Meanwhile back in Israel

yosi · May 2015

benjs said:

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

yosi said:
I assume the question is what I think the "Jewish identity" of Israel should consist of. Basically I'd like for the country's civic identity to be defined by its Jewish majority. So Hebrew as the common vernacular, the national calendar defined by the Jewish calendar (e.g., major school holidays aligned with Passover (let's say) in the same way that winter break in the US lines up with Christmas), etc. I also think there should be a strict separation of synagogue and state.
Who exactly would this apply to? Who is included in the Jewish majority?
Waiting, watching the clock......
Still Here
Taps fingers on the table.
anxiously waiting a reply.
I was waiting to see if Yosi would respond to this, as it was a question addressed to him. The Gregorian calendar (including statutory holidays) is based off of Christianity. As a Jew, I still get days off for Christmas and New Year's Day, not Passover. In Israel, I would expect that national holidays would be aligned with Jewish holidays as well, and that it would become all but commonplace to pay Muslims on Islamic holidays (just as I've actually never had issues with employers in Canada paying me on Jewish holidays if I need to be with my family).

Yosi - I do have a question as well. The synagogue in Israel defines the immigration policy, inasmuch as it gives preference to a religious affiliation - this for a state with so much historical and religious significance to those of the Islamic and Christian faiths, not to mention those who (and let's not bother with details for the purpose of this conversation) once lived on this land, and now don't. Is a population demographic not a state affair? When the synagogue is responsible for that, how could Israel ever exist with a strict separation of synagogue and state?

Not to mention - when your population is demographically skewed by an unfair immigration policy, that trickles down to other policies, as a predominantly Jewish population will vote on topics in ways that work out advantageously towards predominantly Jews.
Yosi - I'm still curious about the synagogue-state separation and how it'd work in Israel (as quoted above).

BS - you have said here a number of times that you can be against Hamas and for a free Palestine, completely unprovoked, as if anyone here is saying that at all. It has been months since anyone has said anything here that could even possibly be thought of (and would've then been misunderstood) as pro-Hamas. Can you answer me honestly, what your point is of reviving this notion time after time again?

If I may, Benjs, I think the Hamas point is useful if only because it points to the fact that much of the conversation about this topic on this board proceeds, to my mind, from a point of bad faith. The notion that "Israel wants to kill all innocent Palestinians," which has just been voiced so vehemently, betrays a dogmatic attachment to a conception of the Palestinians as eternal victims, and of Israelis as evil oppressors. This viewpoint is by necessity detached from reality (again, if Israel really wanted to kill all the Palestinians they would all be dead), but more importantly, it erases all complexity, all subtlety, without which this conflict can't honestly be understood (and, as an aside, I find it more than a little racist, in a well-meaning paternalistic sort of way, as it infantilizes the Palestinians by refusing to recognize that they have any agency, and thus any responsibility for how events unfold).

badbrains · May 2015

yosi said:

benjs said:

benjs said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

yosi said:
I assume the question is what I think the "Jewish identity" of Israel should consist of. Basically I'd like for the country's civic identity to be defined by its Jewish majority. So Hebrew as the common vernacular, the national calendar defined by the Jewish calendar (e.g., major school holidays aligned with Passover (let's say) in the same way that winter break in the US lines up with Christmas), etc. I also think there should be a strict separation of synagogue and state.
Who exactly would this apply to? Who is included in the Jewish majority?
Waiting, watching the clock......
Still Here
Taps fingers on the table.
anxiously waiting a reply.
I was waiting to see if Yosi would respond to this, as it was a question addressed to him. The Gregorian calendar (including statutory holidays) is based off of Christianity. As a Jew, I still get days off for Christmas and New Year's Day, not Passover. In Israel, I would expect that national holidays would be aligned with Jewish holidays as well, and that it would become all but commonplace to pay Muslims on Islamic holidays (just as I've actually never had issues with employers in Canada paying me on Jewish holidays if I need to be with my family).

Yosi - I do have a question as well. The synagogue in Israel defines the immigration policy, inasmuch as it gives preference to a religious affiliation - this for a state with so much historical and religious significance to those of the Islamic and Christian faiths, not to mention those who (and let's not bother with details for the purpose of this conversation) once lived on this land, and now don't. Is a population demographic not a state affair? When the synagogue is responsible for that, how could Israel ever exist with a strict separation of synagogue and state?

Not to mention - when your population is demographically skewed by an unfair immigration policy, that trickles down to other policies, as a predominantly Jewish population will vote on topics in ways that work out advantageously towards predominantly Jews.
Yosi - I'm still curious about the synagogue-state separation and how it'd work in Israel (as quoted above).

BS - you have said here a number of times that you can be against Hamas and for a free Palestine, completely unprovoked, as if anyone here is saying that at all. It has been months since anyone has said anything here that could even possibly be thought of (and would've then been misunderstood) as pro-Hamas. Can you answer me honestly, what your point is of reviving this notion time after time again?
If I may, Benjs, I think the Hamas point is useful if only because it points to the fact that much of the conversation about this topic on this board proceeds, to my mind, from a point of bad faith. The notion that "Israel wants to kill all innocent Palestinians," which has just been voiced so vehemently, betrays a dogmatic attachment to a conception of the Palestinians as eternal victims, and of Israelis as evil oppressors. This viewpoint is by necessity detached from reality (again, if Israel really wanted to kill all the Palestinians they would all be dead), but more importantly, it erases all complexity, all subtlety, without which this conflict can't honestly be understood (and, as an aside, I find it more than a little racist, in a well-meaning paternalistic sort of way, as it infantilizes the Palestinians by refusing to recognize that they have any agency, and thus any responsibility for how events unfold).

Racist? Dude come on. How many articles have we posted of Israel being just that, a racist country. Selective amnesia?

badbrains · May 2015

whatever yosi, spin it any way you want. Wait, am I being racist by making that statement? Or am I being anti-Semitic? I'd love for you to once criticize your own government "without" putting a but or anything like that. I've critisized both sides on this topic, because there's 2 sides to this "conflict". There's a guy in here who makes all kinds of outlandish statements regarding this topic yet you don't seem to have any issues with it. He does more wrong for your cause then good. One would think you'd call him out on it. Maybe you just agree with all his statements. Which you're entitled to.

yosi · May 2015

Yes. I think that treating the Palestinians as if they have no agency is racist. And to be clear, I'm not saying that you're a bigot. I'm sure you mean well. But I still think that by refusing to acknowledge that the Palestinians can be anything but passive victims is effectively to treat them as inferior subjects.

And your response is not an argument. It's just a deflection.

badbrains · May 2015

yosi said:
Yes. I think that treating the Palestinians as if they have no agency is racist. And to be clear, I'm not saying that you're a bigot. I'm sure you mean well. But I still think that by refusing to acknowledge that the Palestinians can be anything but passive victims is effectively to treat them as inferior subjects.

And your response is not an argument. It's just a deflection.

Dude, I've called out Hamas plenty of times. But if you think they're more evil then the regime in control of Israel, that's straight silly and absurd. Any human can tell you that.

I appreciate the fact that you don't think I'm a bigot, I really do.

yosi · May 2015

On a related note, I found this an interesting read:

Obama: Denying Israel’s Right To Exist as a Jewish Homeland Is Anti-Semitic
The president draws a line in the sand in his latest interview

By Yair Rosenberg|May 22, 2015

Yesterday, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg published a wide-ranging interview with President Obama on the Middle East. Naturally, much of the ensuing commentary has focused on the president’s defense of his Iran diplomacy and his administration’s handling of the fight against ISIS. But in poring over Obama’s comments on these big ticket issues, one of the president’s more remarkable statements has largely been overlooked: his equation of denying Israel’s right to exist with anti-Semitism.

In the latter part of their conversation, Obama and Goldberg turned to the subject of Israel. The president began by making a spirited case against those in the pro-Israel community who equate his criticisms of Israeli policy with an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic outlook. “I completely reject that,” he said. On the contrary, the president argued, by standing up for the shared liberal values of the U.S. and Israel—and pointing out when either falls short—he is ensuring both countries will endure and thrive. “I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody the Judeo-Christian and, ultimately then, what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium,” he said. “I want Israel to embody these values because Israel is aligned with us in that fight for what I believe to be true.”

But having defined what sort of critiques of Israel don’t constitute anti-Semitism, the president then proceeded to outline those that do. And this is where he broke new ground. Asked by Goldberg to delineate the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, Obama answered as follows:

I think a good baseline is: Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, and are you aware of the particular circumstances of Jewish history that might prompt that need and desire? And if your answer is no, if your notion is somehow that that history doesn’t matter, then that’s a problem, in my mind. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge the justness of the Jewish homeland, you acknowledge the active presence of anti-Semitism—that it’s not just something in the past, but it is current—if you acknowledge that there are people and nations that, if convenient, would do the Jewish people harm because of a warped ideology. If you acknowledge those things, then you should be able to align yourself with Israel where its security is at stake, you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.

Essentially, Obama defined anti-Zionism—as distinct from sharp, public criticism of Israel and its policies—as anti-Semitism. In his construction, denying Israel’s right to exist (i.e. Zionism) is to deny the lessons of history and betray a deeply flawed moral outlook. In making this case, Obama joins other world leaders like British Prime Minister David Cameron and French Prime Minister Manuel Valls—both, like him, critics of Israeli settlements and advocates for a two-state solution—who have pointedly labeled anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism. Likewise, Obama’s words accord with the U.S. State Department’s official definition of anti-Semitism, which includes “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.”

Obama’s articulation of this position, however, is far more eloquent and rich than any of these antecedents. His explanation for why opposing Israel’s existence is bigoted is simultaneously moral, historical and structural. To consign the Jews to statelessness, in Obama’s view, would undo the painful progress made by the world towards treating them as equals and protecting them from prejudice. It would turn back the clock to a much darker time, when Jews had no national home to stand up for their rights and offer them refuge. It would be an abdication of moral responsibility for the persecutions of the past and a willful ignorance as to their implications.

Or, as the president put it to Goldberg: “I think it would be a moral failing for me as president of the United States, and a moral failing for America, and a moral failing for the world, if we did not protect Israel and stand up for its right to exist, because that would negate not just the history of the 20th century, it would negate the history of the past millennium.”

(Notably, Obama’s detailed denunciation of anti-Zionism also accounts for—and includes—anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox sects and principled anti-nationalists. The president’s point is not that such people are personally prejudiced whatsoever towards Jews, but that the structural consequences of their views are undeniably anti-Jewish. Like other forms of racism, he argues, anti-Semitism can persist structurally while being perpetuated by individuals who are not bigoted in their own interactions.)

Obama’s declaration also explains why he is such a passionate advocate for the two-state solution: he views Israel’s establishment as a moral triumph against historical injustice, and seeks the same for the Palestinians. His answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not to undermine the legitimacy of one of the parties but to ensure that each has a home of their own. To do anything else would be to reverse moral progress, rather than advance it.

badbrains · May 2015

Oh god, here we go again. Maybe they should make a term for Palestine/anti-Palestinians for them. Oh wait, they can't. They don't have the senators and congressmen in their pockets like Israel. Seriously, this is unreal. So basically no one can say ANYTHING bad about Israel or Zionism? How fucken absurd does that sound America? The land of free speech? Ya right.

yosi · May 2015

I would direct your attention to the very first bit of bolded text.

yosi · May 2015

I'd also note that it's more than a little ironic that you'd respond to an article about anti-semitism by claiming that the Jewish state "has the senators and congressmen in their pockets," and more than a little comical that you'd do so at the precise moment that the United States is pursuing a detente with Iran over Israel's vehement objections.

badbrains · May 2015

yosi said:
I'd also note that it's more than a little ironic that you'd respond to an article about anti-semitism by claiming that the Jewish state "has the senators and congressmen in their pockets," and more than a little comical that you'd do so at the precise moment that the United States is pursuing a detente with Iran over Israel's vehement objections.

Are you saying that they don't? Why would they scramble to pass laws against the boycott movement yosi? You do know that some senators are in the process of that right? Now why would they do that?

yosi · May 2015

If I had to guess, I'd say that they're doing it because it's good politics. The vast majority of the American electorate are pro-Israel. Support for Israel in Congress reflects that popular support among the population. It's certainly not because Israel exerts some sort of nefarious shadowy control over American government, as you seem to be implying.

benjs · May 2015

badbrains said:
Oh god, here we go again. Maybe they should make a term for Palestine/anti-Palestinians for them. Oh wait, they can't. They don't have the senators and congressmen in their pockets like Israel. Seriously, this is unreal. So basically no one can say ANYTHING bad about Israel or Zionism? How fucken absurd does that sound America? The land of free speech? Ya right.

Nart, this just isn't true. The article specifically states:

"In the latter part of their conversation, Obama and Goldberg turned to the subject of Israel. The president began by making a spirited case against those in the pro-Israel community who equate his criticisms of Israeli policy with an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic outlook. “I completely reject that,” he said. On the contrary, the president argued, by standing up for the shared liberal values of the U.S. and Israel—and pointing out when either falls short—he is ensuring both countries will endure and thrive. “I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody the Judeo-Christian and, ultimately then, what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium,” he said. “I want Israel to embody these values because Israel is aligned with us in that fight for what I believe to be true.”

To me, this read: criticize Israel for everything you would criticize America for, just don't criticize its existence, which is just in some way, shape or form. It's statements like this that force Obama to adhere to a pursuit of a two-state solution. The issue, then, is that no one is quick to actually chase that two-state dream.

And Yosi - thanks for responding there on the Hamas topic. While I agree with you that the assumption is one of evil from Israel unto the Palestinians, I don't feel this is unwarranted when looking back at history (which, as in the article you linked, Obama feels is important when justifying the legitimacy of an entity). While I don't believe Israel and its government are genocidal and evil entities, I feel they have been negligent in dealing with something they consider "an inconvenience", and the rest of the world considers "people". To wholly obliterate the Palestinian people (even by 'accidental disproportionate retaliation') would leave Israel with no global sympathy, so it simply wouldn't be an option on the table. Of the other options available to Israel in helping the Palestinian people out of a rough (and Israeli-induced) situation, it truly seems that nothing but the bare minimum has been provided.

mickeyrat · May 2015

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

mickeyrat said:

yosi said:
I assume the question is what I think the "Jewish identity" of Israel should consist of. Basically I'd like for the country's civic identity to be defined by its Jewish majority. So Hebrew as the common vernacular, the national calendar defined by the Jewish calendar (e.g., major school holidays aligned with Passover (let's say) in the same way that winter break in the US lines up with Christmas), etc. I also think there should be a strict separation of synagogue and state.
Who exactly would this apply to? Who is included in the Jewish majority?
Waiting, watching the clock......
Still Here
Taps fingers on the table.
anxiously waiting a reply.

Still waiting for a god damned answer to my motherfucking question.

BS44325 · May 2015

benjs said:

badbrains said:
Oh god, here we go again. Maybe they should make a term for Palestine/anti-Palestinians for them. Oh wait, they can't. They don't have the senators and congressmen in their pockets like Israel. Seriously, this is unreal. So basically no one can say ANYTHING bad about Israel or Zionism? How fucken absurd does that sound America? The land of free speech? Ya right.
Nart, this just isn't true. The article specifically states:

"In the latter part of their conversation, Obama and Goldberg turned to the subject of Israel. The president began by making a spirited case against those in the pro-Israel community who equate his criticisms of Israeli policy with an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic outlook. “I completely reject that,” he said. On the contrary, the president argued, by standing up for the shared liberal values of the U.S. and Israel—and pointing out when either falls short—he is ensuring both countries will endure and thrive. “I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody the Judeo-Christian and, ultimately then, what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium,” he said. “I want Israel to embody these values because Israel is aligned with us in that fight for what I believe to be true.”

To me, this read: criticize Israel for everything you would criticize America for, just don't criticize its existence, which is just in some way, shape or form. It's statements like this that force Obama to adhere to a pursuit of a two-state solution. The issue, then, is that no one is quick to actually chase that two-state dream.

And Yosi - thanks for responding there on the Hamas topic. While I agree with you that the assumption is one of evil from Israel unto the Palestinians, I don't feel this is unwarranted when looking back at history (which, as in the article you linked, Obama feels is important when justifying the legitimacy of an entity). While I don't believe Israel and its government are genocidal and evil entities, I feel they have been negligent in dealing with something they consider "an inconvenience", and the rest of the world considers "people". To wholly obliterate the Palestinian people (even by 'accidental disproportionate retaliation') would leave Israel with no global sympathy, so it simply wouldn't be an option on the table. Of the other options available to Israel in helping the Palestinian people out of a rough (and Israeli-induced) situation, it truly seems that nothing but the bare minimum has been provided.

I think this argument is completely fair.

yosi said:
I'd also note that it's more than a little ironic that you'd respond to an article about anti-semitism by claiming that the Jewish state "has the senators and congressmen in their pockets," and more than a little comical that you'd do so at the precise moment that the United States is pursuing a detente with Iran over Israel's vehement objections.

You're a better man then me Yosi. I find the whole "Israel/Jews have congress/media in their back pocket" angle to be completely bigoted.

badbrains · May 2015

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

badbrains said:
Oh god, here we go again. Maybe they should make a term for Palestine/anti-Palestinians for them. Oh wait, they can't. They don't have the senators and congressmen in their pockets like Israel. Seriously, this is unreal. So basically no one can say ANYTHING bad about Israel or Zionism? How fucken absurd does that sound America? The land of free speech? Ya right.
Nart, this just isn't true. The article specifically states:

"In the latter part of their conversation, Obama and Goldberg turned to the subject of Israel. The president began by making a spirited case against those in the pro-Israel community who equate his criticisms of Israeli policy with an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic outlook. “I completely reject that,” he said. On the contrary, the president argued, by standing up for the shared liberal values of the U.S. and Israel—and pointing out when either falls short—he is ensuring both countries will endure and thrive. “I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody the Judeo-Christian and, ultimately then, what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium,” he said. “I want Israel to embody these values because Israel is aligned with us in that fight for what I believe to be true.”

To me, this read: criticize Israel for everything you would criticize America for, just don't criticize its existence, which is just in some way, shape or form. It's statements like this that force Obama to adhere to a pursuit of a two-state solution. The issue, then, is that no one is quick to actually chase that two-state dream.

And Yosi - thanks for responding there on the Hamas topic. While I agree with you that the assumption is one of evil from Israel unto the Palestinians, I don't feel this is unwarranted when looking back at history (which, as in the article you linked, Obama feels is important when justifying the legitimacy of an entity). While I don't believe Israel and its government are genocidal and evil entities, I feel they have been negligent in dealing with something they consider "an inconvenience", and the rest of the world considers "people". To wholly obliterate the Palestinian people (even by 'accidental disproportionate retaliation') would leave Israel with no global sympathy, so it simply wouldn't be an option on the table. Of the other options available to Israel in helping the Palestinian people out of a rough (and Israeli-induced) situation, it truly seems that nothing but the bare minimum has been provided.
I think this argument is completely fair.
yosi said:
I'd also note that it's more than a little ironic that you'd respond to an article about anti-semitism by claiming that the Jewish state "has the senators and congressmen in their pockets," and more than a little comical that you'd do so at the precise moment that the United States is pursuing a detente with Iran over Israel's vehement objections.
You're a better man then me Yosi. I find the whole "Israel/Jews have congress/media in their back pocket" angle to be completely bigoted.

Of course you would. You think that shocks me or us. I still remember your lame ass yellow stars comment. No surprise here. I def know you're a bigot BS. You've been handed your ass on many occasions by so many on here, yet you only have an issue when this Muslim rips you a new asshole. Must suck having a Muslim "fling mud" at you and make you look like the clown you are. I know, it's ok. You'll get over it, baby steps remember?

badbrains · May 2015

yosi said:
If I had to guess, I'd say that they're doing it because it's good politics. The vast majority of the American electorate are pro-Israel. Support for Israel in Congress reflects that popular support among the population. It's certainly not because Israel exerts some sort of nefarious shadowy control over American government, as you seem to be implying.

Oh so the whole US supports Israel? Really? I didn't know that. I guess the whole world does too? Man, I must of missed the memo.

badbrains · May 2015

They Dare to Speak Out by Paul Findley.

Read it and tell me how they don't, with the help of aipac have our government in their pockets.

BS44325 · May 2015

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

badbrains said:
Oh god, here we go again. Maybe they should make a term for Palestine/anti-Palestinians for them. Oh wait, they can't. They don't have the senators and congressmen in their pockets like Israel. Seriously, this is unreal. So basically no one can say ANYTHING bad about Israel or Zionism? How fucken absurd does that sound America? The land of free speech? Ya right.
Nart, this just isn't true. The article specifically states:

"In the latter part of their conversation, Obama and Goldberg turned to the subject of Israel. The president began by making a spirited case against those in the pro-Israel community who equate his criticisms of Israeli policy with an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic outlook. “I completely reject that,” he said. On the contrary, the president argued, by standing up for the shared liberal values of the U.S. and Israel—and pointing out when either falls short—he is ensuring both countries will endure and thrive. “I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody the Judeo-Christian and, ultimately then, what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium,” he said. “I want Israel to embody these values because Israel is aligned with us in that fight for what I believe to be true.”

To me, this read: criticize Israel for everything you would criticize America for, just don't criticize its existence, which is just in some way, shape or form. It's statements like this that force Obama to adhere to a pursuit of a two-state solution. The issue, then, is that no one is quick to actually chase that two-state dream.

And Yosi - thanks for responding there on the Hamas topic. While I agree with you that the assumption is one of evil from Israel unto the Palestinians, I don't feel this is unwarranted when looking back at history (which, as in the article you linked, Obama feels is important when justifying the legitimacy of an entity). While I don't believe Israel and its government are genocidal and evil entities, I feel they have been negligent in dealing with something they consider "an inconvenience", and the rest of the world considers "people". To wholly obliterate the Palestinian people (even by 'accidental disproportionate retaliation') would leave Israel with no global sympathy, so it simply wouldn't be an option on the table. Of the other options available to Israel in helping the Palestinian people out of a rough (and Israeli-induced) situation, it truly seems that nothing but the bare minimum has been provided.
I think this argument is completely fair.
yosi said:
I'd also note that it's more than a little ironic that you'd respond to an article about anti-semitism by claiming that the Jewish state "has the senators and congressmen in their pockets," and more than a little comical that you'd do so at the precise moment that the United States is pursuing a detente with Iran over Israel's vehement objections.
You're a better man then me Yosi. I find the whole "Israel/Jews have congress/media in their back pocket" angle to be completely bigoted.
Of course you would. You think that shocks me or us. I still remember your lame ass yellow stars comment. No surprise here. I def know you're a bigot BS. You've been handed your ass on many occasions by so many on here, yet you only have an issue when this Muslim rips you a new asshole. Must suck having a Muslim "fling mud" at you and make you look like the clown you are. I know, it's ok. You'll get over it, baby steps remember?

I'm trying Benjs

badbrains · May 2015

BS44325 said:

badbrains said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

badbrains said:
Oh god, here we go again. Maybe they should make a term for Palestine/anti-Palestinians for them. Oh wait, they can't. They don't have the senators and congressmen in their pockets like Israel. Seriously, this is unreal. So basically no one can say ANYTHING bad about Israel or Zionism? How fucken absurd does that sound America? The land of free speech? Ya right.
Nart, this just isn't true. The article specifically states:

"In the latter part of their conversation, Obama and Goldberg turned to the subject of Israel. The president began by making a spirited case against those in the pro-Israel community who equate his criticisms of Israeli policy with an anti-Israel or anti-Semitic outlook. “I completely reject that,” he said. On the contrary, the president argued, by standing up for the shared liberal values of the U.S. and Israel—and pointing out when either falls short—he is ensuring both countries will endure and thrive. “I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody the Judeo-Christian and, ultimately then, what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium,” he said. “I want Israel to embody these values because Israel is aligned with us in that fight for what I believe to be true.”

To me, this read: criticize Israel for everything you would criticize America for, just don't criticize its existence, which is just in some way, shape or form. It's statements like this that force Obama to adhere to a pursuit of a two-state solution. The issue, then, is that no one is quick to actually chase that two-state dream.

And Yosi - thanks for responding there on the Hamas topic. While I agree with you that the assumption is one of evil from Israel unto the Palestinians, I don't feel this is unwarranted when looking back at history (which, as in the article you linked, Obama feels is important when justifying the legitimacy of an entity). While I don't believe Israel and its government are genocidal and evil entities, I feel they have been negligent in dealing with something they consider "an inconvenience", and the rest of the world considers "people". To wholly obliterate the Palestinian people (even by 'accidental disproportionate retaliation') would leave Israel with no global sympathy, so it simply wouldn't be an option on the table. Of the other options available to Israel in helping the Palestinian people out of a rough (and Israeli-induced) situation, it truly seems that nothing but the bare minimum has been provided.
I think this argument is completely fair.
yosi said:
I'd also note that it's more than a little ironic that you'd respond to an article about anti-semitism by claiming that the Jewish state "has the senators and congressmen in their pockets," and more than a little comical that you'd do so at the precise moment that the United States is pursuing a detente with Iran over Israel's vehement objections.
You're a better man then me Yosi. I find the whole "Israel/Jews have congress/media in their back pocket" angle to be completely bigoted.
Of course you would. You think that shocks me or us. I still remember your lame ass yellow stars comment. No surprise here. I def know you're a bigot BS. You've been handed your ass on many occasions by so many on here, yet you only have an issue when this Muslim rips you a new asshole. Must suck having a Muslim "fling mud" at you and make you look like the clown you are. I know, it's ok. You'll get over it, baby steps remember?
I'm trying Benjs

You're trying benjs?

benjs · May 2015

Nart, he's right. You need to take a step back and consider the posts, not the poster. I get that there's animosity between the two of you (and I refuse to read into it any more than that), but this is a discussion about facts. The statement that I posted, which BS agreed to, suggested a few things:

-Obama believes in the right to criticize Israel for everything except its right to exist in some fashion
-Those who criticize Israel do so just loudly enough as not to be morally reprehensible humans, and just quietly enough as not to actually drive change
-There is precedent in the notion that Israel does not have concern for the well-being of the Palestinian people
-The Palestinian people exist today (at all) because Israel fears the global isolation which would stem from a genocide at their hands
-Israel's assistance in repairing a society crippled by Israel itself has been no better than the bare acceptable minimum

You may not like his tone, or the way he goes about making his points, but BS just agreed with things that I had always assumed you and I agree on (at least partially). This was not said with any arrogance, or any bigotry - it was just a simple "I agree".

Meanwhile back in Israel

Comments

Categories