Why do so many Jews in the US vote Democrat?

[Fenris]

Well, I cannot speak for the Jewish people's understanding of the intifadas,

Then you also can't speak for the concern that Jewish people have when they hear the phrase "globalize the intifada".

But of course, you are.

What you're actually say is "Jews shouldn't be worried be worried when they hear the phrase 'globalize the intifada' because it might mean something perfectly harmless."

But as I said, Jews know what it means. And Jew haters know what it means. And useful idiots such as yourself are here to offer soothing words, as if we don't know what's being called for here.

If Mamdani had actually said that,

If he actually said that, you'd be here helpfully explaining how it isn't a call for violence either. Because that's who you are.

if you admit to flatly distorting the plain truth about what the intifadas are

Intifadas are a call for the murder of Jews.

because you refuse to acknowledge that many of the grievances of the Palestinian people are both valid and were major motivating factors behind the intifadas because if you do then you don't get to cast this as a great struggle of good against evil instead of the tragic and often reprehensible but predictable reaction to the systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of a people.

The Palestinians were offered a state many times. And they refused each time. Because they don't want a state. They want to annihilate the Jews. But you don't care about that either. You're here to make excuses for them.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Then you also can't speak for the concern that Jewish people have when they hear the phrase "globalize the intifada".

But of course, you are.

What you're actually say is "Jews shouldn't be worried be worried when they hear the phrase 'globalize the intifada' because it might mean something perfectly harmless."

But as I said, Jews know what it means. And Jew haters know what it means. And useful idiots such as yourself are here to offer soothing words, as if we don't know what's being called for here.

I never told you how you or the greater Jewish people should feel about it. I told you that I don't think it necessarily means what you assert that it does. honestly it displays the signs and symptoms of a dog whistle to me too, but that's the thing about a good dog whistle. Additionally I told you that the definition that you provided for intifada is factually and demonstrably incorrect.

If he actually said that, you'd be here helpfully explaining how it isn't a call for violence either. Because that's who you are.

I doubt it, but apparently you know precisely what all Jews believe and what I'd do in this scenario that hasn't happened.

Intifadas are a call for the murder of Jews.

No, they are not, that is factually incorrect, you are simply lying.

The Palestinians were offered a state many times. And they refused each time. Because they don't want a state. They want to annihilate the Jews. But you don't care about that either. You're here to make excuses for them.

Classic oversimplification with a little bit of sweeping generalization and demonization sprinkled on top. Right, excuse, because acknowledging the systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of a people is excuse making? because taking accountability for your part in a conflict means that you excuse the other party for any reaction they had to your actions right? I'm not surprised that you conflate those two things, its probably why you think the police are accountable and BLM was a psy-op or something.

[tango]

That recent Jubilee video makes it look like "the question isn't why would anyone vote Democrat", but "the question is, what in the world is happening to the social fabric of the United States?"

If you can make group A hate group B it's easier to make group B hate group A, and then you've got two more groups of people fighting each other and not noticing you're plundering both of them.

[Fenris]

I never told you how you or the greater Jewish people should feel about it. I told you that I don't think it necessarily means what you assert that it does.

You still don't get it, do you?

The statement is alarming to Jews.

The fact that you can explain it away is irrelevant. And insulting. "Antisemitism doesn't exist, it's only in your head! Madani loves Jews!"  But you'll keep doing it anyway, because you're a useful idiot. And that's what useful idiots do.

No, they are not, that is factually incorrect, you are simply lying.

So now you've gone from "intifada can mean many things, including possibly violence" to "intifada never means violence".  Funny how words mean whatever you need them to mean.

Classic oversimplification with a little bit of sweeping generalization and demonization sprinkled on top.

Nope, simply the facts. But it doesn't surprise me that now you're going to bat for people who do more than just talk about violence, they actually carry out murder. But then, you are a useful idiot.

[Oscar_Kipling]

You still don't get it, do you?

The statement is alarming to Jews.

The fact that you can explain it away is irrelevant. And insulting. "Antisemitism doesn't exist, it's only in your head! Madani loves Jews!"  But you'll keep doing it anyway, because you're a useful idiot. And that's what useful idiots do.

Be alarmed Fenris, that is your right as a human being. I'm certainly not stopping you.

Since when is me having an opinion about the antisemitic value of a statement a politician made, the equivalent to making a grand declaration that antisemitism doesn't exist? I'm not willing to die on any hills claiming that he isn't antisemetic much less that he loves the Jews on the basis of a single statement he made that could be an antisemitic dog whistle or tone-deaf lefty sloganism....especially when your argument consists of a definition of intifada that intentionally excludes relevant factual and contextual information. I think it all stems from the fact that you cannot wrap your mind around the idea that I can reject the conceit that Israel is the good guy or the hero, without accepting that Palestine or Hamas and any number of terrorist organizations are the real heroes. Can you genuinely even imagine what is left for me to think? I actually believe that you think there are no other valid beliefs I can hold.

.So now you've gone from "intifada can mean many things, including possibly violence" to "intifada never means violence".  Funny how words mean whatever you need them to mean.

You're being dishonest. I'm rejecting your characterization of intifada as "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east". So are you going to play games or are you going to defend your actual description which I assert is factually incorrect and deceptive, and in my previous post I clearly laid out precisely why I disagree with your deceptive definition?

Nope, simply the facts. But it doesn't surprise me that now you're going to bat for people who do more than just talk about violence, they actually carry out murder. But then, you are a useful idiot.

So all of the Palestinians simply "want to annihilate the Jews" for being Jews and want you all dead for no reason other than your mere existence? No doubt some Palestinians do and make no qualms about hiding it. But your statement is a lie if some non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of their people perpetuated by the Israeli government and some non-zero fraction of the Israeli people. Yeah I'll step up to the plate to reject the claim that the Palestinian people are violent murderers that want to eradicate the Jews. Hell not even all Antisemites want to eradicate the Jews, some would be perfectly fine if you all were just packed into your little country in the middle east. So, you want to back off that broad brush and hyperbole or are those the only terms you can think in?

[Fenris]

Be alarmed Fenris, that is your right as a human being. I'm certainly not stopping you.

Oh gee, thank you so much.

Since when is me having an opinion about the antisemitic value of a statement a politician made,

And see, here's the thing. It doesn't matter what you make of such a statement. You're not the subject of the statement. Jews are. It would be like someone threatening to kill their spouse, and you saying, "I don't see a problem here". Of course not, genius. You're not the spouse.

I think it all stems from the fact that you cannot wrap your mind around the idea that I can reject the conceit that Israel is the good guy or the hero

This has nothing to do with Israel. Or anything that Israel says or does. It's about Jews in America being threatened by an American politician.

I'm rejecting your characterization of intifada as "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east".

That's what it was. Jews know it. Jew haters know it. It's you who's being oblivious. Or maybe not, maybe you're being malicious. At this point I'm not so sure anymore.

So all of the Palestinians simply "want to annihilate the Jews" for being Jews and want you all dead for no reason other than your mere existence?
.
.
But your statement is a lie if non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression 

It doesn't mean every single Palestinian. Not every German was a Nazi. But the German state was an enemy to the free world.

Having that knowledge-
A majority of Palestinians support Hamas. They did before the barbaric attacks on 10/7 and they still do now. If you read the Hamas charter, you'd know two things: It calls for the destruction of Israel via Jihad; and it calls for the murder of every Jew in the world.

So yes, the Palestinians as a society desire genocide. You either don't know or don't care.

But your statement is a lie if some non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of their people perpetuated by the Israeli government and some non-zero fraction of the Israeli people

The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected is every time. I don't see why this is Israel's fault or Israel's problem to solve.

. Yeah I'll step up to the plate to reject the claim that the Palestinian people are violent murderers that want to eradicate the Jews.

Great. Thanks for the clarity, you just sided with a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians. Now we all know who you are.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Since when is me having an opinion about the antisemitic value of a statement a politician made,

And see, here's the thing. It doesn't matter what you make of such a statement. You're not the subject of the statement. Jews are. It would be like someone threatening to kill their spouse, and you saying, "I don't see a problem here". Of course not, genius. You're not the spouse.

This is an entirely different assertion. You accused me of saying that antisemitism didn't exist because I disagree with you about Mamdani's statement. You also said that I asserted that he loves Jews on the same basis. Now your assertion is that I have to agree with your take on it, or I guess at least not have my own opinion on it because Mamdani's statement is relevant to the Jewish people? These are entirely different assertions Fenris. If you are accusing me of not being close enough to the Jewish plight, or Jewish culture therefore I might have a blind spot in this area I can actually accept that, because that could be true. If that was where you started as opposed to asserting that i'm making claims about antisemitism not existing or that Mamdani loves the Jews then we'd be having a different conversation. So, is it safe to assume that you've walked back your previous accusations or are you sticking to your guns?

I think it all stems from the fact that you cannot wrap your mind around the idea that I can reject the conceit that Israel is the good guy or the hero

This has nothing to do with Israel. Or anything that Israel says or does. It's about Jews in America being threatened by an American politician.

Well, I think it does. The intifadas are very relevant to Israel because again as I previously asserted the motivating grievances were Israel's oppression and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people. I do not see a way to understand a statement like "globalize the intifada" without understanding the relationship between Palestine and Israel. Even your definition, the one you proposed, asserts that intifada is "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east". You even specify the 'middle east'. How could anyone come to understand that statement without those considerations?

That being said, this isn't our first conversation about Israel or Jewish people, and I'm talking more about our body of work as a whole. The way you consistently read me on these topic indicates to me that you are very black and white on this issues. The fact that I'm not similarly black and white leads you to read my disagreement as "Antisemitism doesn't exist, it's only in your head! Madani loves Jews!".

I'm rejecting your characterization of intifada as "a campaign of terrorism against Israeli civilians for the crime of being a Jew in the middle east".

That's what it was. Jews know it. Jew haters know it. It's you who's being oblivious. Or maybe not, maybe you're being malicious. At this point I'm not so sure anymore.

You say I'm being oblivious, but I've consistently agreed that there was terrorism in the intifadas, as well as antisemitism, but not just that. So I ask, did the intifadas also consist of Palestinian mass protests, tax strikes, labor strikes, and boycotts? Were the intifadas also motivated by Israeli military occupation, Settlement expansion, political disenfranchisement, disenfranchisement from land and property rights, economic inequality and so on? 

What you appear to me to be doing is framing intifadas as just terrorism motivated by an irrational hate of the Jewish people based on the fact of their Jewishness. This is racism , this is antisemitism as I understand it, hate based on the mere ethnicity. I'm not denying hate or even antisemitism as an aspect of the intifadas, but there was another significant motive that was undergirded by the actual oppression and disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government and some portion of the populace. The value or ethics or morality of hate as a reaction to oppression is not what I'm arguing, but I am arguing that this is not "the crime of being a Jew in the middle east". Likewise I'm not arguing that there wasn't terrorism and violence that left over 1000 Israeli civilians dead, but I am arguing that there were also mass protests, tax strikes, labor strikes, and boycotts. Are you being oblivious to these additional factors that provide a more accurate view of what the intifadas were?

So all of the Palestinians simply "want to annihilate the Jews" for being Jews and want you all dead for no reason other than your mere existence?
.
.
But your statement is a lie if non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression 

It doesn't mean every single Palestinian. Not every German was a Nazi. But the German state was an enemy to the free world.

Having that knowledge-
A majority of Palestinians support Hamas. They did before the barbaric attacks on 10/7 and they still do now. If you read the Hamas charter, you'd know two things: It calls for the destruction of Israel via Jihad; and it calls for the murder of every Jew in the world.

So yes, the Palestinians as a society desire genocide. You either don't know or don't care.

Most is not all, are we now pretending not to know what a generalization is? I accused you of generalizing, because you were. I don't feel like stepping on this landmine right now, so I'll save this for subsequent debate.

But your statement is a lie if some non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression and disenfranchisement of their people perpetuated by the Israeli government and some non-zero fraction of the Israeli people

The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected is every time. I don't see why this is Israel's fault or Israel's problem to solve.

This statement is indicative of your consistent positioning of Israel as the good guy who has tried everything to be fair and just in the face of unreasonable, unjustified and irrationally evil opposition. I should also say that again it is clear from your statement “I don't see why this is Israel's fault or Israel's problem to solve.” That you are unable to understand the concept of more than one party being accountable and culpable. If it isn't only the ‘fault’ of the Palestinians, then you seem to default to the idea that it must only be the ‘fault’ of Israel or the Jewish people.   

I glossed over it when you previously said something similar about the offers because honestly I didn't feel like putting the effort in, but I suppose, needs must.

1936, Taking it all the way back to British colonialism, I'm a little surprised honestly. I think it is safe to presume that you are referring to the Peel plan. Characterizing this as simply a time that the Palestinians rejected an offer of statehood is disingenuously shallow, especially considering that the Zionists rejected it too. It was an offer under British colonialism that neither party actually agreed to. At best I could give you that at this time there was no state of Israel, and the Palestinians did not want to agree to the creation of one, nor were they obligated to.

1947, was the UN partition plan [I assume]. It would be fair to say that the Palestinians rejected this plan because they did not think it was fair. It should also be noted that a state of Israel did not exist at this time. The Palestinians thought the proposed division was proportionally inequitable and unfairly favored the Israelis. You can disagree with their assessment, but they weren’t obligated to think it was fair. The Jews did like the plan it seems. This disagreement pretty directly lead to a civil war between the Jews and Arabs in the area, which dislocated [often through violence] 85% of the Arabs in the lands that Israel was offered in the plan by the UN, plus over half of the UN offered land that was proposed for the Arab state--then they declared the state of Israel. Characterizing this period as just an offer that the Palestinian people rejected is missing lots of important context. I'd say particularly that they didn't like the plan before [back when it was the Peel plan], so it’s hardly a new offer, and when they did disagree–the Israelis acquired the lands through violent means and declared a state anyway. Again, we can quibble about how okay this was or wasn't, but characterizing it as just another time the Israelis made a really nice offer to the Palestinian people is inaccurate, and that's generous.

1949, classifying this as an offer of statehood is a flat out lie as it was a military ceasefire after that civil war that I just talked about turned into a larger Arab Israeli war, and there was no meaningful Palestinian input as the negotiations took place between the newly declared Israel and Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Again, I'm not arguing what is or isn't okay to fight about, or the morality or ethics of acquiring territory through war, I'm specifically challenging the idea that this was some kind of good faith offer that the Palestinians rejected unreasonably.

1967, Another ceasefire, this one after the 6 day war, and again classifying this as an offer of a Palestinian state is deluded…in what way was this an offer of statehood to the Palestinian people? What exactly are you asserting was offered, and to whom? This one doesn't even make sense, Fenris.

1993, presumably you mean the Oslo accords. Bet you can guess what I'm gonna say…the Oslo accords being characterized as an offer is inaccurate, although not anywhere near as off base as 1967. They were negotiations, and established at least a roadmap to some kind of peaceful resolution, and I think it was more or less in good faith. However simply characterizing this as a thing that the Palestinians unilaterally rejected is nonsense. The reasons this fell apart can reasonably be attributed to, yes Hamas terror attacks [seems they never liked Oslo] and at least some public Palestinian rejection of the idea. But also Israeli extremist terror attacks, most prominently that time they killed Oslo proponent and prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, and the continued settlement by Israelis. There is more to the story, but the fact is this was never an ‘offer’, it was a negotiation and it certainly had its opponents both in Palestine and Israel.


2000, it is an absolute nightmare trying to figure out exactly what was and wasn’t offered and what was or wasn’t rejected At the Camp David Summit, to the point where I kinda just want to give you this one and never think about it again, but I won't. The best I can say is that I actually don’t know, and by all appearances whatever the truth is about exactly what happened here, it doesn't seem to be the case that Palestine merely rejected a good offer by Israel and that's that. If you want to die on this hill, go right ahead, because I can't with this one, besides it isn't important to my overall rejection of your claim.

2008, I guess what you are referring to in particular is Olmert's so-called ‘secret proposal’, and honestly I think Olmert is a legit hero for this one. Like I suppose there could be quibbling about the legitimate chances this deal had of actually being implemented given Olmert's position at the time [about to resign due to corruption charges with Likud poised to win the election}. But classifying this as Abbas walking away from a very appealing deal [especially with all things considered] isn't crazy, I mean I'd love to see the timeline where he did sign it. 

So does all this mean that I conclude that it's all Israel’s fault just because it's not all Palestine's fault? Of course not, it's a long complicated history that does not lend itself to any sort of pat determination that one group is to blame for everything that happened and the other is fresh driven snow, that is not how human endeavors overwhelmingly are. I took the time and wrote all of this out because I reject your assertions that “The Palestinian were offered a state many times, in 1936, in 1947, in 1949, in 1967, in in 1993, in 2000, in 2008. And they rejected is every time.”. Your characterization is misleading and often factually at odds with recorded history.

. Yeah I'll step up to the plate to reject the claim that the Palestinian people are violent murderers that want to eradicate the Jews.

Great. Thanks for the clarity, you just sided with a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians. Now we all know who you are.

It makes sense to you to characterize Palestinians as "a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians"? If I said something similarly denigrating and sweeping about the Jewish people you would rightly accuse me of Antisemitism. Yes, I have shown you who I am, and I'm unashamed of it...You've shown clearly who you are too with this sweeping bigoted garbage.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I tried to edit this into my previous post, but it exceeded the maximum post length. I am somehow both proud and deeply ashamed.

So all of the Palestinians simply "want to annihilate the Jews" for being Jews and want you all dead for no reason other than your mere existence?
.
.
But your statement is a lie if non-zero fraction of the Palestinian population hates the long standing systematic oppression 

It doesn't mean every single Palestinian. Not every German was a Nazi. But the German state was an enemy to the free world.

Having that knowledge-
A majority of Palestinians support Hamas. They did before the barbaric attacks on 10/7 and they still do now. If you read the Hamas charter, you'd know two things: It calls for the destruction of Israel via Jihad; and it calls for the murder of every Jew in the world.

So yes, the Palestinians as a society desire genocide. You either don't know or don't care.

I hate to leave a landmine untriggered, so, I've come back to this now that I have time to do my best to navigate your very loaded comments that require a ton more work to parse and respond to than it took you to say.

I should leave it unsaid, but once again Fenris you are proving yourself to abhor nuance. You can’t seem to help yourself anymore than I can help myself from pointing it out [perhaps that's why I can’t seem to quit you, or you me]. Anyway,  let’s take this point by point.

A majority of Palestinians support Hamas. They did before the barbaric attacks on 10/7 and they still do now.

Hamas won the last Parliamentary election by a margin of 44.45% to 41.43% of the popular vote. And by all reasonable accounts this was a fair election, in 2006, nearly 20 years ago. You are free to dispute this, but this all happened in the context of the ruling party in the West Bank [Fatah] being mired in internal corruption and criticism for failure to negotiate meaningful gains under Oslo. You may take those facts as a mandate by the Palestinian people for terrorism, but it is not unreasonable to view it as a narrowly won protest vote against Fatah. So, using a nearly two-decade-old razor thin margin as proof of current popular support is, um, less than ideal imo.

Maybe you are referring to the polls? And it's true that polls by the PCPSR from mid‑2024 and early 2025 show ~ 60% of Palestinians favor Hamas over Fatah if elections were held [which again, they haven’t been since 2006]. Which is a specific question, which is important. Further, if you zoom in to how the ‘support’ breaks down, the west bank within that period was around 60% and Gaza 'support' is in the high 30’s to 40’s.That is quite a swing, and interestingly that was significantly up from overall ~20% 'support' before the October 7th terrorist attacks. According to Dr. Khalil Shikaki the director of the PCPSR, Hamas has never had majority 'support' in Gaza since they began polling back in 1993.
 
I know you might accuse me of rhapsodizing or worse, but like, what do we really mean by ‘support’ in the context of polls anyway? Generally it means something like ‘voting preference’, and/or ‘overall approval’ though PCPSR often asks about approval of specific actions taken [like support for the actions of Oct 7th, which peaked at 70%, which is really gross I must say].

I think it's worth noting that insofar as your average Palestinian has a choice [again, no actual elections, just polls] it is between PA -a government that is viewed as corrupt, authoritarian, unaccountable and doesn't actually get anything done - and Hamas a corrupt, authoritarian, unaccountable ‘government’, that does actually do something…something horrible, but something. It is not mere speculation to say that at least some Palestinians, living under oppressively conditions, see Hamas not necessarily as moral actors, but as a group actually actively resisting Israeli oppression. Is that an excuse for preferring to hypothetically vote for Hamas over PA? I wouldn’t say so, but it is context.

So, Like, I'm unaware of any polls that ask “Do you want to eradicate all of the Jews everywhere because you hate the Jews for being Jews—please check Yes–or–No”‘. Yes I know it’s absurd, unscientific and wildly unethical to put that on a poll, but it does illuminate an issue with over-extrapolating from polling data [or voting data for that matter]. If it isn't reasonable, ethical or scientific to ask such a question in a poll, I'd suggest that outside of maybe some very specific circumstances, poll design and conclusions; it isn’t reasonable, ethical or scientific to extrapolate a similarly specific conclusion from polling data. And that isn’t for nothing Fenris, if you intend to support the conceit that antisemitic genocide isn't just an aspect of what compels some of the Palestinian people, but the only meaningful motivating factor, then you can’t extrapolate it from polling data [or voting data for that matter]. It is crucial to the claim of antisemitism, racism or bigotry more generally–to make some reasonable determination that the hate is motivated by race or ethnicity, or some other non-fungible aspect of a person. For instance, I know you don’t like me, but the only reason I can rest at night with that knowledge is because I know that you don’t like me because I have a bad personality, and not because I'm black…I simply could not rest if I knew you hated me for the color of my skin as opposed to the content of my character.

So, what do the poll numbers tell us precisely? I’d argue that they don’t tell us precisely nothing, but they don't tell us anything precisely either. I’ve never been a fan of the blanket statements that “statistics lie”, or that “polls are useless”, but I do believe that both of these things can be used as the substance of claims that are too heavy for them to support. At the very most we can say ’support’ for Hamas is not monolithic, all encompassing, temporally consistent or consistently the majority. So I suppose depending on when and who and how you ask, and what you are willing to stake that claim on, you aren’t necessarily wrong on this particular part of your claim. However I would assert that the heavier the claims you build on top of this foundation, the weaker it becomes.

"If you read the Hamas charter, you'd know two things: It calls for the destruction of Israel via Jihad; and it calls for the murder of every Jew in the world."

I have read the Hamas charter{s}, twice now, most recently for this very post. Have you read both versions? I did. Hamas published a new one in 2017, which is still deeply hostile to Israel, but it does distinguish between Jews and Zionists, and no longer includes the 1988 charter language [taken from the hadith] that is usually cited as being about murdering Jews worldwide. I’m careful about how I say that because… I honestly found it to be a little opaque like most bible stuff that I read [I suppose I'm no better at spiritually discerning the word of Muhammad than I am at discerning the word of Abraham or Jesus], but I take it for granted that it means what the general consensus says it does–that is that it was about hunting down every single Jew and murdering them.

Is removing that language a sign that Hamas is moderating? Maybe. Maybe not. It could be a trick, a trap or a trifle, but pretending that Hamas’s 1988 charter is the one and only guiding text or the most recent is inaccurate…and I daresay misleading. I’m not saying that you should invite Hamas over for Purim brisket, but if your justification for claiming that the Palestinians want to kill every single Jew is based on ‘support’ for an organization whose charter language you're referencing was removed in 2017, then what is your justification for preferring the older language over the new? And even if you do prefer it, how do you justify the implication that the Palestinian people do as well? 

"So yes, the Palestinians as a society desire genocide."

And, the prestige.

I feel like I've pretty thoroughly laid out why I believe the previous premises were flawed. So, as you may have guessed, I don’t put much stock in your conclusion. I don’t think I'm being hyperbolic here, I genuinely believe that some folks [present company under suspicion] use this as justification for the means. Once you say a people “desire genocide,” anything becomes fair game, doesn’t it? Blockades, bombings, starvation, mass displacement—why not? They’re monsters, after all.

The most lamentable part of all of this is that with very minor reconfigurations, this whole pattern, the contours and shape of this argument…seems like something people would use to justify the persecution and murder of Jews, because it literally has, it is. Yes, I have the temerity to compare the Jews to the Palestinians, not because there is some 1 to 1 equivalence of actions, ideologies or behaviors, but because the tortured reasoning, selective search, interpretation and recall, the faulty premises and flawed conclusions are a repeated pattern in justifying everything from from ethnic cleansing to slavery to antisemitism...and so on.

You either don't know or don't care.

I don’t agree with the veracity of the statements you've chosen to make. I gave you my reasoning as clearly, and in as detailed a manner as I could muster right now. You are justifiably angry, hurt and afraid, I've always gotten that much. But you are not justified in using that anger, hurt and fear to torture the truth into bigotry. It won’t help anyone… least of all you.

[RabbiKnife]

When you permit murdering terrorists to control your land, I don't give a flying Leaping Lanny Poffo what your polls or elections demonstrate.  And yes, I know that there are tens of thousands of people claiming to be Christian in Palestine.

Actions talk, and bullshit walks.

Gaza is a cesspool of murderous barbarism.  If the residents of Gaza do not support Hamas, then it is far past time that they put their lives on the line to stop the murderous bastards and to drive them into the Mediterranean or into the arms of Allah, as they wish.

I weary of psychobabble and apologists for terroristic, murderous, barabaric assholes.  I don't like Hamas either.

My brother spent three years in Tel Aviv at the highest levels of the US State and Defense Department apparatus in Israel.  He briefed every day with IDF and Mossad and spent way too many days and nights in the field with them.  He still, over a year later back here in the states, wakes up in the middle of the night with PTSD and nightmares from what he actually experientially knows.

Anyone that attempts to create some false moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas is either evil, a fool, or both.

 

[Oscar_Kipling]

When you permit murdering terrorists to control your land, I don't give a flying Leaping Lanny Poffo what your polls or elections demonstrate.  And yes, I know that there are tens of thousands of people claiming to be Christian in Palestine.

Actions talk, and bullshit walks.

Gaza is a cesspool of murderous barbarism.  If the residents of Gaza do not support Hamas, then it is far past time that they put their lives on the line to stop the murderous bastards and to drive them into the Mediterranean or into the arms of Allah, as they wish.

I weary of psychobabble and apologists for terroristic, murderous, barabaric assholes.  I don't like Hamas either.

My brother spent three years in Tel Aviv at the highest levels of the US State and Defense Department apparatus in Israel.  He briefed every day with IDF and Mossad and spent way too many days and nights in the field with them.  He still, over a year later back here in the states, wakes up in the middle of the night with PTSD and nightmares from what he actually experientially knows.

Anyone that attempts to create some false moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas is either evil, a fool, or both.

Phew, lucky nobody is doing that huh? Else you might have an evil fool in your midst.

[RabbiKnife]

Fortunately, I have a lot of experience with evil fools.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Fortunately, I have a lot of experience with evil fools.

As they say, wherever you go, there you are.

[RabbiKnife]

Fortunately, I have a lot of experience with evil fools.

As they say, wherever you go, there you are.

How clever and erudite.

I’m rubber
You’re glue
Bounce off me and stick to you.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Fortunately, I have a lot of experience with evil fools.

As they say, wherever you go, there you are.

How clever and erudite.

I’m rubber
You’re glue
Bounce off me and stick to you.

Hey, you started it.

[Fenris]

This is an entirely different assertion.

Every other minority group in the world is allowed to assert when they feel that they are being discriminated against. You make an exception for Jews. "It's only antisemitism if I, a non Jew, determines that it is."

You're not a serious person.


 

Well, I think it does.

I don't care what you think. Jewish voters don't need your permission to feel threatened.

That being said, this isn't our first conversation about Israel or Jewish people, and I'm talking more about our body of work as a whole. The way you consistently read me on these topic indicates to me that you are very black and white on this issues.

Yes, I take it seriously when the public safety of Jews is being threatened. If only you took is as seriously. But hey, it isn't your ox being gored, eh?

You say I'm being oblivious, but I've consistently agreed that there was terrorism in the intifadas, as well as antisemitism, but not just that.

Why would there need to be anything else? Murder of civilians isn't enough for you? You're behaving like the pseudo historians who say "Sure Hitler murdered millions of Jews. But he also made the trains run on time! There was more to the situation than meets the eye. It was nuanced! Nuanced, I tell ya!!"

Most is not all

There were anti Nazi Germans, too. But we treated the state as though it was an enemy, which it was.  Or are we going back to "Nuanced! Nuanced, I tell ya!!"

This statement is indicative of your consistent positioning of Israel as the good guy who has tried everything to be fair and just

Because they have.

That you are unable to understand the concept of more than one party being accountable and culpable.

I understand the concept. When one side wants to commit genocide, it's hard to see the "nuance" though. Eh?

1936, Taking it all the way back to British colonialism, I'm a little surprised honestly. I think it is safe to presume that you are referring to the Peel plan. Characterizing this as simply a time that the Palestinians rejected an offer of statehood is disingenuously shallow, especially considering that the Zionists rejected it too.

The Peel plan is the best one to illustrate that it's not about Israel's borders, it's Israel's existence that the Palestinians are opposed to.

The Arabs refused this map:


Because they wouldn't tolerate a Jewish state, no matter how small. Nothing else needs be said.

It makes sense to you to characterize Palestinians as "a bunch of insane religious fundamentalist 7th century barbarians"?

That's what they're behaving like, yes. Or are we back to "Nuanced!!"?

You've shown clearly who you are too with this sweeping bigoted garbage.

It's kind of amazing. Even in Nazi Germany, there were gentiles who risked their lives to hide Jews. Not one Gaza resident has helped hide a Jew or heled a Jew escape. Not even when offered a substantial bounty on every Jewish hostage. But I'm bigoted for pointing this out. I guess I should work on my "Nuanced!!"