Israel’s jihad is mine

[Mosby]

Israel’s jihad is mine

As Israel considers building a new fence to contain the Syrian conflict to the north, which fences can keep out Hamas’s even more lethal ideologies? While Gaza and the Muslim Arab world continue to claim victory in the recent Israel-Hamas conflict, for the sane observers among us, there is only ever defeat – the defeat of morality in the desecration of a great religion. While most Muslims laud Hamas and scorn Israel, for me, an observing Muslim, Israel’s war against Hamas remains my struggle – my jihad.

Israel’s eight-day operation “Pillar of Defense” sought to dismantle the Hamas apparatus from within Gaza. The predictably seamless alignment of the Muslim world against Israel was even more breathtaking than usual in the face of Syria’s 22 months of systematic genocide, one which has consistently failed to trigger unanimous Muslim protest. What does this say about us as Muslims?

We are hypocrites.

While Muslims define Israel as the enemy, we ignore Assad, and diabolically laud Hamas. Hamas is never sated – each year it devours ever more Palestinians, regardless of age or gender. If Israelis lose fewer citizens than the Palestinians in these conflicts it is for the same reason Israel exchanges more prisoners for each captive soldier: quite simply Israel values human life more than does Hamas, which relishes ground operations taking place among densely populate civilian areas.

Explaining this to Muslims in the Twitterverse, I get sharply reminded that Hamas does not have the “luxury of launch sites” that Israel enjoys. Have we lost our minds, Muslims? How can we speak of ‘launch sites’ as ‘luxuries’ while disregarding the culling taking place in Syria? Perhaps we have not lost our minds, but we have most certainly lost our religion.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israels-jihad-is-mine/


About the author:

Qanta Ahmed is associate professor of medicine at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook. She also practices sleep disorders medicine in Garden City at the Winthrop University Sleep Disorders Center. She is the author of In the Land of Invisible Women, an account of her experiences as a physician in Saudi Arabia. She has written prominent editorials in multiple major newspapers.

Dr. Ahmed holds an Honorary Professorship at the School of Public Health at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland. She is the first Muslim woman and the first physician to be selected to be a 2010 Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellow in Science and Religion at the University of Cambridge, England. The fellowship seeks to ignite public discourse on the nexus of matters scientific and religious, a dialogue she brings to the Huffington Post. This dialogue was recently recognized by NY MOVES Magazine in honoring Ahmed as a 2010 Power Woman in November 2010. Ahmed also serves as a member of the Board of Directors for the Women's Voices Now Non Profit Foundation sponsoring Voices from the Muslim World, a Short Film Festival. She is published in World Policy Journal, The Guardian (London), The Friday Times (Lahore, Pakistan), Trouw (in The Netherlands), USA Today, The New York Post, The New York Daily News, The Daily, The Christian Science Monitor as well as peer reviewed medical journals including The Lancet and The Lancet Infectious Diseases. Most recently she has been invited to be a regular contributor to Pakistan's English Daily, The Express Tribune where she will be writing for the Opinion Editorial Page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanta_A._Ahmed

[zellie]

1. Incredible article ...wow!

Thank you so much for posting.

Amazing insight that debunks every stupid lie and antisemitic crap out there.

Qanta Ahmed is a gdsend.

The truth will set you free.

[shira]

2. Our hard Left anti-Israel friends here would say she's a Rightwinger....

That way it's easier to ignore everything from her.

They prefer the extremely fanatical, rightwing warmongering totalitarian Islamists over genuinely liberal, secular Muslims.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. "They prefer the extremely fanatical, rightwing warmongering totalitarian Islamists

I really find you amusing when you assert that these so-called hard lefties prefer fanatical, rightwing, totalitarian Islamists.

You have truly struck comedy gold.

[shira]

4. What do you have to say about the OP? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. The doctor makes some very valid points which should be lauded, but since I am not one of the

so-called unholy hard lefties (do they exist anywhere else than in your imagination?) which prefer fanatical, rightwing, totalitarian Islamists I would not refer to her as a rightwinger but more as a progressive and peacemaker.

Strangely enough If she were to speak out on the immorality of Israeli colonialism of the West Bank how would you view her then?

Yes, I know it is a hypothetical question, but no less so than your bizarre assertion of hard lefties which prefer fanatical, rightwing, totalitarian Islamists.

[shira]

8. How should those valid points be translated into action?

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)

What did the doctor write that will make you reflect on the Palestinian movement as a whole, and your role within it?

I don't have a problem with legitimate liberal Zionist criticism of Israel and its policies. My beef is with extreme anti-zionists (from the far fringes) who want Israel destroyed by any means. They can shove their "criticism".

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. Why don't you tell the board your feelings on how to achieve that.

I'm sure you could fill I/P with volumes of bandwidth of sage advice on how to bring about lasting peace; especially since you assert that the West Bank doesn't belong to the Palestinians.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=27900

That's definitely one way to bring about a swift and lasting peace, my friend. My hat is off to you on that jewel of wisdom.

You say that you don't have a problem with "legitimate liberal Zionist criticism of Israel and its policies", but how can you not since you have already expressed disregard and outright hostility towards a hard left that somehow magically admires the hard right fundamentalists groups like Hamas?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=27891

Seeing these posts, how would one believe that you are really interested in peace of any nature or would accept the left's valid criticism of Israel in any way? What constitutes valid criticism to you when you appear to be dug in to your positions as deeply as the colonialist/invaders are dug into Hebron?

[Mosby]

11. Hebron is the site of the oldest Jewish community in the world

Jews have lived there for more than 3000 years and yet you call them "colonialist/invaders".
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hear that whooshing sound?

That's whatever little credibility you have here flying out the window.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

14. Spare me your credibility crap nonsense.

Israel's borders have been drawn, but just because they want more land, and will take it by force, does not give them justification or right to take what they want.

As for credibility, I find it laughable that some would try to argue that Israel has a right to the west bank.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Hebron's home to the most extreme and violent settlers who terrorise Palestinians...

Anyone who points to them as a reason why settlers shouldn't be called colonialists and tells another DUer that they've got no credibility appears to be a bit confused about things...

The Hebron settlers are nothing but terrorists. They've attacked Palestinians, including schoolchildren, and they shouldn't be used as justification for anything, imo.



I don't care less about biblical claims to the land and who was where first. Considering the folk that peddle that never care about how long Palestinians lived in what became Israel before they were expelled/fled, it's a bit of a selective attitude to take, imo...

[Mosby]

65. They are not all rw settlers

there are Sephardi families who have been living in the area since the 1500s.

They don't deserve to be lumped in with the settlers.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Even if there's a few who aren't, why should we ignore the vast majority who are?

I'm still not understanding why you bring up these claims of people being somewhere a long time when I never see that same thing applied to Palestinians who've been forced from their homes by Israel...

[shira]

12. Compromise. Two states for 2 people. Something along the lines of Geneva....

...or the Clinton Parameters, Olmert's 2008 offer. It won't be perfect for either side, but compromise they must if there is to be peace.

To answer you further, I never claimed the WB doesn't belong to the Palestinians. I've repeatedly stated they do not have exclusive rights to the land as the land is disputed. As to liberal zionist criticism of Israel, it appears you can't distinguish between that and the demonization of certain "progressive" anti-zionists (hard leftists) who want Israel dead. See, liberal movements like PeaceNow criticize the Israeli government and are for 2 states and compromise. Pseudo-progressive anti-Israel movements like the ISM want Israel dead, no compromise, and so long as Palestine replaces Israel, Hamas can be in charge for all they care.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

15. "but compromise they must if there is to be peace."

So your argument is that Israel takes what they want (security zones, settlements, outposts), defines the terms (what the Palestinians can do within their own borders), and the Palestinian have to compromise with that.

Perhaps Israel should instead of taking others people's land (i.e. the west bank) then act surprised when fight back, should instead accept the UN resolutions piling up against it and remove the illegal settlements/settlers and accept international law.

I find it remarkable that your fevered logic could be applied to a robber entering another's house, taking property, assaulting the home owners: only to tell the victims that they have to now compromise to get back what is rightfully theirs.


I'm not sure that I can honestly buy your statement that "To answer you further, I never claimed the WB doesn't belong to the Palestinians" when you also contend that "It's just as much part of the Jewish homeland as it is the Palestinians'. Since when did Palestinians have exclusive rights to the W.Bank?" http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=27900

To go on an then try to argue that " I've repeatedly stated they do not have exclusive rights to the land as the land is disputed." is just a lazy argument best suited for colonistas. The "land is disputed" by those that wish to continue the theft and deny a Palestinian state.

Some here on I/P call Israel the "Jewish State" so why is it that there is a movement to believe that they are now entitled to more? Israel really needs to clean this mess up of their own creation and remove all the settlers.

I know it is a painful thing to read my friend, but this belligerent colonialism that Israel is practicing on another group of people. To argue that Israel has a claim to parts of the West Bank is no less militaristic/colonial than The Soviet Union claiming half of Europe post WWII, Germany claiming the Sudetenland or Iraq claiming Kuwait.

So you can go on, if you wish, and look for phantom hard lefties under your bed, but what will probably be starring back at you is your own hypocrisy.

[shira]

16. This dehumanization of yours, ie., racists, colonialists, apartheidists, thieves...

...does nothing in the pursuit of peace as it just gives Hamas and the PLO warmongers reason to believe they will one day - with the help of people like yourself - gain total victory over the Jews.

I expect more out of a humanist.

And yeah, the WB really is by International Law (going back to 1920) still part of the Jewish homeland. Ceasefire lines in 1948 were never recognized as borders. Ask yourself when a sovereign Palestinian state existed in that part of the mideast. Who were its leaders?

Israel stole nothing and you do the Palestinians no favor when you give their crooked, warmongering leadership good reason to remain in a state of war looking for total victory. It's not your blood out there, so why not? You'll battle Israel yourself to the last drop of Palestinian blood if need be, right?

[delrem]

22. Exact citation of "international law" going back to 1920

that the WB is part of the Jewish homeland.

I want a citation of an authoritative text that defines "Jew" and the extent of the "Jewish homeland", so the precise borders are clear.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. I don't believe that much of substance will come from your request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Balfour_portrait_and_declaration.JPG

I believe the above was once referenced by said poster, but I will have to find that out to be certain.

Regardless, the UN mandate and subsequent UN resolutions and international law are the "laws of the land", and if there was any established claim of total statehood at the time of the inception of Israel as a country it was not recognized by the world community. If there was there would not be any I/P forum.

The point is moot and the previous poster's name is mudd.

[shira]

31. Here's the International Law you're asking for...

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm

The “Mandate” Defined Where Jews Are and Are Not Permitted to Settle

The “Mandate for Palestine” document did not set final borders. It left this for the Mandatory to stipulate in a binding appendix to the final document in the form of a memorandum. However, Article 6 of the “Mandate” clearly states:

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

Article 25 of the “Mandate for Palestine” entitled the Mandatory to change the terms of the Mandate in the territory east of the Jordan River:

“In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provision of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions ...”

Great Britain activated this option in the above-mentioned memorandum of September 16, 1922, which the Mandatory sent to the League of Nations and which the League subsequently approved – making it a legally binding integral part of the “Mandate.”

Thus the “Mandate for Palestine” brought to fruition a fourth Arab state east of the Jordan River, realized in 1946 when the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan was granted independence from Great Britain.

All the clauses concerning a Jewish National Home would not apply to this territory Trans-Jordan of the original Mandate, as is clearly stated:

“The following provisions of the Mandate for Palestine are not applicable to the territory known as Trans-Jordan, which comprises all territory lying to the east of a line drawn from ... up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan. ... His Majesty’s Government accept[s] full responsibility as Mandatory for Trans-Jordan.”

The creation of an Arab state in eastern Palestine (today Jordan) on 77 percent of the landmass of the original Mandate intended for a Jewish National Home in no way changed the status of Jews west of the Jordan River, nor did it inhibit their right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

These documents are the last legally binding documents regarding the status of what is commonly called “the West Bank and Gaza.”

The September 16, 1922 memorandum is also the last modification of the official terms of the Mandate on record by the League of Nations or by its legal successor – the United Nations – in accordance with Article 27 of the Mandate that states unequivocally:

“The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.”24

United Nations Charter recognizes the UN’s obligation to uphold the commitments of its predecessor – the League of Nations.25

[Violet_Crumble]

33. That author also claims the Palestinians don't exist as a people.

It helps to cite people who aren't extremist hatemongers and bigots like that one is...

'Palestinians ‘Peoplehood’ Based on a Big Lie' http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=53&order_id=2

[shira]

43. Violet, you deny there's a Jewish nation (people) so are you an extreme hatemonger/bigot?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x333086#333387

[Violet_Crumble]

44. I do not, and have never denied the existence of Jews or Israelis....

The only correct response should have been to apologise to linking to a bigoted hatemonger and ensure you don't do it again. What you linked to was a writer who denies the existence of the Palestinian people. What's failing to sink in here?

btw, I doubt I'm the only DUer sick to the back teeth of having you make really ugly accusations about us that aren't true. Please stop doing it. The link you posted leads to something very different than what you claim. I was pointing out that while Israeli is a nationality, Jewish isn't a nationality.

[shira]

47. You deny Jewish peoplehood and you did it throughout that thread

Of course you believe Jews exist but that's different.

The author you're attempting to trash isn't denying that Palestinians exist too. He's denying they are a people.

You both make the same argument.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. I did nothing of the sort, so quit the bullshit right now...

Instead of making up ugly stuff about me that's not true, how about you apologise for posting a link to an article by a bigoted hatemonger who denies the Palestinians exist as a people and assure everyone that you'll take more care in future?

It would be a far more genuine looking approach than throwing around a dishonest accusation at the DUer who pointed out the bigotry of the writer you cited...

And just remind yrself if you get the urge to continue making false accusations about me. Try sticking to the topic and the topic's not Violet. Got it?

[shira]

51. There's a written record of what you wrote at that link. It's clear as day...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x333086#333387

Violet_Crumble (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Judaism is NOT a nationality...
There are Irish people in Ireland. Italian people in Italy. A Chinese person living there might be an Italian citizen without being ethnically Italian, right?

Being Irish, Italian, Chinese, Australian or Israeli are nationalities. Being Jewish is not a nationality. Insisting that others recognise a state as a (insert elitist label here) state is ridiculous. For example, the state I have citizenship of is Australia. I'm an Australian citizen. If Tony Abbot had been elected and started insisting that everyone else recognise Australia as an ethnically Anglo-Saxon state, he'd be excluding a good number of Australian citizens in doing so. I'd much rather a state be a state for ALL its citizens, rather than exclude some...

What exactly is it then? (being Jewish)

Not a nationality.

I don't have to define Judaism in order to know what it isn't. It's not a nationality.

Hey Violet, here's a question for you now:

The Jews have historically defined themselves as a nation or people. Do you agree? Are the Jews a nation or people? Yes or No?

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Yet again. I have never denied the existence of the Jewish people...

People who can read at the level of a five year old can see that what you posted isn't at all what you claimed...

So, from this point I will take any future attempts to make such an ugly claim (anyone holding that view would be nuked by Skinner) as you doing it intentionally and not out of an inability to comprehend what you read, and I'll start alerting, as this is disruptive behaviour on yr part...

Rather than attack me, how about you apologise for linking to a writer who is an extremist bigot who denies the existence of the Palestinian people and assure us you'll be more careful in future? Because, remember, despite you wanting it to me, this isn't about me, but about the poisonous bigoted writer you cited and have been defending in this thread...

[shira]

54. So the Jews are a nation then, right? Why did you argue against that?

You made that argument 2 years ago.

Have you changed your mind?

[Violet_Crumble]

56. You falsely claimed that I deny the existance of Jews as a people. You need to apologise...

Don't just move the goalposts and start up something else. I'm getting really sick of the way you throw such ugly and untrue accusations around, just like the one you made aimed at DUers upthread, but refused to name names when several people asked you...


Oh, and how about an apology for citing the extremist bigot who denied the existence of the Palestinian people? You don't seem to be too bothered about it, to the point you were demanding I ignore the bigotry and argue the 'facts'....

[shira]

57. The Jewish people are a nation. Peoplehood = Nation. Synonymous terms.

You appear to still be arguing the Jews do not constitute a nation.

Despite that's how they've seen themselves for 3 millenia.

===========

The Palestinians say they're a nation (people) the same way. You don't have a problem with that, but you apparently still have a problem with the concept of Jewish nationhood.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Yet again. I have NEVER denied the existance of the Jewish people...

You appear to be incapable of comprehending what you were reading. If yr going to go scouring back through the archives dragging up old posts, at the very least try to understand what yr reading. I've already told you that I was talking about NATIONALITY. That's what I was talking about when I reread what I'd posted in the post you'd linked to.

Why is it that yr so fixated on trying to peddle an ugly accusation about me that isn't true and you blatantly ignore the fact that the writer you cited and demanded be taken seriously is a bigoted hatemonger who denies the existence of the Palestinian people?

[shira]

62. Right. But you've denied their nationhood.

na·tion
/ˈnāSHən/
Noun
A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
A North American Indian people or confederation of peoples.

Denying Jews are a nation is denying they're a people according to dictionary definition.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Wrong. I've done nothing of the sort. I don't believe anything of the sort.

And I will keep on repeating that until it sinks into yr head. If it takes 400 posts a day for a year, I'll be here to correct you about the ugly accusation you've made that if true would lead to me being nuked on a TOS violation...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

69. That's not what was written. You would know it if you would settle down

and read it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

35. I do applaud you, my friend, for scouring the internets to find such a fine example

of right wing Israeli love. Good for you.


Now for something completely different. the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

After World War II: the Partition Plan

Main articles: 1947 UN Partition Plan and 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 was a joint attempt by Britain and the United States to agree on a policy regarding the admission of Jews to Palestine. In April, the Committee reported that its members had arrived at a unanimous decision. The Committee approved the American recommendation of the immediate acceptance of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine. It also recommended that there be no Arab, and no Jewish State. The Committee stated that "in order to dispose, once and for all, of the exclusive claims of Jews and Arabs to Palestine, we regard it as essential that a clear statement of principle should be made that Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine."

These events were the decisive factors that forced Britain to announce their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and place the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. Seven members (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. Three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.

[oberliner]

36. Hilarious

Wikipedia as "the truth" - sad state of affairs.

[delrem]

40. I don't see what's "hilarious" about it. Care to explain, exactly? e.g.

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1)

on edit I'm adding this link:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Palestine_Mandate

This wiki source contains the entire text, word for word, with no commentary, so with not even an inadvertent skew/bias in the presentation.
To be sure, the world has moved on since the time of the British Mandate!
Furthermore, I have some doubts re. whether this directive is entirely consistent... but nevertheless, it is what it is.

I don't see the point in disparaging a wiki source. All sources tend to be skewed to a purpose, some more than others, and shira's source
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/
seems more "hilariously" devoted to such an end than Wikipedia. Nevertheless, mythsandfacts.org states a case based on embedded quotations, so it has every right to be heard. The embedded quotations at the very least guarantee that the case presented is intended to be relevant. Likewise other sources using embedded quotations which might present a contrary case have a right to be heard, for the same reason. In fact, there's a lot of empty heat in I/P and this focus on actual historical documentation of attempts to actualize a regime of international law based on some notion of "justice for all" is a breath of fresh air. IMO.

[oberliner]

45. Wikipedia is not a reliable source

I think it's funny that anything sourced from there would be deemed "the truth".

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

67. "I think it's funny that anything sourced from there would be deemed 'the truth'."

It's a strange thing, my friend, that when another poster links to an opinion site to make a claim that the West Bank doesn't belong to the Palestinians but can't come up with anything more with more substance: all in the name of colonialism and the justification of land theft. It's even funnier when another poster clumsily swings in to save the day and cluck their tongue over wikipedia.

What's even stranger (not really strange...it's just effin sad) is how some posters try and justify this as international law or UN approved, when they scoff at any international laws or UN sanctions the don't agree with.

If anyone cares to show a UN approved measure for Israeli takeover of the West Bank and Gaza as if it belongs to Israel then I an happy to read it for them. If they want to link to third rate sites then not so much.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

66. If you wish to rebut the wik with something more reliable than M&F.org

then you are welcome to do that, my friend.

[shira]

41. Did you check out those clauses in the original Palestine Mandate....

...that Hirsch referred to? Was he lying? Did he misrepresent them (articles 6, 24, 27, etc.)?

Or are you just deflecting with the "rightwing" charge out of desperation?

=========

You brought up a non-binding UNGA resolution. You understand what non-binding means?

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Are you for real? Yr now going to deny that someone who denies the Palestinians are a people is RW?

Really. You have to be shitting us.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Uh, the guy's a fucking bigoted RW piece of crap. So sorry if that offends you...

Again, I'll ask if yr fucking serious. I'm no more going to give that bigot's words any more consideration than would be given to an antisemite. If you think there should be a difference, I'd like to know why the different standard for different sorts of bigotry...

You should really stop posting links to extremist and bigoted shit that would have been deleted if we were still at DU2. It's not a good look at all, imo...

[shira]

52. And that guy makes the same argument you do WRT an ethnicity seeing itself as a people.

So what does that make you?

Are you still denying the Jews are a nation (people) as they have defined themselves for several millenia?

=======

FTR, you haven't touched the facts WRT the Palestine Mandate.

You've got nothing but ad hominem personal attacks.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. *sigh* What part of what I've said isn't sinking in? I do NOT deny the existence of Jews...

That's a fucking ugly, dishonest and nasty accusation to make, and all this peformance from you is because I dared to point out that you cited a writer that was an extremist bigot who denies the existance of the Palestinian people. Do you realise how absolutely pathetic that looks? Instead of condemning someone who denies the Palestinian people exist, you make up a totally untrue thing about me (and one that would have me nuked if Skinner believed it) and proceed to attack me instead.

I'll tell you again, Shira. You keep on wanting to make this discussion about me and make it personal. Please don't do that. Try to focus on what's being discussed - that the writer cited is an extremist RW bigot. Pointing out what he is isn't an 'ad hominem personal attack. anymore than pointing out Bush and his cohorts were morons and war criminals, as well as being bigots. But if you think calling RW bigots what they are is a personal attack, then how about you alert and explain that to a jury? Let me know how you go!

[shira]

58. Then you agree that Jews are a nation, as they see themselves? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Yet again, I have never denied the existance of the Jewish people...

Go back. Read the post yr replying to, and stop trying to make this about me. It's getting creepy...

[shira]

61. So you're saying the Jews are a people but denying they're a nation.

na·tion
/ˈnāSHən/
Noun
1. A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.
2. A North American Indian people or confederation of peoples.

How can you deny that a people are a nation without butchering the dictionary definition?

[Violet_Crumble]

63. I'm still waiting for the apology for the untrue accusation you made...

You falsely claimed I denied the existence of the Jewish people, something I have never done, and find a repellant stance for anyone to have. You need to apologise for making such an ugly accusation, and you also need to have a long think about why you would be so offended by me pointing out that writer you cited was a bigoted RW extremist that you'd call saying what he was an ad hominem attack on him...

[delrem]

39. Exact words: Balfour Declaration

Balfour Declaration

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1]"

_______

My notes:
1. "in Palestine" - but Israel refuses to recognize the existence of Palestine, even now.
2. "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - in other words, according as this declaration Palestinian refugees have a RoR. Palestinians in general shall have the same rights as Jews, and vice-versa, including of course the right to relocate within Palestine, the right to leave and return, etc.
3. The creation of Israel, and the immediate "settlement" project, directly contradicts the Balfour Declaration. In particular, the exclusivity of the settlements, the system of apartheid roads and highways, the military occupation of the so-called "disputed zones" ("Judea" and "Samaria&quot including the forced displacement of the non-Jewish populations, esp. in area C, the forced displacement of the Bedoin population in the Negev, etc., the displacement and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian refugees, and not least of all the fact that the non-Jewish population of Israel is 2nd class, since it is emphasized over and over that it is not their "state".

In other words, you've got a LONG way to go to convince anybody but an absolute idiot that the Balfour Declaration justifies Israel's continued settlement project.

[shira]

42. Nice try.

My notes:

1. "in Palestine" - but Israel refuses to recognize the existence of Palestine, even now.

Palestine was a geographical area. Not a nation. Do you understand there never existed a sovereign Palestinian nation?

2. "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" - in other words, according as this declaration Palestinian refugees have a RoR. Palestinians in general shall have the same rights as Jews, and vice-versa, including of course the right to relocate within Palestine, the right to leave and return, etc.

Your opinion doesn't logically follow the Balfour text. The Balfour text actually didn't appropriate political rights to non-Jews. RoR isn't even mentioned here. The best you have on RoR is a UNGA non-binding resolution calling on refugees (Jewish ones too) who must come back peacefully. What percentage want to come back peacefully? Do you know?

3. The creation of Israel, and the immediate "settlement" project, directly contradicts the Balfour Declaration. In particular, the exclusivity of the settlements, the system of apartheid roads and highways, the military occupation of the so-called "disputed zones" ("Judea" and "Samaria&quot including the forced displacement of the non-Jewish populations, esp. in area C, the forced displacement of the Bedoin population in the Negev, etc., the displacement and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian refugees, and not least of all the fact that the non-Jewish population of Israel is 2nd class, since it is emphasized over and over that it is not their "state"

Now you're just going based on your misunderstandings from points 1 and 2 above.

In other words, you've got a LONG way to go to convince anybody but an absolute idiot that the Balfour Declaration justifies Israel's continued settlement project.

No amount of evidence will persuade those whose minds are permanently made up.

[delrem]

71. "in Palestine" is the exact term of the mandate!

and
"civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" is the exact term of the mandate!

Your denial of the clear meaning of those terms is patently ridiculous.
And your views re. Israel's right to settle/annex the west bank are right-wing extremist, "home party" stuff.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

68. My poor misguided friend. They're not dehumanizations when they aparently are true.

I would suggest that you refrain in labeling me a supporter of Hamas or the PLO in the future simply because I criticize Israel and support a Palestinian homeland.

"I expect more out of a humanist."

I have provided several links where I am on record as being against violence, whether from Hamas or the IDF, against dumb politicians, whether they are Abbas or Netanyahu...or any other right winger...or left winger for that matter, and I have several times now explained that my position is for a peaceful Palestinian state without the intrusion of Israeli colonialists.

You have ignored them outright and keep on posting protest after protest. It is wearing thin.
You may try to argue to your hearts content that land that does not belong to Israel as Israel's if that suits your fancy.

That IMHO is nothing more than unbridled greed, belligerent colonialism and pure uncaring evil.

[zellie]

13. I apologize ..you missed the entire point of the article.

Hamas is fully responsible for the situation the Palestinians are in.

They use their people as disposable pawns.
Women are treated like dirt.
They obtain control thru terrorism against their own people .
Any free thought is murdered...literally .
They bastardize their religion into a murderous political terrorist ideology.

Hmmmm.... Name one positive thing Hamas has done to advance peace ?

[zellie]

9. I agree.... She's spot on.

"This is why Hamas does not represent me, or other believing Muslims.This is why Israel's battle is mine. This is why Israel's struggle -Israel's jihad- is mine. These are the 'Muslims' that Israelis must confront and these are the "Muslims" who intimidate innocent Palestinians into subjugation to their monstrous political Islamism."

Monstrous and then some.

Her unique perspective and writing are awe-inspiring and heart-stopping.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Who...

'prefer the extremely fanatical, rightwing warmongering totalitarian Islamists over genuinely liberal, secular Muslims'?

'(They) would say she's a Rightwinger...'

That sounds to me similar to the pre-emptive claim of people on the other side: 'Now you'll say I'm an antisemite!' - when no one had any intention of doing so.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I'd also like to know who these DUers are supposed to be...

I agree with you on the pre-emptive claim thing as well...

[oberliner]

24. Not having DUers on ignore might help

Hard to get an accurate picture of what's going on in the forum otherwise.

[delrem]

72. oh come on, be reasonable!

shira: "Our hard Left anti-Israel friends here ... prefer the extremely fanatical, rightwing warmongering totalitarian Islamists over genuinely liberal, secular Muslims."

I've not read anything even approximating that kind of absolute bullshit from anyone.

However, if you want to take on a defense of shira's posts, esp. w.r.t. the right of "Jews" (sic) to settle anywhere they wish in the west bank, go for it.

[shira]

23. You really need to know whom, now? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Several people are asking you who. So, who are they, Shira? n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

28. +1000 !!!!

[orpupilofnature57]

26. Your objective ? Do you ever read what you post ?

[shira]

29. What do you think of the OP? Bigoted? Spot-on? n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

27. First you must seek it, before it sets you free

Agenda first is a right -wing virtue .

[Alamuti Lotus]

6. "Jews for Jesus" was the first thought that came to mind

Though there are a number of strong arguments against her recital of warmed over half-truisms (and indeed, "half" may be quite generous), I would consign her to the flames personally for the serious utterance of the phrase "Twitterverse".

[shira]

7. Thanks for your input. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

17. Disagree

She sounds much more like left-wing Israeli Jews objecting to the right-wing settlers, or left-wing Christian Americans objecting to the Pat Robertson crowd.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. LW Israeli Jews don't make broadbrush comments about Jews the way she does about Muslims.

And what's Israel's Jihad supposed to be? She doesn't elaborate, though I guess it's hard to find space to do it in all that stuff about how Muslims hate Israel. Maybe if she'd devoted even one sentence to being critical of Israeli policy towards the Palestinian people, I'd not be suspecting she's just the latest in the longest line of 'Muslims who don't like Muslims who don't love Israel' that get trotted out in the US (think folk like Wafa Sultan) that are tailor-made to appeal to the likings of the Islamophobic segment of US supporters of Israel.

I've read stuff from Muslims that not only supports Israel, but strongly supports the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. I hope I'm wrong and the author of this article has indeed voiced strong support for the Palestinians, as I expect if that emerges much of her cheer-squad at DU will turn swiftly from praise to ire...

[oberliner]

25. Boy do you not have a clue what you are talking about

LW Israeli Jews certainly do exactly that all the time.

[TheMadMonk]

34. I do not like Hamas, and I particularly dislike their methods.

That said, I can understand how a relatively ignorant people can credibly fear a repeat of past history.

Pretty much every time Israel has existed as an ascendant nation, it has carried out programs of genocide against it's neighbours. AND boasted about it. The bible has multiple examples, and there are plenty of contemprary, the most blatant of which I heard from a top level Israeli official in a show about illegal settlements in East Jerusalem. "We are God's chosen people. We do not care what the rest of the world thinks."

Palestinians truly believe they are fighting for their very survival as a people, let alone nation. Desperate people do desperate things.

[zellie]

37. That is some perspective you have there.

"Pretty much every time Israel has existed as an ascendant nation, it has carried out programs of genocide against it's neighbours. AND boasted about it. "

It's so amazing a statement, I'm actually speechless.

[TheMadMonk]

38. Check the bible.

(Edited to remove an inadvertent smiley.)

"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Pslams 137: 9

And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:34

And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:6

And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2

And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16

Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

[LeftishBrit]

70. This has something to do with the general savagery of people in those days, not with Jews.

Homer's tales of the Trojan War don't exactly send a message of pure pacifism either.

Though it's true that some people nowadays do take the more violent bits of the Bible as a guide for modern living. And many of them are Christians.

From a local church:

http://www.staldates.org.uk/news.asp?pageref=130&articleid=384

You remind me of the people who cherrypick and bring out the more violent bits of the Koran as an indication that Muslims are all violent!

[delrem]

73. I don't think human savagery is confined to time intervals.

First of all, I like reading your posts. They are thoughtful.
But, unfortunately, those descriptions of past acts are frighteningly reminiscent of the IDF accompanied by armored bulldozers displacing non-Jewish Palestinians and eradicating traces of their existence. They are also associated, in my mind, with sermons I listened to as a Roman Catholic schooled child, where somehow the Old Testament was supposed to illustrate the word and action of a loving God.
That schooling did not take. In fact, the whole idea seems insane to me.

An advocate can't expect people to not make those associations if the advocate is defending a Zionist political program. Any more than an advocate can expect people to disassociate the language of the Koran if the advocate is defending an Islamist political program. Those associations legitimately belong to the territory advocated.

[TheMadMonk]

75. I don't see a great deal of difference this time around.

Direct quote from a high level official interviewed over illegal settlements in East Jerusalem.

"We are God's chosen people. We do not care what the rest of the world thinks."

Israel, contrary to UN convention and international law, makes no special effort to avoid damage to civilian infrastructure. In fact it is arguable, that Israel goes out of it's way to maximise such damage. I believe, this is clasified as a genocidal act. It most certainly is classed as a WAR CRIME.

There have been more than a few instances of acts as barbaric as anything out of the Old Testament, with either zero (or insultingly minimal) consequences to the perpetrators amongst both civilian settlers and military personel.

Palestinians obviously aren't entirely blameless. However, the exchange rate in lives runs at about 100 : 1 in favour of Israel, and the monetary exchange rate in terms of property damage probably runs an order of magnitude higher still.

Quentin Tarantino, Arnie, Sly, Freddie, Jason, etcetera. Modern tales don't exactly send a message of pure pacifism either.

[pelsar]

76. let me congratulate you...

you've found another rather new and imaginative way to describe the jews as violent people. Reminds me of the jewish joke: jews are like fertilizer, spread them around and they make things grow, put them together and they stink like shit.
____
a few notes;
israel has an exchange rate of 100:1...stupid israelis, so fukin immoral not to let more of their citizens get killed.... There should be a UN mandate, vote or something to make them take off their protective equipment...and no more anti missile technology, stopping the rockets from evening the score is a war crime in itself.

In fact it is arguable, that Israel goes out of it's way to maximise such damage
you right on here, those israeli pilots dropping 1000lb bombs on gaza, one of the most densest populations centers in the world and they cant seem to kill any, in an appreciable amount. Hell, Gaza city, with all of its hi rises, 2 five star hotels, shopping malls, and they're all still standing. You would think that they could at least hit one of those buildings, cause it to collapse and kill a few hundred.

our conclusion? not only are those jewish israeli's genetically violent, but they cant seem drive their airplanes very well either.

[oberliner]

77. Wow

This post should stand for all eternity.

"Check the Bible" and quoting Deuteronomy to make a point about the history of "Israelis".

Truly stunning.