= new reply since forum marked as read
See, all the stuff you just brought up? I know we've been over it at least a half dozen times. All the way from non-silence on Lebanon, to the reasons for focus on Israel, all the way down to the fact that's not an actual quote from King. But all that seems to evaporate from your head like gasoline on hot pavement mere moments after it's explained to you.
Rather than assign some malicious intent to this, I just want to ask... are you alright? Should we be concerned? 'Cause that much memory loss can't be a good thing. We worry for you, Shira.
Now, if you're interested in King's views, I suggest listening to some of the stuff he actually said, in his own words.
Yes, he speaks on Vietnam there. But it maintains relevance.
Here on this thread, we have Israeli citizens - who are also internally displaced persons - being denied the right to return to their ancestral home, facing violence and intimidation from the state because their former village has been declared a park. This is then contrasted with the expansion of settlements outside of Israel, which by their very nature are infringements on the territory of the Palestinian West Bank.
Your response to this is to start squawking about Lebanon. And once your point is acknowledged, yes, things are shit for the refugees in Lebanon, you don't return to the actual topic, but you rather start screeching about how you are the only person in the world who cares, and everyone else is just a fake who hates Israel, and blah blah blah blah.
You're not being insightful, you're not covering new ground, you're not exposing or revealing anything. You're just giving the old tired-ass deflection that Hasbarists always do. How dare we talk about Israel, don't we know about what's going on in country X? The only interesting thing you add to this sad and sorry "defense" of Israel's policies (inasmuch as "LOOK OVER THERE!" can be called a defense) is your unique ability to become completely fucking unhinged without any outside input.
Have you ever been to a big party, Shira? Isn't there always the one guy who has too much to drink and becomes a wild raving asshole? Maybe you and I go to different parties, I dunno 
Anyway, people avoid that guy. It's not because he's exposing incisive, uncomfortable truths that they just can't handle, though he might think he is... it's because he's a drunken raving asshole and they don't want to be around him.
While I can't speak for my "colleagues," I would wager that the reason no one else bothers 'answering' you is simply because they have a much lower tolerance for people like you than I do. I'm not sure if this is a sign of actual patience on my part, or simply an example of the emotional damage that years of internet use can create in an individual. Either way, there you are.
There's a difference between an opinion piece, and reporting. And it's such a glaring and obvious difference that I don't think I have to explain it, even to you.
Also, are there sites that bash Hezbollah, Hamas, and Jews? Must be some zionist hangout I've not had the pleasure of bumping into. 
Well, that's nice and all, except...
..You completely ignore the point, and deflect from your own evident nonsense, by engaging in another walleyed screed against these straw men of yours. Strawmen squared, since your straw men are defined by making other straw men. Sadly, like most anthropomorphic hay-beings, your cavalcade of scarecrows have a major flaw; they've got not a single ounce of brains between them.
As if it weren't sad enough that you're relying on the Henry Jackson Society to form your opinions for you, you manage to accuse all anti-Zionists of being the same, all uniformly scummy awful people, because you assert that they hold that all settlers are the same, uniformly scummy awful people. Somehow, you manage to do this without breaking down into giggles as the inherent silliness dawns on you.
Also, I'm certain we've covered all these bases before. let's go back to how you tried to argue that a settlement built in '83 is actually an old pre-'48 Jewish village that refugees are simply returning to after all these years.
Only under UNRWA's definition are 99% of Palestinian refugees considered refugees. No other descendants of refugees in the world are considered this way for decades on end. Israel has no obligation to take in 99% of these refugees suffering under apartheid conditions. Also, NOTHING excuses Lebanon from doing what they're doing. Oh yeah...they're just FORCED to treat Palestinians like this because of Israel. Awww, poor things. Evil Zionists made them go all apartheid on the Palestinians.... 
UNLIKE Lebanon, Israel actually dismantled their refugee camps and gave all Palestinians within the green line citizenship. They even tried to put the refugees in the OPT into their own homes, out of the camps (re: the BUILD-YOUR-OWN-HOME program of the 1970's) but were rebuffed by the PLO and UN who preferred that they rot in camps for a few more decades.
Abbas was quoted originally saying no JEWS in NATO, despite the attempts afterward to cover his racism. Other Arabic sources out there never changed the original quote.....
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/37008/no-outcry-abbass-racism
And the Palestinian US Ambassador, when pressed, admitted there could be NO JEWS in a future Palestine. Of course the person questioning him made him give a straight answer. That's what journalists are supposed to do.
I remember in the mid-’90s, the late [PLO official] Faisal Husseini said repeatedly [font color = "red"]“OK, if Israelis choose to stay in a future Palestinian state, they are more than welcome to do that. But under one condition: They have to respect and obey Palestinian laws, they cannot be living as Israelis. They have to respect Palestinian laws and abide by them.” When Faisal Husseini died, basically no Palestinian leader has publicly supported the notion that they can stay.[/font]
What we are saying is the following: We need to separate. We have to separate. We are in a forced marriage. We need to divorce. After we divorce, and everybody takes a period of time to recoup, rebound, whatever you want to call it, we may consider dating again.
So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—
Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.
Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?
Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/48834/qa-maen-areikat
Abbas also said the same thing back in 2010...
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/37008/no-outcry-abbass-racism
A week or so later, Abbas's political adviser, Nimar Hamad, no doubt realising the embarrassing insensitivity of these remarks, effected to issue a retraction, blaming unnamed American media for spreading the falsehood that the word "Jews" had ever been used.
But when I looked last Friday, the statement, including that word, was still on the Wafa website, and I understand that, in any case, some Arabic newspapers, such as Al-Quds (on July 30), had had no hesitation in reporting that it was "Jews" to whom Abbas had referred.
Apologists for the Palestinian position frequently assure me that when Arabs talk about Jews, and especially when they talk about Jews in negative terms, they usually mean Israelis.
Yet here we have the Palestinian President talking quite clearly about Jews - not Israelis - and declaring that he for his part will not tolerate a single Jew in any Nato force that might police the borders of an emergent Palestinian state.
***This version was reprinted by Palestinian newspapers al-Quds and al-Hayat al-Jadida on July 30 and by other Arab newspapers.
Why am I not surprised at all that you're defending, explaining away, and deflecting from these forms of apartheid?
Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)
If it's only Israel, why?
And Israel offered to take in >200,000 refugees at Lausanne, 1949. Not to mention end all refugee camps in Gaza and the WB during the 1970's. Yeah sure, that's definitely more racist than Lebanon.
What's happening to Africans coming to Israel is awful. But what makes you think Israel is any worse to illegal immigrants than any other western nation? Or more racist? I have a hard time believing Israel would treat foreigners poorly if they were Jews. The problem here IMO is a Jew/Non-Jew issue; it's not necessarily racist. For example, the last of the Ethiopian Jews just made aliyah:
http://www.jpost.com/National-News/End-of-Ethiopian-aliya-as-final-flight-set-to-land-in-Israel-324504
Your country Australia is far more racist than Israel. Here's a recent article...
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Israel-the-un-apartheid-state-a-comparison-with-Australia-323822
