I'm not sure how to see this as anything but a great big "suck it" to the idea of a non-militaristic peace: Sharon's coalition has snapped and no longer cares to justify itself. (Although I dearly hope they have some sort of realpolitik moral justification for the fact that this route will mean more Israeli civilian deaths, by gun or bomb -- after all, these are the same folks who consider Arafat "directly responsible" for suicide bombings, contrary to all known definitions of the word "direct.")
The only positive development here seems to be that Israel's defenders can no longer go on and on about Arafat walking out on Israel's Camp David offers, as Israel has in essence pulled a similar give-up. A crucial distinction being that Arafat's balks are explained by his actually representing his constituency; he was the only person who could get away with making concessions for Palestine, but if he made too many concessions, he'd only have been killed and the situation would have worsened. But note that cutting ties with him has essentially the same effect. So long as Arafat is "irrelevant," as they're saying, Israel has absolutely no hope of getting anything out of Palestine, because no one else has the clout to make such decisions. (You can make arguments that Arafat wasn't doing as much as he could have to hold various ceasefires or arrest various "terrorists," but it's hard to argue that you're better off without even having him there to go through the motions, or even just as the one person who could potentially accomplish these things.) No, this is an all-out "suck it," and it spells bad, bad news for Palestinian civilians.
So: What do you think? What happens next? How serious do you think Israel is about cutting off Arafat and just rolling over Palestine with military might?
― Nitsuh, Thursday, 13 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 13 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Tom, Thursday, 13 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Mike Hanle y, Thursday, 13 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 13 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
Another way of saying this is: who will Israel blame from now
on? Are they essentially hoping that hardline groups like Hamas will
fill the spotlight, lending more justification to their activities?
Is cutting off Arafat maybe a way of racheting up the
conflict, giving them license to do, well, whatever they want?
― fritz, Thursday, 13 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
And note that I hold a federal government more responsible for those
qualities than I do small groups or individuals. An "understandable"
militaristic proclivity is one thing psychologically, but quite
Nitsuh - my assumption would be that Israel no longer cares whether
or not it looks good. Sharon has realised he's in a position to call
the international community's bluff.
Yeah, hence my thread title. I guess I'm just the slightest bit
shocked by this, whereas you've been, if not expecting it,
mentally prepared for the eventuality. Shame on you, pragmatist!
A head-on comparison
is better, but this is all I could find. Have these two ever been in the same
― Nude Spock, Thursday, 13 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Simon, Thursday, 13 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― bnw, Thursday, 13 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
So Palestinian terrorist organazations are free to kill Israelis
but Arafat isn't responsible?
Precisely! It's ludicrous to imagine that Arafat has the clout to
control the actions of every Palestinian, considering that he's not
even democratically elected as their representative. To hold Arafat
responsible for the actions of, say, Hamas -- an organization with is
completely at odds with Arafat -- is like trying to hold Bill
Clinton responsible for Timothy McVeigh's actions: it is, quite
simply, stupid. To assume Arafat has the capacity to reign in dozens
upon dozens of groups and thousands upon thousands of individuals is
to take a ridiculously reductive view of politics which assumes that
Arafat is some sort of Queen Bee whose orders are specifically
followed by all Palestinians (which is ludicrous), and pays no
attention whatsoever to the pretty precarious position he was, up
until recently, in: trying to speak for an inchoate populace, trying
to make concessions on their behalf without offending them them
enough to lose the very power to make those concessions.
And I don't think my distinction above is a very radical one. The
Israeli military is by definition at the command of the Israeli
government, thus the government is fairly directly responsible for
its actions. The Palestinian populace is certainly not beholded to
Arafat in nearly the same fashion.
If Arafat cannot stop these bombings and killings, what is the
point of dealing with him?
See my comments above: even if he's not in a position to completely
control the entirety of Palestine, he's as close as Israel is going
to get to someone who can, and his presence and stature is in
and of itself entirely remarkable. To not deal with him is to
be content with devolving into outright war -- and if your main
concern is "these bombings and killing," that's not the best route to
take, is it?
― Nitsuh, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
Or greater importance, I think, is Who Comes Next -- a diplomat whom
the Israelis don't mind, or a hardliner? Given this, I'm guessing the
Sharon is a dangerous capitive of the religious right; one of the
aspects of the conflict which especially mystifies me is the lack of
empathy between the Likud Right in Israel (most of whom were members
of Irgun Levi in the decade before independence, and carried out
similar atrocities against the British, eg. the bombing of the King
David Hotel in '47) and the Palestinians who have suceeded them
as 'terrorists'. Incidently, Israel also funded Hamas as a religious
rival to the secular PLO in the 1980s.
― charles, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― bnw, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Tim, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― anthony, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
at some point over the next year Israel will shut down the
Palestinian authority and permanently reoccupy all of the West Bank
and Gaza, killing thousands of Palestinians in the process. Arafat
will die during this process, as will Barghouti. This may happen
before or after elections that put Netanyahu back in power. They will
then invite the neighbouring Arab countries to come and have a go if
they think they're hard enough. Which they don't, so they won't.
However, the West Bank and Gaza are so awash with arms that
resistance will continue. Given the assymetric nature of the
conflict - tanks, helicopter gunships, nuclear weapons on one side,
machine guns and suicide bombers on the other - resistance will
largely take the form of terrorist strikes against soft Israeli
targets - civilians inside Israel, pieds noir settlers in the
Continuing violence will lead to voices in Israel demanding more and
more violent responses. With no Palestinian Authority to kick around
the Israelis will engage in ever more draconian acts towards their
subject peoples - land confiscations, home demolitions, 24 hour
curfews, eventually leading to concentration camps and mass
― DV, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Alasdair, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
While the Shoah does not justify more evil, I think it's incredibly
short-sighted to dismiss the issue of anti-semitism as a "card" - as
if it's some kind of underhanded trick even to mention it. And to
acknowledge it as a defining feature of Israeli policy does not mean
that one condones those policies - nor can it be used to somehow
outweigh Arab suffering. But how can you even discuss the issue
without addressing the religious conflict and history ?
― fritz, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― anthonyeaston, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
How is it that the Hamas doesn't represent the Paelstinian people
except when Israel threatens to "roll over" them?
I haven't said that Hamas ever represents the Palestinian
people. I just thought you might have noticed that every Isreali
action in Palestine -- assassinations, town occupations, etc. --
winds up killing almost as many civilians as the average suicide
bomb. It's not as if they stride in, arrest these people, and leave:
they bulldoze through entire towns or rocket out entire
intersections. Last week's assassination took out a toddler.
What boggles my mind is not Palestinian discontent, but your
acceptance of it at the level of consitently and intentionally
killing innocent civilians.
And I've never said that I "accept" those actions -- only that I
grasp the motivation behind them. And yes, I'm not going to be quite
as morally upset at a people living under military occupation in an
apartheid system as I am at a recognized nation with a powerful
military. Would the Palestinians -- and everyone else on Earth --
have been better off if they'd framed their struggle peacefully, as
black South Africans more or less did? Undoubtedly. But isn't that
near-saintly behavior to expect?
As for being helpful and reasonable, where doessuck it fall into
Here is where you're quite obviously not paying attention, because
you're agreeing with me! (And I'm not trying to be rude -- I just
don't understand the statement at all.) My whole point in starting
this thread is that Israel's big "suck it" to diplomacy is
neither helpful or reasonable, so I'm not sure what you're
getting at here.
Equating McVeigh with the Hamas is quite a stretch.
Again, I'm not "equating." Simply an example of how in no other
situation do we hold a political figure responsible for the actions
of every member of his constituency! (Doubly so with Arafat in that
he's not a proper "leader" of the Palestinian populace, and triply so
with Arafat in that most of the groups organizing such attacks are
entirely opposed to Arafat and the PLO.) If the man had a state, and
he were its leader, there'd be a little more grounds to criticize his
Having the Hamas continue to kill people with no culpability was
just unaceptable to the Israeli government.
I should think assassination without trial constitutes some
culpability, doesn't it? And I feel like you're thinking Hamas is a
tool of Arafat's, which simply isn't the case: the very reason Arafat
can't reign in groups like Hamas is that they are his
I mean, Israel should talk about concessions while the Hamas is
blowing up buses?
See, I think you have to stop viewing the situation by looking at
terrorism first. Someone could just as easily say: Palestine should
talk about concessions while Israel is blowing up buildings?
Palestine should talk about concessions while Jewish-only settlements
continue to exist? It's as if you're pretending that the sole problem
to be solved is Palestinian terrorism, and everything Israel does is
just a response to that -- but both history and the present are a lot
trickier than that.
The thing is, I just can't morally justify the segregation and
oppression of an entire populace simply because portions of it are
violently hostile to you. It comes down one group depriving another
of liberty simply to guarantee its own -- Israel segregating,
restricting, and occupying the lands of Palestinians simply because
they (legitimately) don't think they can feel safe if Palestinians
have the rights of full citizens either in Israel or in a Palestinian
state*. And I'm sorry -- this is untenable, and only feeds on itself,
as the longer you deprive a group of liberty, the more hostile
they'll grow toward you. I think that is my central problem
* And note that it was Israel who initially decided this with
their mass expulsion of Palestinians who were, by and large, living
peacefully within Israel proper -- and note that of all the attacks
on Israel carried out during the past few years, only two, IIRC, have
been conducted by Israeli Arabs. Both of these things hint
that the liberty-for-safety trade was not only a bad one but an
unnecessary, counter-productive one.
REMEMBER THE ALAMO!
― Nude Spock, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Samantha, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ronan, Friday, 14 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
I still think there's a difference between going after militants
then going after people sitting in a cafe.
Sure, there's a difference. A huge one. But when "going after
militants" repeatedly results in the death or dislocation of
basically innocent bystanders -- as innocent as the folks in those
cafes -- it becomes a little harder to justify, morally speaking. And
I stick with my point, above, which is that it's really difficult to
start applying general consequences to the actions of individual, non-
representative groups, whereas it's a lot easier to do so for the
regimented military of a sovereign nation. I.e., you can't say that
one side attacks the other, or vice versa, because in the case of
Palestine there is no "other" -- just a mass of individuals
without a state, without a leader, etc.
My point about "suck it" was directed at your interpretation of
what Israel cutting off Arafat means. I'm saying your choice of
terminology reveals an obvious bias towards the situation.
In one sense yes, but in one sense, no: I was originally going to
use "fuck it," but decided to try and keep the boards a little
cleaner. Maybe I should have stuck with "fuck," because what's going
through Sharon or his coalition's heads can't really be that far from
throwing up their hands and saying, "Fuck it -- we give up on talking
to you." That's quite clearly the message, and I think it can
describes that way even if you believe Israel is entirely
justified in doing this.
[W]hat Israel contends is that Arafat was never doing all he
Define "could." Seriously. Because this is what I'm getting at above.
It's undeniable that Arafat physically and politically could
have tried more. But my point is that he could have done so without
gradually abandoning his own clout and losing support to groups like
Hamas -- which would, in the long term, have been a lot worse of a
situation if peace were the end goal. He essentially had to walk a
very fine line between making progress with Israel and pissing off
militants in Palestine -- and sure, it's open to debate whether he
walked that line close enough, but I'm just saying we should keep in
mind that he was never really in a position to utterly subdue
the entire Palestinian populace.
I don't believe the South African analogy is particular fair
because it fails to acknowledge how Israel has been forced to become
a military state due to constant attacks on its existence by
neighboring Arab states.
I can't claim to be an expert on this history, but I think you'll
find that black Africans did their fair share of attacking in
colonial South Africa. Apartheid didn't stem simply from racism, but
partly from the same thinking that seems to be in operation in the
mid-East -- that a particular group of people pose a danger of
rebellion or violence and thus must be pre-emptively subdued. I mean,
look at your statement above: Israel becomes militaristic because of
attacks by neighboring Arab states. The only sense in which this
justifies their attitude toward Palestine is that Palestinians are
also Arabs, and are thus ideologically disposed to be hostile toward
Israel. From there it just becomes a matter of "We will segregate and
suppress Arabs as a whole," which, however logical it may be, doesn't
strike me as morally tenable. It's not just "militants" who are
having their lands seized or their roads blocked in the West Bank and
the Gaza Strip -- it's the vast majority of Arabs within greater
Israel, including many who were expelled from Israel proper
and are not allowed to return, based not on their activities but on
their potential activities. Would a better analogy be the US's
internment of Japanese during WWII?
I think it is a large element in the Israeli mindset of trying to
provide safety first. I think where we also disagree is in gauge of
how much terrorism Israel is going to have to suck up, in order to
get the peace process back on track.
"Safety first" may trump a lot of other concerns, but for me -- and
this may be personal -- it doesn't trump basic human rights. The
internment apparently struck people as a perfectly reasonable safety
measure at the time, but I hope we'd all agree that even if some of
those interned would have been more loyal to Japan than the
US, the greater cost wasn't worth it. As far as sucking up, well,
someone has to do some sucking up here, and thus far it's
Palestinians who are sucking up being tenth-class citizens of the
nation they ostensibly live in, plus progressive settlement. Put
another way: given the choice to be an Israeli citizen or
Palestinian, wouldn't you choose to be Israeli? And doesn't that hint
that the threat of death by terrorism is significantly less onerous
than the situation of the average Palestinian?
From the AP: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who negotiated
interim peace deals with Arafat, said he told Sharon that the
decision to shun the Palestinian Authority was short-sighted. "I
asked him, 'Suppose Arafat disappears, what will happen then?'" Peres
told the Yediot Ahronot daily in an interview published Friday. "If
we chase Arafat out of here, we will get into problems with the Arab
world, and Egypt and Jordan will sever ties with us."
The question, which is moral and not logistical: Israel undertakes
massive sweep in the West Bank, arresting several, killing several
Palestinian policemen in armed confrontation. What do we think,
morally, about a sovereign nation arresting and imposing its own
justice system on (leave alone assassinating) individuals who don't
likewise enjoy the full rights of citizenry in that nation? I stress
that this is not specific or logistical, but a general moral
― bnw, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
If Arafat cannot offer any concessions, as in the Camp David
talks, without pissing off the militants, then what does that say
about the people of Palestine?
You're absolutely right -- it says a whole lot of them consider
Israel's very presence to be an affront (and I think there's a
reasonable case to be made in this regard), and it says that a whole
lot of them are stuck enough on this point that they're not
content to co-exist. Absolutely. The question is how this situation --
which isn't going to be changed simply by telling them they're
wrong -- would best be handled. Having normalized relations with a
figure like Arafat seems the best available way to steer
things in a less oppositional direction; Arafat has as much clout in
Palestine as any single figure could reasonably be expected to have,
he's somewhat beholden to appease the requests of the West, and his
line is soft enough that organizations like Hamas are outright
opposed to him. I think what I'm saying is that if you're dealing
with a populace that's largely hostile to you, the logical route to
changing this is to deal with the least hostile figure that populace
can deliver, right?
Also, I think Israel would contend that Arafat should be pissing
This is where I think you're ignoring the point I tried to make
above. For Arafat to have pissed of militants would have meant
weakening of his support, and quite possibly his assassination. This
would leave us with practically nothing but the very militants
you're talking about, not even a weak check on those
militants -- plus they would be, as you say pissed off. Surely
this was part of Arafat's thinking -- that he could do more good
alive and in power than otherwise. You're saying that Arafat should
have served as a tool to certain ends, but what if too strenuous use
would only have broken the tool?
The quote you provide is yet another example of this: no Palestinian
figure could accumulate any support or maintain any power
without such posturing.
Pre-emptive? If I can't use the cause and effect argument then
neither should you. I could just as easily state that Israel is there
because of terrorism. There also seems to be an overlooking of the
Six Day War.
Here's where I'm really bothered, because you're using a sort of
Palestinian Queen Bee reasoning that's simply not applicable. A child
born in Palestine today is born into a situation where his home is
occupied and open to seizure, his movements are curtailed, etc. That
child did not fight in the Six Day War. Thus any treatment of that
child that is in any way different from that of an Israeli
child is essentially pre-emptive suppression -- pre-emptive in that
the suppression is contingent on the idea that this child may
be hostile toward Israel. I'm not saying it's pre-emptive in the
sense that "Israel started it" -- just that their military oversight
of the Palestinian populace is not based on every single
Palestinian having done something to warrant it. Hence the internment
analogy: it's not that they've individually done something,
just that the entire population is viewed as a threat and suppressed
For what its worth, Arabs (or Muslims might be more fitting) are
citizens in Israel. They receive the same rights, and can vote.
"They receive the same rights" is the most laughable thing I've ever
heard in my life. To name one thing: Jewish-Only Settlements.
I think the first priority of a government is to protect its
C'mon -- certainly some moral boundary must be put on this.
Citizens of the US would theoretically be much safer if we just
killed everyone who was ever involved in a violent crime, but would
you find this morally defensible? We'd theoretically be safer if we
could just nuke the entire eastern hemisphere, but surely there's the
quibbling little concern of destroying half of the world's population
to think about.
Way, way one sided. Palestinians = victims. Israel = opressors.
Come on, you know it isn't that simple.
I'm sorry, but at this point, it basically is. The only "oppression"
Palestinians have been able to visit on Israel is the fear of
possible terrorist attack, which is not so much "oppression" as just
plain "threat." In turn, even the most peace-loving Palestinian lives
under a similar threat of death-by-reprisal (see that toddler,
above), plus a systematic removal of rights, which is precisely
what "oppression" means.
Nah, more so because Israel has more of a Western lean i.e. its a
I'm not sure how you reconcile this with your contention, above, that
Palestinians are Israeli citizens who enjoy all the rights and
privileges of any other Israeli citizens. "They vote," you say ...
but here you say that Israelis enjoy democracy and Palestinians don't.
Still, you make it seem as if Israel does not want to recoginize
Palestine as a state.
Well, define "want." They don't want to -- something like 56%
of Israelis think it's either a good or a necessary or an unavoidable
idea, but it still remains a concession that's being made.
And, as I said above, I understand why. But it's the same as the
suicide bombers -- I understand the motivation, I just don't think
it's morally tenable.
― Nitsuh, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
Um.. correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this thread about the
modern state of Israel? (kinda post 1945?)
Secondly, i never asked anyone to shut up about the holocaust.
The link i posted above was for the discussion of a book called
the Holocaust and Collective Memory by Peter Novick (published
by Fourth Estate), in which he examines the history of the way the
Holocaust has been cited by Israel and american Jewish
organisations since 1945. it's interesting in the sense that it
shows there's always been a contemporary political agenda to
using the holocaust as a moral imperative - like you do - and that
until the 1960s, the holocaust was played down, and manifestly
NOT pushed as central to the "jewish character" / justification for
Israeli military action.
I should have said all this when i originally posted, but I
assumed people would follow the link I pasted in.
― Alasdair, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
And also that questioning the logic of it as a moral imperative
that justifies the military occupation of parts of the west bank is
really just building a straw man and setting it alight, in a
pointless and potentially offensive way.
What I'm saying applies more to the US industry of holocaust
rememberance that -sadly- all seems ultimately to say "never
again will we allow Jews to be massacred by Nazis in central
europe in 1945" without looking at the mechanics of genocide
elsewhere or the current problems of the middle east, but still
generating tacit emotional support for Israel to act however it
chooses. So sorry if what i said caused any offence.
The interesting thing about the Holocaust is that even if we
do take it as central to the Jewish experience and character,
and not just posturing or an attempt at justification, it's a rather
unpretty argument, and a bit of another "suck it": the subtext is
that Jews have historically been so threatened that they now have no
qualms about steamrolling anyone who stands in their way. Certainly
that's not an admirable thing?
Also -- and I tried to make this point when we did the "State of
Israel: Classic or Dud" thread, I still don't understand how anyone
justifies the necessity of a sovereign state of Israel. Without
getting into the "what was worse than the Holocaust" argument, which
is totally irrelevant, we can find countless other diasporas who have
historically been massacred, enslaved, and scattered from
their "homelands" in a similar fashion, but it tends to be agreed
that we should strive to live pluralistically, not dislocate masses
of people simple to return people to ethnically homogenous or
ethnically restricted "homelands."
Out of curiousity, bnw, how do you feel about the violent seizure of
white-owner farms in Zimbabwe?
Alex Fishman is the main commentator on security matters
for Israel's largest mass circulation paper, Yediot Achronot, a
publication with right-of-center politics. Fishman is known for his
excellent contacts in the military. On Sunday, Nov. 25, Fishman
issued a prediction based on the recent assassination on Nov.
23 by Israel's security services of the Hamas leader, Mahmud
Abu Hunud. It was featured in a box on the newspaper's front
It began, "We again find ourselves preparing with dread for a
new mass terrorist attack within the Green Line (Israel's pre-'67
border)." Since Fishman was entirely accurate in this regard, we
should mark closely what he wrote next. "Whoever gave a green
light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he is thereby
shattering in one blow the gentleman's agreement between
Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; under that agreement,
Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside
the Green Line, of the kind perpetrated at the Dolphinarium
(discotheque in Tel-Aviv)."
Fishman stated flatly that such an agreement did exist, even if
neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas would admit it in
public. "It is a fact," he continued, "that, while the security
services did accumulate repeated warnings of planned Hamas
terrorist attacks within the Green Line, these did not materialize.
That cannot be attributed solely to the Shabak's impressive
success in intercepting the suicide bombers and their
controllers. Rather, the respective leaderships of the Palestinian
Authority and Hamas came to the understanding that it would be
better not to play into Israel's hands by mass attacks on its
In other words, Arafat had managed to convince Hamas to curb
its suicide bombers. This understanding was shattered by the
assassination of Abu Hunud. "Whoever decided upon the
liquidation of Abu Hunud," Fishman continued, "knew in advance
that that would be the price. The subject was extensively
discussed both by Israel's military echelon and its political one,
before it was decided to carry out the liquidation. Now, the
security bodies assume that Hamas will embark on a concerted
effort to carry out suicide bombings, and preparations are made
― Phil, Saturday, 15 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― Tim, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― bnw, Monday, 17 December 2001 01:00 (nineteen years ago) link
Why, yes, of course. We all know if you can find racism in other countries, it excuses it in your own.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 24 June 2019 19:41 (one year ago) link
well wait he said it was an ethnostate though
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 19:42 (one year ago) link
is that different from ordinary racism?
Late Great is otm. Remember, the Swedish ambassador to the UN killed Oluf Palme.
― Frederik B, Monday, 24 June 2019 19:44 (one year ago) link
tbf our conservative pols in government in the uk are a bit more circumspect in their being racist and evil. no fomenting racial pogroms, more deporting british residents because they're black
― findom haddie (jim in vancouver), Monday, 24 June 2019 19:44 (one year ago) link
― Frederik B, Monday, June 24, 2019 12:44 PM (twenty seconds ago) Bookmark
When you specifically call yourself "a Jewish homeland", then you may as well accept that people might identify you as an ethnostate.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 24 June 2019 19:44 (one year ago) link
lost me w the scandinavian politics inside baseball
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 19:45 (one year ago) link
oh that’s a different argument to the riots thing though
unclear how it relates to danon’s argument though?
but jewish isn’t an ethnicity?
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 19:46 (one year ago) link
i am curious about what is so bad and wrong about danon’s op ed in particular? leaving aside the question of whether israel is literally worse than nazi germany or whatever
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 19:48 (one year ago) link
― findom haddie (jim in vancouver), Monday, 24 June 2019 19:51 (one year ago) link
whatever man here’s your chance to speak truth to power as it were
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 19:53 (one year ago) link
You have got to be kidding me
― Frederik B, Monday, 24 June 2019 19:54 (one year ago) link
jewish isn’t an ethnicity?
there seems to be a lot of confusion around that question, even among jews
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 24 June 2019 19:54 (one year ago) link
don’t forget, i am a literal white supremacist
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 19:55 (one year ago) link
it’s natural i wouldn’t understand these subtleties
just someone explain it to me already, i swear i’ll restrict myself to just asking faux-naif questions
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 19:57 (one year ago) link
Saying the Palestinians need to 'surrender' and that they need a 'national suicide of the Palestinians’ current political and cultural ethos' is not something someone says who is willing to actually compromise. It's the words of, well, imperialists. The comparisons he makes are 1) to Germany and Japan after WWII, which are obviously offensive and idiotic, and 2) to Egypt, which is not an example to emulate.
― Frederik B, Monday, 24 June 2019 20:00 (one year ago) link
hm. ok, i can’t see how you’d draw those conclusions. why is egypt not an example to emulate?
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 20:03 (one year ago) link
"A national suicide", that's quite a turn of phrase. But it's coming from a racist, so maybe we're expecting too much.
― Orpheus Knutt (Tom D.), Monday, 24 June 2019 20:04 (one year ago) link
well y’all were pretty hot on the palestinians committing literal suicide by charging the gaza fence, what changed?
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 20:05 (one year ago) link
Who is y'all?
― Orpheus Knutt (Tom D.), Monday, 24 June 2019 20:06 (one year ago) link
like he’s just using their own language anyway
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 20:06 (one year ago) link
the fence killed the Palestinians?
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 24 June 2019 20:06 (one year ago) link
no, then it would have been murder by fence, not suicide
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 20:07 (one year ago) link
come on guys, he’s not calling for literal suicide
Oh man, not wasting any more time on you, you're like the anti-palestinian version of comrade alphabet.
― Frederik B, Monday, 24 June 2019 20:08 (one year ago) link
i’m pro palestinian though
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 20:09 (one year ago) link
don’t waste time thinking through or articulating your positions and statements, to the barricades instead! lol
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 20:10 (one year ago) link
Is this the first time you've encountered Frederik B?
― Orpheus Knutt (Tom D.), Monday, 24 June 2019 20:12 (one year ago) link
i think it would be quite good for the palestinians to take some of the steps suggested in the op-ed
but i’ll concede it’s a provocative and possibly ill-advised choice of words on danon’s part
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 20:13 (one year ago) link
c'mon, late great, "literal suicide" requires that one's death be entirely self-administered
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 24 June 2019 20:13 (one year ago) link
hmmm ... true
― the late great, Monday, 24 June 2019 20:15 (one year ago) link
― big beautiful wario (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 24 June 2019 20:15 (one year ago) link
*must not post Limmy sketch*
― Orpheus Knutt (Tom D.), Monday, 24 June 2019 20:18 (one year ago) link
Israeli justice system to Netanyahu: "Suck it."
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Thursday, 21 November 2019 16:34 (one year ago) link
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 21 November 2019 16:38 (one year ago) link
Netanyahu, who has denied any wrongdoing and said he’s a victim of a witch hunt
― (•̪●) (carne asada), Thursday, 21 November 2019 16:56 (one year ago) link
eat shit fucker
― El Tomboto, Thursday, 21 November 2019 17:39 (one year ago) link
Doesn't a witch hunt by definition mean you are accusing lots of different people, not "wrongfully" targeting a single person? I know Trump brought this usage to popularity but I have to think Netanyahu is smarter than that.
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 21 November 2019 18:49 (one year ago) link
Also a witch hunt by defintion means searching for something that doesn't exist.
― fetter, Thursday, 21 November 2019 20:28 (one year ago) link
― mfktz (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Thursday, 21 November 2019 20:53 (one year ago) link
― fetter, Thursday, November 21, 2019 3:28 PM (fifty-five minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink
Well yeah that obviously. But also the idea is that a witch hunt STARTS OUT with the goal of finding bad guys before you even know that there are any or who you're going to accuse (think McCarthyism). I guess I'm being pedantic, but even falsely accusing a specific person is not necessarily a "witch hunt."
― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, 21 November 2019 21:24 (one year ago) link
While the world is distracted, Israel tears down a whole Palestinian village, giving people 10 minutes to leave. https://t.co/YO3qMlT5MK— Chris (@0wnowzz) November 5, 2020
― A Scampo Darkly (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 5 November 2020 16:45 (two months ago) link
Knesset dissolving AGAIN, new elections in March. Israeli politics is so fucked up right now. Netanyahu is living Trump's dream, using an entire national government as an adjunct to his schemes to avoid prosecution for dime-store corruption.
― Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 22:13 (three weeks ago) link
a psephologists dream mind you
― Babby's Yed Revisited (jim in vancouver), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 22:14 (three weeks ago) link
Likud splitting could produce a right-wing coalition govt without Netanyahu. I'd like to see ol Bibi wriggle his way out of THIS jam!
― Wayne Grotski (symsymsym), Tuesday, 22 December 2020 23:00 (three weeks ago) link
40+ dead in syria, israeli air strike while the world is looking atsomething else. typical.
― StanM, Wednesday, 13 January 2021 20:59 (two days ago) link