Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Palestinians and Israel" - LTTE by Senator Schumer (D-NY), NYTimes 1/10

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 08:41 PM
Original message
"Palestinians and Israel" - LTTE by Senator Schumer (D-NY), NYTimes 1/10


January 10, 2006
Palestinians and Israel

To the Editor:

Your editorials about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as "Life After Ariel Sharon" (Jan. 6), repeatedly miss one salient, vital point: that a majority of Palestinians still do not believe that any Jewish state belongs in the Middle East.

Most Palestinians feel that Israel was illegitimately thrust upon them to atone for European anti-Semitism and the Holocaust.

Therefore, it is not an accident that in the West Bank or in Gaza those Palestinians who advocate peace will not and cannot control those who use violence, nor that even when Israel essentially proposed a return to the 1967 borders, as Ehud Barak did in 2000, "mainstream" Palestinians rejected such a generous offer.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and most Israelis, choose a peace of separation not because they prefer it, but because it is the only peace they see in the foreseeable future. Only when a significant majority of Palestinians recognize that a strong Israel is here to stay will there be peace in the Middle East.

Charles E. Schumer
U.S. Senator from New York
Washington, Jan. 6, 2006


Nota bene:
Your editorials about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as "Life After Ariel Sharon" (Jan. 6), repeatedly miss one salient, vital point: that a majority of Palestinians still do not believe that any Jewish state belongs in the Middle East.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Tell 'em, Chuckie!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pennylane100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. He forgot to mention the years of Israeli occupation
that helped cause the chaos that exists today. Also, painting Sharon as a peacemaker conveniently leaves out his role in the massacre of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon. Maybe that is part of why they don't trust him. Also, there are some palestinians who just want their land back. Land that was stolen without compensation.

I know the palestinians must bear a lot of responsibility for the violence that is making their life a living hell, but to just blame them and not the Israeli's is unrealistic.

Before anyone jumps all over me for being anti-Israeli, I am not, I just think that both sides must bear the responsibility and I think that letters like this from a US senator does only inflames the situation. It gives the false impression that one side is good and the other is bad. The reality is that both sides are suffering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. He also didn't mention the mass invasion of Israel
that was defeated leading that led to the loss of the west bank from Jorndan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-10-06 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yes, it wasn't a very balanced letter. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. I think it was very balanced. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. You still did not respond to the statement
Your editorials about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such as "Life After Ariel Sharon" (Jan. 6), repeatedly miss one salient, vital point: that a majority of Palestinians still do not believe that any Jewish state belongs in the Middle East.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Apparently, the Times article wasn't balanced
thus his reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. I love these people who disagree with Chuck.
They're in bed with Senator Coburn (eugenics, anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, Pro-Alito) and Senator Brownback (also anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, Pro-Alito)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. You sure?
here are the mentioned Senators views on Israel;

~~Senator Coburn;

'Issues: U.S.-Israel Relationship

The Importance of the U.S.-Israel Relationship

As a devout Christian, I have a deep admiration and respect for Israel as home to God's chosen people. I first visited Israel in the 1970s, working for a company that sold medical equipment to a kibutz that then was simply looking to care for its members. Today it must be prepared to treat the victims of terrorist attacks. The Bible teaches us that Israel is a sacred land that must be protected. As a matter of faith, I am committed to supporting Israel and this commitment will never waiver.

Oklahomans all experienced the reality of terrorism first hand when the federal building in Oklahoma City was destroyed. Americans experienced the tragedy again on September 11. We know how important it is to stand up to those who oppose us, and support those who stand with us. As a U.S. Senator, I will be a strong advocate for a safe, free and democratic Israel.

A Unique Relationship

As the only true democracy in one of the world's least stable regions, Israel is a beacon of hope in the wilderness to all who support freedom. The U.S. and Israel share a common bond of shared interests, shared values and shared goals. It is only common sense that we should support Israel.

America, under President Truman, was the first country to welcome the new nation of Israel into the world. Today, under President Bush, we continue to value this partnership and to support our democratic ally. In the U.S. Senate, I will support President Bush and his efforts to stand up for Israel in the world.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel. Period. While this is also the policy of the U.S., for too long our embassy has remained in Tel Aviv. In June of 1995 I signed a congressional letter to the Secretary of State calling for the embassy's relocation. In October of that year I voted for legislation mandating the move. Yet the embassy is still in Tel Aviv. We should move without delay to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

Israel's Clear Right To Security

Since the Palestinian Authority rejected negotiations and returned to an agenda of violence, more than 900 Israelis and more than 50 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks in Israel. This does not include the more than 6,500 additional injuries caused by these attacks.

Israel has moved to stop the flow of terrorists into their country. As part of this goal, they have worked to establish a more secure border in order to deny terrorists access to their country. But in yet another example of international organizations bending the truth to accomplish their own agenda, the U.N. and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have ignored the deaths of innocents and instead condemned Israel. Despite their own rules of jurisdiction and the opposition of the U.S. to its involvement, the ICJ involved itself in an internal matter and actually had the audacity to condemn Israel for building a fence that protects its citizens from attack -- with only the American judge opposing the ICJ's decision. Congress has rightly condemned this decision. In the U.S. Senate, I will stand up for any country's right to defend itself without first seeking international approval. The U.S. has not only the right, but the responsibility to protect its is citizens. Israel is no different.

Strategic Partnership

Our strategic partnership over the years has benefited both nations. I have long supported a missile defense plan -- an area where our two nations have long worked together. Our military alliance has also made it easier for us to operate in a dangerous region. This alliance must be continued and strengthened.

Eliminate Terrorism

America and Israel are partners in the fight against terrorism. We have worked together to dismantle terrorist organizations and undermine terrorist financing while learning from each other how to better defend both our nations against terrorism. Together we must continue to disarm, dismantle, and where possible, destroy terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. If the Palestinian Authority is serious about peace, they will join with us in the fight against terrorism -- not work hand-in-hand with these cold-blooded killers. And if other nations that are nominally our allies -- such as Saudi Arabia -- continue to turn a blind eye to the support for terrorism from their lands, we should strongly consider reevaluating our relationships with those nations.

In addition, the U.S. must continue to bring world pressure against those nations who support terrorism. While a member of the House, I was a cosponsor of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act and voted for the Iran Nonproliferation Act in both 1999 and 2000. With Iran's current program to develop nuclear weapons in spite of international pressure, and the evidence that many of the 9/11 terrorists traveled through Iran before reaching the United States, it is clear that we must stand up to rogue states such as this. Syria, Iran, North Korea and others who provide aid and support to terrorists must pay a price for their actions.

The Peace Process

The U.S. should continue to support negotiations as part of the process for a lasting peace in the region. But no one should impose a peace plan on Israel. Israel needs to negotiate from a position of strength and the U.S. must make it clear that, while we hope to facilitate the process, we stand with Israel and the Israeli people.

When Congress congratulated President Clinton for the work of his Administration in the Middle East, I was one of the few members to vote against the resolution. While it rightly expressed our solidarity with Israel and condemned the violence of Palestinian terrorists, it also gave undue credit to an Administration that tried to pressure Israel into an unworkable plan and which, despite the clear desire of Congress, never moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. President Bush has made it clear: we will not deal with terrorists; we will stand with Israel; we will stand for what's right. As a U.S. Senator, I will do the same.

Aid to Israel

While serving in the House, I opposed wasteful spending in the Clinton Budget and the Appropriations Process. But when an amendment was offered to cut aid to Israel in 1999, I voted no. While I may not always agree with others in Congress on spending matters, I will always work to direct and maintain U.S. assistance to our real allies such as Israel.

http://www.coburnforsenate.com/us_israel_relations.shtml

____________________________________


~~Senator Brownback;

Senator from Kansas Offers Israel a Helping Hand

by Steve Feldman
May 08, '05

>snip

No, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas wants to help the people of Israel and the international Jewish community, and indirectly, all Americans.

Brownback, who is not Jewish, is the author of Senate Joint Resolution 14, a remarkable piece of legislation known as the “Jerusalem Resolution.”

The bill’s beauty is in its simplicity and common sense. It calls for “the recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel before the United States recognizes a Palestinian state.”

After all, the resolution notes: “Jerusalem has never been the capital for any other state other than for the Jewish people; Jerusalem is central to Judaism and is cited in the Tanach, the Hebrew Bible, 766 times; Jerusalem is not mentioned by name in the Koran; every sovereign nation has the right to designate its own capital; Jerusalem is the seat of the Government of Israel, including the President, the parliament, and the Supreme Court.”

It points out that “Israel is the only country in which the United States neither maintains an embassy in the city designated as the capital by the host country nor recognizes such city as the capital,” despite the fact that “United States law states as a matter of United States policy that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel.”


http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=5094
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. There are other issues besides Israel that senators deal with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Damn, you read that quick!

Anything you disagree with?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. From WNBC.com;
Interview: Senator Charles Schumer Discusses National And International Politics

POSTED: 7:35 am EDT July 11, 2004

>snip

PRESSMAN: The UN's highest judicial authority, the International Court of Justice, has just decided that Israel's planned 425-mile security barrier on the West Bank violates international law and must be dismantled.

Sen. SCHUMER: Right.

PRESSMAN: Your reaction to that?

Sen. SCHUMER: You know, I think the International Court discredits itself when it does that. What is a fence? A fence is defensive. The only reason the Israelis are building a fence is because they want to prevent individuals from coming into their country, going on buses, going in supermarkets, blowing themselves up and killing individual people.

PRESSMAN: So are you--so are you...

Sen. SCHUMER: I think it's an outrage, and my guess is if any other country built a fence the International Court would not condemn them. Only when Israel does it, and there's something at play there.

PRESSMAN: So as a lawyer, you're not upholding international law here.

Sen. SCHUMER: Well, this is not--this is the International Court making an advisory opinion; has nothing to do with real international law. But it's one of the reasons some of us have distrust of the International Court. They apply a double standard. All the abuses that go on in other countries far greater than Israel's--and I'm not saying Israel's perfect; they're not--but the other abuses they ignore and then they go after Israel. Why?

PRESSMAN: Well, let's come back and finish that discussion after this.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/3517159/detail.html


:banghead: :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. And you forgot to mention the years of European persecution
that led Jews to finally require a state of their own. Jews just wanted to be left alone, but apparently, that was too much to ask.

I mean no disrespect. It's just that if we're going to be forced to discuss every issue involved in the conflict at every conceivable point, I'd like you to add that point.

Seems only fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pennylane100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I think it great that Israeli finally gets its own state,
Unfortunately for the palestinans, some of that state was already owned by them. They were forced out without compensation and without the right to return.

Only when these wrongs are addressed, and Isreal returneds all the land other than what was given to them by the UN will there be a chance of peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. So they need to return to the parameters of the UN partition plan
which the Palestinians actively REJECTED?

As for being "forced out", I think the terminology is "fled due to war", but I may be wrong.

And what of the wrongs done to Israel by the Palestinians and other Arabs? What of the wrongs done by the Arabs to the Palestinians?

when will those be rectified?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pennylane100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. I know some palestinians fled , there was a war going on.
I also have friends who were driven from their land that their families had owned for centuries. They are not allowed to return or get compensation, meanwhile citizens of all other countries are invited to live in Israel if they are jewish.

There were very many wrongs done by the palestinians to the Israelis and Palestine will have to address them if it wants peace.

However Senator Schumer's letter was too one sided not to comment on. I find it offensive that a butcher like Sharon is referred to as choosing peace, just as I would if Arafat was so portrayed.

The way I see it, there will only be peace when both sides feel that they are being treated fairly. Arafat was a fool not to take the deal offered by Barack. However that does not mean that all the Palestinians must continue to suffer. They do not deserve to have their land appropriated to build a wall around their cities that entombs them. It is always the innocent (on both sides) that endure the hardships when they are led by arrogant and foolish leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Arafat was so portrayed
he still is, in places
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Arafat had reason to reject the Barak deal; and Barak rejected Taba.
In an article by Noam Chomsky regarding the unfair treatment and outright misrepresentations of Arafat in the press:

(Judy) Miller carries the story on in the same vein, leading to the standard denouement. At Camp David, Arafat “walked away” from the magnanimous Clinton-Barak offer of peace and, even afterwards, refused to join Barak in accepting Clinton’s December 2000 “parameters,” thus proving conclusively that he insists on violence, a depressing truth with which the peace-loving states—the U.S. and Israel—must somehow come to terms.

Turning to actual history, the Camp David proposals divided the West Bank into virtually separated cantons and could not possibly be accepted by any Palestinian leader. That is evident from a look at the maps that were easily available, but not in the NYT or apparently anywhere in the U.S. mainstream, perhaps for that reason. After the collapse of these negotiations, Clinton recognized that Arafat’s reservations made sense, as demonstrated by the famous “parameters,” which, though vague, went much further towards a possible settlement—thus undermining the official story, but that’s only logic, therefore unacceptable as history. Clinton gave his own version of the reaction to his “parameters” in a talk to the Israeli Policy Forum on January 7, 2001. “Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have now accepted these parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed some reservations.”

One can learn this from such obscure sources as the prestigious Harvard-MIT journal International Security (Fall 2003), along with the conclusion that “the Palestinian narrative of the 2000-01 peace talks is significantly more accurate than the Israeli narrative”—the U.S.-NYT “narrative.”

After that, high-level Israeli-Palestinian negotiators proceed to take the Clinton parameters as “the basis for further efforts” and addressed their “reservations” at meetings in Taba through January. These produced a tentative agreement, meeting some of the Palestinian concerns—and thus again undermining the official story. Problems remained, but the Taba agreements went much further towards a possible settlement than anything that had preceded. The negotiations were called off by Barak, so their possible outcome is unknown. A detailed report by EU envoy Miguel Moratinos was accepted as accurate by both sides, and prominently reported in Israel. But I doubt that it has ever been mentioned here in the mainstream.


http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2004/chomsky1204.html

I suggest reading the entire article; it's interesting and quite revealing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. It's too bad Clinton and Dennis Ross say otherwise
For one, the Pals have shown off maps that were never actually presented. For another, Arafat was not negotiating in good faith and was planning the intifada.

But more importantly, Arafat did nothing in the time that followed to help bring about peace. He threw Barak under the bus and brought Sharon to power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Whoa...you make a lot of claims there. Back them up with links, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. let's see
First, Clinton:

In the USA and Israel, the failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a counter-offer. Clinton later stated "I regret that in 2000 missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace."

And as to Ross and overview:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/cd2000art.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Here's what I'd like some links on:
These comments you made:
For one, the Pals have shown off maps that were never actually presented. For another, Arafat was not negotiating in good faith and was planning the intifada.

But more importantly, Arafat did nothing in the time that followed to help bring about peace. He threw Barak under the bus and brought Sharon to power.


Please back up these statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Links
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. More on Davos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. I most humbly beg to disagree with you sire
Please be so kind as to look at the obviously biased screeds:
    1. The Missing Peace : The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace by Dennis Ross, and
    2. My Life by Bill Clinton


If you don't want to waste your money on these screeds, I am sure the UCB Library has copies - or meet me at Tressider, I'll loan you my copies, and I'll even spring for lunch at one of the two Hallal Restaurants on University Ave or the Hallal Fast Food Restaurant (below the Masjid) on California Avenue (a few doors down from Irv's Kosher Restaurant).

I AM NOT A WAR MONGER - I AM NOT A CHILD MOLESTER - I AM NOT A RAPIST OR CANNIBAL - AND I EVEN HAVE A "STUDENT'S" - ANNOTATED KORAN (KIND OF LIKE HERTZ'S CHUMASH - EXCEPT THE KORAN - ONE OF MY SHIIA FRIENDS GAVE IT TO ME).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
37. They should receive compensation - absolutely. Also, the
people of the region, especially Arab states where refugee camps - after 60 years - are still located - need to recognize Israel and work with Israel and with each other, to help these 4.5 million or so people - descendents of the original 6 or 700,000, find decent lives.

Unfortunately, several generations have been born in these camps. Palestinians suffer strict immigration rules that prevent them from becoming citizens, buying property or holding jobs in most of the 22 Arab League states. Restrictions vary from state to state.

Also, the 900,000 Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews who were expelled from their communities throughout the Arab Middle East after 1948, should receive compensation and their suffering should be recognized. Some did make aliyah voluntarily but hundreds of thousands fled and wound up in refugee camps - in Israel. Many others wound up in the New World. These refugees are never mentioned in the discussions about Israel and the Palestinian refugees. They should be.

And, I believe compensation packages have been offered to the Palestinians, but were rejected.

Finally, the idea of returning all the land makes no sense. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli people now live beyond those borders, which in fact never constituted real borders but only armistice lines, and which aren't defensible, long term, which exclude most of Jewry's holiest sites from Israel as well as much of her population. The waist of Israel is only 6 miles wide and her capitol is only a few minutes flight time from bases in Saudi Arabia, for example. There are communications arrays, defensive in nature, as well as people, beyond the 1949 armistice line. The hilltop settlements do provide security, in the view of the defense ministers.

The problem really isn't so simple. Also, withdrawal from Gaza hasn't created a peaceful situation, but growing chaos. That must be recognized, and means to deal with it must be created.

Borders should be negotiated. But they must be SECURE borders. And expelling still MORE people - creating more victims - that makes no sense either.

People must come up with some PROGRESSIVE, creative solutions to these problems, that recognize reality on the ground, ca 2006, instead of endlessly trying to return to 1947.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. .
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
6. He's lying, he knows he is.

This guys a Democrat? Bloody hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Cookie for Englander
<>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Kindly explain which part of his statement is a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. lol.
Well, the parts between;

'January 10, 2006
Palestinians and Israel

To the Editor:'

&

'Charles E. Schumer
U.S. Senator from New York
Washington, Jan. 6, 2006'

are clueless opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #19
28. I see
so as long as the opinion is not shared by you, it is a lie?

Not sure how they define things across the pond, but here, we define a lie as such:

to tell an untruth; to pretend with an intention deceive; a statement that deviates or perverts the truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Put that strawman down, dammit!
It's good to see that you realise that Schumer's letter was all opinion,
I'm pleased to see that you realise that there were no facts, & that you
can tell the difference between fact/opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. there were certainly fact involved as well as opinion
good blend of both in fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #31
40. On edit;
Edited on Fri Jan-13-06 04:28 AM by Englander
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. In other words, Sen. Shumer's letter was truthy, not facty. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Some people want to redefine the Democratic party narrowly
Edited on Thu Jan-12-06 02:59 PM by Coastie for Truth
I was around when Gene McCarthy ran for the nomination - and some Dems sat on their hands and "gave" that election to Nixon.

I was around for George McGovern - and voted for him, too.

I remember the Dems who voted for Nader "To teach the Dems a lesson - and besides there's no difference between Bush and Gore - tweedle dum and tweedle dee"." Would Gore have given us Iraq? Sam Alito? John Roberts? Dick Cheney? Paul Wolfowitz? Terrence W. Boyle? Priscilla Owen? Janice Rogers Brown? William J. Haynes II? John Yoo? John Bolton? Porter Goss? John Negroponte? Pat Robertson in the WH? Jerry Falwell in the WH?

Define the Democratic Party any way you want --- then try to elect the candidate.

Define any present Democrat that you want to out of your Democratic Party - theh try to win elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #32
39. That's "truthiness".
Otherwise known as, "fact-lite", or "faith-based facts", or "faux facts", &tc.

The Colbert Report, Quicktime req.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002765.html#002765

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. The 2005 word of the year, according to linguists; quite applicable here.
A panel of linguists has decided the word that best reflects 2005 is "truthiness," defined as the quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.

The American Dialect Society chose the word Friday after a runoff with terms related to Hurricane Katrina, such as "Katrinagate," the scandal erupting from the lack of planning for the monster hurricane.

Michael Adams, a professor at North Carolina State University who specializes in lexicology, said "truthiness" means "truthy, not facty."

"The national argument right now is, one, who's got the truth and, two, who's got the facts," he said. "Until we can manage to get the two of them back together again, we're not going make much progress."


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/07/word.contest.ap/

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TokenJew Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-11-06 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
9. Atta boy Chuck
I love being able to be proud of at least one of my senators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colorado Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-12-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #9
38. Likewise. EOM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-13-06 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
41. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-14-06 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. No, it doesn't.
It leads to a site that has Quicktime movies. I had a look at Mozilla, & Microsoft,
& couldn't find anything about related "vulnerabilities". I did, however, find this;

'Netiquette 101 for new netizens
How to be on your best behavior when you go online
Published: December 14, 2004

Surfing the Internet can be fun, useful, and social for both adults and kids. But it's important for all new Internet citizens, also called netizens, to remember that there are other surfers out there. And, like real surfing or any other public activity, there are implied rules of behavior or etiquette to follow. Failing to grasp the netizen ropes could result in more than just missed opportunities—saying the wrong thing at the wrong time could provoke harassment or other problems.

So before a new user or child grabs the mouse to dive in to send messages, chat in chat rooms, play games, or visit Web sites, we suggest the following guidelines that can help them handle most any situation in cyberspace.

Guidelines for good netiquette
• Apply the golden rule: Treat others the way you would like to be treated.
• Remember there is a person on the other end of your message.
• Know where you are and use appropriate good behavior.
• Be forgiving of other people's mistakes, especially newcomers.
• Always remain calm, especially if someone insults you (or you think they have).
• Avoid using ALL CAPS to emphasize—many perceive this as "yelling" or find it annoying.
• Refrain from using inappropriate or offensive language.
• When participating in chat rooms, avoid interrupting others and stay on topic.

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/online/netiquette.mspx

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC