What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Palestine (1 Viewer)

Henry Ford said:
The words "blood and soil" are pretty innocuous sounding.  If he'd used those, I'd want him off TV, too.
Click to expand...
The irony is MLH is railing against the ‘blood and soil’ ideal here.  White nationalists have referred to Israel as the archetype for a pure ethnostate.  The extremism is the cruel displacement, bombing, and dehumanization of a defenseless population.  Not words used in service to their liberation.

 
ren hoek said:
The irony is MLH is railing against the ‘blood and soil’ ideal here.  White nationalists have referred to Israel as the archetype for a pure ethnostate.  The extremism is the cruel displacement, bombing, and dehumanization of a defenseless population.  Not words used in service to their liberation.
Click to expand...
No he isn't.  Not when he invokes "from the river to the sea."

The problem with Israel/Palestine isn't one group just wanting a free, open, non-hegemonic society of equality and the other wanting an ethno-state cleansed of the other group, it's that both groups argue "blood and soil."

Israel claims it is the rightful owner of a patch of land as an ethnic state.

Palestinians claim they are an indigenous ethnic minority displaced by European colonizers who are entitled to their historical lands and to have the invaders leave, that they are the rightful owners of a patch of land as an ethnic state.

Because there are only about 1/4 as many of them, they are losing.  If there were 1/4 as many Israeli Jews as Arabs, the situation would likely be precisely reversed (or potentially substantially worse for the Jews.)

 
Henry Ford said:
No he isn't.  Not when he invokes "from the river to the sea."

The problem with Israel/Palestine isn't one group just wanting a free, open, non-hegemonic society of equality and the other wanting an ethno-state cleansed of the other group, it's that both groups argue "blood and soil."

Israel claims it is the rightful owner of a patch of land as an ethnic state.

Palestinians claim they are an indigenous ethnic minority displaced by European colonizers who are entitled to their historical lands and to have the invaders leave, that they are the rightful owners of a patch of land as an ethnic state.

Because there are only about 1/4 as many of them, they are losing.  If there were 1/4 as many Israeli Jews as Arabs, the situation would likely be precisely reversed (or potentially substantially worse for the Jews.)
Click to expand...
Just about every argument I’ve ever seen about Palestinians is about returning what is rightfully theirs, ending the illegal settlements/occupation, and equal rights for all citizens.  I don’t remember once seeing an argument about turning it into a Palestinian ethnostate.

In any case, they are right.  Apartheid in South Africa was wrong.  White nationalism is wrong.  A Jewish supremacist state and the horrific cleansing of Palestinians is wrong.  It rings pretty hollow coming from a network employing AIPAC lobbyists as news anchors.  CNN is within its right to fire whoever it likes, and people are right to point out what a joke network it is 

 
Dave Zirin @EdgeofSports

Hi, I'm Jewish. All solidarity with @marclamonthill. Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitism. Real anti-Semitism is the assumption that all Jews are of one mind and abide - or even endorse - the horrific mistreatment of Palestinians. Shame on @CNN

And I'm still wrapping my head around the fact that @CNN employs Rick Santorum, who compared LGBTQ relations to beastiality, yet somehow endorsing Palestinian self-determination is a bridge too far.

Also please don't @ me unless you go to @marclamonthill feed and read what he actually thinks about Israel/Palestine. The caricatures of what he said are absolutely obscene.

 
ren hoek said:
Just about every argument I’ve ever seen about Palestinians is about returning what is rightfully theirs, ending the illegal settlements/occupation, and equal rights for all citizens.  I don’t remember once seeing an argument about turning it into a Palestinian ethnostate.

In any case, they are right.  Apartheid in South Africa was wrong.  White nationalism is wrong.  A Jewish supremacist state and the horrific cleansing of Palestinians is wrong.  It rings pretty hollow coming from a network employing AIPAC lobbyists as news anchors.  CNN is within its right to fire whoever it likes, and people are right to point out what a joke network it is 
Click to expand...
From the river to the sea is the slogan of Palestinian nationalists, who want an Arab only Palestine that encompasses present day Israel. 

"Jerusalem is Arab Muslim, and Palestine — all of it, from the river to the sea — is Arab Muslim."

 
Henry Ford said:
From the river to the sea is the slogan of Palestinian nationalists, who want an Arab only Palestine that encompasses present day Israel. 

"Jerusalem is Arab Muslim, and Palestine — all of it, from the river to the sea — is Arab Muslim."
Click to expand...
It must be some kind of luxury to be more offended by words than the slow, grinding genocide of a defenseless population. They don’t want to engage Hill on substance, because they don’t have any anymore.  So they resort to backwards interpretations of an honest critique of Israel.  It seems there can’t possibly be a discussion of basic human rights for people living in Palestine without paying respects to the occupier state’s victimhood.  

I looked up the ‘river to the sea’ line.  It has been used by Arab nationalists, but it’s also been used as a slogan for PAL liberation.  I think anyone looking at the speech in its entirety can tell blood and soil is the furthest thing from what he was talking about.

 
ren hoek said:
It must be some kind of luxury to be more offended by words than the slow, grinding genocide of a defenseless population. They don’t want to engage Hill on substance, because they don’t have any anymore.  So they resort to backwards interpretations of an honest critique of Israel.  It seems there can’t possibly be a discussion of basic human rights for people living in Palestine without paying respects to the occupier state’s victimhood.  

I looked up the ‘river to the sea’ line.  It has been used by Arab nationalists, but it’s also been used as a slogan for PAL liberation.  I think anyone looking at the speech in its entirety can tell blood and soil is the furthest thing from what he was talking about.
Click to expand...
Your “looking it up” isn’t very useful if it suggests to you that it isn’t a statement in favor of Arab ownership and control of everything from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.  Because that’s what it means. 

 
TEL AVIV, Israel — On Thursday, CNN decided to terminate its relationship with Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill. The decision followed a speech Hill gave at the United Nations, in which he reiterated his commitment to the fight for freedom of the people of Palestine. Hill called for a boycott of Israel and said the goal is to "free Palestine from the river to the sea."

When Hill referred to the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, what pro-Israel groups heard is a call for the destruction of the State of Israel, which is in that territory.  CNN's decision to end its relationship with Hill was an extreme move.

As an Israeli Jew, I understand what is at stake. Tel Aviv is my hometown. As I write this, I am sitting in my parents' living room. I am literally between the river and the sea, introducing my family to my baby daughter and meeting my newest niece. The destruction of this city is not something I would cheer for. And that's why I stand with Hill's call for freedom and dignity for all people in this troubled land.

From Tel Aviv, Marc Lamont Hill’s Palestine comments don’t sound so wrong to me | Opinion

The area between the river and the sea that Hill is talking about is the home of almost 14 million people — almost half of them Jews and half Palestinians. Of those Palestinians, 4.5 million live in the West Bank and Gaza, without citizenship and under military occupation for decades. In Israel, there are about two million residents who are Palestinian — 21 percent of the population — living as second-class citizens. That is not  hyperbole or an attempt at a poetic description.  This year, Israel enacted a law that enshrines the country as the state of the Jewish people — not of Israelis.

Oppression and humiliation of Palestinians takes many forms, some more violent than others.

Take Gaza, for example — the 32-mile-long stretch of land that is home to almost two million people — which has been disconnected from the world for over a decade by an Israeli blockade decimating its economy, according to the World Bank. In 2014, Israel bombed Gaza from the air and invaded it with ground forces, resulting in the death of 2,251, the majority of whom were civilians, including 551 children. More than 18,000 buildings were destroyed, leaving 100,000 people displaced.

This year alone, more than 150 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army while protesting the blockade of Gaza — including children, journalists, and people with disabilities. Israel reserves the death penalty only for people who assisted the Nazis in the Holocaust, but the Israeli army brings snipers to protests in Gaza, warning that damaging the border fence equals death.

Meanwhile, last week, in the Israeli city of Afula, Jewish residents rallied to prevent their Palestinian neighbors — citizens of the State of Israel —  from using public parks. City officials vowed to preserve the "Jewish character" of the city.

A call for Gaza to be able to join the world economy, for freedom of assembly for Palestinians, and for every child regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion to be able to play in a park should not be radical and is in no way bigoted — that's a call for freedom for every Palestinian between the river and the sea.

To be fair, when I moved to the United States, I was very defensive when I heard chants like "from the river to the sea." I didn't understand where that chant left me, an Israeli with no other citizenship. I was surprised by my reaction — in Israel I was politically active to end the occupation of Palestine and after high school refused to join the military because I didn't want to participate in the occupation. Perhaps, the reaction to "from the river to the sea" says more about how we have been indoctrinated to think that harmonic living of Jews and Arabs in the Middle East is impossible — an indoctrination from which I was not immune. We have been indoctrinated to believe that the freedom of Palestinians and the freedom of Israeli Jews are mutually exclusive.

That isn't true, but by firing Hill CNN further perpetuated that untruth.

There is no doubt that there are bad actors in Palestine — such as those who shoot rockets at the civilian population in Israel — and among its supporters — such as Minister Louis Farrakhan, who recently called Jews "termites." But the story of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about the power imbalance between an occupying state that has the support of a global superpower and a liberation movement — imperfect as it may be.

Maybe "from the river to the sea" is not the most savvy language to change hearts and minds — people have used that to call for the destruction of the State of Israel. The discussion about the rhetoric and the topic is worthy, but we won't hear this discussion on CNN,  because they fired Hill.

You don't need to agree with Hill. In fact, I bet you hadn't heard of his speech until CNN fired him — I hadn't. But don't buy the false choice that CNN is posing in its action — you either support Israel or call for its destruction. A call for freedom and dignity for all is another option.
 
The Football Freak said:
The most salient point to me was they need to be “two groups in therapy, each with equal grievances.” That is the right tone, imo, and I certainly agree with that point. I don’t see any progress on the horizon until Netanyahu is out of office, though.

His point on the treatment of African immigrants in Israel is strong, too.
Click to expand...
I believe Netanyahu is bad for peace, bad for Israel, but I don’t  regard him as evil. 

I do regard Hamas and Hezbollah as evil. And the problem with people like ren hoak is that they spend all of their time demonizing Israel while either ignoring, or even justifying the murder and terrorism that gives power to hardliners like Bibi. 

 
Agreed. I don’t think he’s evil, but I do suspect that he’s racist. His last minute comments in the last Israeli election were pretty awful. I don’t think he’s working towards peace in good faith.

As for Hamas and Hezbollah, yeah, they are terrorist groups. They are no more helpful to the process than Netanyahu (and are much worse than him, too). I can’t see how it will happen, but both sides need spokespeople that actually care to do what is best for all the people. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As an American Jew, it's really sad to watch what's going on in Israel over the past 20 years. Bibi has slowly turned the original Zionist idea of a National Home for Jewish people into a far-right ultranationalist Jewish supremacist state. We need to call the situation in Afula what it is:  Disgusting racism. Full stop.

 
http://www2.philly.com/opinion/commentary/marc-lamont-hill-temple-university-professor-patrick-oconnor-20181205.html

We are faculty at Temple University writing in support of Marc Lamont Hill’s academic freedom to express his views on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. We thought his arguments were passionate, considered, and thoughtful, and respected the humanity of Palestinians and Israelis. Regardless if we agree or disagree with him, we support his freedom to espouse his views.

Temple University's contract with professors states that: "When [a professor] speaks or writes as a citizen, he/she should be free from institutional censorship or discipline; but...he/she should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that he/she is not speaking for the institution. "

Professor Hill’s speech at the United Nations meets this standard. We must note the irony that for all the outrage his speech elicited from some members of the Temple community, neither he nor the committee chair who introduced him ever mentioned Hill’s affiliation with Temple University. Hill was clearly not presenting his views as representing those of Temple University nor would anyone construe them as such.

Patrick O’Connor, chair of Temple University’s board of trustees, disagrees. He is quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer calling Hill’s views “disgusting” and “hate speech,” claiming that “no one at Temple is happy with [Hill’s] comments.” He tasked Temple administrators to look into ways to discipline and perhaps even fire Marc Lamont Hill.

We respect O'Connor's right express his own views on the Israeli occupation. But if anyone is guilty of violating Temple's clause on academic freedom, it is O'Connor. His comments were not restrained, he did not show respect for Hill's opinions, and he flagrantly misrepresented his views as those of everyone at Temple. Most egregiously, O'Connor undermined academic freedom by implying that firing Hill was desirable and/or in process. Academic freedom is a bedrock principle of academia. O'Connor has betrayed that principle and we have no confidence in his leadership of the board.

Josh Klugman, Carol Brandt, Michelle Byng, Gretchen Condran, Maia Cucchiara, Sara Goldrick-Rab, Kimberly Goyette, Will Jordan, Avi Kaplan and Robert L. Kaufman are professors at Temple University. Because of space constraints, the number of signers has been limited to 10. Additional signers are being added and the online version can be found at www.academicfreedomattemple.org.

 
Remember when people were acting like anti-BDS boycott laws were just a trivial update on the 1979 law?

For the record, I support Israel’s right to exist, and strongly oppose the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement designed to punish the Jewish state.

But this is un-American:

A children’s speech pathologist who has worked for the last nine years with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf was filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech.
Click to expand...
Bahia Amawi Deserves Her Job Back

 
Sigh. 

The reason AIPAC is influential in Congress is because most Republicans and Democrats support the State of Israel- not necessarily the actions of its current government, but the state as a whole. Not the other way around. If Congress did not support Israel no amount of money or influence would cause them to do so. Unlike our current President, most members of Congress are NOT corrupt. 

That being said, there is a tendency among Israel’s  supporters to ascribe almost all criticism of Israel to anti-semitism. That’s wrong and makes things even worse IMO. 

 
timschochet said:
That being said, there is a tendency among Israel’s  supporters to ascribe almost all criticism of Israel to anti-semitism. That’s wrong and makes things even worse IMO. 
Click to expand...
Do you think Omar was anti-semitic in her Tweets last night & any subsequent explanation (AFAIK her office merely said "the tweets speak for themselves".)

 
BobbyLayne said:
Do you think Omar was anti-semitic in her Tweets last night & any subsequent explanation (AFAIK her office merely said "the tweets speak for themselves".)
Click to expand...
Probably, to a certain extent. But I want to overlook it. Here’s why: it’s too easy a response. That response shuts down all conversation and you don’t get to the root of the problem. (Liberals tend to do this with racism, BTW, and I’ve been guilty of it myself.) 

What is the root of the problem here? It’s not AiPAC’s influence on Congress, whatever this silly woman thinks. And it’s not her (probably subconscious) anti-semitism. It’s that she is speaking on behalf of a group of people, Palestinians, who really do have some legitimate gripes. And we need to address those, and we’re not doing it. 

 
timschochet said:
The reason AIPAC is influential in Congress is because most Republicans and Democrats support the State of Israel- not necessarily the actions of its current government, but the state as a whole. Not the other way around. If Congress did not support Israel no amount of money or influence would cause them to do so. Unlike our current President, most members of Congress are NOT corrupt. 
Click to expand...
Why bother spending millions of dollars on the US Congress when they’d just support Israel anyway?  

 
Pelosi and five other top Democrat leaders have condemned the freshman Congresswoman:

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1095025374491275264

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/us/politics/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

“Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share. But Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive,” the five House Democratic leaders, including Ms. Pelosi, said in a joint statement. “We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments. As Democrats and as Americans, the entire Congress must be fully engaged in denouncing and rejecting all forms of hatred, racism, prejudice and discrimination wherever they are encountered.”

Ms. Pelosi said she had spoken with Ms. Omar and said they “agreed that we must use this moment to move forward as we reject anti-Semitism in all forms.”
Click to expand...

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
>>The bill also extends the current prohibition on participating in boycotts sponsored by foreign governments to cover boycotts from international organizations such as the U.N. and the European Union.<<

- So this act has been around since 1979???

And they're just expanding it to specifically mention Israel and to add boycotts directed by international bodies, not just foreign nations?

This reminds of the attempts to boycott apartheid South Africa back in the day. And apparently it's always applied to Israel anyway. So do we have an explicit example of where this law has been enforced against free speech in any way in 40 years?
Click to expand...
Just recently Abby Martin was blocked from speaking at a literary conference in Georgia because she refused to sign an oath not to boycott Israel.  This is what people said would happen years ago when AIPAC was lobbying for these provisions to become law.  Blatantly unconstitutional stuff.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
1K
(HULK)
(HULK)
GordonGekko
Oregon’s Gubernatorial Battleground: Phil Knight's Big Nike Money Vs Extremist Identity Politics (10/23/22 12:29 PST)
Replies
4
Views
971
quick-hands
quick-hands
Jackstraw
Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy
2
Replies
93
Views
6K
The Commish
The Commish

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top