|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 8, 2014 18:19:25 GMT
Presumably, your reference to "Christians" supporting "Zionism" is intended as a slap in the face of those chiliasts who believe that the Temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem, and the Jews returned there en masse, before Christ returns to Earth. (Although that is not my own belief, I certainly do not harbor the rancor for these folks that you seem to feel toward them.) And your imputing "tyranny"and "oppress[ion]" of the Arabs "living in the West Bank and Gaza" to the Jews is simply astounding! The fact is that there is no other Middle Eastern country that allows Arabs (or anyone else, for that matter) as much freedom and as high of a standard of living as Israel does. (If you can think of an exception to this, please state it now.)
No, I'm referring to American Christians that believe European Jews had a right to violate the sovereignty of "Palestinians" that lived in "Palestine" at the end of WW I based upon a BS claim of "hereditary rights" from 2000 years ago. Not a single Eurpoean Jew can trace their family lineage to ancient Palestine and we know today that few European Jews have any middle Eastern roots at all. The European Jews had no right to Palestine, ever. They didn't come from Palestine and they didn't belong in Palestine. It was not their homeland and had never been their homeland.
You really sum it up when you state the Zionist Jews of Israel "allow" the Palestinians to have anything. What friggin' right do the Zionists have to "allow" and "disallow" anything to the Arabs in the occupied territories? We should note that there's a lot of "disallowing" by the Zionists in a territory that doesn't belong to them at all. The Zionist bulldozers work non-stop in the occupied territories at "disallowing" by destroying Arab homes forcing them into the streets to allow more illegal immigration from Israel. The Arabs live in poverty throughout the occupied territories and we can see how benevolent the Zionists of Israel are. They gave "Gaza" to the Arabs but it is a desert with virtually no water and the Israel's don't allow enough water into Gaza to meet the basic needs of those living there. The residents in Gaza are living in desperate state of humanitarian crisis because that's all the Zionist Israelis "allow" them.
Today the hard core Zionists are basically telling the Arabs to GTFO of Palestine completely and go to one of the other 21 Arab countries to live and they're using every tool at their disposal to make this happen from economic oppression, denial of natural resourses, evictions and even to murder and intimidation.
There is no prospect of peace between the Israeli Zionists (that control the Israeli government) and the Palestinians because the Zionist don't want peace. They want the "Damn Arab Muslims" out of Palestine. That has always been the goal of the Zionists that hasn't waivered once since the end of WW I.
You have been rather selective in your allusion to my remarks. I did not speak merely of the Israelis "allow[ing]" the Arabs freedom and a high standard of living; rather, I noted that this applies to "anyone else" living in Israel (including the Jews), also. You are really fighting against a strawman, with your continual references to "hereditary rights." Most of us who believe that the state of Israel has a right to continue to exist, as a homeland for the Jews, do not see it as a matter of "hereditary rights"; rather, we see it as a homeland for a people (the Jews) who have been persecuted for millenia; with the very apotheosis of this persecution being the Holocaust. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 9, 2014 14:37:22 GMT
Oh, I would, indeed, classify what you are proposing as class warfare. (If you wish to equalize tax burdens "relative to income" by lowering the taxes on the middle class--not really "[t]he poor," as they typically pay no federal income tax, and may even receive an Earned Income Tax Credit--that is fine. But if you wish to achieve this end by increasing taxes on some Americans, that is not so fine, in my opinion.) And your enthusiasm for the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is, essentially, just an embrace of LBJ's utopian (and failed) "War on Poverty."
You've read my proposal for income taxes on this thread and agreed in principle with it. It is the same basic proposal that Sen Rand Paul made except I treat every dollar of incone identically regardless of source where Sen Paul believes that a dollar of income from investments somehow spends differently than a dollar of income from labor (i.e. he excluded investment incomes from his tax proposal). As you're also aware I eliminated all income tax credits and personal deductions and replaced them with a tax exemption for all American households. When everyone has the identical tax provisions based upon an exemption and tax rate above the exemption there is no class warfare. It is a "fair tax" proposal for all Americans as all Americans are treated identically under the provisions of the tax code.
The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 was a bold plan where some of it succeeded and some of it failed. Better education and job training for the economically disadvantaged has certainly been successful and would have been more successful with more funding. Attempts to reduce racial and gender discrimination in employment have been less successful and perhaps not successful at all.
I would ask you to think back to post WW II America. After proving themselves in industry during WW II women were once again delegated to the role of "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen" at the end of the war. There were virtually no women in the construction and manufacturing industries. Virtually no women in engineering positions. Few women were doctors as they were expected to be nurses instead (and few men in the nursing professions). We had gone back to "traditional" roles in employment for women that were highly limited almost to the point of what it was for women in the wild west where about all they could do laundry, be a teacher, or be a whore with no other employment available. We still haven't broken down the employment barriers for women today but we're much better off than we were in the 1950's and 1960's. We've been far less successful in addressing racial discrimination in employment but it was a goal of the War on Poverty.
What I find discouraging today is that there is a "War Against" that which was successful based upon the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Republicans are waging a war against education and job training for the poor today. On the one hand they say that the economically disadvantabed need to educate themselves and obtain job training to improve their financial condition but then fight against the means for the economically disadvantaged to obtain that education and job training. That makes no sense at all. Republicans give lip service to equality of economic opportunity but then fight for laws that allow discrimination in employment. That makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 9, 2014 15:05:30 GMT
You have been rather selective in your allusion to my remarks. I did not speak merely of the Israelis "allow[ing]" the Arabs freedom and a high standard of living; rather, I noted that this applies to "anyone else" living in Israel (including the Jews), also. You are really fighting against a strawman, with your continual references to "hereditary rights." Most of us who believe that the state of Israel has a right to continue to exist, as a homeland for the Jews, do not see it as a matter of "hereditary rights"; rather, we see it as a homeland for a people (the Jews) who have been persecuted for millenia; with the very apotheosis of this persecution being the Holocaust.
Aren't the Arabs entitled to the homeland of their birth?
The goal of Zionism since the end of WW I has been to take away the homeland of the Arabs living in Palestine by any means necessary. The historical means for accomplishing this has been terrorism, war, and oppression. The Irgun, aided by the Haganah, was a paramilitary terrorist organization prior to 1948 responsible for numerous terrorist attacks including the bombing of the King David Hotel. Since 1948, originally lead by former members of the Irgun and Haganah, the political leaders of Israel and continued to embrace the ultimate goal of eradicating the Arabs from all of Palestine to make all of Palestine the "Homeland" of the Jewish People.
There is only one reason today that there cannot be peace between the Arabs in Palestine and Israel. To accept peace the Zionists in Israel would be required to give up the ultimate goal of taking over all of Palestine and making it the Jewish homeland. People like Netayahu have no intention of giving up that ultimate goal of total domination of Palestine and they will resort to whatever means necesssary to accomplish that and oppose anything that prevents attaining the ultimate goal. The actions of Israel since 1967 reveal exactly what that war was about. It was about taking military control of Palestine to allow Jewish immigration into the Palestinians territories with the ultimate goal of securing that land for Israel. The Israeli immigration into E Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Golan Heights that was highly prized by Israel in 1967 was the goal of the 6-Day War. The fact that this immigration violated Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions (that Israel is a treaty member of) had no bearing on the actions of the Zionists to take possession of more of Palestine with the ultimate goal of forcing the Arabs completely out of all of Palestine.
No, the Zionists in Israel cannot accept peace with the Palestinians because that would end any hope forcing the Arabs out of their homeland and making it the homeland of the Jews. The Zionists can only achieve their goals through war and tyranny which has always been their plan from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 10, 2014 18:26:52 GMT
Oh, I would, indeed, classify what you are proposing as class warfare. (If you wish to equalize tax burdens "relative to income" by lowering the taxes on the middle class--not really "[t]he poor," as they typically pay no federal income tax, and may even receive an Earned Income Tax Credit--that is fine. But if you wish to achieve this end by increasing taxes on some Americans, that is not so fine, in my opinion.) And your enthusiasm for the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is, essentially, just an embrace of LBJ's utopian (and failed) "War on Poverty."
You've read my proposal for income taxes on this thread and agreed in principle with it. It is the same basic proposal that Sen Rand Paul made except I treat every dollar of incone identically regardless of source where Sen Paul believes that a dollar of income from investments somehow spends differently than a dollar of income from labor (i.e. he excluded investment incomes from his tax proposal). As you're also aware I eliminated all income tax credits and personal deductions and replaced them with a tax exemption for all American households. When everyone has the identical tax provisions based upon an exemption and tax rate above the exemption there is no class warfare. It is a "fair tax" proposal for all Americans as all Americans are treated identically under the provisions of the tax code.
The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 was a bold plan where some of it succeeded and some of it failed. Better education and job training for the economically disadvantaged has certainly been successful and would have been more successful with more funding. Attempts to reduce racial and gender discrimination in employment have been less successful and perhaps not successful at all.
I would ask you to think back to post WW II America. After proving themselves in industry during WW II women were once again delegated to the role of "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen" at the end of the war. There were virtually no women in the construction and manufacturing industries. Virtually no women in engineering positions. Few women were doctors as they were expected to be nurses instead (and few men in the nursing professions). We had gone back to "traditional" roles in employment for women that were highly limited almost to the point of what it was for women in the wild west where about all they could do laundry, be a teacher, or be a whore with no other employment available. We still haven't broken down the employment barriers for women today but we're much better off than we were in the 1950's and 1960's. We've been far less successful in addressing racial discrimination in employment but it was a goal of the War on Poverty.
What I find discouraging today is that there is a "War Against" that which was successful based upon the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Republicans are waging a war against education and job training for the poor today. On the one hand they say that the economically disadvantabed need to educate themselves and obtain job training to improve their financial condition but then fight against the means for the economically disadvantaged to obtain that education and job training. That makes no sense at all. Republicans give lip service to equality of economic opportunity but then fight for laws that allow discrimination in employment. That makes no sense at all.
Can you offer an example, please, of Republicans in general (not just some fringe wacko) favoring "discrimination in employment"? Note: Merely opposing the use of taxpayers' money to fund job-training programs does not equate to favoring "discrimination in employment." Although I am not a big supporter of Sen. Rand Paul--I do like some of his views, but not others--I will defend him to this extent, anyway: I do not believe that he ever suggested that some dollars "spend differently" than other dollars. Rather, he appears to believe that some dollars should be treated differently for tax purposes; which, interestingly enough, is what many on the left also believe (see, for instance, tax credits.) I really do not know how you could assert that there are "[f]ew" women today who are doctors. My own primary-care physician is a woman (Dr. Elizabeth Bray). And some of my late wife's specialists were also women. It is just very commonplace nowadays. Like so many on the left, you seem to believe that failed programs might have been more successful, if only more money had been thrown at them... |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 10, 2014 18:35:01 GMT
You have been rather selective in your allusion to my remarks. I did not speak merely of the Israelis "allow[ing]" the Arabs freedom and a high standard of living; rather, I noted that this applies to "anyone else" living in Israel (including the Jews), also. You are really fighting against a strawman, with your continual references to "hereditary rights." Most of us who believe that the state of Israel has a right to continue to exist, as a homeland for the Jews, do not see it as a matter of "hereditary rights"; rather, we see it as a homeland for a people (the Jews) who have been persecuted for millenia; with the very apotheosis of this persecution being the Holocaust.
Aren't the Arabs entitled to the homeland of their birth?
The goal of Zionism since the end of WW I has been to take away the homeland of the Arabs living in Palestine by any means necessary. The historical means for accomplishing this has been terrorism, war, and oppression. The Irgun, aided by the Haganah, was a paramilitary terrorist organization prior to 1948 responsible for numerous terrorist attacks including the bombing of the King David Hotel. Since 1948, originally lead by former members of the Irgun and Haganah, the political leaders of Israel and continued to embrace the ultimate goal of eradicating the Arabs from all of Palestine to make all of Palestine the "Homeland" of the Jewish People.
There is only one reason today that there cannot be peace between the Arabs in Palestine and Israel. To accept peace the Zionists in Israel would be required to give up the ultimate goal of taking over all of Palestine and making it the Jewish homeland. People like Netayahu have no intention of giving up that ultimate goal of total domination of Palestine and they will resort to whatever means necesssary to accomplish that and oppose anything that prevents attaining the ultimate goal. The actions of Israel since 1967 reveal exactly what that war was about. It was about taking military control of Palestine to allow Jewish immigration into the Palestinians territories with the ultimate goal of securing that land for Israel. The Israeli immigration into E Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Golan Heights that was highly prized by Israel in 1967 was the goal of the 6-Day War. The fact that this immigration violated Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions (that Israel is a treaty member of) had no bearing on the actions of the Zionists to take possession of more of Palestine with the ultimate goal of forcing the Arabs completely out of all of Palestine.
No, the Zionists in Israel cannot accept peace with the Palestinians because that would end any hope forcing the Arabs out of their homeland and making it the homeland of the Jews. The Zionists can only achieve their goals through war and tyranny which has always been their plan from the beginning.
You have a lot of talking points here; yet you fail to ever address what I said, viz.: Those living in Israel--including both the Jews and the Palestinians--have a much higher standard of living and more freedom that those living elsewhere in the Middle East. I do, however, agree with one thing that you said: There is, indeed, "only one reason today that there cannot be peace between the Arabs in Palestine and Israel." But I do not agree as to what that reason is, specifically. (The reason that I would cite is the late Yasser Arafat's refusal of a peace deal in December 2000.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 11, 2014 10:45:53 GMT
You have a lot of talking points here; yet you fail to ever address what I said, viz.: Those living in Israel--including both the Jews and the Palestinians--have a much higher standard of living and more freedom that those living elsewhere in the Middle East. I do, however, agree with one thing that you said: There is, indeed, "only one reason today that there cannot be peace between the Arabs in Palestine and Israel." But I do not agree as to what that reason is, specifically. (The reason that I would cite is the late Yasser Arafat's refusal of a peace deal in December 2000.)
We're not addressing those living in Israel. We're addressing those living outside of Israel under the tyrannical Israeli military control in the occupied territories.
The Camp David summit failed to reach an agreement on several key issues.
"The talks ultimately failed to reach agreement on the final status issues:
Territory
Jerusalem and the Temple Mount
Refugees and Palestinian right of return
Security arrangements
Settlements"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#The_negotiations
The Palestinians refused to allow Israel to retain the illegally occupied territories in violation of the provisions of UNSC Resolution 242. The acquistion of territory by war is inadmissible (noted in UNSC 242). Israel cannot be rewarded for it's "land grab" in 1967. Israel has denied that the 6-Day War was about the acquisition of territory (i.e. a land grab) and the only way it can prove that is by being willing to withdraw. If the 6-Day War wasn't a land grab then Israel should be willing to withdraw from that territory.
The issue of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are resolved if Israel withdraws to it's 1967 border.
The Palestinians have dropped demands for a peace accord to include the "refugees and Palestinian right of return" stating that this is a matter that should and/or can be addressed once peace is established.
The Palestinians have proposed a mutually acceptable "security arrangment" where a neutral military force, preferrably NATO, occupy a buffer between Israel and Palestine. The Camp David Israeli proposal was that Israel would provide a security force but that was unacceptable as it offered no security to Palestine whatsoever. Only a neutral military force can provide mutual security for both Israel and Palestine. That is what the Palestinians propose today.
To my knowledge there are no current provisions related to the settlements except that those living in the Israeli settlements would fall under the authority and protection of the Palestinian government once the Israeli military departs. I would assume most Israeli citizens would voluntarily choose to return to Israel but they should not be forced to do so.
There wasn't a mutually acceptable peace deal being offered in 2000 but there is one that both sides can and should agree to today. It ensures peace and security for both nations based upon the one proposal that would actually bring peace between the two people.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 11, 2014 11:07:21 GMT
Can you offer an example, please, of Republicans in general (not just some fringe wacko) favoring "discrimination in employment"? Note: Merely opposing the use of taxpayers' money to fund job-training programs does not equate to favoring "discrimination in employment." Although I am not a big supporter of Sen. Rand Paul--I do like some of his views, but not others--I will defend him to this extent, anyway: I do not believe that he ever suggested that some dollars "spend differently" than other dollars. Rather, he appears to believe that some dollars should be treated differently for tax purposes; which, interestingly enough, is what many on the left also believe (see, for instance, tax credits.) I really do not know how you could assert that there are "[f]ew" women today who are doctors. My own primary-care physician is a woman (Dr. Elizabeth Bray). And some of my late wife's specialists were also women. It is just very commonplace nowadays. Like so many on the left, you seem to believe that failed programs might have been more successful, if only more money had been thrown at them...
Republicans, while giving lip-service to economic equality, oppose legislation that would enable those discriminated against to bring a lawsuit against the employers. Simply having a law that states, "Thou shalt not discriminate" does not prevent the discrimination as it provides no recourse for those discriminated against. For example the Republicans opposed the Lilly-Ledbetter Act in 2009 which attempted to make it easier for women to file lawsuits based upon wage discrimination. If there was a real problem with the Lilly-Ledbetter Act it was that it didn't provide enough legal groundwork for wage discrimination lawsuits.
My statement was that in the 1950's and 1960's there were few women doctors (and few male nurses) based upon the belief that a woman's place was "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen" (that many social-conservative still believe in today). The social revolution of the 1960's, including support to a limited degree by LBJ's War on Poverty, that was very liberal and progressive in nature, resulted in a lot of changes to the "traditional" (social conservative) role of women in the workforce. There is still long ways to go in breaking down the social barriers to employment for women today but a small step forward was made in the past which is predominately why you and your wife have a woman doctor and specialists today.
The education programs and job training programs that originated under LBJ were not failed programs and were even embraced by many Republicans including former President Ronald Reagan. They were successful programs that would have unquestionably been more successful with more funding. I don't support throwing away money on failed government programs but when we have successful programs then they should be funded to maximize the success.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 12, 2014 19:04:20 GMT
"prove You have a lot of talking points here; yet you fail to ever address what I said, viz.: Those living in Israel--including both the Jews and the Palestinians--have a much higher standard of living and more freedom that those living elsewhere in the Middle East. I do, however, agree with one thing that you said: There is, indeed, "only one reason today that there cannot be peace between the Arabs in Palestine and Israel." But I do not agree as to what that reason is, specifically. (The reason that I would cite is the late Yasser Arafat's refusal of a peace deal in December 2000.)
We're not addressing those living in Israel. We're addressing those living outside of Israel under the tyrannical Israeli military control in the occupied territories.
The Camp David summit failed to reach an agreement on several key issues.
"The talks ultimately failed to reach agreement on the final status issues:
Territory
Jerusalem and the Temple Mount
Refugees and Palestinian right of return
Security arrangements
Settlements"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit#The_negotiations
The Palestinians refused to allow Israel to retain the illegally occupied territories in violation of the provisions of UNSC Resolution 242. The acquistion of territory by war is inadmissible (noted in UNSC 242). Israel cannot be rewarded for it's "land grab" in 1967. Israel has denied that the 6-Day War was about the acquisition of territory (i.e. a land grab) and the only way it can prove that is by being willing to withdraw. If the 6-Day War wasn't a land grab then Israel should be willing to withdraw from that territory.
The issue of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount are resolved if Israel withdraws to it's 1967 border.
The Palestinians have dropped demands for a peace accord to include the "refugees and Palestinian right of return" stating that this is a matter that should and/or can be addressed once peace is established.
The Palestinians have proposed a mutually acceptable "security arrangment" where a neutral military force, preferrably NATO, occupy a buffer between Israel and Palestine. The Camp David Israeli proposal was that Israel would provide a security force but that was unacceptable as it offered no security to Palestine whatsoever. Only a neutral military force can provide mutual security for both Israel and Palestine. That is what the Palestinians propose today.
To my knowledge there are no current provisions related to the settlements except that those living in the Israeli settlements would fall under the authority and protection of the Palestinian government once the Israeli military departs. I would assume most Israeli citizens would voluntarily choose to return to Israel but they should not be forced to do so.
There wasn't a mutually acceptable peace deal being offered in 2000 but there is one that both sides can and should agree to today. It ensures peace and security for both nations based upon the one proposal that would actually bring peace between the two people.
Your definition of Israel (excluding what you refer to as "the occupied territories") differs significantly with what any map shows. And your insistence that Israel should "prove" that the 1967 war was not "a land grab" by relinquishing the territory won in this war is (presumably) based upon your contention that Israel precipitated that war. I entirely disagree; and I believe that the victor in a purely defensive war should not be asked to "prove" its goodwill by relinquishing the territory won in that war. It is a very good thing that the Palestinians have rescinded their demand for a "right of return," as that would have effectively overwhelmed Israel, and its Jewish character. But it was a demand of Yasser Arafat, back in 2000. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 12, 2014 19:22:01 GMT
Can you offer an example, please, of Republicans in general (not just some fringe wacko) favoring "discrimination in employment"? Note: Merely opposing the use of taxpayers' money to fund job-training programs does not equate to favoring "discrimination in employment." Although I am not a big supporter of Sen. Rand Paul--I do like some of his views, but not others--I will defend him to this extent, anyway: I do not believe that he ever suggested that some dollars "spend differently" than other dollars. Rather, he appears to believe that some dollars should be treated differently for tax purposes; which, interestingly enough, is what many on the left also believe (see, for instance, tax credits.) I really do not know how you could assert that there are "[f]ew" women today who are doctors. My own primary-care physician is a woman (Dr. Elizabeth Bray). And some of my late wife's specialists were also women. It is just very commonplace nowadays. Like so many on the left, you seem to believe that failed programs might have been more successful, if only more money had been thrown at them...
Republicans, while giving lip-service to economic equality, oppose legislation that would enable those discriminated against to bring a lawsuit against the employers. Simply having a law that states, "Thou shalt not discriminate" does not prevent the discrimination as it provides no recourse for those discriminated against. For example the Republicans opposed the Lilly-Ledbetter Act in 2009 which attempted to make it easier for women to file lawsuits based upon wage discrimination. If there was a real problem with the Lilly-Ledbetter Act it was that it didn't provide enough legal groundwork for wage discrimination lawsuits.
My statement was that in the 1950's and 1960's there were few women doctors (and few male nurses) based upon the belief that a woman's place was "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen" (that many social-conservative still believe in today). The social revolution of the 1960's, including support to a limited degree by LBJ's War on Poverty, that was very liberal and progressive in nature, resulted in a lot of changes to the "traditional" (social conservative) role of women in the workforce. There is still long ways to go in breaking down the social barriers to employment for women today but a small step forward was made in the past which is predominately why you and your wife have a woman doctor and specialists today.
The education programs and job training programs that originated under LBJ were not failed programs and were even embraced by many Republicans including former President Ronald Reagan. They were successful programs that would have unquestionably been more successful with more funding. I don't support throwing away money on failed government programs but when we have successful programs then they should be funded to maximize the success.
Your characterization of LBJ's "War on Poverty" as "successful" (presumably, with a straight face) is simply incredible! Only a diehard leftist could really believe that. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 would merely have overturned a SCOTUS decision, declaring that the 180-day statute of limitations, for a discrimination lawsuit, begins with the date that the employer initially made the decision to discriminate, rather than the date of the most recent paycheck. (By the way, a similar bill--known by the same name--actually passed the House slightly earlier; but was then killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.) Yes, in the 1950s and '60s, things were substantially different, as regarding the role of women in society. There are two positions that were once regarded as "conservative," with which I deeply disagree; and, fortunately, so do most other conservatives nowadays. They are as follows: (1) That women are mere "possessions" of men; that they are inherently inferior beings, whose work is to be denigrated; and (2) that there is some sort of racial hierarchy, with whites being at the very top, blacks at the very bottom, and Asians (or "Orientals," as they were then known) somewhere in between. It would be impossible, I believe, for anyone to disagree with those two positions any more vigorously than I do. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 14, 2014 13:53:35 GMT
Your definition of Israel (excluding what you refer to as "the occupied territories") differs significantly with what any map shows. And your insistence that Israel should "prove" that the 1967 war was not "a land grab" by relinquishing the territory won in this war is (presumably) based upon your contention that Israel precipitated that war. I entirely disagree; and I believe that the victor in a purely defensive war should not be asked to "prove" its goodwill by relinquishing the territory won in that war. It is a very good thing that the Palestinians have rescinded their demand for a "right of return," as that would have effectively overwhelmed Israel, and its Jewish character. But it was a demand of Yasser Arafat, back in 2000.
Below is a map of internationally recognized borders of Israel. While not very detailed the map excludes the Golan Heights (a part of Syria) as well as Gaza, the West Bank, and E Jerusalem that are in "Palestine" as established under the British Mandate. It is based upon the pre-1967 borders of Israel.
The post-WW I goal of Zionism has always been a complete take-over of ALL OF PALESTINE. Prior to 1948 the Zionists used terrorism as a means of attaining this goal and since then it's used military might. There has been no wavering in the ultimate goal of Zionism ejecting the Arabs from Palestine and many rationalizations have been use to further this agenda.
It is a known historical fact that Egypt had no intention of invading Israel and was militarily incapable of invading Israel in 1967. The 1967 6-Day War was no more of an act of "self-defense" than the over-running of Europe and the invasion of the Soviet Union by the Nazis in WW II. The cause célèbre for the Israeli invasions of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria was pure propaganda just like the propaganda by the Nazis for their invasion of Poland.
Yes, the "Right of Return" would have over-whelmed the Jewish population in Israel which explains why the Zionists used acts of terrorism to force Arabs to flee for their lives in 1947-49. Had the Zionists not been able to force the native Arab population from their homeland then Israel would not exist.
The Zionists continue this campaign against the Arabs in the occupied territories today because the addition of more Arabs living in the occupied territories into the State of Israel would remove the Zionists from power. The Zionists have to use every means possible to evict the native Arab population from their homeland if they are to secure power over all of Palestine. That has always been the goal of the Zionists and they have demonstrated they are willing to commit murder to accomplish there goal.
The goal of Zionism is to evict the Arabs from their Palestinian homeland and that has always been to goal of Zionism. In a very real sense we're seeing the same atrocities being committed against the Arabs in Palestine that we saw in the US atrocities related to the Native-Americans were murder and tyranny prevailed during the 19th Century but with perhaps less regard by the Zionists toward the Arabs than the US government showed for the Native-Americans.
Of course the 2000 Camp David summit didn't fail because of the issue of the Right of Return. It failed because Israel offered no security to the Palestinians. In 2000 the Israel position was that it would maintain a huge military force on the Israeli-Palestinian border while Palestine was to be denied any military force to defend itself from a possible Israeli invasion. Additionally Israel refused to withdraw it's military to it's internationally recognized borders (i.e. out of the West Bank and E Jerusalem).
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 14, 2014 14:23:32 GMT
Your characterization of LBJ's "War on Poverty" as "successful" (presumably, with a straight face) is simply incredible! Only a diehard leftist could really believe that. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 would merely have overturned a SCOTUS decision, declaring that the 180-day statute of limitations, for a discrimination lawsuit, begins with the date that the employer initially made the decision to discriminate, rather than the date of the most recent paycheck. (By the way, a similar bill--known by the same name--actually passed the House slightly earlier; but was then killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.) Yes, in the 1950s and '60s, things were substantially different, as regarding the role of women in society. There are two positions that were once regarded as "conservative," with which I deeply disagree; and, fortunately, so do most other conservatives nowadays. They are as follows: (1) That women are mere "possessions" of men; that they are inherently inferior beings, whose work is to be denigrated; and (2) that there is some sort of racial hierarchy, with whites being at the very top, blacks at the very bottom, and Asians (or "Orientals," as they were then known) somewhere in between. It would be impossible, I believe, for anyone to disagree with those two positions any more vigorously than I do.
LBJ's "War on Poverty" contained goals that were completely impossible for the government to address. The government, for example, cannot prevent individual racial or gender prejudice that denies equality of economic opportunity and yet for the "War on Poverty" to actually succeed this was a basic necessity. That doesn't imply that some of the provisions, such as education and job training programs, were not highly successful. In fact we know that they were. Affirmative Action (which does NOT create discrimination against whites) has also had some very limited successes although historically fewer than about 250,000 people per year have ever benefited from it and it was a one-time benefit generally negated by race and gender prejudice after the fact.
The fact remains that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 remains largely unenforceable because there are few legal opportunities for a woman to file a lawsuit based upon wage discrimination. Republicans oppose any efforts that would make the Equal Pay Act of 1963 enforceable by expanding the conditions under which a woman can bring a lawsuit against the employer.
Many of the "religious-right" that are often fundamentalist Christians that still believe that a woman is inferior to the man because the Bible says that a woman should be subordinate to the husband. You may not be one of them but they represent millions of social-conservatives Republicans that still live in (or want us to return) to "Leave It To Beaver" America.
You put forward two propositions that you are "vigorously" opposed to and yet you do not stand up against them. You deny the studies that address both and refuse to take up the banner of equality and fight to end the gender and racial discrimination in America. I've posted study after study that reveals the extent of racial and gender discrimination and you simply dismiss these studies as being created by "liberal intellectuals" as if that makes the studies invalid.
You cannot honestly claim you "vigorously" oppose something if you're not actively doing anything to fight against it. I would welcome you to join me in actively opposing gender and racial discrimination but you haven't indicated any desire to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 15, 2014 18:21:11 GMT
Your definition of Israel (excluding what you refer to as "the occupied territories") differs significantly with what any map shows. And your insistence that Israel should "prove" that the 1967 war was not "a land grab" by relinquishing the territory won in this war is (presumably) based upon your contention that Israel precipitated that war. I entirely disagree; and I believe that the victor in a purely defensive war should not be asked to "prove" its goodwill by relinquishing the territory won in that war. It is a very good thing that the Palestinians have rescinded their demand for a "right of return," as that would have effectively overwhelmed Israel, and its Jewish character. But it was a demand of Yasser Arafat, back in 2000.
Below is a map of internationally recognized borders of Israel. While not very detailed the map excludes the Golan Heights (a part of Syria) as well as Gaza, the West Bank, and E Jerusalem that are in "Palestine" as established under the British Mandate. It is based upon the pre-1967 borders of Israel.
The post-WW I goal of Zionism has always been a complete take-over of ALL OF PALESTINE. Prior to 1948 the Zionists used terrorism as a means of attaining this goal and since then it's used military might. There has been no wavering in the ultimate goal of Zionism ejecting the Arabs from Palestine and many rationalizations have been use to further this agenda.
It is a known historical fact that Egypt had no intention of invading Israel and was militarily incapable of invading Israel in 1967. The 1967 6-Day War was no more of an act of "self-defense" than the over-running of Europe and the invasion of the Soviet Union by the Nazis in WW II. The cause célèbre for the Israeli invasions of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria was pure propaganda just like the propaganda by the Nazis for their invasion of Poland.
Yes, the "Right of Return" would have over-whelmed the Jewish population in Israel which explains why the Zionists used acts of terrorism to force Arabs to flee for their lives in 1947-49. Had the Zionists not been able to force the native Arab population from their homeland then Israel would not exist.
The Zionists continue this campaign against the Arabs in the occupied territories today because the addition of more Arabs living in the occupied territories into the State of Israel would remove the Zionists from power. The Zionists have to use every means possible to evict the native Arab population from their homeland if they are to secure power over all of Palestine. That has always been the goal of the Zionists and they have demonstrated they are willing to commit murder to accomplish there goal.
The goal of Zionism is to evict the Arabs from their Palestinian homeland and that has always been to goal of Zionism. In a very real sense we're seeing the same atrocities being committed against the Arabs in Palestine that we saw in the US atrocities related to the Native-Americans were murder and tyranny prevailed during the 19th Century but with perhaps less regard by the Zionists toward the Arabs than the US government showed for the Native-Americans.
Of course the 2000 Camp David summit didn't fail because of the issue of the Right of Return. It failed because Israel offered no security to the Palestinians. In 2000 the Israel position was that it would maintain a huge military force on the Israeli-Palestinian border while Palestine was to be denied any military force to defend itself from a possible Israeli invasion. Additionally Israel refused to withdraw it's military to it's internationally recognized borders (i.e. out of the West Bank and E Jerusalem).
Those "internationally recognized borders" are not at all in keeping with my own globe of the world, in my living room. Anyone who resorts to such phrases as "It is a known fact" probably does not have a very substantial case to mount. (And your continual reference to anything that disputes your core beliefs as mere "propaganda" is also rather instructive.) I will ask you one more time to refrain from the use of the pejorative term, "Zionism" (or "Zionist"). It is just as inflammatory as the odious "N" word is, in describing African-Americans. (Any future posts that contain the "Z" word, I will simply ignore. You will, in effect, be talking to yourself.) |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 15, 2014 18:31:08 GMT
Your characterization of LBJ's "War on Poverty" as "successful" (presumably, with a straight face) is simply incredible! Only a diehard leftist could really believe that. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 would merely have overturned a SCOTUS decision, declaring that the 180-day statute of limitations, for a discrimination lawsuit, begins with the date that the employer initially made the decision to discriminate, rather than the date of the most recent paycheck. (By the way, a similar bill--known by the same name--actually passed the House slightly earlier; but was then killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.) Yes, in the 1950s and '60s, things were substantially different, as regarding the role of women in society. There are two positions that were once regarded as "conservative," with which I deeply disagree; and, fortunately, so do most other conservatives nowadays. They are as follows: (1) That women are mere "possessions" of men; that they are inherently inferior beings, whose work is to be denigrated; and (2) that there is some sort of racial hierarchy, with whites being at the very top, blacks at the very bottom, and Asians (or "Orientals," as they were then known) somewhere in between. It would be impossible, I believe, for anyone to disagree with those two positions any more vigorously than I do.
LBJ's "War on Poverty" contained goals that were completely impossible for the government to address. The government, for example, cannot prevent individual racial or gender prejudice that denies equality of economic opportunity and yet for the "War on Poverty" to actually succeed this was a basic necessity. That doesn't imply that some of the provisions, such as education and job training programs, were not highly successful. In fact we know that they were. Affirmative Action (which does NOT create discrimination against whites) has also had some very limited successes although historically fewer than about 250,000 people per year have ever benefited from it and it was a one-time benefit generally negated by race and gender prejudice after the fact.
The fact remains that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 remains largely unenforceable because there are few legal opportunities for a woman to file a lawsuit based upon wage discrimination. Republicans oppose any efforts that would make the Equal Pay Act of 1963 enforceable by expanding the conditions under which a woman can bring a lawsuit against the employer.
Many of the "religious-right" that are often fundamentalist Christians that still believe that a woman is inferior to the man because the Bible says that a woman should be subordinate to the husband. You may not be one of them but they represent millions of social-conservatives Republicans that still live in (or want us to return) to "Leave It To Beaver" America.
You put forward two propositions that you are "vigorously" opposed to and yet you do not stand up against them. You deny the studies that address both and refuse to take up the banner of equality and fight to end the gender and racial discrimination in America. I've posted study after study that reveals the extent of racial and gender discrimination and you simply dismiss these studies as being created by "liberal intellectuals" as if that makes the studies invalid.
You cannot honestly claim you "vigorously" oppose something if you're not actively doing anything to fight against it. I would welcome you to join me in actively opposing gender and racial discrimination but you haven't indicated any desire to do that. Your own idea of "actively opposing gender and racial discrimination," it would appear, is to adopt the leftist positions in regard to these matters. And affirmative action, it seems to me, does amount to reverse discrimination--even if that is a term that you dislike. (I agree entirely with Chief Justice John Roberts on this point: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.") |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Dec 16, 2014 15:10:21 GMT
Those "internationally recognized borders" are not at all in keeping with my own globe of the world, in my living room. Anyone who resorts to such phrases as "It is a known fact" probably does not have a very substantial case to mount. (And your continual reference to anything that disputes your core beliefs as mere "propaganda" is also rather instructive.) I will ask you one more time to refrain from the use of the pejorative term, "Zionism" (or "Zionist"). It is just as inflammatory as the odious "N" word is, in describing African-Americans. (Any future posts that contain the "Z" word, I will simply ignore. You will, in effect, be talking to yourself.)
If you have a globe in your home that reflects different borders for Israel then it was either made in Israel or it was not made based upon the recognize borders of Israel. Not a single nation, for example, accepts the annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel as being valid including the United States. It was an illegal annexation that is not recognized and was condemned by UNSC Resolution 497.
Resolution 497 (1981)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2319th meeting
on 17 December 1981
The Security Council,
Having considered the letter of 14 December 1981 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic contained in document S/14791,
Reaffirming that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of international law, and relevant Security Council resolutions,
1. Decides that the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect;
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, should rescind forthwith its decision;
3. Determines that all the provisions of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since June 1967;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of this resolution within two weeks and decides that in the event of non-compliance by Israel, the Security Council would meet urgently, and not later than 5 January 1982, to consider taking appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/73D6B4C70D1A92B7852560DF0064F101
The word Zionism is not pejorative in nature. Here's the definition:
Zionism
n.noun
1.A political movement that supports the maintenance and preservation of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland, originally arising in the late 1800s with the goal of reestablishing a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine.
dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrSbDmnQpBU2hYAR1BXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--?p=Zionism&.sep=
The word describes a political ideology based upon the establishment of the Jewish state by whatever means necessary. It is founded in the ancient teaching of the Jewish faith related to the original conquest of Canaan where the Torah cites mass genocide by the Jews in taking the land from the Canaanites. It is best summarized by the following:
Joshua "carries out a systematic campaign against the civilians of Canaan — men, women and children — that amounts to genocide."[32] In doing this he is carrying out herem as commanded by Yahweh in Deuteronomy 20:17: "You shall not leave alive anything that breathes." The purpose is to drive out and dispossess the Canaanites, with the implication that there are to be no treaties with the enemy, no mercy, and no intermarriage.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Joshua#Entry_into_the_land_and_conquest_.28chapters_2.E2.80.9312.29
The Zionists of today embrace this same ideology and, I honestly believe, that if they thought they could get away with it they would "not leave alive anything that breaths" in Palestine. 3000 years ago, according the Hebrew beliefs, the Jewish People committed mass genocide to take the land away from the Canaanites and if the world community would allow it they would do exactly the samething to take all of Palestine away from the Arabs. The Zionists used terrorism prior to 1948 and they've used military tyranny since 1948 in their quest to purge the Arabs from all of Palestine.
You ask me not to use the word Zionist but that would be akin to not being able to use the word "progressive-liberal" or "social-conservative" or, for that matter, Nazi, because for some the political ideology has negative connotations based upon the political agenda and actions of the advocates. If Zionism has a negative connontation it's based upon the expressed Zionist agenda and historical actions of the Zionists that have included terrorism and murder in their unrelenting efforts to dispossess the native Arab inhabitants from their homeland based upon the Zionist agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Dec 17, 2014 21:08:17 GMT
There is no longer any need for you to reply to this thread. As of today, I am entirely finished with it.
|
|
