Safety Month BOTMKT Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Adele Explore Premium Audio Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks STEM Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors
Customer Discussions > History forum

Can liberal American Jews still support Modern Israel? - the country has changed and is not what you think it is anymore.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 9:03:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 22, 2011 9:51:05 AM PST
Rachel says:
Is is your gems that folow you every where!

Between you and Jeff. I choose Jeff.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 9:48:35 AM PST
Diva says:
You can always prove me wrong and start a thread about China's internal politics.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 10:45:54 AM PST
Sixties fan says:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/11/europe-and-palestinians-whats.html?

Europe and the Palestinians: What's the Difference Between Ordinary insanity and Middle East Policy Insanity?

Posted: 21 Nov 2011 03:06 AM PST


By Barry Rubin

What is the definition of insanity? Repeating the same behavior and expecting different results.

What is the definition of Middle East policy insanity? Intensifying the same behavior that has already failed and expecting a better result.

Example: After 60 years of failure by radical Arab nationalism being intransigent, warring on the West, trying to destroy Israel, and seeking to create a utopian Arab society that turns into a ightmare, we are about to get six decades or so of revolutionary Islamism doing each of these things in an even more extreme way.

But here's my favorite instance for today. For almost three years, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has refused to negotiate with Israel. It has kept none of its commitments, rejected every U.S. initiative, and wasted an entire year playing with a unilateral independence bid at the UN to avoid making a compromise peace. It has made a unity agreement with the genocidal, antisemitic Hamas.

The PA has also been rife with corruption and there is a huge economic catastrophe facing Europe. Oh, and the PA also maintains a huge, well-paid security establishment that doesn't do anything useful and has on its payroll antisemitic preachers who spew hate

So how does Europe respond? Obviously by increasing aid to the PA by 20 percent, from 500 million to 600 million Euros for 2012.

That will teach them a lesson all right! But what lesson? Why the lesson that extremism, intransigence, refusal to make peace, inciting to violence and glorifying terrorism are rewarded.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 11:12:05 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Nov 22, 2011 11:12:34 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 12:19:23 PM PST
jeffesq613 says:
How is mine irrelevant or inaccurate, Ms. Anti-Semitic Troll? The poster claimed that Israeli news dominated the news because of the large quantity of Jews in the US. How is it irrelevant or inaccurate to point out that Jews constitute less than 2% of the US population? Or do you just object to any facts that undermine your anti-Semitic positions?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 12:20:19 PM PST
jeffesq613 says:
And BTW, the only reason you write anything is because you are a diseased human being who gets her jollies annoying people.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 12:21:17 PM PST
jeffesq613 says:
But who would read it? There are so many more Jews than Chinese people. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 12:38:41 PM PST
Diva says:
Jeff,

You shouldn't insults human beings by comparing them to "anne".

She is an artificial non intelligence.

Posted on Nov 22, 2011 12:44:46 PM PST
Seriously says:
New book by Gert Muller says the Bible locates the Garden of Eden in East Africa, which is what science does.
Eden: The Biblical Garden Discovered In East Africa

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 10:35:49 PM PST
patrick says:
no, they do not target innocents..they dont shirk from causing so-called collateral damage if such gets in the way, neither do we, with the drones.
You cant. In fact personally I believe that RoE are far too unrealistic in Afghanistan and no doubt are being exploited and costing soldiers lives as well as reducing casualties to the Talliban.
But no, they do not set out to kill civilians striving to stay out of the fighting, and in fact many steps and rules exist to limit that.

Ive said in fact tha the @1200 all-up death toll in the Gaza incursion is in fact strong evidence not of reckless butchery of civilians, but of great restraint.
Compare it with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings, a powerful army operating against insurgents in densely populated urban environment.
how many non-combatants were killed in any city street battle in WW2?
Or probably in places like Hue in Vietnam.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 10:40:19 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 23, 2011 1:19:35 AM PST
patrick says:
its a fair question.

where are always the Western Left hey-hey ho hos with such as Syria..

where were they when it came to the Tamils in the recent conflict climax, which actually raged during the Gaza conflict from memory.
The SR govt killed 150+ Tamil civilians in a tent-city in a single fighter-bomber pass , right in front of western reporters, almost killing them too...
I heard a squeak about it, most people have never ehard of it.

can you imagine this same incident in Gaza or South Lebanon?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 22, 2011 10:48:54 PM PST
patrick says:
yes.

just saying that death of innocent civilians in war is "not acceptable" is a nonsense.
Unless you have a working blueprint to outlaw armed conflict, its like saying that people being killed on the roads is unacceptable.
You can accept what you want, if you have armed conflict you will have non-combatants killed. You will also on a significant level these days have people alleged to have been 'civilians" where their actual status is murky anyway.You will have their own combatants deliberately drawing them in, willingly or unwillingly, anyway.If they function as shields, the people hiding behind them shooting are tactically better off. If they are cut down either deliberately or accidentally, there is a propaganda windfall especially in Western public opinion.
Incidentally, likewise, if ur going to have vehicular transport, there is similiarly always going to be transport accidents and a life-toll.
If you say that it is unacceptable for one person or thouands to be killed by cars, trucks, buses and planes...ok, now what?
Continuing implies some level of tolerance.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 1:53:59 AM PST
Rachel says:
Eitan:

Maspik>

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 8:27:28 AM PST
Skriker says:
"Really? Do you realize that Jews constitute about 2% of the US population? Does the other 98% not read, listen or watch news, such that the media must address the news to that 2%?"

Whatever Jeff...this is outside the scope of the question. I do not make it my job to tell the media what segments of the population to target their broadcasts to. I am allowed to speculate as much as the next person as to why they do it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 8:32:59 AM PST
Skriker says:
"Your post is a long way of saying: "Israel has no right to retaliate or defend itself against people who commit terrorist acts other than to give in to their demands." Let's hope that someone like you never is given the responsibility to defend the citizens of a nation."

Whatever Jeff. Perhaps if you actually tried to understand my position instead of writing it off like you continue to do you would realize that you are not even remotely close to my point at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 8:35:50 AM PST
Skriker says:
"The Israelis proved they're willing and able to make peace and concessions, with Egypt, with Jordan and with offers to the Palestinians. The Palestinian response to all offers has been increased violence. Your belief that there is an equivalence of guilt on this issue is really just a sign of how you've swallowed one side's propaganda, not an indication that you have any real understanding of the issues or the players."

Yeah they did prove it, doesn't change the fact that they are not completely faultless in the way the process has gone with palestinians. Don't put words into my mouth. This is a matter of degrees. I am not fully blaming Israel. I am saying that they have made their own misteps in this process because they have. Get over yourself and you'll be able to understand that not everyone's opinions on the subject are as black and white as your own. You blame *me* for buying into the propoganda from one side, while at the same time spewing propaganda from the other side. I can see both sides, but apparently that means I am a slave to the other side.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 8:40:47 AM PST
Skriker says:
Well Jeff I went back and read my post:

My COMMENTS: Wow. Just wow...the depth of ignorance in that post is just astounding. The Palestinians are savages because of what extremists on their side have done. Therefore it is OK to kill innocent palestinians because innocent Israelis were killed. Wow. Nothing like abject rationalization there. Both sides are wrong for killing the innocent on either side. Neither cancels out the other. Neither gains moral high ground for doing the same thing in retaliation that they are complaining about being done to them. All you get is a continuing circle of violence and vengance which only ends up in more people being hurt and killed on both sides.

No where in this statement do I say that the Israelis are "just as bad as the Palestinians". I clearly state that rationalizing away the death of innocent palestinians because innocent Israelis had been killed was wrong. Neither gets to claim the moral high ground because their innocent civilians were killed first. Never said that they were "just as bad as the Palestinians". Perhaps if you read what I actually posted instead of just jumping all over it and reading your own black and white interpretation of things you would understand.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 8:52:59 AM PST
Skriker says:
"Nonsense. Innocent people are killed all the time in wars. It's not the same thing as deliberately targeting innocent people for death. Discernment is the first step toward having some hope of wisdom."

In war time you can perhaps rationalize the death of innocent people more readily, but it doesn't make it any less wrong. It bothers me when US troops bomb the wrong target and kill innocent people who were "just" collatoral damage too and I don't like that either. That doesn't make me anit-US because of feeling that way. In war dehumanizing the enemy is the way the human mind copes with what people involved find themselves having to do and helping them try to live with it. If killing anyone in war was acceptable to the soldiers on the ground this coping process would not be necessary. Instead they have to convince themselves that they need to do it. Same goes with innocents hurt in the process too. Missiles and bombs are too impersonal. Innocents killed in a long range strike are just statistics and don't have faces.

I believe that it is definitely the sign of an insane mind to strap a bomb to yourself and try to kill people in a shop or on a bus or wherever. I don't condone it. I don't support it. I don't excuse it. I also don't excuse it when innocent people are collateral damage either. The military talking heads can say, "Oh it is the fault of the enemy that this happened," but it is their own ordinance that did the damage.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 8:57:05 AM PST
Skriker says:
"You can always prove me wrong and start a thread about China's internal politics."

Ahhh so to show I'm not just attacking Israel I need to go out and start another completely unrelated thread. Yeah, OK.

So what your going to do to prove to me that you aren't just narrow minded about your support for Israel and disinterested in other opinions?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 8:59:23 AM PST
jeffesq613 says:
Clearly, and I am allowed to point out that you are clueless.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 9:01:02 AM PST
jeffesq613 says:
Let me know when you've reached the point that you're able to articulate a position that doesn't contradict itself each time you try to squirm out of something inaccurate or unfortunate that you said in an earlier post.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 9:01:52 AM PST
Skriker says:
"That will teach them a lesson all right! But what lesson? Why the lesson that extremism, intransigence, refusal to make peace, inciting to violence and glorifying terrorism are rewarded."

Sadly too true. It also goes hand in hand with the western democracies insistance that when they get involved in military campaigns in places like Iraq and Libya it is to "protect the people". Meanwhile more dramatic activities are happening around the African continent and in other parts of the middle east like in Syria, but because those countries have nothing that is wanted, they don't get involved. If they want to get involved, fine, but have the temerity to state the facts: The European Union is bombing Khadaffi in Libya because we get most of our oil from Libya and hope to make a better price deal with a new government. :P

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 9:02:26 AM PST
jeffesq613 says:
No, you just keep changing what you've said before. If you want to admit that what you said before was wrong or was not what you meant, that's fine.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 9:03:18 AM PST
Skriker says:
"New book by Gert Muller says the Bible locates the Garden of Eden in East Africa, which is what science does.
Science Meets The Bible: The Discovery of the Biblical Garden of Eden in East Africa"

Wow talk about a non-sequiter...:)

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 23, 2011 9:04:46 AM PST
jeffesq613 says:
What does "neither gets to claim that moral high ground" mean if not that they are both equally guilty, both as bad as the other? Can you at least see that that is how most people read such words of moral equivalence?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
440 13 days ago
JFK Assassination Part VI 1793 14 minutes ago
Will America go metric? 17 30 minutes ago
History of the Palestinian Nation (Part IV) 7785 57 minutes ago
Explaining Hitler 244 1 hour ago
Was the second world war really one war? 23 1 hour ago
JFK Assassination V WW 201 2 hours ago
UK "Remain" edges back ahead.. 4 2 hours ago
JFK Assassination XXIV 155 3 hours ago
A Place For Pro-Israel Posters IV 743 6 hours ago
David Cameron Falls On His Sword 0 14 hours ago
Trump assassination I 198 22 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  66
Total posts:  1071
Initial post:  Nov 13, 2011
Latest post:  4 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions