Rashida Tlaib's anti-Israel event

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

And yet I'm sure you call the Ukrainian resistance on Russian-occupied land "a noble struggle".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

If your only criteria for justifying mass expulsion and expropriation of land is "we won", then you must be prepared for a similar reaction should you lose.

I also find your sudden respect for the UN resolutions nothing short of charming. I didn't know Israel cares about what the UN says. I mean does it? Or only when it works for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one cares

Except for OP.

DP.

I care.

I think it's revolting that Tlaib is holding this event.

I always found it amusing to take the pro-Israel crowd to task for what they say Palestinians ought to do. They are all like, "Palestinians should use peaceful means!", and the fact is, no one has really explained what it is that Palestinians are allowed to do to protest the policies and behavior of the Israeli state that cause hardship and oppression.

Resist IDF with weapons? Definitely not! Terrorists!

Throw stones? Absolutely not! Terrorists!

Demonstrate? Absolutely not! Glorification of terrorists!

Mourn the victims of Israeli violence? Absolutely not! Glorification of terrorists!

Mourn the children killed by the Israelis? Absolutely not! Glorification of terrorist parents!

Investigate the assassination of the famous American journalist killed by deliberate sniper fire? Absolutely not!

Tell their children about the history of Israel's oppression? Absolutely not! You should be teaching them to kneel down and kiss the boots of the IDF.

Resist settler violence? Absolutely not! Terrorists!

Write and speak about the history of Israeli violence? Absolutely not! We'll make sure it's career suicide for you!

Sing sad songs and write sad poems? I dunno about that one. Maybe under the blanket in your bedroom.

Emigrate to other Arab countries and shut the F up? Yes please. You are DEFINITELY allowed to do this. One hundred percent. Go with god. After all, these Arabs, they can live anywhere. We, the chosen people, can only live here. God sez so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

If your only criteria for justifying mass expulsion and expropriation of land is "we won", then you must be prepared for a similar reaction should you lose.

I also find your sudden respect for the UN resolutions nothing short of charming. I didn't know Israel cares about what the UN says. I mean does it? Or only when it works for them?

Who's justifying what now?

I'm not Israel and I'm not "justifying" anything.

I'm simply objecting to Tlaib rewriting history.

Fact is, Palestinian leadership and Arab states behaved reprehensibly in '47 and '48. Commemorating your failed attempt to commit genocide and blaming your intended victims b/c you lost is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

What do you think happened to most Palestinian homeowners caught on the wrong side of the lines?

Or Palestinian homeowners who WERE on the right side of the line of demarcation, only to have their homes and farms that they built and lived in for generations taken over by violent, armed Israeli settlers who came there illegally, backed up by the IDF? And then to have militarized perimeters continually encroach further and further into land that was supposed to legally be Palestinian per UN, following behind all of the illegal armed Israeli settlers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

If your only criteria for justifying mass expulsion and expropriation of land is "we won", then you must be prepared for a similar reaction should you lose.

I also find your sudden respect for the UN resolutions nothing short of charming. I didn't know Israel cares about what the UN says. I mean does it? Or only when it works for them?

Who's justifying what now?

I'm not Israel and I'm not "justifying" anything.

I'm simply objecting to Tlaib rewriting history.

Fact is, Palestinian leadership and Arab states behaved reprehensibly in '47 and '48. Commemorating your failed attempt to commit genocide and blaming your intended victims b/c you lost is ridiculous.

Seizure of land, wholesale theft and expulsion of people based on ethnic criteria is definitely suitable punishment for the sins of their leadership. Shut up with your pain and suffering. We won so enough already with the Present Absentee business (can you explain what that is without googling? Five bucks says no.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

Israeli policy toward Palestinians is apartheid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

What do you think happened to most Palestinian homeowners caught on the wrong side of the lines?

Or Palestinian homeowners who WERE on the right side of the line of demarcation, only to have their homes and farms that they built and lived in for generations taken over by violent, armed Israeli settlers who came there illegally, backed up by the IDF? And then to have militarized perimeters continually encroach further and further into land that was supposed to legally be Palestinian per UN, following behind all of the illegal armed Israeli settlers?

LOL Israel cares about the UN now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

OK, that was 75 years ago. How much longer does it justify apartheid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

If your only criteria for justifying mass expulsion and expropriation of land is "we won", then you must be prepared for a similar reaction should you lose.

I also find your sudden respect for the UN resolutions nothing short of charming. I didn't know Israel cares about what the UN says. I mean does it? Or only when it works for them?

Who's justifying what now?

I'm not Israel and I'm not "justifying" anything.

I'm simply objecting to Tlaib rewriting history.

Fact is, Palestinian leadership and Arab states behaved reprehensibly in '47 and '48. Commemorating your failed attempt to commit genocide and blaming your intended victims b/c you lost is ridiculous.

History has many sides. Israel has pushed the one that works for them. Whatever the history of that region is, I'm sure Tlaib understands it better than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

And yet I'm sure you call the Ukrainian resistance on Russian-occupied land "a noble struggle".

Ukraine launched a war of aggression to annihilate the Russian people? And denied Russia's right to exist? And repeatedly launched brutal attacks against Russian civilians?

I'm an avid consumer of news, but I somehow missed all of that. Astonishing.

If your criteria is "we won so it's OK", then you definitely shouldn't criticize Russia.

That's absolutely not the criteria stated above.

The point is that you don't get to launch an illegal war of aggression (actually annihilation), lose, then blame the victors for your loss.

And it's nothing short of outrageous to blame your intended victims of genocide for the conflict and its results, which is exactly what Tlaib is doing.

Totally fair game to criticize the victor's subsequent actions, and goodness knows Israel deserves plenty of criticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

OK, that was 75 years ago. How much longer does it justify apartheid?

It doesn't. Never said it did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

And yet I'm sure you call the Ukrainian resistance on Russian-occupied land "a noble struggle".

Ukraine launched a war of aggression to annihilate the Russian people? And denied Russia's right to exist? And repeatedly launched brutal attacks against Russian civilians?

I'm an avid consumer of news, but I somehow missed all of that. Astonishing.

If your criteria is "we won so it's OK", then you definitely shouldn't criticize Russia.

That's absolutely not the criteria stated above.

The point is that you don't get to launch an illegal war of aggression (actually annihilation), lose, then blame the victors for your loss.

And it's nothing short of outrageous to blame your intended victims of genocide for the conflict and its results, which is exactly what Tlaib is doing.

Totally fair game to criticize the victor's subsequent actions, and goodness knows Israel deserves plenty of criticism.

Well it wasn't JUST loss, was it?

Did Israel HAVE to expel Palestinians?

Did Israel HAVE to confiscate their land?

Are you sure it was all because of the war? Perhaps Israel simply didn't want a demographic bomb of Palestinian presence within Israel. Can't have a pure Jewish state with these Arabs reproducing the way they do, can you? And extra land certainly wouldn't hurt!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Conservatives yammer non-stop about free speech and "censorship" but now we see their true feelings. Tlaib's event was to recognize a historic event that was tragic for Palestinians. Describing it as "anti-Israel" is like describing a Pearl Harbor Day event as "anti-Japanese".

If Tlaib was being shutdown by a Stanford University dean instead of the Speaker of the House, conservatives would be screeching like stuck pigs. But no free speech for those who don't adhere to the party line.

So, it's not anti-Israel even though Nakba is translated as "Catastrophe?"
And, here she is lamenting the existence of Israel while missiles are raining down on Tel Aviv.

Yes, I think that when you are kicked out of your homeland it is reasonable to call it a "Catastrophe". Here you are denying the Palestinians their history while Israeli missiles rain down on Gaza.

I take it you're not a fan of UN resolution 181.

I welcome the full implementation of resolution 181. Do you?

Did the Palestinians? Azzam Pasha? The Arab states?

Had they respected the UN resolution, the history of the region would be entirely different. That's what makes Tlaib's event so revolting.

Palestinian leadership and their allies violated the UN resolution, launched a war of annihilation, and blame everyone but themselves for the consequences.

And to answer your question, I would no longer support implementation of the 181 map, but absolutely favor a 2 state solution.

How many years later can a war justify apartheid? Did the Zulu wars justify South African actions in the 70s?

Who's justifying apartheid?

There's a lot to criticize about Israel's conduct, but 1947? Not so much. The Palestinians and Arabs own that one.

That's what makes Tlaib's conduct re: "the Catastrophe" so disgusting.

You violate a UN resolution, launch a war of aggression with the express purpose of committing genocide, then blame your intended victims for winning?

That's reprehensible.

If your only criteria for justifying mass expulsion and expropriation of land is "we won", then you must be prepared for a similar reaction should you lose.

I also find your sudden respect for the UN resolutions nothing short of charming. I didn't know Israel cares about what the UN says. I mean does it? Or only when it works for them?

Who's justifying what now?

I'm not Israel and I'm not "justifying" anything.

I'm simply objecting to Tlaib rewriting history.

Fact is, Palestinian leadership and Arab states behaved reprehensibly in '47 and '48. Commemorating your failed attempt to commit genocide and blaming your intended victims b/c you lost is ridiculous.

History has many sides. Israel has pushed the one that works for them. Whatever the history of that region is, I'm sure Tlaib understands it better than you.

Seriously?

Maybe you should do some reading.