Discussion in 'Political Science' started by AshenLady, Apr 1, 2011.
I don't see Palestine on the chart... or are you referring to Israel in general?
I don't think that's a fair characterization. Sure, it would be if Netanyahu had his way, but he's not an emperor, nor is Israeli a monolithic population. It's Israelis that will defeat the theocrats in Israel after all.
Likkud is probably less a threat than Hamas. But the two groups help one another more than they help either of their peoples.
Hardliners seem incapable of understanding things systematically. We just have to hope that somewhere down the line, the adults take over the conversation on both sides.
Netanyahu has gotten his way..
Israel will reach a tipping point in terms of demographics.. Then what?
Obama is NOT the enemy.. Every US president since Eisenhower has tried to facilitate a just peace.
I agree with you mostly, but not on the idea that Netanyahu has gotten his way.
Weren't there just mass protests and uprisings in Israel against him, chickens coming home to roost on the subject of his favoritism toward fundamentalist orthodox Jews.
The rest of his people suffer because of his policies.
He may be winning now, but Netanyahu will be out soon and something tells me Likkud winning the next election is not a given.
Yes.. there have been mass demonstrations.. as many as 400,000 people.
It has been predicted many times over the past 5 years that young Israelis and American Jewry cannot be herded by the old fear of there being another Holocaust just around the corner.
That's the belief that gives Zionism its power..
So, in your mind, peace won't exist until Hamas, an organization whose stated goal is to destroy Israel, is governing a sovereign state of Palestine? See the disconnect, there?
This is typical liberal thinking. Regardless if something is actually grounded in reality, as long as it fits the ideology, it becomes the standard.
You have no evidence at all that peace will be possible once Palestine is a separate nation. It could make the situation worse for all you know. Once all that free aid stops flowing through Israel's borders on the way to Palestine, what are these people going to do to sustain themselves?
Not with Hamas running the show. Their mission is clear, and peace is not applicable.
They don't all have to be fundamentalists. According to recent polls, 73% want their society to run on Sharia. Unless you want to school me on the positive aspects of Sharia (don't bother), I'd call that a pretty large percentage of fundamentalists.
There is a lot of Islamic culture that you are probably not familiar with. You are choosing to see Palestinians as nothing more than a group of individuals, when their culture actually stands against this kind of individualism. They see themselves as part of the ummah, which is a worldwide brotherhood of Muslims, and a collective identity. This identity transcends borderlines. The religion of Islam specifically singles out Jews as the "vilest of all creatures" and the one that God will punish the most. They believe that a prophesy was made long ago that eventually a global religious war will erupt between the Muslims and everybody else, and that the Muslims will win. This prophesy is where they get the idea that, in the end of times, even the stones will say to the Muslims "There is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him."
It has a lot to do with the religion. Read the Qur'an and you will see that yourself. It's the unflattering truth that Muslims would prefer you didn't know about.
But, I actually agree with you here, Palestine has no incentive to make peace. They would have less incentive to make peace if they were granted their own state. They would be empowered.
So, Hamas, a terrorist organization, is not our enemy? Maybe not under Obama's leadership.
That's nothing more than an unsupported hypothesis, fed by your own anti-Christian bias. You can throw out as many "if then" scenarios as you wish, but you can't point to a single country where Christian fundamentalists are causing anywhere near the same amount of problems as Muslim fundamentalists. That's why your fellow liberals desperately try to blame Christianity for the entire US military. It's perhaps the most desperate tactic out there for establishing a moral equivalence, but it's understandable, considering how badly your multicultural experiment is failing with Muslims.
And no, the mentality is not the same. You won't find Christian fundamentalists cutting people's heads off with kitchen knives on the internet. Even if you do, it won't cancel out the dozens of Islamic videos that are freely available for all to see.
The way I think of it: Christian fundamentalists are going to follow the example of Jesus, while Muslim fundamentalists are going to follow the example of Muhammad. Look up the two very different biographies of these men and you'll start seeing a difference.
The latter, of course, being much more rational and less problematic than the former, despite your insistence that they are mirror images (inb4 another "poverty" excuse....)
All people are not the same. All cultures are not the same. Multiculturalism is a lie, pure and simple. The sooner the world realizes that, the better off it will be. You can't have a reasoned debate with an Islamist. He'll just kill you for insulting his religion.
In that case, most Christians are going to be labeled as "fundamentalists" by you and your ilk. I actually don't mind this definition, though, because when applied to Muslims, it supports my argument that Islam is an intolerant, totalitarian religion that represents a unique threat to the West.
But, I'm sure the Muslims who strictly follow the Qur'an are not "fundamentalists" to you. I'm sure you'd reserve a less loaded word for them, like "devout".
This, again, assumes that Palestinians are rational people who would give some of their own consideration in the peace making process. Not going to happen. It will be the West's responsibility to establish peace, and it will ultimately fail. Then, the name of the game will be either appeasement or force. Diplomacy isn't going to bring peace to that area of the world.
Your solution to attaining peace is "anti-Israel" because only Israel will be harmed by your theorizing. What would you demand from the Palestinians or any of Israel's other violent neighbors? The liberal solution is to take from Israel and give to the Arabs, even when they maintain that Israel's destruction is the only solution for attaining peace.
What do you suggest? Stop buying oil? How is Obama and his wife going to take two separate jets to Martha's Vineyard without oil?
Like I said, it really sucks that we have to give money to the Saudis, but what choice do we have? Liberals don't like us drilling in our own country, so we are dependent on foreign oil.
The Palestinians and Israeli's that you are palling around with in your liberal fantasy are very different from the real world Israeli's and Palestinians. These two groups are in two different worlds. How can you reconcile this and attempt to play both sides? I don't see how it's possible. The overwhelming majority will support one side over the other. The fact that you are a self-professed liberal and are arguing on behalf of the Palestinians, I have a pretty good idea on which side you would fall.
The idea is unrealistic.
So, compromise or die, is what you are saying. Why is it not the fault of the Arabs or the Iranians for actively seeking out nuclear weapons to use against Israel? Why is it Israel's fault for not bending over to its neighbors?
Has any other President besides Obama asked Israel to give up land to appease their Muslim neighbors?
Well, if there is another Holocaust against the Jews, we would have a pretty good clue who would be the Nazis, this time.
We don't need to look towards a mythical future when the Zionists of Israel with their aparthied/racist State of Israel are following Nazi's policies with their treatment of the non-Jewish citizens and residents of Palestine. There was fundamentally no difference between the invasion of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 than there was related to Germany's invasion of Poland and Europe that started WW II. Palestinians are being removed from their homes and their business and isolated just as the Jews were in Europe by the Nazi's. There is no fundamental difference.
Extermination of the non-Jewish population in Palestine is not out of the question for many Zionists. The Zionist controlled Israeli government has a long record of human Rights abuses against the non-Jewish population of Palestine very similiar to the Nazi's. First isolate the non-Jewish population in refugee camps and then attack those camps with artillery and air strikes to murder the refugees. How many times have we seen this happen in the past?
It is not the "Jews" that are opposed but instead the extremist Zionists that have maintained control of the Israeli government since it's inception that is opposed. We're talking about a nation that elected known terrorists to the highest levels of government. It is a nation controlled by extremists that ignore international law and the treaties it is a party to. It is a rogue nation that has repeatedly attacked its neighbors, that supports racism and aparthied, and that has a long history of tyranny.
The actions of the Zionist controlled Israeli government need to be opposed by all People that believe in the unalienable Rights of the Individual which the Israeli government denies and violates on a routine basis.
Most Moslems are like Catholics, listen to their priests more than reading some book. What the priests say is not the same in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Also Syria is an enemy of both Israel and the fundamentalists (a religious minority in power). Only the Wahhabis are the equivalent of Evangelicals. Among the Palestinians the secularists having failed they may now give support to the fundamentalists but have not always.
Wahhabis are more like Calvinists.
If they had a strong belief in predestination they would follow the creed of "Gods Will" (inshallah) instead of taking fate in their own hands and believing they can be blessed through their actions.
Wahhab taught against the innovations that arrived on the Arabian peninsula with the Ottoman Empire..
He objected to the reintroduction of icons and household idols.. and the internse, convoluted legalisms..
I am not sure I understand you.. Are you opposed to people fighting occupation forces?
I am not interested in derogating evangelicals, only drawing a rough parallel. But you seem interested in defending them. If one must draw a distinction then perhaps salafists are more like evangelicals. There is the parallel of the necessity for being second born and regarding all other Moslems as infidels, and the need for "preaching and combat". I believe evangelicals are most active in abortion violence, Army of God seems an organisation with evangelical roots.
I am against deliberate targeting of civilians by any side.
I spent two decades living around Wahhabis.. They aren't like evangelicals.
The Wahhabis have aggressively fought terrorism for more than a decade.
Fault is not really the issue.
I think that's where people get caught up, and it impedes the ability to come up with working solutions.
"Justice" is a flaky enough topic with individuals; when collective "justice" is involved, all that can happen is war without end.
The real issue isn't the Democrats turning against Israel but the fact that liberals and conservatives alike that believe in the unaliemable Rights of all People are turning against the tyranny of Israel related to the non-Jewish population of Palestine. The same people that opposed aparthied in S Africa are the same people that oppose the aparthied State of Israel today. The ethnic cleansing that Israel is attempting in Palestine is unaccepable for all of us that believe that all People have the same unalienable Rights.
What is interesting is that worldwide more and more Jews are becoming very critical of the Zionist controlled government of Israel. Even they are beginning to recognize that what the Israeli government is doing is wrong.
IMO its not so much the dems turned anti-jewish, but less pro jewish and more jewish neutral. After all, no politician can survive without the help of the jewish owned, operated, and filtered broadcast media. To be anit-jewish would be political suicide. In fact, jewish have a large watchdog group called the anti-defication league to monitor all media broadcast and political broadcast to ensure knowone says anything negative about jewish, and that no person will say anything pro palestinian.
This has been developed in the late 1960s when jewish rule of broadcast media formed the anti-jewish organization to stop jewish comedians from making fun of jewish. As a result they sued many organizations and celeberaties because of their new found civil right to sue for defication.
But in reality, deep under the radar of what you have access to, the politicians must be all for jewish or the broadcast media and the anti-defication league will end thier lives with never ending law suits, and bad publicity. Pretty much like the Public Education Unions and associaions in the States of the uSA. Some call it extortion on the American taxpayer, proponents call it their legal right.
It would be my belief that the Israeli/Zionist propaganda is finally breaking down and more information becomes available on the internet. Certainly the media played a big role in the past by only passing on the information that the "Zionists" wanted the American people to hear but because propaganda is predominately a half-truth when the full truth comes to light the propaganda fails.
Many have learned of the atrocities committed by the Zionist movement in Palestine that lead up to the Israeli Declaration of Independence which was a declaration of war against the non-Jewish population of Palestine in 1948. We've learned that the 6-Day War was not about Israel defending itself against an Arab invasion but instead was a war for territorial acquistion. We know that the Israeli government sanctions illegal settlements on Palestinian land through it's inaction. We know that today's "Zionists" want an apartheid state occupying all of Palestine. We know it because of their actions that can no longer be contained by a 60 second propaganda piece on the evening news.
The inescapable irony of your post is that you start it by railing against the "Zionist propaganda" and immediately with no interruption begin regurgitating every talking point of the arab propaganda without any regard to facts and common sense.
Here is just one example - in 1967 six arab armies were massing troops and weapons on all Israeli borders (thousands of tanks, hundreds of thousands of troops), the Straits were illegally closed to Israeli shipping in violation of the existing armistice agreement, the UN peace keepers were kicked out of the Sinai by Egypt also in violation of the armistice agreement...never mind the "the day has come and we are about to drown the jews in their own blood" rhetoric coming from every arab capital, from every ruler and every general.
Let me also remind you that Israel immediately agreed to the terms of the "land for peace" resolution, that since the war it has given up 95% of the land it captured (in exchange for a piece of paper). So much for "territorial acquisition".
Needless to say that the rest of your post is similar baseless nonsense. But by all means don't let facts confuse you.
Short answer to the OP question: "When did the Dems turn anti-Israel?"
Jan 20, 2009.
I think the right question should have been :
<< when American citizen have been obliged to believe they could choose any position about Israel >>
Whatever the exact answer , that date has been posterior to the true moment where the choice not to support was still possible .
NO they weren't... In 1967 Egypt's forces were deployed in Yemen fighting the Saudi forces there.
Separate names with a comma.