Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
Wed Oct 16, 2013, 10:55 PM Oct 2013

If You Want Two States, Support BDS

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/16/if-you-want-two-states-support-bds.html

Israelis are not demanding an end to occupation because the status quo is working for them. It is "sustainable," as several speakers at the J Street conference pointed out. American Zionists would make a contribution if we were to shake up that indifference, if we were able to make the status quo less comfortable.

While we might not like all those who wield it, BDS has shown itself to be a tool that unsettles indifference. Few things focus the attention of the Israeli government on the issue of occupation like BDS, even the parve BDS of a limited boycott of settlement products (see Peter Beinart's "Zionist BDS&quot . I don't denigrate this limited boycott. Not buying Soda Stream or Gush Etzion wine is a start.

---

Another and related argument is that BDS hurts Global Israel (Bernard Avishai's phrase for the good guys) and strengthens the Greater Israel yahoos because BDS means to isolate Israel and therefore shrinks its commerce and intellectual intercourse. That is true, but that is precisely what the boycott tool is meant to do: disrupt the status quo until justice is restored.
66 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If You Want Two States, Support BDS (Original Post) R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 OP
Interesting turn for Kathleen oberliner Oct 2013 #1
"Maybe it was her friendly visit with Hamas?" R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #2
She met with Hamas in 2011 oberliner Oct 2013 #3
"Did you read the entirety of the article you posted?" Why yes I did. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #4
Not the first paragraph though? oberliner Oct 2013 #5
Yet you ignore everything else. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #6
You agree that Israel inside the green line is a democracy? oberliner Oct 2013 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Oct 2013 #8
A safe haven for Jews King_David Oct 2013 #9
Ah, the never again line is raised in good cheer once again by dave. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #10
Being a Jew myself I concentrate on where it King_David Oct 2013 #11
"I concentrate on where it applies to us..." R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #12
Some choice quotes and real 'mature' debating technique from R. Daneel Olivaw on this thread alone . King_David Oct 2013 #13
Don't sprain a finger actually replying to what I wrote, dave. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #14
I'm a Jew and I apply it to everyone. Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2013 #26
Oh and YOU get to decide what it REALLY King_David Nov 2013 #30
It means nothing if not applied to everyone. Fantastic Anarchist Nov 2013 #32
Can't argue when I don't know what I'm arguing about nt King_David Nov 2013 #36
Perhaps if you didn't argue from a posiion of unenlightenment? R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2013 #43
Do you think it is happening again? oberliner Nov 2013 #44
Perhaps you need to re-vist the subthread before you ask me if a holocaust is happening R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2013 #50
Gotcha oberliner Nov 2013 #54
Huh? King_David Nov 2013 #46
If you are going to play the part of the village bungler R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2013 #53
Good advice thank you, King_David Nov 2013 #55
"I have no idea what it means..." R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2013 #56
what founding law does that? Shaktimaan Nov 2013 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #21
Ok Shaktimaan Nov 2013 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #23
Yeah, but that's not what you said. Shaktimaan Nov 2013 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #25
Well, it doesn't. Shaktimaan Nov 2013 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #28
Christ. Never mind. Shaktimaan Nov 2013 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #31
The issue Shaktimaan Nov 2013 #33
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #34
I think your confusing yourself here, King_David Nov 2013 #37
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #40
And as Shaktimaan already told you King_David Nov 2013 #47
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #49
You arguing around in circles about there being a Jewish State King_David Nov 2013 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #57
" I proved my point" King_David Nov 2013 #58
I'm gonna go ahead... Shaktimaan Nov 2013 #59
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #60
Haha. You're great. Shaktimaan Nov 2013 #62
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #63
So just so I'm clear... Shaktimaan Nov 2013 #39
This message was self-deleted by its author delrem Nov 2013 #41
There is no founding law guaranteeing a Jewish demographic majority. That's a lie & u know it. n/t shira Nov 2013 #35
As DU can see the hasbarists will do anything to move the R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #15
What do you want to discuss about the OP? oberliner Oct 2013 #16
Let's start with this. R. Daneel Olivaw Oct 2013 #17
You may be right oberliner Oct 2013 #18
I'm surprised. Shaktimaan Nov 2013 #20
Support what kind of BDS? Global BDS? From the article... shira Nov 2013 #38
Perhaps the optically challenged need to reread the OP and what is bolded. R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2013 #42
You missed the point. It's a stupid article that's easy to discredit. n/t shira Nov 2013 #45
On your word? Discredit? R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2013 #52
WATCH: Noam Chomsky blasts BDS movement as hypocritical, antisemitic shira Nov 2013 #61
Wait. Do you mean the same Noam Chompsky that you claim is a R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2013 #64
It's not that I find him credible, it's that you guys do. He's calling you out for your BS. n/t shira Nov 2013 #65
No, shira, it's really that we can't R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2013 #66
 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
1. Interesting turn for Kathleen
Wed Oct 16, 2013, 11:18 PM
Oct 2013

She had very recently been arguing against BDS at various discussion panels (as she mentions in this article). Be curious to know what caused her to change her tune. Maybe it was her friendly visit with Hamas?

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
2. "Maybe it was her friendly visit with Hamas?"
Wed Oct 16, 2013, 11:22 PM
Oct 2013

Or perhaps it was the realization that Israel cannot be taken seriously as a modern democracy while it acts as an invading and colonizing force against a oppressed and terrorized people.
 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
3. She met with Hamas in 2011
Wed Oct 16, 2013, 11:52 PM
Oct 2013

J Street reprimanded her publicly for doing so (she was on their board at that time).

I was wondering if maybe that visit (and the ensuing response from J Street and others) might have led to some alienation.

She also does not claim any of the things you wrote. In fact she explicitly says that Israel should be taken seriously as a modern democracy - and that is indeed one of the reasons she now claims to support BDS.

You may believe the things you wrote in that paragraph, but those are not views Kathleen has expressed.

Did you read the entirety of the article you posted? Do you know anything about the author?

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
4. "Did you read the entirety of the article you posted?" Why yes I did.
Thu Oct 17, 2013, 12:08 AM
Oct 2013

That is why I wrote:

Or perhaps it was the realization that Israel cannot be taken seriously as a modern democracy while it acts as an invading and colonizing force against a oppressed and terrorized people.


Seeing how she wrote this...

While we might not like all those who wield it, BDS has shown itself to be a tool that unsettles indifference. Few things focus the attention of the Israeli government on the issue of occupation like BDS, even the parve BDS of a limited boycott of settlement products (see Peter Beinart's "Zionist BDS&quot . I don't denigrate this limited boycott. Not buying Soda Stream or Gush Etzion wine is a start.


Since she cited Peter Beinart's article one can take that she endorses it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/to-save-israel-boycott-the-settlements.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&On the one hand, the Israeli government is erasing the “green line” that separates Israel proper from the West Bank. In 1980, roughly 12,000 Jews lived in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem). Today, government subsidies have helped swell that number to more than 300,000. Indeed, many Israeli maps and textbooks no longer show the green line at all.

In 2010, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called the settlement of Ariel, which stretches deep into the West Bank, “the heart of our country.” Through its pro-settler policies, Israel is forging one political entity between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — an entity of dubious democratic legitimacy, given that millions of West Bank Palestinians are barred from citizenship and the right to vote in the state that controls their lives.


Perhaps you didn't read that?

It appears that when she cited Mr. Beinart's article that she endorsed those views.


Please proceed, Ober.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
5. Not the first paragraph though?
Thu Oct 17, 2013, 12:27 AM
Oct 2013

I have not only heard all the arguments against BDS, I have made them. I am one of those really liberal Jews who will appear on panels too treif for most mainstream Jews (because they include anti-Zionists) and argue that the liberal Zionist dream is not dead, that a Jewish and democratic Israel is still possible, that Israel (inside the green line) is a democracy.

Should I bold the whole thing for you?

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
6. Yet you ignore everything else.
Thu Oct 17, 2013, 12:30 AM
Oct 2013

I guess you have been taking cherry picking lessons of late. Good for you.

Now I can ask with certainty "Did you even read it."

that Israel (inside the green line) is a democracy.



Amateur.

Response to oberliner (Reply #7)

King_David

(14,851 posts)
9. A safe haven for Jews
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 09:30 AM
Oct 2013

Or anything else "for Jews" is what gets a lot of people "upset".

But the Jewish state has stopped any possibility of pogroms or another Holocaust ever happening again.

Strong Jews and never again .good times.

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
10. Ah, the never again line is raised in good cheer once again by dave.
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 09:47 AM
Oct 2013

Never again only applies to some I guess.

Yet it is hypocrisy to chant never again while turning a blind eye to Israeli apartheid.

King_David

(14,851 posts)
11. Being a Jew myself I concentrate on where it
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 09:49 AM
Oct 2013

Applies to us... When it applies to others I read about it when members of those groups highlight it.

How does it apply to you?

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
12. "I concentrate on where it applies to us..."
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 09:56 AM
Oct 2013

Being a humanist, dave, I concentrate on injustice meted out to groups and individuals.


That's how it applies to me. Jew, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist Sikh etc. doesn't enter into the equation.

King_David

(14,851 posts)
13. Some choice quotes and real 'mature' debating technique from R. Daneel Olivaw on this thread alone .
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 10:00 AM
Oct 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49049

'what a bunch of amateurs '

'You're really not that good at this'

'In act you are downright horrible at it. '(sic)

'You really are an amateur.'

'Amateurs, all. '


'You really are horrible at spreading the BS around'

'Just go away and be lame someplace else'

'

Yes real mature



Update:

Amateur.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49145


Update:

'In addition, when amateurs act like amateurs that's how I call it. '

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=49369
 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
14. Don't sprain a finger actually replying to what I wrote, dave.
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 10:09 AM
Oct 2013

Last edited Sun Oct 20, 2013, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)


You asked me, and I told you.

In addition, when amateurs act like amateurs that's how I call it.




Now back to your deflection of the day...


On edit: Perhaps I have it wrong and amateurs are actually professionals at deflection?

Fantastic Anarchist

(7,309 posts)
32. It means nothing if not applied to everyone.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:15 PM
Nov 2013

What, you going to leave certain "undesirables" out?

Get it?

That's what Never Again means. No one.

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
43. Perhaps if you didn't argue from a posiion of unenlightenment?
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 09:47 PM
Nov 2013

Fantastic Anarchist understands what the term stands for.

You?
 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
44. Do you think it is happening again?
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 10:15 PM
Nov 2013

Do you feel that something similar to the Holocaust is going on right now with respect to the Palestinians?

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
50. Perhaps you need to re-vist the subthread before you ask me if a holocaust is happening
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 10:37 AM
Nov 2013

when I clearly spelled out that Israeli apartheid is what is happening. To your distractive point, what I wrote was that "Never again only applies to some I guess" whereas the progeny of "never again" have no problem meeting out abuse after abuse and land grab after land grab; all the while keeping a captive population under their boot heel.
 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
53. If you are going to play the part of the village bungler
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 10:58 AM
Nov 2013

then don't expect anybody to take you seriously.

Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #19)

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
22. Ok
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:17 PM
Nov 2013

But that basic law, and the ruling, are referencing this basic law.

"7A. A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the goals or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: (…) (1) negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; (…)"[2]


Nowhere is there any guarantee of ethnic majority. You're just not allowed to run for congress if you're doing so expressly to undo that majority.

All your statements that x says y always require a convoluted path of several steps... A law, then a ruling from a different but similar sounding law, then an exaggeration.

Aside from being dishonest it implies a lack of faith in your own arguments. There is so much real shit to criticize about Israel it's ridiculous. It's not as bad as what you post about Israel but it has the benefit of being real, while your stuff is imaginary. If your arguments truly have merit then why do they require falsehoods to make?

Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #22)

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
24. Yeah, but that's not what you said.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 08:57 PM
Nov 2013

There's simply not a founding law that guarantees a Jewish majority. There's just one that doesn't let people run for office intending to end it.

You can not take a ruling that applies to a specific law and then assume it can be extrapolated to fit a different one. There isn't even a basic law defining israel as the Jewish state. There's just one saying:

1. The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

So it references the values of the Jewish state. But it doesn't state what you need... Something like.

This basic law establishes the state of Israel as a Jewish state and guarantees it stays that way.

Unless you consider Israel's Declaration of Independence founding law, that defines Israel the way you need.

Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #24)

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
27. Well, it doesn't.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 09:29 PM
Nov 2013

But is there even a basic law defining Israel as a Jewish state?

You're saying this is a part of their founding law! Where? What are you even referencing?

Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #27)

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
29. Christ. Never mind.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 09:57 PM
Nov 2013

It's your argument, not mine. That Israel's founding law guarantees Israel remain a Jewish state. Or is a Jewish state or whatever.

I'm asking what founding law you're referencing. You said it not me. I know Israel's a Jewish state regardless. But I'm curious what founding law says it?

Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #29)

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
33. The issue
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 01:27 AM
Nov 2013

Ok, so you're taking a judicial statement written in 2002 that references a law about electoral eligibility, passed in 1999 and applying a part of it to a definition that you've heard but isn't part of any actual law at all and concluding that Israel has a founding law (Israel, founded 1948), which guarantees a Jewish ethnic majority.

As a side note, nothing that judge stated in your quote seems to be actually true. Jews aren't guaranteed citizenship, there are official festivals for most religions, and Arabic is also an official language of Israel.

But even if he had been right, it wouldn't make your logic anything less than a work of astounding art.

Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #33)

King_David

(14,851 posts)
37. I think your confusing yourself here,
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 09:26 AM
Nov 2013

You have not demonstrated to Shaktimaan or anyone else reading this what basic law you are referencing .

Now all you have to do is point us all to this law that your going on and in about that doesn't even exist.

You can't just make things up and use that as a foundation for your "argument ".

Response to King_David (Reply #37)

King_David

(14,851 posts)
47. And as Shaktimaan already told you
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:01 AM
Nov 2013

That ruling has nothing to do with what your arguing about whatsoever buddy,

Perhaps you should re-read the thread again and unjumble your argument ?

Response to King_David (Reply #47)

Response to delrem (Reply #48)

King_David

(14,851 posts)
51. You arguing around in circles about there being a Jewish State
Sun Nov 3, 2013, 10:45 AM
Nov 2013

I know that a lot of people think that 12 Million people don't deserve anything like their own state to protect themselves but that every other nation in the world does, but your "argument" is just not
logical .Offensive yes but nevertheless
non existant.

Response to King_David (Reply #51)

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
59. I'm gonna go ahead...
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:09 AM
Nov 2013

and try and simplify this for you because you really seem unable to grasp how logic works.

Here's the quote with key bits bolded for you.

Regarding the meaning of the definition of "Jewish and Democratic State" in this section of the law, then President of the Supreme Court of Israel, Aharon Barak, wrote that a narrow interpretation should be given to it, since it limits a basic right, in contrast to the broader interpretation that should be given to laws concerning Human rights.


You see, he specifies that the meaning of the definition AS IT REGARDS THIS ONE SECTION OF THIS SINGLE, INDIVIDUAL LAW, should be viewed narrowly. Then to clarify it further he draws a contrast between THIS interpretation versus the broader one that concern OTHER laws.

In other words, this definition is only applicable as regards THIS law, because the essence of this law is one that restricts basic rights. ie: Who is allowed to run for office.

It is so super, duper crystal clear. Yet you somehow think he said that it means Israel GUARANTEES a Jewish majority. He doesn't use that word at all, he doesn't imply that meaning. But most embarrassing of all, you originally posted that Israel's founding laws guarantee a Jewish majority, making it plain that you don't know the difference between a law itself versus the way a law is interpreted. The crux of your argument is not only false, but also relies on people being unable to distinguish between legislation and court rulings!

Here though... if what you're saying REALLY REALLY is true, then I'm sure you can point out at least a few links that back up your findings.

Like how every Jew on the planet has the right to immigrate to Israel, for instance... no matter what they've done. Even if we're talking about a cannibal who murdered dozens of people and stabbed the immigration officer when he was being interviewed... according to you Israel guarantees him the RIGHT to become an Israeli citizen.

Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #59)

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
62. Haha. You're great.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 03:07 PM
Nov 2013

Your arguments always remind me of the one that goes like this: In Israel, Arabs are forbidden from buying land.

They never get around to telling to that NO ONE in Israel is allowed to buy land, Jew, Arab or whatever.

Yes, just as Morris said that ethic cleansing was necessary for Israel to become a state. You always leave out the reason... Because the Palestinians began a civil war aimed at destroying the yishuv.

Great trick. We assume Ahmed can't buy land because he's Arab. Just like how there could have been an Israel with no nabka had the Arabs not rejected peace.

Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #62)

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
39. So just so I'm clear...
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 10:00 AM
Nov 2013

Israel never managed to define itself legally for 50+ years? When the definition became those 4 or 5 random things being guaranteed or existing or something?

That's how Israel legally defines "Jewish state?"

You're going with that?

Response to Shaktimaan (Reply #39)

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
35. There is no founding law guaranteeing a Jewish demographic majority. That's a lie & u know it. n/t
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 08:57 AM
Nov 2013
 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
15. As DU can see the hasbarists will do anything to move the
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 11:06 AM
Oct 2013

discussion away from the OP.


The only way they can address the OP is to run from it.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
16. What do you want to discuss about the OP?
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 01:09 PM
Oct 2013

What is it in particular that you would like to see addressed?

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
17. Let's start with this.
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 07:53 PM
Oct 2013

If Kathleen Peratis was recently arguing against BDS then perhaps she has seen the writing on the Israeli wall of state...at least enough to change her views on the subject.

She is one person to change her views. BDS is catching on, and others will change theirs when thy wake up to what Israel is doing.

Shaktimaan

(5,397 posts)
20. I'm surprised.
Fri Nov 1, 2013, 07:26 PM
Nov 2013

I wouldn't think you'd endorse her idea. She places the entirety of the process entirely with Israel. That means a unilaterally imposed peace treaty, not one negotiated by two sides. Pretty much like Gaza.

The issue isn't that everyone hates peace. It's that each side envisions very different terms. If you demand Israel impose peace then you are guaranteed to get their version of it sans negotiations.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
38. Support what kind of BDS? Global BDS? From the article...
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 09:49 AM
Nov 2013
One argument, one I have made myself, is that BDS just makes Israelis feel that the world is against them, engenders a siege mentality and is therefore counterproductive.


It's counterproductive but she wants to give it a go regardless? It engenders a siege mentality that will lead to _________? Hmm, let's see...an Israeli initiated solution like pulling out of maybe 60% of the W.Bank, at best. Is that the goal of the BDS'ers? Because that's all they'll get, maximum.

The almost unspoken reason I have kept my distance from BDS is the whiff of anti-Semitism that rises from some of the BDS organizations, including some in the Global BDS Movement. Their advocacy of the "full" right of return of Palestinian refugees means an end to Jewish Israel. Their one-sided condemnation of '48 is a rejection of our democratic Zionism. We cannot march shoulder to shoulder with them.


Seems the author doesn't want to march shoulder-to-shoulder with the supporters of BDS who she sees as supporting an antisemitic cause. That doesn't seem to stop the supporters of BDS here, however.

And let's do so until Israelis do one thing: place ending the occupation higher on their priority list than the price of cottage cheese.


At most, they'll end part of the occupation of the W.Bank, not all. They're not suicidal. They place their lives above the price of cottage cheese. A withdrawal to the '67 lines (forget the settlers for now) leaves the vast majority of Israelis exposed to terror attacks, like fish in a barrel. Think Gaza rockets, but MUCH, MUCH closer to major population centers. Think rockets from Brooklyn falling into Manhattan. Only in Israel's case, Brooklyn would be raining rockets down from a mountain range into downtown Manhattan.

I can't conclude without saying a word about fear, the fear of activist Jews that endorsing BDS means you are no longer under the communal tent. Just last week, J Street member Seth Morrison felt he had to quit J Street and remove himself from its listserve because he decided to join Jewish Voice for Peace, an American Jewish organization that supports the Global BDS Movement. What a pity that he was presented with, or felt he had to make, such a choice.


Leaving J-Street for JVP actually makes sense. The former is a pro-Israel organization for 2 states (one Jewish), the latter is for one-state, full RoR. How the author believes someone in JVP can honestly remain a member of J-Street is mind boggling. It would be like Omar Barghouti (leader of Global BDS) joining J-Street Zionists in support of a Jewish Israel. Ridiculous.
 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
42. Perhaps the optically challenged need to reread the OP and what is bolded.
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 09:43 PM
Nov 2013

The writer was pretty clear and makes her point clear, shira, whereas you...well...
 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
64. Wait. Do you mean the same Noam Chompsky that you claim is a
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:48 PM
Nov 2013

Hypocrite?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=224043&mesg_id=224178




Chomsky has a history with holocaust deniers and has been quoted as saying holocaust denial is not anti-semitism. He cannot be taken seriously on any matters concerning Jews.
 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
66. No, shira, it's really that we can't
Thu Nov 28, 2013, 10:35 AM
Nov 2013

Last edited Fri Nov 29, 2013, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)

find you credible when you use sources that you find dubious and try to use them as fact.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»If You Want Two States, S...