Why does the left hate Israel?

[CDNBear]

just concentrate on the dancing, you are one of those who is only funny when they think they are serious

Hmmm, I'm never serious.

So much for that thought Beave.

Not that it was much of one.

I'd say you saw yourself in the article too, but you haven't the ability to read so, my guess is, it's a chipped tooth on morning wood.

 

[Machjo]

Gotta be careful with that wood.

 

[darkbeaver]

Hmmm, I'm never serious.

So much for that thought Beave.

Not that it was much of one.

I'd say you saw yourself in the article too, but you haven't the ability to read so, my guess is, it's a chipped tooth on morning wood.

read one of your suggested articles! are you off your meds? it's not that you're never serious so much as it's that your never taken seriously

Hmmm, I'm never serious.

So much for that thought Beave.

Not that it was much of one.

I'd say you saw yourself in the article too, but you haven't the ability to read so, my guess is, it's a chipped tooth on morning wood.

read one of your suggested articles! are you off your meds? it's not that you're never serious so much as it is that you can't be taken seriously

 

[CDNBear]

read one of your suggested articles! are you off your meds? it's not that you're never serious so much as it's that your never taken seriously

Of course not. You'd have to be able to formulate an original thought, or have some form of cognitive skills to perform that function.

Automatically excluding you.

 

[darkbeaver]

repeat

Of course not. You'd have to be able to formulate an original thought, or have some form of cognitive skills to perform that function.

Automatically excluding you.

I once automatically extruded something like you.

 

[DaSleeper]

Wouldn't a global government be a form of colonialism on a global scale?.....

By definition, a colony (which is what you require to have colonialism) is land controlled by a foreign power. In a world federation, all countries would be equal with elected representatives, thus making it collective governmance on a global scale, so there would be no land controlled by an external country.

To take an example, imagine that there was no Federal government in Canada, but rather we merely had the government of Ontario governing the whole of Canada. What Ontario would be practicing beyond its borders would be colonialism. With a Federal Government representing all provinces equally, we have federalism, not colonailism. There is a difference.

Thank you for your explanation....Some people's view of a world government should be seems to be quite different from yours...and the word 'Federation' makes a big difference in the explanation, and a bit more palatable than 'Government'.

 

[CDNBear]

repeat



I once automatically extruded something like you.

The word you so sadly were groping for, was excreted.

If you want to seem intelligent and witty, you might want to at least try and use the correct words for your bodily functions.

Or perhaps trying one or the other. You might benefit from breaking things down into small increments, for better understanding.

I tought my sons that when they were small children, and they've actually surpassed you.

So we know it works.

Well, for higher life forms anyways, so it's a crap shoot for you.

 

[Machjo]

Thank you for your explanation....Some people's view of a world government should be seems to be quite different from yours...and the word 'Federation' makes a big difference in the explanation, and a bit more palatable than 'Government'.

A world federation would still be a world government by definition. However, there can be many different views of a world federation. My idea of a world federation would be a highly decentralized three-tier system, with a local, national and world government, with power evenly distributed between all three levels, so that essentially the world government's role would be limited only to those areas it can deal with more efficiently than the lower levels, with all other areas of reponsibility being relegated downward.

As for ideological aspects (capitalist, socialist, corporatist of whatever kind, communist, libertarian, etc.), well, since I also believe in an elected government, that would not be an issue for a democratic world federalist to decide. Obviously by definition, the electorate would decide that. What I'd be concerned with though is a solid bill of rights. Beyond that though, the electorate would decide.

And what I'd consider to be very important would be freedom fo religion and freedom of religious organization, among many other freedoms. I mention that one in particular since even in some democratic countries such as France sometimes they go too far in enforcing their laicisme as understood to mean pusing Faith to the margins.

repeat



I once automatically extruded something like you.

You sure excrete some quality stuff. Too bad you couldn't keep it in for your own benefit.

repeat



I once automatically extruded something like you.

You sure excrete some quality stuff. Too bad you couldn't keep it in for your own benefit.

 

[CDNBear]

You sure excrete some quality stuff. Too bad you couldn't keep it in for your own benefit.

TOUCHE!!!

 

[Icarus27k]

For decades, most American Jews have believed there were far greater threats from the fringe right than the fringe left in this country.

K. Define "fringe right" and "fringe left" for us.

The fringe right still exists— the neo—Nazis in Northwest Idaho, Matthew Hale, and David Duke, and the remnants of the KKK.

K. That's Baehr's definition of "fringe right". What about "fringe left"? This is a little bit harder to determine from his article. Here's a hint.

The political perspective of this new left is vehemently anti—Israel, and the power and reach of this movement represent a real threat to Israel, and by extension to Jews who support Israel.

Okay, so "fringe left" is, by definition, vehemently anti-Israel. I can think of several things I would consider characteristic of a fringe left that would have absolutely nothing to do with Israel, so obviously Baehr is being a little selective with his definitions. I would also like to see some examples of this vehemently anti-Israel fringe left, cause I can't think of many left people who are truly anti-Israel as much as they are against Israeli government policies. But even getting passed all of this and just accepting the premise, is this "fringe left" really the equivalent of the "fringe right" from a paragraph earlier? I'm supposed to believe that someone who is anti-Israel ( which I assume refers to the modern state of Israel founded in 1948 ) is really the ethical equivalent of neo-Nazis and the remnants of the KKK? That seems to be minimizing what neo-Nazis and the KKK really were. At worst (a person who completely hates the Israeli government) is somehow the same as neo-Nazis and the KKK?

 

[CDNBear]

K. Define "fringe right" and "fringe left" for us.

Wow, why ask if you're going to answer that in the next breath.

What about "fringe left"? This is a little bit harder to determine from his article. Here's a hint.

You really didn't grasp all the definitions he laid out in the article? How did you miss the 6 paragraph description?

Okay, so "fringe left" is, by definition, vehemently anti-Israel. I can think of several things I would consider characteristic of a fringe left that would have absolutely nothing to do with Israel, so obviously Baehr is being a little selective with his definitions.

You mean obviously you were selective in what you read in the article. He cites several traits of the fringe left.

I would also like to see some examples of this vehemently anti-Israel fringe left, cause I can't think of many left people who are truly anti-Israel as much as they are against Israeli government policies.

cubby, Mhz, EAO. In the face of overwhelming evidence, their grip on that hatred for Israel, is so strong, they just can't allow said evidence to sway their opinions.

But even getting passed all of this and just accepting the premise, is this "fringe left" really the equivalent of the "fringe right" from a paragraph earlier?

Well ya, both groups will justify all manner of moral bankruptcy, criminality or what not, to uphold their stalwart belief. No matter how erroneous. Kind of like yours, about the American Helo pilots, when we first met.

I'm supposed to believe that someone who is anti-Israel ( which I assume refers to the modern state of Israel founded in 1948 ) is really the ethical equivalent of neo-Nazis and the remnants of the KKK?

No, you're supposed to believe someone from the fringe, or a better description, progressive left, is that equivalent.

Why is it you didn't grasp that? It was clearly written.

That seems to be minimizing what neo-Nazis and the KKK really were.

Not really. Final solution, one State solution. Justifying the cycle of violence by negating or denying the criminal activity of Hamas. Trying to whitewash stated, written policies of genocide, by Israel's neighbours. And so on.

At worst (a person who completely hates the Israeli government) is somehow the same as neo-Nazis and the KKK?

Why not? Genocide, bigotry, a simple commonality.

 

[darkbeaver]

The word you so sadly were groping for, was excreted.

If you want to seem intelligent and witty, you might want to at least try and use the correct words for your bodily functions.

Or perhaps trying one or the other. You might benefit from breaking things down into small increments, for better understanding.

I tought my sons that when they were small children, and they've actually surpassed you.

So we know it works.

Well, for higher life forms anyways, so it's a crap shoot for you.

Giant twit, let me explain the rational in my word selection, excrete does not rhyme with exclude therefore to keep the rhythem of the piece pure I decided to use "extrude" which does rhyme with exclude and for the purposes of dumping on you is in fact the right choice. How dare you presume to correct me.

 

[Colpy]

Giant twit, let me explain the rational in my word selection, excrete does not rhyme with exclude therefore to keep the rhythem of the piece pure I decided to use "extrude" which does rhyme with exclude and for the purposes of dumping on you is in fact the right choice. How dare you presume to correct me.

You are nuts.

but at least you are nuts in a most amusing way.

 

[FiveParadox]

I wouldn't consider what you've posted, CDNBear, to be an "article"; rather, I think it's more of an "editorial," at least considering that the about us page on the American Thinker's web site has the authors self-identifying as pro-Israel (at least in the "us" versus "them" paradigm). In any event, I think that an issue so complicated as the constitutional basis of the State of Israel has too much depth to break it down to a left versus right, or progressive versus conservative, issue.

It is irrefutable, at least with any semblence of logic or reason, that Israel is indeed a legitimate and sovereign state, with the right to continue to exist as such. The question here is not as to the sovereignty of Israel, really, but as to the sovereignty of the people living under the administration of the Palestinian National Authority. At some point, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are going to need to come to some sort of agreement as to how these two nations are going to peacefully co-exist. (Having now acknowledged that at some point a Palestinian state will need to be recognised, I now brace for the cries of "you r a j00 h8r" from the unprincipled right.)

 

[Colpy]

I wouldn't consider what you've posted, CDNBear, to be an "article"; rather, I think it's more of an "editorial," at least considering that the about us page on the American Thinker's web site has the authors self-identifying as pro-Israel (at least in the "us" versus "them" paradigm). In any event, I think that an issue so complicated as the constitutional basis of the State of Israel has too much depth to break it down to a left versus right, or progressive versus conservative, issue.

It is irrefutable, at least with any semblence of logic or reason, that Israel is indeed a legitimate and sovereign state, with the right to continue to exist as such. The question here is not as to the sovereignty of Israel, really, but as to the sovereignty of the people living under the administration of the Palestinian National Authority. At some point, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are going to need to come to some sort of agreement as to how these two nations are going to peacefully co-exist. (Having now acknowledged that at some point a Palestinian state will need to be recognised, I now brace for the cries of "you r a j00 h8r" from the unprincipled right.)

First, five, you need to take comfort in the fact that you are FAR from a leftist as illustrated in the article.

As for the "two-state" solution, it is almost universally recognized as the sanest of any possible conclusion to the conflict. The fight is over borders, etc.

So you almost got a "greenie" for the post..........you blew it with your completely uncalled for BS attack in the last sentence.

 

[Bar Sinister]

The left hates Israel? Sorry, I hadn't noticed. Maybe the writer just stuck his head up his backside a bit too far.

 

[MHz]

For a Nation that has to ask for 'prayers' when they really needed water-bombers you would think making war on a place that is mostly children would be beneath them. Apparently not, and they have the 'right' cheering them only to even greater massacres as Cast Lead II is already being promoted as the only 'alternative'.


(in part)
Zionist leaders in 1948 needed Jewish terrorists to sabotage and destroy British control (and thus covertly supported Urgun and the Stern Gang). So today the Netanyahu government is unmistakably coddling the Ultra-Orthodox element in Israel. Not a week passes that Ha'aretz does not complain of discrimination against Arabs as the government fails to punish violent or abusive settlers and IDF soldiers guilty of the most abusive actions against Palestinians and their property. Ha'aretz routinely itemizes every kind of perversion of authority by local governing bodies against Arabs. These include denial of water rights and well drilling, issuance of building permits, transportation blockage toward Arabs and movement of their goods and services (including exclusion from Jewish-only highways), and chronic failure to address acts of violence and vandalism by settlers against Arab landowners. Just last week Jewish settlers set on fire a flock of Palestinian-owned sheep, to the torment of the sheep and financial loss of their owner, a farmer with a wife and eight daughters. The script can be written, as in hundreds of other cases, that nothing significant will be done to apprehend or punish the offenders. The same is true of IDF soldiers guilty of obeying orders to persecute and humiliate Palestinians, in and out of wartime.

Next Big Wave: Expulsion of Palestinians​

The hard-core Zionist leadership in Tel Aviv knows there is no Jewish fanatic as extreme as a literal interpreter of the Talmud. With no conception of tolerance toward those who disagree with them, they are capable of the worst kinds of violence. The underlying purpose of the government's indulgence of the Ultra-Orthodoxy sweeping Israel today is to create a generation of terrorists empowered to accomplish Arab expulsion. Already, Ultra-Orthodox leaders candidly and publicly encourage their followers toward that goal.
Of course, evangelical mouthpieces of Israel, such as Pastor John Hagee, WorldNetDaily, and tens of millions of "Israel-first" followers, will go along with anything Israel does. Evangelical media will cooperate to edit the worst abuses rising from the "final solution" of the Arab question, rationalizing even violent expulsion as part of Israel's timeless, God-given mandate to subdue and occupy Canaan.
Yet, evangelicals should beware. Ultra-Orthodox Judaism proclaims that, according to the Talmud and Zohar (Kabbalah), the greatest enemies of Judaism are not Arabs but followers of the false prophet, Jesus. Having subdued the Middle East, the Zohar commands Jews to exterminate "Amalek" - all Gentiles who resist conversion to Judaism throughout the world. The Talmud says unless the "Goyim" follow the seven "Noahide" laws, which include forsaking idolatry (worship of the false prophet Jesus), they must also be killed. (See, Coming Jewish 'Utopia' Ruled by Noahide Laws)
In a remarkable book, The Jewish Utopia, published in 1932 by Talmudic scholar Dr. Michael Higger and endorsed by the founder of Conservative Judaism, Solomon Schechter, Dr. Higger says of the Messianic (anti-Christ) age to come:

In general, the peoples of the world will be divided into two main groups, the Israelitic and the non-Israelitic. The former will be righteous; they will live in accordance with the wishes of one universal God; they will be thirsty for knowledge, and willing, even to the point of martyrdom, to spread ethical truths to the world. All the other peoples, on the other hand, will be known for their detestable practices, idolatry, and similar acts of wickedness. They will be destroyed and will disappear from earth before the ushering in of the ideal era. (5)
​

In short, Ultra-Orthodox rabbis, under tacit approval by the government, are preparing the next generation of religious Israelis to become exterminators of Arabs - and after that, homicidal persecutors of Christians. Dozens of Israeli rabbis now agree that Israel must end "the Arab problem" immediately, by violence if necessary. (See, Homicidal Rabbi Finds Wide Support in Israel and Top Rabbi: 'Gentiles Exist to Serve Jews')
Meanwhile, evangelical Christians contribute tens of millions of dollars annually to the very Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox groups who alarm more moderate Jews worldwide. They morally and financially "bless" those who literally believe that someday they will do God a service by not just biting the hand that has fed them (evangelicals) but by actually killing Christians.
During the recent forest fires in Israel, evangelical hands were outstretched in kindness to Israel. But they were bitten by one highly influential Ultra-Orthodox leader, Shas Interior Minister Eli Yishai. Approached during Israel's emergency by evangelicals offering firefighting equipment and help, he refused, evidently believing God could preserve His Holy Land without pollution by gifts from the idolatrous Goyim.
Is the church offended? Hardly. Already forbidden to witness for Christ in Israel and mortally threatened by international Jewish supremacism in myriad ways, evangelicals cannot be alienated by Jewish insults, ingratitude or attack.
So great is their infatuation with the "Beast," with whom they have rolled in bed for more than a century, that evangelicals seem willing not only to be repeatedly bitten by this "Beast" but also to be devoured by it.



NPN Email Alert




(in part)

The shelling is incessant, hospitals are overwhelmed, children are shell-shocked, the Gaza nights are miserably cold in the windowless homes. And residents fear their nightmare could worsen.

After days of intense bombardment from the air, artillery shells are now pounding the Gaza Strip as militants return fire with rocket-propelled grenades at Israeli tanks.

Children, who make up more than half of the 1.5 million population, are traumatised, living in fear of the next explosion that will shake their home.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"Many kids have stopped eating. They are inactive, they barely talk, they cling to their parents all the time," said Sajy Elmaghinni, who works for the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) in Gaza.

"Children are now scared of the dark, which is a major problem because there's no electricity," says Elmaghinni, whose own home has been without power for five days.

He has no way of heating his home, which lost all its windows in a blast, but like others in the besieged Palestinian enclave, he has become used to dealing with the cold: "We just wear a lot of clothes."

But with most homes and hospitals lacking heating and with temperatures near freezing, the risk of hypothermia is particularly high for newborn babies who need higher temperatures to survive.

Humanitarian group Save the Children says that, even before the Israeli offensive, about 50,000 children were suffering from malnutrition in Gaza, which has been under a crippling Israeli blockade for 18 months.


[link to www.theage.com.au]


Canada doesn't even have the right to attend conferences anymore, how many is this that we have passed up on as it 'would hurt Israel's image' if we actually took a stand that backed up UN181 that we signed.

"last month the Palestinians and their supporters agreed that the 10th anniversary conference will be held in New York during the opening of UN General Assembly"

"Although Canada and Israel have announced their plans to boycott the conference"

Column One: The wars of 2011

I didn't read to OP's links so I didn't see myself in there.


I have now though, the first line pretty7 much says it all. They don't like the right or the left. LOL

"For decades, most American Jews have believed there were far greater threats from the fringe right than the fringe left in this country."

 

[CDNBear]

Giant twit, let me explain the rational in my word selection, excrete does not rhyme with exclude therefore to keep the rhythem of the piece pure I decided to use "extrude" which does rhyme with exclude and for the purposes of dumping on you is in fact the right choice.

That might have a ring of truth, if the word you were trying to rhyme with "exclude". Sadly exposing the depth of your lack of cognitive skills, you missed the "ing". Thus making your attempt to dodge that bullet, void.

How dare you presume to correct me.

I'm sure it's upsetting. But since I've been doing it for years, I feel no need to stop correcting your erroneous posts now.

I wouldn't consider what you've posted, CDNBear, to be an "article"; rather, I think it's more of an "editorial," at least considering that the about us page on the American Thinker's web site has the authors self-identifying as pro-Israel (at least in the "us" versus "them" paradigm). In any event, I think that an issue so complicated as the constitutional basis of the State of Israel has too much depth to break it down to a left versus right, or progressive versus conservative, issue.

I loosely use the word "article" all the time Five. I'm well aware of the fact that it was an Op/Ed piece.

At some point, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are going to need to come to some sort of agreement as to how these two nations are going to peacefully co-exist.

I agree 100%. But you aren't left in this sense. In fact, I try not to encompass you in that word at all, in my communications with you. You aren't left, you're a Liberal. Not nearly as bad as a leftard.

(Having now acknowledged that at some point a Palestinian state will need to be recognised, I now brace for the cries of "you r a j00 h8r" from the unprincipled right.)

To receive that title Five, you'd have to ignore history, documented fact, and be void of all logic. Just see Mhz post for a prime example.

The left hates Israel? Sorry, I hadn't noticed.

Why am I not surprised.

Maybe the writer just stuck his head up his backside a bit too far.

You're projecting again.

Stop being so lazy and read the article. That way your post wouldn't have looked so childish and silly.

For a Nation that has to ask for 'prayers'...