I think not.
According to this impeccable source, the aging of Jarlsberg cheese renders its content of CLA lower than non-aged cheeses and thus impairs its cancer-righting ability. And why, pray tell, is Israel so little known for its cheeses compared to other nations? Could it be that TPTB in Israel actually want to promote cancer to aid in Ethnic Cleansing?
You can’t prove it isn’t so.
The reason I contest the assertion that what she said wasn’t any sort of bigotry is that making unreasonable, negative and ignorant generalizations as to a whole group of people, even when based on quite legitimate grievances, is what “bigotry” is. An irrational hatred based purely on racial or ethnic animus totally divorced from historic context is actually a rather unusual form of bigotry - most has at least some basis (real or fictive) in some sort of alleged grievance. Explaining the grievance does not make what is bigotry into non-bigotry, it merely explains where the bigotry is coming from.
For example - if right after 9/11 someone had said “all Muslims should get out of America and go the hell back to where they came from!” I’d consider that bigotry, because even though a lot of anger at the perps of 9/11 is totally understandable in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack, it is irrational to blame “Muslims” as a whole for it. One could point out that almost no actual Muslims in America had anything to do with the attack, that Muslims are not a unified whole (what one Muslim does in the name of his religion does not thereby reflect on all Muslims, everywhere), and that it makes no sense to spread the blame in this way, that most Muslims in America were in fact born there - in short, one would react in the exact same way as one would react to her comments.
I think everybody is over complicating her remarks. The nexus of middle east problems is the existence of Israel. If it didn’t exist, if all the occupants left, much of the animosity in the area would subside.
Of course that is impossible. There are a lot of Israelis who were born there and it is their home. Most of the ones that migrated there long ago are dead.
She was just being flip ,suggesting if Israel didn’t exist ,there would not be that problem. In no way was she actually advocating a policy of shipping the inhabitants back to where their original families came from.
It appears that we are much much closer in our idea than we thought.
And you’re right, elbows got it.
The bigger question to me is: when she dies, does she get to be roomies with Marge Schott in heaven?
Also, I have it on good word that she’s just accepted a speaking tour of Iranian universities and concert halls at the personal invitation of President Ahmadinejad himself.
How about something like 'the nexus of the American racial problem is the existance of Blacks. If Blacks didn’t exist, if they all left, many of the racial issues in the US would disappear. Of course that’s not possible. Most US Blacks were born there and it is their home. Calling for all Blacks to leave America is just being flip, suggesting if it were not for the unfortunate legacy of slavery, there wouldn’t be a problem … '.
I think one of the things that annoys some people is that Israel insists that the negotiations be on their terms. Terms that reward the building of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and in other places that are designed to nudge the borders of the two state solution.
There is some debate regarding whether millions are indded starving or merely suffering from malnutrition :rolleyes:
Remember in the other thread where evidence was produced that conclusively demonstrated that the inhabitants of Gaza were in every respect measurable more healthy now, under the blockade, than they were before the blockade was imposed? Longer lifespan, less infant mortality, etc.?
How that can be described as “starving millions”, I’m not sure.
And yes, I was surprised by that evidence, too. Like you, I’d bought into the oft-repeated narrative of suffering. But the objective evidence doesn’t support it.
That reminds me of how the American South used to say that the negroes were better off under slavery than they were without it.
Both sides have conditions that they consider non-negotiable. Personally, I would like to see the Israelis stop building settlements. But I don’t see the Israeli side as any more intransigent in it’s conditions than the Palestinians. I do agree that there is a sizable minority on both sides that does not want peace with the other side. But lumping all the blame on Israel isn’t right, and it isn’t what is going to move the process forward.
Nor is telling the Israelis to go home to Germany, which is what this thread is actually about.
Not a very good analogy. I’m not claiming that the Gazans should be happy that they are blockaded - I’m arguing, based on objective evidence, to refute a specific claim - that they are “starving” or “malnourished” as a result of the blockade.
They aren’t, and claiming that they are is, simply put, incorrect.
From memory, there were references claiming IIRC 70% of kids being anaemic and an arseload having vitamin A deficiency due to diet. That is malnutrition.
The most sane and on the money post in this thread.
Again from memory (I could be wrong in this, it’s a long-ass thread so I haven’t actually looked it up), my recollection was that the rates of anemia and deficiency were not greater than in Gaza prior to the blockade.
Moreover, I definitely remember that life expectancy went up and rate of infant mortality went down during the blockade.
How is that consistent with ‘starvation’ resulting from the blockade?
I don’t remember seeing a claim that anemia was down. It was cited pretty definitively that people in Gaza are living longer and have lower infant mortality today than they did 10 years ago. (I posted some of those cites.) It’s possible that conditions have changed recently, maybe because some items were put on the blockade list. I don’t know.
Claim I recall (again could be wrong - I’d rather be wrong than have to look through 1,000 posts again!) was not that it was down, but rather that it wasn’t up.
Israel doesn’t have to dissolve herself, she can abandon zionism and the injustices that are necessary to maintain it.
You keep using the words “Zionist” and “Zionism” in a manner that shows you have no clue what either mean, or you’re deliberately misusing them. Saying that Israel won’t have to be dissolved, it’ll just abandon "Zionism"m is either ignorant nonsense or willful doubletalk. Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have self-determination and a homeland. Saying that should end is, indeed, saying that Israel should be dissolved. It’s like saying you don’t believe that America should be dissolved but its government and national identity should be removed and it should be ruled by Mexico and Canada in the future.
Nobody would offer that position seriously, let alone take it seriously if offered. And yet you evidently offer the same deal for Israel, with a straight face.
Likewise claiming that Jews, out of all the peoples of the world who are afforded self determination cannot be granted it without “injustice” being necessary is an absurdity. Tellingly, granting the Palestinians self determination doesn’t entail any “injustice” in your view. Go figure.
I think a lot of the resentment in the region stems from the events surrounding Israel’s creation and has been perpetuated by the Palestinian refugee crisis.