Rashida Tlaib's anti-Israel event

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because it has devolved from a commemoration to physical attacks on American Jews, vandalism of synagogues (in the USA), and public speeches about Jewish conspiracies of world domination. Or does that fall under the title of "criticism of Israel" to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because it has devolved from a commemoration to physical attacks on American Jews, vandalism of synagogues (in the USA), and public speeches about Jewish conspiracies of world domination. Or does that fall under the title of "criticism of Israel" to you?

Rashida is not allowed to question Israel or support Palestinians because you think it is anti semitic. It is not anti semitic. The former president, his family members who serviced in the White House, senior staff and republicans embrace neo Nazis and it is ignored by you. The republicans have elevated white nationalist, white supremacists and neo Nazis to normalcy. This is where the up swing of anti semitism come from not from Rashida, not from the democrats.

Physical attacks of American Jews, vandalism of synagogues and public speeches about Jewish conspiracy is not caused by criticism of Israel. You know this but just want to push your right wing views while embracing trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because it has devolved from a commemoration to physical attacks on American Jews, vandalism of synagogues (in the USA), and public speeches about Jewish conspiracies of world domination. Or does that fall under the title of "criticism of Israel" to you?

Rashida is not allowed to question Israel or support Palestinians because you think it is anti semitic. It is not anti semitic. The former president, his family members who serviced in the White House, senior staff and republicans embrace neo Nazis and it is ignored by you. The republicans have elevated white nationalist, white supremacists and neo Nazis to normalcy. This is where the up swing of anti semitism come from not from Rashida, not from the democrats.

Physical attacks of American Jews, vandalism of synagogues and public speeches about Jewish conspiracy is not caused by criticism of Israel. You know this but just want to push your right wing views while embracing trump.

DP (Democrat). Your attempted misdirection is pathetic.

Have you already forgotten about Omar and the “Benjamin’s”?

Did you miss the pro-Palestinian poster in this thread talking about “your kind”?

The far left is rife with anti-Semitism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Amen!

I’m so sick of the “criticism of Israel is antisemitism” BS. Glad to see Tlaib bringing attention to this issue.

[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.

Wait…Palestinians were massacred and expelled from their lands in ‘47-‘48 and you blame them for “behaving reprehensibly”?? Please stop with this absurdity. Perhaps most Americans don’t know the true history of what happened but the rest of the world knows and thankfully more Americans are learning the truth everyday. Enough is enough.

[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?

Before or after the Arab Liberation Army and subsequently its Arab allies illegally and in violation of the UN resolution launched a war of aggression (actually annihilation) against the Jews of Israel?

Why are they obligated to follow a UN resolution?

[Anonymous]

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.

Wrong. The “spark” as you put it, was the massacre of innocent Palestinians and the theft of their lands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Before or after the Arab Liberation Army and subsequently its Arab allies illegally and in violation of the UN resolution launched a war of aggression (actually annihilation) against the Jews of Israel?

Why are they obligated to follow a UN resolution?

Lol. You’ll have to go much better than that to merit a substantive response.

[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.

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.

Wrong. The “spark” as you put it, was the massacre of innocent Palestinians and the theft of their lands.

Read your history.

[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.

Wait…Palestinians were massacred and expelled from their lands in ‘47-‘48 and you blame them for “behaving reprehensibly”?? Please stop with this absurdity. Perhaps most Americans don’t know the true history of what happened but the rest of the world knows and thankfully more Americans are learning the truth everyday. Enough is enough.

Who launched the war of annihilation again? The history is crystal clear.

Do you think your lies actually help the Palestinian cause?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Before or after the Arab Liberation Army and subsequently its Arab allies illegally and in violation of the UN resolution launched a war of aggression (actually annihilation) against the Jews of Israel?

Why are they obligated to follow a UN resolution?

The 15 yo’s from Bay Ridge have apparently arrived.

[Anonymous]

What’s wrong with being anti-Israel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with being anti-Israel?

Nothing. It’s a tradition that goes back thousands of years.

[Anonymous]

I’m pretty certain that if this involved a provocative conservative speaker, normie liberals would say, there’s no First Amendment right to speak in a Senate hearing room, and the speaker could hold their event elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s wrong with being anti-Israel?

Nothing. It’s a tradition that goes back thousands of years.

Kind of arguably unites far left and far right.