Sanders/Warren would be a pretty cool ticket, actually.
Not that I don’t find them repugnant. They’re just less repugnant than alternatives. yay, “democracy”
DonDueedsays
Sanders/Warren ’16
doublereedsays
I’m pretty sure Warren has said that her political hero is Bernie Sanders.
polishsalamisays
I wonder if there has been any talk between the two camps?
polishsalamisays
Marcus Ranum #1:
WTF??????
brucegee1962says
Much as I agree that this would be a dream ticket, no. Balance is important. Two northeastern liberals would just be a turnoff to too many people. Bernie would need someone from the more establishment wing of the party, who could aid him in the absolutely necessary tack back to center he would have to take if he gets the nomination.
I still remember that my father was very leery of Obama due to the experience issue back in 2008. Once Obama picked Biden as his running mate, though, he relaxed and threw in his complete support. “With Biden around, I know he’ll be getting good advice,” he said. For that matter, he also gave up completely on McCain after he picked Palin. So VP picks do count a lot.
That said, Warren definitely should have an important spot on the cabinet if she wants it!
Mano Singhamsays
Warren as Secretary of the Treasury may benefit us more than as VP.
Chiropterasays
brucegee1962, #6:Two northeastern liberals would just be a turnoff to too many people.
I dunno. Clinton/Gore did it as “two border state centrists.” ‘Course being called centrist is different than being called liberal in the USA, so that’s different. Stiil, the choice of Clinton with Gore didn’t do anything to broaden the appeal, which was always conventional wisdom at the time.
--
Bernie would need someone from the more establishment wing of the party….
But that is a very good point.
--
Mano Singham, #7:Warren as Secretary of the Treasury may benefit us more than as VP.
Except in American politics, it is traditional to worry about the President dying in office when they are around Sanders’ age.
I don’t know that that bolsters brucegee’s previous point or contradicts it.
brucegee1962says
Of course, there are a lot of balances to consider — minority groups, age, and gender are all important, maybe even more important than geography and ideology. I wish Warren was the one challenging Hillary now, due to the gender issue — I’ll bet she’d be have overtaken Hillary by now.
Other than Warren, are there any other good female Veeps for Bernie? I was sorry that Sibellius faded. Barbara Boxer, maybe?
For youth and minority appeal, Corey Booker springs to mind.
DonDueedsays
brucegee, there’s Kirsten Gillebrand, US Senator from NY state. Another northeastern liberal, but much younger than Warren. She has strong credentials fighting for veterans and against sexual abuse in the military.
atheistblogsays
It’s ok that warren have passion for commons, but I am still getting on the warren bandwagon, she is quiescence to the establishment. I am not sure if she is running she would have rejected Super PAC. Bernie Sanders is fighting for past 30 years.
Also, when it comes to israel, both bernie and warren not any good, even rand paul is better. I hope bernie stop supporting isreal unconditionally. At least he spoke against israel in the distant past, I wonder why he changed his mind.
StevoRsays
@ ^ atheistblog : (On Israel) maybe Sanders came to his senses and started seeing and listening to the Israeli POV as well?
What exactly do you think is “better” here when it comes to this Issue? Hamas (& Hezbollah & Da’esh) win and get to commit another genocide against the Jewish people? Israel should be thrown under the bus and not allowed (& supported) to fight back when it is being attacked? Israel somehow shouldn’t be treated as anything other than a legitimate nation full of people’ whose lives matter as much as anyone else’s and have equal rights to exist and defend themselves?
I think the best answer is the USA (& Australia and others) standing by and supporting Israel in its fight against terrorism until the terrorism is stopped and ends onc eand for all. Then the palestinians -- if their culture changes and stops being so hatefully anti-Semitic -- can get their own state(s). Buit not whilst their goals and culture is so focused on destroying their Jewish neighbours. Before peace can come, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc ..need to go.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders sound a lot alike.
Meh, their voices sound different to me, one more masculine than t’other for starters!
StevoRsays
@atheistblog : Three question for you to answer please :
1) Do you really think speaking against Israel is good?
2) Because you know what sort of company that puts you in, right?
3) Do you put some sort of limits on that metaphorical litmus test of yours or qualifiers or is a whole nation of eight and a half million people somehow monolithically, unvaryingly evil and in need of destruction in your mind?
Hint : Israelis aren’t orcs.
StevoRsays
@9. brucegee1962 : “Other than Warren, are there any other good female Veeps for Bernie?”
Hillary Clinton? Except if anything it would be the other way round with Bernie Sanders being Hillary Clinton’s veep. I wonder if that ticket could work?
Very much doubt it’ll happen though and also think Sander’s is unelectable. Then again, reckon Trump is unelectable and so too are the rest of the Republican party klowns. But really can’t see the majority of Americans ever voting for Sanders -- like the Repubs he’s playing very strongly to the extremes of the base and not the centre which is what really decides elections.
Holmssays
1) Yes, in the same sense that speaking against any nation with awful policies is good. You’re the one wanting to give Israel a free pass.
2) People critical of Israel, for a variety of reasons. You’re trying to imply that criticism is always bad if it is drected towards Israel.
3) Just their current crop of foreign policies.
StevoRsays
@ ^ Holms :
1) Except atheistblog (& you I presume?) did NOT say “awful policies” and he didn’t say “any nation” with them -- he singled out Israel (and by extension the Jewish people) for special treatment. Why this hate for Israel when Syria, Saudi Arabia, The People’s Republic of China and about a hundred other nations are far worse in their policies and treatments of others. Let alone Jihadist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Da’esh. As the old Jewish joke / lament has long gone “Why is it always us?”
Atheistblog (& you) are also saying here that you’ll ignore context and reality and just abuse and argue against Israel without looking at the evidence or its side of the story or considering the possibility -- probability even -- that Israel is actually (occassionally or even often) right and deserving praise not criticism.
Oh & I’m not giving Israel a “free pass” but instead a fair go which means not automatically hating on it constantly and making the world’s one and only Jewish nation out to be world’s worst nation or people when this is demonstrably absurd! I’ve not said Israel is without flaw or perfect. No nation is. But some here are unwilling to ever give it its fair due and admit it gets things right and deserves a chance to exist in peace and security too.
Imagine for a second that someone said atheists should always be spoken against instead of Israel and how you would immediately think of and respond to that.
2) You aren’t actually answering my question. What word(s) describe and what company does it place one amongst when one always, immediately, instinctively and unthinkingly just hates on Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people? The variety of reasons they may choose to do so isn’t relevant here merely the fact that they do.
I’m also NOT saying that criticism of Israel is always bad but always pre-emptively singling out Israel for criticism is. Do you really not see the distinction there? Note that these are NOT equivalent things.
3) See (1) here again really. That’s not what atheistblog wrote and what by implication you are supporting as well. Also you have failed to state what exactly you consider Israel is doing wrong in its foreign policies exactly or why you think that. Its just “At least he (Bernie Sanders -ed) spoke against Israel in the distant past,” as though attacking Israel is always a good thing. Note the word ‘Israel’ NOT “its policies”* and no qualifiers or anything added to that. Implying hating on Israel = good. Hence my words in 12 & 13 here.
* Or better yet : “Israeli policy X regarding Y ..”
lornsays
IMO too much attention is paid to the presidency. Having a president sharing your political bent is good, it is a definite leg up, but it is, in and of itself, insufficient. To move your agenda forward effectively you need the presidency, but also some way to get voting majorities (possibly super-majorities), with your party alone or with the cooperation of other parties, in both houses of congress. Warren is doing just fine playing her part as a senator. A few more like her in the senate, and roughly 60 more like her in the house, a compatible president (either Clinton or Sanders will do nicely), and we can start to turn things around in a serious way.
For too long Democrats have focused on the head of the ticket while allowing the rest of government to be snatched away relatively uncontested. The Democrats need both a top of ticket, and bottom of ticket (county clerk and up) strategy.
Holmssays
Time to get remedial.
1) Except atheistblog (& you I presume?) did NOT say “awful policies”-
I’m not answering for atheistblog, but for myself. As for you having the cheek to presume that I didn’t specifically refer to Israel having ‘awful policies’… this is blatantly wrong, as the post to which you are responding made that specific point.
-and he didn’t say “any nation” with them – he singled out Israel (and by extension the Jewish people) for special treatment. Why this hate for Israel when Syria, Saudi Arabia, The People’s Republic of China and about a hundred other nations are far worse in their policies and treatments of others. Let alone Jihadist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Da’esh.
Because Israel figures prominently in US politics, it frequently becomes the subject of discussions on politically-minded blogs… such as this one. Note also that groups like ISIL don’t have apologists, there is simply no need to debate whether they are bad or not because no one opposes that idea -- there is no one to argue against. It is simply your mistaken assuption that not discussing other groups means endorsement of them.
Also, it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that Israeli treatment of Gazans in particular is extremely callous, but I’m not interested in doing that research for you all over again seeing as how you never looked at it the first time around.
Atheistblog (& you) are also saying here that you’ll ignore context and reality and just abuse and argue against Israel without looking at the evidence or its side of the story or considering the possibility – probability even – that Israel is actually (occassionally or even often) right and deserving praise not criticism.
Just a flat lie. I and others spent hours in the past writing up lenghty, researched posts only to have you ignore them, and then forget that we even went to the trouble in the first place.
Oh & I’m not giving Israel a “free pass” but instead a fair go which means not automatically hating on it constantly and making the world’s one and only Jewish nation out to be world’s worst nation or people when this is demonstrably absurd!
You know what else is absurd? The fact that you think we have called or even implied that Israel is ‘the worst nation on earth’. This is another example of your mistaken belief that not conversing about nation X means we support nation X.
I’ve not said Israel is without flaw or perfect. No nation is. But some here are unwilling to ever give it its fair due and admit it gets things right and deserves a chance to exist in peace and security too.
You don’t give them ‘fair due’, you deliberately engage in apologetics on their behalf.
Imagine for a second that someone said atheists should always be spoken against instead of Israel and how you would immediately think of and respond to that.
This is not even remotely similar to my positino on Israel’s conduct so piss off.
2) You aren’t actually answering my question. What word(s) describe and what company does it place one amongst when one always, immediately, instinctively and unthinkingly just hates on Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people? The variety of reasons they may choose to do so isn’t relevant here merely the fact that they do.
A direct example of your disingenuousness is right here. Your question was “Do you really think speaking against Israel is good? …Because you know what sort of company that puts you in, right?” Do you see that? Speaking against Israel’s actions has morphed into hatred of Israel and Jews.
The simple answer that you completely ignored is of course that criticising Israel’s actions simply puts one in the company of… people critical of Israel’s actions. A subset of which are bound to be bigots, yes, but you are spinning all critics as being the same as those bigots.
Your post continues by following up on 3, but a) the points you make are against what he says and like I already mentioned, I am not speaking for him, and b) talking to you about Israel’s particular policies has already been done fairly exhaustively in the past, and it never seems to be retained by your highly selective memory so I can’t be bothered wasting time with that again.
StevoRsays
@ ^ Holms :
I’m not answering for atheistblog, but for myself. As for you having the cheek to presume that I didn’t specifically refer to Israel having ‘awful policies’… this is blatantly wrong, as the post to which you are responding made that specific point.
I was responding to a comment namely #11 atheistblog which is here in its entirely :
It’s ok that warren have passion for commons, but I am still getting on the warren bandwagon, she is quiescence to the establishment. I am not sure if she is running she would have rejected Super PAC. Bernie Sanders is fighting for past 30 years.
Also, when it comes to israel, both bernie and warren not any good, even rand paul is better. I hope bernie stop supporting isreal unconditionally. At least he spoke against israel in the distant past, I wonder why he changed his mind.
-- atheistblog #11 above.
The word ‘Israel’ appears there -- the word “policies” does not. Reading comprehension fail on your part. As you admit I wasn’t even talking to you there but you seemingly feel happy to voluntarily leap in to defend someone unambiguously engaging in exceptionally blatant Israel bashing so do go ruminate on what that says about you.
“Note also that groups like ISIL don’t have apologists, there is simply no need to debate whether they are bad or not because no one opposes that idea – there is no one to argue against. It is simply your mistaken assuption that not discussing other groups means endorsement of them.”- Holms #18 above.
You are putting words in my mouth and strawmonstering me as per usual there. I did NOT say what you are saying I said there. Try reading for comprehension and without prejudice for a change Holms.
Also, it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that Israeli treatment of Gazans in particular is extremely callous, but I’m not interested in doing that research for you all over again seeing as how you never looked at it the first time around.
So you can provide links to back up up eh? But you haven’t done so. Because?
Also the Gazans -- you mean Hamas and the population it controls and tyrannises I guess? Gee , you don’t suppose that has anything to do with all those rockets being fired from Gaza against innocent Israeli civilians indiscriminately at all or so many other acts of terrorism by Hamas do you? Yeah?
Still, ‘spose it was pretty callous of Israel to unilaterally hand Gaza back to its people (complete with extra greenhouses & other facilities they promptly destroyed*) only for the Gazans to choose to vote Hamas into power & use it as a rocket firing base complete with handy human shields -- but what was their and your preferred alternative? Giving it back to Egypt would’ve been mine but not sure if Egypt even wanted that old part of its territory back.
(FYI, btw, Jordan incidentally has revoked its old claim on the Judea and Samaria regions of the former Kingdom of David.)
Oh & also just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’ve ignored what you said or not read it. (Note also that having work and other committments mean I may not be instantly able to respond to you &, again, this doesn’t mean I haven’t or won’t read your arguments and links.)
“Atheistblog (& you) are also saying here that you’ll ignore context and reality and just abuse and argue against Israel without looking at the evidence or its side of the story or considering the possibility – probability even – that Israel is actually (occassionally or even often) right and deserving praise not criticism. ” -- StevoR #16
Just a flat lie. I and others spent hours in the past writing up lenghty, researched posts only to have you ignore them, and then forget that we even went to the trouble in the first place. -Holms #18.
No, It was a direct reference to what atheistblog wrote in #11 here -scroll up and reread it yourself again if you don’t believe me. Atheistblog actually argued that criticism of Israel (NOT its policies -- Israel)
was somehow a good thing and lack of doing so bad. Right here in this thread. Also see my previous paragraph above again.
You know what else is absurd? The fact that you think we have called or even implied that Israel is ‘the worst nation on earth’. This is another example of your mistaken belief that not conversing about nation X means we support nation X.
Yet you keep singling out Israel and only Israel for excessive and unjustified blame when pretty much any nation in their position would do the same or indeed much worse than they do. Go figure.
If you do think there are nations out there worse behaved than Israel and deserving of more criticism you sure coulda fooled me and, I dare say, most others here!
(What do you think would happen to Mexico if say a bunch of crazies took it over and vowed to destroy the USA and started firing rockets at US cities willy-nilly? Or, ditto, a bunch of crazies took over India and started firing rockets with genocidal intent at China? Or took over Yemen and started firing rockets at Saudi Arabia, etc ..?)
You don’t give them ‘fair due’, you deliberately engage in apologetics on their behalf.
When I see a group or nation being bullied and attacked mercilessly and without reason by haters, I tend to stick up for that nation. That’s my idea of stepping in and giving people /nations a fair go, rather than ignoring bullying and injustice. What’s yours?
I do give Israel a fair go and do support its people’s right to live in peace without being attacked by religious extremist fanatics bent on their extermination. Can you (& atheistblog) really say the same?
“Imagine for a second that someone said atheists should always be spoken against instead of Israel and how you would immediately think of and respond to that.” -StevoR #16
This is not even remotely similar to my positino on Israel’s conduct so piss off.
I’ll take that as a failure of imagination and empathy as well as seeing teh parallel logic and situation on your part then. Thanks for proving me correct here although sad for you that you are seemingly so lacking as a thinker and a person.
Do you see that? Speaking against Israel’s actions has morphed into hatred of Israel and Jews.
No because atheistblog did NOT specify Israel’s actions xie said only “Israel” without qualification.
Again Holms, you have failed english reading comprehension. Not to my surprise.
Your post continues by following up on 3, but a) the points you make are against what he says and like I already mentioned, I am not speaking for him, and b) talking to you about Israel’s particular policies has already been done fairly exhaustively in the past, and it never seems to be retained by your highly selective memory so I can’t be bothered wasting time with that again.
Or even finding links that may actually show you haven’t really achieved and done what you claim you’ve said and done. Human memories are fallible, people are imperfect, we have had a history of duelling and disagreeing very strongly on this issue of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security without Jihadist terrorists and their fellow travellers and enablers attacking it’s 8. 5 million individual humans. So lets look at the evidence and lets look at the actual thread here and comments in question rather than rake over old wounds and scars eh?
Argh. Blockquote fail. Take II for clarity. (Sure wish we could edit here.) :
***
“Atheistblog (& you) are also saying here that you’ll ignore context and reality and just abuse and argue against Israel without looking at the evidence or its side of the story or considering the possibility – probability even – that Israel is actually (occassionally or even often) right and deserving praise not criticism. ”– StevoR #16
Just a flat lie. I and others spent hours in the past writing up lenghty, researched posts only to have you ignore them, and then forget that we even went to the trouble in the first place. -Holms #18.
No, It was a direct reference to what atheistblog wrote in #11 here -scroll up and reread it yourself again if you don’t believe me. Atheistblog actually argued that criticism of Israel (NOT its policies – Israel) was somehow a good thing and lack of doing so bad. Right here in this thread. Also see my previous paragraph above again.
“You know what else is absurd? The fact that you think we have called or even implied that Israel is ‘the worst nation on earth’. This is another example of your mistaken belief that not conversing about nation X means we support nation X.”
Yet you keep singling out Israel and only Israel for excessive and unjustified blame when pretty much any nation in their position would do the same or indeed much worse than they do. Go figure.
If you do think there are nations out there worse behaved than Israel and deserving of more criticism you sure coulda fooled me and, I dare say, most others here!
(What do you think would happen to Mexico if say a bunch of crazies took it over and vowed to destroy the USA and started firing rockets at US cities willy-nilly? Or, ditto, a bunch of crazies took over India and started firing rockets with genocidal intent at China? Or took over Yemen and started firing rockets at Saudi Arabia, etc ..?)
You don’t give them ‘fair due’, you deliberately engage in apologetics on their behalf.
When I see a group or nation being bullied and attacked mercilessly and without reason by haters, I tend to stick up for that nation. That’s my idea of stepping in and giving people /nations a fair go, rather than ignoring bullying and injustice. What’s yours?
I do give Israel a fair go and do support its people’s right to live in peace without being attacked by religious extremist fanatics bent on their extermination. Can you (& atheistblog) really say the same?
“Imagine for a second that someone said atheists should always be spoken against instead of Israel and how you would immediately think of and respond to that.” -StevoR #16
This is not even remotely similar to my positino on Israel’s conduct so piss off.
I’ll take that as a failure of imagination and empathy as well as failure at seeing the parallel logic and situation on your part then. Thanks for proving me correct here although sad for you that you are seemingly so lacking as a thinker and a person.
Do you see that? Speaking against Israel’s actions has morphed into hatred of Israel and Jews.
No because atheistblog did NOT specify Israel’s actions xie said only “Israel” without qualification.
Again Holms, you have failed english reading comprehension. Not to my surprise.
Your post continues by following up on 3, but a) the points you make are against what he says and like I already mentioned, I am not speaking for him, and b) talking to you about Israel’s particular policies has already been done fairly exhaustively in the past, and it never seems to be retained by your highly selective memory so I can’t be bothered wasting time with that again.
Or even finding links that may actually show you haven’t really achieved and done what you claim you’ve said and done eh?
Human memories are fallible, people are imperfect, we have had a history of duelling and disagreeing very strongly on this issue of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security without Jihadist terrorists and their fellow travellers and enablers attacking it’s 8. 5 million individual Israeli humans.
So lets look at the evidence and lets look at the actual thread here and comments in question rather than rake over old wounds and scars eh?
Be nice if preview worked better here too esp. with spacing issues. In fairness, I guess I could do better with using it as well. Mea culpa.
Holmssays
#20
No, It was a direct reference to what atheistblog wrote in #11 here -scroll up and reread it yourself again if you don’t believe me. Atheistblog actually argued that criticism of Israel (NOT its policies – Israel) was somehow a good thing and lack of doing so bad. Right here in this thread. Also see my previous paragraph above again.
Yes? There’s nothing bigoted in that. He didn’t sepcify one way or the other what he meant by ‘speaking out against’ Israel, you have just assumed the worst from the lack of detail in his post.
Also, Don’t pretend you didn’t include me in that accusation. You openly said “and you I presume” while making that accusation against atheistblog in a post that was specifically directed at me by name.
Yet you keep singling out Israel and only Israel for excessive and unjustified blame when pretty much any nation in their position would do the same or indeed much worse than they do. Go figure.
This can only be a deliberate lie. You and I have participated in many threads here at FTB, therefore you have directly seen me be critical of many other people and policies.
(What do you think would happen to Mexico if say a bunch of crazies took it over and vowed to destroy the USA and started firing rockets at US cities willy-nilly? Or, ditto, a bunch of crazies took over India and started firing rockets with genocidal intent at China? Or took over Yemen and started firing rockets at Saudi Arabia, etc ..?)
Hopefully not warcrimes such as grossly disproportionate attacks on civilian populations.
When I see a group or nation being bullied and attacked mercilessly and without reason by haters, I tend to stick up for that nation…
Bullying? Pointing out the fact that certain behaviours are classified as war crimes is bullying now, is it? Of course it isn’t you’re just an apologist.
Oh and “without reason” are you fucking kidding me? I have always provided my reasoning when giving criticism. Why do you think my posts are always so long? I spend far too long in fact explaining perfectly obvious things to you at great length; you may disagree with my reasoning, but claiming that I never provided it is just a lie.
… That’s my idea of stepping in and giving people /nations a fair go, rather than ignoring bullying and injustice. What’s yours?
My idea of fairness involves judging based on actions and policies. It does not involve giving free reign to some nations and not others.
I do give Israel a fair go and do support its people’s right to live in peace without being attacked by religious extremist fanatics bent on their extermination. Can you (& atheistblog) really say the same?
I don’t know athiestblog’s mind, but I can certainly say exactly that, yes. (Note that the right of a given nation to live in peace does not mean they are free to deny other nations that very same right.)
I’ll take that as a failure of imagination and empathy as well as failure at seeing the parallel logic and situation on your part then. Thanks for proving me correct here although sad for you that you are seemingly so lacking as a thinker and a person.
No, it’s actually a failure on the part of your analogy. Speaking against atheists <for being atheists is simply not analogous to speaking against Israel For Israel’s actions and policies.
Or even finding links that may actually show you haven’t really achieved and done what you claim you’ve said and done eh?
Done that multiple times in past discussions and it didn’t do shit because you just forgot about it the next time the topic came up.
Human memories are fallible, people are imperfect, we have had a history of duelling and disagreeing very strongly on this issue of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security without Jihadist terrorists and their fellow travellers and enablers attacking it’s 8. 5 million individual Israeli humans.
You have a very strong habit of starting arguments with points that have already been rebutted in previous threads. I’m not the only one that has noticed this, and I’m also not the only one that is sick of your blatantly disingenuous shittery. For a prime example of this, look at that last sentence. Implying that I disagree with Israelis having the right to live in peace? Fuck you, my criticisms have been based on Israel’s actions and policies the whole time, to the extent that I am tired of typing ‘actions and policies’ so often; you just haven’t the integrity to portray me honestly.
Since the topic has fallen well off the front page, and since it’s pointless trying to make you think honestly, this will be my last reply here.
StevoRsays
@ ^ Holms :
He didn’t sepcify one way or the other what he meant by ‘speaking out against’ Israel, you have just assumed the worst from the lack of detail in his post.
Thing is, he did NOT say “Israel’s actions or policies” or anything else just speaking out against Israel -- so given the pattern of comments and attitudes and frequency of Israel bashing here why shouldn’t this be taken as anti-Israeli prejudice?
Also, Don’t pretend you didn’t include me in that accusation. You openly said “and you I presume” while making that accusation against atheistblog in a post that was specifically directed at me by name.
Because you jumped in to defend atheistblog & what he wrote in #11. You didn’t add any qualifers about it either.
This can only be a deliberate lie. You and I have participated in many threads here at FTB, therefore you have directly seen me be critical of many other people and policies.
Well, y’know what they say -- links or it didn’t happen! You haven’t backed up your case there even with other unsupported examples just your assertion.
Also I’m talking specifically about the comments in this thread right here.
Hopefully not warcrimes such as grossly disproportionate attacks on civilian populations.
You are asserting that Israeli self-defense is “grossly disproportionate war crimes” which is a view that I among many others would dispute and do not share. You are also willfully ignoring that Hamas (& Hezbollah, islamic Jihad etc ..) deserve the blame for the casualities inflicted by deliberately firing rockets from civilian areas. Eg see :
(Wow, gee look I’m actually supporting my arguments with linked evidence. Something you have not done here.)
Bullying? Pointing out the fact that certain behaviours are classified as war crimes is bullying now, is it?
No, Arab nations and Jihadist groups constantly attacking and vilifying and trying to delegitimise Israel is what I am referring to as the bullying here. Please Holms, at least try to read for comprehension and keep up here.
Of course it isn’t you’re just an apologist.
No. I’m a human being who disagrees with you for very good reasons on this contentious issue.
I have always provided my reasoning when giving criticism. Why do you think my posts are always so long? I spend far too long in fact explaining perfectly obvious things to you at great length; you may disagree with my reasoning, but claiming that I never provided it is just a lie.
Really? Scrolls up to #15 Holms above here. Oh I don’t think so! Neither long nor really explanatory actually. Which, btw, makes you the liar here and projecting your own faults against me.
My idea of fairness involves judging based on actions and policies. It does not involve giving free reign to some nations and not others.
So actions like, Hamas firing rockets at innocent people or Israel trying to warn civilians before they hit targets in densely populated areas? Policies like the Arab nations refusing to recognise another nation has a right to exist as it pleases and trying to invade it, boycott it and delegitimise Israel for just existing as a Jewish state? If you really did what you claim you do, I do believe you’d be agreeing with me not arguing with me. The facts after all are on Israel’s side of this issue.
I don’t know athiestblog’s mind, but I can certainly say exactly that, yes. (Note that the right of a given nation to live in peace does not mean they are free to deny other nations that very same right.)
Israel isn’t denying any other nation the right to live in peace. It ha seven surrendered territory such as Gaza that others -not actually a nation -- have claimed. There has, FYI, never been an independent nation of Palestine. Israel has nonetheless tried to make peace with the Palestinians making them repeated generous offers which their leaders have repeatedly refused.
Atheistblog has also refused to back you up here -- maybe that says or implies something? (Maybe it doesn’t too? I don’t know but seems possible.)
No, it’s actually a failure on the part of your analogy. Speaking against atheists <for being atheists is simply not analogous to speaking against Israel For Israel’s actions and policies.
But.
That. Isn’t.
What.
Atheistblog.
Was.
Saying!
Get it? No? Atheistblog did NOT say against Israel’s policies or actions just against Israel! What part of that excatly do you fail to comprehend Holms? My analogy is an accurate representation and match to the words atheistblog said. You somehow seem unable to grasp that. Beats me why. Except I guess if you did grasp it then Holms you would have to admit you are in the wrong here -- can’t just be that can it?
Done that multiple times in past discussions and it didn’t do shit because you just forgot about it the next time the topic came up.
Links or it didn’t happen. Again my not accepting your opinions and providing my own perspective instead doesn’t mean I’ve forgotten that you think them or make you correct.
You have a very strong habit of starting arguments with points that have already been rebutted in previous threads. I’m not the only one that has noticed this, and I’m also not the only one that is sick of your blatantly disingenuous shittery. For a prime example of this, look at that last sentence. Implying that I disagree with Israelis having the right to live in peace? Fuck you, my criticisms have been based on Israel’s actions and policies the whole time, to the extent that I am tired of typing ‘actions and policies’ so often; you just haven’t the integrity to portray me honestly.
Or you don’t like what an honest view of you, Holms, looks like. Again, I notice you have failed to support what you have wrongly asserted here and are resorting to personal abuse instead of reasonable argumentation.
Since the topic has fallen well off the front page, and since it’s pointless trying to make you think honestly, this will be my last reply here.
So with a last bit of unsupported insulting Bold Sir Holms has run away,. boldly run away, away! When reality rears its factual head Brave Holms he tucked his tail & fled! (With apologies to Monty Python.)
Oh well, I’ll take that as your admission of defeat here I guess.
patrick2says
@StevoR This is an off-topic comment on an old post, but I wish you were capable of at least understanding why Palestinians are fighting Israel. They are under military occupation with very little civil rights and very restricted freedom of movement. That is obviously unacceptable, and it shouldn’t be hard to understand why they are rebelling, including in terroristic ways. Any people would react in similar ways. That’s to say nothing of the many more ethnically cleansed and dispersed to other countries in 1948. I know there was Arab aggression too, but that’s what happened, so can you at least understand the grievance?
The best option would obviously be a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can determine their own lives as freely as possible from each other. You mentioned that Israel has made “repeated generous offers which their leaders have repeatedly refused”, but have you looked into those offers and why Palestinians refused them? They have mostly involved dividing Palestinian lands into multiple disconnected enclaves, where movement between major Palestinian population centres would still be under foreign (i.e. Israeli) control. That was what was offered at Camp David in 2000, for instance. Why would any national movement accept that?
StevoRsays
@ ^ patrick2 : Because its a hell of a lot better than what they have and the best they can reasonably expect maybe?
Yes, it would really suck (understatement) to be a Palestinian. I’m very glad I’m not one and feel pity for those who are.
They are people too. I do know that.
But they cannot solve their problems by keeping hating on Israel and trying to kill people -- Israeli and also non-Israeli.
I’d like to see their plight resolved but it won’t be resolved by whilst they have the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad acting as their leaders nor whilst they keep committing acts of terrorism and denying the reality that Israel exists and will remain a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital. That city ain’t gunna be divided again any more than Berlin is.
I think it may be time for them to consider the 8 state solution :
Seriously as the best practicable option available to them. Don’t ya think so?
StevoRsays
PS. Also the idea that the Palestinians keeping on with violence , Jihadism and terrorism as ways to get what they want fits the very definition of insanity -- trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Where do Hamas really think their tactics and atrocities are going to get them after this long? What have their brutalities their hatreds, their multidinous killings and crimes got them so far? Where have they lead them?
At the very least isn’t it time they stopped doing the shit they’ve done so far?
Isn’t it time Palestinian culture recognised the humanity of the Israeli side and stopped demonising them?
patrick2says
I agree violent resistance has been a terrible strategy, since it benefits nobody but the Israeli right. I’m more in line with people like Norman Finkelstein, who argue a non-violent based resistance would be better in winning the conflict. Not because Israel would be more willing to come to a fair agreement, but because it would isolate and pressure Israel diplomatically.
The 8 state solution you mentioned has been Israel’s strategy for about 20 years now, and it’s an obvious fig-leaf for continued land grabs and domination of Palestinian lives. South Africa tried a similar approach called the Bantustans, involving putting blacks into disconnected enclaves and taking everything else. Nobody would agree to that.
I don’t think Palestinian national aspirations deserve less respect than Israel’s. That’s why I said the best option would be a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can determine their own lives as freely as possible from each other. Most other options (one state or 8 states) I believe would just prolong the conflict.
StevoRsays
@ ^ patrick2 : Problem is the Palestinians have already turned down the two state solution -- many times over many decades.
StevoRsays
When do we take their “no” to it as final?
patrick2says
Um no they haven’t? You can’t just make stuff up.
StevoRsays
@ ^ patrick2 : Er .. you really haven’t followed and don’t know much about the history of this issue clearly!
I’m not making up any facts here because the palestinians have indeed repeatedly rejected two state solutions going back to before they were even called palestinians.
FYI. A brief but accurate history for you :
1947 The UN divides its former mandate (ex-British, pre WW1 ex-Ottoman province) into a Jewish state and an Arab one. The Jewish side accepts this, the Arab nations immediately invade and attempt to exterminate the Jews. The Arabs fortunately lose badly. Israel survives winning its War of Independence which the Arabs call a catastrophe (they think its literally a catastrophe that they failed to massacre millions of people.) and Egypt and Jordan take over the Arab areas of what is now considered “palestine” without either nation indicating it would grant those “palestinian” areas any independence.
1967, 1973 Arab armies again attempt to invade and destroy Israel with the publicly declared goal of committing genocide against the Israeli and Jewish peoples. These result again in crushing defeats for the Arab aggressors and they consequently lose the territories of Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria. (The latter two areas are often incorrectly termed The West Bank i.e. West Jordan. Jordan revoked any claim to these areas in 1988.)
Following the failure of the Arab military to annihilate Israel, the Arabs inside these “occupied territories” (which generally previously thought of themselves as Arabs and if anything South Syrians) name themselves palestinians and start a campaign of terrorism supported by the USSR and Arab dictatorships. There are several warring groups of these terrorists but they largely come to be represented and led by Egyptian born terrorist leader Yasser Arafat. His PLO begins by demanding Israel’s extermination and indeed the extermination of Jews worldwide. (See : wikipedia . org / wiki/ Palestinian_National_Covenant -- “Events before 1998”.Link broken for moderation.)
The PLO claims to govern the palestinians but gets driven out of many nations Incl. notably Jordan after a failed attempt to take over that nation in 1970 and Lebanon after taking part in a horrific civil war there in the 1980’s. Meanwhile other palestinians inside Israel attempt a violent uprising (“intifada”) isolating them from their supposed internationally wandering terrorist leaders.
Arafat then decides to try diplomacy and in 1993 the PLO and Israel under Yitzhak Rabin & Shimon Peres sign the Oslo accords. Israel generously offers the PLO control over several areas in Judea and Samaria and Gaza and allows Arafat and the PLO to return to these parts of Israel. Unfortunately Arafat has no intention of actually making peace and governing decently and the palestinians resume violence and terrorism including the start of homicide-suicide bombings by PLO Fatah faction group Al Aqsa martyrs brigade as well as the first Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacks. Arafat is also caught trying to smuggle weapons in from Iran by sea. (See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karine_A_Affair -- proof of Arafat’s bad faith among many other proofs.) Constant peace talks during this period finally conclusively fail in the Camp David 2000 Summit after Israeli PM Ehud :
..Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in 73 percent of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian percentage of sovereignty would extend to 90 percent over a ten- to twenty-five-year period. Also included in the offer was the return of a small number of refugees and compensation for those not allowed to return. Palestinians would also have “custodianship” over the Temple Mount, sovereignty on all Islamic and Christian holy sites, and 3/4 of Jerusalem’s Old Quarters. Arafat rejected Barak’s offer and refused to make an immediate counter-offer.[85] He told President Clinton that, “the Arab leader who would surrender Jerusalem is not born yet.”
The palestinians then start a second even more violent initifada during which Arafat loses control of much of the territories and is confined to his Ramallah compound. Meanwhile Hamas rises in strength and influence and seriously challenges the corrupt Fatah Arafat faction of palestinian leadership. Arafat dies in 2004, a failed terrorist and dictator leaving his PLO faction -- now called the PA in charge of some areas of palestinian claimed land.
Israel then decides to unilaterally leave Gaza in 2005 handing it over to the Gazans complete with greenhouses and other infrastructure constructed by Jewish settlers who the IDF forcibly evicts. (See link in #20 above here.) The palestinians then have a civil war following electiosn where Hamas wins and Fatah refuses toabdide by the verdict. Hamas take over Gaza and massacres many Ftaah members. Hamas has a charter explictly denying peace and calling for Israel’s total destruction. Hamas commences firing rockets at Israeli cities and several recurring Gazan wars have since ensued.
Note that throughout this that Israel has repeatedly signed and kept agreements aimed at swapping land for peace which the palestinians have either rejected or failed to honour. The palestinians have repeatedly resorted to violence whereas Israel has voluntarily given up a considerable amount of land especially remarkable for such a small and beseiged nation. Sometimes these “land for peace” deals have worked notably with Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula. More often the Israelis have suffered attacks from the land they have chosen to hand over. (Gaza, the PA run areas of Judea and Samaria.)
The palestinians have indeed rejected many peace plans and deals and the Arabs have also continually refused to accept Israel’s right to exist and live in peace and security as every nation deserves. Oh & when the Arabs could have created a palestinian state by themselves e.g. between 1948-67 they choose not to do so and the Arabs have also created the palestinian refugee situation by refusing to resettle refugees who fled in their various wars aimed to destroying the world’s only tiny Jewish nation. Israel, OTOH, has resettled all its refugees who have fled Islamic & Communist persecution in other lands.
This is all factual material and undeniable historical reality which should be -- but isn’t -- widely known and understood.
Guess now you know!
StevoRsays
^ Correction -- Arafat then pretends to try diplomacy with the Oslo accords.
The PLO despite its diplomatic pretense and claims otherwise remained a terrorist organisation as indeed was proven by law in the Sokolow et al v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al case.
Sanders/Warren would be a pretty cool ticket, actually.
Not that I don’t find them repugnant. They’re just less repugnant than alternatives. yay, “democracy”
Sanders/Warren ’16
I’m pretty sure Warren has said that her political hero is Bernie Sanders.
I wonder if there has been any talk between the two camps?
Marcus Ranum #1:
WTF??????
Much as I agree that this would be a dream ticket, no. Balance is important. Two northeastern liberals would just be a turnoff to too many people. Bernie would need someone from the more establishment wing of the party, who could aid him in the absolutely necessary tack back to center he would have to take if he gets the nomination.
I still remember that my father was very leery of Obama due to the experience issue back in 2008. Once Obama picked Biden as his running mate, though, he relaxed and threw in his complete support. “With Biden around, I know he’ll be getting good advice,” he said. For that matter, he also gave up completely on McCain after he picked Palin. So VP picks do count a lot.
That said, Warren definitely should have an important spot on the cabinet if she wants it!
Warren as Secretary of the Treasury may benefit us more than as VP.
brucegee1962, #6: Two northeastern liberals would just be a turnoff to too many people.
I dunno. Clinton/Gore did it as “two border state centrists.” ‘Course being called centrist is different than being called liberal in the USA, so that’s different. Stiil, the choice of Clinton with Gore didn’t do anything to broaden the appeal, which was always conventional wisdom at the time.
--
Bernie would need someone from the more establishment wing of the party….
But that is a very good point.
--
Mano Singham, #7: Warren as Secretary of the Treasury may benefit us more than as VP.
Except in American politics, it is traditional to worry about the President dying in office when they are around Sanders’ age.
I don’t know that that bolsters brucegee’s previous point or contradicts it.
Of course, there are a lot of balances to consider — minority groups, age, and gender are all important, maybe even more important than geography and ideology. I wish Warren was the one challenging Hillary now, due to the gender issue — I’ll bet she’d be have overtaken Hillary by now.
Other than Warren, are there any other good female Veeps for Bernie? I was sorry that Sibellius faded. Barbara Boxer, maybe?
For youth and minority appeal, Corey Booker springs to mind.
brucegee, there’s Kirsten Gillebrand, US Senator from NY state. Another northeastern liberal, but much younger than Warren. She has strong credentials fighting for veterans and against sexual abuse in the military.
It’s ok that warren have passion for commons, but I am still getting on the warren bandwagon, she is quiescence to the establishment. I am not sure if she is running she would have rejected Super PAC. Bernie Sanders is fighting for past 30 years.
Also, when it comes to israel, both bernie and warren not any good, even rand paul is better. I hope bernie stop supporting isreal unconditionally. At least he spoke against israel in the distant past, I wonder why he changed his mind.
@ ^ atheistblog : (On Israel) maybe Sanders came to his senses and started seeing and listening to the Israeli POV as well?
What exactly do you think is “better” here when it comes to this Issue? Hamas (& Hezbollah & Da’esh) win and get to commit another genocide against the Jewish people? Israel should be thrown under the bus and not allowed (& supported) to fight back when it is being attacked? Israel somehow shouldn’t be treated as anything other than a legitimate nation full of people’ whose lives matter as much as anyone else’s and have equal rights to exist and defend themselves?
I think the best answer is the USA (& Australia and others) standing by and supporting Israel in its fight against terrorism until the terrorism is stopped and ends onc eand for all. Then the palestinians -- if their culture changes and stops being so hatefully anti-Semitic -- can get their own state(s). Buit not whilst their goals and culture is so focused on destroying their Jewish neighbours. Before peace can come, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc ..need to go.
Meh, their voices sound different to me, one more masculine than t’other for starters!
@atheistblog : Three question for you to answer please :
1) Do you really think speaking against Israel is good?
2) Because you know what sort of company that puts you in, right?
3) Do you put some sort of limits on that metaphorical litmus test of yours or qualifiers or is a whole nation of eight and a half million people somehow monolithically, unvaryingly evil and in need of destruction in your mind?
Hint : Israelis aren’t orcs.
@9. brucegee1962 : “Other than Warren, are there any other good female Veeps for Bernie?”
Hillary Clinton? Except if anything it would be the other way round with Bernie Sanders being Hillary Clinton’s veep. I wonder if that ticket could work?
Very much doubt it’ll happen though and also think Sander’s is unelectable. Then again, reckon Trump is unelectable and so too are the rest of the Republican party klowns. But really can’t see the majority of Americans ever voting for Sanders -- like the Repubs he’s playing very strongly to the extremes of the base and not the centre which is what really decides elections.
1) Yes, in the same sense that speaking against any nation with awful policies is good. You’re the one wanting to give Israel a free pass.
2) People critical of Israel, for a variety of reasons. You’re trying to imply that criticism is always bad if it is drected towards Israel.
3) Just their current crop of foreign policies.
@ ^ Holms :
1) Except atheistblog (& you I presume?) did NOT say “awful policies” and he didn’t say “any nation” with them -- he singled out Israel (and by extension the Jewish people) for special treatment. Why this hate for Israel when Syria, Saudi Arabia, The People’s Republic of China and about a hundred other nations are far worse in their policies and treatments of others. Let alone Jihadist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Da’esh. As the old Jewish joke / lament has long gone “Why is it always us?”
Atheistblog (& you) are also saying here that you’ll ignore context and reality and just abuse and argue against Israel without looking at the evidence or its side of the story or considering the possibility -- probability even -- that Israel is actually (occassionally or even often) right and deserving praise not criticism.
Oh & I’m not giving Israel a “free pass” but instead a fair go which means not automatically hating on it constantly and making the world’s one and only Jewish nation out to be world’s worst nation or people when this is demonstrably absurd! I’ve not said Israel is without flaw or perfect. No nation is. But some here are unwilling to ever give it its fair due and admit it gets things right and deserves a chance to exist in peace and security too.
Imagine for a second that someone said atheists should always be spoken against instead of Israel and how you would immediately think of and respond to that.
2) You aren’t actually answering my question. What word(s) describe and what company does it place one amongst when one always, immediately, instinctively and unthinkingly just hates on Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people? The variety of reasons they may choose to do so isn’t relevant here merely the fact that they do.
I’m also NOT saying that criticism of Israel is always bad but always pre-emptively singling out Israel for criticism is. Do you really not see the distinction there? Note that these are NOT equivalent things.
3) See (1) here again really. That’s not what atheistblog wrote and what by implication you are supporting as well. Also you have failed to state what exactly you consider Israel is doing wrong in its foreign policies exactly or why you think that. Its just “At least he (Bernie Sanders -ed) spoke against Israel in the distant past,” as though attacking Israel is always a good thing. Note the word ‘Israel’ NOT “its policies”* and no qualifiers or anything added to that. Implying hating on Israel = good. Hence my words in 12 & 13 here.
* Or better yet : “Israeli policy X regarding Y ..”
IMO too much attention is paid to the presidency. Having a president sharing your political bent is good, it is a definite leg up, but it is, in and of itself, insufficient. To move your agenda forward effectively you need the presidency, but also some way to get voting majorities (possibly super-majorities), with your party alone or with the cooperation of other parties, in both houses of congress. Warren is doing just fine playing her part as a senator. A few more like her in the senate, and roughly 60 more like her in the house, a compatible president (either Clinton or Sanders will do nicely), and we can start to turn things around in a serious way.
For too long Democrats have focused on the head of the ticket while allowing the rest of government to be snatched away relatively uncontested. The Democrats need both a top of ticket, and bottom of ticket (county clerk and up) strategy.
Time to get remedial.
1) Except atheistblog (& you I presume?) did NOT say “awful policies”-
I’m not answering for atheistblog, but for myself. As for you having the cheek to presume that I didn’t specifically refer to Israel having ‘awful policies’… this is blatantly wrong, as the post to which you are responding made that specific point.
-and he didn’t say “any nation” with them – he singled out Israel (and by extension the Jewish people) for special treatment. Why this hate for Israel when Syria, Saudi Arabia, The People’s Republic of China and about a hundred other nations are far worse in their policies and treatments of others. Let alone Jihadist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Da’esh.
Because Israel figures prominently in US politics, it frequently becomes the subject of discussions on politically-minded blogs… such as this one. Note also that groups like ISIL don’t have apologists, there is simply no need to debate whether they are bad or not because no one opposes that idea -- there is no one to argue against. It is simply your mistaken assuption that not discussing other groups means endorsement of them.
Also, it has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that Israeli treatment of Gazans in particular is extremely callous, but I’m not interested in doing that research for you all over again seeing as how you never looked at it the first time around.
Atheistblog (& you) are also saying here that you’ll ignore context and reality and just abuse and argue against Israel without looking at the evidence or its side of the story or considering the possibility – probability even – that Israel is actually (occassionally or even often) right and deserving praise not criticism.
Just a flat lie. I and others spent hours in the past writing up lenghty, researched posts only to have you ignore them, and then forget that we even went to the trouble in the first place.
Oh & I’m not giving Israel a “free pass” but instead a fair go which means not automatically hating on it constantly and making the world’s one and only Jewish nation out to be world’s worst nation or people when this is demonstrably absurd!
You know what else is absurd? The fact that you think we have called or even implied that Israel is ‘the worst nation on earth’. This is another example of your mistaken belief that not conversing about nation X means we support nation X.
I’ve not said Israel is without flaw or perfect. No nation is. But some here are unwilling to ever give it its fair due and admit it gets things right and deserves a chance to exist in peace and security too.
You don’t give them ‘fair due’, you deliberately engage in apologetics on their behalf.
Imagine for a second that someone said atheists should always be spoken against instead of Israel and how you would immediately think of and respond to that.
This is not even remotely similar to my positino on Israel’s conduct so piss off.
2) You aren’t actually answering my question. What word(s) describe and what company does it place one amongst when one always, immediately, instinctively and unthinkingly just hates on Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people? The variety of reasons they may choose to do so isn’t relevant here merely the fact that they do.
A direct example of your disingenuousness is right here. Your question was “Do you really think speaking against Israel is good? …Because you know what sort of company that puts you in, right?” Do you see that? Speaking against Israel’s actions has morphed into hatred of Israel and Jews.
The simple answer that you completely ignored is of course that criticising Israel’s actions simply puts one in the company of… people critical of Israel’s actions. A subset of which are bound to be bigots, yes, but you are spinning all critics as being the same as those bigots.
Your post continues by following up on 3, but a) the points you make are against what he says and like I already mentioned, I am not speaking for him, and b) talking to you about Israel’s particular policies has already been done fairly exhaustively in the past, and it never seems to be retained by your highly selective memory so I can’t be bothered wasting time with that again.
@ ^ Holms :
I was responding to a comment namely #11 atheistblog which is here in its entirely :
The word ‘Israel’ appears there -- the word “policies” does not. Reading comprehension fail on your part. As you admit I wasn’t even talking to you there but you seemingly feel happy to voluntarily leap in to defend someone unambiguously engaging in exceptionally blatant Israel bashing so do go ruminate on what that says about you.
You are putting words in my mouth and strawmonstering me as per usual there. I did NOT say what you are saying I said there. Try reading for comprehension and without prejudice for a change Holms.
So you can provide links to back up up eh? But you haven’t done so. Because?
Also the Gazans -- you mean Hamas and the population it controls and tyrannises I guess? Gee , you don’t suppose that has anything to do with all those rockets being fired from Gaza against innocent Israeli civilians indiscriminately at all or so many other acts of terrorism by Hamas do you? Yeah?
Still, ‘spose it was pretty callous of Israel to unilaterally hand Gaza back to its people (complete with extra greenhouses & other facilities they promptly destroyed*) only for the Gazans to choose to vote Hamas into power & use it as a rocket firing base complete with handy human shields -- but what was their and your preferred alternative? Giving it back to Egypt would’ve been mine but not sure if Egypt even wanted that old part of its territory back.
(FYI, btw, Jordan incidentally has revoked its old claim on the Judea and Samaria regions of the former Kingdom of David.)
Oh & also just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’ve ignored what you said or not read it. (Note also that having work and other committments mean I may not be instantly able to respond to you &, again, this doesn’t mean I haven’t or won’t read your arguments and links.)
Argh. Blockquote fail. Take II for clarity. (Sure wish we could edit here.) :
***
No, It was a direct reference to what atheistblog wrote in #11 here -scroll up and reread it yourself again if you don’t believe me. Atheistblog actually argued that criticism of Israel (NOT its policies – Israel) was somehow a good thing and lack of doing so bad. Right here in this thread. Also see my previous paragraph above again.
Yet you keep singling out Israel and only Israel for excessive and unjustified blame when pretty much any nation in their position would do the same or indeed much worse than they do. Go figure.
If you do think there are nations out there worse behaved than Israel and deserving of more criticism you sure coulda fooled me and, I dare say, most others here!
(What do you think would happen to Mexico if say a bunch of crazies took it over and vowed to destroy the USA and started firing rockets at US cities willy-nilly? Or, ditto, a bunch of crazies took over India and started firing rockets with genocidal intent at China? Or took over Yemen and started firing rockets at Saudi Arabia, etc ..?)
When I see a group or nation being bullied and attacked mercilessly and without reason by haters, I tend to stick up for that nation. That’s my idea of stepping in and giving people /nations a fair go, rather than ignoring bullying and injustice. What’s yours?
I do give Israel a fair go and do support its people’s right to live in peace without being attacked by religious extremist fanatics bent on their extermination. Can you (& atheistblog) really say the same?
I’ll take that as a failure of imagination and empathy as well as failure at seeing the parallel logic and situation on your part then. Thanks for proving me correct here although sad for you that you are seemingly so lacking as a thinker and a person.
No because atheistblog did NOT specify Israel’s actions xie said only “Israel” without qualification.
Again Holms, you have failed english reading comprehension. Not to my surprise.
Or even finding links that may actually show you haven’t really achieved and done what you claim you’ve said and done eh?
Human memories are fallible, people are imperfect, we have had a history of duelling and disagreeing very strongly on this issue of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security without Jihadist terrorists and their fellow travellers and enablers attacking it’s 8. 5 million individual Israeli humans.
So lets look at the evidence and lets look at the actual thread here and comments in question rather than rake over old wounds and scars eh?
* See : http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9331863/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/looters-strip-gaza-greenhouses/ among other sources.
***
Be nice if preview worked better here too esp. with spacing issues. In fairness, I guess I could do better with using it as well. Mea culpa.
#20
Yes? There’s nothing bigoted in that. He didn’t sepcify one way or the other what he meant by ‘speaking out against’ Israel, you have just assumed the worst from the lack of detail in his post.
Also, Don’t pretend you didn’t include me in that accusation. You openly said “and you I presume” while making that accusation against atheistblog in a post that was specifically directed at me by name.
This can only be a deliberate lie. You and I have participated in many threads here at FTB, therefore you have directly seen me be critical of many other people and policies.
Hopefully not warcrimes such as grossly disproportionate attacks on civilian populations.
Bullying? Pointing out the fact that certain behaviours are classified as war crimes is bullying now, is it? Of course it isn’t you’re just an apologist.
Oh and “without reason” are you fucking kidding me? I have always provided my reasoning when giving criticism. Why do you think my posts are always so long? I spend far too long in fact explaining perfectly obvious things to you at great length; you may disagree with my reasoning, but claiming that I never provided it is just a lie.
My idea of fairness involves judging based on actions and policies. It does not involve giving free reign to some nations and not others.
I don’t know athiestblog’s mind, but I can certainly say exactly that, yes. (Note that the right of a given nation to live in peace does not mean they are free to deny other nations that very same right.)
No, it’s actually a failure on the part of your analogy. Speaking against atheists <for being atheists is simply not analogous to speaking against Israel For Israel’s actions and policies.
Done that multiple times in past discussions and it didn’t do shit because you just forgot about it the next time the topic came up.
You have a very strong habit of starting arguments with points that have already been rebutted in previous threads. I’m not the only one that has noticed this, and I’m also not the only one that is sick of your blatantly disingenuous shittery. For a prime example of this, look at that last sentence. Implying that I disagree with Israelis having the right to live in peace? Fuck you, my criticisms have been based on Israel’s actions and policies the whole time, to the extent that I am tired of typing ‘actions and policies’ so often; you just haven’t the integrity to portray me honestly.
Since the topic has fallen well off the front page, and since it’s pointless trying to make you think honestly, this will be my last reply here.
@ ^ Holms :
Thing is, he did NOT say “Israel’s actions or policies” or anything else just speaking out against Israel -- so given the pattern of comments and attitudes and frequency of Israel bashing here why shouldn’t this be taken as anti-Israeli prejudice?
Because you jumped in to defend atheistblog & what he wrote in #11. You didn’t add any qualifers about it either.
Well, y’know what they say -- links or it didn’t happen! You haven’t backed up your case there even with other unsupported examples just your assertion.
Also I’m talking specifically about the comments in this thread right here.
You are asserting that Israeli self-defense is “grossly disproportionate war crimes” which is a view that I among many others would dispute and do not share. You are also willfully ignoring that Hamas (& Hezbollah, islamic Jihad etc ..) deserve the blame for the casualities inflicted by deliberately firing rockets from civilian areas. Eg see :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE3feo_b8Cg&list=PL3ZQ5CpNulQn5H2hHvv4ofm5NCgG5yu1t
(Wow, gee look I’m actually supporting my arguments with linked evidence. Something you have not done here.)
No, Arab nations and Jihadist groups constantly attacking and vilifying and trying to delegitimise Israel is what I am referring to as the bullying here. Please Holms, at least try to read for comprehension and keep up here.
No. I’m a human being who disagrees with you for very good reasons on this contentious issue.
Really? Scrolls up to #15 Holms above here. Oh I don’t think so! Neither long nor really explanatory actually. Which, btw, makes you the liar here and projecting your own faults against me.
So actions like, Hamas firing rockets at innocent people or Israel trying to warn civilians before they hit targets in densely populated areas? Policies like the Arab nations refusing to recognise another nation has a right to exist as it pleases and trying to invade it, boycott it and delegitimise Israel for just existing as a Jewish state? If you really did what you claim you do, I do believe you’d be agreeing with me not arguing with me. The facts after all are on Israel’s side of this issue.
Israel isn’t denying any other nation the right to live in peace. It ha seven surrendered territory such as Gaza that others -not actually a nation -- have claimed. There has, FYI, never been an independent nation of Palestine. Israel has nonetheless tried to make peace with the Palestinians making them repeated generous offers which their leaders have repeatedly refused.
Atheistblog has also refused to back you up here -- maybe that says or implies something? (Maybe it doesn’t too? I don’t know but seems possible.)
But.
That.
Isn’t.
What.
Atheistblog.
Was.
Saying!
Get it? No? Atheistblog did NOT say against Israel’s policies or actions just against Israel! What part of that excatly do you fail to comprehend Holms? My analogy is an accurate representation and match to the words atheistblog said. You somehow seem unable to grasp that. Beats me why. Except I guess if you did grasp it then Holms you would have to admit you are in the wrong here -- can’t just be that can it?
Links or it didn’t happen. Again my not accepting your opinions and providing my own perspective instead doesn’t mean I’ve forgotten that you think them or make you correct.
Or you don’t like what an honest view of you, Holms, looks like. Again, I notice you have failed to support what you have wrongly asserted here and are resorting to personal abuse instead of reasonable argumentation.
So with a last bit of unsupported insulting Bold Sir Holms has run away,. boldly run away, away! When reality rears its factual head Brave Holms he tucked his tail & fled! (With apologies to Monty Python.)
Oh well, I’ll take that as your admission of defeat here I guess.
@StevoR This is an off-topic comment on an old post, but I wish you were capable of at least understanding why Palestinians are fighting Israel. They are under military occupation with very little civil rights and very restricted freedom of movement. That is obviously unacceptable, and it shouldn’t be hard to understand why they are rebelling, including in terroristic ways. Any people would react in similar ways. That’s to say nothing of the many more ethnically cleansed and dispersed to other countries in 1948. I know there was Arab aggression too, but that’s what happened, so can you at least understand the grievance?
The best option would obviously be a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can determine their own lives as freely as possible from each other. You mentioned that Israel has made “repeated generous offers which their leaders have repeatedly refused”, but have you looked into those offers and why Palestinians refused them? They have mostly involved dividing Palestinian lands into multiple disconnected enclaves, where movement between major Palestinian population centres would still be under foreign (i.e. Israeli) control. That was what was offered at Camp David in 2000, for instance. Why would any national movement accept that?
@ ^ patrick2 : Because its a hell of a lot better than what they have and the best they can reasonably expect maybe?
Yes, it would really suck (understatement) to be a Palestinian. I’m very glad I’m not one and feel pity for those who are.
They are people too. I do know that.
But they cannot solve their problems by keeping hating on Israel and trying to kill people -- Israeli and also non-Israeli.
I’d like to see their plight resolved but it won’t be resolved by whilst they have the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad acting as their leaders nor whilst they keep committing acts of terrorism and denying the reality that Israel exists and will remain a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capital. That city ain’t gunna be divided again any more than Berlin is.
I think it may be time for them to consider the 8 state solution :
http://palestinianemirates.com/
Seriously as the best practicable option available to them. Don’t ya think so?
PS. Also the idea that the Palestinians keeping on with violence , Jihadism and terrorism as ways to get what they want fits the very definition of insanity -- trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Where do Hamas really think their tactics and atrocities are going to get them after this long? What have their brutalities their hatreds, their multidinous killings and crimes got them so far? Where have they lead them?
At the very least isn’t it time they stopped doing the shit they’ve done so far?
Isn’t it time Palestinian culture recognised the humanity of the Israeli side and stopped demonising them?
I agree violent resistance has been a terrible strategy, since it benefits nobody but the Israeli right. I’m more in line with people like Norman Finkelstein, who argue a non-violent based resistance would be better in winning the conflict. Not because Israel would be more willing to come to a fair agreement, but because it would isolate and pressure Israel diplomatically.
The 8 state solution you mentioned has been Israel’s strategy for about 20 years now, and it’s an obvious fig-leaf for continued land grabs and domination of Palestinian lives. South Africa tried a similar approach called the Bantustans, involving putting blacks into disconnected enclaves and taking everything else. Nobody would agree to that.
I don’t think Palestinian national aspirations deserve less respect than Israel’s. That’s why I said the best option would be a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can determine their own lives as freely as possible from each other. Most other options (one state or 8 states) I believe would just prolong the conflict.
@ ^ patrick2 : Problem is the Palestinians have already turned down the two state solution -- many times over many decades.
When do we take their “no” to it as final?
Um no they haven’t? You can’t just make stuff up.
@ ^ patrick2 : Er .. you really haven’t followed and don’t know much about the history of this issue clearly!
I’m not making up any facts here because the palestinians have indeed repeatedly rejected two state solutions going back to before they were even called palestinians.
FYI. A brief but accurate history for you :
1947 The UN divides its former mandate (ex-British, pre WW1 ex-Ottoman province) into a Jewish state and an Arab one. The Jewish side accepts this, the Arab nations immediately invade and attempt to exterminate the Jews. The Arabs fortunately lose badly. Israel survives winning its War of Independence which the Arabs call a catastrophe (they think its literally a catastrophe that they failed to massacre millions of people.) and Egypt and Jordan take over the Arab areas of what is now considered “palestine” without either nation indicating it would grant those “palestinian” areas any independence.
1967, 1973 Arab armies again attempt to invade and destroy Israel with the publicly declared goal of committing genocide against the Israeli and Jewish peoples. These result again in crushing defeats for the Arab aggressors and they consequently lose the territories of Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria. (The latter two areas are often incorrectly termed The West Bank i.e. West Jordan. Jordan revoked any claim to these areas in 1988.)
Following the failure of the Arab military to annihilate Israel, the Arabs inside these “occupied territories” (which generally previously thought of themselves as Arabs and if anything South Syrians) name themselves palestinians and start a campaign of terrorism supported by the USSR and Arab dictatorships. There are several warring groups of these terrorists but they largely come to be represented and led by Egyptian born terrorist leader Yasser Arafat. His PLO begins by demanding Israel’s extermination and indeed the extermination of Jews worldwide. (See : wikipedia . org / wiki/ Palestinian_National_Covenant -- “Events before 1998”.Link broken for moderation.)
The PLO claims to govern the palestinians but gets driven out of many nations Incl. notably Jordan after a failed attempt to take over that nation in 1970 and Lebanon after taking part in a horrific civil war there in the 1980’s. Meanwhile other palestinians inside Israel attempt a violent uprising (“intifada”) isolating them from their supposed internationally wandering terrorist leaders.
Arafat then decides to try diplomacy and in 1993 the PLO and Israel under Yitzhak Rabin & Shimon Peres sign the Oslo accords. Israel generously offers the PLO control over several areas in Judea and Samaria and Gaza and allows Arafat and the PLO to return to these parts of Israel. Unfortunately Arafat has no intention of actually making peace and governing decently and the palestinians resume violence and terrorism including the start of homicide-suicide bombings by PLO Fatah faction group Al Aqsa martyrs brigade as well as the first Hamas and Islamic Jihad attacks. Arafat is also caught trying to smuggle weapons in from Iran by sea. (See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karine_A_Affair -- proof of Arafat’s bad faith among many other proofs.) Constant peace talks during this period finally conclusively fail in the Camp David 2000 Summit after Israeli PM Ehud :
The palestinians then start a second even more violent initifada during which Arafat loses control of much of the territories and is confined to his Ramallah compound. Meanwhile Hamas rises in strength and influence and seriously challenges the corrupt Fatah Arafat faction of palestinian leadership. Arafat dies in 2004, a failed terrorist and dictator leaving his PLO faction -- now called the PA in charge of some areas of palestinian claimed land.
Israel then decides to unilaterally leave Gaza in 2005 handing it over to the Gazans complete with greenhouses and other infrastructure constructed by Jewish settlers who the IDF forcibly evicts. (See link in #20 above here.) The palestinians then have a civil war following electiosn where Hamas wins and Fatah refuses toabdide by the verdict. Hamas take over Gaza and massacres many Ftaah members. Hamas has a charter explictly denying peace and calling for Israel’s total destruction. Hamas commences firing rockets at Israeli cities and several recurring Gazan wars have since ensued.
Note that throughout this that Israel has repeatedly signed and kept agreements aimed at swapping land for peace which the palestinians have either rejected or failed to honour. The palestinians have repeatedly resorted to violence whereas Israel has voluntarily given up a considerable amount of land especially remarkable for such a small and beseiged nation. Sometimes these “land for peace” deals have worked notably with Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula. More often the Israelis have suffered attacks from the land they have chosen to hand over. (Gaza, the PA run areas of Judea and Samaria.)
The palestinians have indeed rejected many peace plans and deals and the Arabs have also continually refused to accept Israel’s right to exist and live in peace and security as every nation deserves. Oh & when the Arabs could have created a palestinian state by themselves e.g. between 1948-67 they choose not to do so and the Arabs have also created the palestinian refugee situation by refusing to resettle refugees who fled in their various wars aimed to destroying the world’s only tiny Jewish nation. Israel, OTOH, has resettled all its refugees who have fled Islamic & Communist persecution in other lands.
This is all factual material and undeniable historical reality which should be -- but isn’t -- widely known and understood.
Guess now you know!
^ Correction -- Arafat then pretends to try diplomacy with the Oslo accords.
The PLO despite its diplomatic pretense and claims otherwise remained a terrorist organisation as indeed was proven by law in the Sokolow et al v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokolow_et_al_v._Palestine_Liberation_Organization_et_al
Hamas, Hezbollah,Islamic Jihad and other palestinian groups have rarely if ever even pretended at being anything other than terrorists.