Because it’s disrespectful. She then put a Palestinian one in its place. Most people would call that rude, to say the least.
So disrespect, or rudeness, towards Israel proves that America should stand with Israel? Weak sauce.
I certainly support the right of Israel to exist. That does not mean I have to support every action or every stance of the government of Israel, nor does it mean that disrespect towards Israel should be a factor in my view on the subject. Believe it or not, Israel is not universally loved, even outside the Middle East.
What I find odd is that you seem to have, as the most important thing to you in your political views, unwavering, unflinching, and uncritical support of the current government of a country that is not even your own.
The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.
– Sigmund Freud
What does the disrespect of a single person have anything to do with the larger picture? There are disrespectful Palestinians, and disrespectful Israelis. Disrespect is far from the worst thing going on in the region.
Easy. You’re Jewish, aren’t you? Doesn’t the present plight of the Palestinians under your insane Apartheid-regime make you feel . . . guilty? 
No, seriously, doesn’t it?
Because one’s Israel/Palestinians’ view is a reflection of world view, intellectual clarity, and moral compass, not just some issue.
As a Zionist and a Jew, I’d say this is a broad overreach. It’s an important issue, but serious, earnest, intelligent people can and do disagree on some basic points. I’d say your choosing this issue to be the ultimate touchstone of morality says more about you than it does about others.
I usually skip commenting in the Israel/Palestine threads because they are so full of bullshit, but what you’ve said there is just absurd. If one can’t acknowledge serious failings on both sides of this issue, then THAT is the indictment of one’s world view, intellectual clarity, moral compass, and I would add intellectual honesty.
I was roundly criticized on this board once for saying this, but I stand by it: As “nations,”* both Israel and Palestine are assholes, and we should back off and express our eternal willingness to play neutral moderator. But there simply isn’t any moral high ground there, just one big gutter, and we should stay out of that gutter.
*Word chosen to indicate the entities, not the people
Here’s my view. An Israeli soldier has just been arrested and charged with shooting a Palestinian lying on the ground. The day the Palestinian authority arrest and charge a Palestinian for shooting an unarmed Israeli is the day there might be hope for peace between Arabs and Jews. One only has to follow Palestinian Media Watch to see the hateful antisemitic propaganda with which the Palestinian Authority indoctrinates their kids, much of it worthy of Julius Streicher and Der Sturmer. The poisonous crap they fill the heads of their young with will ensure that peace will be postponed for at least another generation. If young Arabs truly believe that Israelis are devils how are they going to negotiate with them?
On quick check for 2016:
Bangladesh
Comoros
Ivory Coast
Senegal
Niger
Sierra Leone
Indonesia
Pakistan
Albania
Bosnia
Turkey
Tunisia
I left out places like Tanzania where it isn’t clear who has a plurality. Since I’m sure you thought your cite would prove otherwise, I think you should re-check the difference between what Freedom House rates as “free” and what they consider “electoral democracies.” That second category is much broader than I suspect you thought it was. See at the bottom of this page to see the actual list.
Would the PA, as opposed to Israeli military courts, even have jurisdiction over such a crime?
This is one of many, many things that must change in order for peace to be possible.
Tamerlane, Yea there are nearly zero free Muslim countries. Israel is and always has been free.
As of 2016 there are two by Freedom House’s particular metric - Senegal and Tunisia.
Provided one overlooks the millions of decidedly unfree people occupied by Israel.
why I said nearly zero, not to mention both of those have only been ranked as such in the past few years; Israel has for decades, for FH’s entire existence. Not to mention, those countries don’t face the kind of threats Israel does. On the ED thing, many of those countries only started getting that rating, and its stability is shaky. Tho I do give u props for being civil
[QUOTE=Human Action]
Provided one overlooks the millions of decidedly unfree people occupied by Israel.
[/QUOTE]
If the Palestinians would stop engaging in radical Islamic terror, as they have since Zionism began, Israel wouldn’t need to occupy them. And once Israel does leave the West Bank, “Palestine” will be just another Islamic hell hole, in all likeliness.
Israel doesn’t need to occupy them. They choose to, and it hasn’t exactly solved anything, now has it?
Post-colonial countries often have a lot of problems, but a) that’s no justification for colonialism and b) one can hardly imagine things being worse for the Palestinians than they are now. Their governments are a joke, their employment prospects are dismal, they are subject to military courts with a >99% conviction rate…a hell hole would be a step up.
The effects of colonialism in non-Muslim countries was far worse than in Muslim countries, which did not experience anywhere close to the kind of exploitation as the non-Muslim ones. And the British/French were in the Middle East for much less time in a much less involved way than in Africa. Even for that, the non-Muslim formerly colonized ones are much more civilized than the Muslim ones.
Israel does not need to occupy them. Some in this thread have argued that a one-state solution would be an existential threat to Israel. Even if that is true, a two-state solution would not be. Israel is not holding on to the WB because an independent Palestine would be any substantial military threat to Israel, they’re holding on to it because the “Greater Israel” notion dating from when they took the territory has not yet quite died out and, more importantly, the Jewish settlements planted on the WB pursuant to that idea are still there. Perhaps Alessan can correct me, but I’m sure there must still be many stubborn-stupid Israelis who still refer to the WB as “Judea and Samaria” and I’m sure some of them must sit in the Knesset.
Eh? 45% of Africans are Muslim. Exploitation of Africa included exploitation of Muslims.
Are you claiming that Muslim civilizations are impossible, or what? What changed post-colonialism?
Let me better phrase this: Sub-Saharan Africa (mainly Christian/indigenous religions) got it much worse than the North Africans, where the bulk of the Muslims and Muslim majority countries are. A lot more African countries are Christian than Muslim. Those countries have were colonized by Europeans for longer, and have a lot more divided societies. North Africa’s consequences of Euro-colonization pale compared to the rest of the continent. Christianity is easily the dominant religion in Subsahara, and by ratios.