Viva Palestine? With Friends Like These…

Consider what's required to wear the label: “Pro-Palestinian.”

To start, you have to appear non-judgmental about innocent Palestinian children being raised to become human bombs.

You must refer to those who send such children on suicide/mass murder missions as “political leaders” or, even better, as “spiritual leaders.” Call them militants if you must, but never terrorists.

To be thought of as pro-Palestinian, you must cite the plight of the Palestinian refugees as a key motivation for violence, ignoring the fact that there would have been no refugees had Israel's Arab neighbors not launched a war to destroy the tiny Jewish state immediately upon its birth.

snip

In fact, Israelis with roots in Arab countries today comprise about half of Israel's population. They may understand better than anyone else that a Palestinian “right to return” would mean the end of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, that Jews would become a minority in what would no longer be the world's only predominately Jewish state. And that's a frightening thought because, sadly, few minorities living in the 22 Arab countries and the more than 50 predominately Muslim nations enjoy anything approaching freedom and equality. Such freedom and equality may be achieved in Iraq in the years ahead -- though not if the dictators of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia can help it, and not if the Palestinian “political and spiritual leaders” who supported Saddam Hussein and who now oppose the American “occupation” have anything to do with it.

Nor should Friends of Palestine plan for the opportunities that the Israeli withdrawals will present. Don't even think about the Israeli homes that will be turned over to Palestinian families, the hotels that could be built along the Mediterranean. Forget about foreign investors, new hospitals and schools. And certainly don't talk about cooperation with Israel. On the contrary, shrug when Hamas terrorists bomb the checkpoints through which Gazans pass on their way to work in Israeli factories. But should the Israelis respond by closing those checkpoints, complain vehemently that the Israelis are cutting off the livelihood of Palestinian workers.

more http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=223958&attrib_id=7378">here

The drumbeat continues.

:puke: This is flat out racist.

I don't see any factual errors ...can you point any out?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Since you like the first 4 paragraphs so much....

So do you refer to those who send such children on suicide/mass murder missions as “political leaders”, as “spiritual leaders",as militants,or as terrorists??

what are the factual errors?

.

Basically, don, the article was a pile of complete rubbish of the highest order. Ignoring the fact that the twit who wrote it is incredibly dishonest about what's required for someone to support the Palestinian people, here's a factual error right at the start of the article. Read and learn :)

'...ignoring the fact that there would have been no refugees had Israel's Arab neighbours not launched a war to destroy the tiny Jewish state immediately upon its birth.'

There's two whoppers in that. First around half of the Palestinians who either fled or were expelled had already gone before the war started. The second oopsy is that because the archives of the Arab states aren't open to historians, the motives of the Arab states can't be confirmed. And because this writer seems to conveniently forget that Palestine wasn't to be just one Jewish state, but two states, he overlooks the most logical motive, which would have been to try to grab as much territory as possible. In fact, Transjordan had an arrangement with the Zionists that it would leave what was to become Israel alone and would take over the West Bank....

The article came across loud and clear that the author thinks there's no valid reason for anyone to feel sympathy for the Palestinians. That sort of stuff is just as lame as using examples of what Israel's done and claiming there's no valid reason to feel sympathy for Israelis because of the suicide bombings in Israel...


Violet...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

TOTAL misrepresentation.

Please cite quotes from the piece that you believe are racist.

to encourage Palestinians to believe that violence is the only way for them to gain a state of their own. The majority of the Palestinian people are better than that and deserve better leadership that those whom you support in their name.

Damn, I MISSED YOU ,GIRL.

GREAT POST....as always.

Alas, my really good blush emoticon went missing in my reformat and I'm still looking for that site.

edit: Found it!

It's not racist to encourage people to believe that violence is the only option - just stupid and very wrong - though of course that simplistic pile of dung article (which wasn't racist, but very moronic in that simplistic way all those sort of 'arguments' are) would try to have people believe that anyone who supports the Palestinian people gaining a state does encourage violence. And that's where anyone who's popped up voicing their agreement with the article makes a complete and utter fool of themselves, because in agreeing with the article, they're agreeing that they think there is no valid reason to support the Palestinian people, and that anyone who does support them is a supporter of terrorism....

Tell me. Who does the poster yr replying to 'support in their name'? Just curious...

Violet...

I blame the Palestinians. There has been ample time for compromise & they don't want it. IMO they want Isreal gone & thats not going to happen.

"The United Nations is very pro-Palestinian. That's why UN experts are not hard at work drafting a plan to give Palestinians more say over who governs them. Arafat was elected Palestinian leader – he ran exactly one time in 35 years and in that election he was opposed by a woman whose name few can recall and who hadn't a ghost of a chance. Surely, that's as much democracy as any reasonable person could desire for Palestinians.

Perhaps someday people will look back in astonishment on all this. Perhaps someday the term pro-Palestinian will be redefined to include those who would urge Palestinians to seek compromise and peaceful co-existence with their neighbors, build a real economy, and discourage their children from suicide, murder and mutilation.

Right now, however, these are wildly radical notions."

................................................................

Arafat ran exactly one time in 35 years ???

especially this part:

"Consider what's required to wear the label: “Pro-Palestinian.”

To start, you have to appear non-judgmental about innocent Palestinian children being raised to become human bombs.

You must refer to those who send such children on suicide/mass murder missions as “political leaders” or, even better, as “spiritual leaders.” Call them militants if you must, but never terrorists."

cant imagine why anyone wouldnt?? :shrug:

That's the part I considered racist.

I cant wait.

:shrug:

However, there is plenty of meat there to claim that it is a biased strawman with an extreme and limiting definition. Basically I choose not to accept his definition of what is pro-Palestinian.

I am pro-Palestinian in the same way I am pro-Israeli, in that I support the people, the population, of both sides and take plenty of issue with those whose agendas are not for the betterment of either group. In the same vein, I support the children of both sides and think that people who are so dogmatic as to target and sacrifice the children are grasping for straws to keep their own poor cases at the top.

L-

"That's the part I considered racist"

to wear the Pro-Palestinian Label....

"Consider what's required to wear the label: “Pro-Palestinian.”

"To start, you have to appear non-judgmental about innocent Palestinian children being raised to become human bombs. "

Oh really , did this come from bill o'ree-lee

I wear the Pro-Palestinian Label Proudly

and in NO way do I support ..."Palestinian children being raised to become human bombs. "

THAT CLEAR

"From 1997 to 2001, he served as the Director of Communications for the Republican National Committee. In that role, he was the Republican Party's staff spokesman, and appeared frequently on national television and radio programs. In addition, he managed all RNC communications activities, including long-range strategic planning; press, radio and television services; online services; TV and radio coaching; speech writing; advertising and marketing. He also served as the Editor of the official Republican magazine, Rising Tide"

Feel free to quote this PNAC asshat at your leisure.

I've seen here people suck-up to psychos like lyndon larouche and even
far right wingers like Pat :puke: Buchanan.

Next, good to see you Lefty.

But I see this PNAC crowd as particularly dangerous and certainly not worth sucking up to. They get enough coverage on Faux News.

Nice to see you also, good Dr.

....that doesn't sound nice to hear but it is true.

It's definitely not racist as I saw someone post.

This is not about race, this is about pure savagery in the behaviour of individuals.

Heyo

the DEFENDERS OF DEMOCRACY :eyes: What a shock to find this swill in IP! And from people who allegedly don't support the Likud agenda.



"defending democracies against terrorism".

Brought to you by:

Steve Forbes
Board Member
CEO Forbes Magazine

Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
Board Member
Fmr. Ambassador to the UN

Jack Kemp
Chairman
Fmr. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Newt Gingrich
Fmr. Speaker of the House

R. James Woolsey
Fmr. Director of the CIA

Gary Bauer
President
American Values

Charles Krauthammer
Syndicated Columnist

Donna Brazile
Campaign Manager
Gore 2000

Bill Kristol
Editor
Weekly Standard

Rep. Eric Cantor
Chairman (R-VA)
Task Force on Terrorism

Hon. Richard D. Lamm
Fmr. Governor
Colorado

Rep. Eliot Engel
(D-NY)
U.S. House of Representatives

Sen. Frank Lautenberg
(D-NJ)
U.S. Senate

Rep. Mark Foley
(R-FL)
U.S. House of Representatives

Rep. Jim Marshall
(D-GA)
U.S. House of Representatives

Frank Gaffney
President
Center for Security Policy

Sen. Zell Miller
(D-GA)
U.S. Senate

Amb. Marc Ginsberg
Fmr. Ambassador
Morroco

Richard Perle
Member
Defense Policy Board

Rep. J.D. Hayworth
(R-AZ)
U.S. House of Representatives

Sen. Charles E. Schumer
(D-NY)
U.S. Senate

Charles Jacobs
President
American Anti-Slavery Group

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm



Congratulations. I/P has truly sunk to a real low.

but supporting a view of supporters of the Palestinians as misguided in their approach doesn't mean that we support Perle's (et al) way of solving the problem either. Those who support a middle-ground two-state solution have a hard time finding a home in either camp these days.

One can see a difference in the attitudes in I/P and the varying levels of support for Perle's agenda. They range from 0 - to 100% admiration.

Your point's a good one and I hope that more of the people who support a fair two-state solution find a home here so that the few who already do won't appear so lonely. The progressive emphasis, contrary to some posters' opinions, is on "fair", not on "2-state".

I'm glad you admit that it's shocking to find Perle's swill on a Progressive board; I expected no less from you. What I find shocking is the bunch of people mindlessly yapping in agreement. I certainly hope that anyone yapping in agreement with Perle's propaganda has a hard time finding a home in either camp because that would finally be a good start towards progress!

I didn't say "shocking".
It's not "Perle's swill", it's May's opinion.
I don't see evidence of a "bunch of people mindlessly yapping in agreement". Just because we don't agree with you, doesn't mean we're not progressives, or that your version of progressive is the only approved position out there. If being progressive requires an emphasis on a "fair" solution, rather than a two-state one, then there won't likely be a solution because we aren't going to agree on what's "fair".

Would seem to me the only fair one. Any form of single-state solution is, at bottom, merely victory for one side or the other, by one means or another. Victory can be many things, but by definition fair is not one of them, as victory issues from a trial of force, and reflects only the balance of force in the trial.

I see your true colors and that's why I love you... ;)

---------------------------------

If being progressive requires an emphasis on a "fair" solution, rather than a two-state one, then there won't likely be a solution because we aren't going to agree on what's "fair".

And there we have it! There will be no solution because "fair" is not even part of the equation according to you :wow:- just a any old quick separation to get the Palestinians to just shut up and gratefully accept their little bantustans.

The Israeli Left has already defined the progressive position; you might be confused about what it is but I assure you, it has nothing in common with May or Perle.

You two might want to seek some agreement on what could be considered fair, before getting out the knives. There may be less difference than you think.

One of the dangers of Sharon's proposed course, it seems to me, is that it just might succeed, in the limited sense of greatly reducing attacks against Israeli civilians, which is likely to be damned popular in that country, for understandable reasons....

they taste funny. I didn't say "fair" isn't part of the equation, I said we aren't going to agree on the meaning of the word "fair" in regards to the I/P problem.
"Any old quick separation"? What's quick about it?

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

I wasn't looking for sympathy, just accuracy. That seems to be inconvenient for you.

while supporting the beleifs of some of the most conservative right wing people to have emerged in the last 100 years.

It is complete and total crap that to be "pro-Palestinian" = pro kiddie bombs.

Much as it's stupid to call the posters here who tend to take the israeli side more often = pro collective punishment, or pro illegal occupation or pro settlements or whatever.

This article is pathetic and completely meaningless

And I've had no problem finding a home. Maybe that's because I stress that both states must be viable, independent, and secure...

Violet...

The same gang of neocons behind the cluster-fuck in Iraq. Folks in I/P want to use THESE clowns as reference points? They're welcome to it.

Oh my god, pass the defibrilator - I think I am having a heart attack.

For the record I find the labels pro-palestinian and pro-israeli absolutely ridiculous. The whole purpose of them is to stick people into opposing camps and actively deny the existence of the humanist middle ground which its in no-one's interest to support.

Aye, know them by the company they keep. Drink up kiddies, the Koolaid is cold and zesty (ingore the PNAC almond aftertaste).

While we're at it let's allow the GOP to define the Democratic party, that should be a definition we can all get behind, eh?

This is a work of right wing propaganda aimed at the Left in the West as much as it is at the Palestinian people.

And make no mistake about it: it is aimed at the Palestinian people; not at terrorists like those in Hamas, not crooks like Arafat, but at people living under an occupation where the authority will through them out of their homes in order to make way for housing in which they cannot live.

First of all, it assumes that to be pro-Palestinian is be pro-terrorist. As many who frequent this forum can testify, including your humble servant, that is simply a a false dilemma. One can condemn the criminal slaughter of civilians eating pizza as war crimes as easily as one can condemn Israel's settlement program as racist. Either conclusion seems like a valid judgment to me, which is why I make them, and the two judgments are hardly mutually exclusive.

In addition to logical fallacies, this wouldn't be PNAC claptrap without distorting facts. Yes, we who believe in Palestinian rights condemn the Israeli occupation. However, let's not be overly simplistic. There are two aspects to that occupation: one is Israel's legitimate concerns about her security; the other is a land grab. Typical of the right wing, both in Israel and abroad, Mr. May, the writer of this piece, make no distinction between the two aspects of the occupation.

It is true that Israel gave up land for peace when she returned the Sinai to Egypt in 1979. That was an excellent move that should be applauded by all, but it by no means relieved Israel of her obligation to eventually do the same thing in the West Bank and Gaza. The occupied land is no more an "integral part of Israel" as Begin falsely asserted in 1977, than is the Sinai.

It is also true that Israeli Arabs living in Israel proper are citizens with rights. Well and good. However, our concern is for the rights of Palestinians living beyond Israel's borders. They should not be subject to being removed from their homes because somebody thinks they have more of a right to the land they do.

It would, of course, be wrong to lump all supporters of Israel's right to exist with fascists and imperialists like Richard Perle; it would be wrong to write a piece that would begin something like "Consider what it means to be pro-Israeli; to start, you have to appear to be non-judgmental about racist thugs beating Palestinian farmers and vandalizing their orchards." After all, I also support Israel's right to exist, and I certainly don't support that kind of thing.

I would hope we could leave this kind of thing behind. This piece is no more praiseworthy than a racist tract from an Arab textbook translated by Memri. We should look to a progressive resolution to this crisis. PNAC thugs aren't going to point the way to that.

What else do you need to know?

Donna Brazile
Campaign Manager
Gore 2000

Hon. Richard D. Lamm
Fmr. Governor
Colorado

Rep. Eliot Engel
(D-NY)
U.S. House of Representatives

Sen. Frank Lautenberg
(D-NJ)
U.S. Senate

Rep. Jim Marshall
(D-GA)
U.S. House of Representatives

Sen. Charles E. Schumer
(D-NY)
U.S. Senate

OH...I'm learning....Donna Brazile, Eliot Engel ,Chuck Schumer are now a neo-cons.

Maybe they just like DEMOCRACY. Maybe this motley crew doesnt like
terrorism and whats going on in the middle east.

It's nonsense, not matter who's name is affixed.

You can put lipstick on a pig and call her Monique, but it's still a pig.

has been duly noted. ;-)

that line...

"You can put lipstick on a pig and call her Monique, but it's still a pig."

was MY line. lol.

Contrary to what Cassandra said, that would make it not a French pig, but a Texas pig.

Yeah, I can see why we should be big fans of his work here at Democratic Underground.

I look forward to future articles by Cliff May. Request: more Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol.