Comments on: Reframing the Israel Debate

By: sbenzi

sbenzi — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:42:09 +0000

The key question to ask the J-Street's utopists is: “please, define 'Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories'”. Had they had a better knowledge of the legal rights of Israel under international law, they would not utter this nonsense of “occupation” anymore.

By: ronmossad

ronmossad — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:12:35 +0000

Just because someone calls themselves “pro-Israel” doesn’t necessarily make it so.

http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/09/j-dead-en...

In the end, J Street is a great “hope and change” alternative to real Israel lobbying. Hope for terrorists and change that reduces the support for the only real democracy in the Middle East.

By: brian mills

brian mills — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 05:13:44 +0000

wonderful its about time that progressive jews took back their identity from the war monger hawks that have been the power brokers for so long

By: brian mills

brian mills — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:13:44 +0000

wonderful its about time that progressive jews took back their identity from the war monger hawks that have been the power brokers for so long

By: Adult Toys

Adult Toys — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:33:11 +0000

interesting article

By: Adult Toys

Adult Toys — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:53:29 +0000

great post thanks!

By: penizfase

penizfase — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:26:52 +0000

everyone is realizing israel was an anachronistically botched nation building scheme, but there is big bucks in israel support organizations. lobbying beats actually having to work for a living!

By: whyshouldtruthhurt

whyshouldtruthhurt — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:00:49 +0000

yeah, they did offer a lot to arafat. so much, in fact, that he couldn't accept it 1) because he was unprepared for israel to go so far and had not prepared his own people for the "end of conflict" that he was offered, including jerusalem as a shared capital, and 2) he was beholden to the despotic leaders of the surrounding arab states who used and played him like a puppet, and it obviously was not in their interest for an end to the conflict that they could use and manipulate for their own ends. you obviously know nothing about the proposals and have not even looked at the maps used at taba or else you would not fall into the idiotic, stereotype of labeling the proposed palestinian state a swiss cheese like bantustan. you are not a student of this conflict, you are a sensationalist and provocateur, so stop posing as a friend of the palestinian people and learn the truth. no serious person accepts palestinian right of return as a possibility, and to raise it is destructive to genuine negotiations, simply using the palestinians as a tool for political propoganda. yes, a limited number of palestinian refugees will be allowed to settle in israel, but palestinians living outside the territories of a new palestinian state will be welcomed into palestine. wow, is that so hard to understand? yes, thousands have died. why? because their leadership at every turn has abandoned them. two-state solution? like the one proposed in 1947 that palestinian jews accepted and palestinian arabs rejected. they could both be celebrating a 60th anniversary but for the maximalist positions always taken foolish leaders. they don't know when their homes will be demolished? of course they do. palestine remains illegally occupied? do you mean the so-called west bank? did you decry the jordanian occupation and demand a palestinian state then. not even the plo did so at its inception in 1964, focusing its attention on liberating the territory the jews made a state. why didn't the world insist on a palestinian state before israel took the west bank territories in 1967 — after literally begging king hussein not to listen to egypt and syria, then getting their butts kicked, and begging hussein not to jump belatedly into the 6-day-war? hussein, toward the end of his life, acknowledged it was the single biggest mistake of his life. so, yes, israel defended itself after hussein rejected their pleas and ended up with the west bank territories. and then arafat never could figure out how to take "yes" for an answer. as for roy as your guide, she's done such a superb job of solving the problems of the subcontinent, why shouldn't she meddle in the middle east? as someone who decried the u.s. war in afghanistan following 9-11, and attacked the u.s. for its efforts to eliminate the taliban and al qaeda in afghanistan, you might want to search for a more credible source.

By: fcukbsuh

fcukbsuh — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:45:50 +0000

Gee, yeah, they offered so much to Arafat...A noncontiguous state of checkpoints that made a 'state' look like Swiss cheese...Nevermind no Right of Return for what the Amnesty International has listed as the single greatest refugee crisis in the world, the Palestinians who have been displaced.

And Israel has never kept any of the 'promises' or accords they've agreed to making them the most disingenuous state on the planet.

Fortunately, not all Jews are this narrowly and demonically focused.

"Over the decades there have been uprisings, wars, intifadas. Tens of thousands have lost their lives. Accords and treaties have been signed. Cease-fires declared and violated. But the bloodshed doesn't end. Palestine still remains illegally occupied. Its people live in inhuman conditions, in virtual Bantustans, where they are subjected to collective punishments, twenty-four hour curfews, where they are humiliated and brutalized on a daily basis. They never know when their homes will be demolished, when their children will be shot, when their precious trees will be cut, when their roads will be closed, when they will be allowed to walk down to the market to buy food and medicine. And when they will not. They live with no semblance of dignity. With not much hope in sight. They have no control over their lands, their security, their movement, their communication, their water supply. So when accords are signed, and words like "autonomy" and even "statehood" bandied about, it's always worth asking: What sort of autonomy? What sort of State? What sort of rights will its citizens have?

What lessons should we draw from this tragic conflict? Is it really impossible for Jewish people who suffered so cruelly themselves - more cruelly perhaps than any other people in history - to understand the vulnerability and the yearning of those whom they have displaced? Does extreme suffering always kindle cruelty? What hope does this leave the human race with? What will happen to the Palestinian people in the event of a victory? When a nation without a state eventually proclaims a state, what kind of state will it be? What horrors will be perpetrated under its flag? Is it a separate state that we should be fighting for or, the rights to a life of liberty and dignity for everyone regardless of their ethnicity or religion?"

-Arundhati Roy

By: whyshouldtruthhurt

whyshouldtruthhurt — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:42:30 +0000

israel never had designs on gaza, should have gotten out much soon but finally did, only to be rocketed every day since. and as for the most volatile issue in the world today being occupation of palestine, you have a pathetically narrow view of the world. and did you stop reading and thinking after israel offered arafat practically everything and got a wave of suicide murder instead — enough to make much of the surrounding arab world like jordan, egypt and even the saudis reconsider priorities in the region. but that's ok…this way you get to spout idiocy and impress your blogging pals who don't know any better