Obama's Zionist speech...


I agree ... Obamas a Zionist .

he is free to leave it any time he wants.

A very Arab Nationalism statement :

"Speaking in an interview with Channel 10, Rabia Eid said that "Obama talked about a Jewish state, and that is unacceptable to me and to the Arabs of the world."


That's revealing , he's saying that Jews will not be accepted by "me and to the Arabs of the world."

For someone whose answer to everything is to accuse people of being antisemites, you sure say a whole lot of skinhead-sounding shit yourself.

Skin head type shit? Wow that's rich !

It may be revealing to people who have been intentionally blind for the last 65 years or so. You know, the people for whom the one state solution is something new instead of what the Arabs have wanted since 1947. The truth is that Arab chauvinism and irredentism have been at the heart of the conflict from the get go. This is just more of the same.

Virtually your entire post is about things I never said.

Azurnoir>Israel's Arab minorityy do not want a Jewish State anymore than America's Black population would welcome a Caucasian state and for the same reasons.

Proving once again that you don't know the difference between peoplehood and race.

the principle is the same a people whether ethnic or racial being citizens in a state that dedicates it self to a different ethnic/religious/racial group making those citizens outsiders in their own country

If I moved to Japan, I'd have civil rights but I'd feel like an outsider. Same if I moved to France, England, even Canada. Because they do things differently there. That doesn't make those nation states racist, illegitimate, or undemocratic.

the principles involved are the same regardless of whether it is a racial ethnic or religious group that are citizens of a country run by government that l decrees they are outside of the group the state involved dedicates itself to

Differentiating by race is illegitimate, and Israel isn't doing that. Differentiation by national culture is completely legitimate. I can understand that the Arabs might not like it, just as Arabs in England or France don't like that those countries aren't Arab or Sharia Sharia states. But that doesn't make those states wrong. Israel isn't wrong either to want to be Jewish.

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 04:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Israel is differentiating in identifying who the state represents by religious/ethnic group the US it would be by race which is why in the US the same type of outrage would be applicable to racial minorities, should the US chose to identify it self as the country of only one racial group

lots of water under the bridge since then

that was before the rightwing settler government Israel has now

Your original post compared Israeli differentiation by nationality (which the Arabs don't like, but which is legitimate) with American differentiation by race (which is illegitimate). But the two aren't comparable. As I have already pointed out, differentiation by nationality is different than by race. So your original comparison was wrong and unfair because you were trying to make two different things look alike (apparently to tar Israel with the stigma of racism). At least that is what it looked like you were doing, otherwise why would you have compared the two?

well you heard that here first folks bvut now as to your other parsing religious affiliation and race are being used for the same purpose to identify those who are considered to be not us, not of majority people not of the group to whom this or that country belongs same purpose different terms

You lump national identity in the same category as race, and I recognize that they are different in kind. Not all discrimination or differentiation is illegitimate.

When there was an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in England, certainly. Now they have become the English, which is certainly a nationality. Also they are one of the foundation blocks of the English speaking peoples--nationalities such as Australian, Canadian, and American.

...have a birthright to all of England and Wales up to the Firth of Forth, with Glasgow and Edinburgh being disputed territory. The Brythonic Celts can trace their roots back to the iron age. The Anglo-Saxons have enough land otherwheres, and should they complain they and all the other mongrel breeds can bloody go back where they came from. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a racist, I'm not for a 100% cleansing of these our ancestral lands like a guy like Benny Morris would be if he were Brythonic, I just demand that all citizens sign a loyalty oath to Briton as a Brythonic nation, where state land is reserved for the Brythonic people and where Brythonic laws determine the social order including disposition of the various housing, business and travel arrangements of the mongrel peoples. Of course the non-Brythonic mongrels wouldn't have the same birthright to the land innate to any pedigreed Brythonic Celt, so if one left to do business elsewhere for any considerable time, say more than two years, their right to return wouldn't be guaranteed. Certainly their children wouldn't have any rights at all. That is only just, since it's their choice to leave and they aren't Brythonic so have no appeal to a birthright. They might find that their property was forfeit to the Brythonic state and sold for 1/2 cost to a Brythonic immigrant asserting birthright privileges, since as everyone knows the Brythonic state democracy requires a solid demographic majority of Brythonic Celtish citizens. Anything less than that is an existential threat to Briton - which is tantamount to genocide. So people who don't agree with my political philosophy are obviously antiCeltic advocates of genocide.

Now, as for the mongrel peoples, I'm a liberal democrat of course so think they should have total freedom to build, work and prosper in select isolate locations chosen by the Brythonic state. Isolate, of course, because any large continguous settlement of mongrel peoples presents a clear demographic threat, an existential threat, and as already stated the Brythonic state has every right to protect the Brythonic Celtish people from genocide.

Anyway, I'm just winging it, working out the general details according to the master plan developed by Israel, the most anti-apartheid liberal democracy in the world, and as explained by Israel's defenders in I/P discussions.

When you have to make up false analogies you're just wrong and dishonest to boot. Let's start with the fact that there is already a state in Great Britain, and there wasn't one in Palestine. Not to mention that there isn't as far as I can tell a separate Brythonic Celtic nation anymore. Or that the Arabs of Palestine got 80% of the country in the 1920's when the British fabricated the country of Jordan. Or that the Jews were willing to settle for a fraction of what was left. I could go on, but you've made it quite clear that facts, logic and argument are wasted on you. Good night.

But facts, logic and argument clearly show that you're an anti-Brythonic-Celtic bigot to deny the existence of the Brythonic Celtic peoples and their historic connection to the land!

And as for Israel, I don't see it on this map:
http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/maps/&h=439&w=631&sz=68&tbnid=h2IL5Dgl7eBYQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=123&zoom=1&usg=__UPZpnL_O6EHTND9gqjKhtpK8JY0=&docid=bnV84WnJQsM4nM&sa=X&ei=ZN1PUdIbi9KIArOGgaAK&ved=0CDcQ9QEwAg&dur=269

for similar reasons but your reply helps me understand your apparent difficulty with certain concepts

What concepts are you talking about? Please be specific. And my point is that you are wrong about using the different concepts for similar reasons. Just as you are wrong that Arabs don't like Israeli nationalism for the same reasons that blacks opposed racism. Your entire argument is based on false facts and assumptions. You said this:

Israel's Arab minorityy do not want a Jewish State anymore than America's Black population would welcome a Caucasian state and for the same reasons.

This statement that you made is false. Here's a hint. Blacks for the most part didn't want to turn the US into a Black ruled country. Instead of trying to deny that you made the statement, maybe you could try and justify it?

kind of says it all

Instead of facing the substance of the issue you once again accuse me of something that I haven't said. I implied that Arabs want to remake Israel into an Arab state, not that they were actively trying to do so. To think that they don't is silly. The state is going to be either Jewish or Arab. There is no such thing as a non-national state, and there can't be. So which do you think Arabs would rather have? A Jewish state with an Arab minority or an Arab state with a Jewish minority? And can you please honestly try and justify your claim that the Arab opposition to a Jewish state is akin to Black opposition to a racist state?

if not an insinuation that Israeli Arabs wish an Arab controlled Israel, the person who made the statement in the OP is an Israeli Arab BTW

He's saying that it is not acceptable that the lands of Israel/Palestine are legislated to be a specifically and preferentially Jewish state, which would be just as understandable if it were you saying that it is not acceptable that these same lands should be legislated to be a specifically and preferentially Arab state.

That is NOT a "nationalist statement"

He, as an Arab Israeli, is not saying that he can't live with Jews, he's saying that it isn't acceptable that he be legally designated as second class citizen in his own country. He is demanding equality under the law.

You know that.

Is there a good model that Israel can emulate?

Are you conceding that point?

As for Israel emulating the USA, I really think you need to get a better handle on what Israel is and why it was founded.

I would no more accept Iran than I would Israel as a model of a progressive state where there's equality of persons for all under the law. I'd put states like Saudi Arabia well below these two.

So, if you think it builds your case, whatever it is, you have a point there.

some of us realize things change

I guess some arguments just don't change

That whole love it or leave it mindset is soooo Bush era, btw...

Heckler was pushing for pollard pardon

Is this a different heckler?

the Pollard guy was making a humanitarian plea

There was no Pollard heckler. It was mis-reported a few places. The heckler has identified himself and given an interview with the NY Times.

but here it from the Hill complete with vidoe

Pollard heckler interrupts Obama

A reliable Hebrew speaker near the press pool said that the heckler was shouting about Jonathan Pollard, an American currently serving a life term in prison for spying for Israel.

The president paused for the interruption before ad-libbing “This is part of the lively debate that we talked about.”

The crowd appeared to boo the heckler before it began applauding. The applause built until most of the audience had risen to their feet and were giving the president a standing ovation.

“I have to say, we actually arranged for that because it made me feel at home. I wouldn’t feel comfortable if I didn’t have at least one heckler,” Obama joked.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/289571-pollard-heckler-interrupts-obama#ixzz2OQdfr8EK
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

No - it was from the AP and Reuters.

Geneva accord

Everything else is stolen land.

As in The Green Line? Or do you mean something else?

Most people refer to the 1967 borders. Meaning the borders that existed from 1949 to 1967. This is also known as The Green Line. Is this what you mean?

During 1948 there was a war going on and there were no borders established until 1949 when The Green Line was established.

but a better solution is to have the negotiators bring the parties together, and not present obstructions which represent meaningless hypotheticals, that do nothing

Those settlements and the wall are illegal, and they have been engaged in brutal repression for too long. Get Israel back where her people belong, make them responsible for reparations, and then talk.

They've been busily setting all kinds of preconditions on Palestine. It's long past time that they are bound with preconditions too.

happen, and result in the same garbage that occurred under bush

At least now that Obama has a second term, he will continue were Bill Clinton left off. You may not like it, and want to project your ideas, but unless you are one of the concerned parties, it will be between them, and just opinions from anyone else

It has nothing to do with what I like or you like, it has to do with justice. If there is no justice, the way there was no justice under Clinton, no matter what the end result is, the Palestinians have the right to fight for their land and their rights.

And religious extremism.

Israel is where the Europeans moved their 'Jewish problem' to. It has now become the Palestinians problem, and Israel is racking up a problem that will, eventually, destroy the Israeli state for the second time.