ISRAEL VS. PALESTINE...AGAIN

[Duchess]

Do you have the link for that?

I couldn't recall where I read it early this morning so I went looking for confirmation. I'll enclose a couple places where I saw it talked about. It is the Nitzana border crossing if you want to look for your own confirmation.

https://twitter.com/search?q=Nitzana%20b...uery&f=top

https://www.google.com/search?q=israelis...-serp#ip=1

[sally]

I just wanted to post it on next door, I’m sick of their”we stand with Israel “ crap.

[Duchess]

 I’m sick of their”we stand with Israel “ crap.

It's everywhere and I'm especially taken aback by those who are educated and should know better.

[BigMark]

I believe we need Israel as a counter to the Radical Islamic states and they just had these animals attack them what did they think would happen?

[Duchess]

I don't disagree with that, but speaking only for myself, that's not what my issue is about. Of course Israel deserves to be able to fight back, but in their eagerness to kill Hamas they are killing citizens who have nothing to do with Hamas, they are the victims of circumstance and there are many people who flat out refuse to see that, and for those that do, they don't give a shit that Pals are dying in the tens of thousands, as far as they are concerned, it will be one less Pal who is out to get them in the future. That's where their heads are at.

[BigMark]

They both slaughtered baby's and deserve each other.

[rothschild]

I believe we need Israel as a counter to the Radical Islamic states and they just had these animals attack them what did they think would happen?

Israel attacks the Pals every day, so who are the animals?

We could have backed Mosaddegh in Iran, who was a moderate. Instead, we went with the Shah, which led to the Islamic revolution. In Afghanistan we armed and trained Islamic warlords via Pakistan, and called for jihad against the Soviets. We incited jihad, and we've paid for that ever since.

It was our backing of the warlords, who overthrew the Soviet-backed government, which led to the Soviet invasion. That government was moderate, and supported the education of women.

Israel supported Hamas in it's early days because it didn't want to negotiate a peaceful resolution with Arafat. Israel is a hyper-nationalist state that has no interest in peace -- and somewhat similar to a certain nation in Europe which I won't name.

[Duchess]

I inadvertently saw a child's feet sticking out from under the rubble. That's not the first time I didn't stop my scroll quick enough.

[BlueTiki]

 I’m sick of their”we stand with Israel “ crap.

It's everywhere and I'm especially taken aback by those who are educated and should know better.

I support the "We Stand With Israel" mantra.  I also support an independent Palestinian state.

I guess those who oppose "We stand with Israel" just want the Israelis exterminated and a nation dismantled. 

I inadvertently saw a child's feet sticking out from under the rubble. That's not the first time I didn't stop my scroll quick enough.

Not as disturbing as seeing a picture showing Pebbles' feet sticking out while under Barney.  

Yabba-Dabba-Doo!

[Duchess]

I guess those who oppose "We stand with Israel" just want the Israelis exterminated and a nation dismantled. 

I think there are some who do, yeah. As you already know, there are many who only stand with, and defend, one side or the other.

[BlueTiki]

I guess those who oppose "We stand with Israel" just want the Israelis exterminated and a nation dismantled. 

I think there are some who do, yeah. As you already know, there are many who only stand with, and defend, one side or the other.

Yup. 

Unfortunately, it seems far more prevalent (to me . . . my observation and opinion) those embracing the pro-Palestine movement are vehemently opposed to an independent and sovereign Israel.  Their public rhetoric about Israel's total destruction is undeniable and rampant . . . including calling for the deaths of civilians.  Not great messaging, IMO.

Not so much with the "We stand with Israel" movement.  Don't really hear the public "Death to Palestine" war chants from this group.

"Death to Israel" goes far beyond the Palestinian independence movement.

 

[rothschild]

I never had a problem with "death to South African apartheid", but that's me.

Israel is worse than apartheid was, imo.

[BlueTiki]

I never had a problem with "death to South African apartheid", but that's me.

Israel is worse than apartheid was, imo.

Apartheid is an ideology and institution.  Israel is a nation.

It did not call for the deaths of those practicing or endorsing apartheid.  It was a call to "kill" the continued practice of apartheid . . . not the annihilation of a country and it's citizens.

"Death to Slavery" . . . was about killing the institution of slavery . . . not the death of people or the states where slavery was practiced.

I get it . . . you want Israel obliterated . . . as do many secular and religious people and nations.

It's just another "moral and humanitarian" justification for genocide.

Kinda like "Death to America".

[BigMark]

Let's talk about Rhodesia...

[rothschild]

I never had a problem with "death to South African apartheid", but that's me.

Israel is worse than apartheid was, imo.

Apartheid is an ideology and institution.  Israel is a nation.

It did not call for the deaths of those practicing or endorsing apartheid.  It was a call to "kill" the continued practice of apartheid . . . not the annihilation of a country and it's citizens.

"Death to Slavery" . . . was about killing the institution of slavery . . . not the death of people or the states where slavery was practiced.

I get it . . . you want Israel obliterated . . . as do many secular and religious people and nations.

It's just another "moral and humanitarian" justification for genocide.

Kinda like "Death to America".

There's no question that Israel is a Zionist state, so saying "death to Israel" is no different than saying "death to apartheid". If you say "death to Jews", that's very different, but I think it's disingenuous to conflate the two. The most that can reasonably be said is that people who call for the death of Israel *might* be referencing all Israelis. The same applies to apartheid South Africa. There were more than a few who wanted all Afrikaners dead.

[BlueTiki]

I never had a problem with "death to South African apartheid", but that's me.

Israel is worse than apartheid was, imo.

Why not just say "Death to apartheid"?  Why use the qualifier "South African"?

Continuing with the use of a qualifier . . . 

Like apartheid, Zionism is an ideology.  No question South Africa was an apartheid state . . . and you have so noted that Israel is a Zionist nation.  Again, both apartheid and Zionism are ideologies . . . not states or nations.

So, why not just say "Death to Israeli Zionism" . . . or better yet:  "Death to Zionism".  "Death to Israel" means just that . . . the complete death of a nation and its people. 

It's the extremist Zionistic practices, and all it entails, that appears to boil your blood.  Unless, of course, you want the literal death and destruction of Israel and its people, as the cure to eliminate Israeli Zionism.

If there is any disingenuousness, it is the targeting of a nation and it's people . . . and NOT the ideology . . . then pretending that the real meaning is a singular abhorrence of an ideology that exists, solely within Israel and all of its people. 

"Death to Israel" encompasses way more than Zionism . . . and you know that, too.

[rothschild]

I never had a problem with "death to South African apartheid", but that's me.

Israel is worse than apartheid was, imo.

Why not just say "Death to apartheid"?  Why use the qualifier "South African"?


Continuing with the use of a qualifier . . . 

Like apartheid, Zionism is an ideology.  No question South Africa was an apartheid state . . . and you have so noted that Israel is a Zionist nation.  Again, both apartheid and Zionism are ideologies . . . not states or nations.

So, why not just say "Death to Israeli Zionism" . . . or better yet:  "Death to Zionism". 

It's the extremist Zionism, and all it entails, that appears to boil your blood.  Unless, of course, you want the literal death and destruction of Israel as the cure to eliminate Israeli Zionism.

If there is any disingenuousness, it is the targeting of a nation and it's people . . . and NOT the ideology . . . then pretending that the real meaning is a singular abhorrence of an ideology that exists, solely within Israel and all of its people. 

"Death to Israel" encompasses way more than Zionism . . . and you know that, too.

If Zionism manifests as a state, then in that particular instance Zionism is a state. Prior to the establishment of Israel, Zionism was an ideology and a movement.

"Nation" can reference a people organized under a single government, it can reference a government per se, and it can reference the territory occupied by the people of a nation. Are you a mind reader?

Your logic entails the extermination of all Israelis, some of whom -- as you may know -- are not Jewish, so I think qualifiers are helpful for the sake of clarity. I referenced South Africa because in that instance apartheid manifested as a state.

[BlueTiki]

I never had a problem with "death to South African apartheid", but that's me.
Israel is worse than apartheid was, imo.

Why not just say "Death to apartheid"?  Why use the qualifier "South African"?

Continuing with the use of a qualifier . . . 

Like apartheid, Zionism is an ideology.  No question South Africa was an apartheid state . . . and you have so noted that Israel is a Zionist nation.  Again, both apartheid and Zionism are ideologies . . . not states or nations.

So, why not just say "Death to Israeli Zionism" . . . or better yet:  "Death to Zionism".
 
It's the extremist Zionism, and all it entails, that appears to boil your blood.  Unless, of course, you want the literal death and destruction of Israel as the cure to eliminate Israeli Zionism.

If there is any disingenuousness, it is the targeting of a nation and it's people . . . and NOT the ideology . . . then pretending that the real meaning is a singular abhorrence of an ideology that exists, solely within Israel and all of its people. 


"Death to Israel" encompasses way more than Zionism . . . and you know that, too.

If Zionism manifests as a state, then in that particular instance Zionism is a state. Prior to the establishment of Israel, Zionism was an ideology and a movement.

The goal of Zionism (as either an ideology or movement) was to establish an independent physical “state”, as a home and sanctuary, for the world’s Jews.

Zionism begat Israel.  Goal achieved . . . a separate and independent territory and refuge, for the world’s Jews.

I get it.  You don’t believe the world’s Jews should have a separate independent territory, refuge and a home . . . free from threats or extermination.

But it appears you do support the same precepts, proposed within Zionism, for Palestinians.  Interesting. 

"Nation" can reference a people organized under a single government, it can reference a government per se, and it can reference the territory occupied by the people of a nation. Are you a mind reader?

I never considered myself a mind reader.

I simply took the unambiguous and literal “Death to Israel” as all-encompassing and totality
.
The “Death to Israel” chant is specific . . . without subtlety . . . absent specifics, qualifiers, or clarification.

Your logic entails the extermination of all Israelis, some of whom -- as you may know -- are not Jewish, so I think qualifiers are helpful for the sake of clarity. I referenced South Africa because in that instance apartheid manifested as a state.

Apartheid was limited to a particular nation or state (and a territory controlled, by South Africa).

By your assessment, the same is true for Zionism.

You were specific of what you wanted to “die” in South Africa by using the country and the practice. Not South Africa . . . but a specific institution, of that nation.  The statement was clear and unambiguous of what you wanted South Africa to do.

Not so with Israel.

RC, if you only want the death of Zionism in Israel, and not the nation, use the same specifics instead of dancing around like a liberal stooge explaining why I should have known what you meant and you really are not a genocidal douche canoe.

I’m not a mind reader nor is it illogical to believe that “Death to Israel” means death to a nation, its territory, its institutions, beliefs, and all its people.

[rothschild]

The goal of Zionism (as either an ideology or movement) was to establish an independent physical “state”, as a home and sanctuary, for the world’s Jews.

Zionism begat Israel. Goal achieved . . . a separate and independent territory and refuge, for the world’s Jews.

I get it. You don’t believe the world’s Jews should have a separate independent territory, refuge and a home . . . free from threats or extermination.

But it appears you do support the same precepts, proposed within Zionism, for Palestinians. Interesting.

That state has to be maintained, and the means by which it was established -- ethnic cleansing -- has to be denied, or the Zionist state goes down the same way the apartheid state in South Africa did.

According to the last Ottoman census there were 500,000 people in the region known as Palestine. Do you find it "interesting" that they've resisted dispossession?

If Palestine had been "a land without people for a people without land", which has been claimed, there would be no ongoing conflict. The Zionists staked a claim, the world acknowledged it, end of. The fly in the ointment is that it was not an empty land, and the people Israel has done it's best to drive off have steadfastly refused to give up their claim, and have paid dearly for it while the world has stood by and watched in silence.

I never considered myself a mind reader.

I simply took the unambiguous and literal “Death to Israel” as all-encompassing and totality.

The “Death to Israel” chant is specific . . . without subtlety . . . absent specifics, qualifiers, or clarification.


Apartheid was limited to a particular nation or state (and a territory controlled, by South Africa).

By your assessment, the same is true for Zionism.

You were specific of what you wanted to “die” in South Africa by using the country and the practice. Not South Africa . . . but a specific institution, of that nation. The statement was clear and unambiguous of what you wanted South Africa to do.

Not so with Israel.

RC, if you only want the death of Zionism in Israel, and not the nation, use the same specifics instead of dancing around like a liberal stooge explaining why I should have known what you meant and you really are not a genocidal douche canoe.

I’m not a mind reader nor is it illogical to believe that “Death to Israel” means death to a nation, its territory, its institutions, beliefs, and all its people.

If I'd referenced South Africa instead of South African apartheid it would have made no sense because South Africa is no longer an apartheid state. Israel is very much a Zionist state, and were that not the case I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

If I'd said "death to South Africa" during the time of apartheid, do you honestly believe that would by necessity be calling for the death of all Afrikaners?

I've shown that "nation" doesn't necessarily refer to the people who live in it, yet you insist there is only one correct interpretation in spite of the fact that Zionism is the core institution of Israel. Is it implausible that people who say "death to Israel" hate Zionism rather than Jews per se? Hardly.

[BlueTiki]

Thank goodness Hamas and the Palestinian Nationalist Movement doesn’t include ethnic cleansing, as a means to independence!  

“A land without people and a people without land” is falsely attributed to the precepts of Zionism . . . as is your claim of ethnic cleansing, being a fundamental principle of Zionism.  It is patently anti-Zionism propaganda.

The world, and those Arab countries ceding the land (as did the Jewish immigrants), knew the land for the creation of Israel was occupied . . . including the newly formed United Nations. The Arabs willingly tossed the inhabitants (of the land that would become Israel) under the bus and then broke promises, made to these indigenous people, regarding their rights and independence.

You asked: "IIf I'd said "death to South Africa" during the time of apartheid, do you honestly believe that would by necessity be calling for the death of all Afrikaners?

No.  I would believe you meant the destruction of every institution and person that perpetuates South Africa, as it currently exists . . . not just apartheid.  Why wouldn’t I?

“Death to South African Apartheid”?  I could interpret this as you accept apartheid, except for the practice of apartheid, in South Africa.  As apartheid was exclusive to South Africa, it is a redundant statement . . . no need for the qualifier.  Unless it’s truly just the South African style of apartheid, you loathe, then, the qualifier is necessary.

"Death to United States Capitalism" and "Death to Capitalism" doesn't mean "Death to the United States".  "Death to the United States" could mean their people, institutions, style of government or the Constitution.

It’s kinda like “Death to McDonalds’ Big Mac” versus “Death to the Big Mac”.
 
“Death to McDonalds” . . . You really expect me to know that you’re specifically talking about the Big Mac?  (Yeah, substitute Israel for McDonalds . . . and the Big Mac for Zionism). 

You stated: "I've shown that "nation" doesn't necessarily refer to the people who live in it, yet you insist there is only one correct interpretation in spite of the fact that Zionism is the core institution of Israel. Is it implausible that people who say "death to Israel" hate Zionism rather than Jews per se? Hardly."

Is it implausible that “Death to Israel” means just that?  Hardly!  As it is subject to interpretation, it is an overly broad and dangerous statement.

Again, why am I forced to mind-read intent? If you are against a specific ideology, institution or practice JUST SAY IT and remove any ambiguity.  I interpret “Death to Israel” as a literal statement . . . not hyperbole or a reference to a specific practice or practices.  FFS!  Say what you mean. 
 
Why should I be forced to become a mind reader and guess what people mean when they say, “Death to Israel”?  Why?

Keep on dancing!