Israel 'To Review' Top Appointment After Facebook Controversy (bbc.com)

HughPickens.com writes: BBC reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will "review" the appointment of his new communications director, Ran Baratz, over comments Baratz made on Facebook accusing President Obama of anti-Semitism and describing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as having a "mental age" of no more than 12. U.S. state department spokesman John Kirby said Mr. Baratz's Facebook posts were "troubling and offensive." "Insults, certainly, aimed at individuals doesn't do anything to help advance and deepen the relationship. We learn in kindergarten about name-calling, and it's simply not a polite thing to do," Kirby said. The Facebook posts emerged shortly after Netanyahu announced the appointment of philosophy lecturer Mr. Baratz as his chief spokesman. In March, Baratz described President Obama's criticism of Netanyahu's opposition to the Iran nuclear deal as "the modern face of anti-Semitism in Western and liberal countries."

Netanyahu quickly distanced himself from the comments but indicated the appointment remained valid. "I have just read Dr Ran Baratz's posts on the internet, including those relating to the president of the state of Israel, the president of the United States and other public figures in Israel and the United States," Netanyahu said in a statement. "Those posts are totally unacceptable and in no way reflect my positions or the policies of the government of Israel. Dr. Baratz has apologized and has asked to meet me to clarify the matter following my return to Israel." Baratz, in a Facebook post Thursday night, apologized for "the hurtful remarks" and for not informing the prime minister of them. Baratz said the posts "were written frivolously and sometimes humorously, in a tone suited to the social networks and a private individual." Baratz added, "It is very clear to me that in an official post one has to behave and express oneself differently."

Comments

What this statement says:

[fustakrakich]

"It is very clear to me that in an official post one has to behave and express oneself differently."

Officials are urged to take acting lessons.

Yeah

[Njorthbiatr]

We're not giving them enough of someone else's land.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN gave them the land. Of course, if you go back far enough, it was theirs to begin with. And before them, someone else. And before them, someone else. So what's your point?

Do you think that Native Americans would be justified in using terrorism to get back some of the land the US took from them?

Re:Yeah

[aevan]

Apparently as long as you wait 30 years before asking the question, and as long as they succeeded? Yes.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Tell me does that apply to Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and other countries founded around the same time as well? Or just the jewish state?

Re:Yeah

[NicBenjamin]

This is America, not some Arab country that doesn't recognize Israel at all. He's probably talking about the West Bank, which the Israeli government has never officially claimed, but does insist it has the right to fill up with Jews. Particular the bits nearest Jerusalem.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Middle East, everyone wants everyone else's land. Some of the issues can be traced back to imperialism, British colonization, and the British mandates. Anti-semitism drove Jews out of Europe and they settled in Palestine before Israel was created. The Pogroms and the Holocaust were big factors in this.

Some of the issues absolutely revolve around religion. There are disputes between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. There are also disputes within religions such as the dislike between Shiites and Sunnis. It's a mess when you try to make these groups get along with each other, especially within the confines of a single country.

Many of the issues are also ethnic in nature. Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion, with maternal lineages. Anyone with a Jewish mother is considered a Jew. There are plenty of Kurds in the region who aren't exactly welcome. They've been gassed, deported en masse, and subject to much persecution. There are Arabs and Persians in the region.

There are too many people in the Middle East who want to drive everyone who's not like them far away, if not kill them. It's wrong regardless of who's doing it and whom it's done to. It's not right when Palestinians are driven from their land. It was terribly wrong when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and drove them out. We tend to look the other way about how Turkey treats the Kurds living in their country. There are some extremely old Christian communities in the Middle East, some of which date back nearly 2,000 years. The PLO attacked Maronite Christians in Lebanon, in things like the Damour Massacre. Roughly 10% of the population in Syria is Christians, and another approximately 10% are Kurds. They have both come into the line of fire from ISIL in the ongoing civil war. Of course, there's the carpet bombing of southern Lebanon by Israel in the conflict with Hezbollah, causing large civilian casualties and leaving the area with many unexploded munitions to this day.

This is a message that needs to be generalized and not simply pointed at Israel. It's wrong to take someone's land and a greater crime to take their life.

Re:Yeah

[Mashiki]

We're not giving them enough of someone else's land.

I'm sure Jordan will have no problem coughing up some land then.

Re:Yeah

[Tablizer]

The UN gave them the land.

No it didn't, Israel put "settlements" and other institutions outside of the agreed-upon borders.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true that the Jews are the inbreed decent of the cult that begin in that region. But the ones that did not follow the cult, did not migrate and stayed in the region are the Palestinian peoples. It is the Jews that occupy Palestine, not the other way around. If the Jews were peaceful they would immigrate into Palestine. You may argue that the idiot Muslim controlling the area would not accept even the humblest and grateful Jews migrants but that is a different issue. The Jews are the "bad guys" here, they may not have skulls on their caps but they definitely are the baddies.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

A land without a people for a People without a land.

There's no such thing as a Palestinian...

Re:Yeah

[Tablizer]

We are all mutts. Humans fuck a lot.

Re:Yeah

[ArchieBunker]

Nobody even wanted that land until Israel became prosperous.

Re:Yeah

[Tablizer]

That's no excuse to swipe it. They should stop making "justifications", and simply get out of it. If it's not your land, it's not your land.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough that line of reasoning doesn't seem to be altering the growing tide of anti-Semitism in Europe.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

Tell me does that apply to Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and other countries founded around the same time as well? Or just the jewish state?

Well no it doesn't apply to "Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and other countries founded around the same time as well" because those aren't examples of "giving them enough of someone else's land."

The issue with Israel is Jews had virtually no claim to that land, they had been a small minority for centuries but hadn't been a majority or rulers for a very very long time.

The creation is Israel was colonialism, not much different from the bizarre concept of settling them in Uganda except for the fact that Israel had added religious significance.

If you want to understand why the Palestinians are so angry then consider the fact Arabs were promised self-rule for revolting against the Ottomans in WWI. Instead the west promised some of their holiest territory (Israel) to as a Jewish homeland, didn't prevent mass Jewish immigration, then imposed a partition that gave the new Jewish population a huge portion of the territory.

I don't blame the Jewish immigrants since any minority would love their own country, but as a westerner with no skin in the game I find myself outraged by how in the 20th century western powers decided they could simply give away a bunch of Arab land to a foreign population. Considering how freaked out Americans get over a few illegal Mexicans it shouldn't be hard to understand why the Palestinian population has gotten so inflamed.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue with Israel is Jews had virtually no claim to that land, they had been a small minority for centuries but hadn't been a majority or rulers for a very very long time.

That's laughable because all the other inhabitants hadn't been rulers in that region, ever. There never was such a thing as a state called Palestine, nor a people called Palestinian. Many nations have come and gone over the centuries but only the Jews have constantly lived there for thousands of years.

So, you might be justified in arguing that Jews were not the majority in the region for a few thousand years, but you are not justified in implying that any other nation held a majority over the region (or held it at all) any longer than the Jews.

The previous owner of the territory in question was the Ottoman Empire, but that nation ceased to exist during World War 2.

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

??? I think you don't know the history here. This is land that was basically considered impossible to develop and Israel created methods to develop it and did so. After this is when all the sudden the "Palestinians" wanted it. Before and during the development it was a somewhat different story altogether.

> If it's not your land, it's not your land.
You're talking about land that was allotted to and developed by Israel that only later was partitioned off and artificial borders and autonomous governments put in place. Saying "If it's not your land, it's not your land." is an argument against a two-state solution.

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

> because those aren't examples of "giving them enough of someone else's land"
Uh, yes they are. Arabs become dominant in those regions when they took over - how is this different other than that the re-establishment of Israel was internationally sanctioned and not a bloody conquest? If you're going to ask Israel to "give back" land to the Arabs then you're going to have to at least ask Arabs to give back land to Persians, Zorastarians / Aryans, Assyrians, etc.

Re:Yeah

[avivgr]

Israel is a tiny 500km strip of land, vs 22 Arab countries spanning 1/3 of the globe. Stop the BS

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

The issue with Israel is Jews had virtually no claim to that land, they had been a small minority for centuries but hadn't been a majority or rulers for a very very long time.

That's laughable because all the other inhabitants hadn't been rulers in that region, ever.

So what? The Arabs had been the substantial majority for a very long time.

There never was such a thing as a state called Palestine, nor a people called Palestinian.

I suspect this is a standard argument for you since I spend most of the comment talking about Arabs.

Many nations have come and gone over the centuries but only the Jews have constantly lived there for thousands of years.

Well that's false.

Many populations had constantly lived there for thousands of years.

As for nations coming and going why give the land to a nation that hadn't existed in thousands of years?

So, you might be justified in arguing that Jews were not the majority in the region for a few thousand years

It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.

but you are not justified in implying that any other nation held a majority over the region (or held it at all) any longer than the Jews.

I can only assume when you say "nation" you mean ethnicity.

I find that claim very dubious, to the extend we can track ethnicities I suspect Arabs have been a majority for longer. And certainly at the end of WWI they had been the majority of over 1000 years.

Personally I think considering 1000+ year old land claims is a really bad idea.

The previous owner of the territory in question was the Ottoman Empire, but that nation ceased to exist during World War 2.

I assume you mean World War 1.

The Arabs would have had some degree of autonomy under the Ottomans, either way that didn't give the West the right to give Jews ownership of the land.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

> because those aren't examples of "giving them enough of someone else's land"
Uh, yes they are. Arabs become dominant in those regions when they took over - how is this different other than that the re-establishment of Israel was internationally sanctioned and not a bloody conquest? If you're going to ask Israel to "give back" land to the Arabs then you're going to have to at least ask Arabs to give back land to Persians, Zorastarians / Aryans, Assyrians, etc.

Hmm, lets unpack this.

1) At the time of WWI Arabs were the majority in those regions, Western powers had no right to interfere in changing demographics and certainly not in giving power to a new ethnicity they'd just let in.

2) My point was to explain why the creation of Israel was extremely unjust and a huge mistake. Not to say that we should try to undo that mistake and give Israel back to the Arabs. Similarly trying to do some historic conquest like giving back Arab land to Iran or give back all Canadian/US land to Native Americans would also be a terrible idea.

3) Israel has undergone a fairly continuous expansion into Palestinian territory since 1967, therefore I see all of the post '67 settlements as part of a current ongoing conflict. Therefore I think a peace agreement starts with the assumption that Israel doesn't get to keep any of the post '67 settlements.

Re:Yeah

[Dog-Cow]

It's even worse than that -- before 1967, when Israel captured territory from a warring nation, the Arabs were content to be Jordanian citizens.

The Israeli-Arab conflict is predicated on the fact that Arabs cannot stand losing to Jews. That's it. Every single atrocity and "counter-"atrocity is predicated on that fact.

Re:Yeah

[Dog-Cow]

If you make shit up, you probably have shit for brains. The British offered territory to Jews that did not include Jerusalem. There are no other sites in Israel that are holy to Islam. From day one, it was the Arabs that refused to live with Jews, not the other way around.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

Your arguments are stupid, which is probably a result of your own innate stupidity.

The Jews took control of the land and created a country in the time-honored tradition of fighting a war and coming out on top. Thousands of nation states have come into existence that exact same way, including virtually every single Arab-dominated country in the world. Just because the Jews did it relatively recently does not mean their method was illegitimate.

The source of the Israeli-Arab conflict is rooted in the fact that Arabs can't stand losing to Jews. If the Kurds carved out a State in northern Iraq, the world would applaud it, and no one would consider it for another second. Only when Jews are involved do we need 2 UN organizations involved to keep the Arabs as perpetual "refugees".

Fine then you've just lost all moral grounds to complain about Palestinian terrorism, because if you think that Israel is justified in taking land through war (which BTW isn't allowed under international law for obvious reasons) then the Palestinians are justified in fighting back.

You can't argue that the Israel is allowed to conquer another people's land while simultaneously claiming the other people aren't allowed to fight back.

Re:Yeah

[Dog-Cow]

The creation of Israel was as unjust as the creation of the US, Canada, every SA country, most European countries. India, most other ME countries, etc. The world over is full of nations that conquered people who were living there immediately before they declared themselves a nation/state.

It sounds like you're just pissed that Jews did it this time.

Re:Yeah

[Dog-Cow]

Jews and Christians have virtually no fights over religious sites in Israel or elsewhere. (I say virtually because there are probably some, somewhere, but I don't know of any). Muslims argue with everyone when it comes to religion. They have just claimed Rachel's Tomb as a Muslim holy site, despite the fact that not even their own tradition links Rachel to Islam in any way. Arabs regularly use religion as an excuse to grab land, and they regularly lie to the world in order to do it.

Re:Yeah

[Dog-Cow]

Jordan gave up the West Bank to Israel. It's the Arabs living there that don't want it.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

The creation of Israel was as unjust as the creation of the US, Canada, every SA country, most European countries. India, most other ME countries, etc. The world over is full of nations that conquered people who were living there immediately before they declared themselves a nation/state.

It sounds like you're just pissed that Jews did it this time.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, I'm just going to ask you to imagining you were an Arab from that region and to honestly try putting yourself in their position.

Re:Yeah

[Bing Tsher E]

The Arabs from that region were nomadic tribes-people, similar in a way to the American Indians.

What happened to the American Indians was also deplorable, but the term to describe it is 'progress.' People can go all new-agey about the Indians and it's popular for people to do in late adolescence and early adulthood.

But it's no different than bemoaning progress in other spheres of human activity. Lots of people deride the 'buggy whip maker' losing their lifestyle here on slashdot. This isn't a lot different.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

??? I think you don't know the history here. This is land that was basically considered impossible to develop and Israel created methods to develop it and did so. After this is when all the sudden the "Palestinians" wanted it. Before and during the development it was a somewhat different story altogether.

> If it's not your land, it's not your land. You're talking about land that was allotted to and developed by Israel that only later was partitioned off and artificial borders and autonomous governments put in place. Saying "If it's not your land, it's not your land." is an argument against a two-state solution.

I don't really care what Israel did with it. Palestine was partitioned and the land they took was not part of their allotment. I don't really care whether Israel is God's chosen people or whether they used to live there 2000 years ago, that was 2000 years ago and they have no right to disenfranchise the people living in Palestine now.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

So it was all empty land no cities such as lot, alquds/jerusalem, bethlehem, ha7fa, acra, beer sheba, and many more. Nomads build cities?

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

The Arabs from that region were nomadic tribes-people, similar in a way to the American Indians.

In the early 1900's? I'm not sure that's accurate, they had cities.

What happened to the American Indians was also deplorable, but the term to describe it is 'progress.' People can go all new-agey about the Indians and it's popular for people to do in late adolescence and early adulthood.

But it's no different than bemoaning progress in other spheres of human activity. Lots of people deride the 'buggy whip maker' losing their lifestyle here on slashdot. This isn't a lot different.

The American Indians also fought back for several hundred years and are now a minority in really bad shape.

The question isn't whether we should try to reverse the European colonization of NA, the question is if we recognize those past colonizations were unjust and that we shouldn't perform another one.

Re:Yeah

[SuricouRaven]

According to the religious texts that Jews hold sacred, they did indeed found Israel after first wiping out the entire civilization that occupied the land prior.

But God said those people were evil, so that makes it ok.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe, All countries - Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq - were founded ignoring national, religious and tribal borders.

So yeah, it is a question is why Israel is so important. I just wonder why? Maybe its because these are Jews?

Re:Yeah

[Mashiki]

That's exactly my point.

Re:Yeah

[mvdwege]

A tiny strip of land that already kicked those 22 countries' arses several times and has the support of the world's number 1 superpower.

Stop trying to sell the myth of 'poor little Israel'. It's just not believable anymore.

Re:Yeah

[drinkypoo]

The issue with Israel is Jews had virtually no claim to that land, they had been a small minority for centuries but hadn't been a majority or rulers for a very very long time.

No, it's worse than that. They were literally never more than a racial minority in the region.

The creation is Israel was colonialism, not much different from the bizarre concept of settling them in Uganda except for the fact that Israel had added religious significance.

The difference is that settling them in the middle of their historical enemies, people who had already recently successfully kicked them out of the region, was a good way to foment racial hatred and to fight Islam without actually engaging in all-out war on apparently theological lines. So instead, the people least wanted in the region were forcibly installed there, and predictable (as in, predicted by T.E. Lawrence) results ensued. I'd say that's a pretty massive difference. Everything about the Israel-Palestine conflict was engineered.

Re:Yeah

[drinkypoo]

I think you don't know the history here. This is land that was basically considered impossible to develop and Israel created methods to develop it and did so. After this is when all the sudden the "Palestinians" wanted it.

Perhaps the Palestinians would have done the same in time, had their land not been stolen and a new nation founded upon it.

Re:Yeah

[smooth wombat]

You can't argue that the Israel is allowed to conquer another people's land while simultaneously claiming the other people aren't allowed to fight back.

Sure they can. It's done all the time. It's called hypocrisy.

Israel will trot out how horribly the Jews have suffered over time (which obviously they have). Then, once they are the majority, they turn around and do the exact same thing which was done to them claiming some kind of moral high ground or religious justification.

Then, when you call them out for throwing people off their land and stealing the land for Jewish settlers, when they sit back and let Jews destroy Palestinian property, when mother and child are burned alive by Jews, when Israel refuses to grant building permits to Palestinians living in Israel, when Israel controls another country's borders and decides when and if to give them collected taxes, the first words out of their mouths are, "Anti-semite!"

When the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto fought back against the Nazi repression, they're heroes. When the Palestinians fight back against Israeli repression and occupation, they're terrorists.

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

While that's entirely conjecture; it should be noted that shortly after the territories were allotted to them the infrastructure quickly fell into disrepair and some of it was actually actively demolished in a backward attempt to revolt against Israel. So, even with progress handed to them, the Palestinians did not choose it.

Re:Yeah

[KingRatMass]

That's laughable because all the other inhabitants hadn't been rulers in that region, ever. There never was such a thing as a state called Palestine, nor a people called Palestinian.

Emperor Hadrian changed the name of Judea to Syria Palestine in 135AD. This was done in an attempt to squash over 200 years of insurgency by the Jews against Roman rule. Hadrian was just trying to clean up the mess left by Titus.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have never heard of the Crusades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

I'd like to note it's even worse than that: while many "Palestinians" were content to be Jordanians it was Jordan who rejected them.

It's an unfortunate reality that the Palestinians are pawns, and much of the Arab world wants them that way. It's a case of "Heads we win, tails you loose", where if a Palestinian kills an Israeli their foreign backers share a victory in the battlefield, and if a Palestinian is killed they get to present it to the world media as Israel being the evil aggressor.

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

> Similarly trying to do some historic conquest like giving back Arab land to Iran
I completely disagree with this. Arab leadership in Iran has destroyed what is a beautiful country and the uprising that brought them into power resulted in the massacre and continued victimization and oppression of a diverse range of peoples.

As for the Native Americans... I'm not so sure a lot of tribes have it all that much better than Palestinians in the Transjordan region...

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

A slight technicality: weren't most of those cities established in the original Israel?

Re:Yeah

[Pinky's Brain]

We didn't pump 100s of billions of dollars into them.

Re:Yeah

[Pinky's Brain]

Then the Golan Heights, then everything from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the people already living there (not talking about nation states etc here ) , apparrently they did.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Palestine was never partitioned. The UN proposed, in a non-binding UNGA resolution, a partition PLAN. This plan would have been enacted if both the Jews and the Arabs made a treaty based on it. When the Jews agreed, the Arabs rejected it and launched a full blown war, which culminated in the invasion of FIVE Arab armies that were all beaten back.

Since Arabs rejected the partition plan quite violently in 1947 it is preposterous to make the argument today that the obligations of this plan are somehow binding on the Jews.

Re:Yeah

[Pinky's Brain]

On the other hand they did terrorize and then confiscated the land of Christians in Israel (Maalul &co).

Re:Yeah

[drinkypoo]

While that's entirely conjecture; it should be noted that shortly after the territories were allotted to them the infrastructure quickly fell into disrepair and some of it was actually actively demolished in a backward attempt to revolt against Israel.

Uh-huh. Right. Because all the other obvious false flag shit Israel has done hasn't been a red flag to you?

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've just justified terrorism on the part of American Indians, Hispanics, and any number of US Territories we took by force.

Re:Yeah

[jbengt]

Arab leadership in Iran has destroyed what is a beautiful country . . .

Please inform yourself before making proclamations, your ignorance is making your argument meaningless.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Yeah here's the problem... you're completely wrong about basically everything. First off we've got loads fo documentation going back centuries (incl. arab historians such as Muqaddasi and Ibn Khaldun) of the Jews being one of the only permanent inhabitants of an otherwise desolate malaria ridden shithole that just kept getting conquered and reconquered by various empires.

Second if there were such a thing as a "palestinian" then the term would apply to everyone from the roman region of Syria Palestinia, which by definition would include all of jordan and every jew from the region. Once again there's tons of documentation that the entire concept of an ethnically distinct arab people called "palestinians" is a modern fabrication.

Third the levant is barely mentioned in the quran and primarily in the context of its holiness to the jews, until the arab league started stirring up nationalistic hatred against Israel using Islam as a vehicle nobody gave a fuck about it other than them and there's a couple centuries of edicts from various caliphates and empires backing that up too.

Finally when the british mandate ended the arabs were invited to the table to help draw up the partition and refused. The british STILL gave the ARABS over 80% of the land and called it "Jordan". The tiny remaining sliver was named "Israel" and given to the Jews since most of that land had been legally purchased from the ottomans before the collapse of the ottoman empire or was otherwise unowned land that had been settled and developed. Remember the entire world population was barely over a billion and the middle east was so utterly uninhabited that everyone from Mark Twain to the Peel Commission made a big point out of how absolutely desolate it was.

If you want to know why the "palestinian" population is so inflamed just watch their television, read their leaders' statements, and take a look at their official government charters. You'll see children's shows which advocate genocide, leaders preaching that the jews murder babies and use their blood to make matza, and their governments' charters citing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and calling for the eradication of all jews everywhere.

Re:Yeah

[sumdumass]

What? Are you seriously trying to say let logic and reality, the history of most of the world take a back seat to the feelings of those who lost?

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Israel completely pulled out of gaza and left everything the settlers built, it got them nothing but Hamas in power and thousands upon thousands of rockets and mortars. Israeli criminals were hunted down by the government and put on trial, not held up as heroes and martyrs. Egypt has a land border with Gaza and is sick of their shit as well, and Israel delivers a frankly silly amount of aid to Gaza alone but it's stolen by Hamas.

Meanwhile the arabs have been calling for the total eradication of the jewish race literally since before Israel existed, and have never stopped. Palestinians are terrorists because their government charter openly quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and calls for genocide, a mandate they carry out by deliberately targeting civilians from behind civilians.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

1) The territory where israel exists was virtually uninhabited and there was not an arab or even muslim majority in the region for most of history, a fact openly remarked upon by arab historians who lamented the emptiness of their mosques.

2) 80% (probably more) of the land was given to the Arabs even after they refused to participate in drawing up the borders, and they immediately led a massive war of genocide led by a literal toured-auschwitz-and-formed-SS-divisions nazi.

3) Israel already offered that, along with payments and land transfers. It was rejected, even the Saudis walked away placing the entirety of the blame on Arafat. A peace agreement starts with the assumption that freaking genocide is not an option. That's why there hasn't been one yet, just read the Hamas government charter.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Cities which were virtually uninhabited, and you could travel through for days without seeing anyone, as per the peel commission and other first hand reports of the region.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Well no shit. The entire identity of "palestine" as it exists today is a total fabrication. The rampant anti-semitism in the region can be pretty directly tied to the mufti importing nazism and tying it into arab nationalism as part of his bid for power.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Actually we pay more collectively to the arab states than we do to Israel, just to keep them from bitching.

Re:Yeah

[Laguerre]

By that logic everybody of European and African descent should immediately leave the Americas.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Persian and my family had to run from Iran when I was 4. I'd mostly agree with his proclamations.

Re:Yeah

[Blaskowicz]

They predate the older Israel, even.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

The source of the Israeli-Arab conflict is rooted in the fact that Arabs can't stand losing to Jews. If the Kurds carved out a State in northern Iraq, the world would applaud it, and no one would consider it for another second. Only when Jews are involved do we need 2 UN organizations involved to keep the Arabs as perpetual "refugees".

NIce. This conflict such as it is, is merely a large scale version of people refusing to get along with their neighbors. We see it every day on a small scale, with neighbors who continually screw with each other. Eventually, it becomes the very core of their being - their raison d'etre.

And just like the local neighbors who simply won't get along, any argument whatsoever about any transgression is immediately met with "But they did something something earlier."

This situation is exactly what both sides want.

Where people go wrong is when they get sucked into the bitchfest, as the US has done. As soon as you take the bait, the other neighbors you didn't side with have now become your enemy, and you suddenly take on the responsibility for every one of the long list of transgressions the other neighbor you sided with ever performed.

And since the neighbors have no intent of ceasing their endless fight - congratulations, you've just entered a war that you are the only one that wants an end to. Plus you now have random others at war with you.

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

Touche! That is an excellent point.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

If we weren't robbing you blind with bingo and casinos then, maybe, I might advocate such. I'd rather you just actually went ahead and started adhering to the treaties without violence, however.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

IIRC (and I'm pretty sure I do) the UN proposed a plan to separate into areas for the Palestinians and areas for the Jews. The plan was never signed or ratified. Why? Because the Palestinians did not want that - in fact, they ran around shooting stuff and blowing stuff up. The Jews aren't taking land that doesn't belong to them. They're using land that belongs to them by default because the Palestinians openly declared they didn't want the land and ran around blowing shit up.

Note that when the Jews weren't getting their way, they too ran around blowing shit up. Hell, even the Roman's had issues with the Jews except they weren't blowing shit up, they were just attacking in small numbers or hanging out in mountain fortresses (eventually killing themselves) and continuing to resist invasion. Eventually they had the country renamed by the same dude who built a wall across the UK.

Anyhow, it could have been the Palestinian's land. It's not. They didn't want it. Well, they do now.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

My history is a little fuzzy but the Crusades were mostly against Arabs or Moose Limbs, no? However, if we go back to Rome there's quite a bit of fighting there though I think the area was taken over before the era of Constantine. I seem to recall that the Crusaders held Jerusalem for a while and that, during that time, there wasn't much in the way of religious freedom but little outright oppression or warring occurred specifically with the Jewish peoples. (Jewish as in religion, not as in race.)

There was one city, I forget which, that had a huge population of Jews within it that were slaughtered by the Crusaders (I think that Saladin guy took it back) but I don't think that was over any specific holy land nor specifically targeting Jews. I want to say that it was quite a bit west of Jerusalem and not particularly holy.

Yeah, your link confirms what I'd suspected. Those were evil Moose Limbs. Though, it should be noted, they taxed the fuck out of the Jews but otherwise let them worship in peace and allowed them access to their holy sites.

To meander off into speculation and aside...

Much of the trouble in the modern Middle East can be blamed, pretty squarely, on Europe. First, the colonization really wasn't progress for the natives. The League of Nations then did a number of them, including putting in arbitrary borders where none existed and putting at-war groups within the same borders. It should also be noted that the US can't really be blamed for this. While we can be blamed for our involvement today, we might also justify that by saying we're cleaning up after the mess due to European intervention. But then how far back do we want to lay the blame? I'm comfortable telling the US to knock it off and get the fuck out of there.

To go even further off topic... I've had it brought to my attention that there's no actual certification or anything to be called a "Historian." So, assuming that I'm absolutely 100% wrong about any of the above (and I don't think I am, I could be, I guess) then I'm going to use my new title and credit the entirety of this post to famed (and published) author KGIII - Historian. Reason being, I get all of my history from documentaries and an occasional book. They're read for entertainment, not for study. Thus names and specific dates are lost to the mists of my addled mind. So, I think the above is mostly accurate but I could be mistaken. I've been wrong before.

Re:Yeah

[Blaskowicz]

Doesn't the idea of race date back to the early 19th century or something like that? I think races didn't exist in pre-industrial, medieval or antique times. You did have kingdoms, tribes, empires, and you were likely to own slaves of the same "race" as you.

Now maybe there is such thing as ethnicity, I don't really know how it's defined.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

They didn't get much help from the US in '47, '67, or '73. Not directly, at any rate. Err... As mentioned above, my history recollection is a bit fuzzy. Those might not be the correct years. They're still, numerically, the underdog. Hell, they've not even always had a technological advantage. During the first war, for example, they were even lacking in basics like firearms.

They were so lacking that they were building Sten-gun knockoffs (that's like making a cheap copy of a zip gun made by China) in underground weapons factories while the world pretty much decided to just watch. The next two, Yom Kipper (spelling?) and the 6 Day War didn't really last long enough for anyone else to get involved. I think that covers the big ones? I consume a lot of history but it's not done with the goal to retain it - it's just entertainment for me. I might be missing some, have names wrong, or have the dates completely wrong. That'd not be unusual and, like always, I'm way too lazy to care and it's not really all that important so Google is too much effort.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Aah the peel commission. Brought to you by the same folks who declared Australia tobe Terra nullius despite clear knowledge of aboriginal settlement, and who called the population of Diego Garcia a bunch of Man Fridays who could be depopulated on a whim.

Yes, let's trust their word that Palestine was a land of abandoned cities ready for Jewish colonisation.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel is not answerable to the barking of the dogs of America or elsewhere. We take what we want because we are the stronger people. It is the way of the world, and the whinging of women will not change that.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they have a right to fight back. They also have a right to die for what they are fighting for. That the stronger party takes what they want is the only real rule in global politics. Unlike the rest of the world, Israel doesn't pretend that isn't the case. Until the US pulls its armies out of the oil-rich nations it feeds off and the UK removes it's tentacles off it's African assets, none of you has the right to criticize Israel for taking resources it needs in order to develop itself and generate progress.

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

Then the Golan Heights, then everything from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt

Re:Yeah

[Hognoxious]

Western powers had no right to interfere in changing demographics

Having stolen it fair and square from the Ottomans, they totally did have the right.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck. You fucking anti-Semite. Everytimg there is an article that has 'Israel' in it, the fucking discussion evolves into this same bullshit story. All these fucking anti Semite assholes start spreading their lies and hate. Your nothing but a jelouse piece of shit. Get over it, the Jews are here to stay. Deal with it or go fuck yourself. Israel is their homeland. They took a desert and transformed it into a thriving country. What the fuck did the Palestinians do for society except for suicide belts and death chants. And who the fuck are they anyway, and who give them the right to say it's their land? Israel takes up less than 1% of the fucking Arab land, yet they still complain. If Jews had all that other land, they would welcome any other new to it. It's fucked up, and people like you are so fucking stupid, hateful, and I can't wait till the ironic day that an ISIS motherfucker shoves a bomb up ur ass and you dissapear form this planet without any memory of your existence. Fucking people just don't get it. Go fuck yourself you fucking anti Semite.

Re:Yeah

[PmanAce]

Christians do have fights over land through oil.

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

The Jews took control of the land and created a country in the time-honored tradition of fighting a war and coming out on top. Thousands of nation states have come into existence that exact same way, including virtually every single Arab-dominated country in the world. Just because the Jews did it relatively recently does not mean their method was illegitimate.

Yes, "might makes right."

If you believe that, then, if you're logically consistent:

-- You believe that the Germans had a right to their historical borders, formerly known as Belgium, France, Poland, Ukrainia, and Russia.

-- You believe that the Soviets had a right to everything up to Berlin when they came out on top.

-- You believe that Saddam Hussein had a right to Kuwait.

-- You believe that the U.S. has the right to take over the whole world, since we've got the bomb and the armies.

Actuall, after World War II, a team of international lawyers -- many of them Jewish -- wrote a set of laws and treaties, which most of the developed countries signed, which said that territories gained in a war of conquest were not the rightful property of the conquer.

Jews have gone to court, and gotten their property back (like the Klimt paintings in Austria) under those laws.

So "might makes right" was no longer the rule when the Israelis engaged in their wars of territorial conquest. Even Theodor Meron, the chief legal counsel of Israel's foreign ministry, agreed with that and wrote a memo to the Prime Minister telling him that the 1967 occupation was illegal, and the settlements were illegal. And they still are.

The Palestinians have always demanded that Israel settle their disputes in the international courts. The Israelis have always refused.

Under modern law, they're not victors. They're criminals.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

Yeah here's the problem... you're completely wrong about basically everything. First off we've got loads fo documentation going back centuries (incl. arab historians such as Muqaddasi and Ibn Khaldun) of the Jews being one of the only permanent inhabitants of an otherwise desolate malaria ridden shithole that just kept getting conquered and reconquered by various empires.

Second if there were such a thing as a "palestinian" then the term would apply to everyone from the roman region of Syria Palestinia, which by definition would include all of jordan and every jew from the region. Once again there's tons of documentation that the entire concept of an ethnically distinct arab people called "palestinians" is a modern fabrication.

1) I spent most of my time referring to Arabs, I'm not sure why you just made an argument about "Palestinian"

2) The Jews were a persistant long term minority, there are many long term minorities in the world. And since historical Palestinians aren't really a thing, only Arabs, the Arabs were a long term minority.

Third the levant is barely mentioned in the quran and primarily in the context of its holiness to the jews, until the arab league started stirring up nationalistic hatred against Israel using Islam as a vehicle nobody gave a fuck about it other than them and there's a couple centuries of edicts from various caliphates and empires backing that up too.

I'm an atheist, if they think those are holy sites to their religion then they're holy sites to their religion.

Finally when the british mandate ended the arabs were invited to the table to help draw up the partition and refused. The british STILL gave the ARABS over 80% of the land and called it "Jordan". The tiny remaining sliver was named "Israel" and given to the Jews since most of that land had been legally purchased from the ottomans before the collapse of the ottoman empire or was otherwise unowned land that had been settled and developed. Remember the entire world population was barely over a billion and the middle east was so utterly uninhabited that everyone from Mark Twain to the Peel Commission made a big point out of how absolutely desolate it was.

Well if they considered the entire idea of the partition to be unjust of course they'd refuse.

And much of that Jewish immigration had been illegal, but the British didn't really stop it because they didn't really mind and wanted a western friendly state there.

However you cut it they were still colonizing someone else's land, if the resident Arabs were in control they wouldn't have allowed the immigration since virtually no one allows another group to come in and take over their territory.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

So you've just justified terrorism on the part of American Indians, Hispanics, and any number of US Territories we took by force.

When the conflict was active sure.

Since then the conflict has been settled and a peaceful resolution mechanism was establish. Further terrorism would be unjust.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

> Similarly trying to do some historic conquest like giving back Arab land to Iran
I completely disagree with this. Arab leadership in Iran has destroyed what is a beautiful country and the uprising that brought them into power resulted in the massacre and continued victimization and oppression of a diverse range of peoples.

As for the Native Americans... I'm not so sure a lot of tribes have it all that much better than Palestinians in the Transjordan region...

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I know some Iranians and they are very emphatic about the fact they're Persian, not Arab. I don't know why you think Arabs are leading Iran.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking moron. You don't know what the fuck your talking about. There was no Palestinian country, there was no such thing as 'Palestinian' people. You think it's hippocracy, your a fucking delusional moron. Learn your history and the facts before you start talking out of your ass and making your demented comparisons. Anyway, there is no point in trying to rationalize with idiots such as yourself and I'm not going to waste time trying to educate you, so look at it with the language that you might understand: the Jews WON, the other animals LOST. Fuck off and get over it....fucking don't stop living in the past, these people can't move on and just fucking live in peace. Fucking sore losers.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

The "agreed upon borders" went out the window with the multiple invasions by their neighbors.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

From the River to the Sea,
Palestine Will Never Be!

INSHALLAH!

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

I think you don't know the history here. This is land that was basically considered impossible to develop and Israel created methods to develop it and did so. After this is when all the sudden the "Palestinians" wanted it. Before and during the development it was a somewhat different story altogether.

I know a bit of the history. I used to do fund-raising for Israeli scientific research. I read Israeli patents. I played a small part in the huge Israeli government public relations machine, until I had to confront the injustice and brutality.

I played a small part in selling you on the myth of backward Arabs wasting the land, and brilliant Zionist agronomists "making the deserts bloom", with your help. Thank you for your generous contribution.

That land was occupied by traditional Arab farmers (and businessmen and professionals) who lived there as they had for hundreds or thousands of years, and were as comfortable as many pre-industrial people were, just as the Jews had lived there 2000 years ago without benefit of irrigation pumps.

Just because you can take over somebody's agricultural land, and make more money out of it, doesn't give you the right to do so. That's robbery.

Anyone could have come to those farmers, and offered them the money and technology to improve their land, and gotten the same improvement. It was standard modern farming methods, taught in agricultural colleges from Iowa to Moscow. That's what the Communists (the other Jews) did in other underdeveloped countries.

I look forward to the day when Israel will be a good country again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

What? "Settle in international courts"? You mean the courts, like the UN, that are effectively run by the Arabs or Muslims that want nothing more than Israelis destruction? What you fail to understand is a simple fact. That Israel is the Jewish homeland. That there is not and never was such a thing as 'Palestinian'. That Israel makes up a tiny fraction of the Arab land. If you want peace in this world, you would make room for a people that have been in exile for over 2000 years. And while your making your moronic comparisons about 'might' and 'right', keep in mind that Israel is a democratic nation where Arabs enjoy the most freedom they can ever have hoped for in the area. YOU SHOULD BE ENCOURAIGING ISRAEL, AND MORE COUNTRIES TO BE LIKE IT.israel,is a GOOD thing for the word, it is an amazing country, stop crying over the BS Palestinian story that's full of lies and hate, living In the past, instead of looking forward to the future. Jews have done that for thousands of years, and overcame tremendous atrocities. Go move to Syria, or Iran, where if you look at one of their leader funny they will chop your head off, then let's hear your fucking complaints about Israel. If you want to talk about moral grounds, Israel is the most moral and justified county in the area, let alone the world. Stop with your obsessive Israel bashing, it's ridiculous, there are infinitely many more atrocities going in the world, yet this nonsense somehow always makes it to the top of people's bashing list. WTF.

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

Israel completely pulled out of gaza and left everything the settlers built, it got them nothing but Hamas in power and thousands upon thousands of rockets and mortars.

Israel didn't "completely" pull out. They imposed a blockade around Gaza. Under international law, a blockade is an act of war, and the Gazans have a legal right to defend themselves in that war.

The Israelis also attacked Gaza twice and bombed hospitals, which is a war crime.

A lot of us Jews thought of the Warsaw Ghetto.

The Israelis also destroyed everything the settlers built, except for a useless hydroponic plant.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

The creation of the US, or rather its constituent states, was to a great extent facilitated or enabled by conquering Native American land and IIRC driving many of them away. So, in that respect, yes, that's another unjust formation of a state for you. Most ME states were formed by arbitrary (not to say wickedly manipulative) decisions of Britain and France, and many of them were arranged to be under popular control, e.g. monarchies. So again, unjust formations of states (although less unjust than ethnic cleansing). And so on. Most states are formed by powerful minority classes who wish to solidify their control over an area in some way or another. But that does not _justify_ the more extreme cases, or any case for that matter. If the US is bombing lots of Afghanis and Pakistanis does that legitimize Saudia Arabia bombing Yemen, for example? Not in my book.

(And I'm saying that as an anonymous Israeli coward!)

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

Cities which were virtually uninhabited, and you could travel through for days without seeing anyone, as per the peel commission and other first hand reports of the region.

"Virtually" uninhabited? That means inhabited, right?

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

No claim, other than 5000 years of history and possession, right?

You're a racist, incoherent, and a fucking moron.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize the entire land mass on earth is only under a quarter of globe, right? Also, what does it matter that there are 22 Arab states? So if there are, I dunno, 20 or 30 Latin states in South America does it mean that, say, Canada can take over a part of Mexico and drive out its inhabitants?

Re:Yeah

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I know a Jordanian-Palestinian-American who can tell you all about how Jordan bulldozed his and many other Palestinian villages.

It wasn't until fairly recent decades that other middle-eastern muslim countries' leaders realized they could use the Palestinians to redirect their local populations' anger against an external enemy -- Israel. It stops them from focusing their hatred on their own dictatorships.

Go read 1984. Hell, I'm sure half of you can quote it in your support of anti-George W. memes.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

It wasn't anyone's land except for the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed, and the jews who legally bought it from them beforehand... even though they were forcibly expelled for being jews. Which was incidentally also why the immigration was "illegal". Hell just BEING jewish was illegal under nazi rule.

I'm an atheist, if they think those are holy sites to their religion then they're holy sites to their religion.

That's the whole point, they weren't and nobody gave a fuck until AFTER the Jews showed up. Then suddenly the arab states not only started claiming jerusalem but even claimed the entire history of judaism in the region never happened. Hell just the last few months they demanded UNESCO erase all jewish history and declare the western wall and other jewish holy sites to be mosques.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Launching thousands of rockets and bombs at civilians is an act of war too. Hamas exists, per its own government charter, in a state of perpetual genocide-seeking war with Israel.

As for "hospitals"... you mean the one specifically evacuated well ahead of time and which had been used to fire weapons at Israeli civilians? That one?

Re:Yeah

[mvdwege]

They kicked the Arab Nations' arses in '48 and '67 without US aid, while those nations had Soviet support. '73 and after they had unconditional US support. "Poor little Israel" has always been a myth.

Re:Yeah

[Pinky's Brain]

They tried too.

Re:Yeah

[Tablizer]

Agreed. I don't get the "developed" logic at all. It's as if they think they repeat it enough it becomes true.

Re:Yeah

[Tablizer]

Jews and Christians have virtually no fights over religious sites in Israel or elsewhere.

Because they happen to more or less be friends at the moment, and allow visitors.

Muslims argue with everyone when it comes to religion.

Israel has one of the biggest money-backed lobbying forces. They use silly excuses, such as "we developed the land, they didn't" to swipe it. By that logic, China could just swipe our national parks.

Don't kid yourself.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

I dunno... I'd still have considered them poor and little - just not poor, little, AND defenseless or unwilling to defend themselves. They started off as a pretty poor and small group of people (in recent history) and got attacked - they're just weren't defenseless or, as said, unwilling to fight. The Arab goal was "to drive them into the sea." Backed in a corner, well, people learn to fight pretty damned quickly. Then Israel kind of grew and said, well, we're just going to keep this land we've conquered, that'll teach you to attack us. Now they're no longer poor and they're not all that large but they're not really little any more, either. They're sure as hell not defenseless, however.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

They have created a fairy tale that God will honor those who support them. Americans have bought this and support the sin of isreal. I'm sick of their hypocrisy

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

Launching thousands of rockets and bombs at civilians is an act of war too. Hamas exists, per its own government charter, in a state of perpetual genocide-seeking war with Israel.

You mean like Israel's founding document, the Hebrew Bible, that tells the Israelis to exterminate the neighboring tribes?

In fact, Hamas has made many peace offers to Israel. They could have had a deal years ago.

As for "hospitals"... you mean the one specifically evacuated well ahead of time and which had been used to fire weapons at Israeli civilians? That one?

I mean the hospitals where the Palestinian and western doctors were working, and giving first-hand accounts of how the Israelis were bombing them even as they were telling the Israeli officials on the phone that they were filled with non-combatant civilians. They reported all of this in the British medical journals, in Haaretz, and in the reports afterwards by human rights groups.

As I said, I used to work in Israeli PR. I used to write the lies that you now believe.

I hope to see a good Israel again in my lifetime.

Re:Yeah

[rtb61]

'ER' in our life times, in our lifetimes. Fuck what other idiots did in other times, fuck it. What happens in our life times, what we are responsible for, what we allow to happen and what we support, is what counts. Fuck off if you think you can let slide today because of what happened years ago. Purges of Jews happened years ago because of that should allow it happen again? Publicly accepted slavery happened years ago because of that should we allow it today? The romans feed christian to the lions should we allow it to happen again. What happend in Australia, the US and South America was evil, we acknowledge that today and seek meaningful discourse and remediation around it (apart from a bunch of psychopaths and narcissists who cheer it on and continue it's practices to this day)

We are meant to be a developing societal species and are meant to be leaving shitty abusive self serving actions behind, not hanging onto the worst of them. The apartheid state of Israel is an obscenity and should not be tolerated by modern secular states with freedom of religion and that is no different to abusive Muslim states or any other abusive religious state or totalitarian states (no matter how much the fuckers support US corporations).

To be Israeli is not to be Jewish, to be Jewish is not to be Israeli. Stop being some kind of shit head and dragging other people into your conflict based around land theft. There are Jews all over the world who want nothing to do with Israel or it's bullshit and Israel and you should stop purposefully trying to turn them into targets (both indirectly and directly via Mossad controlled Islamic fundamentalists), so Israel can scream anti-Semitism as they steal more and more land and genocidally remove it's current owners.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah the anti Semite card, played so expertly by the shills of Israeli hasbara. Fuck you and the thieving cunts you support.
Being anti Israel is NOT anti Semite. And fuck you again lying asshole.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

More fucking shilling for Isreal you fucking idiotic cunt? Fuck you and your murdering thieving friends.

Re:Yeah

[Falconhell]

You can keep repeating your Israel shill lies, but it doesn't make them true. Israel is a country of murderous thieves, won by terrorism. There was land there and people owned it at the time, and it was stolen, how can you not see the obvious reality?

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you deluded? The US purged weapons into Israel to support them thru those wars.
Bloody Israeli shills lie all the time.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Just read what Mark Twain wrote on his trip to Israel.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

There we go, another fucking retard. It is so fucking obvious. Out of all the fucking attrocities in the world, these discussions evolve to this shirt about ' well israel did this or israel did that'. Well fuck you. This article is not about that, it's about political fucking shit, stick to the topic. Anything else is a typical anti Semite agenda. Either you have no fucking life and like to theorized about shit you don't know, or you are an anti Semite, subcontiously or not, and only care to bash israel with your demented ideas of what you think history is. Fuck you and your fucking 'oh, the anti Semite card'... Yes, you know what. it's a fuckin card, a more valid fucking card as anything else that comes out of your piece of shit mouth, and you better read it as it is, you piece of shit. I can call you a fucking brainless no life shithead, or an antinsemite driven history rewriter, chose where you belong dickhead.mfucking nonstop with these people, just leave Israel alone already, the only country in the world that goes thought this fucking shit. Enough. Go fuck yourself and live your miserable hate filled life without taking others with you.

Re:Yeah

[cold fjord]

Uh-huh. Right. Because all the other obvious false flag shit Israel has done hasn't been a red flag to you?

If the only explanation you have for the Arab situation in Palestine is sabotage by Jews then you need to start looking for some new explanations.

PALESTINIANS: NO WAY TO HELP – THE SAGA OF THE GIFTED GREENHOUSES

Re:Yeah

[dave420]

You should see who breaks the most agreed cease-fires. Hint: It's not Hamas. If Israel wanted peace they would stop building the settlements (as they are the first thing to go after any lasting agreement) and stop breaking cease-fires. As long as Israel is settling, it doesn't want peace.

Re:Yeah

[dave420]

You do not remember correctly. Or, if you do, you read some pretty bad sources. You've just managed to badly mangle one side of the dispute and entirely ignore the other side. I'm not sure what point you tried to make, but the only point you ended up making was "KGIII gets confused and spouts some rather bizarre nonsense".

Re:Yeah

[drinkypoo]

If the only explanation you have for the Arab situation in Palestine is sabotage by Jews then you need to start looking for some new explanations.

No, the creation of the nation of Israel was sabotage by the UK (who came up with the idea) and the US (which rammed the idea through while the UK pretended it wasn't their idea all along.)

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

I figured I'd check, after all there's some chance you might be right and I could be wrong. Lemme have a look at Wikipedia... Can we assume they're factual?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hmm... Seems to indicate what I said was true. :/ Now, I do have a fuzzy and frail memory but I don't think I got that one wrong - at least according to Wikipedia. It's a long read but basically the Arabs (of which the Palestinians are a member group) all got together and decided they were going to sweep the Jews into the sea but they didn't want that war - 'cause it'd be a war of extermination... Well, that's what they said, at any rate. It did not go well for them, as I recall.

Now, how about the Roman bit... Do I need to dig that out of Wikipedia for you too, or? The Roman dude's name was Hadrian, as I recall. I can do your history research for you, if you want. It's probably best that you do it yourself. It could have been a different one but I think he was the one that decided to call it Palestine 'cause he was hoping for a "final solution" to the Jewish insurgents by completely stripping them of their identity or something like that.

So, maybe Wikipedia is wrong and maybe Hadrian didn't actually rename it as Palestine and it's just some sort of conspiracy. I'm not sure how the facts are misrepresenting anything. Mayhap it is you who've been subjected to misinformation or, maybe, you just don't like Jews? I dunno... You could be a skinhead. It wouldn't surprise me, given the quality and tone of your other posts.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

And now you've crossed from uninformed to delusional. Israel has offered the palestinians every single demand they've ever made, even the Saudis walked away from the camp david accords placing sole blame on Arafat. Hamas doesn't make peace offers, they demand ceasefires which they promptly ignore and then bitch when the Israelis respond.

I mean the hospitals where the Palestinian and western doctors were working, and giving first-hand accounts of how the Israelis were bombing them even as they were telling the Israeli officials on the phone that they were filled with non-combatant civilians. They reported all of this in the British medical journals, in Haaretz, and in the reports afterwards by human rights groups.

You mean the hospitals evacuated well ahead of time by the IDF, which were caught on video firing weapons at civilians? The ones that were lied about by the same people and "human rights groups" whose employees name their kids "knives of jerusalem"?

As I said, I used to work in Israeli PR. I used to write the lies that you now believe.

Considering you're so uninformed that you literally don't know the first thing about the history of the region, the mandate and partition, or even the most basic information about the governments involved I doubt that.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Yeah it's TOTALLY not Hamas firing thousands of rockets or kidnapping people or bombing civilian targets even during supposed "ceasefires" that breaks ceasefires. Totally. You realise you're supposed to at least PRETEND not to have a blatant double standard right?

If Israel wanted peace they would stop building the settlements (as they are the first thing to go after any lasting agreement) and stop breaking cease-fires. As long as Israel is settling, it doesn't want peace.

What was the excuse in 48? 67? 73? Israel has already offered every single thing demanded by the palestinians except for the eradication of the jewish race and the state of Israel, every single time it was refused. Israel also unilaterally pulled out of gaza and took all the settlers with them, but left all the infrastructure they'd build. It got them nothing but another war front with an even more violent enemy whose own government charter explicitly quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and calls for total genocide.

There is no peace because the arabs don't want peace, they want to kill all the jews. Something they're perfectly willing to admit openly when crowds of hundreds chant "Slaughter The Jews" in sweden, or when the governments of the surrounding 30+ arab states make official broadcasts claiming the jews murder babies and use their blood to make matza every passover, or on their children's television programs where they have suicide bomber characters encouraging martyrdom and hosts praising kids that say they want to wipe out the jews... all of which never seems to make it into western media.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Maybe because I'm not on drugs so strong they make me think that siding with the group whose governments publicly quote the protocols of the elders of zion, who publicly claim all jews murder babies and use their blood to make matza every passover, who were led through multiple wars of genocide by literal nazis, are somehow the "good guys".

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/...

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to studied History more. But guess your like most and think the Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Ah yes, the UN. Comprised of bastions of integrity such as the UNRWA and which condemns israel more than every other country on the face of the earth combined while completely ignoring genocides in Africa and horrific human rights violations in every single arab country. Unsurprising given that the UN bodies which most frequently condemn Israel are generally dominated BY those same arab countries, who are more than happy to claim the jews murder children and use their blood to make matza on official UN record.

Re:Yeah

[dywolf]

When you're so extremist you even make Bibi take a step back and say "whoa, that's going too far"....

Re:Yeah

[dywolf]

You are seriously in need an education in history.

Re:Yeah

[dywolf]

and that just makes it ok to just keep doing it?

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

We see that *SMACK* is the sound of dave420 going down being wrong eating his words bitch slapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

We remember that *SMACK* is the sound of dave420 going down being wrong eating his words bitch slapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

> Similarly trying to do some historic conquest like giving back Arab land to Iran
I completely disagree with this. Arab leadership in Iran has destroyed what is a beautiful country and the uprising that brought them into power resulted in the massacre and continued victimization and oppression of a diverse range of peoples.

As for the Native Americans... I'm not so sure a lot of tribes have it all that much better than Palestinians in the Transjordan region...

The stupid, it hurts...

Re:Yeah

[Nidi62]

My history is a little fuzzy but the Crusades were mostly against Arabs or Moose Limbs, no? However, if we go back to Rome there's quite a bit of fighting there though I think the area was taken over before the era of Constantine. I seem to recall that the Crusaders held Jerusalem for a while and that, during that time, there wasn't much in the way of religious freedom but little outright oppression or warring occurred specifically with the Jewish peoples. (Jewish as in religion, not as in race.)

There was one city, I forget which, that had a huge population of Jews within it that were slaughtered by the Crusaders (I think that Saladin guy took it back) but I don't think that was over any specific holy land nor specifically targeting Jews. I want to say that it was quite a bit west of Jerusalem and not particularly holy.

Generally the Crusaders tended to just kill everyone (Jew, Muslim, Christian, even Pastafarian-or would have if they existed) when they took a city. Mostly because living people tend to complain and get in the way when you try to take all their stuff. You didn't think the Crusade (in a macro sense anyway) were actually about religion, did you?

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

"the question is if we recognize those past colonizations were unjust and that we shouldn't perform another one."

Then let's make sure we don't repeat the mistake by now kicking out the Jews and replacing them with the Arabs or we're just doing it all over again.

Why is this our issue anyway? We have enough issues internally to deal with besides imposing our ideas of right and wrong on the rest of the world. Let them fight it out or talk it out themselves.

Re:Yeah

[zakeria]

Again the liberals are out in droves marking down valid posts such as yours!

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Europeans said Native Americans were uncivilized savages. That makes the land we inhabit today okay too.

This isn't anything new under the sun...humans have been conquering land and kicking out the previous inhabitants for all of recorded history. Why would any of that change now? Because we call ourselves enlightened and educated and civilized? We're really no different and no better. We just like to think and pretend we are because we have the luxury of living off the blood soaked land of North America without actually living during the times when genocide was justifiable because someone was different than our ancestors.

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

You're just denying the facts, the way people deny the Holocaust.

It's pointless to use facts and logic with you.

It's time for me to give up with people like you and move on to boycotts, divestments and sanctions.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny part of the situation is all their modern identities are based on myths.

Modern Jews aren't descendants of the original ones (which is obvious despite accomplishments of Ashkenazim if you just visually look Jews from different regions). The idea some dude called Moses talked to a burning bush is comical.

And 0while some Muslims are lopping off heads for just drawing cartoons, Mohammed was a mass murdering sex offender.

The fundamentalist Christians that think the earth is 6000 years old are bordering on metal retardation.

And we wonder why there is conflict in the middle east.

Re:Yeah

[david_thornley]

If the conflict has been settled by overwhelming force in a way grossly unfair to one side, why does that count as "settled" morally? When the side that won keeps redefining the deals, including kidnapping children in an attempt at cultural genocide (the cases I am aware of ended in the 1940s), denying the other side things guaranteed by treaty, and doing things like selling resources on tribal reservations in sweetheart deals that do not benefit the tribes?

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Impossible to develop?

You know what's impossible to develop? The Arabian Desert. Maybe you're confusing the Mediterranean coast with it? If the Jews want to settle the Arabian Desert, and then 50 years later the Arabs claim that the Bedouins they pushed away have a right to the new cities, then yeah, I'm with you, but, for example, Tel Aviv used to be the Bronze Age city of Jaffa (Roman name Joppa).

tl;dr there were cities there, which belies your claim that it was impossible to develop

Re:Yeah

[david_thornley]

Hadrian didn't want to exterminate the Jews. While they were ignorant barbarians who refused to acknowledge Roman gods (the Romans were happy to acknowledge anybody else's gods, and preferably interpret them as aspects of their own), they at least worshipped as their ancestors did.

The problem with the Jews wasn't really cultural or religious: it was that they rebelled, more than once, and they were close to the Parthian border. It was a geopolitical issue.

Re:Yeah

[david_thornley]

I once read some Nordic text from about a millennium ago, referring to the "race of thralls" (presumably Slavs). In at least some aspects, it's pretty old.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Because pointing out the UN condemns Israel more than every other country in the world combined even in the middle of the chaos in Syria, brutal repression of protests and mass murder of gays and christians throughout the arab world, and genocides in sub-saharan Africa is equivalent to holocaust denial.

Because pointing out that the UN and its member bodies are so openly anti-semitic as to allow literal blood libel to stand as part of the record, and whose ranking officials routinely post violent anti-semitic materials inciting and endorsing further terrorist attacks is equivalent to holocaust denial.

Because targeting jews around the world and harassing/boycotting them if they don't join your crusade against Israel is TOTALLY not just plain old fashioned anti-semitism. Especially since every single one of the complaints you make against Israel is either unfounded, wildly exaggerated, or blatantly a double standard you hold Israel and ONLY Israel to.

It's fitting you admit to being a BDS supporter on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, because that's all BDS is. A modern day kristallnacht.

Re:Yeah

[Rakarra]

Maybe. Maybe not. Doesn't matter anyway, because it's way too late now.
This is an argument we could have made back in the 1960s. 70 years later and the Israelis have far more of a legitimate claim over the land than the Palestinians do. Now if someone was to kick them out, it would be as much of a travesty as what happened in the area after WWII.

Now the occupied territories and the settlers.... that's another matter.

Re:Yeah

[Rakarra]

Personally I think considering 1000+ year old land claims is a really bad idea.

I think considering 70 year old land claims is also a bad idea. They're equally as bad. No one, absolutely no one has claim over any land because they had an ancestor who lived there.

Re:Yeah

[Rakarra]

Israel is not answerable to the barking of the dogs of America or elsewhere. We take what we want because we are the stronger people. It is the way of the world, and the whinging of women will not change that.

You're serious about that? Israel would have collapsed decades ago if they hadn't been propped up by the US.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

That'd be why I put the "final solution" in quotes. It was mostly tongue in cheek. He did want some of them eliminated, though. I forget the name of the fort but they had that under siege for quite a while before the Romans built a giant dirt ramp up the top of it and were going to attack the following day - while doing the Roman thing of sealing them in. The Jews killed themselves though there's rumor of a mother with two children who survived by hiding in the water supply cave system.

The historians tend to agree that the reason for doing so was because he wanted to alienate them from their identity and, you know, get them to stop rebelling. One group in particular, the Assines (spelling) I think, were a particular thorn in their side for a while. They were pretty dedicated, some of them.

I watch way too many history documentaries. I don't remember all the names and places, I sure as hell don't remember the dates. They're watched for entertainment, not for study. Documentaries is about all I watch, actually. I try to get them from a variety of sources because there's a lot of propaganda in some of them. My current "thing" is finding barely translated WWII documentaries (made post fall of the Iron Curtain) from Russians. They're pretty good. Still right full of some really selective history but good, nonetheless. You can tell when Putin came into office. The documentaries became even more selective with their content.

The USSR gave out millions and millions of medals after the Great Patriotic War. But, I digress - I usually do.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

Nominally they were against the Muslims but, no, I've never thought that was the real reason. I've always assumed it to be a land and power grab with some intrigue being because the power grab wasn't actually always where they were crusading. I believe that I've also heard a theory that it was a way to get a collective going (one of the early crusades) in an effort to reunite Rome but I'd not dare make an authoritative statement on that.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

If the conflict has been settled by overwhelming force in a way grossly unfair to one side, why does that count as "settled" morally? When the side that won keeps redefining the deals, including kidnapping children in an attempt at cultural genocide (the cases I am aware of ended in the 1940s), denying the other side things guaranteed by treaty, and doing things like selling resources on tribal reservations in sweetheart deals that do not benefit the tribes?

I didn't say it was morally settled, I just said it was settled, the truth is that North Americans of European descent will never be able to make up for the injustices of the colonization of North America.

But there's no more active conflict and tensions have subsided, there's new tensions that have arisen but they're distinct enough that I don't think terrorism would be justifiable.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

Personally I think considering 1000+ year old land claims is a really bad idea.

I think considering 70 year old land claims is also a bad idea. They're equally as bad. No one, absolutely no one has claim over any land because they had an ancestor who lived there.

Not quite equally as bad, but bad.

I don't think Israel should be given back to the Arabs, I've said so repeatedly. But I do think it's important to recognize that the Jews had no claim when they first started immigrating in the early 1900's. The Arabs had a very just cause to be angry in 1949 and again in 1967.

At some point you have to say "ok, that was bad and unjust, but at this point we have to let it go". The question is where that point is. From what I can tell the objective of the current Israeli leadership is to keep annexing land and stalling peace. Their motive is the thought that when peace finally does come people will realize the Settlements are too far established and they can't be given back.

That's why I think a very line has to be drawn at the '67 borders, because as long as they think they can keep annexing land for good there's no incentive for peace. As soon as they start seeing the settlements for the massive liability they should be then peace becomes far more attractive.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're telling us is that the Jews were an invading army from the beginning. So all of the land still belongs to the Palestinians, who should have the right to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, if that is the case.

Re:Yeah

[Rakarra]

At some point you have to say "ok, that was bad and unjust, but at this point we have to let it go". The question is where that point is.

That's pretty much my mantra through all of this, but I'm despairing that it will ever be the case. There's just too much cultural identity in totally hating Israel, and there's too much benefit in the existence of Israel for leaders of Islamic countries in the Middle East. Yes, Israel is very good for them, it gives leaders a nearby scapegoat to blame all their problems on, a clear "them" to contrast with themselves. Nothing brings people together under your banner like an external threat.

That's why I think a very line has to be drawn at the '67 borders, because as long as they think they can keep annexing land for good there's no incentive for peace. As soon as they start seeing the settlements for the massive liability they should be then peace becomes far more attractive.

Well geez, sounds like we agree on everything. Let's just put that all into a plan and get Obama, Kerry, Netanyahu and Rivlin, and the leaders of the various Muslim countries and faiths (the real leaders, not necessarily the Presidents) including Hamas together, get them all roaring drunk, and they'll wake up a day later finding they'd signed it. The real challenge would be getting the followers of Islam to drink. Well. We'll have to find a way. It's probably easier than than getting a peace deal any other way.

Awww, screw it. We all know that even if everyone agreed to a peace deal, SOMEONE would start lobbing rockets and the whole thing would fall apart. And you can bet any plan which would remove recent settlers from newly-created settlements would be absolute political suicide for any Israeli leader anyway. Maybe real suicide, considering the history of what the Israelis have done to their own peacemakers.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking idiot. The reason they have a blockade and attacked was because the fucking terrosists that took over when israel FULLY pulled out want to destroy Israel and tried to by intentionally firing thousands of rockets hidden in mosks and schools and hospital at Israeli civilians. Your fucking demented logic makes me sick. People like you are pieces of shit. But at the end, the truth always prevails, like it has in the past, time and time again. Fucking backwards logic hate filled idiots here. Sick of it.

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you too you hate filled worthless anti-Semitic piece of shit. Your a small minded no longer relavent mentally diseased piece of useless organic tissue that serves not purpose in this world. Scum like you will long be forgotten.

How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how this is different from many of the comments made by US Republicans about the Obama administration. It sure seems like I've heard far worse things said about the administration from people within the US, especially when they're seeking the 2016 GOP nomination. The comments won't do any favors with US Democrats, but it would win a lot of fans from the right wing.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[phantomfive]

I fail to see how this is different from many of the comments made by US Republicans about the Obama administration.

Because the Obama administration complained to the Israeli government that they'd been insulted. The Israeli government felt like they should respond.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[ShanghaiBill]

I fail to see how this is different from many of the comments made by US Republicans about the Obama administration.

It isn't different. That is the whole point. Israel has long enjoyed bipartisan support in America. But the Netanyahu administration is putting that all at risk by closely aligning with only the right wing of the Republican Party. This will benefit Israel in the short run, since the Republicans control congress. It also benefits the Republican Party, as Jewish votes increasingly shift from Democrat to Republican. But it will hurt Israel in the long run, as young voters are alienated, and the American electorate becomes more Hispanic and Asian (people that have little sympathy for Israel).

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

That could work both ways, though. Back in 2011, Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were caught on an open mic calling Netanyahu a liar. From TFA:

He said: "We obviously expect government officials from any country, especially our closest allies, to speak respectfully and truthfully about senior US government officials."

Of course, the US has a lot more power in that relationship than Israel does, so they can get away with a lot more. This seems extremely petty, though.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[phantomfive]

This seems extremely petty, though.

It is.

All the same, you'd kind of hope that a communications director would have a little sense of what he should post on the internet.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[phantomfive]

But the Netanyahu administration is putting that all at risk by closely aligning with only the right wing of the Republican Party.

How is Netanyahu aligning closely with only the right wing of the Republican Party? Serious question.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[NicBenjamin]

Because the GOP's our opposition, therefore much as I hate those chintzy fuckers, opposing Obama is actually their entire fucking job.

OTOH in legal theory the internal politics of all nation-states are supposed to be totally irrelevant to the one another. People don't pay much attention to that shit, but it's still considered a big deal in terms of an international relationship if one country makes a guy who really hates the leadership of another country their fucking spokesman (non-spokesperson-type jobs are different -- nobody gives a shit whether the EPA Administrator thinks Justin Trudeau is the only Canadian stupider then Stephen Harper, but you can bet there's be some fucking angst if John Kerry or Jay Carnay said that shit).

This is magnified when the relationship we're talking about is Israel-US, because the US is pretty much the entire fucking reason that half the Israeli cabinet has not been banned from international travel over ethnic cleansing allegations. And it gets even more fraught now that the stupid fucking politicians involved are Obama and Netanyahu. They have had some extremely strong disagreements over issues such as the Iran deal, Netanyahu's stance on negotiations with the Palestinians, Netanyahu's inexplicable decision to make that speech in front of Congress detailing all that shit, his slightly more explicable decision to run as the don't-worry-I-won't-sign-a-peace-treaty candidate, etc.

Which basically means that by hiring this particular guy Netanyahu would be perceived as intentionally insulting the Obama Administration. Since Obama takes his campaign promises of 2008 way more seriously then he gets credit for, that's probably not a problem in the short term. But in the long-term it's ridiculously fucking stupid because Obama is term-limited, and there's roughly a 50% chance the next President won;t be nearly as pro-Israeli as he is. For example Bernie Sanders was angry enough at Netanyahu's behavior prior to that speech that he boycotted it. Hillary is probably the most pro-Israeli Democrat of any kind left, and she is architect of much of the Obama policy Bibi haters, her husband helped draw up the peace treaties Bibi is trying to work his way around, and if her position on this particular dispute is anything but "Fuck you too Bibi" she's gonna lose a lot of the black votes that make her more likely to be the nominee then Sanders.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[fnj]

How is Netanyahu aligning closely with only the right wing of the Republican Party? Serious question.

He isn't. The President of the US, the country which in fairly recent history has been Israel's only real ally, has gone in the tank with a raging insane theocracy, Israel's (and the US's) sworn, naked, and unabashed enemy, and one of the most evil hotbeds of hate in the world. In so doing he has closely allied himself with the goal of the destruction of Israel (and the US). The only part the right wing of the Republican Party has with this is that they are the only ones expressing shock, disgust, and horror at this literal insanity, though they haven't done so with much intensity or dedication.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying Obama is anti-semetic because he doesn't agree with them on everything... Wow.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[amiga3D]

Maybe not. He's certainly anti-Israel though. He's undermined them at every turn.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

You disgust me. After these insults I don't see any reason why we should give Israel their 3 billion dollar welfare check. If you're an American you're a traitor, if not you are our enemy.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I don't agree with what Israel is doing I assume you would class me as anti-semite?

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

mod up as insightful!

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck did this get modded up? If your solution to the problems in the Middle East is mass deportations, you're as bad as the people you're criticizing.

No shit that the Palestinians are genetically closer to the Israelite and Jewish tribes than the modern Jews. The Israelites (the northern tribes) were conquered by the Assyrians and taken into captivity in lands east of Israel about 2,750 years ago. The Jews were dispersed in Roman times. It's really obvious that Israelites and Jews who married with genetically more distant people in Europe, Persia, and Central Asia would lose more of their genetic similarity than people who remained in Palestine. It doesn't mean that the descendants of ancient Israel lost their cultural and religious identity. It's really no different than me, an American with ancestors a few generations ago from Europe, wishing to maintain some of the Welsh, German, and Polish cultural identity of my ancestors even though the genetics have long since been diluted in the US melting pot.

The problem isn't that people believe a particular religion. The problem is believing that it's okay to impose one's beliefs on others through force and drive anyone out who doesn't agree. Your post is no different.

Criticizing the leadership of Israel, their human rights issues, and their military actions isn't anti-semitic at all. There are plenty of Jews who don't support the Netanyahu government. And if Israel really is a friend of the US, then the US should be willing to tell Israel no when it's in the best interests of Israel and when they're doing something wrong. However, criticizing a Jew because of their heritage and religion actually is anti-semitic. I don't think you're actually anti-semitic, though, because your disdain is more generalized. I think you're just an asshole, because you want mass deportations. Segregation won't solve a damn thing. The only solution is to rid people of the idea that it's okay to hate, deport, and kill people just because they're different.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-semitic is just a other word for racist; like anti-white or anti-asian. Jew, Muslim or Christian are not races, they are term describing follower of a religious ideology. Disliking Jews and their sick ideologies do not equate hating Semitic decent peoples. In the same way disliking Muslim and their repugnant practices do not make you an racist anti-arab.

TL;DR - Stop confusing races and ideologies. It is dishonest.

Religious fanatics are not just 'different' peoples; they choose to follow their cults. Wishing to deporting them back to their 'holy land' for not adopting more inclusive and respectful values is not racism. It the only sane thing to do. Don't worry, they can come back once they are mature enough and stop talked to imaginary friend that tell them to hate anyone who disbelieve the cult.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really no different than me, an American with ancestors a few generations ago from Europe, wishing to maintain some of the Welsh, German, and Polish cultural identity of my ancestors even though the genetics have long since been diluted in the US melting pot.

The american "melting pot" is a Jewish invention. Look up the origin of the term.

However, criticizing a Jew because of their heritage and religion actually is anti-semitic.

Disagreeing with the barbaric practice of infant sexual mutilation is NOT anti-semitic. It is anti-jew, obviously, but not anti-semitic. Jew is not a race. Stop shilling for the bronze age retards. It is not worth the shekels.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[DNS-and-BIND]

opposing Obama is actually their entire fucking job.

No, that is the job of the media. However, since they are simpatico with his far-left politics, he gets a free pass. Nobody questioned Obama's credentials in 2008. How many people know he is the protege of a far-left terrorist who bombed the US Capitol?

I love how you take it as some sort of problem that politicians are subject to term limits. America already tried that and it didn't work out so well with Emperor Roosevelt. Ask cities that have been under Democratic control for 40+ years how it's worked out for them, you can start with Chicago and Detroit.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[im_thatoneguy]

It's different because the GOP doesn't receive $3B a year in support from the state department. Israel is playing with fire with its belligerence. If they become too partisan then their bipartisan American support will evaporate and they'll end up with nothing since neither party can act unilaterally. If the State of Israel becomes the State of The GOP in Israel then you can be certain that Israel will no longer be viewed as a "Friend of America" by the majority party (Democrats) in America. The GOP has only won one national majority in nearly 24 years (GWB 2nd term). Clinton won every majority vote in the 90s, George W. lost the 2000 majority (but won the electoral college) and then Obama won the popular vote again twice in 2008 and 2012. So if you take the popular vote as a "poll" of Americans the GOP hasn't polled terribly well at the national level.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's none of your damn business if someone believes in Allah, Jesus Christ, Yahweh, or any other supernatural being. None at all. Period. You have no right to force your beliefs on anyone else.

The problem isn't that someone believes in Allah, Jesus Christ, Yahweh, or any other deity. The problem is when those people act to force their beliefs on others. But mass deportations on the grounds that someone believes something is no better than the ideologies you claim to condemn. You're no better than the things you say you hate. What you're describing was an awful idea when Josef Stalin tried it and it's an awful idea now.

As for your claim that I'm confusing races and ideologies, you're being dishonest. A person who is a born to a Jewish mother is, by definition, a Jew. The lineages are maternal. Even if that person is an atheist, they're still a Jew because of their mother. The nationality and often the cultural identity is passed on even if the religious beliefs aren't. Plenty of people in secular countries celebrate Christmas without believing in Jesus Christ. And Jews can celebrate their traditions even if they don't keep the religious beliefs. There are also plenty of people with religious beliefs who choose not to impose their beliefs on others, but your statement also condemns them.

How about we respect the beliefs of others while rejecting attempts to impose religious beliefs and values on others? And if that doesn't work, where shall we deport the antitheists who seek to impose their beliefs on others? I hear Antarctica is nice this time of year.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Dog-Cow]

The term anti-semitic may have a word that refers to a race which most Jews do not (except possibly really, really distantly) belong to, but the term itself means anti-Jew. If you don't like it, make up your own language and convince the world to use it.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like conservatism has worked out so well for the state of Alabama. Baby Jesus is going to show up any day with his Colt riding his 6000 year old dinosaur according to what now passes for conservative "values".

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Opportunist]

That's your government. You may make fun of your government. But anyone else doing it is a nono.

It's a bit like your mom jokes. You can complain about your parents all you want, but anyone making a your mom joke goes home with a blue eye.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[SuricouRaven]

The president has attempted to negotiate an agreement which allows for peaceful coexistence with Iran. It's a pretty good deal too - it includes extensive monitoring of any nuclear activity and builds economic ties. Yes, it does mean making peace with an oppressive theocracy - but what is the alternative to that? The only alternative is open war followed by the same destabilisation that followed the war in Iraq, only on an even larger scale. It would kill hundreds of thousands (not from the fighting, but the destruction of government), cost trillions, and eventually a new and even worse power may emerge.

Uncomfortable peace, or hundreds of thousands dead and the global economy destroyed? Which would you prefer?

The only other option I can see would be targetted bombing of nuclear manufacturing sites, but that only buys time - Iran would just rebuild them.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't that someone believes in Allah, Jesus Christ, Yahweh, or any other deity. The problem is when those people act to force their beliefs on others. But mass deportations on the grounds that someone believes something is no better than the ideologies you claim to condemn. You're no better than the things you say you hate.

That is a common argument, but it is wrong. What make religions different then Nazism? The unprovable single one true God that invalidate all other religion? Yeah that totally justify respect of religious beliefs above other silly ideologies like Nazism. I am not forcing believes onto them, they can worship silly stones idols in the middle-eastern desert where they belong. The believes in Yahweh, Jesus or Allah imply hatred or others and/or forcing their view on others. Such is the core tenet of monotheism.

As for your claim that I'm confusing races and ideologies, you're being dishonest. A person who is a born to a Jewish mother is, by definition, a Jew. The lineages are maternal. Even if that person is an atheist, they're still a Jew because of their mother.

Of course the Jews would say that, it's in the interest of the cult. I person born to a Jewish mother is of whatever race his mother/father is. The religion of the mother is irrelevant. Also I think even a person born to a Jewish mother is free to chose not the believe in the bronze age idiocy. Don't you agree? Should the parent religion be forced on the children? And if they reject it, should apostasy law apply?

Plenty of people in secular countries celebrate Christmas without believing in Jesus Christ. And Jews can celebrate their traditions even if they don't keep the religious beliefs. There are also plenty of people with religious beliefs who choose not to impose their beliefs on others, but your statement also condemns them.

My statement made no such condemnation. Secular person of jewish/chritian/muslim culture are not the problem; these peoples are not religious, they are secular. Stop conflating everything in order to appear superior. You are not wiser, more tolerant or better. In fact you rather seem ignorant of these religions and yet you defend them as if they were sacred. It's just non-sense repeated generation after generation. Myths and legends of a archaic time. Sure, some of these story are nice, but they belong in the fiction category. Nothing worth killing each other over.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[andydread]

Sounds like you've been swallowing the fox/talk-radio/daily caller propoganda echo chamber a little too much. HOw about getting some fresh air.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

You got that backward. Anti-semitism is the made up word and the Zionist convinced you to use it. Good goy, you are so mentally colonized.

I dislike religions therefore, I am anti-jews. I do not care about races, including semitic descents, I am not racist. If you don't understand that, then you argument boil down to name calling (e.g.: shutting down the debate by calling your opponent a racist, a.k.a lies). Also I don't like discussing with pretentious login users; Please post as AC if you want to continue down this thread.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because the GOP's our opposition, therefore much as I hate those chintzy fuckers, opposing Obama is actually their entire fucking job."

No, just no. Your political system has no concept of an opposition. That is something that was invented by sore losers, people who basically go "well if I can't have it, nobody can" and spend all their energy trying to screw with the winners. Their job is to represent their district, nothing more. Their vote should be based on whether their district wants the bill, not what their political party wants.

I'd be nice if politics didn't always degenerate into childish us vs them cheap political point scoring.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Prune]

stupider then

Oh, the irony!

there's be

I believe the original quote from Oscar Gamble was “They don't think it be like it is, but it do.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Gamble

then he gets credit for

The ride never ends!

it's ridiculously fucking stupid

You can say that again!

she is architect of much of the Obama policy Bibi haters

So she designed the Bibi haters of Obama policy?

nominee then Sanders

By now I'm pretty sure one of your keyboard, fingers, or brain hates you with a passion.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

your both talking Bullshit - The GOP are supposed to be their to represent and work for the benefit of the people same as the democrats (naieve I know) this means both opposing when needed and coperating when called for.

The press is supposed to present a fair and balanced view of both sides of an argument (something it has never done.)

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't feel that religions are sacred and shouldn't be questioned. I'm not offended by your dislike for religion. However, I believe in human rights, and things like genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass deportations are totally contrary to human rights. Just because someone's beliefs are contrary to mine doesn't mean I have the right to take away their property, freedom, or their life. Neither do you. When you tell people they can either stop worshiping their gods or get be deported, your are forcing your beliefs on them. You don't have the right to take away the human rights of others because you don't like what that person believes in. When you do so, you're as bad as the religions you despise.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[KGIII]

Hmm... You're assuming it wasn't intentional and that this ensuing response isn't, in fact, part of some further goal. The guy was recently appointed. Do something, get in the news, get thrown under a bus, and then ... ? (I assume it's profit, it almost always is.)

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[NicBenjamin]

How about Cali, which is going on 20 years of Democrats, or Mass, which hasn't elected a Republican to a full Senate-term since a black guy in the 70s. Or NYC, whose local-level Republicans frequently switch parties to run for higher office, and when they don;t tend to get their butts handed them in primaries. Places with similar GOP-dominence in the South can become tech hubs, but only if the Feds build NASA there.

A for Roosevelt, I kinda thought that beating Hitler and ending the Depression were good things, and that the GOP of the time strongly opposed all measures associated with both on the basis of Rand Paul-style isolationism and Tea Party style economic conservatism.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter where you come from you're a fucking idiot. It's not racism or anti-semitism in this case though. It's anti-stupid.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are ignorant, and not just by a little bit. Not surprising, most people believe everything they are told and never read a book for themselves. At the time of founding the US had no party system and is was actively discouraged by all people involved. Money started creating "parties" not long after the founders were in their graves and unable to fight. The reason for 3 branches all having to agree was exactly to maintain active opposition to any legislation. That system prevented a complete take over of the Republic for nearly 1 1/2 centuries. That is going to shit quickly because of manipulation and what I said in the 2nd sentence.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[phantomfive]

I don't know.......if he was going to "suicide-insult" his career, I think he could have found a more productive way to do it.........

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you certainly countered his argument with logic and reason!

Oh wait, you just attacked his sources like a typical sheep, instead of saying anything of substance.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[KGIII]

Well, maybe he's hoping for a comeback when things die down? It's a rather conspiratorial line of thinking, anyhow. I should also add that I've absolutely no clue how Israeli politics works.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Hognoxious]

Do something, get in the news, get thrown under a bus, and then ... ? (I assume it's profit, it almost always is.)

You aren't indulging in a bit of stereotyping there, are you?

But you could well be right that he's "taking one for the tribe". Umm, I mean team.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazi appeasement and what you said were identical in tone, verbiage, and results.

You're a proponent of evil and death, but too stupid and cowardly to see it.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[KGIII]

If by stereotyping you mean thinking they may have politics similar to my own country, then yes. If by stereotyping you mean my assumption that politicians may be scum, then yes. If by stereotyping you mean something to do specifically with Israel or Jewish people then I'd suggest you look to your own prejudices for having leaped to such conclusions. Why would you even think such a thing? Are Jewish people stereotypical conniving politicians? I don't know, you'll have to tell me.

Seriously, what is it with you freaks and your desire to manufacture outrage where there is none? "Oh no, my poor sensitivities! You said something that I can relate to my own prejudices and I'm going to be presumptive and accusatory!!!" I don't know what you think about when you think of Jews but, personally, I don't align them with conniving politicians - I think that's a trait regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexuality.

Normally you're pretty smart but when you go full retard, you don't hold back anything, do you? This is me we're talking about. Not only do I have a pretty extensive history of posting in support of Israel and Jewish people in general, I've also been to their country a half dozen times and almost married a lady of the faith. All topics covered here, on this site, specifically. Dumb ass.

"No! I need to be offended! I'll just make shit up in my head, assume my own prejudices apply to everyone, and make stupid fucking allegations in the name of raising awareness and social justice!!!" If you don't feel stupid at this point then check your privilege because you probably should feel that way.

I hope, for your sake, you're drunk. I do, however, have my prejudices against politicians. Tribe... *sighs* You know, I'm a mixed race mutt, right? My strongest/highest percentage of ethnicity is, indeed, tribal - I'm mostly Native American. Yup. That's me. The mixed race guy hating on and making strange ass presumptions about Jews throwing one another under the bus for political reasons. Where the hell did that even come from? Seriously, I hope you're drunk. Otherwise, you're a fucking moron. I don't typically keep up on your racism so I've no idea what traits you arbitrarily assign groups of people based on their ethnicity.

Seriously? Man, you're so off my Christmas card list. I don't even... *sighs* Yeah, yeah... You need something to be outraged about. I can do that, if you want, but it probably won't be about the Jewish people. I'm kind of fond of them. I'm fond of them to the point where I even understand why they do what they do to the Palestinians. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand.

Yeah, no Christmas card for you, buddy! I do hope that you're drunk and haven't suddenly gone stupid. You've otherwise been mostly rational and, at least, marginally intelligent. Why the change?

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you tell people they can either stop worshiping their gods or get be deported, your are forcing your beliefs on them.

They can do that in the privacy of their home. But as we know, worshipping in these backward cult imply; the sexual mutilation of infants, the promotion of the cults to others and the hatred of other similar cults. These behaviour are incompatible with secular western values. Asking them to stop doing these things is not forcing beliefs on them, it is forcing them to respect ours.

Religion is not a human right. It was a mistake to mention religion as a fundamental freedom. This was done to appease the religious nut jobs that controlled us at the time of writing. Without the freedom of religion, peoples are still free to believe in imaginary friends, assemble into place of worship, chant and pray. These are covered by free speech and freedom of assembly.

But, without the freedom of religion they would not be allowed to mutilate and sexually abuse children. I am fine with that. Without the freedom of religion they would not able able to promote hatred of disbeliever/infidels/atheist/apostate/etc. I am fine with that. Without the freedom of religion they would not be able to obtain religious privileges setting them above others. I am fine with that. Without the freedom of religion we would all be free from religion. What is your problem with that?

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

isreal's own intel community supports the iran nuke deal. that should tell you something.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are so many things wrong with your post. Let's run through them.

Not everyone who practices religion has their children circumcised. Do you equally condemn those who don't do such things?

You fail to understand the concept of freedom of religion. Before freedom of religion was considered a fundamental right, religion was still practiced. It wasn't illegal. It did, however, permit the government to establish a state religion and ban any religions they didn't like. In Great Britain, the Church of England was established as the state religion. Anything else like Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, and even atheism, wouldn't be tolerated. Freedom of religion protects your right to have no religion at all and to oppose it as you see fit. Freedom of religion, like virtually every other fundamental right, isn't absolute, either. When a law is passed that restricts freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment, it is subject to judicial scrutiny. This judicial scrutiny weighs the need of society and the state to restrict freedom against the consequences of doing so. Notably, some former LDS practices are illegal in the US. You could try to ban circumcision, too, though that might face wider opposition because of the possible health benefits from it.

You have two very contradictory statements in your post. You say that some aspects of religious practice would be covered by freedoms of speech and assembly. But you say that without freedom of religion, it wouldn't be possible to promote hatred of nonbelievers. However, hate speech is protected as free speech. That's why hate groups like the KKK and neo-nazis are allowed to speak their hateful beliefs. That's why the Westboro Baptist Church can protest at funerals with signs that say "God hates fags." Freedom of speech would allow people to promote hatred of others, even if the hatred is because of religion.

Let's say you took away freedom of religion in the US right now by nixing those two clauses from the first amendment. It's quite likely that religion would be forced on people far more than it is today. The power would be given to the states to declare a state religion Considering the demographics of the US, the forced religion in most places would likely be Protestant Christianity. The first amendment's freedom of religion is the only thing preventing religion from being legislated in some states right now. Even if you retained the establishment clause but eliminated the free exercise clause, this problem could still occur. Protestant Christians in the south could outlaw practices of religions they didn't like.

There are countries in the world where freedom of religion isn't a fundamental right. These generally fall into two categories. One is the police states like China and the former Soviet Union where religion isn't welcome at all but at the price of an oppressive government. The other is the theocracies and those who wish to impose their beliefs on others through force. The Middle East is full of countries where freedom of religion doesn't exist. Many of these countries have tyrannical regimes and other freedoms are severely limited. Countries that have the greatest economic prosperity, where freedoms of speech, the press, and assembly are protected, where human rights are honored, tend to be countries that allow religious freedom.

Atheism hasn't grown by restricting freedom of religion. It's grown because of people willingly deciding they don't believe in any religion. I can't understand why you'd want to change now and try to expand atheism by emulating the religions you despise. Freedom of religion is actually a great asset to atheism.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of Speech!!!

Well, at least when you're in your own private home. Social media? Public speeches? Better not use this word or that word. Better not make your true feelings known. Just stick to the script and keep your head down. Oh, you're a communications director? Then you are certainly not allowed to speak freely. Sorry, it's your job to censor yourself or we will cut you off.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Rakarra]

I don't know.......if he was going to "suicide-insult" his career, I think he could have found a more productive way to do it.........

It's only suicide if it's not approved of by his boss.
This is a way for Netanyahu to make known what he feels without having to say it himself.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Rakarra]

Maybe not. He's certainly anti-Israel though. He's undermined them at every turn.

Maybe. What if that's so? Disapproving of the politics of Israel does not make one an anti-Semite any more than disapproving of Obama's policy decisions (such as his support for the Iran deal) makes one racist against black people.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Rakarra]

Money started creating "parties" not long after the founders were in their graves and unable to fight.

And by that you mean that most founders were themselves in political parties? George Washington is the only President the US has ever had who was not in a political party. John Adams, Federalist. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe? (not sure that Monroe counts as a "founder" though) They were Democratic-Republicans.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[phantomfive]

This is a way for Netanyahu to make known what he feels without having to say it himself.

I hope not. There are certainly more eloquent, and substantial, ways to insult Kerry.

Too bad

[h33t l4x0r]

If he were running for US republican nominee that would have made him the front-runner.

Re:Too bad

[amiga3D]

I'd take Netanyahu over most of the field of GOP hopefuls.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you would you treasonous fuck.

Re:Too bad

[amiga3D]

Treasonous? I'm not the one that paved the way for Iran to have nukes. Is that you Donald?

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

If you support anyone so far to the extreme right then you are essentially a fascist.

Different time, different targets, same shit. The victim has become the perp.

Re:Too bad

[Opportunist]

Hey, national security is important, ok? We don't question that and if it's not getting in the way of making money, we're going to consider that. But if there's a good deal offered, wouldn't you take it? Hey, what are you, some pinko commie?

Re:Too bad

[unixisc]

I'd take Netanyahu over most of the field of GOP hopefuls.

Netanyahu is great, and had he been an American, he'd have trounced not just Obama, but Bill Clinton before him. Nor would we have had to put up w/ 8 years of Jihad Wahabi Bush. However, the current bunch of hopefuls are better than the ones in the past - like Cruz, Carson, Rubio and heck, even Trump!!! Only ones I'd look at suspiciously are Jeb, Christie, Carly and Graham.

Re:Too bad

[unixisc]

And you are probably an ISIS or Hamas cunt, mr AC

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop with the "paved the way" bullshit.

You know what "paved the way" for Iran to have nukes? Science. Science isn't a western monopoly, it's not something that is handed out just to people we like. They are smart people, they figured it out for themselves. Almost all of the business of nuclear weaponry is a matter of money, scientists and time. The science isn't a secret; the processes and some of the techniques still are. And they figured most of them out.

Iran is a functioning sovereign nation, not a failed state, so they actually have the right to be treated as such. They also -- surely as anyone would in a world of fairness -- naturally seek to have the same weapons their enemies have; they seek appeasement rather than destruction. It is not the US's sole right to decide how other sovereign nations conduct their business, and Obama knows his soft power would be reduced if he acted as if it was, and particularly if he was seen to do what the first world's most irresponsible premier, Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted.

So, given that the only alternative is to bomb a country that hasn't threatened to use weapons it hasn't even fucking finished making yet, your president did the next best thing. He engaged in clever, hard-working, diplomatic soft power, and persuaded them to stop doing the thing they were already doing by themselves.

He's cleverer than you. Even if you think he's a foreign-born muslim.

He's also cleverer than Bibi. But then perhaps even you are. That man is stupid in a way even Ariel Sharon disavowed.

Re:Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You're waiting your time, he is a long time Israeli shill, been spreading his lies and anti Iran bullshit.
Frankly I would trust Iran far more than the US or Israel, who are lying thieves internationally.
Good thing Chinas is going to fuck the US in the ass in the next 20 years.

Re:Too bad

[unixisc]

You really should go over to Syria and join Hizbullah/Iranian/Alawite forces fighting... whoever

Social networking policies

[MichaelSmith]

I work for a small internet services company and they have a better social networking policy than the government of Israel.

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[MightyMartian]

Because the Republican frontrunners are just such paragons of factual debate.

Foreign politician says US politician is childish

[penguinoid]

Said foreign politician promptly reminded that, as a politician, they're not expected to be honest but rather to say nice things.

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[jrumney]

Name calling might be normal in internal politics, but in international politics, things are usually more diplomatic. Comparing Israel to the Democratic or as other posters have done, the Republican party misses the fact that Israel is not supposed to be in opposition to the US Government of the day, at least not if they want continued support in the UN Security Council from a country with veto power that they have enjoyed for the past few decades.

Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Israeli citizen I must say that I am embarrassed by netanyahu. He is a racist buffoon who surrounds himself with like minded individuals.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[amiga3D]

I can't help but wonder how y'all manage to keep electing him then.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Tablizer]

USA elected Bush twice.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[phantomfive]

And it's not looking like the next presidential election will be much better.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[TheRealDilbert]

Actually, Netanyahu's party only got 25% of the vote (of the 70% or so of the population that bothered to vote), but because he was able to form a narrow right wing coalition, he gets to be PM. That means at least 75% of Israelis DIDN'T want him.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just democracy.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Bing Tsher E]

We elected jugears twice, too.

History's worst president.

Actively bad, not just incompetent like his predecessor.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Opportunist]

I dare say the US can sympathize with Israel here. For the same reason. What, I dare ask, is the friggin' alternative?

It says quite a bit about the state of a democracy when your voting decision is made the Sherlock Holmes way. As in "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how unwanted, must be what you decide for."

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Opportunist]

And let's be honest here, he had quite a competition for that title. The last decent president the US had was Eisenhower. And it really shows.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Israeli citizen I must say that I am embarrassed by netanyahu. He is a racist buffoon who surrounds himself with like minded individuals.

My absolute favourite glimpse into his true self was his attempt to blame the Palestinians for the Holocaust: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10... Apparently poor old Hitler only wanted to expel the Jews until the evil Palestinians convinced Hitler to exterminate them. It's hard to believe he hates the Palestinians so much that he was willing to practically exonerate Hitler of the guilt of having conceived and initiated the Holocaust. I never thought I'd see the day when the Chancellor of Germany made a public a press statement correcting the Historical revisionism of the Prime Minister of Israel regarding who exactly conceived the idea of the Holocaust. Then Moshe Yaalon goes on a IDF radio station and distances himself from Netanyahu's utterances by claiming that of course the Holocaust was Hitler's idea but the Palestinian Authority is still based on the legacy of the Nazis which is only marginally less extreme than Netanyahu's claim. A lot of the people in Gaza who'd really like the privilege to choose their own government live under the guns of theocratic thugs and only have a choice between Hamas and Hamas but you guys have a choice between Netanyahu and more moderate people. Why do you guys keep electing these bozos?

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[LostMonk]

That's because Netanyahu is also a world class politician (AKA=bulshiter) who can turn on a dime .... so enough people are still buying his fear/hate/racism spiel.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

We all have our crosses to bear, if you'll pardon the religious overtones. As a UK resident, I think all our politicians are a national embarrassment to a greater or lesser degree. Just keep following the golden rule as best you can and surround yourself with others who think likewise.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American citizen, I'm tired of giving your country billions of dollars every year.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Whole lot of that going on over there though so why post about it now? Pretty sure your neighbors might have a few choice words too on this subject...

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[PopeRatzo]

I can't help but wonder how y'all manage to keep electing him then.

But not with a majority. Remember, Israeli elections are not head-to-head races between candidates. Netanyahu's governments have been coalitions that include some rather fringe fanatical parties.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-...

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[amiga3D]

I like Ike!

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[unixisc]

Hitler's meetings w/ Haj Amin al-Husseini is a matter of record, as is the latter's recruiting Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. So Netanyahu and anyone else who says that is accurate: the Palestinians, and rather, Muslims in general, are pretty much pro-Nazi, even while projecting that onto Israelis. Mein Kamph was a bestseller in Turkey when Erodgan came to power, and sells like hotcakes in Arab countries as well. And who can forget Mahmoud Ahmadinutjob's conference on denying the holocaust??

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Opportunist]

I don't know anyone who doesn't.

Seriously, every single prez since had some kind of scandal, huge blunders and generally things that remain in the collective memory as something that requires a head-desk reaction.

Aside of Op Ajax (which was not really that bad a move at the time) and the U2-Incident, I can't really say anything bad about Eisenhower. On the other hand, he reigned in McCarty, built the interstates, started the Mercury program and steered a conservative, but moderate social and economic course.

And before anyone asks, I am anything but a Republican. Not even the "old school" kind, and certainly not the right wing nutjob kind of today. It's kinda sad for me that the only decent president in the last 60 years was a Rep.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Rujiel]

"the Palestinians, and rather, Muslims in general, are pretty much pro-Naz"

Even on Slashdot, hasbara trolls abounds. Funny how no one on here calls 1.3 billion humans "generally nazis" until they need to defend that war pig Netenyahu. Oh paid shills, never chanhe.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[unixisc]

I called them that b'cos that's what their texts say. Mohammed was the original Hitler/Eichmann, whichever way you want to look at it. The Quran describes Jews as apes and rats, and Christians as pigs and dogs. The Hamas charter contains the statement about trees speaking out about Jews behind them. Muslims are far worse than Nazis, and that's independent of whether Netanyahu had ever existed.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[dywolf]

they only barely won this last round.
they wont be there much longer.
thank god.
and then once they're gone, the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
and peace might stand a chance again.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Nidi62]

Hitler's meetings w/ Haj Amin al-Husseini is a matter of record, as is the latter's recruiting Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. So Netanyahu and anyone else who says that is accurate: the Palestinians, and rather, Muslims in general, are pretty much pro-Nazi,

Damn, so I guess most of the Western world is pro-Nazi then by those standards. Because Waffen SS units had soldiers recruited from Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium (both Wallonia and Flanders), Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, Croatia, USA (15-20 volunteers), and Great Britain.

Oh, hey, another fun fact: Did you know that one of the founding members of the SS (literally the 2nd member of the SS, with Hitler being the 1st member) was Jewish? So now I guess even Israel is pro-Nazi!

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

I can understand. I'm totally buying Obama's fear and hate whites because they're all racists.

Review Baratz all you want

[reboot246]

He was right.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

What a stupid statement. President Obama is nothing more, or less, than another liberal politician who feels that if only we could all sit down and talk we could all get along. He's constantly befuddled by how hard it is to deal with people that have hundreds upon hundreds of years of war and bloodshed between them with a sizable percentage that only know hatred for everyone who isn't one of them. The fact that there is no simple solution for the Middle East seems to elude them. If Israel acceded to all the demands place upon them by their hostile neighbors there would still be no peace in the Middle East. The one hero that stood up and made peace, Anwar Sadat, was murdered for that action.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally right. Anyone remember 2008? The runup to Obama's "election?" The "god damn America" speech?

Obama's church is a well known anti-semitic church.

And anyone who negotiates an "anti-nuclear" deal that, in their own words, gives Iran a year to make a nuclear weapon - well, saying Kerry has a mental age of 12 might be being kind.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've been watching too much Fox News. Your hatred is blinding your reason.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[im_thatoneguy]

Obama is befuddled like Sarat, they both erroneously believed that Israel wants peace.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the other hero that stood up for peace. Yitzhak Rabin... that was murdered by a ultra right wing ultra religious Jewish nationalist. I would say its quite clear there is a problem with that in Israel.

Goebbels could take a few lessons from the modern right. Just frame mystic far right nationalism as "freedom". Who would stand against "freedom"

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[guises]

He's constantly befuddled by how hard it is to deal with people that have hundreds upon hundreds of years of war and bloodshed between them with a sizable percentage that only know hatred for everyone who isn't one of them.

This kind of language is counter-productive. There has been discontent in the middle east for a long time, but the current groups have been in open conflict only since 1945 and have been hostile for less than one hundred years. A peaceful resolution is certainly possible, given some significant changes in leadership. Those changes are coming - the people maintaining this conflict are primarily the old guard, the same people who started this conflict.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Alomex]

President Obama is nothing more, or less, than another liberal politician who feels that if only we could all sit down and talk we could all get along.

It worked with Egypt and Jordan in spite all the things you say being true.

It's seems you are a classic conservative politician thinking that armed conflict is the solution to everything (chicken hawk) in spite of facts showing the opposite (see Iraq or Afghanistan).

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

I don't see armed conflict as a resolution. Far from it. Surely you only picked one sentence and formulated the meaning outside the context. I see armed conflict as inevitable. I see no easy or simple solution to insane hatred in so large a portion of the population. For every step forward in the Middle East peace process there have been two backwards steps. The situation today is arguably worse than it was decades ago.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

I wonder how there can be peace when a very large portion of the population do not want peace. At least not what I call peace. I suppose the total eradication of all opposition could be called peace by some. I see little call for a middle ground.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[KGIII]

Wait... What? You think Obama is a liberal?

I'll give you the benefit of doubt, I've seen you post before and you seem otherwise sane and intelligent. In what way, and no - talking before fighting is not an adequate measure, is Obama a liberal? Against what backdrop are you calling him a liberal?

He's liberal as compared to, what? 'Cause he's pretty right, center-right, by much of the Western world. Even with using the US as the guide (which we really shouldn't) he's still pretty center though he'd be center-left by my reckoning. If Obama seems liberal to you then you must be in the 'extreme right' category - even if you don't self-identify as such.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[KGIII]

You mean the place where they held the violent revolution (Egypt) and the place with ongoing, near-daily, violence (Jordan)? I'm not sure those are good examples of your point. It's not that I agree with the parent poster but, well, if those are the best examples you have of talking being effective then I'm not sure you've got much of a point. Hell, Egypt's first round of Parliamentary Elections started today - they're just now getting to that point and still having violent outbursts from time to time.

Saying those "worked" makes me wonder what your definition is for success.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[unixisc]

He was right.

Mod this up!!! Everything that Obama has done since coming to power has been anti-Israel, to the point of embracing Jihadi forces like the Muslim Brotherhood. He started his presidency w/ that disgraceful speech at Cairo, actually invoking Jihadi verses in the Quran to back his statements, and then working to undermine stable Arab regimes that reined in Jihadist forces. Like Mubarak in Egypt.

While I don't share anybody's views that Obama is Muslim, I do think that he is competing w/ ISIS in running for Caliph after his term ends. Aside from all his rebuffs of Israel, he has done things like bow to Saudi king Abdullah, veto the Keystone pipeline that would make the US less dependent on Islamic oil, lecture India's Prime Minister about religious tolerance a day before visiting Saudi Arabia and not telling them a word about it (even though anyone w/ half a brain will agree that India is a far more religiously tolerant country than Saudi Arabia), closing down Gitmo and trying to get Jihadis onto American soil so that ACLU lawyers can bail them out, and recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Israel is doing the right thing by making its own deals w/ Russia, and putting any relations w/ the US on hold until Obama's term ends.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[unixisc]

You really need to stop watching the al Qaeda network - al Jazeera

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Alomex]

It definitely worked in that they established lasting peace with Israel. The OP was claiming it would never work. Guess what? it did, twice.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[unixisc]

It's good that Netanyahu is reviewing, as opposed to rescinding, the appointment. There is no reason for him to kiss up to a president who has been allah's gift to jihadis everywhere.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Alomex]

There hasn't been direct armed conflict since the Yom Kippur war. If you lived in Israel you'd realize they feel more secure that at any time in their short history.

I'm not claiming all is hunky dory, far from it, however your pessimistic interpretation that war is inevitable seems counter to the fact.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[KGIII]

Ah - alright. I was thinking you were implying a greater effect. I'd humbly submit that talking has already been done with regards to Israel and, well, pretty much everyone in the area - or have at least be attempted. This should not be construed to be an advocacy of violence, however. 'Tis an observation, not a suggestion or condemnation.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[guises]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The total eradication of all opposition, i.e.: death from old age.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

The only thing keeping war at bay is the fact that currently Israel holds an overwhelming combat advantage against her current enemies. It isn't that long ago that missiles were falling upon Israeli cities. While that attack was mostly thwarted by their missile shield it shows that the only thing holding back the tide is military might. It's only a matter of time until Syria and Iran have their proxies try again. I'd like to believe that everything will work out but given attitudes in the region I don't see peace breaking out within the next few decades. Frankly I think war is most likely.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

But they keep producing offspring. The next generation carry the torches.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Alomex]

You maybe right. You can equally claim that the only thing stopping Mexico from invading the USA is America's overwhelming military advantage. Regardless if that is true or not, the end conclusion is the same, peace with other countries such as Jordan and Egypt is a reality.

Your version of peace by means of not talking remains a fiction. Wars between Jordan and Israel since signing the peace treaty: 0. Wars with Lebanon since not signing the peace treaty:5 and counting.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

He's socially liberal. Personally I like some liberal policies. Getting rid of the "Patriot" act would be nice. Stopping the secret warrants would be nice. No more spying on people without a warrant at all would be nice. Sadly the President wasn't interested in any of that. He did champion many typical liberal projects though. Gay marriage, abortion and taxation are all interests he's pushed ahead. I suppose he's about as liberal as Bush Jr. was conservative. I don't know that the twisted mess that the Affordable Care Act became is actually a liberal act. I think it began as such but with the rush to shove it through without any actual thought about repercussions it became just one more huge bad government program when one special interest group after another got their claws into it. In the end it was just bad news. I think the original bill, while not good, would have been better.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

Mexico seems to be currently carrying on a mostly successful invasion of the US. Yes, Jordan and Egypt both decided to make peace and have stuck with it. Both have moderate governments and a largely moderate population. Peace is possible with people who are moderate. I think that pretty much sums it up. I'd hardly call Syria or Iran moderate. I believe extreme would be a more apt description. Israel was willing to give up land to Egypt in return for peace because they believed it was possible to have peace with Egypt. It's hard to sit down and talk with someone when the only thing the other party has to say is "Die!"

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Alomex]

Syria sans ISIS had a pretty moderate record and was>< this close to signing off peace a while back. Iran has recently backpedaled in its anti-America stand, maybe Israel is next.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Falconhell]

You hate the truth don't you shill boy. Al Jazeera is far more trustworthy than the US media.
But that doesn't suit your shilling for Israel does it?

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[unixisc]

Sure, you'd believe al Qaeda and perhaps even ISIS over anything that the big EEEEVIL US media has to say

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[KGIII]

Hmm... Just to give some insight, you know - in most other Western nations, things like abortion, gay marriage, and reasonable taxation aren't even debated by the right - maybe on the far right. Maybe. As for the ACA, that's a boon to corporate insurance companies and the industrial medical complex (I can't believe I just used those words, in a sentence, and together - but I lack a better phase). His intentions might have been liberal with that one, I'm not sure if I'm qualified to speculate, but the results are less than stellar.

If you look at it from a strictly American view then, sure, I guess you could call him a liberal, if only barely, but I'd think that's disingenuous. Our politics have gotten so screwed over the past fifty years or so that, really, we're kind of behind the times - in areas where we should be leaders. In short, assuming it's exclusively through an American lens, then I think you described it fairly well. He's as liberal as Bush was conservative. I can agree with that.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[dywolf]

veto the Keystone pipeline that would make the US less dependent on Islamic oil

We already are not dependent on Islamic Oil.

Did you just miss the entire exploding oil infrastructure in our nation?
Did you just miss that the worlds largest producer of oil is now the United States of America, both in 2014 and so far in 2015?

We are a petro nation now. The oil we do import we largely import our oil from Mexico and Canada, not the middle east.
And that ignores our shrinking demand for oil, as we expand out natural gas production.

The KXL pipeline would have done -zero- to affect the supply or demand for oil in the US.

closing down Gitmo and trying to get Jihadis onto American soil so that ACLU lawyers can bail them out

The constitution applies to them just as much as it does American citizens. it applies to all persons subject to the authority of the United States Government, citizen or not, enemy combatant or not. Indefinite detainment without trial or charge is very much illegal and unconstitutional. as is the continued detainment of people classed as nonthreats (and in some cased mistaken identities) and cleared for release several months ago....but that's another story.

for the ones who actually are bad guys (and not just swept up because paid informants, whom we know never ever lie or give false information in order to get an enemy in trouble, named them) a quick trial followed by a slow hanging or life in prison isn't something im opposed to.

but you do still need to fulfill the constitution's requirements that theoretically keep the exercise of governmental power over persons in check.
though, btw, you also apparently missed how he's in fact totally failed to close gitmo, going on 8 years now, and not even begun to take steps to do so.

Basically your entire post is a pile of BS that stands in total contrast to actual facts.
Which is pretty much par for the course.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[dywolf]

More ignorance.

Al Jazeera is a Qatari based news organization respected the world over, on a level similar to the BBC.
It's main biases, such as it is, is towards Qatar itself, and specifically the ruling royal family and its interests, and occasionally a pro-sunni/anti-shia bias when reporting on regional issues in regional markets.

The only way you could actually believe they are a part of Al Qaeda is you believe all muslims are part of it, which would just make you an ignorant bigot.
which frankly, meshes with your previous comments, and so wouldn't terribly surprising.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[unixisc]

Sorry, Mohammed, the constitution does not apply to people who are not citizens of the US - particularly enemy combatants. The rest of your post is an ACLU rant

Whats the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds spot on. Obama has consistently sided with people who want to destroy Israel and Kerry IS a moron.

Re:Whats the issue?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Please don't insult morons.

Re: Whats the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isreal's hypocrisy and sin in finally catching up to them. Israel is as much to blame as the Palestinians.

Mental Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry has slipped before in public and probably more so in private, so perhaps the mental age comment reflects that. Israel is portrayed as a liberal country, so are the likely comments of the opposition of the Baratz's party antisemitic? Antisemitism is apparently the Israeli version of anti-Americanism.

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is valid about the difference between domestic and international politics. However, the US has committed gaffes at the very top, such as Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy calling Netanyahu a liar. As you say, the US can get away with a lot more because of the tremendous disparity of power in the relationship. I think the State Department should have let this go rather than fussing at Israel when we've done similar things. It comes across as very petty.

Barack Obama, Israel, and Jews

[93 Escort Wagon]

Check, check, and check. This should be an interesting comments section. Where's the popcorn?

Re:Barack Obama, Israel, and Jews

[Hognoxious]

Slight problem there. Systemd hasn't started up the heatcereal service. We don't know why (check the logs? Yeah, very funny), but it seems to have started when someone installed 3D printer drivers.

News for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when Slashdot was actually about technology? How this relevant to news for nerds?

Re:News for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is for old people

Re:News for nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when the presidental election was only mentioned in passing when someone was elected because this wasn't the place for politics.

Re:News for nerds?

[roger10-4]

No kidding, but probably because the word "Facebook" appeared in the article.

Re:News for nerds?

[unixisc]

You nailed it!!!

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[amiga3D]

I think they're pretty sensitive to the charge of anti-semitism as it's an accurate statement. Nothing hurts like the truth. Just another case of the hit dog hollers. The comment about Kerry was out of line though. I'm no fan of his by any means but the "mental age of 12 comment" was childish in it's own right.

Re: Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Disagreement with the policy or actions of the Israeli government because those actions suck is not "anti-semitic".

And to throw it around so cheaply, like you (and it seems, the official Israeli communications director) provides a stunningly weak straw man that devalues anything else you say because the mind of the listener switches off with a "what a complete idiot this guy is, I'm going to stop paying attention now".

You know, Ted Cruz was born in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

And he's a Birther! Kettle-black? Not going there.

speak truth to power ?

[swell]

The problem with this is that there is a universal 'gentleman's agreement' among world and corporate leaders that they never say what is actually on their mind. Public statements must be carefully scripted and reviewed by the advisers; they must be designed to obscure any element of truth and cover it with vaguely bold assertions.

Nikita Khrushchev, Mayor Daley, Donald Trump and a few others live in infamy (or ridicule) because they dared speak their minds:

"I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you." - Khrushchev

"The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder." "We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." - Richard J. Daley

Re:speak truth to power ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Kerry has an intellect of a 12 year old" is what goes for truth nowadays?

Re:speak truth to power ?

[SuricouRaven]

Without that agreement, the world would be one angry conversation away from nuclear war. There's a reason diplomacy depends heavily upon protocols and formal agreements.

Re:speak truth to power ?

[PopeRatzo]

The problem with this is that there is a universal 'gentleman's agreement' among world and corporate leaders that they never say what is actually on their mind.

Maybe that's because if they said what was really on their minds, there would be rioting in the streets.

Re:speak truth to power ?

[swell]

So, in this political season in the US, can we believe anything that the candidates say?

Trump and Carson seem quite candid and frequently reveal their lack of presidential quality. Clinton, and the rest of the republicans, is scripted and it's impossible to know what she/they might actually think or do as a president. That leaves the outsider, Bernie Sanders, has no chance at the White House, partly because of his honest candor.

Obama campaigned on certain assurances which have failed to materialize. He seemed a 'man of the people' until he neglected to address the illegal immigrant problem and supported the trade agreement driven by the corporate elite and failed to close the inhumane prison in Cuba. There was no way to predict his actual actions from his promises as a candidate.

We want diplomacy in important sensitive discussions, but at some level we want honesty and openness from our elected officials. Can we have both?

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-semite, racist, xenophobe, misogynist, hate-monger..

Do these words actually have ANY effect on anyone anymore? I've seen them trotted out so goddamned often for such trivial, inaccurate situations that they just don't have any weight at all. It's like a child calling his babysitter a "poopy head" if she doesn't let him stay up past his bed time.

Two wrongs don't make a right

[Anonymous Coward]

...but is still fun:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IJRo...

Re:Foreign politician says US politician is childi

[Tablizer]

as a politician, they're not expected to be honest but rather to say nice things.

But "John Kerry is a big doody-head" doesn't carry much information. If you are going to insult, make it a useful insult.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

He was wrong. It's more like age 10.

GOP: The truth hurts

[Anonymous Coward]

1. How is this news for nerds?
2. The points made by Baratz might be perceived as insulting but they are factually correct. Let's not confuse political correctness with the truth.
3. Senior US officials have repeatedly made offensive remarks about Israeli officials and the country as a whole and have yet to apologize for it. It is the height of hypocrisy to throw a tantrum every time a junior Israeli official criticizes the Obama administration. Especially when the criticisms are well-founded.
4. Last I checked, Israel is a sovereign nation. I get the fact that left-wing governments will never get along with with right-wing governments, but suck it up. The US has no more right to dictate demands to Israel than Israel has the right to dictate demands to the US.

Re: GOP: The truth hurts

[cyber-vandal]

So the US Government doesn't give money to the Israeli Government?

Re: GOP: The truth hurts

[unixisc]

Nothing compared to the money given to Islamic hellholes like Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and so on

This is not news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

The poster Soulskill should have all his/her posts reviewed and if he/she continues to post political content be banned from posting. We don't need slashdot becoming a (biased) political news site. Enough of those.

Speaking as someone Jewish

[MobyTurbo]

Speaking as someone Jewish here, let me say this is just plain embarrassing - but I guess it's something to be expected when the Israeli government made, Netanyahu's previous cabinet, a frothy-mouthed extremist its face to the world as Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman.

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[TheRealDilbert]

And how is this different from "a senior whitehouse official" calling bibi a chickenshit and have it published in the Atlantic? http://www.theatlantic.com/int...

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[MobyTurbo]

Not much. Personally, I'm embarrassed in general with the state of relations between Netanyahu and Obama. I guess it's too late to hope that one side will take the high road.

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[Opportunist]

I feel compelled to inform you that there is no need to be Jewish to feel embarrassed by this.

Being human and knowing that this buffoon is of the same species already does that for me.

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[MobyTurbo]

There's a lot of buffoons in that category, sadly.

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[unixisc]

The blame for that goes squarely to Obama. It was he who was in bed w/ Rashid Khalidi - a Pali professor, and who decided to convert his hidden Judeophobic mindset into a set of policies that were not just anti-Israel, but pro-Islamic as well

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[Falconhell]

Is there any paranoid delusion you won't post shill boy?

Politically incorrect question

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama knows far right nationalists in Israel are as full of shit as the far right ones in America. The alleged "change" is too much of a coward to stand up to Aipec. Only marginally better then virtually the entire Republican party leadership. (the latter being spineless morons who think the Bible is real and put their tail between their legs every time Bibi tells them to do something)

Here's how the game works.

1. Ultra right Jewish nationalists with American citizenship (aka more famously known as neo-cons) dishonestly pretend to be American patriots that claim to support minorities human rights and democracy everywhere ...except when it comes time to supporting that in Israel.

2. They are quick to go to war with another countries, "coincidentally" with leadership hostile to Israel, then when it comes time to mentioning the obvious undemocratic crypt-fascism going on in Israel ... chirping crickets.

3. If anyone with half a brain points out any of this behavior.. out come the smear campaigns of "antisemitism" like clockwork. Norman Finklestein wrote about what he called the Holocaust industry. Essentially if you disagree with Israelis Nazi-ish racial hygene laws, oppression of minorities, and its military expansionism in the region... you are "antisemitic". Turning the tables, this is akin to claiming the Jews that were being persecuted by fascists were "antigermanic".

Of course far more Arabs (including many Palestinians) are also behaving like mystic racist fuckwads themselves for supporting theocratic states where you can get killed for even questioning the existence of Allah. Good luck breathing for more than five minutes for pointing out their "hero" Mohammad was a mass murdering pedophile cultist that by today's standards would be grouped right next to Hitler. Groups like ISIS and Hamas makes Israel look like Amnesty International headquarters.

So whom is a person with even a semblance of ethics and sanity to support? The fucked in the head, the really fucked in the head, or the even more fucked in the head?

Re:Politically incorrect question

[amiga3D]

The funny thing is, the Jews in the US support Democratic policies and politics. The only place they ever have any friction is over the State of Israel. I do thank you for being consistent in your disdain. Most people who are anti-semitic fail to criticize the bat shit crazies on the other side. Maybe because it's so dangerous. The Jews lobby, the Islamics lob bombs.

Re:Politically incorrect question

[Anonymous Coward]

Extremists portray their side as all good whereas the other side all bad. The reality is there are idiots and decent people in every nation.

Social Networking and Politics

[quantaman]

A similar thing came up in the recent Canadian Election where several candidates were withdrawn due to social media posts, some were justified but others were probably an over reaction. Either way we're going to have to figure out how to deal with it unless we want our political ranks full of people who have never tried to express an opinion.

I think the way to think about this is to think of it as things said in a bar, opinions will be hyperbolic and sometimes completely out of character. But sometimes you'll see that people do have very extreme beliefs and probably shouldn't be in power.

For instance the comment 'describing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as having a "mental age" of no more than 12'. I severely doubt he actually thinks Kerry's mental age is no more than 12, he may not even think Kerry is below average intelligence, rather he's just insulting Kerry which doesn't show anything more than he really didn't like Kerry at that particular instant.

On the other hand 'accusing President Obama of anti-Semitism' is a bit different, it raises the possibility that Baratz either seems anti-semitism in any action that seems to go against Israel or that he likes to use accusations of anti-semitism to attack his enemies. If either is something Baratz makes a habit of than he probably isn't someone you want influencing the government.

Re:Social Networking and Politics

[SuricouRaven]

I've heard it said that in the future, there will be no-one able to run for president - because with everyone's life extensively documented, there will always be skeletons in the closet. Embarrassing acts from teenage years, things said in haste or ill-worded, just waiting for the opposition's hired investigators to mine it from the archives.

Re:Social Networking and Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry but with everyone's life extensively documented, there WON'T be any skeletons in the closet. That is the problem people who always feel superior due to some one elses fuck up . never going to change

Re:Social Networking and Politics

[Nidi62]

I've heard it said that in the future, there will be no-one able to run for president - because with everyone's life extensively documented, there will always be skeletons in the closet. Embarrassing acts from teenage years, things said in haste or ill-worded, just waiting for the opposition's hired investigators to mine it from the archives.

If everyone knows about them then they aren't skeletons in a closet. The scandals always come from candidates who try to portray themselves as squeaky clean, never did anything wrong or never changed their mind. If a candidate were to admit they did something stupid when they were young, or believed/thought one thing but changed their mind when they learned they were taught the wrong things then there wouldn't be any problems. You would have no swiftboating, no Ben Carson, no flip-flopping "I was for it before I was against it", no "I did not inhale", etc. Most people would rather have someone who learned from their mistakes than someone who made mistakes but simply tries to pretend they never happened.

Re:Foreign politician says US politician is childi

[Opportunist]

But you have to phrase it in a way that your voters understand you!

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they're pretty sensitive to the charge of anti-semitism as it's an accurate statement.

Israel very clearly discriminates against people who are not Jewish - e.g. Jewish (only) "right" of "return". In fact, many people would even say that is the fundamental purpose of Israel's existence. If it wasn't, they could just change the name to something ethnically neutral, renounce absolutely all discrimination, and declare the country to be the eternal home of whoever wanted to live there - perhaps even some guy from Japan who liked to eat palak paneer while listening to Beethoven and wearing a sombrero.

In the long term, though, as a matter of basic fairness and reciprocity, it seems that either everyone gets to discriminate or no one gets to discriminate. You can't have a situation where one race/ethnic group/religion/etc proclaims that they get to discriminate against everyone else but that no one else is allowed to discriminate against them.

In a country like the USA, even the hint that a person thinks it's OK to discriminate against Jewish people is met with an extremely harsh response. Being accused of antisemitism can destroy a public figure's career faster than just about anything else. But then Israel is loudly and proudly up on the world stage discriminating against people who are not Jewish.

In the longer term, that doesn't seem sustainable. Eventually people are going to be like, "Wow, this just isn't fair!" It will be interesting to see how it all gets resolved.

And why is this surprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

A racist colonial regime is going to be run by unpleasant people. Why is this surprising to anyone?
While what he said about John Kerry may be true - given his mad ramblings on the international stage, it IS believable - it still wasn't very diplomatic. However compared to what the Israel regime is doing every day, a few words are hardly important.
It should be remembered that Israel is a regime that has ethnically cleansed nearly the entire indigenous population from a country, that discriminates and disenfranchise its native occupants, and holds them in large open air overcrowded prison camps like Gaza. It should also be remembered that this is a regime that DOES have weapons of mass destruction, and who's representatives interfere in the domestic politics of other nations (eg. the United States) for its own benefit.
America has brought great shame upon itself, as the only remaining regime that stands against UN resolutions that seek to put pressure on the apartheid junta to start to move towards some kind of peaceful settlement.

Re:And why is this surprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to hold the views of a crank, so here are a few corrections. Jews are the indigenous population of Israel, there have been Jews living there continuously for around four thousand years. This isn't the firs time Israel has existed, much as Poland has come and gone. (Where are the people claiming Poland shouldn't exist and Polish people shouldn't be allowed to go there?) Israeli Arabs are treated pretty much like any other Israeli citizen. Gaza isn't a prison camp, it is a self-governing territory with the terrorist group Hamas acting as its government. The US and much of Europe interferes with Israeli politics, so that would be sauce for the goose.

You are badly confused as to which side needs pressure for peace. The group needing pressure for peace is the Arabs of Palestine. Far too many of the Arabs in Palestine hold on to the dream of destroying the Jewish state for them to accept peace.

Re:And why is this surprising?

[unixisc]

Jews are originally from Israel. Them being there is not like, say, the Brits being in India, or the French being in Congo, or the Portugese being in Angola or Brazil. If you want racist colonialism, look at all the Arab countries outside the Arabian peninsula, who once had their native civilizations, but which were wiped out by the Arabs. Such as the Persians, the Egyptians, the Barbers, the Kurds and so on. Within the Islamic world, there is a pecking order, where Arabs are at the top, non-Arabs like Turks, Farsis, Pakis, below them and Blacks right at the bottom. The whole situation in Darfur was a case of Arab racism against Blacks, even though the latter are fellow Muslims. The Arabs use the term 'Abid' to describe Blacks, which is their term for the n-word.

If you are Muslim, this is a clear case of projection

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[drinkypoo]

However, the US has committed gaffes at the very top, such as Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy calling Netanyahu a liar.

You can call someone a liar when anyone can see that they are a liar. Except, apparently, the people of Israel. They keep re-electing that shitbag.

Sideshow and b.s.

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on now. I'm calling TOTAL BULLSHIT on this. Does anybody care who is Semitic or not besides those who are Semitic? Would Obama care substantially differently about any given race? He shouldn't. Palestinians are more Semitic than Israelis. USA is multi-cultural. Is Obama ever anti-asianism? anti-caucasianism? anti-indianism? anti-latinoism? Barack Obama is multiracial himself. So? Time to stop the fiction.

This isn't even a news story, it's a publicity stunt and it's a sham. It's grandstanding a pseudo-defense of a multiracial POTUS from "harsh language on Facebook" while the actual supposedly-offending comments are disingenuous themselves. It serves to pump a false narrative. It is pure political posturing. It is subtle but false.

Antisemitism is an excessively repeated/regurgitated historically manipulative false accusation. It's intended to put you on the defensive. That is the entirety of it's legitimacy. The shit can just stop. Now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people#Ethnicity_and_race
ctrl-F^ -- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circuitous

It is the historical pure play deceit of confusing race with culture. The actual fact is Jews use "race" as an excuse for their "culture". When accused of doing crooked or deceitful shit, they say Ohhh.. it's because you are an anti-Semite huh. No. They slam you with false accusation. It's not about their race, it's about what they do over and over. They "jew" you. They repeat the false accusation of antisemitism over and over because there is no possible additional angle. It is the tire-you-out approach. Seriously. Fuck off with the lies.

Do I need to remind of their culture? They are anti-Christian. They whirl chickens over their head for their sins. They suck baby penises religiously.

Of all things the most important is that they are anti-Christian. Wikipedia shows B. Netanyahu as "Secular" Judaism. That folks, is a Jew.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwZciH3hx-A

Re:Sideshow and b.s.

[Anonymous Coward]

cut/pasted/bolded because I'm aware how easy it would be to change the language on Wikipedia to hide the truth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people#Ethnicity_and_race

Anti-Semitism and Semiticisation
Main article: Antisemitism

The word "Semite" and most uses of the word "Semitic" relate to any people whose native tongue is, or was historically, a member of the associated language family.[39][40] The term "anti-Semite", however, came by a circuitous route to refer most commonly to one hostile or discriminatory towards Jews in particular.[41]

Anthropologists of the 19th century such as Ernest Renan readily aligned linguistic groupings with ethnicity and culture, appealing to anecdote, science and folklore in their efforts to define racial character. Moritz Steinschneider, in his periodical of Jewish letters Hamaskir (3 (Berlin 1860), 16), discusses an article by Heymann Steinthal[42] criticising Renan's article "New Considerations on the General Character of the Semitic Peoples, In Particular Their Tendency to Monotheism".[43] Renan had acknowledged the importance of the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia, Israel etc. but called the Semitic races inferior to the Aryan for their monotheism, which he held to arise from their supposed lustful, violent, unscrupulous and selfish racial instincts. Steinthal summed up these predispositions as "Semitism", and so Steinschneider characterised Renan's ideas as "anti-Semitic prejudice".[44]

In 1879 the German journalist Wilhelm Marr, in a pamphlet called Der Weg zum Siege des Germanenthums über das Judenthum ("The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism"), began the politicisation of the term by speaking of a struggle between Jews and Germans. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr's adherents founded the "League for Anti-Semitism"[45] which concerned itself entirely with anti-Jewish political action.

  Dictionary
circuitous
adjective circuitous \()sr-kyü--ts\

: not straight , short, and direct

: not said or done simply or clearly
Full Definition of CIRCUITOUS
1
: having a circular or winding course
2
: not being forthright or direct in language or action
— circuitously adverb
— circuitousness noun

A mental age of 12?

[Anonymous Coward]

hell that is 4 year advance on most Americans. The mansda positive cognitive giant.

Schmobligatory Python reference

[Hognoxious]

The text of that reprimand in full:
My boy, my boy, what kind of a schlemiel are you? You can't say things like this already ...
[looks around and breaks into a whisper] ... if there might be any goyim listening.

Zionist troll is troll

[shiftless]

"Slashdot typically leans left, but who knew there were full blown anti-Semites?"

What the parent poster said had nothing to do with hatred of the descendents of Shem. What he stated is fact.

That land does not belong to Israel and never did. They stole it by force.

It's fucking sad that this has to be explained to you, simpleton.

Die in a fire.

Re: Zionist troll is troll

[Anonymous Coward]

White people living in America, complaining about Israeli land rights, is fucking hilarious.

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, it wasn't just muslims celebrating after 9/11...

Bibi is right to distance himself.

[Anonymous Coward]

The statements are obviously out of line.

Obama isn't anti-Semitic; he's a misanthrope. Also, there's no way that John Kerry is mentally older than 5.

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[KGIII]

We live in an outrage culture. Those words have lots of effect. What they don't have is meaning.

Idiot, not treasonous

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel has nukes, has no membership in any of the groups on regulation, has no problem keeping millions of people imprisoned and stealing other people's property because they are not the right religion. Israel shoots people daily if they protest the squalid living conditions they are forced into due to occupation and embargo. Iran has not attacked anyone in over two hundred years.

But you to ahead and keep repeating the propaganda your masters have fed you for half a century. To believe that people are bad simply because someone said so and not due to their actions is idiocy. Your masters like you that way.

Oh yeah, remember that Iran Hostage thing your Government makes an issue of? That was the result of your Government installing it's own puppet who terrorized the public and enriched himself at the expense of others. You know, that same thing they just did in Iraq, did not too long ago in Egypt, tried to do and failed in Libya leaving it a complete shit hole, and want to do in Syria. Crack a history book every now and then, it will do wonders for your perspective.

Re:Idiot, not treasonous

[amiga3D]

That's right. Iran is the place of enlightenment and peace. Amnesty international, NOT a right wing group by any possible stretch of the imagination had this to say about Iran.

"The authorities restricted freedoms of expression, association and assembly, arresting, detaining and prosecuting in unfair trials minority and women’s rights activists, journalists, human rights defenders and others who voiced dissent. Torture and other ill-treatment remained prevalent and were committed with impunity. Women and ethnic and religious minorities faced pervasive discrimination in law and practice. Flogging and amputation sentences were reportedly carried out, some in public. Executions continued at a high rate; juvenile offenders were among those executed. Judges continued to impose sentences of execution by stoning, although none were reported to have been carried out."

https://www.amnesty.org/en/cou...

Palestine was not at all "impossible to develop"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better for GP not to know history than to be told incorrect history.

That is, Palestine was not "considered impossible to develop"; on the contrary. Palestine has significant areas of arrable lands. Even without techonolgical infrastructure, it was producing citrus fruit, olives, and derivative products like oil and soap. Haifa is a convenient port location which the British built oil refineries at (yes, there were a few tends of thousands of Zionist settlers in Palestine by that time, but it wasn't them who built it). The refineries were connected by pipe to wells in Iraq and this worked nicely until the Naqba. The citrus sector saw the development of nascent local capitalist landowners employing hired labor almost (?) exclusively. Schools were becoming less rare, especially in the cities, and literacy began to go up - albeit nowhere near a majority of the population by the early 1900s.

Now, it's true that Zionist immigration brought people with training in science and engineering, and the technological advances of industrialized Europe - but the division of the world into center and periphery, "north" and "south", is not a phenomenon particular to Palestine and the natives are certainly not to blame for it.

Also, the Palestinians did have to "want it" - they had it; even while being occasionally being conquered by the dominant power du jour. For centuries and centuries. But the Zionists essentially replaced them wht a colonist population (among whose descendants I am counted by the way).

Immature and Anti-Semitic are being generous

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure this will get down-modded by all the lib-tard panty waste moderators who can't handle reality because it conflicts with their "feelings", so posting as AC.

Name calling is for example the above line. Substantive attacks are: "You are immature." or "Your actions are overtly against a certain group of people or country." As were the FB comments, they just happen to piss of the president and PC press...

Barry may not like everyone knowing the emperor has no clothes, but lets look at the facts shall we? Ask anyone who understands geopolitics and they will tell you that Hillary Clinton/John Kerrry have no fucking clue what they are doing, nor does this administration, as indicated by the fact that the world is becoming more and more unstable. Russia is taking over other countries and becoming the dominant power in the oil rich regions of the world, and good muslims are murdering those who don't agree with them (thats right, islam is not the religion of peace, deal with it.) The only good muslim is a non-practicing muslim. Those who have actually read the koran know that it explicitly says that it is OK for Muslims to rob, deceive and murder non-believers if they feel like it and non-believers should be treated like second class citizens. Islam is violent. ISIS has murdered thousands of Christians and other non-believers. On top of all of the non-muslims that ISIS has murdered or displaced, they are killing ~10,000 fellow muslims a year just for not being of their sect.

Outside of the ISIS tumult, in 2010, you were 2,832% more likely to be murdered by a muslim terrorist than a Christian, and 658% more likely to be murdered by an Athiest/Secularist terrorist than by a Christian. If we assume that the Atheist/Secularist is the control group for crazy people in society, then Christians are much less likely to be crazy or violent that the general population, and muslims are 430% more violent than the general population. That should tell you something if you don't have your head up your ass.

Hell, the US Marine Corp was created to attack and invade the muslim nation of Lybia because they were robbing our merchant ships and selling our sailors as slaves and they told us they would't stop because it was OK for muslims to do that to non-muslims. So we invaded and put the sword to the neck of their ruler and told him if it happened again, we would come back and cut his head off - and the problem was solved). Contrast that with Christianity that commands loving your neighbor as yourself, defending the innocent and freedom of conscience. Individuals have tried to twist Christianity over the years to suit their own goals, but at it's core if Christian precepts are followed perfectly, you wind up with a utopia where everyone is taken care of and loves each other. To conflate the two religions is dangerous and is going to get a lot more people killed, as we see right now in Syria and Iraq.

As far as Barack Hussein Obama, if he is our first black president, he is also our first Arab president, as he is 1/4 black and 1/4 Arab, and yeah, he did threaten to shoot Isralei planes out of the sky if they acted to take out Iran's nuclear capability (Iran who has outright said they want to wipe Israel of the map and call us the great satan and want our annihilation as well) so yeah, thats pretty fucking anti-semetic and if you side with Iran, so are you, period. What has Obama done to tamp down radical islam in Syria or Iraq? He drew a red line and then ignored it. He pulled all troops out of Iraq because the dick-less wonders in the liberal establishment wanted him to (status of forces agreement was a canard, we were in a position to dictate to Iran, not bow to them), never mind that created a huge power vacuum that Iran promptly moved in to fill, and the backlash created ISIS...

So yah, ignorant, naive, and anti-semetic is being generous. If you don't like it, ask your president to get his shit together and act like a US president and not a muslim loving sheikh who somehow got elected in the US.

Re:Immature and Anti-Semitic are being generous

[MagickalMyst]

If what you have to say is so important then please post as yourself not an AC.

Of course, you won't because your post speaks for itself - you drank the kool-aid and now you suffer from Islamophobia.

If you were true to your beliefs you wouldn't care about your post being voted down a by a few measly points because someone has a different, non-racist, opinion than yours.

Too bad Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to think that Israel is a fascist country, run by racist fundamentalist bigots that enjoy inflicting pain and humiliation on others while maintaining a proper victim attitude and profile.

Then again, this post "was written frivolously and sometimes humorously, in a tone suited to the social networks and a private individual."

(cough)

Israel: you have been weighed

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel has been weighed in the scales and has been found wanting.

Anyone who doesn't agree with them is labeled an anti-Semite. America has finally awoke and is calling out their hypocrisy.

More correct political incorrectness

[Anonymous Coward]

" The Jews lobby, the Islamics lob bombs."

I've heard it all before. Your claim is a transparent to attempt to manipulate. You first mistake is trying to lump in every Muslim into the same pot. Your second mistake is lying by trying to suggest no Jews engage in violence You very well know some Jews drop bombs too... and also lobby for others to drop bombs. Whether consciously or unconsciously you are playing the game even to the point of using the word "antisemitic" to silence fair criticism of Israel.

Look at the behavior of ISIS. Is that what you want to stand for because that is the direction far right Jews are moving towards inch-by-inch. (and not only far right Jews... the far right christian fundamentalists as well) Reality will never change to match the narratives of racist mystic nationalists. It is what it is.

That's the truth, and ethics, for anyone actually looking for it. If humanity is going to survive the nuclear age, isolating extremists and troublemakers in all nations is our salvation not more Reichstag's Fires used as a pretext to justify mass homicide.

You're right of course

[Anonymous Coward]

We in the west should have stopped trying to give the ancient land of Israel to the Arabs long ago. Sorry, but you don't get to "have it both ways".

Perhaps the Brits should never have drawn all those lines on a map to define the artificial states of Iraq and Jordan, should never have created "trans-Jordan", etc. All these lands, including even Saudi Arabia and Iran whose lines were also drawn by westerners, are clearly just as "illegitimate" as the occupants of those very lands call Israel. If Israel is not legitimate, then none of these others are.

The west should also never have allowed the Egyptian troll Yasser Arafat to invent a "Palestinian people", which he admitted in the 1970's on the American TV show "60 Minutes" was a fiction in support of a political cause. There has never, in recorded human history, been a "Palestinian nation" or a "Palestinian people". What are now thought of as "Palestinians" are in many ways just as much the victims of history as the Jews in the area - both were told they were the rightful heirs of the land there. The Jews, because their ancestors had a nation there which the Romans kicked them out of, and the Palestinians because their ancestors squatted on the land after the Jews were wiped out. Indeed, the people in Germany and Poland who currently live on land in Europe "freed-up" when Hitler wiped-out the Jews there probably would resent it if surviving relatives came back and tried to reclaim that land.

The vast majority of the land in the middle east, is already owned and controlled by Muslims who are hostile to any non-Muslims and frequently exhibit homicidal tendencies toward anybody of a different religion or ethnicity. Palestinians could exist in any of these places far more safely than any Jew could, indeed Jordan, formerly "trans-Jordan" WAS defined as a place for them and has a population that is arguably majority "Palestinian". From Libya and Egypt, through Arabia to Iraq and Iran, and Turkey there is an amazing amount of land where no Jew may live, and even Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, etc would be in peril. The modern "Palestinian", however, would be among brothers.

It's an act of insanity to believe that removing the tiny Jewish state from its historical home, where it existed thousands of years before Mohammed was born, and thus expanding Muslim lands by 0.1% will in any way solve an ancient problem and bring any peace to the region. The problem is the hyper-violent warrior-cult of Islam which can neither produce nor tolerate peace because it was founded by a warrior intent on global conquest by the sword. The elimination of the Jews will not solve this as it did not solve it previously when there was a long period with no state of Israel in the region.

I'm not a Jew, nor some Zionist activist sort, I'm just looking at this rationally with a broader historical view and no pro-Palestinian or Jew-hatred fuelling my post; the kick-out-the-Jews "solution" for mid-east peace simply has already been proven false by past conditions when Israel was not there... it's a matter of historical FACT that in the early 1940s the grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his Muslim Brotherhood buddies signed-up with Hitler to help wipe out the Jews (they had no intention of letting Jews live ANYWHERE, which is consistent with the Koranic command to wipe-out the Jews). The simple fact is that the non-Jewish states in the region get far more money from the west every year than Israel does and yet they are far more violent, backward, politically volatile and undeveloped - and it's NOT some ethnic/genetic issue, it's the CULTURES and the BELIEFS and the RELIGION. If you remove the politically-correct blinders and stop coddling the Palestinians as the sympathetic and oppressed "underdogs" and instead look at the facts and history, you see that Israel is an excuse and not the actual problem.

Land OR peace, can't have BOTH

[Tablizer]

Regardless, for two decades it was the de-facto border and there was relative peace. If you wander outside of those borders, you can't complain about war and revenge. Israel got what it bargained for.

The fact the other side isn't perfect is irrelevant. It's deflection to mention their sins. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yeah, but who gave it to the UN in the first place

[Anonymous Coward]

The presumption of the UN is always just amazing; they are the single-most illegitimate political entity on Earth. The UN has no land, and no population. Nobody voted for them, or crowned them or even put them in power by force of arms - the UN is a quasi-governmental entity put together by a bunch of governments, many of which were of dubious legitimacy themselves; they are like the ultimate congressional "blue ribbon committee" - an entity constructed to say and do unpopular things on behalf of politicians and then allow those politicians to dodge the blame for the side effects by saying "it's not MY fault... those jerks at the UN did it!"

The UN never had any claim to any of the land on Earth and therefore have never had and legitimate say over anything related to any land. They cannot "give the land to Israel" and they cannot give any of the land to the Palestinians.

People need to ask more questions when presented with junk like the UN; the fact that somebody says in can or did do something needs to be questioned as does the idea that it has any right to do anything.

and then proved our stupidity with Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm personally offended the Israeli gave John Kerry such high marks - the man is lower on the evolutionary ladder than a meal worm and has the IQ of a slice of moldy bread.

John Kerry has not been able to point to a single benefit of his we-give-up-everything-and-get-nothing "deal" with the Iranians - indeed they grabbed two more American hostages and hacked Obama admin computers after the "deal". We could double the collective IQ of of the Obama administration by adding a gerbil to the president's cabinet.

Our next president, who ever he or she is, will inherit one hell of a global mess, an economy that sucks outside of Wall St and Google HQ, and a national debt that Obama more than DOUBLED in less than 8 years. That's what the voters get for electing a pot-and-cocaine-head to the oval office. We elected President Spicoli - now if only we had a Mr Hand...

Re:and then proved our stupidity with Obama

[Tablizer]

What makes you think they wouldn't do those things anyways without a treaty? It's NOT like a shopping mall where we can just pick out and buy treaty features we want like a rich 14 year old.

Guantanamo Bay

[MagickalMyst]

Anyone who supports the land theft and genocide of the Palestinian people should be charged with terrorism and thrown into Gitmo.

I can't believe that there are actually people out there who support these crimes against humanity... And then propagate their hated of Arab peoples on Slashdot and other sites; whilst claiming to be "victims". Absolutely disgusting.

Burn in hell, you evil baby killing thieves!

US tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. My tax dollars go to subsidize this nonsense? Not to mention the slaughter of women and children. No wonder there is blowback on the US ppl.

Barking dog "statements are unacceptable...", biti

[Anonymous Coward]

...

Jews not from Israel:

[Anonymous Coward]

Recent research shows that real Jews from middle east are (almost) extinct. In the 1200th century, the real middle east Jews were on the verge of extinction, but they made a large tribe in east Europe, Khazar convert to Judaism. These Khazar Jews are also called Ashkenazi Jews, and today the Ashkenazi Jews are the majority of all existing Jews. These Ashkenazi come from east Europe, not from Israel. The true Jews from Israel are almost extinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews
"...It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, while at their peak in 1931 they accounted for 92 percent of the world's Jews. Immediately prior to the Holocaust, the number of Jews in the world stood at approximately 16.7 million.[24] Statistical figures vary for the contemporary demography of Ashkenazi Jews, oscillating between 10 million[1] and 11.2 million.[2] Sergio DellaPergola in a rough calculation of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, implies that Ashkenazi make up less than 74% of Jews worldwide.[25] Other estimates place Ashkenazi Jews as making up about 75% of Jews worldwide.[26]..."

When Israel was founded in 1948, lot of Jews settled in Israel. And 92% of all in the year 1931, them had heritage from east Europe, as Ashkenazi. Which means, that 92% of all Jews in Israel where also Ashkenazi. The rest of the Jews where Serphardic (spain), etc etc. The real middle east Jews where just a tiny fraction. Just look at Israel demography today, the majority of todays Jews come from other places than middle east:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews
There are not any Jews from the old Israel borders, everyone are from other countries.

There are actually several researchers who wrote books about this. Here is an Israeli writer Arthur Koestler, he explains all this above in his book "The 13th tribe":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe
And israeli professor Shlomo Sand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People

Israel is arabic, not Jewish:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is interesting that recent researchers have written scholarly articles and books that shows that the Jews from middle east are (actually almost) extinct. In the 1200th century, the real middle east Jews were on the verge of extinction, but they made a large tribe in east Europe, Khazar convert to Judaism. These Khazar Jews are also called Ashkenazi Jews, and today the Ashkenazi Jews are the majority of all existing Jews. These Ashkenazi come from east Europe, not from Israel. The true Jews from Israel are almost extinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews
"...It is estimated that in the 11th century Ashkenazi Jews composed only three percent of the world's Jewish population, while at their peak in 1931 they accounted for 92 percent of the world's Jews. Immediately prior to the Holocaust, the number of Jews in the world stood at approximately 16.7 million.[24] Statistical figures vary for the contemporary demography of Ashkenazi Jews, oscillating between 10 million[1] and 11.2 million.[2] Sergio DellaPergola in a rough calculation of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, implies that Ashkenazi make up less than 74% of Jews worldwide.[25] Other estimates place Ashkenazi Jews as making up about 75% of Jews worldwide.[26]..."

When Israel was founded in 1948, lot of Jews settled in Israel. And 92% of all in the year 1931, them had heritage from east Europe, as Ashkenazi. Which means, that 92% of all Jews in Israel where also Ashkenazi. The rest of the Jews where Serphardic (spain), etc etc. The real middle east Jews where just a tiny fraction. Just look at Israel demography today, the majority of todays Jews come from other places than middle east:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews
There are not any Jews from the old Israel borders, everyone are from other countries.

There are actually several researchers who wrote books about this. Here is an Israeli writer Arthur Koestler, he explains all this above in his book "The 13th tribe":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe
And israeli professor Shlomo Sand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People

As an Israeli, this article on ./ worries me

[lagi]

I don't like Netanyahu, nor I elected him - However, like other mentioned, he's world class politician. And I agree.
Why? He goes to US, asking for stuff military aid, relations are not good so no body fucking cares.
He needs some attentions form US public, hmm... Will he do that?
You get the point. Really nice move.

I've been Slashdot user since I don't know when (really couldn't check - but see my user id?).
This is the first time I see this kind of article about Israel on this site.
And why this worries me? Because when I come to ./ I expect reading about gcc, C++, Linux and perhaps other shit. Not about Mr. Netanyahu my ass hole PM thank you. Is this now turned into geo-political site? Just because the statement was made on Facebook? Or by Israeli PM? Really? Keep this kind of things out of here plz.