consensus of my moral inferiors. I don't care if some of them run Europe, or formerly the United States.

mikee said...

Way down here, nobody will read this comment. I just want to state my condemnation of the Kerry/Obama policy of burdening Israel with the legalistic opprobrium of a UN Security Council condemnatory vote, when it need not have been allowed, should not have been allowed, and will have nothing but negative repercussions for all involved, from the Palestinians in the West Bank to the Council Members who voted for this malign inversion of their moral compass.

J. Farmer said...

@MikeR:

"Why is that relevant when we are talking about today's problems."

I made an earlier comment that prior to the 20th century mass migrations into Palestine, a typical Jew was generally safer in the middle east than in Europe, and I believe history substantiates this. There is Jewish-Arab conflict in the Levant now because tens of thousands of European and American Jews moved into the area with the express purpose of creating their own state, by force if necessary. If the Mexican population of southern California decided that they wanted their own state and used arms and expulsions to achieve it, how do you think that would be received in the US? There are already legitimate concerns about the demographic imbalances mass migration into America is creating.

"That is because they are _a bunch of thugs_, as I said already. "

Again, so the 60% of Israelis who agree with that broad international consensus are also a "bunch of thugs?"

Curious George said...

"No American administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s."
Said John Kerry, our Secretary of State, speaking today."

100% true. If "security" means "demise."

J. Farmer said...

@Curious George:

100% true. If "security" means "demise."

Exactly what demise has Israel undergone in the last eight years?

MikeR said...

"a typical Jew was generally safer in the middle east than in Europe, and I believe history substantiates this." You keep repeating this nonsense. Safer than a pogrom is not safe. A typical Jew in the middle east who asserted his rights and independence against the Muslims would have gotten killed. Jews survived in the Middle Ages in Arab countries by keeping their heads down; Muslims would tolerate nothing else. I reject that as a plan for the present or the future. It is _completely irrelevant_ that European Christians were even worse, in that even keeping your head down didn't always help.

"There is Jewish-Arab conflict in the Levant now because tens of thousands of European and American Jews moved into the area with the express purpose of creating their own state, by force if necessary." No, there is conflict there now because they _stopped keeping their heads down_. Look around the Arab world; where do any non-Muslims survive doing anything else?

jrapdx said...

Farmer—

Plenty of leftists in Israel, though I doubt 60% of Israelis qualify. Haaretz is rabidly leftist, like the American media. However, the majority of Israelis support their "center-right" parties hence Netanyahu won the last round in their election, again similar to what happened in our own recent elections.

You mistakenly attribute this quote to me: "Another is helping Israel cope with the gang of amoral antisemitic thugs that are most of the other nations of the world." I said nothing about "thugs", though I can see how the UN operatives could be described that way.

Re: "2-state solution". All I said is that it's up to Israel to determine their positions, not the UN. In fact I said nothing at all about the idea of a "2-state solution". So don't get on my case about it.

Please read what I wrote more carefully before going off on wild tangents.

Michael McClain said...

As I recall, John Phucking Kerry lied about the medals that he threw over the White House fence during anti-Vietnam War protests. He didn't toss his own decorations, he threw someone else's.

He's little more than a gigolo fit only for marrying wealthy stupid women.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

The word "shibboleth" has its origins in the Hebrew, IIRC.

Virtue signalling.

It's what's for dinner.

Kevin said...

I say Obama for Secretary General of the UN. Hurray! Is that possible?

Yes, then Trump defunds it, pulls the US out, and kicks it out of NYC.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Does the existence of murderers and psychopaths in America justify a police state?

No. They don't pose an existential threat.

J. Farmer said...

@MikeR:

I reject that as a plan for the present or the future. It is _completely irrelevant_ that European Christians were even worse, in that even keeping your head down didn't always help.

It was never presented as a plan for the present or the future. It was a description of history that you seem to concede given your use of the phrase "even worse." Never mind living as second class citizens. Jews in Europe were frequently dispossessed of their property, expelled from their countries, and subject to forced conversions and frequent violent massacres. To say that a Jew was safer in the middle east than in Europe is not to say that everything was perfect for Jews in the middle east, but there is an observed, quantitative difference in the treatment of Jews in Europe versus the middle east,

No, there is conflict there now because they _stopped keeping their heads down_."

Stopped keeping their heads down? The migrants into Palestine were from Europe and America; they had not lived in middle east countries for centuries if not millennia.

J. Farmer said...

@jrapdx:

You mistakenly attribute this quote to me:

I left off the "@MikeR." Trying to keep up with the comments in the thread can get a bit confusing, especially when I try to reply to multiple people in the same comment.

Re: "2-state solution". All I said is that it's up to Israel to determine their positions, not the UN.

Israel is a member of the UN and has accepted the UN 242 framework.

Mary E. Glynn said...

What more do you need to know other than the history we have watched unfold our entire lives?
-----------
I need to know how much the US taxpayer has expended on Israel's defense over the years, and when the country will be prosperous and independent enough to stand on their own?

Also, why did Obama sign off on the biggest aid package EVAH for Israel (instead of putting that money toward resettling the Middle East refugees) and now Kerry pulls this?

(If you'd a kept the cash in hand, there's no talking needed, Mr. Kerry.)

Israel seems to think they are the dominant partner in this relationship. Nope. So long as they are on America's dole since the UN awarded them the land based on a bad title from the Bits, then Israel should answer to us.

Want more settlements?
Fine, no American taxpayer cash for you!


ps. Israel has not been a "Jewish" state for years. Not as G-d defines it. Their light on the hill was extinguished long ago. The blood of Palestinian innocents drowned it out...

ddh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ddh said...

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Lydia said...

Two prominent Israeli historians have problems with Benny Morris's methods -- Efraim Karsh and Martin Kramer. As an example, there's a long discussion by Kramer of the errors in Morris's take on what happened in Lydda, the "supposed site of the 'largest massacre' of 1948", in this piece -- Distortion and Defamation. An excerpt:

As Morris himself admits, not a single contemporary Israeli document makes any mention whatsoever of the events of July 12, 1948 at the Dahmash mosque: the “small mosque” that was supposedly the scene of one Israeli massacre. What Morris calls the “crystal-clear” documentary proof of a wider “massacre” on the same day is an Israeli military summary of the fighting that lists “enemy casualties” at 250 versus four Israeli dead. According to Morris, “this disproportion speaks massacre, not ‘battle.’” And that’s it. On this slim reed rests Morris’s claim not only that there was a “massacre” at Lydda but that it was the “biggest massacre” of the 1948 war.

The claim is particularly audacious, given that Morris has made mistake after mistake over the years in assembling his narrative. In the first edition (1988) of his book on the 1948 Palestinian refugees, he claimed that “dozens of unarmed detainees in the mosque and church compounds in the center of the town were shot and killed.” In fact, none of the unarmed detainees in the Great Mosque and the Church of St. George was harmed during the fighting. Morris seemed not to know that there was another mosque, the Dahmash or “small” mosque, which was the locus of fighting—something any Palmah veteran of the battle could have told him, or that he could have learned by carefully rereading the account by Lydda’s military governor, Shmarya Gutman, published way back in November 1948.

Later, after learning of his error, Morris shifted the locus of the “massacre” to the small mosque (whose name he couldn’t pronounce properly, to judge from his spelling of it: Dahaimash). But he began referring to those inside it as “POWs,” in which case they all would have been men, under stiff armed guard. In his response to me, he now allows that they included some women and children, and admits that it’s “unclear” whether they were even detainees.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
pacwest said...

, then Trump defunds it, pulls the US out, and kicks it out of NYC.

And the nearly half of the US population that adores the big O (and the smaller segment that believes in one world government) gets kicked out too? How does that work? Obama for world leader! He does have a Nobel under his belt already after all.

Skipper said...

Kerry. didn't he fix Vietnam?

Pookie Number 2 said...

To say that a Jew was safer in the middle east than in Europe is not to say that everything was perfect for Jews in the middle east, but there is an observed, quantitative difference in the treatment of Jews in Europe versus the middle east,

Depends on the time period. Nothing equaled the Nazis, but the Almohads were as bad as the worst episodes of the Roman Catholic Church.

Michael K said...

Farmer has been adequately dismissed with no help from me.

I will only mention Mark Twain's comments about the area now know as "Palestine" when he visited in the 1880s.

Haaretz is no zionist source but:

As the exhibit relates, one of the places Melville came to know was the Mount Hope agricultural colony near Jaffa, established to teach Jews farm work. In an attack a year after Melville's visit, Arabs murdered a member of the colony, and raped his wife and his mother-in-law. The attack, after which the family returned to America, was to haunt Melville. In time, it would also profoundly affect author John Steinbeck, the grandnephew of the murdered man, who nearly a century later would echo the events in his novel East of Eden.
In perhaps the most astonishing display, there is a handbill for "Dickson's Palestine Museum," a traveling show in which only months after the Mount Hope attack, the murder victim's brother-in-law, appearing in "full ARAB DRESS" would give "a thrilling narrative of that awful night."


Melville's visit was in 1857.

Jews were living in "Palestine" and being murdered by Arabs. What else is new ?

The Arabs called "Palestinians" are not civilized and cannot be integrated into a modern society, especially Israel. Even other Arabs don;t want them and expelled many after they foolishly chose to support Saddam Hussain in 1992.

damikesc said...

It should always be noted that Trump is naming eminently qualified people to positions because he isn't so insecure that he's afraid of anybody overshadowing him. Obama only nominates imbeciles.

You also missed my calls for compensation for Palestinians, because I don't make them, for either side. I am an America and don't have a dog in that fight.

The notion that Israel's settler colonies are necessary for the protection of Israel is absurd. If anything, the settlements distract from defending Israel proper, because the settler require IDF forces for protection and to enforce the apartheid-like conditions imposed on the unfortunate Arabs who have the misfortune of living in the settlement areas.

I note your comment because it has nothing to do with the US one way or the other.

I wish you Lefties would be consistent --- either it's bad to side with deplorable groups or it is not. Because you seem to be calling for us to side with the "Palestinians", who are a loathsome group with zero positive contributions to human society.

ARAB COUNTRIES don't want them --- but the anti-Semitic left has them as their fucking "most noble folks"

No, it was left up to future negations with the belligerent states. But there was wide consensus that implementation of UN 242 would involve Israel's withdraw from the occupied territories.

"Widespread consensus" isn't negotiations.

Roughcoat said...

I am unfamiliar with there being in the Catholic Catechism any mention of a rule against writing "God" and instead using the formulation "GD." And I have read the Catechism many times, front to back -- unlike most of my fellow Catholics.

Whether God chooses to teach the Jews another presumably harsh lesson is beyond my ken. I think He may be too busy teaching my beloved Catholic Church a lesson for the sins it committed in the past against Jews -- sins of both commission and omission -- and maybe for the sins recent and ongoing of covering up for the butt-fucking pedophile priests that have in over the course of the past century infested its holy precincts.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

"Jews were living in "Palestine" and being murdered by Arabs. What else is new ?"

Hmm...sounds like a really bad place for thousands of American and European Jews to move to in mass, doesn't it?

@damikesc:

"I note your comment because it has nothing to do with the US one way or the other."

Right. Because I'm describing a situation. I have a personal opinion on the matter, but I have no desire to force my point of view on either the Israelis or the Palestinians. I have been completely consistent in my position: no vital American interests are present in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I don't see any reason for the US to insert itself into that conflict at great political cost to ourself. I also don't believe in corporate welfare for Israel, Egypt, or any other nation.

"Widespread consensus" isn't negotiations.

The negotiations involved things like small mutual land swaps to normalize the Jordanian border and over issues of demilitarization in the Sinai and the Golan. That was the position of Secretary of State Rusk and of Lord Caradon, the principle drafter of the resolution.

Gretchen said...

It is very important to the Obama administration that as many Mexicans, Central Americans, and Muslim refugees settle in the US, and that Israelis stay out of the West Bank.

jrapdx said...

Farmer—

"Israel is a member of the UN and has accepted the UN 242 framework."

But it doesn't mean Israel has to or will accept that the bully countries of the UN get to destroy Israel because that's what they want to do.

Recalls the American Declaration of Independence, the bit about "dissolving bonds" when authority becomes abusive. The UN has indeed become dominated by thuggery towards Israel, now even our own leadership fails to live up to American ideals. Obama has recreated our country as one of the mob.

Why on earth would Israel go along with being destroyed by the hateful countries set against it? The UN has abdicated its role as advocate for peaceful settlement of conflicts and now is participant in destruction of a legitimate and worthy member. In that way it no longer stands for rule of law and lost any semblance of respect.

Frankly I don't see how it can any longer be supported by the US insofar as the UN has abandoned the principles it was established to promote.

buwaya puti said...

The Arabs (and most other Muslims) pretty much unanimously wanted all the Jews dead in 1947, and their opinions have not changed, not even, it seems, the Israeli Arabs. And this is true even among "friendly" governments like Egypt, at the moment. The problem isn't with the Arab/Muslim governments but their people. Even totalitarian states can't ultimately buck such a deep and universal feeling.
Looking at it from the Israeli point of view there isn't much point in negotiation or concessions, as there is no possibility of any benefit. The Arab attitude is permanent, unchangeable, and no international agreement is ever going to be worth anything over even the medium term.

Roughcoat said...

While we're on the topic of historic injustices to entire peoples ...

I'd like to see the Egyptian Copts -- the actual descendants of the ancient Egyptian -- given their own autonomous region or even a sovereign state in Upper Egypt.

I'd like to see at least the western regions of Anatolia, including Constantinople/Istanbul, returned -- returned, I say -- to the Greeks. At the very least I want, nay demand, that the Hagia Sophia be reopened as a Christian Church.

I'd like to see the Assyria Nineveh Plain of Iraq given over wholly to the Christian Assyrians and for an autonomous or even sovereign Christian Assyrian state to be created therein. Assyrians, it should be noted have inhabited that area for well over 5,000 years, and are presently and literally fighting for their lives against extermination by Islamist forces. Full disclosure, I am personally and professionally involved in this struggle.

Next year in Byzantium.

traditionalguy said...

To Obama success means sticking to his fake news narrative that pretends giving the Iranians nuclear weapons and giving their Hamas ground-game UN approval to attack and kill all Jews until "The World" has restored the Israeli boundary to the 1948 truce lines...and if the attacks accidentally keep going another day or two, then all Jews will be slaughtered in the Mediterannean Sea.

Obama thinks this helping the Jews to think again as passive victims, just like the good old days.

Mac McConnell said...

John Kerry reminds me of JFK, except JFK was handsome, intelligent and didn't do that lizard tongue thing when he spoke.

CWJ said...

"Seems like most commenters hereon also deny the Palestinians' right to exist."

What?!?!?!?!?!

Birkel said...

J. Farmer: "Okay, fine. If it wants sovereignty over that land it has to incorporate its population as citizens."

J. Farmer:"Countries have the right to defend themselves."

Pick one of the two, as they are mutually exclusive.

I would note that J. Farmer gets particularly animated whenever Jews are discussed. Has anybody else noticed this peculiarity?

Paul said...


"No American administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s."
What a flat LIE (unless you define Israel's security as being a Muslim country.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Oooh, he's playing the guilt card.

They've done a lot for Israel's security, and would have to do even more if a near-complete withdrawal the '48 armistice lines was effectuated. I just heard an anti-Westerner the other day explain on a video that the separation barrier wasn't responsible for the massive decline in terrorism since the halcyon days of the post-9/11 busbomb etc. onslaughts. If it wasn't the wall then you can bet it sure as hell was unfettered IDF access to the entire West Bank.

No one questions why separate statehood should equal peace. I've come to believe that the best and most peaceful outcome would be complete economic and eventual social integration of the Palestinians in a large section of the West Bank with Israel, starting with its settlements. Gaza may have calmed down for now but there's no way that enticing the entire West Bank with that much relative territory and a chance to vote Hamas into power - as could very well happen under that drone Kerry's meddling into governance - wouldn't lead to more conflict.

Just leave the place alone. If you have to spend over an hour scolding two sides to a conflict then perhaps your meddling with them and schoolmarming them is missing the point - or even, moreover, wrong in its content and assumptions.

This is the pettiest administration ever. Hopefully Trump will figure out what's worth leaving well enough alone. Leave your lofty Jeffersonian ideals for back at home, where democracy fails you, John Kerry. How pathetic.

Michael McNeil said...

Forced conversion of Jews was a regular practice in Medieval Europe.

Forced conversion of Jews to what? Forced conversion of Jews to Islam also occurred in Medieval Europe. It happened to Maimonides and his family.

GWash said...

RoughCoat, why would God care about the Jews anymore than any of his other children... the mosaic covenant ended with Jesus Christ's death and resurrection... if we are going to back israel not matter what they do we are never going get out of this nightmare war... to me its kind of like your neighbor building an addition on his house but on your property... might may make right but there are limits and if your idea of living in a police/surveillance state constantly at war smells like freedom and the way you want to live, well, is that what i can look forward to here with herr trump?

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

Pick one of the two, as they are mutually exclusive.

They are not mutually exclusive at all, and they are referring to two different concepts. Countries have a right to defend themselves, that's what borders are all about. But if Israel wants to extend its borders around the population of the West Bank, then those borders need to enclose citizens.

I would note that J. Farmer gets particularly animated whenever Jews are discussed.

We are not discussing "Jews;" we are discussing Israel. It's funny, though, how when the subject comes up, people immediately ape the SJW playbook and start making insinuations of antisemitism to anyone that attempts a nuanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have said repeatedly in this very thread that Israel has a right to exist within its pre-1967 borders and that it has the right to maintain its Jewish character through the law of return. Are there any other examples you can think of me getting "particularly animated whenever Jews are discussed?"

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 326   Newer› Newest»