Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

DP. I don’t think anyone would really defend the conduct of the Irgun and other Jewish militias in Mandatory Palestine today, but let’s not pretend that it was only “Zionists” engaging in violence and terrorism then. There was basically a civil war within the territory for years under the British.

Sadly, you’re mistaken. There are PLENTY of people that defend it, excuse it, obfuscate the facts to dismiss criticism of what they did, and worse - I’ve personally observed posters in these threads justifying it.

To be honest, my use of the word “conduct” in lieu of what more appropriately describes what they did (committed heinous acts of terrorism) is a representative example of how badly Zionists has distorted the history.

We don’t talk about Nazi “conduct”. Why TF am I identifying what those groups did (and yes, they did far worse than their Arab contemporaries did) as mere misconduct? Because of the revisionist history that the West has been selling about Israel’s establishment for decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

Setting aside that there was violence on both sides pre-1948, from just a purely pragmatic point of view: what has terrorism accomplished? I’m not even making a moral argument here.

Israel is more powerful militarily. It doesn’t really have to make concessions. It absolutely will if the Palestinians can guarantee one thing: security. But they haven’t shown that they can do that, so why would Israel sacrifice their own interests? Because a bunch of keffiyeh-wearing sociology majors yell at them?

Absolutely will?

Are you serious?

The only time Israel even pretended that it was will to exchange statehood for peace, one of the Zionist loons literally murdered the PM.

About that “absolutely will” … aside from make believe land, where else are you sourcing that theory?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

DP. I don’t think anyone would really defend the conduct of the Irgun and other Jewish militias in Mandatory Palestine today, but let’s not pretend that it was only “Zionists” engaging in violence and terrorism then. There was basically a civil war within the territory for years under the British.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

Setting aside that there was violence on both sides pre-1948, from just a purely pragmatic point of view: what has terrorism accomplished? I’m not even making a moral argument here.

Israel is more powerful militarily. It doesn’t really have to make concessions. It absolutely will if the Palestinians can guarantee one thing: security. But they haven’t shown that they can do that, so why would Israel sacrifice their own interests? Because a bunch of keffiyeh-wearing sociology majors yell at them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Anonymous wrote:Occasionally I read Jewish newspapers--have read some Haaretz articles but do not have a subscription, and also Times of Israel and Jerusalem post. On Haaretz site I can certainly read comments even when I can only see the headline, and can see comments for the other media as well. There are of course comments from all sides but the pro-Israel comments (I can't say how many of them are from Israelis vs other countries) are the absolute worst in referring to ANY Palestinian as an animal, subhuman, etc. New Yorker had an article about a Palestinian physician (Israel has a lot of Palestinian doctors) who volunteered to provide medical care in the field on October 7 and practices otherwise as well in Jerusalem with both Jewish and Palestinian patients. Some of her Jewish patients deeply appreciate her but she also constantly hears horrific comments about, say, a Palestinian newborn being a terrorist who should be killed.

These characterizations aren't even stated anonymously in mainstream comments by pro-Lost Cause racists in the US, they keep themselves (I'm sure) to the Nazi back alleys of the internet. But they seem to be broadly acceptable among some Jewish communities. The first I really became aware of the settler movement was years ago in a magazine like Time or something, where settlers spoke about Palestinians in the exact same most racist terms Americans have ever said about Native Americans (terms I actually heard on occasion growing up in a state with a substantial Native American population).

An aside to posters I noticed yesterday (can't find now) about how we don't give the US back to indigenous peoples (ignoring the fact that by the time America was approaching being a country 90% of the original inhabitants were dead). In fact, from time to time we DO give land back. A reservation my family used to drive through going to visit my grandparents on the other side became 10x larger sometime in the late 1970s, and in many other incremental ways tribes have been using the courts to regain rights they had lost a century or more ago. (Gorsuch happens to be knowledgeable in Indian law and has come down on the side of tribes in SCOTUS cases during his time on the bench)

Anonymous wrote:Occasionally I read Jewish newspapers--have read some Haaretz articles but do not have a subscription, and also Times of Israel and Jerusalem post. On Haaretz site I can certainly read comments even when I can only see the headline, and can see comments for the other media as well. There are of course comments from all sides but the pro-Israel comments (I can't say how many of them are from Israelis vs other countries) are the absolute worst in referring to ANY Palestinian as an animal, subhuman, etc. New Yorker had an article about a Palestinian physician (Israel has a lot of Palestinian doctors) who volunteered to provide medical care in the field on October 7 and practices otherwise as well in Jerusalem with both Jewish and Palestinian patients. Some of her Jewish patients deeply appreciate her but she also constantly hears horrific comments about, say, a Palestinian newborn being a terrorist who should be killed.

These characterizations aren't even stated anonymously in mainstream comments by pro-Lost Cause racists in the US, they keep themselves (I'm sure) to the Nazi back alleys of the internet. But they seem to be broadly acceptable among some Jewish communities. The first I really became aware of the settler movement was years ago in a magazine like Time or something, where settlers spoke about Palestinians in the exact same most racist terms Americans have ever said about Native Americans (terms I actually heard on occasion growing up in a state with a substantial Native American population).

An aside to posters I noticed yesterday (can't find now) about how we don't give the US back to indigenous peoples (ignoring the fact that by the time America was approaching being a country 90% of the original inhabitants were dead). In fact, from time to time we DO give land back. A reservation my family used to drive through going to visit my grandparents on the other side became 10x larger sometime in the late 1970s, and in many other incremental ways tribes have been using the courts to regain rights they had lost a century or more ago. (Gorsuch happens to be knowledgeable in Indian law and has come down on the side of tribes in SCOTUS cases during his time on the bench)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the other kid or his or her parents have to do the emotional labor of explaining anti-Jewish racism to your kid (or you). The other kid is a whole kid who is entitled to their feelings and reactions. They do not need your good opinion to function and I doubt you want or need theirs. Plus, hating on Jews is super hip these days. May actually make DC more friend. I’m sure your kid has also gone up to his or Salvadoran classmates and given them an earful about death squads or his Afghani classmates about gender apartheid and child marriageable. Maybe suggest model UN?

Dp

News flash: anyone is allowed to focus on personal area(s) of concern without your approval or judgement.

As you adroitly pointed out, each is a whole person and approval or judgement is unwelcome. Now, feel free to STFU with this “unless you are certain you have covered every possible base by criticizing every possible wrong in the world, you must be anti-semitic if you criticize Israel” crusade, which is straight outta Hasbara for Dummies.

I mean using bigoted tropes like “hasbara” kind of lets your mask drop a tad, as does your rage…Throwing in the word crusade ups your “onward Christian soldier” vibe for extra credit! News flash - you are free to fixate and foam at the mouth - and we are also free to judge you for it…and if your kid comes at my kid - I’m free to explain to my kid that your kid is a racist who should be avoided. Life is too short. There are too many ignorant people and too many guns in this country, both with children and adults. And I would never tell my child they have to keep secrets from their teachers if another kid is bullying them. I would not confront you personally (see comment about life being too short) but students should always feel empowered to talk to teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the other kid or his or her parents have to do the emotional labor of explaining anti-Jewish racism to your kid (or you). The other kid is a whole kid who is entitled to their feelings and reactions. They do not need your good opinion to function and I doubt you want or need theirs. Plus, hating on Jews is super hip these days. May actually make DC more friend. I’m sure your kid has also gone up to his or Salvadoran classmates and given them an earful about death squads or his Afghani classmates about gender apartheid and child marriageable. Maybe suggest model UN?

Dp

News flash: anyone is allowed to focus on personal area(s) of concern without your approval or judgement.

As you adroitly pointed out, each is a whole person and approval or judgement is unwelcome. Now, feel free to STFU with this “unless you are certain you have covered every possible base by criticizing every possible wrong in the world, you must be anti-semitic if you criticize Israel” crusade, which is straight outta Hasbara for Dummies.

I mean using bigoted tropes like “hasbara” kind of lets your mask drop a tad, as does your rage…Throwing in the word crusade ups your “onward Christian soldier” vibe for extra credit! News flash - you are free to fixate and foam at the mouth - and we are also free to judge you for it…and if your kid comes at my kid - I’m free to explain to my kid that your kid is a racist who should be avoided. Life is too short. There are too many ignorant people and too many guns in this country, both with children and adults. And I would never tell my child they have to keep secrets from their teachers if another kid is bullying them. I would not confront you personally (see comment about life being too short) but students should always feel empowered to talk to teachers.