Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 8:58 AM
267 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD (4 members, 263 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,415 Year: 29,021/21,208 Month: 1,087/1,847 Week: 10/452 Day: 10/115 Hour: 5/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinians?
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 16 of 68 (815942)
07-26-2017 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 12:58 PM


Nope, CatsI is wrong Xs four
quote:
U.N. says the living conditions in Gaza have deteriorated faster than expected, and the U.N. says the area has already become “unlivable.”

quote:
RABBI JOSEPH BERMAN: Yeah, you know, I’m concerned about this legislation. We need to fight it and oppose it. And what I’m really concerned about is something that you mentioned earlier, Amy, and that is what’s happening with the people in Gaza right now, who only have a few, maybe four, hours of electricity a day. There is an incredible shortage of drinkable water. There’s a very, very high level of food insecurity and just immense, immense suffering that is happening right now in Gaza. And that is because of the siege, that is led by Israel, with the support of Egypt. And so there needs to be an end to that siege.

_______________________________________________________

catsI writes:

Are you going to support your claims by quoting the text of the bill or not?

Why siotenly:

Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720)

To amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include in the prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s720/text

quote:
The criminalization of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West. In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. The U.K. has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. In the U.S., governors compete with one another over who can implement the most extreme regulations to bar businesses from participating in any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements, which the world regards as illegal. On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as “the Palestine Exception” to free speech.

catsI writes:

1. "this pledge will be the new mandate for the nation" - Nope, it's not new.

Nope, you are wrong, It may be based on old policies, but it is new because specifically: :

quote:
Ryan Grim, Democracy Now: “They thought it was a rather simple kind of extension of a policy that had been in place for decades, merely extending it to the EU and the U.N. But, in fact, it comes with these—according to the ACLU, these draconian penalties.

. . . if you read the bill itself, the penalties aren’t mentioned. You have to reference an underlying statute that it amends, and then, once you get to the underlying statute, then you see the million-dollar fine and the 20-year prison sentence, which the ACLU says, because you’ve brought that underlying statute into play, that that criminal statute could be brought in by a judge or a prosecutor.”

In a letter to lawmakers, Dylan Williams of J Street wrote, quote, “This bill could give Attorney General Jeff Sessions the power to prosecute any American who chooses not to buy settlement products for a felony offense.”


quote:
. . . when the bill was first unveiled, “the bill seeks to amend two laws — the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945,” and “the potential penalties for violating this bill are steep: a minimum $250,000 civil penalty and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years imprisonment, as stipulated in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.”

catsI writes:

2. "seeks to criminally outlaw support" - it does not, it references a pre-existing law that already outlawed that.

Nope, you are wrong, see above quotes.

catsI writes:

3. "introducing draconian penalties" - it doesn't do that either, the penalties are also from pre-existing law.

Nope, you are wrong, see above quotes.

catsI writes:

4. "This law would take away American’s free speech and First Amendment rights" - assuming that the ramifications do count as . . .

You are wrong. Specifically, the draconian penalties would make a dramatic difference and impact on violating the First Amendment:

quote:
The ACLU wrote, quote, “We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs,”

_______________________________________________________

More related quotes:

quote:
“The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) helped craft the bill, and made its passage one of the group’s top lobbying priorities.”

quote:
AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year

quote:
RABBI JOSEPH BERMAN: AIPAC is a very effective lobby. And I think, in many ways, they’re not that different from something like the National Rifle Association, which keeps Congress from passing much-needed, incredibly reasonable gun control in this country.

_______________________________________________________

The instant replay referees have reviewed the tape, the score has been corrected: Dronestar 4, CatsI 0.

_______________________________________________________

quote:
Criminalizing Critics of Israel
https://zcomm.org/...article/criminalizing-critics-of-israel

quote:
Criminally Outlawing Support for Boycott
43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats
234 co-sponsors: 63 Democrats and 174 Republicans.

https://zcomm.org/...riminally-outlawing-support-for-boycott

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 12:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 9:11 PM dronestar has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1360
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 17 of 68 (815944)
07-26-2017 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 12:58 PM


"this pledge will be the new mandate for the nation" - Nope, it's not new.

And, of course, no one's going to be asked to take this pledge, because that was clearly hyperbole.

Since you're all being frustratingly obtuse and refusing to actually explain anything in detail I actually went and read the bill, as it's not long.

It does seek to extend the scope of the previous act. It proposes that people should be prevented not only from doing things 'with intent to comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country' but also form 'request(ing) to impose any boycott by a foreign country' against a US ally. (the amendment if passed makes the already clunky legal language a mess - but that's another thing).

But I am a little confused here; and think I may be misunderstanding something about US law here. What do "activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States" actually refer to? Does this actually cover someone who runs a business headquartered in America doing their normal business; or does it mean something to do with government employees? If the former, then the law strikes me as unjust. I don't see what right the government has to prevent a private business or individual from refusing to do business with foreign companies. Even less just would be to make it an fineable offense to request a boycott; as the new bill seems to propose. Prohibiting someone from proposing a policy is indefensible.

I'm thinking it means the latter, though - that this doesn't apply to private companies but rather those involved in government business, since it asks the President to issue regulations prohibiting such-and-such. Does the President have any authority to impose regulations on the actions of private business? Can any of you Americans clarify this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 12:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 4:27 PM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 9:09 PM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 07-28-2017 8:56 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 18 of 68 (815946)
07-26-2017 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by caffeine
07-26-2017 4:01 PM


Hi Caff,

I presume you posted just after my last lengthy and informative post.

caff writes:

And, of course, no one's going to be asked to take this pledge, because that was clearly hyperbole.

Yes, CatsI and I are specifically arguing about the word "new" in the hyperbolic pledge.

caff writes:

But I am a little confused here; and think I may be misunderstanding something about US law here. What do "activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States" actually refer to? Does this actually cover someone who runs a business headquartered in America doing their normal business; or does it mean something to do with government employees? If the former, then the law strikes me as unjust. I don't see what right the government has to prevent a private business or individual from refusing to do business with foreign companies. Even less just would be to make it an fineable offense to request a boycott; as the new bill seems to propose. Prohibiting someone from proposing a policy is indefensible.

I presume CatsI, when realizing he has lost the argument will then try to desperately interpret the law, using his vast imaginary law degrees, to his liking. I am not an international lawyer, so I, like some others, won't presume to interpret/define the legal definitions of free speech violations . . .

quote:
RYAN GRIM: And that’s one of the things that the ACLU was also deeply concerned about, that nobody, of course, is forced to do business with Israeli companies in the Occupied Territories, but if you say that you’re not doing business there because you object to the political circumstances, then, all of a sudden, you’re getting caught up in the statute here, or you’d get caught up in this Indiana law, whereas if you were just quiet about it and kept your opinions to yourself, then—you know, then you’re not in any legal or commercial trouble. And that is kind of the definition of a freedom of speech issue.

Above all, I think it helps to carefully consider the source of the words to this new bill: AIPAC. If you think Israel's continued oppression and low-level genocide of Palestinians and the further stealing of Palestinian land is a good thing, a model of stablizing actions in the middle east, I guess you'll find the new bill very agreeable.

https://zcomm.org/...article/criminalizing-critics-of-israel

Edited by dronestar, : typos, grrr


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2017 4:01 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 19 of 68 (815955)
07-26-2017 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by caffeine
07-26-2017 4:01 PM


And, of course, no one's going to be asked to take this pledge, because that was clearly hyperbole.

Clearly, but still retarded.

Since you're all being frustratingly obtuse and refusing to actually explain anything in detail I actually went and read the bill, as it's not long.

Dro has already proven himself to me to not waste my time on. Hyperbole is about all he's got. But I'm glad you read the bill, that makes two of us that I know of.

I'm spending this time because I respect you - and I appreciate the conversation.

Dro admits in Message 18 that he "won't presume to interpret/define the legal definitions". So he's basically useless. Unless you like fatuous hyperbole?

Look, he's resorted to quoting other peoples' opinions on the matter in lieu of providing his own opinions backed up by quotes from the actual bill.

If you want to get into it, I'm down. But I'm not gonna waste my time on Dro.

It does seek to extend the scope of the previous act.

Sure. So as I said: this isn't new.

It proposes that people

By "persons" they mean companies, not individual citizens. But yeah, the wording sucks.

should be prevented not only from doing things 'with intent to comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country' but also form 'request(ing) to impose any boycott by a foreign country' against a US ally. (the amendment if passed makes the already clunky legal language a mess - but that's another thing).

Basically: "Don't officially boycott our allies". I agree.

But I am a little confused here; and think I may be misunderstanding something about US law here. What do "activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States" actually refer to?

The problem is companies essentially going: "We're against our Jewish ally, and with the Arab League." How's that for hyperbole?

I mean, if I wanted to pull a Dro, I'd be talking about how much his OP was fostered by his raging antisemitism... but I won't stoop to his level

Does this actually cover someone who runs a business headquartered in America doing their normal business; or does it mean something to do with government employees?

I think it means that the feds don't want companies jumping on a "boycott-the-jews" bandwagon because Israel, is, actually our ally. And the Arab League is not.

I don't see what right the government has to prevent a private business or individual from refusing to do business with foreign companies.

Do they have the right to tax that business?

Even less just would be to make it an fineable offense to request a boycott; as the new bill seems to propose. Prohibiting someone from proposing a policy is indefensible.

Sure, the wording sucks. But your interpretation doesn't fit the intent, as I understand it.

It's not about individual citizens "calling" for a boycott, it's about companies officially participating in a boycott against one of our allies. Especially because the boycott in question spawned from a group that is against us.

That's how I'm interpreting it. No hyperbole.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2017 4:01 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Riggamortis, posted 07-27-2017 6:23 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 20 of 68 (815956)
07-26-2017 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by dronestar
07-26-2017 3:41 PM


Re: Nope, CatsI is wrong Xs four
Here is all the words that you wrote to me that were not quotations:


Why siotenly:

Nope, you are wrong, It may be based on old policies, but it is new because specifically: :

Nope, you are wrong, see above quotes.

Nope, you are wrong, see above quotes.

You are wrong. Specifically, the draconian penalties would make a dramatic difference and impact on violating the First Amendment:

More related quotes:

The instant replay referees have reviewed the tape, the score has been corrected: Dronestar 4, CatsI 0.

I don't care about your stupid quotes on other peoples' opinions on this matter. Tell me what you think, no bullshit, or have a nice day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dronestar, posted 07-26-2017 3:41 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by dronestar, posted 07-27-2017 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(2)
Message 21 of 68 (815965)
07-27-2017 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 9:09 PM


Arab league is irrelevant.
I'll bite since I cheered the op.

It's not about individual citizens "calling" for a boycott, it's about companies officially participating in a boycott against one of our allies. Especially because the boycott in question spawned from a group that is against us.

So, as opposed to looking at the reasons people/companies in America might want to boycott Israel and whether they might be justified, the fact alone that the Arab league would like them to do it is enough to justify laws against it? Isn't boycotting a fundamental tenet of capitalism?

I thought I'd read this bill and find little to criticise, it's a laughing stock.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (in this section referred to as the “UNHRC”) has long targeted Israel with systematic, politically motivated, assaults on its legitimacy designed to stigmatize and isolate Israel internationally.

The first of the 'findings' paints the UNHRC as a group conspiring to 'stigmatize and isolate Israel' with 'systemic, politically motivated assaults on its legitimacy' and you're nit-picking Dro's hyperbole?

(3) POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.—The term “politically motivated” means actions to impede or constrain commerce with Israel that are intended to coerce political action from or impose policy positions on Israel

So the term 'politically motivated' is used redundantly rather than representing some observation of nefarious intent. The very act of a boycott is intended to induce change in the recipient, boycotting a nation is necessarily 'politically motivated'.

(2) The UNHRC maintains a permanent agenda item known as “Item 7” to ensure that Israel will be criticized at every gathering of the UNHRC.

(3) At its 31st session on March 24, 2016, the UNHRC targeted Israel with a commercial boycott, calling for the establishment of a database, such as a “blacklist”, of companies that operate, or have business relations with entities that operate, beyond Israel’s 1949 Armistice lines, including East Jerusalem.

(2) Add the US and Saudi Arabia to that list!
(3) A list of companies who manufacture, or have business relations with entities that manufacture the machines of war would be good too. I'm guessing that would largely target the US.

They aren't attacking Israels legitimacy, they're attacking its human rights violations beyond its legitimate borders.

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking “which have the effect” and all the follows and inserting the following: “which have the effect of furthering or supporting—

“(i) restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any foreign country, or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any foreign country, against a country friendly to the United States or against any United States person; and

“(ii) restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any international governmental organization against Israel; and”.

Is it noble to unconditionally support your allies against boycotts all the time or immoral depending on the reasons for the boycott? Secondly, all Allies are protected from state boycotts but Israel is so (special?) that it gets protection even from intergovernmental intervention.

Further 'which will have the effect of furthering or supporting' doesn't say anything about official and neither does this:

(ii) by inserting “, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or request to impose any boycott by any international governmental organization against Israel” after “pursuant to United States law or regulation”

So it's seems this 'official' interpretation isn't really supported and could at least potentially see companies fined for divesting from Israel regardless of their 'official' stance. Not only that but it does seek to punish free expression of political will.

Now here's my hyperbolic take on it. The US govt is a greedy, genocidal maniac. The Israeli govt is a greedy genocidal maniac. Therefore the US supports Israel. Human rights be damned!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 9:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2017 4:52 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 22 of 68 (815991)
07-27-2017 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 9:11 PM


Re: Nope, CatsI is pathetically wrong
catsI writes:

I don't care about your stupid quotes on other peoples' opinions on this matter.

Yes, that was purposeful. Since you previously stated:

catsI writes:

your OP is full of bullshit and spin.

. . . I’d thought I'd go with non-personal evidence. However, you again had criticism. It seems you are desperate that I severely limit my evidence to sock-puppets and Cuneiform tablets? Maybe then, by applying fanatical restrictions to my posts, our debates could be more competitive for you? Well, hope springs eternal.

catsI writes:

I don't care about your stupid quotes on other peoples' opinions on this matter.

But you are again wrong, not everything was from personal opinions in Message 16. For example the main item, the first paragraph of the post, the very reason for my thread, was a fact from the UN:

quote:
U.N. says the living conditions in Gaza have deteriorated faster than expected, and the U.N. says the area has already become “unlivable.”

From a UN report:

https://unsco.unmissions.org/...ars_later_-_11_july_2017.pdf

catsI writes:

Dro admits in Message 18 that he "won't presume to interpret/define the legal definitions". So he's basically useless.


 
Yeah, I've noted the more deeply one militantly delves into the legal aspects; searching for the "precise" definition of a word, postulating an "unclear term," claiming an "ancient" precedent, the more one hopes to remove oneself from the spirit of the letter/the big picture/the main argument.

Someone on the forum had a great quip when people desperately do this in their arguments, a pity I don’t remember the exact quote.

Religious literalists use this technique with the Bible when they blindly and militantly follow a throwaway line of text and then go on to dismiss the entirety of the overall message of god.
 
And black-hearted people choose to hide under their preferred legal definition of words to continue harming/oppressing/obfuscating/marginalizing/justifying inaction.

The US did this to Rwanda in April 1994 when the African nation suffered atrocities. While genocide continued, the US gathered and discussed, on the sideline, whether or not the exact legal term "genocide" was appropriate. President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide, a million people were murdered, but buried the information in definitions to justify his inaction.

And this is exactly what you are doing CatsI. You are already aware of my body of work of evidence on the forum. I can even show you additional facts from the UN, Human Rights groups, and Health Organizations. I can list opinions of Palestinians who are currently living the hell of Israel's cruel oppression. I can show you photos of dead Palestinian children without limbs.

The facts are that Israel oppressively controls the water, food, employment, electricity, movement, and health care of Palestinians. Israel has murdered hundred times more innocent Palestinian civilians (collective punishment is a war crime) than Islamic terrorists have murdered in Israel. Israel even made studies to find out what minimal food sustenance is needed to prevent mass starvation to make sure their genocide is kept under the world's radar.

I am sure you, like Bill Clinton's Rwanda fiasco, are aware of some of this, even if not in detail.

catsI writes:

I mean, if I wanted to pull a Dro, I'd be talking about how much his OP was fostered by his raging antisemitism... but I won't stoop to his level

Yeah, when Crashfrog was desperately losing a debate, he would also make/insinuate pathetic personal attacks. For example, when Crashfrog was losing a battle about President Obama's harmful actions, he desperately called me a bigot. CatsI, you are exactly like Crashfrog. Your unwarranted personal attack diminishes yourself, your parents, and the forum (especially when others choose to stay silent).
 
And it is that inappropriate remark that I would like to similarly finish my post with. There is an ongoing attack on innocent women and children in the world. The US government is enabling the attack with military weapons, military assistance, and foreign contributions. The US government would extend a law with draconian penalties to prevent its own population from interfering, and allowing the genocide to continue.

Evil flourishes when good people do nothing.

Crashfrog, errrm, I mean CatsI showed what side he is on.

Forum, what side are you on?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 9:11 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2017 1:56 PM dronestar has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-27-2017 1:59 PM dronestar has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11855
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 23 of 68 (815996)
07-27-2017 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by dronestar
07-27-2017 12:41 PM


The big picture you've painted is a false narrative.

Let me know if you ever want to get around to discussing the bill in question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by dronestar, posted 07-27-2017 12:41 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 24 of 68 (815997)
07-27-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by dronestar
07-27-2017 12:41 PM


Re: Nope, CatsI is pathetically wrong
And this is exactly what you are doing CatsI. You are already aware of my body of work of evidence on the forum. I can even show you additional facts from the UN, Human Rights groups, and Health Organizations. I can list opinions of Palestinians who are currently living the hell of Israel's cruel oppression. I can show you photos of dead Palestinian children without limbs.

When it comes to Israel-Palestinian relations thre is likely to be such a fog of propaganda even judging such photos is nowhere near as obvious as you are implying. You seem to be utterly ignoring the provocations of the Palestinians against Israel for instance, the deaths to Israelis they have caused, the constant din of hatred toward Israel that is part of their religion and now embedded in world opinion as well. Certainly the Palestinian people are oppressed but most of that comes from the Arab world, not from Israel, from their own Palestinian leaders who take all the aid given for their improvement and use it for other purposes. It does not come from Israel. It is useful to keep the Palestinians as pawns for making Israel out to be the bad guy and keep up the stream of hatred toward Israel. Unfortunately I'm not up on recent developments -- since I haven't followed this thread carefully I may have missed any actual facts you've offered -- but the historical facts are as I'm describing them. I'm sure Israel is at fault in many ways, but unless you give some sense of being aware of the other side of the story I can't take your assessment very seriously. Well seriously OK because propaganda is powerful and dangerous but I'm sure you know I mean I can't take it as truthful.

The facts are that Israel oppressively controls the water, food, employment, electricity, movement, and health care of Palestinians.

What are your sources for this? Considering all the aid Israel has given to help build up the Palestinians, which has not benefitted them thanks to reasons I've mentioned above, there has to be some historical information that you are not taking into account here if there is even any truth to this claim.

Israel has murdered hundred times more innocent Palestinian civilians (collective punishment is a war crime) than Islamic terrorists have murdered in Israel.

Your sources? You really do need to consider that you may not be getting the whole truth.

Israel even made studies to find out what minimal food sustenance is needed to prevent mass starvation to make sure their genocide is kept under the world's radar.

I have a feeling you are confining yourself only to the pro-Palestinian propaganda. And that would include the UN.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by dronestar, posted 07-27-2017 12:41 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by dronestar, posted 07-27-2017 2:44 PM Faith has responded

    
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 25 of 68 (815999)
07-27-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-27-2017 1:59 PM


Re: Nope, CatsI is pathetically wrong
Hi Faith,

Although I disagree with your overall stance, that was a very nicely worded post. It contained a respectful tone toward my viewpoint, the self-admitted humility of not knowing all aspects, humble requests for more information, and the uncowering strength of your personal convictions.

Sheesh, I'd forgotten I was on the EvC forum.

Seriously, good job.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-27-2017 1:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 07-27-2017 5:34 PM dronestar has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 07-27-2017 6:32 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10126
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 26 of 68 (816000)
07-27-2017 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Riggamortis
07-27-2017 6:23 AM


Re: Arab league is irrelevant.
So the term 'politically motivated' is used redundantly rather than representing some observation of nefarious intent. The very act of a boycott is intended to induce change in the recipient, boycotting a nation is necessarily 'politically motivated'.

Thanks, stiff bodied one. I don't see how your point can be missed. Boycotts are a legitimate expression of speech for the express purpose of applying political pressure. I understand that people who don't appreciate or agree with the cause of the boycotters or who hate the boycotter don't like the idea, but government sanctions targeting boycotts directly target free speech.

Now I under that the UN, the Arab League, and the European Union are not entitled to first amendment protection. But the huge fines and sentences applied by this law, at least by my first reading, target American citizens who might agree with a boycott that may have been first suggested by, say the European Union.

And although I have not found the applicable text in the proposed bill, the comments provided by the sponsors suggest that the Bill applies not just to Israel, but other US allies.

hey aren't attacking Israels legitimacy, they're attacking its human rights violations beyond its legitimate borders.

I can understand when fundies don't get this. They are afraid that any criticism of Israel will bring about the end times. But I had thought that other folks were able to distinguish between anti-Semitism, and criticism of Isreal. Apparently, such distinctions are more subtle than I thought.

Now here's my hyperbolic take on it.

Yikes. I guess we cannot agree on everything.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Riggamortis, posted 07-27-2017 6:23 AM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Riggamortis, posted 07-27-2017 10:54 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 68 (816002)
07-27-2017 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by dronestar
07-27-2017 2:44 PM


a civil exchange
I must say that your response also made me wonder if we were still at EvC. What a nice post, thank you.

Now I have to do some research. I hope I'm up to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by dronestar, posted 07-27-2017 2:44 PM dronestar has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26759
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 28 of 68 (816005)
07-27-2017 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by dronestar
07-27-2017 2:44 PM


Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
Since I am familiar with many campaigns to smear Israel, the first thing I looked for was something about the photos you claim show Israeli atrocities against Palestinians, and was surprised to so quickly turn up information about exactly what I suspected: journalistic fraud for the purpose of making Israel look like a genocidal monster.

A Palestinian Journalist's Blood Libel Against Israel:

In their ongoing quest to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish State, Palestinian “journalists” and bloggers have resorted to distortion, obfuscation and outright falsehoods to advance their pernicious propaganda. Photos of civilian casualties or property damage are routinely photo-shopped and sometimes copied and pasted from entirely different theaters. Thus, Syrian casualties resulting from Assad’s barrel bomb assaults and other regime inspired atrocities are passed off as Palestinian casualties and “victims of Israeli aggression.”

Often times, these photos go viral on social media and may even filter their way into irresponsible “mainstream” media outlets with poor vetting processes. Independent watchdog groups and bloggers cognizant of the Palestinian proclivity to smear and defame are vigilant and remain constantly on the lookout for these fabrications; shaming those who wittingly play host to these odious calumnies. Thus radical leftist and 9-11 conspiracy wacko Rosie O’Donnell was outed and shamed when she was caught hawking fabricated “artwork” depicting a purported injured Palestinian child from Gaza when in fact, the photo was of a wounded child from Aleppo Syria, injured as a result of action taken by Assad’s enforcers.  O’Donnell was unapologetic but promptly removed the fictional “artwork” from her website.

But “Pallywood” – the Palestinian tendency to conjure up sensationalist, anti-Israel fables for media consumption – reached its zenith with a recent Twitter post by “award winning journalist” Mohammed Omer. On May 10, Omer, who has written for the virulently anti-Israel rag Electronic Intifada as well as the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet – the discredited paper that falsely claimed that IDF soldiers were harvesting Palestinian organs – posted a photo along with commentary that was outrageous even by Palestinian standards. In fact, the post can best be described as a modern-day blood libel akin to the often repeated Palestinian claim that Jews use the blood of non-Jews as a key ingredient in Passover Matzah.

The photo was of a young, armless and legless Palestinian child named Mohammed al-Farra accompanied by the following commentary; “One of the last #Gaza war victims #RememberThoseChildren.” It is a gut-wrenching, moving photo that provokes emotion from any viewer and that is precisely what it is designed to do. Except there’s one problem with Omer’s post; it is entirely false.

Omer likely lifted the photo from Israel's Tel Hashomer hospital website, which is where the photo was taken. Al-Farra was born with a rare genetic disease that required amputation of his limbs. The Palestinian authorities in Gaza refused to cover the cost of his medical care and the stigmatized child was subsequently abandoned by his uncaring parents. Al-Farra’s grandfather assumed the role of parent and managed to get the child to Tel Hashomer hospital where al-Farra received premium medical care covered by Israeli fundraising activity....

I also think of the Israelis as committed to avoiding civilian casualties in their attacks on their enemies, contrary to the propaganda that accuses them of genocidal intent, along with Palestinian refusal to evacuate areas targeted by Israel and warned by Israel to evacuate; and here's an article that addresses that: Who Is Killing Palestinian Children?

Political differences aside, few will disagree that Palestinian children are innocent victims of the on-going hostilities in Gaza. Israel’s air strikes, aimed to defend its citizens from Hamas’ terrorization, resulted in civilian casualties, which included child victims. Yet, none other than Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, are responsible for the general humanitarian crisis there and for scores of killed, wounded, and traumatized children.

Civilian fatalities are inevitable in any war, and thus far there are 230 in Gaza, despite a painstaking—and largely successful--effort of the Israelis to minimize collateral casualties. There is sufficient documentary evidence to show that Israeli pilots have cancelled scheduled air strikes after having spotted children and other innocents close to sites designated for destruction. On the other hand, since the outbreak of the war, the Hamas government repeatedly ordered citizens to ignore Israel’s warnings to evacuate before the strikes: residents were to remain inside their houses and not to “collaborate with the enemy.”[ii] Hamas punishment for collaborators has always been death,[iii] and many Gazans might have chosen to take a chance with their lives and those of their families rather than to defy terrorists in power.

Palestinians are the prime victims of their oppressive, brutal, criminal, semi-totalitarian administration. They are as afraid of their Hamas leaders as Russians were terrified of the Bolsheviks in their day. To expect to hear a sincere opinion of a Gaza citizen about any current political issue is like waiting for a terrorized captive of Stalin’s regime to express his independent view on Soviet foreign policy. The Israeli soldiers understand that they are forced to fight Hamas among the population which is “held hostage.”[iv]

Haven't yet found anything on the claim that Israel controls Palestinian water and electricity and everything else but here's a page of headlines that turned up at Frontpage when I searched.

ABE: I know I shouldn't throw a whole Google page at you but sometimes it helps to get across the range of opinion on a certain subject just through its list of headlines. I hope I can come back and put up some more detailed information on all this but as you can see there is a lot of it out there contradicting the claim that the Palestinians are the victims, or the only victims.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by dronestar, posted 07-27-2017 2:44 PM dronestar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Riggamortis, posted 07-28-2017 5:04 AM Faith has responded

    
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(1)
Message 29 of 68 (816015)
07-27-2017 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
07-27-2017 4:52 PM


Re: Arab league is irrelevant.
Thanks, stiff bodied one. I don't see how your point can be missed. Boycotts are a legitimate expression of speech for the express purpose of applying political pressure. I understand that people who don't appreciate or agree with the cause of the boycotters or who hate the boycotter don't like the idea, but government sanctions targeting boycotts directly target free speech.

Agreed, it's not a question of if this bill seeks to limit free speech but how much and why.

And although I have not found the applicable text in the proposed bill, the comments provided by the sponsors suggest that the Bill applies not just to Israel, but other US allies.

It would seem odd that Israel is mentioned specifically in the absence of any reason for it, nevertheless there is still the issue of free speech and the morality of unconditional support for allies despite human rights violations. I'm yet to grasp the rationale behind holding our nations and governments to a lower standard of morality than we hold ourselves.

I can understand when fundies don't get this. They are afraid that any criticism of Israel will bring about the end times. But I had thought that other folks were able to distinguish between anti-Semitism, and criticism of Isreal. Apparently, such distinctions are more subtle than I thought.

I'm not aware of Dro's entire posting history so I'm not sure if CatsEyes charge of antismeitism is based on some genuine antisemitic views he holds or not. I can't however see any antisemitism in the OP, so in this case at least, the charge appears to be a cop out. Israel=/=Judaism. Atrocities committed by Israel are not a reflection of Judaism but the geopolitical situation.

Yikes. I guess we cannot agree on everything.

Hyperbole is never intended to be agreed with literally. It's used to dramatise a message. I'll be back later to defend the underlying message of both my hyperbole and Dro's. For now I must return to work. ABE - more important things to argue.

Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2017 4:52 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Riggamortis
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016


(2)
Message 30 of 68 (816030)
07-28-2017 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
07-27-2017 6:32 PM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
I read a few of front page mags articles. Do you think they aren't propaganda? The main message I got from those articles was that extremist Muslims are an existential threat to western civilisation. That we should all be terrified. Fear mongering nonsense with a few quotes and claims about faked pictures and such.

Here's the introduction from the Amnesty International annual report 16/17;

Israeli forces unlawfully killed Palestinian civilians, including children, in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), and detained thousands of Palestinians from the OPT who opposed Israel’s continuing military occupation, holding hundreds in administrative detention. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees remained rife and was committed with impunity. The authorities continued to promote illegal settlements in the West Bank, including by attempting to retroactively “legalize” settlements built on private Palestinian land, and severely restricted Palestinians’ freedom of movement, closing some areas after attacks by Palestinians on Israelis. Israeli forces continued to blockade the Gaza Strip, subjecting its population of 1.9 million to collective punishment, and to demolish homes of Palestinians in the West Bank and of Bedouin villagers in Israel’s Negev/Naqab region, forcibly evicting residents. The authorities imprisoned conscientious objectors to military service and detained and deported thousands of asylum-seekers from Africa.

It's a long report, plenty of juicy bits.

In September the government of the USA agreed to increase its military aid to Israel to $3.8 billion annually for 10 years from 2019.

Oh to be a US tax payer, I truly do feel sorry for all of you.

The year saw stabbing, car-ramming, shooting and other attacks by Palestinians on Israelis in the West Bank and in Israel. The attacks, mostly carried out by Palestinians unaffiliated to armed groups, killed 16 Israelis and one foreign national, mostly civilians. Israeli forces killed 110 Palestinians and two foreign nationals during the year. Some were killed unlawfully while posing no threat to life.

So do you look at this as Israel 'winning' or something?

Palestinian armed groups in Gaza periodically fired indiscriminate rockets and mortars into Israel, without causing deaths or serious injuries. Israeli forces responded with air strikes and artillery fire, killing three Palestinian civilians, including two children, in Gaza.

The 'measured response' to small arms fire is to kill children with air strikes and artillery.

On 11 July the Knesset passed the so-called Transparency Law, which imposed new reporting requirements on organizations that receive more than 50% of their funding from foreign governments, almost all of which were human rights groups or other NGOs critical of the Israeli government.

One of the key points in one of front page mags articles was that free speech is suppressed by Islam, go figure. We're in a thread specifically related to a bill which restricts the free speech of Americans, go figure. Any 'free speech' of a company is necessarily derived from people, either the people who own it or the people who work there. Irony brings me to my next point.

Here are the sources, from history learning site, a U.K based site that claims to be and seems unbiased to me.
Palestine 1918-1948
McMahon Agreement 1915
The Balfour Declaration 1918

To summarise the history -
1517. The territory known as Palestine is incorporated into the Ottoman Empire.

1915. The British convinced the Palestinians to fight with them in WW2 based on the understanding they would be freed from foriegn rule. The Brits deny this. Fight your rulers to be ruled by us is not a compelling argument, so I am inclined to believe that the Palestinians certainly thought they were getting their land in return.

1917. The Balfour Declaration is a three paragraph letter in which the UK pledged its support for the creation of Israel in direct conflict with its promise to the Palestinians.

1920-1948. Under British rule as mandated by the League of Nations, Jews begin migrating to Palestine. The percentage of Jews in Palestine went from around 10% to more than 30%. Jews and Arabs alike used terrorism to put pressure on British rule.

1948. With the added 'justification' of having been persecuted in Germany the Jews get Israel and the rest is history.

So what I find rather funny here is that the Jews are basically guilty of doing exactly that which you're terrified of Muslims doing and that you subsequently hold apparently unwavering support for Israel.

Here's the Balfour Declaration, for a bit of historical context.

quote:
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved, by the Cabinet:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,

Arthur James Balfour



This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 07-27-2017 6:32 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 07-28-2017 9:53 AM Riggamortis has responded

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017