Members of the Palestinian Authority continue to call for Israel to be wiped off the map, yet the United States remains adamant on continuing the peace process, even at the expense of Benjamin Netanyahu and the State of Israel. Throughout the latest round of peace talks, the Palestinian government has asked Israel for various concessions, such as prisoner releases, but it did not openly heed to any Israeli demands regarding secure borders and recognition of the Jewish state. To add insult to injury, the Palestinians deviated from peace with Israel to end a nearly decade-long internal dispute.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-the-us-failed-israel-and-sponsored-terrorism/

To support a government that includes terrorists like Hamas ... Time will tell

are Zionists proud of that, too? I am fundamentally opposed to ANY religious state..be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or any other religion. And, I say that as a Christian. I also oppose the oppression of others, particularly when it happens in the name of G-d.

country into a "Christian nation." I educated Christians in their churches about what it was like in the colonies that had state churches, and have some scars to prove it. I oppose the Ayatollah and his government in Iran. And, while I support the secular state of Israel, I don't support Israel as a Jewish state. When the clergy run the state, its always a very bad idea. Too much oppression done in the name of God, Yahweh, Allah, Dios, whatever he/she is called.

Not a religious state. You are aware of the difference, yes? Nor is Israel run by its clergy. The majority of Israel's founding fathers were secular, and the Jewish religion has very little to do with mainstream Zionist ideology.

To be honest, I want to see a one state solution in Israel...a secular state with freedom of religion, that is a melting pot of citizens of all races. And, there are elements in Israel who will pick up arms and fight for a religious state, not just one dominated by one race of people.

Just as all other ethnic nation states also have ethnic minority populations as citizens. But Israel currently is a secular state with freedom of religion and equality for all citizens under the law. Most states in the world are based on ethnic nationalism, Israel is no different from any of them in this respect. Your expectation of a utopian single state between Palestinians and Israelis is not just unrealistic, but would violate both nations right to self-determination.

I think it only fair that you answer the one I posed to you.

I'm not sure many Zionists at all are "proud" of the occupation. Most see it as a necessity, believing that if it were to end unilaterally then Israel's civilians would be in great danger - and that's simply unacceptable. Israel doesn't exist in order for Hamas and friends to threaten and attack Israel's major population centers as it has Sderot over the past 7 years.

Glad, though, you refer to it as an occupation. I dare say those living in the illegal settlements don't agree with you on that point.

Is the occupation illegal?

In fact I've never heard the suggestion that the occupation itself is in any way illegal. By all means, please expand on your statement.

disingenuous in not acknowledging that the occupation is a violation of international law, or you are willfully ignorant. In either case, I'm not wasting my time with your Socratic nonsense.

I was hoping for an intelligent discussion on the subject. I can't help but conclude that you're lacking specifics on your claim it certainly isn't one that exists within mainstream thought wrt this conflict. In fact I've never once seen it in any of the books or news articles I've read about the subject. And I assure you I've read quite a lot of both, across a wide spectrum of opinion, in the past few years. Suit yourself though.

under international law, the occupation is legal. it is the settlements that are illegal.

Under IHL, there is occupation when a State exercises an unconsented-to effective control over a territory on which it has no sovereign title. Article 42 of The Hague Regulations of 1907 defines occupation as follows: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”

http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/contemporary-challenges-for-ihl/occupation/index.jsp


There are UN resolutions that call for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, but does not call the occupation itself illegal.

a distinction without a difference. The Geneva Conventions make that land grab illegal. Israel has no sovereign title to the West Bank. Thus, I see this conversation as one about semantics. Bottom line, Israel has no legal right to occupy the West Bank. And, for one to claim that Israel has not broken international law is disingenuous at best.

While I understand that you make no distinction between the settlements and the occupation (an idea that your charge of illegality hinges on entirely), the two things are certainly not equivalent in any legal sense. The settlements rely on the occupation, and could possibly even be described as part of it, yet neither would serve to make the occupation itself an illegal act.

While I personally disagree with the argument that the settlements violate the Geneva convention it is an opinion I understand and find entirely reasonable. But even if we are to assume that the settlements violate international law it has no bearing on the question of the occupation's legal status. The difference between these two things is hardly just a semantic one. The Geneva conventions itself gives extended rules defining proper policies for occupations. By definition all occupations must take place outside of the occupying state's borders. That's what makes it an occupation in the first place.

Your refusal to distinguish between these two acts is very convenient for you here. But you're making a legal argument based on a personal viewpoint, leaving it no validity.

You approached this argument with an air of incredulous disbelief that anyone could fail to know why the occupation is illegal only to hinge your entire argument on a personal preference of yours. Do you have any LEGAL arguments that might suggest the occupation is anything but perfectly legal under international law?

that you are wrong.

The settlements and the occupation are two separate things.

Bottom line is Israel has every legal right to occupy the west bank. But has NO right to settlements there.

The notion that because Christ did not explicitly say homosexuality is wrong necessarily means that He was okay with it, is an argument from ignorance.

Given the apostle Paul’s explicit condemnation of homosexuality in letters he wrote and the consensus among religious scholars that Paul was inspired by Christ to write such letters, apropos of the question of homosexuality, Christ was not a supporter.

But it should be noted that just because a comedian — who has had no formal study in the history and culture of the theology in question– is funny, does not mean his words have merit. They do not.

To say that a person chooses to be gay, is portrayed as being ignorant by my colleague merely because he disagrees with that position. There is no scientific study that has definitively concluded that being gay is inherent.

It was never implied that homosexual persons chose or desire suicide over not being gay. But Mike contends that it is, so it follows that if Person A does something and people disagree with it, voice their opinions against said actions, or persecute him/her for it, etc, then it means that what Person A is doing is not a choice.

If Person A is an old man and has an odd attraction for six year olds, and people voice their opinions against said actions, persecute him/her for it, etc. then obviously being a pedophile is not a choice.

Mike already affirmed this when he said, “we can actively decide whom we are attracted to.”

Therefore the pedophile cannot help this either, right?

http://driftwood.uno.edu/the-spew-chick-fil-a-or-nay/

Bringing valdery into it because he knows her is you using the guilt by association card.

Pretty funny considering your comments tonight in the host group.

perhaps you missed that part?

It was written by Elliott Hamilton who states that valdery is his friend.

By Chloe Valdary
Staff Writer

Dear Reader, I trust you have had a fun, relaxing vacation these past few months. I certainly have, and I am looking forward to spending time with you at UNO this year. Let’s all elect to start this year off on a good note and study hard. Let’s go for it.

The notion that an aversion to the idea that gay marriage is akin to supporting every form of the freedom of speech is absurd. This is an emotional argument and is simply bombastic drivel that invokes your sentiment without challenging you to think.

It should also be pointed out that mayors in both Chicago and Boston threatened to withhold permits from business owners who desired to open up Chick-fil-a stores in the area. You cannot withhold permits from someone just because he or she says something or supports a company whose leadership says something you disagree with.

http://driftwood.uno.edu/the-spew-chick-fil-a-or-nay/

as for your claims guilt by association just who besides Valdery herself who is mentioned quite prominently in the OP am I attempting to smear?

Guilt by association.

Hypocritical much?

And put her in same category as David Duke and those bigots in the Presbyterian church that he supports.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted Thursday to allow pastors to marry same-sex couples in states where it is legal.

The church also voted, by an overwhelming majority, to change the language about marriage in the church constitution to "two persons" from a "man and a woman," according to More Light Presbyterians, a group that supports gay rights.

To take effect, that change would need to be approved by a majority of 172 local presbyteries, which have a year to vote, the church said in a statement.
Church changes its marriage definition

However, starting Saturday, pastors can go ahead and begin marrying same-sex couples in the states that allow it, according to Toya Richards Jackson, a church spokeswoman.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/us/presbyterian-church-same-sex-marriage/

....just where would we be today without the love and support of American Zionists like the author and yourself ?????

Such dedication from a distance .

In awe am I .

I volunteer three months of my year to Gush Shalom ....just finished one month of office work and answering phones etc.

Been in the Wild West Bank recently .....aint pretty right now .
Thinking of joining Tamar Fleishman ...
(ref: http://www.palestinechronicle.com/reflection-at-qalandiya/#.U6siiZSSxA1 )

Machsomwatch seems the right way to go at my age ....last chance to make a differance .

Where you been ?

Pitiful:

....not much has changed around here I see

I respect that you are acting on your beliefs. I envy you. And I agree the W.Bank isn't pretty.

I've been on "vacation" recently. Good to be back. We'll see how long I last...

...but we are two woman with completely opposite politics, views and believes .

I'm proud to be a Post-zionist .

I give you the story of Three Woman to emphazise my point :

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1392377090

Good to see you again

howz life down under ?
here its hot and stressful ...there again it always is .

Winter's hit with a vengeance and there's snow all over the mountains round here.

I'd been away from the I/P group for a while. I just needed a break from it, but coming back and seeing some of the stuff that gets posted here has really been an eye opener

ref : " I'd been away from the I/P group for a while. I just needed a break from it, but coming back and seeing some of the stuff that gets posted here has really been an eye opener "

...its the internet Violet_Crumble ...its not reality ....most posting on here have no idea of the reality of living here .... and of the price we pay to continue to do so .
Shira , King David and Co .....dont have a clue .
They sit safe and secure where ever they might be and throw shit at us ....we are the traitors

Dont take them too seriously would be my advise to you .... they know nought of what they speak .