Not sure what you mean by that comment.

Seems like a pretty horrid situation all around.

At least, that's what I've learned from Zionists here on DU.

I think this is actually very much a negative development for Israel (as it obviously is for the Palestinians in Gaza).

Seems as though it could lead to an eruption of violence in the face of so much hopelessness and despair.

So this must be exactly the sort of result that is desired when demands to defund or abolish the UNWRA are made by lobby groups and Zionist individuals.

My own view is that this is a negative and dangerous development in many respects. It is, quite evidently, an awful situation for the Palestinians in Gaza - who appear not be receiving aid that they need (and were promised). It is putting the UNWRA Gaza staff in a really tight spot because they are, unfortunately, the bearers of this bad news and as such, the first potential victims of the aforementioned anger and frustration. As far as Israel is concerned, the growing anger arising out of this situation in Gaza can only have negative consequences.

I see nothing positive here for anyone, other than perhaps those elements that seek to take advantage of this anger for their own nefarious purposes. For instance, there are groups more extreme than Hamas that would love to be able to gain a stronger foothold in Gaza. This could unfortunately be seized upon by Gaza Salafists for just that purpose - which would increase the calamity for all.

1) This is what it looks like when the UNWRA has no funds to do what it's supposed to do. obvious, yes?
2) There have been no shortage of arguments and efforts from Zionist lobby groups and individuals, demanding that UNWRA be defunded or abolished altogether.

if we assume that #1 is obvious (and I think it is) and we assume that the people in #2 want what's best for Israel (as they claim)... then this situation must somehow be a victory for Israel. it is, after all, exactly what Zionists have been asking for.

Which leads to my conclusion, in a response to agnosticsherbert, downthread - that Israel's supporters are wholly in it for the joy they feel at the suffering of Palestinians.

I hope you will take time to consider my perspective as well.

I think this is a really negative development for all concerned parties.

Hopefully I am wrong, but I fear an attempt by the Salafists in Gaza to capitalize on this.

What I'm saying is that shutting down and defunding UNRWA has been a big goal of Zionists and Israel for a long time now. it's like how libertarians want to take down the USPS. it's argued for with so much vigor and obvious satisfaction, that we have to acknowledge that zionism and the state of Israel regard this as a desirable achievement.

here, we see what happens then funding of just one UNRWA project falls short. Now imagine all of them falling short, as zionists want to see. What happens then?

The same thing, on a wider scale, of course. Palestinians suffer. UN aid workers put at risk.

This is what zionists are asking for, when they harp about cutting funding for UNRWA. They know these are the results their idea would get. it's so obvious that we can't assume blanket ignorance on your part. Zionists know their idea will cause suffering for Palestinian. They know it will make things less stable. They know it will jeopardize peoples' lives.

That is exactly the desired outcome.

Seems like Zionists are all pretty horrible people based on the motives you ascribe to them.

LOL

You think the OVERWHELMING trend is that all people who believe Israel should exist - Zionists - are horrible people?

Oh dear. Leftnyc, Israel stopped being a hypothetical on May 14, 1948. It doesn't particularly matter if someone "believes" that it "should" exist or not, because it's there. I suppose pretending it's a hypothetical, some platonic idea without actual form or action does help you to evade addressing the realities of this real state, but, tch, it's a real state. Full of real people. Doing real things. To other real people.

So, if Zionism is about "believing" that Israel "should" exist, mission accomplished. Sixty-seven years ago. But, people are still stomping around proclaiming themselves to be zionists. Why? I mean here in the states you don't get a lot of abolitionist or federalist arguments becuase - hey, mission accomplished. So why? Well, this could mean two things.

1) Israel is less of a "State" and more of a Neverland fairy that needs constant assurances of its own existence to, you know, exist.
or
2) Zionism is about something else now.

Knowing that faeries, pixies, sprites and the such don't exist, and that political philosophies can change, sometimes radically over their lifespan, I'm going to put my money on #2. So what does it stand for now? Base racist nationalism, at the core. Authoritarians who instinctively side with the powerful over the powerless in the periphery. And crass opportunists at the fringes (most of our politicians fall into that latter category.)

You are a completely unserious person who has no fucking idea what they're talking about when it comes to Zionism or why so many - including many non-Jews think Israel NEEDS to exist. That entire screed is nothing but drivel and I have no time for bullshit like this. You have proven yourself unworthy of my time so I'll making this easy for me.

After all, you're still holding that Israel is an imaginary hypothetical, entirely dependent on "belief." Me, I'm pretty sure that - unlike Tinkerbell - Israel is a real thing that is not dependent on "belief" for its presence.

Now, if - as you say - Zionism is "believing Israel should exist," well... Israel does exist. It's existed for nearly seventy years now. it's not a hypothetical, it's not a should / shouldn't question, belief doesn't change reality, and so either Zionism is defunct, or it means something other than what you claim.

You'd have to be pretty naive to think that any political ideology could hang around for 118 years with no changes whatsoever. Much less an ideology that has spent most of that history after achieving its stated goal. Ask a Russian about communism, if you don't believe me.

Zionism is not about "believing Israel should exist" and it hasn't been since 12:01 AM local, May 14, 1948.

As far as Scootaloo telling us what Zionism is and is not reminds me of all the times Scootaloo tells us what is and isn't Antisemitism .

Clearly not an expert .

You need do some research and read what Jewish experts say on the topic such as the ADL or even go read our very own DU Jewish group.

I suggest reading from Jewish experts on antisemitism such as the ADL or even here in our own Jewish group on DU.

This is how the ADL defines antisemitism:

Now the funny thing is... this is the definition of antisemitism i've understood since first learning the term long, long ago. in fact, the meaning of the term has been pretty consistent since the term was coined in 1860. However, YOU seem to have it in your head that I'm wrong.

So, expert. Tell me how the ADL, Moritz Steinschneider, and myself are all completely fucked in the head about what this term means. Correct our wayward paths, O Glorious King.

You are not a spokesperson for Jews even though you clearly and bizarrely believe you are.

These things are best left to Jewish experts in the topics.

Such as the ADL or you could even read in our own Jewish group here in DU.

The ADL has much more written on the topic than what you've written there and if you disagree with all that it's not really relevant as they are the community affected and the experts and we don't take heed of what someone on the outside happens to disagree.

That's all I have got to say here and will join Leftnyc in leaving that truth behind here.

Bye bye.

I'm sorry that you don't get to re-define words on a whim, David.

The funds dried up... I wonder why....

But I wasn't actually blaming Israel. Just noting it as a great victory. I mean I figure there must be a reason why every Israeli lobby group tries to get funding to UNWRA cut, and why so many Zionists here want the same, right?

This result must be exactly what's desired. Certain;y it's the result everyone should expect...

I guess the gulf states are hotbeds of Zionism.

The UN looks bad, UNWRA lacks money, and Palestinian suffer. all things that bring joy to Israel and its supporters.

Israel has nothing to do the failure of countries to provide the funds they promised. They have no influence in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

That failure seems to be some function of politics among the Arab nations.

Second, PR.

"Oh look! The UN can't do what it's set out to do!"
"Oh, look, the Arabs are awful people!"
"Oh look what animals those Gazans are!" etc.

What exactly?

Unless you can read more than 18 million minds. Can you?


That is such a conservative trait.

I can't read minds, no. But it's not necessary to read minds, when people tell you what they think. If someone tells you they enjoy beating their wife, you don't need telepathy to figure out what the fuck they just told you.

....can be blamed. You found a way to demonize all Zionists as racist haters from an OP that has nothing to do with Israel.

A perfect example of what Matti Friedman spoke about earlier this week:

That someone who gets off on abuse is going to try to justify and preserve their status as an abuser.

I never said "everything bad in the world" was anyone's fault, Shira. I certainly didn't blame Jews. I didn't even mention them. I simply pointed out that to claim ones' self as a Zionist, is to announce to the world that you are a sadist.

No, you had to make up the claim that I said Jews are behind everything bad in the world, because you hate having your little... problem exposed. even though very obviously, no such thing was said. Why?

....to do with Israel or Zionists. I half expect you to bring up the evil Zionists again whenever ISIL and Hezbollah are fighting it out. You'll claim Zionists are overjoyed at all the killing going on. ISIS in Libya? Zionists! ARGH! Egypt's Sisi? A pawn of the Zionists, who love him especially when he's killing Egyptians.

You can't help yourself!

=======================

Now once again, show us where Zionists have ever been overjoyed here at DU over the deaths or suffering of Palestinians.

Or fold.

You have argued for the defunding of UNWRA quite a bit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113490055
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=88909
And you're not alone,Here's one from Mosby - http://www.democraticunderground.com/113484216
These are results from one page from a search of "shira UNRWA fund" - I'm sure if I went deper or loosened the parameters, I could find more. You want to cut off UNRWA. You argue that it is a terrorist group, or supports terrorists, or something-something-terrorist. Your position is that cutting off or abolishing UNRWA would be a boon for Israel, and you are obviously not alone.

Of course, when UNRWA lacks funds, Palestinians suffer, as we see in the OP. Now the thing is, ypu know this becuase it's not the first time funding has fallen short and screwed Palestinains. I know you know this... because [link:ttp://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x344948|you posted a story about it in Lebanon.] That was four years ago, and the consequences to Palestinians then were as obvious as they are now.

You still argue for shutting down UNRWA. Even though you clearly know know needy Palestinians would suffer as a result.

because for you, that is not a drawback, it's a bonus.

Just like your support of the embargo on Gaza - you even attack netanyahu for his very slight lightening of the thing. But of course, Israel is totally uninvolved, according to you.

You are a "liberal zionist." These are the beliefs you cherish and promulgate - that the suffering of Palestinaisn is beneficial to Israel, and is a worthy goal in itself. And there are Zionists who are worse than you - obviously, sicne you're the "liberal vanguard" version of this sadism, there must be more conservative or reactionary elements as well.

As for defunding UNRWA and taking great pleasure in Palestinian suffering as a result, here's Bassem Eid. Know who he is? He's a well known and respected Palestinian human rights activist who grew up in an UNRWA camp.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4602659,00.html

So now I'm going to do what you do.

I get to accuse you of being a staunch advocate of funding Hamas via UNRWA dollars. These dollars are used by Hamas to make children into militants (a war crime). Hamas uses UN facilities like schools to store their weapons. When Hamas uses most of UNRWA's funds for their own purposes - and not to help Palestinians - this leads to continuous Palestinian suffering and misery. Palestinians are not benefitting from this. Those funds do nothing positive for them.

You support all this. I dare say you take great joy in all this, including the suffering of Palestinians.

======================

I'll have to remember this the next time you try pulling the same shit.

It can be found in Funk and Wagnall's, abridged or unabridged.

neither makes sense though. Please, expound on your point.

ng" makes you a racist. You have a preconscieved notion about an entire group of people.

It is really a very right wing conservative idea about people.

You're shitbagging a political ideology (conservativism) in the course of your effort to whine about my shitbagging of a political ideology (zionism.) By your very bad logic, this makes you a racist as well.

I have a preconceived notion of Zionists, because of the shit i keep seeing them say. The shit I keep seeing them do. I read their books, their posts, their editorials, their blogs, and they are as a whole, some very fucking nasty people. I am sure you have achieved your low opinion of conservatives through similar methods - as have I, fuck those guys too.

I will offer a qualification - not every Israeli is a terrible person. Of course there are decent people in a nation of 13 million, at least one of whom does post here. However, the overarching "culture" of Israel, its politics, its rhetoric, its actions and its majority populace, all seem to revolve around the infliction of abuse upon Palestinian and other "aliens." It's like how the statement "Americans support torture" is accurate, even if one knows there are many Americans who absolutely do not.

based on nothing more than being from Israel or supporting Israel.

That is a preconceived false notion since you certainly have neither talked to everyone who falls in the category nor are able to read their minds.

You try to use code works like zionism, but that is because you are simply trying to justify you your prejudice by dressing it up with another name.

Now racism is most often a right wing conservator ideology.

Liberalism is about indidvidualism and individal rights, and as an ideology seeks view people as individuals. Some individuals are racists, some may take pleasure in the suffering of Palestinians or Israelis or American Indians or or Hispanics or any other readily identifiable group.

It is a false notion to say all members of a group feel exactly the same way as well as being a logical fallacy.

Now, going back to the pont of the OP. The reason why the UN has stopped handing out aid is that all but 212 million of it was pledged by various Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. My quesiton is why did those governments choose to crap on the Palastinian people? Unless you want to make the false argument that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the Emirates are part of a vast Zionist plot to take pleasure in the suffering of Palastinians, I'd like to know what you think.

"nor are able to read their minds," followed by "You try to use code works like zionism." Especially couched, as it is, in your clear effort to conflate "Jews" and Zionism."

I wonder if I am "racist' against libertarianism - and what "libertarianism" must mean! Do tell me, agnosticsherbet. I must know!



Better yet, try to find an actual defense for your philosophy. I know, it's probably pretty difficult in this particular case, but your approach of "Zionism means Jews!" is pretty pathetic - especially since you're the only one making that claim, while trying to condemn it. It's faulty, get a replacement.

When talking about a group that is defined by the thoughts and positions of its members - as political groupings always are - it's generally a safe bet that those people will have identical, or at least very similar stances on the issues that are key to that particular philosophy.

You're posting here on Democratic Underground. What do you think the odds are that the overwhelming majority of people here support democratic party politicians? If you say "odds are good," you're being racist agaisnt democrats. You don't know what htey think!

No, that's never going away. sorry.



My theory is that these states are perennially high on gesture and low on follow-through when it comes to Palestine. I'm curious, are you aware of Kuwait's history with regard to Palestinians, for example? There's a definite history of jerking Palestine around, there.

Apparently you are proud of how you defines yourself with you words and beliefs.

Actually, I am not the only one making that claim about Zionism equal Jews. But you are clearly proud of what our words and beliefs say about you, so why does it matter to you. Republicans built their entire southern strategy using code words. They also claim to belief in individual liberty racial equality.

You can't be racist against Democrats because that is a political party. Anti-zionism is anti-Semitism (racism) because its is used as a code word for Jews, for one group of people.

I am aware that Gulf states and others have kept Palestinians in a perpetual state of poverty and misery by locking them in as refugees and refusing to allow them economic liberty as well as other liberties.

So why is this a great victory for the gulf states and other leaders. To say it is a victory implies these Islamic States have an end goal that they have reached by keeping the Palestinians in a perpetual state of poverty and misery. Exactly what were the gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia doing with this policy?

and there is general agreement on major issues with the small "d" democratic universe.

I see way too many pro-Hillary/anti-Hillary, bluedog and third way vs progressives, centrists vs liberals, liberals vs progressives here at DU to feel comfortable in saying that the vast majority support the majority of Democratic Candidates. Except for what people say are Republican trolls here to stick it to Democrats, Putin Trolls who are here to spread propaganda, or real Trolls who just like to raise hate and discontent I think a majority support some Democratic Candidates.

I suppose I could take a poll, but all I would probably learn from that is a supermajority here like pie.

Not usually. You could have president Warren, or President Clinton, and there would be no noticeable policy changes between the two. All the yowling and slapfighting is simply an aspect of team sports. People finding some minuscule iota of difference, and turning it into a mountain, in order to feel that they are supporting the 100% best person ever. A supporter of Warren and a supporter of Clinton want the same things, in almost every single case. if you really want to test the theory, pose the question in both the Warren and Clinton groups, "What do you want, and how can your candidate bring it about?" - I haven't done it myself, but i'm pretty certain the answers will be damn near identical.

Basically? Just because they're arguing doesn't actually mean there are noteworthy political or ideological differences there. The people doing the arguing will of course insist that there are chasms like the grand Canyon, but a dispassionate observation reveals otherwise.

I hope, come the General election, that we will all get together and vote the best person running in that election.

I don't see politics as a sport, but I was never interested in team sport. I have been interested in politics since I was six, when the Democratic Candidate who visited the county fair where I lived found me lost and wondering the midway. He gave me a balloon, a soda, and took me to my Grandfather. While we walked, he talked about the importance of farmers.

I also think that DU doesn't reflect the vast majority of Democrats in the US. Being willing to come on line and argue about politics 24/7/365 probably says something about DUers as a group.

That for all the arguing and flailing, I'm pretty sure DU has a fairly uniform standard of beleifs and principles (or at least, will clai mas much...) I'm sure there's a curve there, but it's not at all steep.

And the same can be said of any given political category. They are defined by a general uniformity of belief and principles. yes, it is entirely fair to judge a political group on the basis of what their politics are. It would be unfair to make broad assumptions about members of that group separate from their politics.

Do you see the difference here? if some schmuck tells me "I'm a libertarian" i can be pretty certain of his political beliefs. So too with other ideologies. If someone says "I'm a Roman Catholic," well you can make some pretty damn good guesses about what they believe, at least in context of religion. You might very well be wrong, but only in individual cases - Libertarians, as a strong general rule believe X, Y, and Z, and just because Louie the Libertarian believes, X, Y, and Û instead doesn't invalidate the general rule of what you know libertarians believe.

Yunnerstan?

But Libertarian is such a broad category in our political system that there are way too many things to get wrong without questions like, "Where do you stand on Marijuana legality" or "Do states, the US Government, or no one have the right to outlaw being gay." Those questions split Libertarianism between right wing and left wing. To me, "Libertarian" is a label, like "Levi." Unless someone wants to buy me a cup of coffee and talk political ideology, I see it as a self declared label

I do understand.

Are you just honestly, truly unaware that Zionism is a political philosophy? I mean hey, if so... wow, first off. But maybe take some of our friend David's advice and go read a book or something? Maybe start at the beginning.

Odds are though, you're not so haplessly unaware. In which case, this is your attempt at a bullshit smokescreen which, I have to tell you, isn't going to do much to detract from my point.

Through this discussion, you've been asserting that ascribing monolithic thought to an entire ethnic group is racism. I concur, it certainly is. The problem is, you are the one doing this, with your persistent equation of Jews and Zionism. This is as problematic as, oh, say, equating Jews with Bolshevism. So, if you are the one who is using "Zionist" as a stand-in for "Jew" and thereby asserting all Jews think and feel a certain way - and that is absolutely what you have been doing - where do you think you get off claiming that it's me doing it?

My advice to you is to find an argument in defense of your politics that doesn't exploit an entire ethnic group. I've never seen it done, but maybe you'll be the one to surprise me.

Now for the rest of your post...



Then you're not aware of much, as there are no refugee camps in the gulf states. What I was referning, rather, was the Kuwaitis purge of Palestinian (and Bidoon) Kuwaitis in the wake of the 1990 Gulf War. But hey, you're within several hundred miles, and you've managed to vacillate enough to kind of almost sort of be in the neighborhood almost in a way! You even managed to squeeze a little propaganda in there.

Would you like your propaganda shredded, or shall we wait for another time? I still have some of your previous attempt at an argument under my nails, so, let's wait for next time.



Who said it was a great victory for the Gulf States? Nah, it's pretty much status quo for them, they have money, and they keep money. Same today as yesterday, really. besides, they're not in a state of war with Palestine - they just jerk Palestine around.

And, yes, I know the history Zionism.

Maybe stop doing that?

Perhaps you should stop using code words and assuming that everybody in a nation shares a single idea.

Once again, let's look back on this discussion and remember that you are the one ascribing a single political thought to every Jew on earth. And then disingenuously trying to claim I'm the one doing so.

if you honestly, truly believe that all Zionists are Jews and all Jews are Zionists - as you have made abundantly clear so far - then whatever, I can't stop you from thinking (nor can I make you start, I suppose.) But do know that such beliefs are inherently antisemitic. and just because you are engaging in such antisemitic tropes for your belief that it somehow "helps Israel" doesn't make it any less hateful. it just makes you sound like John Hagee.

So again, maybe you could stop.

Which is a great victory for Israel, as I said.


The UN looks bad, UNWRA lacks money, and Palestinian suffer. all things that bring joy to Israel and its supporters.

And the use of Zionist by as a code word is well documented.

You are the one that ascribed joy to "Israel and its supporters."

Read back over what you wrote.

Israel has been exceedingly hostile to the UN and UNWRA in particular, and nearly every policy it enacts seems geared towards inflicting misery and suffering upon the Palestinians.

In the case of Gaza Israel has imposed a crippling economic blockade, paired with regular bombing campaigns that send the territory into a spiral of squalor and misery. The logic is, the beatings will continue until Hamas is gone. Of course, not only do the people of Gaza lack any way to dethrone Hamas, and hams of course has no plans to abdicate but Israel's actions actually serve to strengthen Gaza's dependency on the organization... which Israel then uses to justify more restrictions and more bombing. and so the cycle continues.

That is, in a word, sadism. But that is the state policy of Israel. And it has the overwhelming support of Israelis, expressed through their nation's democratic processes.

And all the while this is going on, people like yourself, avid supporters of Israel, enjoy the show. You have no problem with the poverty of Gaza. You have no problem with the killing of Gazans. You have no issue at all with any of the many policies and practices that engender suffering in the people of Palestine overall. Because if you did have a problem with it, you would be saying something. you would be doing something. Instead, you tie yourself in logical knots to justify Israeli policy and blame the Palestinians for the suffering being inflicted upon them, while deflecting from criticism of the same. Either you enjoy what you see, or you are too much of a moral coward to stand up against what you don't like. Which is effectively the same thing.

The issues I speak of are matters of ideology and action (or, perhaps, inaction) which are reflected in a chosen political grouping.

You, agnosticsherbet, are the only one between us who believes that ideology is inherent, inborn, and indelibly native to an entire ethnic group. You are of course, completely free to not do that.

Those are your words.

Trying to raise a wall of words to hide their meaning will not hide the truth about what your words mean.

So let's recap.

You started off by attributing a singular political ideology to all Jews on earth. You then attempt to attribute your own antisemitic argument to me. And now you're making up words to put in my mouth that suit your argument better, after having your fraud laid bare.

Well, if the goal was to convince me that I'm wrong... You've really fucked it up.

That is a quote, a complete quote.

You wrote it.

And if I had wanted to say "all of Israel" or "all Israelis" then that is exactly what I would have said.

I keep getting told that Israel is "the only democracy in the middle east." well, if I assume that to be true, then I have to also assume that its policies and actions are a reflection of the desires of Israelis. That's democracy, y'know? And when, as i noted, those policies and actions have been geared towards to dispossession disenfranchisement, and dissolution of the Palestinian people since the inaguration of the First Knesset in 1949, well, how am I to read that, in the lens of "the region's one true democracy"?

Of course there are Israelis who do not support that shit. They just happen to have zero functional influence on their government because they are vastly outweighed by the people who do enjoy it.

If you wanted less then all, for clarity a limiter like, "some" or "a few" is absolutely necessary.

We are a Democracy. Are the actions and the policies of the Congress and the Senate a reflection of the desires of America.

The answer to that is no. Our government is elected by a majority of those who vote. "Just 36.4 percent of the voting-eligible population cast ballots..." Our current government is not a reflection of the desires of Americans because the Legislative branch that controls legislation was elected by a small minority.

So a Democracy is not necessarily a refection of the desires of its population.

And as to Israel, Likud Yisrael Beiteinu did not have a majority (just 31 seats out of 113), and had to join with other parties to create a government.

So the government as elected did not reflect even the majority of Israel.

Seriously man, read a newspaper or something. "Americans say this" and "the French voted to do that" is how this stuff is written. Quantified comprehensive terms come to mean "the majority of...(whoever)." That is, the "most" is implied and understood (except, perhaps, by the intentionally obtuse.)

As for the rest... apathy speaks with its own volume. only 36% of Americans go to the polls? Well, are the other 64% being prevented from doing so? For the most part, no (some are, yes, but mostly not). Are those 64% stuck voting for a plethora of political parties that can't find a quorum, leaving the other 36% in charge? no, we're not a parliamentary democracy, it doesn't work like that here. Thus we are left to conclude that 64% of Americans don't really care either way, which defaults to support for whoever wins and whatever policy they enact.

And yes, Likud had to join with other parties to form a coalition. it joined up with Yisrael beitinu, Jewish Home, Yesh Atid, and Hatnuah. All five of these parties are hostile to Palestine, Palestinians, and Arab Israelis - violently so in the case of Likud, Yisrael Beitinu, and Jewish Home. Outside the coalition, you have Kadima, Labor, Shas, United Torah, Meretz, and the Arab parties. With the exception of the Arab block and somewhat meretz, all of these parties are inimical to Palestine, and sometimes violently radical in their approach (shas especially).

Meretz and the Arab parties, all together (not that they are ever together...) make up 19 seats in the Knesset. The rest - and overwhelming, irrefutable majority - are held by people and parties who would be just as happy to flush Palestinians into the sea. This position is well-represented by the polling of Israelis during the last infliction of collective discipline on the people of Gaza:
Also, 95% of Israelis support total war against Gaza. If there is something the Israeli government did during this that the OVERWHELMINGLY VAST majority of Israelis did not approve of... it wasn't the indiscriminate killing. it wasn't the carpet bombing. it wasn't the use of flechettes in civilian areas, it wasn't the leveling of hospitals or the shelling of children on beaches. It was that the government eventually stopped doing these things.

if the people of Israel do not enjoy making Palestinian suffer, well, they can make it stop. They are the only ones who can, because Palestinians have no clout over the Israeli government, and can take no action to halt what is being done to them by that government. Only the Israeli people can do that. Thus far, they have demonstrated a total unwillingness to do so. next month they will vote again. Do you want to bet that they will radically change direction on these issues?

And when Newspapers use that, they intend to imply that all Americans think that way.

Clear communication is easy.

And the rest of your post shows that your original statement was exactly what you meant and is a statement of your philosophy.

At any rate, the point has been cleared up.

And yes. My initial statement - that the majority of Israelis (most, lots, a resoundingly large number, whatever you want to put there in that vein) support and enjoy the suffering of Palestinians. it's the only possible conclusion that can be made. The democratically-elected government if Israel enacts policies that can only be described as sadistic, and the Israeli people themselves overwhelmingly and loudly assert their support for these policies and the politicians that make them.

If you can come up with some alternative reading of this, some way that I can look at sixty-six years of democratically-mandated abuse against a captive and largely powerless people and come up with a different thesis, please. if you can tell me how I can look at 95% of Israelis being in complete and total support of a "war" that mostly killed civilians, even as they knew exactly what was happenig, i'd love to hear it. if you can figure out some way i can excuse the people of Israel giving their nearly exclusive support to political parties hostile to Palestine and each dedicated to carving and parceling the Palestinian territory (or taking it whole, outright in some cases) then please, explain it to me.

And it's certainly not the 1st time either.

a normal conversation with someone who said, right on this thread, that the overwhelming trend he sees is that Zionists - all people who believe Israel should exist - are horrible people. You wont see one word about how the Saudis, Qataris or Emirates have gone back on their promises of aid (to the surprise of nobody who has a brain - they only use the Palestinian problem for their own propaganda and have zero sympathy for them). To distract from the FACTS, the poster is trying to claim that all Israelis and Zionists are happy about the lack of aid. It's a mere distraction from the reality. In other words, the usual crap.

and I don't take joy in anybody's suffering.

Your posts here are full of hatred and stereotyping of people with whom you happen to disagree. If they vilified any other group of people in the same way, you would have been shown the door years ago.

and they have not poneyed up the funds.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-pledges-212-million-to-palestinians-1413107569

Qatar, long a supporter of Islamists throughout the region, including Hamas in Gaza, led the contributors with a $1 billion pledge. Other big Arab contributors included Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, with each pledging $200 million, and Saudi Arabia, which had promised $500 million before the conference began. The U.S. agreed to donate $212 million to Gaza.

It is not Israel but the Gulf Statrs like Qatar, Saudi Arabie, the Arab Emiratrs, and even the US that havenot provided the funds promised.

Sadly.

It's ALWAYS the fault of Israel and if they can't blame Israel, they'll blame Zionists and if they can't blame either of those, they'll say nothing at all. You'll notice those stances are pathetically predictable and this thread is only but one example.

right?

As I've said before, if those same people trashed any other group the same way, they would have been kicked off this board a long time ago.

It's like their brains simply cannot comprehend how this isn't the fault of Israel - it CAN'T possibly be something else because the whole world is the puppets of the Israelis and Zionists. The whole fucking world.