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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
323 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 323 of 323"Hmm...sounds like a really bad place for thousands of American and European Jews to move to in mass, doesn't it?"
Hmmm...I wonder what happened during the 1930's and '40's which made Jews willing to brave the risks of settling in the Middle East.
When it comes to the Palestinians, any sympathy I had for them vanished entirely on 9/11/01, when I saw them dancing in the streets and passing out candy. I find it interesting that people who are horrified by the terrorist attacks in Berlin, Paris, San Bern, Nice and New York are always willing to cut terrorists slack when they murder and maim in Tel Aviv. That's different, you see. They have cause to murder Jews.
As other commentators have pointed out, if the Palestinians wanted peace, they would have it. They don't. They want Israel destroyed and every Israeli dead.
J. Farmer: "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."
... thus making defense impossible. Does logic fail you when considering Jews?
Reagan sent troops to Lebanon... when did Obama sent troops to protect Israel?
History revisions going on.
Arafat got 97% of what he wanted and said "no."
The Boston Brahmin needs to shut up and not do any more damage.
Someone too stupid to learn such an obvious lesson as "Don't bother commenting on a site whose owner deletes every one of your tweets as soon as she spots them" should probably not be advising anyone else on what (or Who) might theoretically "teach them a lesson".
And Kerry lives up to expectations. Thank you for permanently confirming that voting for W. over you was the right decision. Then again, I never really had doubt on that one.
@Michael McNeil:
"Forced conversion of Jews to Islam also occurred in Medieval Europe."
Saying "in Medieval Europe" is a bit of a stretch, though it certainly occurred in the Iberian. Christian antisemitism was quite widespread in Europe. Twenty-five years after Luther publishes his famous 95 Theses, he published his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies prescribed persecution of Jews, and he worked fervently to have Jews expelled from various towns and villages. The treatise was often displayed prominently during the Nuremberg rallies of the 1930s.
You know the many thousands of Jews might not of moved to such anice place in the Middle East if they could have been assured of living in Europe.How many died in those European countries again?And what was the preferred method of execution?
@Birkel:
"Does logic fail you when considering Jews?"
No, your missing the point entirely. Israel wants to treat the West Bank as a country but knows that it cannot incorporate its people into the polis, hence the strange limbo the territory is kept in. Peter Beinart has written lucidly on the subject in his The Crisis of Zionism.
Birkel—
"I would note that J. Farmer gets particularly animated whenever Jews are discussed. Has anybody else noticed this peculiarity?"
Can't say I've tracked it that closely, though that "animation" is on display in this thread. But isn't that a common trait among people with prejudices? I mean antisemites are activated by discussions of Jews or Israel, homophobes when homosexuality is the topic, anti-black racists whenever racial subjects are the issue, and on and on.
Of course that's not an entirely fair analysis. Humans are strongly driven by their biases for and against just about any particular matter. We all have our interests to pursue.
The trick is distinguishing interest from hatred. A dominant opinion here is Obama and Kerry show hateful bias toward Israel and so may some commenters. No exact rules to apply to say who is who, but staying vigilant, keeping a high "index of suspicion" seems prudent.
@
Hmmm...I wonder what happened during the 1930's and '40's which made Jews willing to brave the risks of settling in the Middle East.
@Jeff Teal:
You know the many thousands of Jews might not of moved to such anice place in the Middle East if they could have been assured of living in Europe.
First, Zionism as a political project begins in the 19th century long before Nazism or the Holocaust, though antisemitism in Europe and the Russian Empire was rampant. Second, the Balfour Declaration promising Jews a homeland in Palestine was signed in 1917.
Europe could have easily given Jews a homeland in Europe. Instead they gave them Arab land, a situation that was sure to result in ethnic conflict, as competing nationalisms tend to do in a world carved into nation-states based on a principle of national self-determination.
J. Farmer: "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."
...
"No, your (sic) missing the point entirely."
I understand your point of placing Jews in a Catch-22. Now what?
the mosaic covenant ended with Jesus Christ's death and resurrection
This is theologically unsound. It is true that the Mosaic Convenant was conditional. But it is important to grasp that Christ, speaking in reference to the Mosaic Convent and Mosaic Law, stated the did not come into the world to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it.
What's more, the Abrahamic Convenant, which precedes the Mosaic Covenant, is a unilateral covenant of promise, "in which God binds Himself to do what He promised, regardless of what the recipients of the promises might do."
Which is to say, "the promise of salvation by faith that God had made to Abraham as part of the Abrahamic Covenant" remains in effect for all time(Galatians 3:16-18).
The Catholic Catechism spells out the special relationship God has with the Jewish people and our obligations as Catholic Christians in this regard.
If you're of the Protestant persuasion, you can find lots of info on this subject in The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns.
Israel wants to treat the West Bank as a country but knows that it cannot incorporate its people into the polis, hence the strange limbo the territory is kept in.
The best outcome for Israel and the Palestinians would be for Israel to retain and even entrench its military occupation of at least 33% or more of the West Bank, including the major city of Jerusalem, under its own control until the Palestinians living there have no choice but to accommodate to and transact economically and socially with a durable Israeli presence. For a while it will be tough, but they will then graduate to a more civilized arrangement over time. This would be analogous to what happened to the Arab populations that remained in Israel after the '48 war. They lived under a regime of military occupation for some time, a decade or two, perhaps, and were then integrated into the Israeli civilian fabric. It's to the credit of that history that they are largely pacifist, civil and increasingly and decently engaged in Israeli society.
And the same should be repeated in as much of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, to minimize the amount of territory that could ever revert to Hamas rule.
Peter Beinart has written lucidly on the subject in his The Crisis of Zionism.
You find Peter Beinart lucid? That's funny. I find him to be shrill to a fault. And emotional. And intellectually sloppy.
@BIrkel:
I understand your point of placing Jews in a Catch-22. Now what?
Now nothing. I have said repeatedly that it's a quagmire and that there are no easy solutions. I don't see vital American interests involved and I see no reason for the US to insert itself in the conflict on one side or the other. I'd prefer the US just stayed out of it. I don't support an internationalist foreign policy
All of this comes from not only a lame duck administration, but one with less than a month in authority which if they were at all serious could have worked on this years ago. And not just a lame duck administration, but one which in this case represents a lame duck party.
This entire business is nothing more than a petulant high stakes version of removing the "w's" from the white house keyboards. It's reckless, dangerous, puts lives at stake, and makes me sick!
Cue the Gatsby quote of Barack and John being careless people smashing up things.
@jrapdx:
But isn't that a common trait among people with prejudices?
Oh, brother.
Yes, I am quite critical of the US-Israeli relationship, and I am prepared to discuss why and engage in debate on the topic with people with opposing views. Should we assume that those who do take the opposing view of mine are driven by philo-semitism? I also support immigration restriction and a moratorium on all legal immigration. Does that make me a xenophobe? I also oppose affirmative action. I guess I'm a racist, too. I don't believe in private florists or bakers should be forced by state power to provide their goods to gay couples. Does that make me a homophobe? Me and most of my interlocutors in this thread are people in broad agreement over the so called SJW mindset, yet on the subject of Israel, people are quite ready to accuse irrational fears or paranoia as opposed to the straightforward statements I make.
Lastly, even if I was a raving leftist and a total antisemite, it would make no difference to whether or not any argument I made was valid or not. That's what the ad hominem fallacy is all about.
Palestinians' right to exist, yes in Jordan where they lived before 1967.
@Rhyhtm and Balls:
You find Peter Beinart lucid?
"on the subject in his The Crisis of Zionism," I do. If you have read the book, I'd be happy to take your thoughts into consideration and give you my reply. As for Beinart overall, he is a liberal internationalist and far to supportive of an American interventionist foreign policy for my taste.
First, Zionism as a political project begins in the 19th century long before Nazism or the Holocaust, though antisemitism in Europe and the Russian Empire was rampant.
Even if it hadn't been, they're still a nation with every right to nationalism, nationhood and a national existence.
Second, the Balfour Declaration promising Jews a homeland in Palestine was signed in 1917.
Europe could have easily given Jews a homeland in Europe.
Not without seriously deranging their religious and national identity. The Jews are a nation borne of a liberation myth that places the majority of its precepts on the meaning of how a nation of laws accommodates to life in a certain land. This includes thousands of years of history and archeology on that land and a religion whose three most significant holidays are essentially harvest festivals devoted to a celebration of that existence, in that place.
Its two or three other biggest holidays are less agrarian and of course concerned with penance, renewal and other abstract religious universals.
Instead they gave them Arab land, a situation that was sure to result in ethnic conflict, as competing nationalisms tend to do in a world carved into nation-states based on a principle of national self-determination.
"Arab land" sounds like caliphate talk. Which is natural as that's what the caliphate - an imperial theocracy and the only form of government known to the middle east for 1400 years - sought to make of the middle east and succeeded in doing. Arabs were originally just from a certain peninsula. The reason the surrounding Phoenicians, Assyrians, Berbers and others - INCLUDING Israelite Samaritans and Jews in the10th c. - became "Arabs", was due to a deliberate project of Arabization, a cultural hegemony that fit in nicely with the caliphate's imperialism, seeing as how its holy book was written in that holy tongue.
The Arab countries' failures in achieving self-determination derive from that overarching ethnicity's project of suppressing all those smaller national identities for so long. So long, in fact, that many of them were forgotten. The only reason the "Palestinians" today think of themselves as Arabs is because the 10th c. al Hakim edict forcibly converted them, on pain of death, to that very, non-Israelite identity.
Let the Israelis continue to rule them and one day they'll stop hating their roots. And thank them for it.
@Mac McConnell:
"Palestinians' right to exist, yes in Jordan where they lived before 1967."
So who was living in Hebron, the West Bank's largest city, before 1967?
Yes, I am quite critical of the US-Israeli relationship -
Are you therefore as critical of America's founding being inspired in part by the liberation of the Israeli nation thousands of years ago?
Most Americans aren't. That's probably why they're less critical.
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.
Did Israel sign off on it?
No?
Then they mean shit.
Israel has already given up land for peace. They got fucked for it. I would demand Palestinians humble themselves massively before I ask Israel to do one more thing.
Why did the US abstain, rather than vote for the resolution? The only explanation is that O / Kerry want to have it both ways - getting what they wanted while still appearing not to attack Israel.
This is cowardly. It also is strongly reminiscent of O's record of voting "present" on every bill in the Illinois legislature.
For whatever it's worth, I haven't seen anything remotely antisemitic in Farmer's comments. I think he overlooks the sickness within too much of Palestinian society, but at worst, he's wrong. Or maybe I am. But when we're presented with Mary Glynn's lunacy, the difference is pretty clear.
As for Beinart overall, he is a liberal internationalist and far to supportive of an American interventionist foreign policy for my taste.
Maybe his liberal internationalism is mistaken in glossing over the conservative regionalisms at play in a place that has little use for his own form of internationalism. A mistake that internationalists are prone to making. They believe everyone else has the same conception of an international order that they do.
Farmer—
Apparently you didn't read beyond the 1st paragraph of my comment. To quote myself, "Of course that's not an entirely fair analysis. Humans are strongly driven by their biases for and against just about any particular matter. We all have our interests to pursue."
IOW I said nothing about you in particular, just noting the general run of human behavior. I was not saying you were antisemitic, rather pointing out you may have any of a number of interests associated with this topic.
Maybe my wording was too subtle, I didn't think so, but could be. I'll just say my interest in this discussion was "activated" by the horrible behavior of Obama and Kerry toward an important US ally.
Since the question has been raised, though not my question to begin with, I'll ask you, so what is your dog in the fight?
@Rhythm and Balls:
Even if it hadn't been, they're still a nation with every right to nationalism, nationhood and a national existence.
Yes, and I've made exactly the same statement repeatedly. Israel is a state entitled to national self-determination. I think the Mexican-American War was pretty unjust, but that doesn't mean I believe the southwest territory should go back to Mexico.
"This includes thousands of years of history and archeology on that land and a religion whose three most significant holidays are essentially harvest festivals devoted to a celebration of that existence, in that place."
Jewish people obviously have strong historical connections to the land. That doesn't mean that American and European Jews, who had no discernible direct connections to that land are entitled to it as a homeland, especially when that land is already occupied.
""Arab land" sounds like caliphate talk.
No, it's a description of demographic fact. In 1900, the population of Palestine was about 95% Arab.
So J. Farmer, you have no problem with the Palestinians getting the Temple Mount and the Wailing Wall? If they did I would not be a bit surprised if they didn't blow up the Wailing Wall. They certainly would go back to their policies of not allowing anyone but a Muslim in the Holy Church.
"No American administration has done more for Israel’s security than Barack Obama’s."
Does he REALLY think this administration trumps HST's recognizing Israel at it's birth.
Does he REALLY think this administration trumps Nixon's staring down possible Russian intervention in '73.
No, but he was given words to read so there's that.
@Rhyhtm and Balls:
Are you therefore as critical of America's founding being inspired in part by the liberation of the Israeli nation thousands of years ago?
No, because one has nothing to do with the other. That's nonsensical.
@ damikesc:
Did Israel sign off on it?
No?
Yes, they did. In regards to UN 242, Yosef Tekoah, then Israel's representative to the UN, made the following statement to the security council:
"In declarations and statements made publicly and to Mr. Jarring, my Government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and durable peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all the matters included in that resolution." Here is the source.
@jrapdx:
Since the question has been raised, though not my question to begin with, I'll ask you, so what is your dog in the fight?
I have none, and I have said half a dozen times now that my preferred solution would be simply for the US to stay out of. I don't want us to be on the Israeli side, and I don't want us to be on the Palestinian side.
Israel wants to treat the West Bank as a country but knows that it cannot incorporate its people into the polis, hence the strange limbo the territory is kept in.
God ! The wrangle goes on and on.
Muslim Arabs want Jews all dead. Israel needs defensible borders. In 1938, Germany stirred up the Sudeten Germans to make Czechoslovakia indefensible. Then the Germans stared a war and lost.
In 1948, the UN divided a small area known as "The Mandate of Palestine" in to an Arab region and a smaller Jewish region.
On the day selected by the UN, the Arabs invaded to massacre the Jews but, wonder of wonders, they lost the war !
Thousands of Arabs had been advised to leave the Jewish areas so they would not be in the way of Arab victory.
They never went back. Another war was begun by Arabs and they lost again. That time, the Israelis captured all of Jerusalem, even the Jewish tombstones that had been used as Arab urinals.
In 1973, the Arabs began a third war and lost it. Golan was lost. Egypt was nearly conquered and would have been but for Russian threats.
The Israelis have NO OBLIGATION to the Palestinians anymore than the Soviets had to Sudeten Germans and East Prussians at the end of WWII.
In 2000, amazingly, the Israelis offered almost 100% of the what the Palestinians said they wanted.
Bill Clinton put heavy pressure on the Israelis and Arafat walked away. Arafat was never anything but an Egyptian terrorist.
In 2005, relying on guarantees from Bush, Israel withdrew from Gaza and evacuated all their settlements, turning over valuable infrastructure to the Palestinians.
The Palestinians destroyed the infrastructure and made Gaza an armed camp from which they staged terror attacks.
There is no intelligent person who can believe that the Palestinians would cease their war on Israel if they got Israel to go back to 1967 lines.
The lefties will never accept reality and that is why they lose so much. Look at Venezuela.
Yes, and I've made exactly the same statement repeatedly. Israel is a state entitled to national self-determination.
I would go even further than this and posit that they even have a right to pursue their political interests, as well. But this is often forgotten in the West and Middle East as political interests in these places had for the majority of our existence been bound up with the empires that ruled us - namely Christendom and Islam, and defined their relationship to the religiously inferior Jews thusly.
Jewish people obviously have strong historical connections to the land. That doesn't mean that American and European Jews, who had no discernible direct connections to that land are entitled to it as a homeland, especially when that land is already occupied.
That's funny. When I find that a community so obsessed with the integrity of its history - right down to its very family units - shares common ancestors despite thousands of years of dispossession, persecution and forced exile, that maybe the homeland that tied together its lore, rituals and identity is worthy of political attachment to their claims. But maybe I think that actual genetic material is a little more discernible, direct, and connecting than you do. ;-)
Just because religious successors to the Jews created empires strong enough to conquer and claim that land and define the people they wanted to populate it, doesn't mean that claim should be the sole over-riding factor. I think there's something to be said for retaining both an identity and the binding ties to that identity - even geographical ties.
J. Farmer: "I don't support an internationalist foreign policy."
J. Farmer: "The illegality of the settlements has wide consensus in international law."
Pick one.
@Lynndh:
So J. Farmer, you have no problem with the Palestinians getting the Temple Mount and the Wailing Wall?
That, like many of the issues surrounding the conflicting, is precisely why I described it as a quagmire with no simple solutions. I have no clue how to solve that problem, and the people living there can't seem to figure out how to solve it either. It's one of the unfortunate spots on the globe plagued by ethnic conflict. I'm not sure what to do about the Tamil insurgency in Sri Lanka, either, or how to settle the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan or what to do about Tibet. Or about the conflicts of the recent division of Sudan.
Is this man stupid, delusional, crazy, or just pissing on our shoes and telling us it's raining?
@Birkel:
J. Farmer: "I don't support an internationalist foreign policy."
J. Farmer: "The illegality of the settlements has wide consensus in international law."
Pick one.
Again, there is no choice to be made in your false dichotomy. Yes, there is wide consensus in international legal opinion that the settlements are illegal. What do I advocate the US doing about it? Nothing.
I have both described the situation in Israel-Palestine and consistently said that I think the US should stay out of it.
No, it's a description of demographic fact. In 1900, the population of Palestine was about 95% Arab.
At such a depopulated number as existed there then, I should hope so. If only those pesky Zionists hadn't settled and improved the agriculture and economy enough to provoke a population and immigration boom of their own on the part of the Palestinians and those identifying with them.
And the way you describe "demographic fact" is interesting. If those Arabs started speaking Hebrew, identifying with the Israeli state founded by those Jews and having less antagonism against and perhaps more identification with their history, then the demographic "fact" would change once again. As is happening with the better assimilation/integration of less "Palestinianized" populations among the Bedouin, Druze, Christian Arabs, Samaritans, etc.
It happened before it will happen again. Apparently demographic identity isn't written into stone for these non-Jews. But government-knows-best types sure would prefer if it were.
@Michael K:
There is no intelligent person who can believe that the Palestinians would cease their war on Israel if they got Israel to go back to 1967 lines.
Except perhaps the 60% of Israelis who support the two-state solution. But folks like Michael K seem to have a strange urge to be more Israeli than Israelis.
The lefties will never accept reality and that is why they lose so much. Look at Venezuela.
I know that you have difficult in relinquishing your AM radio cliches, but here's a simple question. What is your assessment of people like Pat Buchanan and the paleoconservatives view towards the US-Israeli relationship?
J. Farmer: "Again, there is no choice to be made in your false dichotomy. Yes, there is wide consensus in international legal opinion that the settlements are illegal. What do I advocate the US doing about it? Nothing."
If there is no enforcement mechanism, there is no law. If you advocate doing nothing, then you admit as much. So please pick one.
What is your assessment of people like Pat Buchanan and the paleoconservatives view towards the US-Israeli relationship?
Perhaps I can help on this one. As flawed as our conservative friends at Althouse may be, they seem to have been happy to pass the burden of Pat Buchanan's paleoconservatism to the alt-right, of which there seem to virtually none assembled here. (Apart from the paeans they'd like to write to unserious bomb-throwers like Milo Yannnnsiepasleapoooos and whatever he's trying to do on universities and as concerns Muslim threats to gay freedom).
@Rhytm and Balls:
"At such a depopulated number as existed there then, I should hope so."
If you were one of the 700,000 people living there at the time it probably wouldn't feel too "depopulated."
And the way you describe "demographic fact" is interesting.
Israel's law of return is quite concerned with that "demographic fact."
@Rhythm and Balls:
"of which there seem to virtually none assembled here.
No, actually, I am quite prepared to identify myself with a good portion of the alt-right.
Except perhaps the 60% of Israelis who support the two-state solution.
They support a two-state solution that conveys peace. They don't pretend that peace would automatically result from recognizing Palestine.
Why do leftists hate Jews so much? Hitler murdered millions, and he was clearly leftist. Stalin was no better. He also murdered Jews.
Look at J Farmer: all to willing to impose a death sentence on Israel. Mary's posts literally scream "I want to be the person picking which Jew dies when they come off the train!"
The entire world hates the Jews for what reason? Their only friend is Christians in America, as far as I can tell. The Christians in Europe are fairly on board with the left's "Kill them all, Muslims! We'll cheer you loudly!"
In the 40's, people didn't like the Jews, but were horrified at the camps. Nowadays, I think the left would cheerfully accept Auschwitz, et. al.; and would even promote the "Final Solution" on CNN.
--Vance
@Vance:
"Look at J Farmer: all to willing to impose a death sentence on Israel."
In the words of Sergeant Hulka: "lighten up, Francis."
@Vance:
I'll probably regret asking someone as seemingly unhinged as you this question, but how do you account for the number of Israeli and non-Israeli Jews who are also critical of Israel?
@J. Farmer Thanks for at least making the case why the Jewish people must have a sovereign nation, otherwise there is no guarantee they will not be subjected to persecution.
Why is there some question of the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria while "Arab" rights are not questioned, considering that the Arab claim comes from conquest (637AD)? As noted by others, why does this UN condemnation of gaining territory through conflict only apply to Jews?
Also, the repeated belief by some commenters about the end of the covenant between God and the Jewish people is laughable, sorry. Jews don't believe that and shouldn't be expected to. Do the same Christians believe that God's covenant with Christians has been superseded by His covenant with Muhammed and Muslims, i.e., the true believers? That's what Muslims believe.
@Birkel:
If there is no enforcement mechanism, there is no law.
Yes, international law is quite distinct from domestic law and that is one of the primary reasons. It's a concept that is quite widely discussed within the field itself. But of course the issue of enforcement isn't constricted just to the international arena. If a legislature passes a law, but the executive refuses to enforce it, does that abrogate the illegality? The Peace of Westphalia was supposed to prevent interference with other states, but powerful countries do what they always do...ignored it. As Andrew Jackson (probably apocryphally) said: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
If you were one of the 700,000 people living there at the time it probably wouldn't feel too "depopulated."
600,000 sounds like a more accurate figure. Either way, it's a tenth of what it is now. But thanks to the Israelis and their relative love of civilization, progress and self-improvement, the land can hold that many people. There's something about Israelization that lends itself to success there - even demographically. Even by the 6th c. CE the Samaritans were numbering over a million, at least. Contrarily, when Twain visited earlier in the 19th c. it was even less heavily populated, and as importantly, fallow. Methinks you like ethnicities and lands as abstract things, rather than in terms of the good that one of those things can do for the other, and vice versa.
And the way you describe "demographic fact" is interesting.
Israel's law of return is quite concerned with that "demographic fact."
Well, maybe it should change. But I don't fault them for using the same definitions and priorities that those who've wanted to commit them to genocide used.
"of which there seem to virtually none assembled here.
No, actually, I am quite prepared to identify myself with a good portion of the alt-right.
Then the alt-right is even less redeemable than I'd have thought. You sound like a leftist in all the most naive ways, but identify - by that very admission - with all the worst instincts of the right.
Oh well. At least you haven't started throwing around terms like "cuck," engaged in Holocaust admiration, or committed the other deranged, cardinal tropes of the movement - yet. I guess Richard Spencer might be making his way here soon too, then?
I'll probably regret asking someone as seemingly unhinged as you this question, but how do you account for the number of Israeli and non-Israeli Jews who are also critical of Israel?
When they risk three years of their lives fighting for it, the motivations behind their criticisms are more naturally credible.
Of course, they can still be naive. But probably less casually or nefariously naive.
And still they haven't won in a while. And still their policies re: rapprochement are loudly acknowledged to have failed.
@J. Farmer Why indeed did some Jews believe that they would be saved by being cooperative with the Nazis? Why do some people believe that passivity is the best way to deal with aggression? Cowardice and fear come to mind. Also there are plenty of Jews in the USA and Israel who really do not understand the basis of Islamic Jew hatred is Koranic doctrine. Many Jews believe the liberal lie that if you are nice to people they will be nice back. But that does not work if those people have an irrational hatred towards you. Then they take your kindness as weakness and treat you with contempt.
@Rhythm and Balls:
Well, maybe it should change.
So on Israel's efforts to maintain itself as a Jewish state, do you support or oppose that?
You sound like a leftist in all the most naive ways, but identify - by that very admission - with all the worst instincts of the right.
Sweet of you to say so, but let me ask you something: have I addressed you personally in any way or made any assertions to your character? I don't know you, and you don't know me; please stop pretending as if you do.
J. Farmer, let me be blunt. Palestinians deserve nothing, and I have no sympathy for them, except for the wish that they grow up and become a decent people. They are no better than the Aztecs, without any of the cultural artifacts. Their highest desire is to murder Jews.
I care nothing for their claims, because all their claims are designed to kill the Jews. Time and time again they have started wars with Israel; they have lost, and the left prevents Israel from eradicating this existential threat to their nation. So more Jews die because Palestinians want to kill them.
Why should I care one whit for their "concerns?" If they had any interest in being a state; in being a productive, sane country, maybe we could talk. But they don't. They say they don't, their actions show they don't, and their history reeks of being what the SS was, without the competence.
Jerusalem and Israel matters to the US because, like it or not, Jerusalem and the Holy Land is there. I can get on a plane and visit it. Could I visit if the Palestinians got their way? Not a chance. How many people can visit Mecca? None.
Israel is the centerpiece of the great clash of civilizations: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. You advocate letting the Jews and Muslims fight it out, with no regard for the Christians. We, the US, represents the Christians interest (well, as close as possible, really). America is the Christian nation in the world. We have an interest there, primarily to not let rude Arabs destroy all the Christian sites. The Jews are our allies, for Jesus was, after all, a Jew. Muhammed was a raping pedophile warlord. Why should we allow them anything to do with the Holy Land? Their holy land is Mecca and Medina, and they are welcome to them.
America should not allow Islam control over the Holy Land; especially not after what ISIS and others did to other ancient religious sites.
It's that simple.
--Vance
@R.J. Chatt:
But that does not work if those people have an irrational hatred towards you.
Then as I said before, it sounds like inserting yourself right into the middle of those people is an awfully stupid thing to do.
As for the rest of it, the advisability of Zionism or the various political and diplomatic machinations made by and between the western powers between the two wars can be debated and litigated endlessly. They are interesting historical questions, but none of the answers actually change my position: the US has no particular interests in that region and gains nothing from inserting itself into that quagmire.
As for your "Look at all these critical Jews! We should side with them!" argument: Why do you want to listen to these Jews, but totally disregard the Orthodox?
Why does Obama listen to these "Jews deserve no homeland and should all be put to the sword" Jews and not to the oppressed Iranians?
But in specific, Jews are stubborn, and many cannot see the right thing to do. This stems back clear to Moses: consider the Kohanites; who disobeyed Moses and got killed by God. If these Jews could defy God when He was right there, I'm not at all surprised that some of their descendants are just as suicidal.
--Vance
@Vance:
Thank you for admitting your superstitious sectarianism position on the matter. We are so far apart on the matter, I doubt much usefulness could be had from any dialogue between us.
I'd rather sticky my simple notion that the US government should protect the American nation, not the Holy Land or global Christendom. Your position is an invitation for America to stay embroiled in endless international conflicts.
J. Farmer:
Thank you for ignoring my criticism of your Catch-22 attempt. You wish to cause Israel to abide by otherwise-unenforceable rules but without American participation. You exhibit no inclination to impose such rules against those who would kill the Israelis.
And the whole time you call it 'law' because you have your preferred wishes.
Is Israel bound by law? What law? Whose law? Does it have a right to pursue its own perceived best interests?
Now venture forth with some consistency that can be explained best by other than antisemitism.
So on Israel's efforts to maintain itself as a Jewish state, do you support or oppose that?
I think its rabbinate should either lighten up or expand its definition of "Jew" to include more resident, non-Jewish groups. Or team up with the Samaritan High Priest to determine a demographic label that should, by all the best empirical evidence, now include most Palestinians as well.
But I think that given the outsized contribution of the Jews both to world civilization and the civilization of that land, and their role in building that exceedingly successful state, that it should be as uncontroversial to keep defining it as "Jewish" in character as it is to define America as "Judeo-Christian" in character. Its strongest institutions have grown and taken shape under that identity, so hopefully it will remain as "baked into the cake" as Vatican City is baked into Rome. So I don't have a clear answer, but if it leads to a muzzling of the rabbinate or the displacement of its influence to other, more secular or even "culturally Jewish" institutions or "culturally pan-Mediterranean/pan-Levantine" institutions instead, I'm fine with that and presume it would only be a natural outgrowth of Israel's success.
@Vance:
As for your "Look at all these critical Jews! We should side with them!"
No, I never said we should "side with them." My point in mentioning them is that there is a diverse array of opinions about Israel among world Jewry. Orthodox Jews have long been ambivalent about Zionism because of its secular roots. Neturei Karta believes that the Israeli state should be dismantled.
I suppose that's true, J. Farmer. I have little doubt any discussion would be productive with a person who mocks Christianity and Judaism as "superstitious sectarianism", then advances reasons why we should let the only Jewish country in the world be conquered by people who openly vow to commit genocide upon those people for religious reasons (that apparently are not "superstitious sectarianism" worthy of criticism); people that we swore we would "Never again" allow genocide to happen to after World War II.
But hey, what's another genocide of Jews to J. Farmer, right? Ho hum, not our problem. Those dirty Jews deserve it anyway because they have the audacity to defend themselves! But always remember: When Jews are dying, Farmer, you won't ever call for peace. Only when they fight back and win.
--Vance
Lol. Neturei Karta.
Right. We should read great insight into the Jewish sect that believes Jews are incapable/unworthy of self-government until a messiah comes along and says otherwise.
Great way for determining the political future of the Jews in this context of international rights, conflict and the global order.
@Birkel:
You wish to cause Israel to abide by otherwise-unenforceable rules but without American participation.
I don't wish to cause Israel to abide by anything.
You exhibit no inclination to impose such rules against those who would kill the Israelis.
Also something I never said that you seemingly pulled out of thin air.
Is Israel bound by law? What law? Whose law? Does it have a right to pursue its own perceived best interests?
As a member state to the UN, it is bound to abide by Security Council resolutions. As you said earlier, and as I conceded, international law has a particular conundrum due to the enforcement mechanism.
@Vance:
When Jews are dying, Farmer, you won't ever call for peace. Only when they fight back and win.
And I thought you were overwrought before. Israel has a well funded, highly trained, technically advanced military. It is more than capable of providing for its own security and to do so with its own money, not American taxpayer money. If you want to voluntarily donate to the IDF, more power to you.
@Rhythm and Balls:
Right. We should read great insight into the Jewish sect that believes Jews are incapable/unworthy of self-government until a messiah comes along and says otherwise.
It's really not that hard to differentiate between describing something and advocating it. I have no opinion on the Talmud, and I am not prepared to tell them that they are wrong. The point is that there is a wide range of views on issues of Zionism and Israel within the Jewish community itself. And we should avoid equating the interests of Israel with the interest of "Jews" writ large.
J. Farmer:
If you do not wish to cause Israel to do something or another, quit opining about international law, which is a useful fiction in limited circumstances.
As for you pretending I said you said something, just quit it. It's hilarious. I was particular about what I wrote. I said you have not exhibited, meaning you have taken no position. That is imminently fair. Would you like to try again or stick with feigned stupidity?
Again, I will assume Occam has you pegged. I only need one assumption to explain your excited interest in this subject.
Sounds like there was a lack of communication between the US and Israel before the UN vote...
walter:
Since when does 'Fuck you' count as a lack of communication?
Ah..before the vote or the vote itself?
My comment was a bit tongue in cheek..but as "allies" whose back we have..you'd think a phone call etc. beforehand would be expected..and questioned when it's clear it didn't happen. I hate to listen to Lurch Kerry..did he ever mention any discussion?
Good grief ! Time for me to watch football.
@Birkel:
"If you do not wish to cause Israel to do something or another, quit opining about international law, which is a useful fiction in limited circumstances."
The fact that international law is not analogous to domestic law and has its set of conundrums is not the same thing as saying it's a "fiction." It's a spectacularly imperfect system, but it is still the primary method by which nations in the modern world conduct international affairs.
Would you like to try again or stick with feigned stupidity?
Sure, I'll give it another whack. Your insinuation is that I am being one-sided, trying to enforce rules against Israelis but not against Palestinians. I have already written several times here that I don't believe the US should be involved on one side or the other. I am not sure how much clearer I can be on that issue.
"I only need one assumption to explain your excited interest in this subject."
Excited? I'm quite calm, measured, and reasonable. I think "excited" much better described the responses I've received. As for your "one assumption," if you want to accuse me of something, go ahead and do it and don't pussyfoot around the subject like a coward.
I suppose things have been a bit strained since we tried to fuck with THEIR election.
"Europe could have easily given Jews a homeland in Europe."
I have never heard that this was ever considered - by anybody. Pray tell, what European country would have happily given up land to the Jews? The Germans? Do you think Jews in 1948 would have felt safe nestling in the bosom of the continent which had just murdered 6 million of them? It was never considered because it is a ridiculous idea.
Madagascar was the place which was sometimes mentioned as a possible homeland in the 19th century. That ignores the ancient ties the Jews have to Israel and you need not be religious to understand that that tie is real and strong. While Herzl and other early Zionists underestimated both the number of Arabs living in Palestine and the strength of their resistance (and the man to blame for that resistance than anybody was the sinister Grand Mufti of Jerusalem,Haj Amin al-Husseini, who murdered as many moderate Arabs as he did Jews and later provided SS troops to Himmler), it's true that the land was an underpopulated backwater until the Zionists arrived. Read Mark Twain's description of the Holy Land - he described it as a barren, depressing and largely deserted place in the late 19th century.
J. Farmer:
You have tried diligently to hide your one-sided view. It is a failure.
Does it matter that you cannot force me to write anything I wish not to write? Why would I give you any satisfaction?
After all, you would not even do me the politeness of squaring your conflicting positions within this very thread.
@exiledonmainstreet:
"I have never heard that this was ever considered - by anybody."
It wasn't, and I never said it was. I was making a point about the irony of compensating Jews for the crimes of Europe but giving them land in another country.
That ignores the ancient ties the Jews have to Israel and you need not be religious to understand that that tie is real and strong.
In fact, many early Zionists were not religious, and the founder of the country, David Ben-Gurion, was a fervent atheist. But again, having an historical connection to a land does not give you right to take that land as your own.
"it's true that the land was an underpopulated backwater until the Zionists arrived"
As I remarked to another commenter making the same point, if you were one of the 700,000 or so Arabs living in Palestine, it would not have felt like an underpopulated backwater to you. Wyoming is pretty sparsely populated, too. So what?
It's really not that hard to differentiate between describing something and advocating it. I have no opinion on the Talmud, and I am not prepared to tell them that they are wrong. The point is that there is a wide range of views on issues of Zionism and Israel within the Jewish community itself. And we should avoid equating the interests of Israel with the interest of "Jews" writ large.
Wide variety of views? I think it's safe to say that theirs is weird enough to ignore more or less completely. At 0.0007% of the orthodox community I'm sure you won't have to worry about not being representative or sufficiently diverse for doing so.
@Birkel:
You have tried diligently to hide your one-sided view. It is a failure.
My failure is in not advocating the strawman position you are so eager to attack.
"Does it matter that you cannot force me to write anything I wish not to write?"
I have no interesting in forcing you to do anything. I just remarked that if you want to make an accusation against someone, it's best to just come out and say it instead of relying on cowardly insinuation.
Here is a clever way to determine what American policy should be.
1. Find out who hates you.
2. Take sides against them.
I'm not sure that my plan is original, but Kerry doesn't seem to have heard of it. Or Obama. Or GW Bush.
@Rhytm and Balls:
I think it's safe to say that theirs is weird enough to ignore more or less completely.
I concede that they are a fringe group, but I am not prepared to tell them that there interpretation of the Talmud is wrong. In the same exact comment in which I mentioned them, I also mentioned the ambivalence towards Zionism that many in the Orthodox community have, and I assume you would agree that the Orthodox are a significant subset of Jews.
But again, having an historical connection to a land does not give you right to take that land as your own.
Really? Why not get to the heart of the matter and say, "Neither does purchasing it," as the Zionists had done.
I've never seen a more wide-eyed attempt to haphazardly incorporate so many naive and even outright wrong arguments into the view of Kicking Jews Out of Palestine.
At some point you have to ask why you shouldn't be suspected of just following a historical precedent here that you probably wouldn't defend, either. The Babylonians conquered and dispossessed them, and made them slaves. But that's what empires did. And then the Romans exiled them for harboring too many pro-independence fighters, because that's what empires did. And then the Muslims made them second-class citizens - so FORGET national rights. But hey, that's what theocracies did. And everyone was a theocracy back then. And then with the Crusaders and whatever it was they were up to. After that, we know what happened to Jews under certain popes. But hey! That was their prerogative. No one would have had standing to argue with the highest moral authority in the land of the day. And I guess if Hitler was genociding them, that really wasn't the concern of American immigration policy.
But now that they have a state it seems like its detractors never tire of appealing to the "higher authority" of today, and the "greatest institution" of the day, whether it be the UN, the ICJ, the UNSC, the Arab League, the EU, whatever.
But right-minded people seem to notice that you're just following a convenient pattern. Here's the thing about conventional morality: It changes. Usually for the better. And usually not in a way that looks in retrospect kindly on the authorities or mob "wisdom" or political appeals of the day.
Keep that in mind the next time you search for a reason to convince us that Israel's somehow the party in need of upbraiding.
"Europe could have easily given Jews a homeland in Europe."
Manuel Quezon wanted to settle hundreds of thousands of them in Mindanao, and he had quite a struggle with the US State Dept. to obtain permission to do so - finally got a tentative OK in 1939, and subsequently still had to overcome a great deal of foot-dragging. The US still controlled Philippine foreign policy at the time.
Pre-war they came up with a limited number - 10,000 - in the struggle with the State Dept., but Quezon and the Phil Gov wanted many more, and in the end, after so many delays, they finally got 1,200. No doubt some larger result could have been expected if the State Dept. had let the Filipinos have their way.
It does bring up the problem of the Moros, and there would have been trouble with them for sure, but most likely no worse than the Christian Visayan settlers have had, and nowhere near as much as with the Arabs.
An interesting what if - what would it have been like, a land of hundreds of thousands of tropical Jews, and what would Philippine culture and its economy have been like with so many Jews.
Lyin' Lurch Kerry. Every other American administration has done more for Israel's security than Barack Obama's. Including Jimmy Carter, who was no friend of Israel.
J Farmer is easy to understand. He wants the United States to be neutral. That means, no foreign aid or help of any kind ever to Israel. Curiously, there is no such denunciation of aid to the Palestinian Authority. he has a list of very specific things that Israel must do to follow international law. However there are no consequences for any violations by the Palestinians. More of a suggestion that they don't kill the Jews. No big deal if they do however. Israel must withdraw from its settlements, withdraw to its borders in 67, and let Hamas do whatever they want. But the US must remain neutral. Or defend the Palestinians like we now are obligated to do For Iran.
Apparently, that's just how neutrality works in J Farmers world: the Jews do all the surrendering and dying while the Palestinians do all the winning and murdering.
And the US? Well our promise to never let the Jews be genocided again is worthless. I suppose J Farmer is upset we fought WWII or at least closed the camps.
You do understand why everyone think now you are pro Palestinians and anti Jews right?
--Vance
I concede that they are a fringe group, but I am not prepared to tell them that there interpretation of the Talmud is wrong. In the same exact comment in which I mentioned them, I also mentioned the ambivalence towards Zionism that many in the Orthodox community have, and I assume you would agree that the Orthodox are a significant subset of Jews.
Oh FFS. It's a concession to say so? Just fucking say it. They are fringe. Ultra-fringe. And appealing to the Talmud is a strange way of appealing to Jews on the morally appropriate thing to do. Most people who have a bone to pick with Jews talk about the text as outright satanic, filled with lies. I'm pretty sure most Jews aren't that into it, anyway. As for its views on physical/geographical nationhood, it wasn't finished being compiled until after the expulsion anyway, so it was an evolving "companion guide" of sorts to the rabbinic Judaism invented by the authorities who sought a non-temple based form of religion that would keep them pious after losing out to a stateless existence, where sacrifices, etc. had to be replaced with prayer.
But they never made an agreement to keep that state of affairs in perpetuity, to be held to the whims of internationalists, religious imperialists and others who would pretend that politics is that sealed off from the lives people live - to the point of being kept artificially out of reach of a community of millions of Jews who can clearly govern themselves and for whom the only reason given for why they shouldn't is because you object to them doing it "HERE" as opposed to "THERE."
What an arbitrary crock.
J. Farmer: many peoples have been displaced as a result of war - the ethnic Germans who had lived in Russia for centuries, for instance. Or the Sephardis who were booted out of all of the Arab countries after the founding of Israel. (I used to know a Jewish man whose family was kicked out of Egypt after living there since they were expelled from Spain in 1492.) Only the Palestinians have been kept in camps for almost 70 years to serve as human title deeds. Have the Arab countries made any attempt to take them in as Israel took in Jewish refugees? Mind you, they could stay put right where they are and prosper and build a decent country if they wished, but they would rather fester in their hatred and eternal victimhood.
What do they build? What do they create? What is their great contribution to humanity? Suicide bombers.
In the meantime, Christians are being displaced and murdered in ME lands they have lived in since the very beginnings of Christianity. I've somehow missed your outrage over that bit of ethnic cleansing, which is far more brutal than anything the Palestinians have been though. Instead you are obsessed with a potato chip sized country in the midst of a vast Arab sea.
I really like J.Farmers argument that the US should be neutral. Which means not vetoing any UN resolutions against Israel. And then he argues that Israel has a moral obligation and legal duty to follow any UN resolutions. The same resolutions that are passed by countries who want Israel to cease to exist. And this where the US is being neutral and not stopping the UN is not anti Jewish.
Vance
J. Farmer argues exactly like Chuck.
Chuck criticized only Donald Trump and cannot understand why people think he supported Hillary Clinton.
J. Farmer crticizes only Israel and wonders why anybody would consider him supportive of Palestinians.
@Rhythm and Balls:
Really? Why not get to the heart of the matter and say, "Neither does purchasing it," as the Zionists had done.
Purchasing land does not give you political sovereignty over the territory.
@Vance:
Curiously, there is no such denunciation of aid to the Palestinian Authority."
Here's what I wrote over four hours ago: "I also don't believe in corporate welfare for Israel, Egypt, or any other nation." If that's not clear enough for you, let me be clearer: I oppose military aid to all nations.
"he has a list of very specific things that Israel must do to follow international law.
Quote one time where I said anything that "Israel must do."
Apparently, that's just how neutrality works in J Farmers world: the Jews do all the surrendering and dying while the Palestinians do all the winning and murdering.
Oh yeah, that's obviously what I'm advocating. No wonder you need Bronze Age mythology to make sense of the world.
"And the US? Well our promise to never let the Jews be genocided again is worthless. I suppose J Farmer is upset we fought WWII or at least closed the camps.
You're pathetic.
You do understand why everyone think now you are pro Palestinians and anti Jews right?
If they possess your level of reading comprehension, I can fully understand it. Apparently no matter how many times I say that Israel is a state under international law with a right to national self-determination and national self-defense, I'm going to be told that I want Israel destroyed. No matter how many times I say that I don't want the US to advocate for Israel or for the Palestinians, I'm going to be told I'm anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Apparently plane English statement will never sway people who are hell bent on attacking caricatures.
Purchasing land does not give you political sovereignty over the territory.
If you purchase it in great enough numbers it sure as hell does. Unless you think democracy is wrong.
@Rhythm and Balls:
And appealing to the Talmud is a strange way of appealing to Jews on the morally appropriate thing to do.
I never made any attempt to appeal "to Jews on the morally appropriate thing to do." The Talmud means nothing to me, but it does mean something to the Haredi, and I am not in any position to tell them they are wrong. My point in mentioning the Haredi is that there is a long tradition of ambivalence and outright hostility towards Zionism.
@Vance:
And then he argues that Israel has a moral obligation and legal duty to follow any UN resolutions
Quote a single thing I have said to that effect.
J. Farmer crticizes only Israel and wonders why anybody would consider him supportive of Palestinians.
Perhaps because people like you can't seem to understand a basic point of elementary logic that criticism one side has nothing to do with praising the other side. And my criticisms of Israeli actions in the West Bank are discussed and debated frequently in Israel and in the Jewish diaspora. I've given examples of strong supporters of Israel and Zionists who are critical of Israel activity in the West Bank. David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the country, did not believe Israel just take any territory in the West Bank with the exception of Hebron. Was that because he was pro-Arab? Your entire argument is like the guy who gets pulled over for speeding telling the cop, "Why aren't you out chasing robbers and murderers?"
Nothing is going to change in this situation until an event of Biblical proportions.
I am Laslo.
@Rhytm and Balls:
If you purchase it in great enough numbers it sure as hell does. Unless you think democracy is wrong.
So if 99% of the residents of your town voted to take your property and evict you, you'd be fine with that because of democracy?
"If you purchase it in great enough numbers it sure as hell does."
"So if the 99% of the residents of your town voted to take your property and evict you, you'd be fine with that because of democracy?"
Uh, the operative word here is "purchase."
@exiledonmainstreet:
Uh, the operative word here is "purchase."
No it's not. If I got together with my neighbors and we voted democratically to secede from the US and form our own independent, sovereign city-state, how many Americans or foreign governments do you think would recognize our legitimacy? And Israel was not founded merely by democratic consent but by a terror campaign fought against the British Mandate.
p.s. I should add that I've long considered democracy a much overrated value, though I still agree with the Churchillian perspective. The founders were quite suspicious to democracy, and in many ways drafted the Constitution as a means to constrain democratic will, or the "tyranny of the majority" as Jon Stuart Mill described it. Trying to reconcile democracy with individual liberty is quite a balancing act. Ask the French.
Getting back to the self-delusional crap the Kerry and the rest of the Obama administration is peddling, no one believes it but them.
I don't know how to resolve the problems of Israel and the Arabs, really I don't. In my darker moments I wonder whether there really is any solution until every Jew is dead or every Arab is dead, one or the other. And that makes no sense either. But it makes more sense than the crap being pushed by Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Sam Powers, because I have this sense that when one group, the Arabs, announces that they plan to kill every Israeli man, woman, and child, and then despite their tough talk they repeatedly get their butts kicked ... well, there have to consequences, right? So why should things be settled strictly on the Arabs' terms?
"And Israel was not founded merely by democratic consent but by a terror campaign fought against the British Mandate."
And the Brits got Palestine as spoils of war.
So I go away from home for a couple of hours and when I get home I glance at the computer screen. To my amazement this "discussion" is still going on. And mysteriously the commentary is the same as when I left it, no meeting of the minds whatsoever.
Though Laslo did remark—"Nothing is going to change in this situation until an event of Biblical proportions."
I wasn't sure if he meant an event occurring in Israel or in this "conversation".
On second thought maybe that's the same thing.
@Lewis Wetzel:
"And the Brits got Palestine as spoils of war."
Undoubtedly. The consequences of the self-interested manner in which the British and French carved up the carcass of the Ottoman Empire live with us today. David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace is a good summation of what went on during the outbreak and resolution of the First World War. As far as I'm concerned, Wilson's involvement in that war was the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history.
The British should have done with Palestine (and Iraq) what Spain did in Mexico and much of the Americas - grant regions to worthy officers and men who conquered the place, as encomiendas, with instructions to convert the populace to the faith and develop the local economy.
A proper conquest.
Thus these places would have been Christiansted and the local elite would have been improved through intermarriage with the new masters of the land. Most of these modern troubles come from being too nice, too modern.
So if the 99% of the residents of your town voted to take your property and evict you, you'd be fine with that because of democracy?
Um, evictions took place after the terror campaign known as the 1948 War for Independence which resulted when the Arabs decided to go to war against the UN resolution partitioning the territory and offering half of it to the people who actually cared enough to manage and develop the place.
At some point in your endless sequence of blamegamesmanship against Israel, you will inevitably keep bumping into things that the Palestinians/Arabs did that were blatantly illegal under any understanding of international law, and left Israel with few choices in light of available, effective responses.
The Arabs who stayed have no intention of joining the PA. Not just because they like where they live. But because they like their rights and the stability of the entity guaranteeing them.
Your contrarian view on all of the above just dismisses too much of the better reality valued by the other side to be tenable.
I think reality is going to have to be faced eventually- Israel is never going to give back the West Bank or Jerusalem, and the Palestinians will never accept a peace offer that they would plan to honor. Were Jordan a strong enough country, the Israelis might have been willing to return the West Bank to Jordan, but Jordanians would be foolish to take it anyway. As for Jerusalem, the Israelis weren't ever going to divide it or turn it over.
I think the continuing building of settlements is a clear indication that the Israelis understand the reality, and may be the only people on Earth who do.
Don't look for logic in an issue that goes back to Ishmael and Isaac.
@Rhythm and Balls:
Um, evictions took place after the terror campaign known as the 1948 War for Independence which resulted when the Arabs decided to go to war against the UN resolution partitioning the territory and offering half of it to the people who actually cared enough to manage and develop the place.
I was making no reference to that; I was addressing your general point about believing in democracy. The fact that my neighbors and I own our property does not mean we can vote an independent city-state. As I said, property ownership does not give you political sovereignty over the territory.
At some point in your endless sequence of blamegamesmanship against Israel, you will inevitably keep bumping into things that the Palestinians/Arabs did that were blatantly illegal under any understanding of international law, and left Israel with few choices in light of available, effective responses.
Well, the proximate cause of the conflict was the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine. Once that occurred, ethnic conflict was very likely. We have seen this dynamic play out in countless nations across the globe between vying nationalities and the distribution of political power between them. The dissolution of the old imperial system for the nation-state over the course of the 20th century was a quite violent, sanguinary process.
The urge to kill Jews holds a strange power over men. It clearly has total control over Obama, Kerry on one side and also over many Conservatives who claim they must stand by as neutral observers.
The Question always remains whether one can stand by as a neutral observer. Trump and his supporters can't do that. They actually love the Jews.
Well, the proximate cause of the conflict was the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine. Once that occurred, ethnic conflict was very likely. We have seen this dynamic play out in countless nations across the globe between vying nationalities and the distribution of political power between them. The dissolution of the old imperial system for the nation-state over the course of the 20th century was a quite violent, sanguinary process.
Anything to let Islamic supremacism off the hook.
Farmer—
Just curious, for someone who says he is "neutral" on Israel, the term neutral implying no stake one way or the other, you have been relentlessly, stubbornly continuing to make argumentative and negative comments about Israel. So behaviorally you are anything but neutral.
What's the gig, you are "speaking" like an anti-Israel partisan, why don't you just come clean about how you really feel toward Israel, Jews or whatever?
Besides, it must be getting close to your bedtime and you must be tired after keeping this stuff going all day long.
Fortunately for the Arabs, the Israelis don't treat Arabs as Arabs treat Arabs. Keeping them intentionally in camps for 70 years, mass expulsions (such as in 1991 from Saudi Arabia) poison gassing like Nasser did to the Yemenites, barrel bombing civilians such as is the case in Syria but what's all of that compared to building housing? Incidentally Farmer, the Jews were forced out of Hebron in 1929 by the Arabs with the acquiescence of the British. Time for the Arabs to quit Judea and Samaria and Kurdistan and the rest of their conquest.
Kerry's message: Diversity and Inclusion are Out; Separate but Equal is In.
Your entire argument is like the guy who gets pulled over for speeding telling the cop, "Why aren't you out chasing robbers and murderers?"
Which would be a valid question if all he ever did was catch speeders and never arrested robbers or murderers.
"In declarations and statements made publicly and to Mr. Jarring, my Government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and durable peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all the matters included in that resolution." Here is the source.
The Arab states DID NOT SIGN OFF ON IT.
They still want them dead.
So, no, Israel didn't agree. Because the Arab states did not agree.
I'd rather sticky my simple notion that the US government should protect the American nation, not the Holy Land or global Christendom.
So, when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhist statues years ago --- it was nothing. Shouldn't have even been mentioned as a bad thing. After all, not OUR concern, right?
I'm a Christian and having access to MY religion's historical sites means something to me. If Palis get that land, it will cease to exist. The Temple Mount is basically verboten at thus point. Non-Muslims aren't permitted to pray there, enforced by Israel (against their own interests, mind you) in pursuit of peace.
What have the Palestinians given up? Israel gave up Judaism's most holy site.
Then as I said before, it sounds like inserting yourself right into the middle of those people is an awfully stupid thing to do.
J Farmer, out against school integration. Intriguing. This mentality kind of kills the entire argument of the civil rights movement for centuries, you know. "You should avoid going where people hate you".
It will have to suck when lots of people hate you for no reason. What should blacks have done, given their reality for most of this country's existence?
J. Farmer said... I have said repeatedly in this very thread that Israel has a right to exist within its pre-1967 borders
I don't understand this (though I see it everywhere): what's so special about those borders? Why are we supposed to pretend the Six Day War didn't happen? Wars often cause the loss of territory. The Six Day War happened, territory was won, borders changed.
Why is gaining or losing territory through war just accepted and normal in all other historical situations but somehow invalid in this particular case? I really don't get it.
Just to state this on the Record: I stated that J Farmer is running a great scam here. The UN, full of anti-semitic nations, proposes resolutions demanding Israel surrender, give back land, and the Palestinians give up nothing. Farmer's claim is that the US should be neutral and not oppose or vote for these resolutions, but Israel is bound by them. Thus, In Farmer's world, Isreal must obey all UN resolutions passed by their enemies and the US should not use its power to save Israel.
Farmer took exception, asking that I prove where he said that Israel is bound by the UN and must obey the UN resolutions. So here it is:
Quote:
Is Israel bound by law? What law? Whose law? Does it have a right to pursue its own perceived best interests?
As a member state to the UN, it is bound to abide by Security Council resolutions. As you said earlier, and as I conceded, international law has a particular conundrum due to the enforcement mechanism.
12/28/16, 8:18 PM
End Quote. So I was right: J. Farmer thinks that Israel is bound by UN Resolutions that are written and drafted by Hamas's surrogates.
In Farmer's world, it appears that if, say, New Zealand advanced a resolution demanding that Israel turn over its government to Hamas and Fatah, and requires the Palestinians to rape and murder all Jews, and then requires all UN member nations to evict every Jew and send them to Israel, now under Hamas's control: J Farmer would insist that the US not veto such a resolution, but that Israel must abide by it. The US should be "neutral" in this.
--Vance
@HoodlumDoodlum:
Why is gaining or losing territory through war just accepted and normal in all other historical situations but somehow invalid in this particular case? I really don't get it.
Because Israel is not just claiming territory. If it did then the people living on that territory would become that country's citizens instead of stateless entities held in limbo.
jrapdx:
Just curious, for someone who says he is "neutral" on Israel, the term neutral implying no stake one way or the other, you have been relentlessly, stubbornly continuing to make argumentative and negative comments about Israel.
I didn't say I was neutral on the subject; I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion. What I said was that the US government should stay out of the Israel-Palestine conflict and should not be on one side or the other.
J. Farmer:
When you are talking about "stateless entities held in limbo" are you referring to the American purchases of Louisiana from the French? Or what is now the American West for many years after it was conquered? Or Hawai'i?
I'm a little confused about your excitement toward Israel and wondered if you planned to condemn the United States for not giving full rights to Natives, Oklahomans, Arizonans, Alaskans and the rest. Arizonans had to wait more than 50 years to join the Union, as I am sure you are aware.
Do, tell.
J. Farmer: "I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion."
Nobody has questioned your ability to hate the Israelis. In fact, we encourage you to be more open and honest about it.
Let that Freak Flag Fly.
I would have liked to see Powers veto anyway, defying Kerry and Obama. That would have been delicious.
J. Farmer said...
@Mac McConnell:
"Palestinians' right to exist, yes in Jordan where they lived before 1967."
So who was living in Hebron, the West Bank's largest city, before 1967?
Who lived in America before the Europeans landed? Give the Palestinians reservations and casinos. There is a cost of losing, there is a cost non-negotiating over the last fifty years. The two states option is gone because the Palestinians should have bought that boat when they had the chance, it's sailed.
Historically the Palestinians have always been on the side of our enemies, the USA owes them nothing.
To J. Farmer and all the other hands-over-eyes apologists here;
Perhaps the Israelis need this as a solution; "ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."
J. Farmer said...Because Israel is not just claiming territory. If it did then the people living on that territory would become that country's citizens instead of stateless entities held in limbo.
1.) Why? Why can't Israel decide what constitutes citizenship on Israel's terms? If Israel gains territory in a war is Israel required to make people in that territory and/or people who subsequently come to that territory citizens of Israel? Why?
2.)This doesn't at all answer the question of why the 1967 pre-war borders are the correct ones. Why not earlier? Why not later?! Fine, if you say that Israel must treat anyone within its borders as citizens (again, with absolutely no justification for why that must be so), Israel could just say "anyone not a citizen of our country and residing within our borders without the Israeli equivalent of a green card must leave within 6 months," right? We deport illegal aliens from America, sometimes, right? If you're saying "Israel must treat everyone within Israel's borders people as citizens" (a standard I don't think you'd apply anywhere else) then you'd be fine with Israel solving that problem by kicking non-citizens out, right? No chance you'd call that "ethnic cleansing" or something similar, huh?
My question is why the 1967 pre-war border is apparently the only border you (all) feel is valid, when you (all) don't appear to object to any other national border being redrawn/decided by war. Complaining that Israel doesn't teat non-citizen people living within that border the way you'd like them to does not answer that question.
The US won what had been northern Mexico in a war in 1847-1848, right? Were we required to make anyone living within that territory we won at the time citizens of the US? What would have required that? There were a lot of native americans who lived in that territory, and as far as I know we didn't make them citizens--certainly not right away/automatically.
Further--and more to the point now--are we required to make descendants of people who may have lived in that area and who come to the US now citizens of our nation? It's our territory, and we can set our own laws (including laws about citizenship). If we choose to make such people citizens, fine. But if we choose not to, also fine. Right? Doesn't Israel have the same sovereign rights as we have? Why do you get to dictate Israel's citizenship policies? I wouldn't let Israel dictate ours!
Another attempt to violate a rule of nature, you threaten you pay. If it's a merciful opponent perhaps they will offer you generous terms at the surrender table, similar to what the U.S. offered Iraq. Seems the Israeli's have been overly generous many times. And now that they have something to sell beyond their smartest people but oil and gas and now have their own defense that make any land invasion impossible they can tell those that want to kill them to go pound sand, which thy have a lot of, or watch the wall separating those you would destroy them grow higher and higher. that they as a matter of principle they deny their own citizen slaves access to who poor through the gates when open. We've seen this before in Berlin. Where the Soviets were desperate to prevent their people from seeing what true freedom means. Prosperity for all. The opponents could start by offering compensation for every dunham they seized when they declared every free, not forced sale freely given for every bit of the West Bank. No relief, a higher wall, made out of all that available, sand, more government created suffering of their own peoplem similar to the communists and the iron curtain. And more adults abusing their own innocent children in front of the TV cameras with no press honest enough to represent that every settlement offered to date directly led to destruction of those who were attacked without provocation in the last war, those that didn't begin, but those that ended it after coming within a hairs breath of losing it all, not just the war but all their families and their entire country, seeing in the first few days that no one would come to their defense. So all would be lost if they threw fate in with the rest of the world clearly demonstrated by their actions they were aligned with those stood by as Auschwitz killed in excess of one million of their kind. without any attempt to end same by the west. Given the current argument is based on grievance, what would be a just compensation for those murders. What would be a just compensation in the west for the market in slaves caught, bought and sold, by all enslavers, African, Arab, English and indigenous enslavement in places like South America and the Congo, and now the selling of children to keep a family alive in those ex colonial and communist areas in south Asia and the Northern border of South Korea. And 100 times more where free is less than free. Sad world we have, when many think this is ok, and not out of the ordinary behavior. In the Israeli situation now that Mr. T. has said Daddy has left the room. We’ve been responsible for enough shedding of our and yours blood. You should do whatever you want, we will not interfere or save you unless you attack us. You’re welcome to impose deadlines on negotiations and turn your enemies homes into parking lots of that’s what it takes to bring peace to an area and save all those children. Good luck to you all, and may your God save you all, especially your innocents you’re so willing to sacrifice on the altar of B@ll.
Post a Comment