My Personal Challenge to Niveen Rasheed
The New York Times had a write-up about Niveen Rasheed, the leading scorer of Princeton University’s women’s basketball team. The Times took particular and primary interest in the fact that her teammate, friend and fellow Bay Areaite, Lauren Polansky, is Jewish.
Whoopty-do (sp?).
These Arab-Jew buddy stories are so stale and idiotic, and are only interesting for the ignorant. Sure, it rubs against false views that Palestinian qualms towards Israel are driven by anti-Jewish sentiments. But, they are so not. Every displaced people resents their usurpers. Israel is built on stolen Palestine, and the state’s founders dispossessed the Palestinians, straight-up. The Jewish people as a whole did not do this, as much as Israel claims to be the Jewish state. It is unfair to associate a whole people with one state’s historical crimes.
So why wouldn’t she be friends with Polansky?
The failure by too many Times readers to understand the gravity of the Palestinian narrative, makes such stories seem unique. What is funny is that such friendships in the United States are very common. Though Rasheed is politically-minded, Polansky cares less about Israel; and that is what makes it works. I only know a few politically-committed Palestinians who could actually be friendly with those who rabidly support a state build on their exile. Now that would be a story.
So as nice as Polansky sounds, Rasheed should get news coverage on her own. She is worthy without the frame of her — WOW — having a Jewish pal.
The only thing the press would like more than a Palestinian athlete with a Jewish friend, is a Palestinian athlete who wears a hijab and has a Jewish friend.
Frankly, I think this is not fair to her.
Rasheed is possibly the best Palestinian basketball player since Rony Seikaly.
That is, if she can beat me.
If you know Niveen Rasheed, tell her she has to play me one-on-one for a shot at Seikaly’s championship belt. Is she up for the KABOBfest challenge? Would she be able to stop my tomahawk lay-up move, or get around my hack-a-Niveen defense? Give me 6-7 months to train and I highly doubt it.
She couldn’t even beat me in a Jewish friends contest.
Hahahaha, word.
dude, are you macking on her?
Don't hate the (basketball) player…
Dude, no. I'm married.
And..?
And a cousin of mine. You can ask her on facebook.
I'm afraid to actually play her… ha ha. She seems nice too.
Sure, it rubs against false views that Palestinian qualms towards Israel are driven by anti-Jewish sentiments.
Care to explain the whole "Chaim Sugarman" schtick, then?
But, they are so not. Every displaced people resents their usurpers.
And in the good old days that problem was solved by committing atrocities upon the dispossessed until they either learned their place (usually slaves), left, or merely ceased to exist. Look at the founding of England for an example of that, though you can find examples anywhere including "Palestine" when the Arabs invaded and occupied 1400 years ago.
What's your point, Will? Of all the dispossessed people in the world today, what makes Palestinians special? What makes Palestinians so entitled? Answer: Arab nationalism, mutated into Islamism. It's going to be war to the bitter end, isn't it Will? And you'll fight the good fight to the last Palestinian, won't you?
…. The Arab "invasion" of Palestine actually allowed the ousted Jews to come back and live in Jerusalem…..
Why do you put "invasion" in quotes? There's nothing questionable about it. As for the Jews returning from exile, they famously didn't. Did you not know that? Most of the world's Jewish population resided in Europe, from the time the Romans expelled them to the time the Nazis killed 6 million of them in the death camps. If history was how you tell it, then Palestine would have never been "Arab" in the first place. And the whole Arab-Israeli conflict of today would have never happened.
And in the good old days that problem was solved by committing atrocities upon the dispossessed until they either learned their place (usually slaves), left, or merely ceased to exist. Look at the founding of England for an example of that, though you can find examples anywhere including "Palestine" when the Arabs invaded and occupied 1400 years ago.
What's your point, Will? Of all the dispossessed people in the world today, what makes Palestinians special? What makes Palestinians so entitled?
What makes the Palestinians different than say, the Britons, was that their dispossession occurred within living memory, has been actively and continuously resisted from day one, and occurred in the context of a new international and moral consensus that the world should never again tolerate wars of aggression or the ethnic cleansing and slaughter of whole peoples. What makes it different, is that their dispossession has been declared illegal under international law. There's no one running around carrying "Anglo-Normans out of Brittania" signs, so it would be rather difficult to return England to the Britons. But there are two actual, existing, active sides in the Palestinian debate: the robbers, and the robbed. Which side should civilized people support? I vote for supporting the victims, not the thieves. International law agrees with me.
Too bad we can't resurrect the medieval rules of war just to please you and Israel, eh, Craig? Back in the days of yore if you resisted you got wiped out. Those were the rules. The Zionists picked a bad time to commit their crimes and now they want their crimes grandfathered in under the old rules, or for the new rules to be modified or eliminated as needed to suit them.
It's always about them.
What makes the Palestinians different than say, the Britons, was that their dispossession occurred within living memory…
Which is irrelevant. Or are you claiming that when the last Palestinian dies who was alive in 1948, the conflict will be over? Lets see… somebody born in 1948 would be 62 right now. Clock is ticking! Better start cranking up that resistance!
…has been actively and continuously resisted from day one…
Pretty sure that there are still some Irish and Scottish (though the Welsh seem to have gone quite) nationalists fighting the resistance, too. And it's been 1500 years. Again, irrelevant.
…and occurred in the context of a new international and moral consensus that the world should never again tolerate wars of aggression or the ethnic cleansing and slaughter of whole peoples.
Well, now we are in agreement. I humbly submit that the only reason there are still Palestinians living in the Holy Land at all is because of that international moral consensus. In the old days they would have been slaughtered, and the survivors forcibly expelled. Same as what happened to the Jews 2000 years ago, on that same piece of land. And same as what happened to the Britons – there's a whole province in France that was settled by refugees from the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
What makes it different, is that their dispossession has been declared illegal under international law.
And how is that different from what's happened in Africa and in Asia during the same time period? Again, I ask what makes a few million Palestinians so special? So worthy of unique treatment, amongst all the world's dispossessed? It can't just be because they are Muslim, because the Kurds are also Muslim and nobody gives a rat's ass about Kurds. It can't be because they are Arab, because there are more Iraqi and Lebanese Arabs who have been driven into exile than there are Palestinians, during the same time period.
So, I'm still left with the assumption that the conflict lives on because of the agenda of Arab nationalism fused with Islamism. Or do you really believe that if an Saudi army had invaded the Holy Land in 1948 (that would give the Saudis all 3 of Islam's Holy sites so it isn't so far-fetched) that anyone would give a damn?
And despite all that, if it wasn't for Arab oil this conflict would have been resolved about 1950.
There's no one running around carrying "Anglo-Normans out of Brittania" signs, so it would be rather difficult to return England to the Britons.
Screw the Britons. They should return all the stolen property to the descendants of English exiles. Like me. My ancestors fought long and hard to take that land from the natives, and I want it back. I still have my house key. And if there's some South Asian family living there then too bad for them. They can go back where they came from. And then we can give America back to the Native Americans, right? If we're going to do this "right of return" thing then everyone should go back where they belong. Including anyone who is ethnically Arab, they can get their asses back to the Arabian peninsula where they came from. Right, Sean?
But there are two actual, existing, active sides in the Palestinian debate: the robbers, and the robbed. Which side should civilized people support? I vote for supporting the victims, not the thieves. International law agrees with me.
Actually, it doesn't. Only the settlements are illegal under international law, Sean. I suspect that if Israel abandoned all settlements tomorrow, that wouldn't be anywhere enough for you, would it?
Too bad we can't resurrect the medieval rules of war just to please you and Israel, eh, Craig? Back in the days of yore if you resisted you got wiped out. Those were the rules.
Those were the rules the Nazis had in play too, Sean. And that wasn't medieval times. And that's sorta how this whole Arab-Israeli conflict started, isn't it? The UN tried to rectify the injustice that had been done to Jews, and Arabs wouldn't have it.
The Zionists picked a bad time to commit their crimes and now they want their crimes grandfathered in under the old rules, or for the new rules to be modified or eliminated as needed to suit them.
Bullshit, Sean. You just admitted that the Israelis are not treating Palestinians in the same manner that the dispossessed have been treated in the past. Based on the way the Turks treated Armenians, and the way both the Turks and the Iraqis under Saddam treated the Kurds, how do you think Muslims would handle the Jews if the position of Israelis and Palestinians was reversed? Old school massacres and wholesale ethnic cleansing, right? You KNOW that's true, Sean.
What makes the Palestinians different than say, the Britons, was that their dispossession occurred within living memory…
Which is irrelevant. Or are you claiming that when the last Palestinian dies who was alive in 1948, the conflict will be over? Lets see… somebody born in 1948 would be 62 right now. Clock is ticking! Better start cranking up that resistance!
It is wholly relevant. Thefts have a way of becoming legitimized over the passage of time. I have tried to exxplain the concept of "adverse possession" to you before. Look it up.The Israelis understand this, which is why they seek to create "facts on the ground" by stealing Palestinian landing and building settlements on it that will be difficult to evacuate later on. There are living, breathing people and their direct descendants who can point to a specific spot in Palestine and prove that the land once belonged to them. There isn't a Jew alive who can point to a specific piece of land in Israel and prove that that spot belonged to his direct ancestors 2,000 years ago and even if he could, his ancestors have not used and possessed the land nor laid claim to it until the modern era. Thus they have lost any claim they may have had to it. No society in history has kept a large parcel of land vacant and out of use for decades let alone thousands of years pending its reclamation by the supposed descendants of some distant imagined owner. It is this bizarre 2,000-year-old claim that is irrelevant, not the modern Palestinian one which among others things, is based on continuous and historic use, occupancy and unbroken claims to the land in question for centuries.
…has been actively and continuously resisted from day one…
Pretty sure that there are still some Irish and Scottish (though the Welsh seem to have gone quite) nationalists fighting the resistance, too. And it's been 1500 years. Again, irrelevant.
You might notice that Ireland is an independant country now, based on the principles I mentioned, and the Scots have had a plebescite where they voted to remain part of the UK. Plaid Cymru is a political party in Wales that claim the right of the Wesh to be independent based on the principles of self-determination which are the foundation of all modern human rights laws. Modern Western law requires that a claim to land be actively pursued if there is a counter claim to the land. If someone else is occupying, using and developing your land, and you do not assert your right to ownership, in most cases you will lose the land, even if you are the lawful owner. Resistance need not be violent, but merely a continuing assertion of rights that have been abridged. There are similar laws and customs in most countries.
This is why Israel insists on the Palestinians recognizing Israel's "right to exist" rather than just Israel's existence. By recognizing Israel's right to exist, they are specifically repudiating any claim to their own land. Until they do this, Israel realizes that their claims to Palestinian land are dubious because the Israeli's have no original right and the Palestinians have at no time suspended their claim the way the Jews did 2,000 years ago.
The truth of the time was that the Zionist state, which came into being mainly as a consequence of pre-planned ethnic cleansing, had no right to exist and, more to the point, could have no right to exist UNLESS … Unless it was recognised and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state. In international law only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved. And that legitimacy was the only thing the Zionists could not and cannot take from the Palestinians by force.
http://pulsemedia.org/2009/11/04/the-un-legitimac...
Part 1
Thefts have a way of becoming legitimized over the passage of time. I have tried to exxplain the concept of "adverse possession" to you before.
The topic at hand was resistance, not "land theft". But lets talk about the land theft thing. I humbly submit that part is irrelevant for the because:
a) You seem to think the israelis are just going to pack their bags and vacate, when they clearly aren't
b) The "theft" was sanctioned by the UN, which you spent a lot of time touting the legitimacy of elsewhere in this thread. Therefore, it was not theft at all. By "international consensus" to use your terminology.
The rest of this comment is along the same lines. You're argumentation is based upon a fantasy, which requires either the UN/International community/whatever to reverses a decision it itself made 60+ years ago and somehow forcibly evict Jews from the Holy Land and declare Israel to be defunct, or for Palestinians and their Arab backers to destroy Israel militarily, even though past efforts along those lines have never failed to leave Palestinians in a worse predicament than they were in before.
You have anything realistic you want to talk about?
"The "theft" was sanctioned by the UN, which you spent a lot of time touting the legitimacy of elsewhere in this thread."
This is the part that Sean and his ilk will try and leave out…sometimes they will try and make it sound as if the UN and "international law" have been on their side all along, when they clearly have not. Israel's creation was sanctioned by the international community…just like Pakistan was when it was carved out of India. THAT conflict, I should add, unleashed FAR more bloodshed, ethnic cleansing, and mass migration than anything that has happened in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet for some reason, Pakistan's right to exist is seldom questioned. Why is that? Is it okay to have an "Islamic Republic" but not okay to have a "Jewish democracy"? I can't help but speculate that racism and bigotry play a major factor in this stunning hypocrisy.
Part 2
Well, now we are in agreement. I humbly submit that the only reason there are still Palestinians living in the Holy Land at all is because of that international moral consensus. In the old days they would have been slaughtered, and the survivors forcibly expelled. Same as what happened to the Jews 2000 years ago, on that same piece of land. And same as what happened to the Britons – there's a whole province in France that was settled by refugees from the Anglo-Saxon invasion.
Your point being what? The majority of Palestinians were in fact ethnically cleansed and this crime occurred in the context of international law and was, and is, a direct violation of it. They continue to be brutalized, massacred, and denied their fundamental human rights by Israel.
Screw the Britons. They should return all the stolen property to the descendants of English exiles. Like me. My ancestors fought long and hard to take that land from the natives, and I want it back. I still have my house key. And if there's some South Asian family living there then too bad for them. They can go back where they came from. And then we can give America back to the Native Americans, right? If we're going to do this "right of return" thing then everyone should go back where they belong. Including anyone who is ethnically Arab, they can get their asses back to the Arabian peninsula where they came from. Right, Sean?
You don't seem to realize you just deligitimized Zionist claims to Israel. Bravo!
Actually, it doesn't. Only the settlements are illegal under international law, Sean. I suspect that if Israel abandoned all settlements tomorrow, that wouldn't be anywhere enough for you, would it?
Obviously, they would also have to return the West Bank and Gaza in full, unmolested by checkpoints and fences, recognize the right of the Pelstinians to their own land,—not ot mention food and water—and then leave them the fuck alone or face sanctions. That would please me. If the Arabs try to steal Jewish land after all sides have come to an equitable agreement, you will see how fast I become pro-Israel. Until then, I side with the victims against the thieves.
Those were the rules the Nazis had in play too, Sean. And that wasn't medieval times. And that's sorta how this whole Arab-Israeli conflict started, isn't it? The UN tried to rectify the injustice that had been done to Jews, and Arabs wouldn't have it.
Try learning the history before spouting off, Craig. The confluct dates back to the the 1870's when the Zionists began arriving in Palestine with the stated intention of making themselves owners and master of the territory based on a Jewish majority that didn't exist.
Bullshit, Sean. You just admitted that the Israelis are not treating Palestinians in the same manner that the dispossessed have been treated in the past. Based on the way the Turks treated Armenians, and the way both the Turks and the Iraqis under Saddam treated the Kurds, how do you think Muslims would handle the Jews if the position of Israelis and Palestinians was reversed? Old school massacres and wholesale ethnic cleansing, right? You KNOW that's true, Sean.
I admitted no such thing. The Israelis are still applying the Nazi rules of might makes right, collective punishment, racist discrimination and racist supremacy, massacre and ethnic cleansing. They have not been as brutally efficient as the Nazis were, obviously, but they are certainly guilty of repeatedly violating the principles of international law and human rights and committing war crimes. The differences between Zionism and Nazism are ones of quantity or criminality, not quality.
Your point being what? The majority of Palestinians were in fact ethnically cleansed and this crime occurred in the context of international law and was, and is, a direct violation of it.
No, they weren't "ethnically cleansed". They left a war zone as refugees. Refugees are not against international law, Sean. As for the war that caused all the refugees, teh creation of the state of Israel was sanctioned under international law, and the war was started by Arabs who went against the will of the UN. It boggles my mind that you can simultaneously blame the Jews for starting the war when they didn't, and claim that international law back then was on the side of Arabs when it wasn't.
You don't seem to realize you just deligitimized Zionist claims to Israel. Bravo!
Am I supposed to care about Zionist claims to Israel, Sean?
…recognize the right of the Pelstinians to their own land…
That's the catch, isn't it? How do you define "their own land"? HAMAS defines it as everything. I suspect that your bottom line is similar – that's the way it looked in your other comment.
Try learning the history before spouting off, Craig. The confluct dates back to the the 1870's when the Zionists began arriving in Palestine with the stated intention of making themselves owners and master of the territory based on a Jewish majority that didn't exist.
So what?
The Israelis are still applying the Nazi rules of might makes right, collective punishment, racist discrimination and racist supremacy, massacre and ethnic cleansing.
That's complete lunacy, Sean. Does anyone even pay attention when you start talking that way?
No, they weren't "ethnically cleansed". They left a war zone as refugees. Refugees are not against international law, Sean. As for the war that caused all the refugees, teh creation of the state of Israel was sanctioned under international law, and the war was started by Arabs who went against the will of the UN. It boggles my mind that you can simultaneously blame the Jews for starting the war when they didn't, and claim that international law back then was on the side of Arabs when it wasn't.
There is no serious historian today, even in Israel, who denies the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed. Some left on their own, but the rest were driven out by force and through a campaign of terror. Irregardless of the reasons they left, they were denied the "right of return" which is not just a phrase, but is an actual right guarnateed to refugees under interntaional law. The denial of this right constitutes defacto ethnic cleansing along with the actual expulsions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
The war was started when Jewish forces began to massacre Palestinians and ethnically cleanse them from cities like Haifa that were supposed to be in the Arab side of the partition. These events occurred a full month before the Arabs declared war, and the Arab attacks were a half-hearted response to these attacks.
Am I supposed to care about Zionist claims to Israel, Sean?
If you ever wish to graduate beyond your amateur status as an Israeli apologist, you might want to familiarize yourself with Zionist arguments.
That's the catch, isn't it? How do you define "their own land"? HAMAS defines it as everything. I suspect that your bottom line is similar – that's the way it looked in your other comment.
No they don't. They have clearly said they will recognize the existence of Israel in exchange for Israel's recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, a request which is consistent with UN Resolutions, the Arab league plan, and the international consensus outside the US and Israel.
Try learning the history before spouting off, Craig. The confluct dates back to the the 1870's when the Zionists began arriving in Palestine with the stated intention of making themselves owners and master of the territory based on a Jewish majority that didn't exist.
So what?
So stop spouting off before you get your facts straight, that's what's "so what." It gets tiresome responding to your ignorance.
The Israelis are still applying the Nazi rules of might makes right, collective punishment, racist discrimination and racist supremacy, massacre and ethnic cleansing.
That's complete lunacy, Sean. Does anyone even pay attention when you start talking that way?
Of course it's complete lunacy to someone like you who never met a fact you didn't like. But for people who actually understand the situation know that Israel is a racist apartheid country with a racist supremacist philosophy as its fundamental ideological basis, and that Israel has engaged in ethnic cleansing. collective punishment and massacres of the Palestinians. Try reading the Goldstone Report.
http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/golds...
There is no serious historian today, even in Israel, who denies the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed.
And I'm sure that a historian is only a "serious historian" if Sean or his coreligionists say so, right? I wonder how many of YOUR "serious" historians are held in high regard by their colleagues?
The war was started when Jewish forces began to massacre Palestinians…
That's according to your "serious" historians, right? Because I've never seen any such claim in the formal histories of the conflict.
If you ever wish to graduate beyond your amateur status as an Israeli apologist, you might want to familiarize yourself with Zionist arguments.
I bet everyone who objects to your propaganda is an "Israeli apologist", right? And before you deny being a propagandist, just look how you are qualifying all your claims by use of pejoratives like "serious historians". Who does that? Somebody who is pimping falsehoods and wants to preemptively defend them.
Sorry I don't have time to reply to the rest. The part where you were talking about "serious historians" and then threw up a wikipedia link was too much for me to bear. You do realize that even wikipedia's version of the Arab-Israeli conflict doesn't support your claims, right? Well, actually you probably don't realize that but whatever….
And I'm sure that a historian is only a "serious historian" if Sean or his coreligionists say so, right? I wonder how many of YOUR "serious" historians are held in high regard by their colleagues?
A serious historian is one who, at a minimum, doesn't believe that the version of Israel's history that reads like a rejected script for a John Ford cowboy movie is likely to be an accurate depiction of reality. A serious historian is one who realizes there is an Arab side to the story, and not just an Israeli one.
That's according to your "serious" historians, right? Because I've never seen any such claim in the formal histories of the conflict.
Really? What "formal" histories would those be, some Zionist hate site? The Deir Yassin massacre and the ethnic cleansing of Haifa all occurred one month before the Arabs declared war.
If you ever wish to graduate beyond your amateur status as an Israeli apologist, you might want to familiarize yourself with Zionist arguments.
I bet everyone who objects to your propaganda is an "Israeli apologist", right? And before you deny being a propagandist, just look how you are qualifying all your claims by use of pejoratives like "serious historians". Who does that? Somebody who is pimping falsehoods and wants to preemptively defend them.
Kind of like how you reject everything I write as "propaganda" and "lunacy" without examining the facts.
Sorry I don't have time to reply to the rest. The part where you were talking about "serious historians" and then threw up a wikipedia link was too much for me to bear. You do realize that even wikipedia's version of the Arab-Israeli conflict doesn't support your claims, right? Well, actually you probably don't realize that but whatever….
I gave you a link to an article about what the "right of return" means under international law, not the Wikipedia's version of the Arab Israeli conflict.
…and occurred in the context of a new international and moral consensus that the world should never again tolerate wars of aggression or the ethnic cleansing and slaughter of whole peoples.
Too bad we can't resurrect the medieval rules…
By the way, Sean, I object to you saying there's an "international consensus" on such matters. There is only a Western consensus. Everyone else, from Eastern Europeans to Asians to Africans and even Latin Americans has no problem whatsoever with taking land by force and dispossessing the rightful owners. And I therefore also object to you using the word "medieval" (which only refers to a specific time period, and is specifically regarding Western Europe) to describe barbarities that are still in common practice in most of the world right now.
You're very "Western" centric, aren't you? Time to get beyond that, because the Western World is in decline. The only thing still propping it up at all is America. As America goes, so goes the West.
It is not a Western consensus, but an international one. The UN Charter has been ratified and is binding on most of the nations of the world. Most nations are signatories to the Geneva Convention and Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" which states:
"1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and
exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is
contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to
the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that
right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue
their economic, social and cultural development."
The term "medieval" is not Euro-centric. It has been used to describe Japan, China and the Islamic kingdoms and is a generic term for the middle period of a nation or culture's history. It is also a synonym for primitive and barbaric.
You're very "Western" centric, aren't you? Time to get beyond that, because the Western World is in decline. The only thing still propping it up at all is America. As America goes, so goes the West.
What bullshit. If the Western world is in decline, it's due to the actions of pro fascist elites like the neocons. They are more of a threat to our liberties and Enlightenment ideals than anything else because the Straussians specifically repudiate these ideals even while wrapping themselves in the flag to carry out their crimes. All that bogus democracy talk and holding the line against the Muslim infidels bullshit is for racist morons like you.
God bless you Sean2009.
Thanks, I appreciate that, Will.
It is not a Western consensus, but an international one. The UN Charter has been ratified and is binding on most of the nations of the world.
More fantasy talk *sigh*
If the Western world is in decline, it's due to the actions of pro fascist elites like the neocons.
Whatever that means. I blame the left – specifically, socialists. They are the newcomers on the scene, and the west started down the tubes just about when they started showing up, in the 1960s. Is this another one you want to argue your fantasy scenarios on?
If the Western world is in decline, it's due to the actions of pro fascist elites like the neocons.
Whatever that means. I blame the left – specifically, socialists. They are the newcomers on the scene, and the west started down the tubes just about when they started showing up, in the 1960s. Is this another one you want to argue your fantasy scenarios on?
You might note that it was FDR, hardly a "socialist" or even much of a leftist by any means, that primarily kept this country from going fascist or communist during the Great Depression when pretty much the rest of the planet had done so. Thank God we didn't have a moron like Bush in charge, whose grandfather helped finance the Nazis and was part of a group of banksters and industrialists who were caught plotting a coup d'etat against the Roosevelt Administration in an effort to thwart the New Deal and impose a fascist dictatorship in America. Roosevelt was an aristocrat who realized his class was doomed if he didn't throw a bone to the people. Bush would have withheld that bone. It is interesting that the neocons whose agenda you praise were primarily ex-Trotskyists who became fascists, not like there was ever much difference with these types. They are chameleons who adapt any color—even red, white and blue—to pursue their agenda of unchecked power for the elite.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20070...
Sean, did you see the video I posted to you the other day? The video of your friends descending on San Fran?
"It is interesting that the neocons whose agenda you praise were primarily ex-Trotskyists who became fascists, not like there was ever much difference with these types."
Where do you come up with the stuff?! Let me guess…they are linked to communism because some "neocons" are Jewish, right? And we all know that communism was a Jewish conspiracy…well, you believe so, at least.
Why don't you actually look up the history of the neocon movement before spouting off with your usual knee-jerk anti-Semitism canards.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061303.html
Do you really imagine shouting "anti-Semitism" has an effect on any sane person anymore?
No, why don't you enlighten us.
"And you'll fight the good fight to the last Palestinian, won't you?"
They'll fight it to the last Iranian too, unfortunately, even if Iranians are trying to focus on their own freedom. Just look at this…these Palestinians in Ramallah ignored the Iranian freedom movement and decided to blissfully continue their own "KABOBfest".
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/29/...
Last Friday in the West Bank city of Ramallah, where old men sat at sidewalk coffee shops with cards and hookahs, and the city's upper crust sipped cappuccinos to trance music in upscale eateries, Palestinians spoke of the dollar's fluctuations, Israel's latest military activities, and even Michael Jackson's passing. They touched on nearly everything — with one notable exception: the volcanic protests in Iran. Whereas the drama on the streets of Tehran has captivated the world, here, the news was hardly noticed. "We have bigger problems of our own," was the collective reply from one cafe…
…Even as a muted debate about the election emerges, one would be hard-pressed to find a Palestinian who wouldn't favor Ahmadinejad's fiery denunciations of Israel to a quieter, perhaps more democratic, Iran. Palestinians favor nearly anyone who is anti-Israel. They see Ahmadinejad as a leader who doles out social and economic support to poor villagers in his own country — and to Palestinians through financial and military aid to Hamas. Palestinians get immense satisfaction from seeing their bully, Israel, get bullied by Iran. So long as Ahmadinejad is around, there's little chance that Israel will attack Iran, they argue — "because Iran is strong," as the popular mantra goes.
It's no surprise, then, that the theory of Western-orchestrated protests is the most common explanation for the events in Tehran on the Palestinian street, particularly among the young or those who cannot see further back in Iranian history than the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Ibrahim Shamsani, a 30-year-old merchant in Ramallah, has been closely following the post-election uproar in Iran that has left tens of reformist protesters dead. "No problem. Let them finish off every one who is against Ahmadinejad," he says.
Takes the whole "one-track mind" thing to a new level, doesn't it? I'm never going to be able to forget the video of mobs of Palestinians celebrating as the twin towers fell. It replays in my mind every time a Palestinian activist starts the "poor me" routine. How can such a vengeful and merciless people expect sympathy, from anyone? I'm willing to give em another chance if they work for it, but that's about all I can manage.
Wow!
A Palestinian and a Jew are friends?
Wow again!
I am so sorry I ever asked for a boycott of Israel.
I never knew that the Palestinians' problems were solved– but apparently they are!
The boycott is off!
She couldn’t even beat me in a Jewish friends contest.
You realize you don't get to count "Chaim Sugarman", right? :p
if goes hij, she'll start getting way more news coverage.
plus her parents know how to play it smart to the NYT: make sure they get the "we love peace" soundbite in there.
Michael Jackson ended up being totally among the finest performers of all time. I still can’t believe he’s gone.