NPC123 JAQ ITT.

You mean why won't Israel or Egypt let people leave? The blockade of Gaza is a joint effort by both countries but of course Israel gets 100% of the blame. The Egyptian government even murdered 2 Palestinians from Gaza the other day in a smuggling tunnel and there wasn't a peep about it. It's all about the j00s.

But the answer is because the government of Gaza is a dangerous enemy of both Israel and Egypt.

Israel did just kill 168 people and injure 15000 last year. And generally no, people in Gaza can't leave - though Egypt is to blame for that as well. Also, people can't just come into Gaza. Israel controls "their" border with the sea.

Jews aren't treated well in other countries in the ME, but often Palestinians aren't either. Many are little more than indentured servants in SA, Qatar, or Kuwait. But what does that have to do with whether or not Gazans should be allowed to have any control over, say their border with the sea?

Do questions scare you? (I just learned that Egypt is possibly also part to blame for people being trapped in Israel. I've never heard that before.) Useful to ask questions...

I am curious how a communist will answer those questions after taking such a strong stance against Israel Human rights violations, I am wondering if he will take a equally strong stance against these other countries.

I'm scared of you getting banned, because I can tell you are a sincere person trying to engage in the spirit of vigorous debate for which this forum was created.

There's no reason a communist couldn't, but I don't think einbert will. I'm afraid he's more or less joined a cult.

I am happy you are concerned for me . I will try to ask less questions!

Sigh.

If there is one thing she has shown it is both sides are very different in calling out their anti-smites.

NPC, yes, Israelis are treated well in Palestine, much better than the Palestinians themselves. They are encouraged to take land there to settle on and are not even subject to the apartheid that Palestinians face.

Sure it can. I give a **** about the Palestinians who are oppressed by religious nut jobs and I give a **** about the the people who live in Israel who for the most part live in constant fear that other religious nut jobs will attack or invade them. Yet, I don’t see any way to criticize the actions of Israel and its supporters, or express support for people suffering in Palestine without getting labeled an anti-Semite. So third rail it is.

I agree I think many people when Israel is brought up just shut up because they do not want to be quickly labeled an anti-Semite.

What makes the the Israel-Palestine debate so difficult is that most people involved feel like they need to pick which side is right.

The Palestinians have collectively rejected multiple, internationally-backed compromises; met voluntary Israeli partitioning with suicide bombings and other acts commonly acknowledged as terroristic; and made overt assertions desiring the elimination of Israel's existence.

The Israelis have committed numerous human rights violations against the Palestinians unable or unwilling to retreat to Jordan and have increasingly punished people innocent of the aforementioned terrorism (many of whom are directly opposed to it but powerless to stop it).


Driving the conflict on both sides are religious zealots and victims-turned-perpetrators.



The saying "two Jews, three opinions" is applicable to both sides, and yet on each (and here too, on what might be considered socially "neutral" ground) there are those who will insist on attributing the worst of each to the entirety of the other.



The intractable divisions currently in place require outside interference to resolve; the only alternative is annihilation. The suggestion that "people should not discuss Israel" is a poor one that needs to be replaced with "people should learn the history of Israel".

One doesn't need to reach back into biblical times to get to the root; that's the theocratic line. Look to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, 100 years ago, and the developments since then. The British ****ed everything up, promising everything to everybody and then delivering on ~nothing.


It is a non-starter to view Israel as an "occupation" (there were plenty of jews already living there), just as it is to comment that Palestine "doesn't really exist".

If you care about resolving the conflict, as opposed to winning a debate on it, you have to move past attitudes like these.

+1

Part of the fatalism is the more you study the history the more you realize how intractable the problem is.

Critiquing the Israeli government is not antisemitic.

Just about everybody knows that The Jews don't have collective control over the the government of a remote, Middle Eastern nation-state.

It is possible to critique the Israeli government in an antisemitic way, by applying antisemitic tropes (motifs, symbols, icons, stereotypes, etc) to the regime. Similarly, I can criticize Obama for being too aloof, but I should probably refrain from calling him "shiftless".

on that note, and tying this back to the thread topic, it is not antisemitic to point out that the pro-Israeli lobby funds pro-Israel policy, and in the broader context of upturning the role of corporate-/money in politics, even less so

it's closer but also not antisemitic to suggest that Israel is "hypnotizing" people (though the statement is idiotic nevertheless)



she doesn't allude to the globalist jewish conspiracy to control the world through greed-driven debt arrangements or to some preternatural, subjugating jewish acumen

and when she uses the word "Israel", there is no reason to read her to mean the people/nation rather than the state, absent a prejudicial filter based on her own ethnoreligious background and associations

you can tell the people who want her to be antisemitic by their reactions to her excellent apology ("she doesn't mean it", "she was forced to publish it", etc)

is it a fundamental tenet of political theory that people entrenched in conflict, left to their own devises, will not achieve a morally (or even functionally) optimal solution

abstaining from the discussion/environment is equivalent to stepping out of the way of a downrolling snowball

Jesus ****ing Christ

Making new friends by NEVER being an a-hole is what the internet is all about guys

You don't know what you're talking about because in your country club you've never actually met a communist. And oh yeah, **** off frat boy.

Who the **** are you talking to? Your internet friends? You imagine you're rounding up the support of the people who think FlyWf is a great internet hero? You're always addressing the crowd like that. What the **** is that? Something they taught you in law school?

the tweet, and the intercept article defending Omar got me watching the al Jazerra doc the "lobby USA" its been interesting so far, but nothing really new or groundbreaking...also Al Jazerra is Qatari who is a Iranian client state so obviously biased against Israel... but the doc does talk about how AIPAC's influence is far greater than recorded campaign contributions. link

Also Fly must be done with Law school now...fml I'm old

Israel proper, within its legally recognised pre-1967 borders, conforms largely to the 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine and is a legitimate state like any other. You might compare it with the Republic of Ireland or Pakistan, other ethnostates created around the same time. The creation of Pakistan was far bloodier and more terrible than the creation of Israel, with about 2,000,000 lives lost, but nobody says Pakistan just shouldn't be there. Some people -- a fringe minority -- say Israel shouldn't be there, but it's an established fact. Egypt and Jordan are allies of Israel by treaty, even Saudi Arabia is an informal ally against Iran, and basically Israel isn't going anywhere.

Israel's occupation and settlement of East Jerusalem and the West Bank since 1967 is, however, illegal and is sustained and advanced by measures that amount to ethnic cleansing (forced property seizures) and apartheid (marriage laws, pass laws, residency laws and the threat of deadly force if, for instance, an Arab is seen using a Jews-only footpath). This bit is the problem.

lol Trump thinks she should resign.

Donald Trump