Rashida Tlaib's anti-Israel event

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Sadly, we'll never know the answer to the bolded.

And that's kind of the point. The Palestinian and Arab leadership's failed effort to annihilate Israel in '47 and '48 was the spark that lit the fire that has led to generations of Palestinian suffering.

One of the greatest misjudgments in history.

I don't know why you think the people in the land should embrace with open arms the idea of the state in which they clearly do not belong in the concept of the state as originally defined. But nice job making expulsion and confiscation of land look, like, INEVITABLE. Like, look at these Arabs, what else can we do? OF COURSE we need to expel them and get their land.

I'd not arguing that anyone should embrace anything with open arms.

I am arguing that Tlaib's narrative of the innocent Palestinians as victims of Israeli aggression in '47 and '48 is historically inaccurate.

I'd also argue that such a narrative hurts rather than helps the Palestinian people.

LOL I know your kind. You only have two wishes for anyone non-Jewish in Israel and occupied territories:

1) Shut up
2) Emigrate.

My kind? I think that's a (failed) attempt to be offensive.

Would it shock you to learn that (a) I'm not Israeli, (b) I'm not Jewish, and (c) I'm not an evangelical Christian?

And no, those are not my two wishes. My actual wish is a two state solution, which requires reasonable and pragmatic leadership on both sides.

Right now, neither side qualifies.

Supporting the two state solution and calling for pragmatic leadership on both sides is akin to telling the Palestinians to shut up and enjoy occupation (except Gaza, they get a crippling blockade instead). Too much land has been settled for a Palestine state to be viable and leadership on both sides know it. Israel is convinced that they can perpetually occupy and Palestinians are convinced that someone will care at some point in the future and force Israel's hand. I personally think Israel is correct

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile let’s see what a future republicans White House will look like:

Monday shined a light on some of the attendees of an event being hosted this weekend at Trump National Doral, the Miami hotel resort owned by former President Donald Trump.

Scott McKay and Charlie Ward will appear on the latest leg of the ReAwaken America tour. Both have expressed antisemitic views and support of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, noted Maddow.

Trump scion Eric Trump, his wife, Lara Trump, and “a whole bunch of other Trump administration folks” will also talk at the event on Friday and Saturday, said Maddow.

“I can’t really believe they are going ahead with it,” the MSNBC host said of the tour, which was co-founded by Michael Flynn, Trump’s disgraced former national security adviser.

The Anti-Defamation League, on its website, describes the tour as “a series of controversial far-right conferences” featuring “prominent QAnon influencers, anti-vaxx activists, election fraud conspiracy theorists, Christian pastors, political candidates and elected officials.”

https://news.yahoo.com/rachel-maddow-names-pro-hitler-065345066.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Actually, if you did any impartial reading, you'd know that the powers that be contemplated a mass transfer of Arabs out of the area proposed for the future Jewish state as far back as during the time of the Peel commission! It was never envisaged that there would be Arabs in the land of Israel. And the Zionist leaders knew that very well. Read their scholarship and you see the decision "we'll take what's given now and grab the rest later" loud and clear.

I assume that the above is a different poster than the "whatever the history of that region is", or that someone got access to Wikipedia.

In any event, you're mostly right. Many members of the Jewish leadership, including Ben Gurion, objected to partition and wanted a single, unified state of Israel.

Would the subsequent government of Israel have undertaken a war of aggression to achieve this goal if the Palestinian and Arab states had honored 181?

We'll never know, so we're left to deal the facts. Only one side actually launched a war of annihilation, and it wasn't the Israelis.

"A war of annihilation" isn't a fact. It's a talking point.

Do I need to start pulling the quotes? Or would you prefer to post some quotes by Arab/Palestinian leaders demonstrating a different strategic objective?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Sadly, we'll never know the answer to the bolded.

And that's kind of the point. The Palestinian and Arab leadership's failed effort to annihilate Israel in '47 and '48 was the spark that lit the fire that has led to generations of Palestinian suffering.

One of the greatest misjudgments in history.

I don't know why you think the people in the land should embrace with open arms the idea of the state in which they clearly do not belong in the concept of the state as originally defined. But nice job making expulsion and confiscation of land look, like, INEVITABLE. Like, look at these Arabs, what else can we do? OF COURSE we need to expel them and get their land.

I'd not arguing that anyone should embrace anything with open arms.

I am arguing that Tlaib's narrative of the innocent Palestinians as victims of Israeli aggression in '47 and '48 is historically inaccurate.

I'd also argue that such a narrative hurts rather than helps the Palestinian people.

LOL I know your kind. You only have two wishes for anyone non-Jewish in Israel and occupied territories:

1) Shut up
2) Emigrate.

My kind? I think that's a (failed) attempt to be offensive.

Would it shock you to learn that (a) I'm not Israeli, (b) I'm not Jewish, and (c) I'm not an evangelical Christian?

And no, those are not my two wishes. My actual wish is a two state solution, which requires reasonable and pragmatic leadership on both sides.

Right now, neither side qualifies.

Supporting the two state solution and calling for pragmatic leadership on both sides is akin to telling the Palestinians to shut up and enjoy occupation (except Gaza, they get a crippling blockade instead). Too much land has been settled for a Palestine state to be viable and leadership on both sides know it. Israel is convinced that they can perpetually occupy and Palestinians are convinced that someone will care at some point in the future and force Israel's hand. I personally think Israel is correct

I'm afraid you're correct.

That's why I used the term "wish" rather than "solution".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

LOL maybe you should venture outside your Benny Morris diet.

"Whatever the history of that region is" says it all, don't you think?

The Israeli resistance to the concept of Nakba is clear proof that there are different versions of history.

Different "versions" does not mean different facts. The facts are quite well-established.

But you're not disputing the fact that there were mass expulsions of Palestinians and mass confiscation of their land and property. You simply think Palestinians should not be allowed to weep over it, and certainly not on a global scale. There is only one people who is allowed to feel pain and commemorate it multiple generations upward, and it ain't the Palestinians.

I'm not disputing the mass expulsions or confiscation or many, many other instances of mistreatment.

I don't think you get to blame your opponents for the immediate consequences of a war that you started.

I certainly think it's justified to bemoan and challenge decades of subsequent oppression, provided that you also understand your role in creating that circumstance.

Mass expulsions and land confiscation were not the immediate consequences. It was the plan from day one.

I also note you persist in your beliefs that hostilities started when they started. Perhaps to Arabs, the establishment of Israel and its sudden power and second-class status for non-Jewish residents of Palestine was an act of war as real as anything. Very curious state of mind that thinks anyone owes obedience to the new Jewish state, even though it's explicitly for the Jews with no thought to anything else.

That's actually not entirely accurate.

On "day 1", Arab states rejected 181.

Most Jewish/Israeli groups accepted it, at least nominally. (Obviously there were exceptions like the Stern gang et al).

Moreover, "act of war" has a largely commonly understood and agreed-upon definition. Neither 181 nor any of the things you list above qualify as such.

Why can't they reject it? Is it a dictatorial edict? Why can't Arabs have an opinion?

Of course most Jewish groups accepted it - why wouldn't they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

LOL maybe you should venture outside your Benny Morris diet.

"Whatever the history of that region is" says it all, don't you think?

The Israeli resistance to the concept of Nakba is clear proof that there are different versions of history.

Different "versions" does not mean different facts. The facts are quite well-established.

But you're not disputing the fact that there were mass expulsions of Palestinians and mass confiscation of their land and property. You simply think Palestinians should not be allowed to weep over it, and certainly not on a global scale. There is only one people who is allowed to feel pain and commemorate it multiple generations upward, and it ain't the Palestinians.

I'm not disputing the mass expulsions or confiscation or many, many other instances of mistreatment.

I don't think you get to blame your opponents for the immediate consequences of a war that you started.

I certainly think it's justified to bemoan and challenge decades of subsequent oppression, provided that you also understand your role in creating that circumstance.

Mass expulsions and land confiscation were not the immediate consequences. It was the plan from day one.

I also note you persist in your beliefs that hostilities started when they started. Perhaps to Arabs, the establishment of Israel and its sudden power and second-class status for non-Jewish residents of Palestine was an act of war as real as anything. Very curious state of mind that thinks anyone owes obedience to the new Jewish state, even though it's explicitly for the Jews with no thought to anything else.

That's actually not entirely accurate.

On "day 1", Arab states rejected 181.

Most Jewish/Israeli groups accepted it, at least nominally. (Obviously there were exceptions like the Stern gang et al).

Moreover, "act of war" has a largely commonly understood and agreed-upon definition. Neither 181 nor any of the things you list above qualify as such.

Large scale territorial appropriation is one of the oldest commonly accepted acts of war

And which state actors engaged (or attempted to engage) in that against another state actor first? (Note that the mere act of partition under 181 obviously does not qualify)

Cool, the terrorists associated with the state and later absorbed into that state don't count. I guess Lexington and Concord weren't really acts of war since there were no state actors on the American side

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Actually, if you did any impartial reading, you'd know that the powers that be contemplated a mass transfer of Arabs out of the area proposed for the future Jewish state as far back as during the time of the Peel commission! It was never envisaged that there would be Arabs in the land of Israel. And the Zionist leaders knew that very well. Read their scholarship and you see the decision "we'll take what's given now and grab the rest later" loud and clear.

I assume that the above is a different poster than the "whatever the history of that region is", or that someone got access to Wikipedia.

In any event, you're mostly right. Many members of the Jewish leadership, including Ben Gurion, objected to partition and wanted a single, unified state of Israel.

Would the subsequent government of Israel have undertaken a war of aggression to achieve this goal if the Palestinian and Arab states had honored 181?

We'll never know, so we're left to deal the facts. Only one side actually launched a war of annihilation, and it wasn't the Israelis.

"A war of annihilation" isn't a fact. It's a talking point.

Do I need to start pulling the quotes? Or would you prefer to post some quotes by Arab/Palestinian leaders demonstrating a different strategic objective?

LOL only if you do a side-by-side with quotes by the Zionist leaders indicating the entire Eretz Israel was always the objective, even if you had to agree to an interim solution in the interim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

LOL maybe you should venture outside your Benny Morris diet.

"Whatever the history of that region is" says it all, don't you think?

The Israeli resistance to the concept of Nakba is clear proof that there are different versions of history.

Different "versions" does not mean different facts. The facts are quite well-established.

But you're not disputing the fact that there were mass expulsions of Palestinians and mass confiscation of their land and property. You simply think Palestinians should not be allowed to weep over it, and certainly not on a global scale. There is only one people who is allowed to feel pain and commemorate it multiple generations upward, and it ain't the Palestinians.

I'm not disputing the mass expulsions or confiscation or many, many other instances of mistreatment.

I don't think you get to blame your opponents for the immediate consequences of a war that you started.

I certainly think it's justified to bemoan and challenge decades of subsequent oppression, provided that you also understand your role in creating that circumstance.

Mass expulsions and land confiscation were not the immediate consequences. It was the plan from day one.

I also note you persist in your beliefs that hostilities started when they started. Perhaps to Arabs, the establishment of Israel and its sudden power and second-class status for non-Jewish residents of Palestine was an act of war as real as anything. Very curious state of mind that thinks anyone owes obedience to the new Jewish state, even though it's explicitly for the Jews with no thought to anything else.

That's actually not entirely accurate.

On "day 1", Arab states rejected 181.

Most Jewish/Israeli groups accepted it, at least nominally. (Obviously there were exceptions like the Stern gang et al).

Moreover, "act of war" has a largely commonly understood and agreed-upon definition. Neither 181 nor any of the things you list above qualify as such.

Why can't they reject it? Is it a dictatorial edict? Why can't Arabs have an opinion?

Of course most Jewish groups accepted it - why wouldn't they?

An opinion, sure.

Launching a war of annihilation to overturn a UN resolution partitioning territory? Frowned upon and an act of war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Actually, if you did any impartial reading, you'd know that the powers that be contemplated a mass transfer of Arabs out of the area proposed for the future Jewish state as far back as during the time of the Peel commission! It was never envisaged that there would be Arabs in the land of Israel. And the Zionist leaders knew that very well. Read their scholarship and you see the decision "we'll take what's given now and grab the rest later" loud and clear.

I assume that the above is a different poster than the "whatever the history of that region is", or that someone got access to Wikipedia.

In any event, you're mostly right. Many members of the Jewish leadership, including Ben Gurion, objected to partition and wanted a single, unified state of Israel.

Would the subsequent government of Israel have undertaken a war of aggression to achieve this goal if the Palestinian and Arab states had honored 181?

We'll never know, so we're left to deal the facts. Only one side actually launched a war of annihilation, and it wasn't the Israelis.

"A war of annihilation" isn't a fact. It's a talking point.

Do I need to start pulling the quotes? Or would you prefer to post some quotes by Arab/Palestinian leaders demonstrating a different strategic objective?

LOL only if you do a side-by-side with quotes by the Zionist leaders indicating the entire Eretz Israel was always the objective, even if you had to agree to an interim solution in the interim.

Fair point, but the fact remains that one side acted on those aims. We'll never know what Israeli leadership at the time would have done in response to 181.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

LOL maybe you should venture outside your Benny Morris diet.

"Whatever the history of that region is" says it all, don't you think?

The Israeli resistance to the concept of Nakba is clear proof that there are different versions of history.

Different "versions" does not mean different facts. The facts are quite well-established.

But you're not disputing the fact that there were mass expulsions of Palestinians and mass confiscation of their land and property. You simply think Palestinians should not be allowed to weep over it, and certainly not on a global scale. There is only one people who is allowed to feel pain and commemorate it multiple generations upward, and it ain't the Palestinians.

I'm not disputing the mass expulsions or confiscation or many, many other instances of mistreatment.

I don't think you get to blame your opponents for the immediate consequences of a war that you started.

I certainly think it's justified to bemoan and challenge decades of subsequent oppression, provided that you also understand your role in creating that circumstance.

Mass expulsions and land confiscation were not the immediate consequences. It was the plan from day one.

I also note you persist in your beliefs that hostilities started when they started. Perhaps to Arabs, the establishment of Israel and its sudden power and second-class status for non-Jewish residents of Palestine was an act of war as real as anything. Very curious state of mind that thinks anyone owes obedience to the new Jewish state, even though it's explicitly for the Jews with no thought to anything else.

That's actually not entirely accurate.

On "day 1", Arab states rejected 181.

Most Jewish/Israeli groups accepted it, at least nominally. (Obviously there were exceptions like the Stern gang et al).

Moreover, "act of war" has a largely commonly understood and agreed-upon definition. Neither 181 nor any of the things you list above qualify as such.

Large scale territorial appropriation is one of the oldest commonly accepted acts of war

And which state actors engaged (or attempted to engage) in that against another state actor first? (Note that the mere act of partition under 181 obviously does not qualify)

Cool, the terrorists associated with the state and later absorbed into that state don't count. I guess Lexington and Concord weren't really acts of war since there were no state actors on the American side

Stretching it a bit far, I'd say.

Fact is, state actors on one side at least nominally accepted 181. State actors on the other side launched a war with the express aim of rejecting 181 and annhilating their opponents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Actually, if you did any impartial reading, you'd know that the powers that be contemplated a mass transfer of Arabs out of the area proposed for the future Jewish state as far back as during the time of the Peel commission! It was never envisaged that there would be Arabs in the land of Israel. And the Zionist leaders knew that very well. Read their scholarship and you see the decision "we'll take what's given now and grab the rest later" loud and clear.

I assume that the above is a different poster than the "whatever the history of that region is", or that someone got access to Wikipedia.

In any event, you're mostly right. Many members of the Jewish leadership, including Ben Gurion, objected to partition and wanted a single, unified state of Israel.

Would the subsequent government of Israel have undertaken a war of aggression to achieve this goal if the Palestinian and Arab states had honored 181?

We'll never know, so we're left to deal the facts. Only one side actually launched a war of annihilation, and it wasn't the Israelis.

"A war of annihilation" isn't a fact. It's a talking point.

Do I need to start pulling the quotes? Or would you prefer to post some quotes by Arab/Palestinian leaders demonstrating a different strategic objective?

LOL only if you do a side-by-side with quotes by the Zionist leaders indicating the entire Eretz Israel was always the objective, even if you had to agree to an interim solution in the interim.

Fair point, but the fact remains that one side acted on those aims. We'll never know what Israeli leadership at the time would have done in response to 181.

Well no, the other side has been acting on these aims every since. And succeeding!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Actually, if you did any impartial reading, you'd know that the powers that be contemplated a mass transfer of Arabs out of the area proposed for the future Jewish state as far back as during the time of the Peel commission! It was never envisaged that there would be Arabs in the land of Israel. And the Zionist leaders knew that very well. Read their scholarship and you see the decision "we'll take what's given now and grab the rest later" loud and clear.

I assume that the above is a different poster than the "whatever the history of that region is", or that someone got access to Wikipedia.

In any event, you're mostly right. Many members of the Jewish leadership, including Ben Gurion, objected to partition and wanted a single, unified state of Israel.

Would the subsequent government of Israel have undertaken a war of aggression to achieve this goal if the Palestinian and Arab states had honored 181?

We'll never know, so we're left to deal the facts. Only one side actually launched a war of annihilation, and it wasn't the Israelis.

"A war of annihilation" isn't a fact. It's a talking point.

Do I need to start pulling the quotes? Or would you prefer to post some quotes by Arab/Palestinian leaders demonstrating a different strategic objective?

LOL only if you do a side-by-side with quotes by the Zionist leaders indicating the entire Eretz Israel was always the objective, even if you had to agree to an interim solution in the interim.

Fair point, but the fact remains that one side acted on those aims. We'll never know what Israeli leadership at the time would have done in response to 181.

Well no, the other side has been acting on these aims every since. And succeeding!

So you think history would have played out exactly the same way had the Palestinians and Arabs not rejected 181 and launched the way?

It's possible, but I think unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile let’s see what a future republicans White House will look like:

Monday shined a light on some of the attendees of an event being hosted this weekend at Trump National Doral, the Miami hotel resort owned by former President Donald Trump.

Scott McKay and Charlie Ward will appear on the latest leg of the ReAwaken America tour. Both have expressed antisemitic views and support of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, noted Maddow.

Trump scion Eric Trump, his wife, Lara Trump, and “a whole bunch of other Trump administration folks” will also talk at the event on Friday and Saturday, said Maddow.

“I can’t really believe they are going ahead with it,” the MSNBC host said of the tour, which was co-founded by Michael Flynn, Trump’s disgraced former national security adviser.

The Anti-Defamation League, on its website, describes the tour as “a series of controversial far-right conferences” featuring “prominent QAnon influencers, anti-vaxx activists, election fraud conspiracy theorists, Christian pastors, political candidates and elected officials.”

https://news.yahoo.com/rachel-maddow-names-pro-hitler-065345066.html

Can you please give me the exact quotes from Ward and McKay?

[Anonymous]

Nakba day was not originally anti-Semitic - it was a commemoration of the displacement of Palestinians, and was marked by Palestinians in Israel. However, in recent years, predictably, it has disintegrated into regular old anti-Semitism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nakba day was not originally anti-Semitic - it was a commemoration of the displacement of Palestinians, and was marked by Palestinians in Israel. However, in recent years, predictably, it has disintegrated into regular old anti-Semitism.

Right because any criticism of Israel is antisemitic.