Israel

[Brian Fantana 6689]

I found this article by Omer Bartov very interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov

No matter where you stand on this conflict, I encourage you to read it.

[bolverk 29694]

Thanks for posting that piece, Fantana.

The author mirrors my dread about what's happening to Israel, a country to whom I have no personal ties but one I respect and want to call a friend and ally. It's a nation with so much potential to do good and, ironically, become a strong model for a messed-up part of the world. They still have that potential, but the path they're on right now will only lead to the destruction of their own dream as they continue the long transformation from the oppressed to the oppressors.

For the TL/DR crowd, here are some passages that most resonated (the whole thing is definitely worth a read):

Today, across vast swaths of the Israeli public, including those who oppose the government, two sentiments reign supreme.

The first is a combination of rage and fear, a desire to re-establish security at any cost and a complete distrust of political solutions, negotiations and reconciliation. The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz noted that war was the extension of politics by other means, and warned that without a defined political objective it would lead to limitless destruction. The sentiment that now prevails in Israel similarly threatens to make war into its own end. In this view, politics is an obstacle to achieving goals rather than a means to limit destruction. This is a view that can only ultimately lead to self-annihilation.

The second reigning sentiment – or rather lack of sentiment – is the flipside of the first. It is the utter inability of Israeli society today to feel any empathy for the population of Gaza. The majority, it seems, do not even want to know what is happening in Gaza, and this desire is reflected in TV coverage. Israeli television news these days usually begins with reports on the funerals of soldiers, invariably described as heroes, fallen in the fighting in Gaza, followed by estimates of how many Hamas fighters were “liquidated”. References to Palestinian civilian deaths are rare and normally presented as part of enemy propaganda or as a cause for unwelcome international pressure. In the face of so much death, this deafening silence now seems like its own form of vengefulness.

Of course, the Israeli public long ago became inured to the brutal occupation that has characterised the country for 57 out of the 76 years of its existence. But the scale of what is being perpetrated in Gaza right now by the IDF is as unprecedented as the complete indifference of most Israelis to what is being done in their name. In 1982, hundreds of thousands of Israelis protested against the massacre of the Palestinian population in the refugee camps Sabra and Shatila in western Beirut by Maronite Christian militias, facilitated by the IDF. Today, this kind of response is inconceivable. The way people’s eyes glaze over whenever one mentions the suffering of Palestinian civilians, and the deaths of thousands of children and women and elderly people, is deeply unsettling.

*****

Unlike the majority of Israelis, these young people had seen the destruction of Gaza with their own eyes. It seemed to me that they had not only internalised a particular view that has become commonplace in Israel – namely, that the destruction of Gaza as such was a legitimate response to 7 October – but had also developed a way of thinking that I had observed many years ago when studying the conduct, worldview and self-perception of German army soldiers in the second world war. Having internalised certain views of the enemy – the Bolsheviks as Untermenschen; Hamas as human animals – and of the wider population as less than human and undeserving of rights, soldiers observing or perpetrating atrocities tend to ascribe them not to their own military, or to themselves, but to the enemy.

Thousands of children were killed? It’s the enemy’s fault. Our own children were killed? That is certainly the enemy’s fault. If Hamas carry out a massacre in a kibbutz, they are Nazis. If we drop 2,000-pound bombs on refugee shelters and kill hundreds of civilians, it’s Hamas’s fault for hiding close to these shelters. After what they did to us, we have no choice but to root them out. After what we did to them, we can only imagine what they would do to us if we don’t destroy them. We simply have no choice.

*****

By the time I travelled to Israel, I had become convinced that at least since the attack by the IDF on Rafah on 6 May 2024, it was no longer possible to deny that Israel was engaged in systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions. It was not just that this attack against the last concentration of Gazans – most of them displaced already several times by the IDF, which now once again pushed them to a so-called safe zone – demonstrated a total disregard of any humanitarian standards. It also clearly indicated that the ultimate goal of this entire undertaking from the very beginning had been to make the entire Gaza Strip uninhabitable, and to debilitate its population to such a degree that it would either die out or seek all possible options to flee the territory. In other words, the rhetoric spouted by Israeli leaders since 7 October was now being translated into reality – namely, as the 1948 UN Genocide Convention puts it, that Israel was acting “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”, the Palestinian population in Gaza, “as such, by killing, causing serious harm, or inflicting conditions of life meant to bring about the group’s destruction”.

*****

Since I returned from my visit, I have been trying to place my experiences there into a larger context. The reality on the ground is so devastating, and the future appears so bleak, that I have allowed myself to indulge in some counter-factual history and to entertain some hopeful speculations about a different future. I ask myself, what would have happened had the newly created state of Israel fulfilled its commitment to enact a constitution based on its Declaration of Independence? That same declaration which stated that Israel “will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.

I can't help but feel that this must be how it was like for our European friends/allies watching the US during the Second Iraqi War. Despite their disapproval, harsh criticism, and refusal by most to participate in the injustice, they never abandoned us, as we will not Israel. Like them, I can only wait and hope for Israel to return to sanity and will offer the same critiques as one normally would when watching a friend attempt to self-destruct.

[chainsaw 9872]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1822781516218257650.html

Quote

 🧵In 1968, America was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, and the Democratic Party was caught in the crossfire. VP Hubert Humphrey found himself in a tough spot, closely tied to President Johnson, whose policies were increasingly unpopular among liberals and young voters. Image
Humphrey was often sidelined in key decisions, especially on Vietnam. As anti-war protests grew louder, the youth and liberals in the Democratic Party demanded change—a change they didn't see in Humphrey.
At Portland’s Civic Arena, hundreds of college students shouted, “End the war” and “Murderer,” before walking out en masse. In Seattle, protesters disrupted his speech with cries of "Vietnam is a scream of death that does not end." Image
Humphrey, bewildered and desperate, shouted "shut up" at anti-war protesters, but the tension within the Democratic Party coalition was palpable. His campaign had hit a low point in Seattle, where the New York Times reported "an air of sadness hands over his campaign. Bad vibes. Image
Larry O'Brien, a key advisor, urged Humphrey to make a "clean break" from Johnson's Vietnam policy to show he was his own man. "Unless you change direction...you're finished," O'Brien said. Humphrey hesitated, responding, "I don't know."
The press sought to create a rift between Humphrey and Johnson. Humphrey acknowledged this tension, stating, "The press wants to divide us—me and the president. That makes their stories."
Johnson weighed in, asserting that it was not "proper for the VP or an ex-VP [Nixon] or an ex-President [Eisenhower] to play commander-in-chief." He emphasized that war policy was a matter for the incumbent president to handle until January 20, 1969 -- not for campaign speeches.
Humphrey's hesitation to break from Johnson reflected the complexity of his position—caught between asserting his own path and maintaining loyalty to the administration. This delicate balance would continue to define his campaign's strategy.
Finally, Humphrey decided to distance himself from Johnson's Vietnam policy. When asked by Senator Fred Harris whether he would seek Johnson’s accord before delivering the speech, Humphrey firmly replied, “Hell no. I’m not going to ask. I did that once.”
Humphrey's speech, given without the White House seal, positioned him as a "citizen" rather than a "Vice President." Humphrey called a timetable for troop withdrawals within the next year, including a ceasefire, troop withdrawals, and free elections including the Communists.
After the speech, Humphrey said, stating, "I feel good inside for the first time." While the speech was carefully worded not to upset any major stakeholders, it did chastise war protesters and subtly positioned Humphrey against Nixon without directly opposing Johnson.
Humphrey went ahead in the polls against Nixon. The protest signs that had once targeted him were replaced with messages of support like "If You Mean It, We Are with You," and "Hecklers for Humphrey—We Came Back."
Johnson, feeling betrayed, warned, "If you don’t want it on the front pages, you better quit it" and instructed Humphrey to avoid mentioning Vietnam before the election This boxed Humphrey in, a strategic move to prevent Nixon from gaining ground.
As the North Vietnamese delayed agreeing to American demands in peace talks, he fumed, fearing Humphrey's speech jeopardized negotiations. He called Harriman a “damned fool” and worried Humphrey had given away too much.
In the final days before the election, Johnson made a desperate move to announce a bombing halt just hours before the election, without formally recognizing the NLF. This decision, aimed at swaying the electorate, only added to the chaos, leaving Humphrey to manage the fallout.
Nixon's campaign capitalized on public dissatisfaction with the war. Secretly, he worked to delay the Paris peace talks, undermining both Johnson and Humphrey. He encouraged South Vietnam's leaders to stall, promising them a better deal if he won.
Nixon’s behind-the-scenes efforts aimed to prevent any breakthroughs that might help Humphrey. By stalling peace talks, Nixon ensured Humphrey couldn’t claim progress in ending the Vietnam War.
In the end, Nixon won the presidency by a slim margin. The lesson for future leaders: timing and tone matter. A candidate tied to an incumbent must signal change early enough to mobilize disillusioned voters.
VP @KamalaHarris finds herself in a similar situation, tied to Biden's backing of Israel's assault on Gaza. Like Humphrey, Harris will continue to face disruptive protests at rallies and the return of student encampments that could ruin the vibe of the party.
Nixon seized the moment of chaos, branding himself as the candidate of "law and order." As Democrats fractured, Nixon appealed to those uncomfortable with protests and unrest, drawing crucial support away from Humphrey.
The lesson for Harris on Gaza: act decisively and early, or persuade the incumbent administration to act first. Humphrey’s delayed shift left him scrambling to win back voters who had already lost faith and trust.
Humphrey's late attempt to distance himself from Johnson by advocating for peace came too late to resonate with voters. It appeared as a desperate, cynical political move.
Harris must ensure anger over Biden’s support for Israel's war in Gaza doesn’t spoil the vibes of her campaign. By laying out a distinct Gaza policy, separate from Trump and Biden, she can shift voter/media focus from protests to her key issues: abortion, jobs, and democracy.
It’s obvious the parallels aren’t exact — there was a draft for Vietnam afterall and there weren’t many Vietnamese American voters losing loved ones to US bombs. But there is some rhyming: VP/POTUS dynamics and the party’s response to disruptive anti-war protests.

 

[Rex Kramer 1343]

On 8/8/2024 at 12:42 PM, bolverk said:

 

Come on, man. Don't be like PRONG HORN. How about you address the systematic brutality being perpetrated on the Palestinian people instead of reposting shit from a right-wing rage account like Visegrad. 

Our very own Traces of Texas has more followers on Instagram:

What is the purpose of totally dismissing what students in our own country are themselves very clearly stating?  I care more about what is happening in America. Your quick dismissal is telling. 

[Brian Fantana 6689]

4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

What is the purpose of totally dismissing what students in our own country are themselves very clearly stating?  I care more about what is happening in America. Your quick dismissal is telling. 

I don't think anyone's dismissing it. I think we're all in agreement that what those people are doing is bad. That said, they're a tiny minority with no teeth and no ability to move the needle in any direction. The more attention you give them, the louder and dumber they'll get.

Also, this thread is about Israel, not America?

[Rex Kramer 1343]

7 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I don't think anyone's dismissing it. I think we're all in agreement that what those people are doing is bad. That said, they're a tiny minority with no teeth and no ability to move the needle in any direction. The more attention you give them, the louder and dumber they'll get.

Also, this thread is about Israel, not America?

Yeah fair enough. However, I disagree that it’s right wing media or media in general that gets them attention. These kids are dumb indeed, but they’re attention whores and extremely committed.  I do not think they’re an inconsequential nothing. They need to be exposed and marginalized, lest we become like France or Belgium. 

[Brian Fantana 6689]

8 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Yeah fair enough. However, I disagree that it’s right wing media or media in general that gets them attention. These kids are dumb indeed, but they’re attention whores and extremely committed.  I do not think they’re an inconsequential nothing. They need to be exposed and marginalized, lest we become like France or Belgium. 

They're already as marginalized as they're going to get. Anything you do to them just grants them more attention and incentivizes them to get louder.

Do they really make you so uncomfortable that the only course of action you can see is ruining some 19 year old kid's life because he's speaking out against the established world order in a way you don't like? This is the exact kind of thing the first amendment was made for.

[956 Worldwide 34729]

I am fucking howling at the Waleed Shahid thread and him in general. Let’s leave aside the endless hostage taking threats (cave to our demands or we will make a scene and deliver the country to Trump like we once did for Nixon). 
 

He’s just a perfect example of the blinkered progressive extremism that can’t accept that maybe the problem is them.  He’s advised Bernie’s POTUS runs (loser), Jamal Bowman (loser), and AOC (winner who—notably— has soft-shoed around this issue compared to the squad). He also had high hopes for Cori Bush (loser).

Whats the lessons?

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/jamaal-bowman-defeat-lessons/
 

1. Complain about the rules and the “MSM”. Fair enough, but, that’s not an answer on how to win. 
 

2. Double down on Palestine, even though it’s the thing that got you in the cross-hairs of AIPAC and the MSM (allegedly). 
 

3. Organize better (lulz) which among that section of the left is always the silver bullet. And of course he’ll do the organizing. 
 

4. Support disruptive protests. Really. LOL. 
 

5. Avoid unforced errors like pulling fire alarms, which is the one piece of good advice he has, but is qualified with complaints that the “media” covered the fire alarm pull.

Amazing, truly amazing, and what’s even more fantastic is how there is actually the correct answer buried within:

Quote

The assault on Gaza was barely debated other than within the “tactical framing” of Bowman’s relationship with pro-Israel Jewish voters in the district. Latimer rarely mentioned his unconditional support for the war himself, knowing it was unpopular.

Just don’t fucking touch this one because it’s ballot box suicide. 

[chainsaw 9872]

37 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

He’s just a perfect example of the blinkered progressive extremism that can’t accept that maybe the problem is them AIPAC

FTFY

[bolverk 29694]

2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Yeah fair enough. However, I disagree that it’s right wing media or media in general that gets them attention. These kids are dumb indeed, but they’re attention whores and extremely committed.  I do not think they’re an inconsequential nothing. They need to be exposed and marginalized, lest we become like France or Belgium. 

I'm not sure what your beef is with either Belgium or even France, which just kicked the fascists to the curb (thank gawd). How are they even relevant?

As Fantana said, this thread is really about Israel and not the protestors. However, I'll grant that they (despite their small numbers) have the capability of creating damaging optics and can potentially turn away some voters. So, I'm willing to discuss the topic if you articulate exactly what point you're trying to make, but I'll address what I think you want to get at.

According to a survey I posted here or in the general election thread, only 1% of Americans have the war in Gaza as their number one issue. These, I guess, would be the single-issue voters, including those who are 100% opposed to American assistance and those on the other side who are 100% committed to Israel no matter what.

We also know that 1.3% of Americans are Muslims, and 2.1% of Americans are Jewish. Combined, they comprise 3.4% of the total population. Without having other data and assuming that the 1% who make the war their number one issue is entirely comprised of Jewish folks and Muslims, that would mean less than a third of them could potentially flip votes or stay home based solely on the war.

Based on exit polling, we also know that 80% of Muslims voted for Biden, as did about 2/3 of Jews, and those two cohorts are the ones Harris would be in danger of losing through them staying home or flipping to Trump.

• What percentage of American Muslims do you believe will a) flip to Trump from the Dem column or b) simply stay home over Gaza?
• What percentage of American Jews do you believe will a) flip because they suspect Harris won't back Israel enough or b) simply stay home?

I guess what I'm getting at is that we're talking fractions of fractions. And, yes, in places like Dearborn/Wayne County, there might be a difference. Still, at the end of the day, I'm not sure there's anything Harris could do that would please 100% of both Democratic-supporting Jews and Muslims or that it changes anything in the grand scheme of flipping an entire state like Michigan, where Muslims are about 2.4% of the population.

I think I worked out the math for Michigan and found that if 100% of previous Biden-supporting Muslims stayed home and everything else remained equal, she'd still eke out a win. The same math applies to her losing 50% of all previous Biden-voting Muslims to a flip toward Trump. Obviously, neither of those is going to happen, so I don't think she's in real danger of losing that state simply because of angry Muslims when the data implies the war could be the main issue for a maximum of about half of Muslims, keeping in mind that some of them still might see her as the best shot for Palestine (or lesser of two evils) even it is their main issue.

That leaves her with the logical decision of staying out of it as best as she can during the campaign and risk only marginalizing a vocal portion of the Muslim population and any sympathetic hangers-on to avoid losing the support of the vast majority of Americans who don't make it their top issue or are strong supporters of Israeli actions in Gaza.

Still, the dumbasses are going to continue to dumbass, no matter what, and she's still getting endorsements from other Muslim groups.

So why continue to bring up the topic of protests unless:

a) You just like making pro-Palestinian/progressive activists and, by extension, the Muslim community look bad or

b) You simply want to sow division among the ranks of all Harris supporters?

If either of those are your motivations, then I can't help you answer any of your questions and will just chalk you up to concern trolling.

[Brian Fantana 6689]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I am fucking howling at the Waleed Shahid thread and him in general. Let’s leave aside the endless hostage taking threats (cave to our demands or we will make a scene and deliver the country to Trump like we once did for Nixon). 
 

Yeah I understand his disdain for AIPAC, but the progressives that continue to make these dumbass threats and want to try and derail Harris over fucking Israel truly blow my fucking mind, as if Trump wouldn't be infinitely worse.

Make all the scenes you want, as far as I'm concerned, but actively trying to destroy our democracy if you don't get what you want is just straight up MAGA shit.

The issue is just as important to me, but you can bet your ass I'll be out there pulling that lever for Harris as soon as humanly possible.

[956 Worldwide 34729]

The amazing thing about his writing is that in The Nation, he is big mad at AIPAC and proposes, as a response, to build an AIPAC but for Gaza.  Which, fair enough, turnabout is fair play. I don’t love big money in politics but as long as it’s there everyone gets to do it. 

Then on Twitter he remembers who he is talking to and reverts to “just threaten to completely blow shit up with endless distracting tantrums because 1968 worked so well.” 

 

Edited August 13 by 956 Worldwide

[Brian Fantana 6689]

27 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I'm not sure what your beef is with either Belgium or even France, which just kicked the fascists to the curb (thank gawd). How are they even relevant?

As Fantana said, this thread is really about Israel and not the protestors. However, I'll grant that they (despite their small numbers) have the capability of creating damaging optics and can potentially turn away some voters. So, I'm willing to discuss the topic if you articulate exactly what point you're trying to make, but I'll address what I think you want to get at.

According to a survey I posted here or in the general election thread, only 1% of Americans have the war in Gaza as their number one issue. These, I guess, would be the single-issue voters, including those who are 100% opposed to American assistance and those on the other side who are 100% committed to Israel no matter what.

We also know that 1.3% of Americans are Muslims, and 2.1% of Americans are Jewish. Combined, they comprise 3.4% of the total population. Without having other data and assuming that the 1% who make the war their number one issue is entirely comprised of Jewish folks and Muslims, that would mean less than a third of them could potentially flip votes or stay home based solely on the war.

Based on exit polling, we also know that 80% of Muslims voted for Biden, as did about 2/3 of Jews, and those two cohorts are the ones Harris would be in danger of losing through them staying home or flipping to Trump.

• What percentage of American Muslims do you believe will a) flip to Trump from the Dem column or b) simply stay home over Gaza?
• What percentage of American Jews do you believe will a) flip because they suspect Harris won't back Israel enough or b) simply stay home?

I guess what I'm getting at is that we're talking fractions of fractions. And, yes, in places like Dearborn/Wayne County, there might be a difference. Still, at the end of the day, I'm not sure there's anything Harris could do that would please 100% of both Democratic-supporting Jews and Muslims or that it changes anything in the grand scheme of flipping an entire state like Michigan, where Muslims are about 2.4% of the population.

I think I worked out the math for Michigan and found that if 100% of previous Biden-supporting Muslims stayed home and everything else remained equal, she'd still eke out a win. The same math applies to her losing 50% of all previous Biden-voting Muslims to a flip toward Trump. Obviously, neither of those is going to happen, so I don't think she's in real danger of losing that state simply because of angry Muslims when the data implies the war could be the main issue for a maximum of about half of Muslims, keeping in mind that some of them still might see her as the best shot for Palestine (or lesser of two evils) even it is their main issue.

That leaves her with the logical decision of staying out of it as best as she can during the campaign and risk only marginalizing a vocal portion of the Muslim population and any sympathetic hangers-on to avoid losing the support of the vast majority of Americans who don't make it their top issue or are strong supporters of Israeli actions in Gaza.

Still, the dumbasses are going to continue to dumbass, no matter what, and she's still getting endorsements from other Muslim groups.

So why continue to bring up the topic of protests unless:

a) You just like making pro-Palestinian/progressive activists and, by extension, the Muslim community look bad or

b) You simply want to sow division among the ranks of all Harris supporters?

If either of those are your motivations, then I can't help you answer any of your questions and will just chalk you up to concern trolling.

Continuously attacking the protestors is a way for people to dogwhistle support for genocide with some baked in deniability. If they get any pushback, they can just say "Hey, whoa, I just want the protests to protest in the right way!"

Some people continue to espouse this weird idea that protests aren't supposed to be disruptive, even though every single successful protest in the written history of the world has been disruptive. It's literally a requirement for them to be at all effective. Of course, there are still right and wrong ways to be disruptive, that kid we were talking about before is a great example of the wrong way.

By focusing the narrative on the protestors themselves and, say, hiding behind legal technicality, you can effectively ignore the message. It's very similar to how MAGA painted BLM protestors in the wake of George Floyd's murder. "Yeah man, what that cop did was bad *wink wink*, but these protestors smashed a window so idk maybe he wasn't such a great guy *wink wink*."

[bolverk 29694]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Continuously attacking the protestors is a way for people to dogwhistle support for genocide with some baked in deniability. If they get any pushback, they can just say "Hey, whoa, I just want the protests to protest in the right way!"

Some people continue to espouse this weird idea that protests aren't supposed to be disruptive, even though every single successful protest in the written history of the world has been disruptive. It's literally a requirement for them to be at all effective. Of course, there are still right and wrong ways to be disruptive, that kid we were talking about before is a great example of the wrong way.

By focusing the narrative on the protestors themselves and, say, hiding behind legal technicality, you can effectively ignore the message. It's very similar to how MAGA painted BLM protestors in the wake of George Floyd's murder. "Yeah man, what that cop did was bad *wink wink*, but these protestors smashed a window so idk maybe he wasn't such a great guy *wink wink*."

It's obviously willful. Focus all attention on the protestors and ignore what's being protested.

[956 Worldwide 34729]

5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Continuously attacking the protestors is a way for people to dogwhistle support for genocide with some baked in deniability. If they get any pushback, they can just say "Hey, whoa, I just want the protests to protest in the right way!"

 

This is just the flip side to people labeling all criticism of Israel and protesters “anti-Semitic” that you’re always going on about.  
 

You just want it both ways, where anyone who isn’t on board with your tactics, methods, and policies is evil and a concealed genocidaire but all of the people you agree with presumed to be acting in good faith. 

[956 Worldwide 34729]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It's obviously willful. Focus all attention on the protestors and ignore what's being protested.

You’re so concerned and angry that I took a shit on the floor but no one wants to talk about WHY I took a shit on the floor and what I was trying to say!

We have pages of justifications for why disruptive civil disobedience is needed (it’s the only way to get attention!) and then when it gets attention you’re mad at the type of attention it gets.

[Anastasis 23479]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

It's obviously willful. Focus all attention on the protestors and ignore what's being protested.

If you can gin up enough controversy to distract towards smelly hippy protesters without fully formed brains you can avoid talking about uncomfortable things like US bombs beheading brown babies and IDF soldiers sodomizing "detainees". 

[bolverk 29694]

4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is just the flip side to people labeling all criticism of Israel and protesters “anti-Semitic” that you’re always going on about.  
 

You just want it both ways, where anyone who isn’t on board with your tactics, methods, and policies is evil and a concealed genocidaire but all of the people you agree with presumed to be acting in good faith. 

You've been guilty in the past of insinuating that I was antisemitic when the only thing I'm guilty of is saying that Israel should stick to its internationally recognized borders (1967) and follow international law in its conduct of this war.

How the fuck is that any different than our shared opinion on Russia and Ukraine? Be consistent.

 

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You’re so concerned and angry that I took a shit on the floor but no one wants to talk about WHY I took a shit on the floor and what I was trying to say!

We have pages of justifications for why disruptive civil disobedience is needed (it’s the only way to get attention!) and then when it gets attention you’re mad at the type of attention it gets.

I've been consistent that a) the 1st amendment gives us the right to protest, even on publicly-owned university campuses, b) the right to protest doesn't include the right to be violent or break shit, and c) the protests have been counterproductive. In fact, I've also called them clowns and dumbasses.

At the same time, I also recognize that in some cases, Jay Hartzell and Greg Abbott, in particular, were too heavy-handed by preemptively bringing out riot police to the 40 acres and changing campus protest rules while your college actually allowed students to march around the A&M campus.

Why do you avoid talking about the actual fucking war or what's going on in Israel, Gaza, or the West Bank? I've posted multiple articles related to what's going on, but NOW you actually engage when the topic is American protestors.

You know, I've even posted articles about protests inside Israel by Israelis, but those aren't the protestors you'd apparently like to discuss.

Why do you hold such double standards?

[Brian Fantana 6689]

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is just the flip side to people labeling all criticism of Israel and protesters “anti-Semitic” that you’re always going on about.  

You just want it both ways, where anyone who isn’t on board with your tactics, methods, and policies is evil and a concealed genocidaire but all of the people you agree with presumed to be acting in good faith. 

Brother, you and others are guilty of doing this multiple times in this thread since Oct. 7. We can pull up the receipts if you like. As to the rest...

On the contrary, I don't think or care about the tiny minority of progressive protestors that do/say stupid shit ever until I'm forced to by some cretin in this thread posting a video of some 19-20 year old undergrad dipshit ranting about how we must dismantle Western society because he's mad about Israel. I don't give a shit, he doesn't matter, he's fucking stupid and so is everyone that watches the video and lets it influence their views on this topic in any direction.

Do I need to go through the thread and link the many, many times I have pushed back against or criticized the words/actions of people who I ostensibly agree with on this topic? I don't really want to do all that work, and I doubt you would care anyway, so it's whatever.

Also, I don't think you're evil, I think we would agree on most things, I just think Oct.7 completely shattered your brain with regard to pushback against the Israeli government's actions.

18 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You’re so concerned and angry that I took a shit on the floor but no one wants to talk about WHY I took a shit on the floor and what I was trying to say!

We have pages of justifications for why disruptive civil disobedience is needed (it’s the only way to get attention!) and then when it gets attention you’re mad at the type of attention it gets.

What exactly is a protest if not disruptive civil disobedience? Again, there has never been an effective protest that wasn't disruptive. Again, there are ways to be disruptive that don't amount to shitting on the floor. You're just being intentionally dense here and attempting to equate legality with morality.

I'll give you points for continuing to successfully focus the discussion on the actions of a tiny fraction of dumbass Americans rather than the actual topic of the thread. After all, why have a discussion about Netanyahu's unhinged behavior in the past couple of days when we can shit on some random college students instead?

[956 Worldwide 34729]

25 minutes ago, bolverk said:

.

 

You know, I've even posted articles about protests inside Israel by Israelis, but those aren't the protestors you'd apparently like to discuss.

Why do you hold such double standards?

Sorry, I thought we weren’t supposed demand people condemn X before criticizing Y.  Does that equation no longer hold? 
 

Remind me, how many Russians were being held hostage in Ukrainian basements before February 2022? How many missiles did Ukraine lob at Russia before 2014?  I might feel different about the SMO if the “Kiev regime”  actually was a pack of Nazis raping Russian speakers and shooting rockets into Belogorod. 

[bolverk 29694]

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Sorry, I thought we weren’t supposed demand people condemn X before criticizing Y.  Does that equation no longer hold? 
 

Remind me, how many Russians were being held hostage in Ukrainian basements before February 2022? How many missiles did Ukraine lob at Russia before 2014?  I might feel different about the SMO if the “Kiev regime”  actually was a pack of Nazis raping Russian speakers and shooting rockets into Belogorod. 

Fuck Hamas. I actively root for their defeat and for the hostages to be liberated. What they did was evil, unforgivable, and inexcusable. And Israel absolutely the right to defend itself and its citizens. Don't act, however, as if everything started last October when this thread alone is 6 years old, with many citations of Israeli transgressions during that relatively brief time.

By contrast, Israel has been illegally occupying and illegally resettling the West Bank for 57 years, and Gaza has been under an inhumane blockade for a couple of decades. During that time, Bibi provided financial and political support to Hamas even after they quashed dissent from Gazans, and I'm sure you're aware, as it has been mentioned several times before, that he did so to use Hamas as a counterbalance against any potential moderating forces within the Palestinian community.

Now, all notions of proportionality have been tossed to the side, and civilians in Gaza have suffered (40,000 dead and counting). Thousands of noncombatant Gazans have been held hostage as detainees undergoing human rights abuses, including physical and sexual abuse and inadequate healthcare. At the same time, the Israeli government refuses to allow inspections by the international community, including the Red Cross, other human rights groups, and journalists.

You'd hear me criticize any other country that was doing the same. In that regard, the Israeli government is not so special that they can't be criticized for their behavior. If Ukraine were doing the same to Russian civilians, I'd be equally critical.

Just as Israel, Ukraine, and, yes, even Russia have a right to self-determination within their borders, so does Palestine.

[Rex Kramer 1343]

5 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

They're already as marginalized as they're going to get. Anything you do to them just grants them more attention and incentivizes them to get louder.

Do they really make you so uncomfortable that the only course of action you can see is ruining some 19 year old kid's life because he's speaking out against the established world order in a way you don't like? This is the exact kind of thing the first amendment was made for.

The first amendment was designed for people to proclaim the society that has provided for them should be dismantled?  Lol. This is red meat for waste-everyone’s-time FA attorneys, and nothing more. The FA was not crafted with such stupidity in mind. It’s the left’s step toward Idioicracy. 

[bolverk 29694]

Released Palestinians describe worsening abuses in Israeli prisons

OUTSIDE OFER PRISON, West Bank (AP) — Frequent beatings, overcrowding, withholding of basic rations. Released Palestinians have described to The Associated Press worsening abuses in Israeli prisons crammed with thousands detained since the war in Gaza began 10 months ago.

Israeli officials have acknowledged that they have made conditions harsher for Palestinians in prisons, with hard-line National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir boasting that prisons will no longer be “summer camps” under his watch.

Four released Palestinians told the AP that treatment had dramatically worsened in prisons run by the ministry since the Oct. 7 attacks that triggered the latest war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Some emerged from months of captivity emaciated and emotionally scarred.

A fifth prisoner, Muazzaz Abayat, was too weakened to detail his experience soon after his release in July following six months at southern Israel’s Naqab prison. Frail-looking and unable to focus, he could only muster the strength to speak for several minutes, saying he was regularly beaten.

Now at home outside Bethlehem, the 37-year-old can hardly leave his armchair.

“At night, he hallucinates and stands in the middle of the house, in shock or remembering the torment and pain he went through,” said his cousin, Aya Abayat. Like many of the detained, he was put under administrative detention, a procedure that allows Israel to detain people indefinitely without charge.

The AP cannot independently verify the accounts of the prisoners. But they described similar conditions, even though they were held separately. While Abayat was only able to speak briefly, the other four spoke to the AP at length, and one requested anonymity for fear of being rearrested. Their accounts match reports from human rights groups that have documented alleged abuse in Israeli detention facilities.

Alarm among rights groups over abuses of Palestinian prisoners has mainly focused on military facilities, particularly Sde Teiman, a desert base where Israeli military police have arrested 10 soldiers on suspicion of sodomizing a Palestinian detainee. The detention facility at the base has held most of the Palestinians seized in raids in the Gaza Strip since the war began.

The soldiers, five of whom have since been released, deny the sodomy allegation. Their defense lawyer has said that they used force to defend themselves against a detainee who attacked them during a search, but did not sexually abuse him.

The Israeli army says 36 Palestinian prisoners have died in military-run detention centers since October. It said some of them had “previous illnesses or injuries caused to them as a result of the ongoing hostilities,” without elaborating further.

According to autopsy reports for five of the detainees, two bore signs of physical trauma such as broken ribs, while the death of a third “could have been avoided if there had been greater care for his medical needs.” The reports were provided to the AP by Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, an Israeli rights organization whose doctors observed the autopsies.

Facing calls to shut down the Sde Teiman facility, the military has been transferring hundreds of Palestinians from the base to the prisons run by Ben Gvir’s ministry.

But according to Abayat and the others who spoke to the AP, conditions in those facilities are traumatic as well.

Munthir Amira, a West Bank political activist who was held in Ofer Prison, said guards regularly beat detainees for punishment or often for no reason at all.

He said he and 12 others shared a cell with only six beds and a few thin blankets, freezing during the winter months. When prisoners had to go to the bathroom, they were handcuffed and bent over, and they were let outside for only 15 minutes twice a week, he said. Amira was held in administrative detention, apparently over his Facebook posts critical of Israel.

He said he lost 33 kilograms (72 pounds) during his three months in detention because of minimal food.

The treatment drove some to the edge: Amira recounted a day when he and his cellmates watched through their cell window as another inmate tried to kill himself by jumping off a high fence. He said they banged on their door to get help. Instead, he said, soldiers with two large dogs entered their cell, bound their hands, lined them up in the corridor and beat them, including on their genitals.

He said that when he was first arrested in December, guards ordered him to strip naked and spread his legs, then beat him into submission when he refused. During the ensuing examination, one guard prodded his genitalia with a metal detector, he said.

The National Security Ministry said in a statement to the AP that it was not aware of the claims of abuse from the five released men. It said it follows “all basic rights required” for prisoners, and that detainees can file complaints that will be “fully examined.”

But it said it has intentionally “reduced conditions” for Palestinian detainees “to the minimum required by law” since Oct. 7. The purpose, it said, “is to deter ... terror activities.”

Since the war began, the Palestinian prison population has nearly doubled to almost 10,000, including detainees from Gaza and several thousand people seized from the West Bank and east Jerusalem, according to HaMoked, an Israeli rights group that gathers figures from prison authorities.

Those detained include alleged militants seized in raids in the West Bank and Palestinians suspected in attacks on soldiers or settlers. But others also have apparently been detained for social media posts critical of Israel or past activism, according to a report from the United Nations human rights office.

All four former detainees who spoke at length said hunger was perhaps their greatest challenge.

Breakfast was 250 grams (9 ounces) of yogurt and a single tomato or pepper shared among five people, said Omar Assaf, a Ramallah-based retired Arabic language professor, also held at Ofer. He, too, said he was interrogated over his social media posts.

For lunch and dinner, he said, each person received two-thirds of a cup of rice and a bowl of soup shared with others.

“You didn’t see the color of fruit ... not a piece of meat,” he said.

Harsher conditions were imposed immediately after Oct. 7, according to Mohamed al-Salhi, who at the time was serving a 23-year sentence in a Jerusalem prison for forming an armed group.

Days after the attack, he said, guards stripped his cell of everything, including radios, televisions and clothing. Eventually, the number of inmates in the cell grew from a half-dozen to 14, and curtains in the communal showers were removed, leaving them to wash exposed, he said. Al-Salhi was released in June after completing his sentence.

A half-dozen Palestinian families gathered outside Ofer one day earlier this month to await their relatives’ release. As the gate slid open, several emaciated-looking men, with unkempt hair and rough beards, walked out before dropping to the ground to pray.

Mutasim Swalim embraced his father. He said he spent a year in prison over a Facebook post.

“The taste of freedom is very nice,” he said.

Others declined to speak.

“I just spent two months in prison,” one said as he staggered by. “I don’t want to go back.”

[Rex Kramer 1343]

3 hours ago, bolverk said:

I'm not sure what your beef is with either Belgium or even France, which just kicked the fascists to the curb (thank gawd). How are they even relevant?

As Fantana said, this thread is really about Israel and not the protestors. However, I'll grant that they (despite their small numbers) have the capability of creating damaging optics and can potentially turn away some voters. So, I'm willing to discuss the topic if you articulate exactly what point you're trying to make, but I'll address what I think you want to get at.

According to a survey I posted here or in the general election thread, only 1% of Americans have the war in Gaza as their number one issue. These, I guess, would be the single-issue voters, including those who are 100% opposed to American assistance and those on the other side who are 100% committed to Israel no matter what.

We also know that 1.3% of Americans are Muslims, and 2.1% of Americans are Jewish. Combined, they comprise 3.4% of the total population. Without having other data and assuming that the 1% who make the war their number one issue is entirely comprised of Jewish folks and Muslims, that would mean less than a third of them could potentially flip votes or stay home based solely on the war.

Based on exit polling, we also know that 80% of Muslims voted for Biden, as did about 2/3 of Jews, and those two cohorts are the ones Harris would be in danger of losing through them staying home or flipping to Trump.

• What percentage of American Muslims do you believe will a) flip to Trump from the Dem column or b) simply stay home over Gaza?
• What percentage of American Jews do you believe will a) flip because they suspect Harris won't back Israel enough or b) simply stay home?

I guess what I'm getting at is that we're talking fractions of fractions. And, yes, in places like Dearborn/Wayne County, there might be a difference. Still, at the end of the day, I'm not sure there's anything Harris could do that would please 100% of both Democratic-supporting Jews and Muslims or that it changes anything in the grand scheme of flipping an entire state like Michigan, where Muslims are about 2.4% of the population.

I think I worked out the math for Michigan and found that if 100% of previous Biden-supporting Muslims stayed home and everything else remained equal, she'd still eke out a win. The same math applies to her losing 50% of all previous Biden-voting Muslims to a flip toward Trump. Obviously, neither of those is going to happen, so I don't think she's in real danger of losing that state simply because of angry Muslims when the data implies the war could be the main issue for a maximum of about half of Muslims, keeping in mind that some of them still might see her as the best shot for Palestine (or lesser of two evils) even it is their main issue.

That leaves her with the logical decision of staying out of it as best as she can during the campaign and risk only marginalizing a vocal portion of the Muslim population and any sympathetic hangers-on to avoid losing the support of the vast majority of Americans who don't make it their top issue or are strong supporters of Israeli actions in Gaza.

Still, the dumbasses are going to continue to dumbass, no matter what, and she's still getting endorsements from other Muslim groups.

So why continue to bring up the topic of protests unless:

a) You just like making pro-Palestinian/progressive activists and, by extension, the Muslim community look bad or

b) You simply want to sow division among the ranks of all Harris supporters?

If either of those are your motivations, then I can't help you answer any of your questions and will just chalk you up to concern trolling.

Exactly

[Anastasis 23479]

51 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

The first amendment was designed for people to proclaim the society that has provided for them should be dismantled?

LOL. Jesus Christ the stupid baked into this post. 

[956 Worldwide 34729]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

Just as Israel, Ukraine, and, yes, even Russia have a right to self-determination within their borders, so does Palestine.

Ukraine is fighting inside Russia’s borders right now and I celebrate it all day.  The only reason not to is the concern that Russia might escalate with nuclear weapons.  If I could snap my fingers and give Ukraine perfect first-strike counterforce and the ability to rain fire on Russia till they gave up— I’d do and feel great.

 

Speaking of, what is the Palestinian leader up to today? 
 

[Rex Kramer 1343]

54 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL. Jesus Christ the stupid baked into this post. 

It’s an indefensible point and yet here you are defending it. 

[Rex Kramer 1343]

4 hours ago, bolverk said:

It's obviously willful. Focus all attention on the protestors and ignore what's being protested.

I don’t agree with what is being protested at all. The protestors are saying truly deplorable hateful shit, and should be outed. Rarely do modern protests have any effect other than to enrage people or to disrupt people who weren’t against them, so that they’re completely against them. I cannot think of a single successful protest in my lifetime. I go out of my way to avoid any engagement or proximity to any protest. There is zero purpose to being within view or earshot of one. 

[bolverk 29694]

56 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Ukraine is fighting inside Russia’s borders right now and I celebrate it all day.  The only reason not to is the concern that Russia might escalate with nuclear weapons.  If I could snap my fingers and give Ukraine perfect first-strike counterforce and the ability to rain fire on Russia till they gave up— I’d do and feel great.

 

Speaking of, what is the Palestinian leader up to today? 
 

 

You know full well the difference between an incursion during a time of war compared to a claim on, an occupation of, and a resettlement of another people's land.  And I'm sure you're also entirely cognizant that the vast majority of Palestinians see Abbas as a complicit and wholly corrupt doddering old fool, so I don't know why you think that's some kind of gotcha.

While I've very much appreciated your knowledge, thoughts, and opinions on Eastern Europe over the past couple of years when it comes to the war in Ukraine, your continued defense of an illegal and oppressive occupation of the West Bank by a corrupt Netanyahu regime and a fanatical right-wing settler movement is baffling. I guess you're not the defender of liberty, democracy, and human rights that I once thought you were. That lack of conviction and flexibility on principles is really disappointing.

"See" you around.

[Anastasis 23479]

39 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s an indefensible point and yet here you are defending it. 

You seem like you would be among the chief bootlickers tongue boxing king georges fart box. But tell us all more about the first amendment you fucking clown.  

[Anastasis 23479]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Speaking of, what is the Palestinian leader up to today? 
 

I hope that you guys have come around to understanding what this poster is. 

Edited August 14 by Anastasis

[956 Worldwide 34729]

On 11/10/2023 at 10:13 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

Israel should remove illegal settlements and should extend full civil rights to all Israeli regardless of religion and propose a legitimate path to statehood for Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. A lot of what the Israeli government does is not justifiable. 

 

15 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

You know full well the difference between an incursion during a time of war compared to a claim on, an occupation of, and a resettlement of another people's land.  And I'm sure you're also entirely cognizant that the vast majority of Palestinians see Abbas as a complicit and wholly corrupt doddering old fool, so I don't know why you think that's some kind of gotcha.

While I've very much appreciated your knowledge, thoughts, and opinions on Eastern Europe over the past couple of years when it comes to the war in Ukraine,and oppressive occupation of the West Bank by a corrupt Netanyahu regime and a fanatical right-wing settler movement is baffling. I guess you're not the defender of liberty, democracy, and human rights that I once thought you were. That lack of conviction and flexibility on principles is really disappointing.

"See" you around.

You are just making shit up about what I’ve posted (see above) because I don’t sympathize with your favorite protesters. 

[bolverk 29694]

16 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 

You are just making shit up about what I’ve posted (see above) because I don’t sympathize with your favorite protesters. 

My sincere and humble apologies for misremembering/misconstruing the position you voiced 10 months ago on the occupation. I'll be sure not to forget it the next time we come to a future disagreement.

Pro-Palestinian protesters, however, are far from my favorite group. They'll have to take a back seat to (in no particular order) Women's Suffragists, Post-War Civil Rights, March on Science, Anti-Iraq War, Tiananmen Square, Anti-Police Violence, Stonewall, Anti-Racism, Solidarity, Velvet Revolution, Anti-Fascism, Boston Tea Party, Anti-Vietnam, and many others.

I'm not sure where this angry and bitter personal animosity is coming from, but I hope you have a good remainder of your evening.

[Brian Fantana 6689]

3 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

The first amendment was designed for people to proclaim the society that has provided for them should be dismantled?  Lol. This is red meat for waste-everyone’s-time FA attorneys, and nothing more. The FA was not crafted with such stupidity in mind. It’s the left’s step toward Idioicracy. 

Yes, you dumbass. Why do you think flag burning is protected by the 1A?

[Anastasis 23479]

amazing how our educational system has failed us on basic civics and american history. 

[F250 28788]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

You seem like you would be among the chief bootlickers tongue boxing king georges fart box. But tell us all more about the first amendment you fucking clown.  

[F250 28788]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

My sincere and humble apologies for misremembering/misconstruing the position you voiced 10 months ago on the occupation. I'll be sure not to forget it the next time we come to a future disagreement.

Don't apologize. He was insinuating everyone that didn't take a pro-zionist position 10 months ago was antisemitic. This is what he does.

[Anastasis 23479]

10 minutes ago, F250 said:

Don't apologize. He was insinuating everyone that didn't take a pro-zionist position 10 months ago was antisemitic. This is what he does.

Bolverk is a kind soul and I mean that with absolutely no disrespect to him. He apologizes far too frequently. 

[PRONG HORN 3149]

 

[Rex Kramer 1343]

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

You seem like you would be among the chief bootlickers tongue boxing king georges fart box. But tell us all more about the first amendment you fucking clown.  

 

10 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yes, you dumbass. Why do you think flag burning is protected by the 1A?

Oh I know what it’s evolved to. It was NOT crafted with terrorist sympathizers and flag burners in mind.  Far dumber people than James Madison are responsible for what it is now. 

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I hope that you guys have come around to understanding what this poster is. 

Someone who runs circles around bolverk and fantana and is impervious to your drive-by smug condescension?

[Brian Fantana 6689]

Lulz

[Dahobbs 17625]

2 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

 

Oh I know what it’s evolved to. It was NOT crafted with terrorist sympathizers and flag burners in mind.  Far dumber people than James Madison are responsible for what it is now. 

Someone who runs circles around bolverk and fantana and is impervious to your drive-by smug condescension?

It absolutely was crafted to allow the people to criticize the government and the state of the country. That is literally why it exists. 

[Brian Fantana 6689]

If you guys want a real laugh, go read Rex's posts in this thread the days after Oct. 7 when he was posting as Porterhouse (now deleted, the posts show up as by Guest) when he was vehemently arguing against the notion that Israel is an apartheid state and straight up calling for ethnic cleansing.

And buddy, don't bother lying about how that wasn't your account. No one believes you.

[Rex Kramer 1343]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

It absolutely was crafted to allow the people to criticize the government and the state of the country. That is literally why it exists. 

You and fantana and Ana seem to think Madison and others seemingly conceptualized such outrageous, specific behavior 235 years ago. They did not. 

You also seem to think I’m against it. I’m not, really - I think they are idiots like most of you, but do not care they’re able to protest, within reason. I vehemently disagree with those critical of Abbott and Hartzell, but that is another discussion. 

Authors of FA most certainly did not contemplate burning flags, protests celebrating an enemy of our state and openly discussing burning down our society. I am not opining whatsoever of what Madison’s opinion would have been if such protests. I’m simply saying such scenarios were not in his mind. He was trying to protect much less exhibionist, less shocking, reasonable gripes. 

I repeat, there are zero worthy protests in my lifetime, save for some LG protests in the late 70s when I was barely alive. Before that, Vietnam and Civil Rights protests of the 60s and Suffrage of the 10s. That is it from the last 124 years. Everything else is nonsense. 

[Rex Kramer 1343]

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

If you guys want a real laugh, go read Rex's posts in this thread the days after Oct. 7 when he was posting as Porterhouse (now deleted, the posts show up as by Guest) when he was vehemently arguing against the notion that Israel is an apartheid state and straight up calling for ethnic cleansing.

And buddy, don't bother lying about how that wasn't your account. No one believes you.

It wasnt me. I don’t agree with ethnic cleansing. I also don’t agree with your definition of ethnic cleansing. 

Anyway, post what Guest said. Let’s read it. 

[Dahobbs 17625]

7 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

You and fantana and Ana seem to think Madison and others seemingly conceptualized such outrageous, specific behavior 235 years ago. They did not. 

You also seem to think I’m against it. I’m not, really - I think they are idiots like most of you, but do not care they’re able to protest, within reason. I vehemently disagree with those critical of Abbott and Hartzell, but that is another discussion. 

Authors of FA most certainly did not contemplate burning flags, protests celebrating an enemy of our state and openly discussing burning down our society. I am not opining whatsoever of what Madison’s opinion would have been if such protests. I’m simply saying such scenarios were not in his mind. He was trying to protect much less exhibionist, less shocking, reasonable gripes. 

I repeat, there are zero worthy protests in my lifetime, save for some LG protests in the late 70s when I was barely alive. Before that, Vietnam and Civil Rights protests of the 60s and Suffrage of the 10s. That is it from the last 124 years. Everything else is nonsense. 

You're absolutely wrong. Look at how the colonies attempted to protest their treatment. They absolutely were critical of crown, and did so in dramatic ways including destroying a bunch of fucking tea in an event that is widely celebrated today. And they absolutely were in favor of openly discussing "burning down" an existing government. That's what the fucking revolution was after all. Madison himself was strongly opposed to the Alien and Sedition Acts (which essentially made inciting hatred of the government illegal). He viewed the acts as blatantly unconstitutional. Madison thought that even though freedom of the press may result in some abuse, that it was better to leave a few "noxious branches" than to cut away the "proper fruits". 

But don't take my word for it, read for yourself:

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs24.html

Quote

Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press. It has accordingly been decided by the practice of the States, that it is better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxuriant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the wisdom of this policy be doubted by any who reflect that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression; who reflect that to the same beneficent source the United States owe much of the lights which conducted them to the ranks of a free and independent nation, and which have improved their political system into a shape so auspicious to their happiness? Had "Sedition Acts," forbidding every publication that might bring the constituted agents into contempt or disrepute, or that might excite the hatred of the people against the authors of unjust or pernicious measures, been uniformly enforced against the press, might not the United States have been languishing at this day under the infirmities of a sickly Confederation? Might they not, possibly, be miserable colonies, groaning under a foreign yoke?

* * *

Without scrutinizing minutely into all the provisions of the Sedition Act, it will be sufficient to cite so much of section 2d as follows: "And be it further enacted, that if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the Government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with an intent to defame the said Government or either house of the said Congress, or the President, or to bring them or either of them into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, &c.--then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years."

On this part of the act, the following observations present themselves:

1. The Constitution supposes that the President, the Congress, and each of its Houses, may not discharge their trusts, either from defect of judgment or other causes. Hence they are all made responsible to their constituents, at the returning periods of election; and the President, who is singly intrusted with very great powers, is, as a further guard, subjected to an intermediate impeachment.

2. Should it happen, as the Constitution supposes it may happen, that either of these branches of the Government may not have duly discharged its trust; it is natural and proper, that, according to the cause and degree of their faults, they should be brought into contempt or disrepute, and incur the hatred of the people.

3. Whether it has, in any case, happened that the proceedings of either or all of those branches evince such a violation of duty as to justify a contempt, a disrepute, or hatred among the people, can only be determined by a free examination thereof, and a free communication among the people thereon.

4. Whenever it may have actually happened that proceedings of this sort are chargeable on all or either of the branches of the Government, it is the duty, as well as right, of intelligent and faithful citizens to discuss and promulge them freely, as well to control them by the censorship of the public opinion, as to promote a remedy according to the rules of the Constitution. And it cannot be avoided that those who are to apply the remedy must feel, in some degree, a contempt or hatred against the transgressing party.

5. As the act was passed on July 14, 1798, and is to be in force until March 3, 1801, it was of course that, during its continuance, two elections of the entire House of Representatives, an election of a part of the Senate, and an election of a President, were to take place.

6. That consequently, during all these elections, intended by the Constitution to preserve the purity or to purge the faults of the Administration, the great remedial rights of the people were to be exercised, and the responsibility of their public agents to be screened, under the penalties of this act.

May it not be asked of every intelligent friend to the liberties of his country, whether the power exercised in such an act as this ought not to produce great and universal alarm? Whether a rigid execution of such an act, in time past, would not have repressed that information and communication among the people which is indispensable to the just exercise of their electoral rights? And whether such an act, if made perpetual, and enforced with rigor, would not, in time to come, either destroy our free system of government, or prepare a convulsion that might prove equally fatal to it?

 

[Brian Fantana 6689]

46 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It wasnt me. I don’t agree with ethnic cleansing. I also don’t agree with your definition of ethnic cleansing. 

Anyway, post what Guest said. Let’s read it. 

[wildcat09 29355]

1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

You and fantana and Ana seem to think Madison and others seemingly conceptualized such outrageous, specific behavior 235 years ago. They did not. 

You also seem to think I’m against it. I’m not, really - I think they are idiots like most of you, but do not care they’re able to protest, within reason. I vehemently disagree with those critical of Abbott and Hartzell, but that is another discussion. 

Authors of FA most certainly did not contemplate burning flags, protests celebrating an enemy of our state and openly discussing burning down our society. I am not opining whatsoever of what Madison’s opinion would have been if such protests. I’m simply saying such scenarios were not in his mind. He was trying to protect much less exhibionist, less shocking, reasonable gripes. 

I repeat, there are zero worthy protests in my lifetime, save for some LG protests in the late 70s when I was barely alive. Before that, Vietnam and Civil Rights protests of the 60s and Suffrage of the 10s. That is it from the last 124 years. Everything else is nonsense. 

This might be the dumbest thing you've ever said. It's got a whole lot of competition, but goddamn.

[Brian Fantana 6689]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This might be the dumbest thing you've ever said. It's got a whole lot of competition, but goddamn.

I'll raise you this.

[statsman 5473]

There actually is a definition for anti-semitism, and it goes into a lot of detail. 
 
https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

It has some examples- holding Israel to a standard other nations aren’t held to, using the language of the Holocaust against Jews (such as “they’re acting like Nazis”), holding individual Jews accountable for the actions of Israel. Those are all anti-Semitic actions, per the definition. 
 
Maybe you disagree with the definition. If so, it would be helpful if you clarified, perhaps using financial lingo, “When I say this, you have to understand that I only mind ‘strong form anti-semitism’, not weak form”