Just in:
Sure as hell the US of A has an uppity President. I mean, how dare he demand such a thing from Israel?
I’m simply outraged, don’t know about you.
Rahm. Emanuel.
You accused him of being a traitor to his home for no other reason that that he’s a Jew and you’re a racist.
If you deny this, explain why you even included him on the list in the first place. Then we can touch on some others, but he’s by far the easiest example that proves that you were just hunting for any Jews in politics so you could accuse them of Dual Loyalty. Show how I’m wrong, at least try to point out anything about Emanuel’s behavior leads you to accuse him of treachery, or admit that you’re just a racist who’s willing to slander any Jew as a traitor because you have a problem with Jews.
Go for it. Make your case against Emanuel.
Asked and answered. But not not, in turn, by you.
Color me not surprised.
So by “asked and answered”, you mean you do admit that you had absolutely no valid reason to slander the man, and you’re a racist who accused him of treachery simply because he’s a Jew whose name you happened to remember?
Just so we’re on the same page.
While I’m at it, you shrugged off your slander of Tenet with a joke and then tried to change the subject (shocka!) but how did a non-Jew end up on your list of Traitor Jews? What criteria, exactly, are you using other than whether or not they’re in politics and you think they’re a Jew? Nor was your apology for accidentally slandering the man, but for accidentally calling him a Jew. Funny, that.
Let’s look at a few others, shall we?
-Michael Chertoff, he’s a Jew. Now why don’t you explain why you accused him of treachery in service of a foreign power?
-Eric Lynn, Obama’s liaison to the Jewish community who helped sell Obama’s policies and now a political adviser. Identify why you accused him of treachery in service of a foreign power.
-Lee Feinstein, worked on the Non-Proliferation Project, worked as a political advisor. Why did you accuse him of being a traitor, or did his last name just ‘sound Jewish’ to you?
-David Axelrod, a political strategist and one of the chief architects of Obama’s campaign. Why did you accuse him of being a traitor, or was it just another case of you remembering someone whose name sounded Jewish to you?
-Elliot Abrams, he committed the (grave) of serving as an advisor during the US’ handling of the Israel-Hezbollah war of 2006. Is this just an example of you finding any Jew whose political opinions might disagree with your, and using classic anti-Semitic slurs to tarnish his reputation?
-Kenneth Adelman, same deal, a guy whose politics you disagree with (I guess supporting the Iraq War and then saying that it was a horrible mistake) so you get a bit racist on his ass?
-David Frum, yet another guy who you have political disagreements with, so you think it’s okay to use racist filth to slander him as a traitor?
Just curious, and to be honest I’d like to use you as an object lesson about the insidiously pedestrian nature of modern anti-Semitism. I’ll also be using your fellow travelers in this thread as object lessons as well. Let’s see how many have the courage to call you out for your behavior, and how many are willing to turn a blind eye to racism as long as the racist is using that sludge to rail against Israel or Traitorous Jewish Control of The United States.
So either support your insinuations, or admit that the facts come second to your racism. Either way, should be fun. (Or, I guess, try to change the subject with another link to something that you’re angry with Israel about)
Stop dancing, Finn Wannabe Ali. My response leaves no room for revision hard as you try.
Is Emauel, as alleged per supplied link, a “traitor” to Israel or not? Stop skirting your response.
Apropos of nothing, even if French, I really enjoyed the first two Emmanuelle movies. Did you?
Trying to carry a conversation with a deranged person is not easy. Wonder if that’s enough to claim “victim status.”?
Not that I want it of course, as this whole exchange is rather entertaining. And no skin off my back I might add.
As for “being on the same page,” sure, when kosher pigs fly.
Back to you,** FrothAgain**.
There’s no need for ‘revision’. You accused someone of being a traitor simply because he was a Jew who happened to be in politics. You’ve slandered quite a few other people who are Jews (or who at least have Jewish sounding names) as traitors for no other reason than that factor. What’s so complicated? It’s not like it’s hard to figure out why you’d do such a thing.
Like I said, I didn’t expect you to grow a pair and defend your accusations or explain how you made quite so many ‘mistakes’, but I will happily use you as an object lesson. Call it “an internet toughguy racist in his natural habitat (while scurrying)”
Now we just see if any of your fellow travelers have enough integrity to point out that your brand of racism is disgusting and should not be tolerated by people of good character.
I’m thinking we’ll hear crickets, but hey, one or two may surprise me.
So, when are you two kids gonna tie the knot, eh?
There was no “pre-existing nationalities” - nationality is a 19th century concept.
There were Irish, ‘Old English’ Anglo Norman, and Danish principalities over a hodge podge of Irish and Anglo-Norman populations.
Neither did the English over the Irish, as the very idea would not exist for several hundred years.
Catholic versus Protestant however is rather more relevant. Religious identity.
As any other geography one cares to look at in the world.
The false contrast between supposed Irish nationalities and the Palestinian case is hard to understand as relevant except in a subtle effort to deny legitimacy to the later.
That entirely missed the point…
Rand Rover?
Why is Israel’s “alleged” nuclear weapons stockpile a taboo subject? Can anyone answer that? Its like everyone knows they have them but nobody ever wants to talk about it and Israel doesn’t admit to it. Its very strange.
If Obama refused to talk about Israel’s nuclear program, if Israel doesn’t admit to having one, then why would Obama call on them to sign the NPT?
Probably pointless but
Actually that cite indicates that as of 1945, 48.5% as owned, and 40.16% unassigned / non cultivated. It also cites 85% of cultivatable lands as being in Arab hands. Odd the 2nd one wasn’t mentioned, but nevertheless.
In any case, the figures are from two different dates, and different focus. Apples and oranges.
Now as to Spoke’s aside regarding the Irish case, his whole point was drawing a comparison between the exploitation of an occupier of the vagaries of law, to disenfranchise with legal fig-leaf. The English crown did so in Ireland, Frothy sets forth this argument in perfect step with the legalisic rationalisation of what is very simply expropriation exploiting the weaknesses of traditional style land holding (as generally the case in colonial rule of the European empires where one wanted to get hands on valuable land):
Funny, when one reads development literature nowadays regarding emerging markets, a lot of emphasis is put on dead capital and the positive impact of accounting for traditional land holding forms, and helping to convert those into legally recognizable title.
Certainly, ethno-nationalism was a 19th century concept. However, equally certainly, those who inhabited Ireland (mostly Catholic) considered themselves occupied and oppressed by those who considered themselves “English” (mostly Protestant) - because there were pre-existing polities belonging to the former that were invaded by the latter. Hence, such fine traditional tunes as Éamonn an Chnoic - Wikipedia 
Again, a distinction without a difference for this argument. There is no doubt that there was one group, identifiable as a community, that felt oppressed by another, invading group who dispossesed them by force.
I dispute that the 'idea" of a distinction between the English and the Irish did not exist prior to the late 19th century rise of ethno-nationalism. That would have been a surprise I think to Oliver Cromwell. Fact is that they spoke different languages, had a different heritage, and in most cases a different religion. The English had been invading Ireland since at least Elizabethan times …
This was entirely unlike the relationship between Palestinian Arabs and Turks.
The “contrast” is between the history of how Potestant Anglo-Irish ended up in Ireland and how the Jewish Israelis ended up in Israel. My point is that the history of the two is quite unlike in all the ways that matter - Jews immigrated at first quite legitimately to what was then a province of the Ottoman Empire, and purchased the land they settled on. Your objection appears to be, as best as I can understand it, that this process wasn’t really legitimate because it disregarded pre-existing Palestinian rights because the laws were skewed against the Palestinians - analogous to the settlement of the Anglo-Irish in Ireland.
The “contrast” here is in the identity of the occupying power and its relationship with the communities in issue. In Ireland, the “occupying power” was English and thus the ‘rules’ of land ownership etc. were naturally skewed in favour of Anglo settlers and against the non-Anglo native inhabitants, who were subdued by military force. In Palestine, the "occupying power’ was Turkish, and had absolutely no interest whatsoever is favouring Jews over Arabs. Their system of land ownership, in short, did not have the colonial implications that are the very subject of the analogy in the first place.
On the contrary: what exactly was the point of the Irish analogy? If I’ve missed it in my summary above, or mis-stated it, please eludicate.
The modern-day West Bank, and Israeli government-supported “settlements” there.
Did you really not get that, or are you just as strenuous an evader as the target of the OP?
The point of the Irish analogy in my eyes, is that if the English had tried bombing and bulldozing them into submission, our conflict would still be ongoing.
Instead of exporting them, or making self-exile necessary simply to support themselves, you mean?
I was no supporter of the English involvement with NI either, but I’m still sure we showed more restraint than the Israeli’s have towards Palestinians.
You called them nationalities. Irish as Irish national identity emerged rather later.
Of course some of the Irish were ‘Old English’ Anglo Normans who were also Catholic, and while considering themselves “English” also opposed the New English.
Therewas not a “nationality” but tribal and non-national feudal states (the Anglo Normans, Danes, & Irish all in a mix).
Without a difference?
Bollocks. The “identifiable” community was not a community - again the case of the Old English opposition to the New English. It was multiple communities.
No different than the case of the Palestinians.
Yes, but then that’s not the bloody point that Spoke was making nor the argument.
First, this was Spoke’s argument, I simply have elaborated on the logic.
He was rather obviously - to everyone but you and Frothy - not focused on the Ottoman period, but on the Mandate and Post Mandate period. Going on about the Ottoman period is besides the point.
I would think, whether one likes the analogy or not - and I find myself defending an analogy I am not entirely sure about out of sheer frustration at it being misrepresented, but I can easily see the logic of it - that it should be clear enough. I understood at least right out. It should not genuinely confuse someone who is not seeking confusion.
Spoke’s analogy didn’t have anything to do with Israeli settlements in the West Bank, though. His analogy was being used to challenge Jewish land ownership in Mandate Palestine. He wasn’t saying that Jews don’t have legitimacy in the West Bank; he was saying that Jews don’t have legitimacy in Israel.
From the post setting up the analogy (bolding mine)
He’s making the analogy explicit. The Jewish settlements in Israel/Mandate Palestine were bought by Jews from the landlords who owned the land.
Honestly, if all the people in this thread were saying was that Israel should pull out of the west bank, I don’t think it would be a big deal. But that’s not what people are saying. Spoke- is saying that the Jews who first settled in Israel didn’t have the right to buy the land, wmfellows is saying that the Palestinian Mandate didn’t have any intention of setting up an Israeli state, and Redfury is saying that Palestinians owned 90% the country that’s now Israel, and that Israel stole that land from them.
This isn’t the Israeli right to the West Bank that’s being argued about, it’s the Israeli right to Israel.
Wait a cotton picken’ second.
I was the one asking what point was being argued, remember?
You guys (meaning you and Elvis) are now pointing out two wholly different time-periods (the Mandate and post-Mandate periods in your case, and “The modern-day West Bank, and Israeli government-supported “settlements” there” in the case of Elvis) and you are both saying that this is “obviously” or “clearly enough” the period under discussion.
Both of you meanwhile are claiming I’m “seeking confusion” (in your case) or “as strenuous an evader as the target of the OP” (in the case of Elvis).
Yet you two do not agree between yourselves on the time-period I should “obviously” have known the argument was about.
Incedentally, here is what Spoke replied when I asked what the Irish analogy argument was about:
Seems not unreasonable to me that the issue was the original settlement of what is now Israel by Jewish Israelis. However, if that is not the issue, I can hardly be faulted for that - I’ve asked twice now, and as I’ve said, you two don’t even agree with each other.