DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on December 06, 2006, 05:56:18 PM
-
Jack Kingston: Lazy-Assed Whiner
by Steve Soto
So Steny Hoyer tells the House that they should be ready to work five days a week in the 110th Congress, soon to be under Democratic control. And the first thing out of Georgia GOP representative Jack Kingston’s mouth is a whine about how tough this is on congressional families:
"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."
Hey smiling Jack, do you really want to talk about which party could care less about families? You voted to send thousands of Americans to a debacle in Iraq, and you vote to keep them there. I have no sympathy at all for you, when your war has just ruined Christmas for another ten families, who will never see their loved ones again. And you’re complaining about working five days a week, when you can’t even get the budget done on time, let along accomplish anything of substance these last two years?
Jack Kingston, you and Lindsey Graham should drag your sorry asses to Iraq and see real hardship and family sacrifice. You can empathize with Jack for his weekly two-hour taxpayer-paid plane rides to and from Georgia here.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/009364.php
-
uhm
losing family time because of work???
he is a whiner.
most WORKING people does this.
big whoop
-
most WORKING people does this.
Most working people don't work in another state. Most working people see their families most nights in addition to weekends.
-
Most working people don't work in another state. Most working people see their families most nights in addition to weekends.
true
but quite alot do work out of state /country and only see their family 2/3 weeks a year
my dad did that
to get any serious income sometime working abroad is the only option.
unless paying for a roof over their head is not important for a family
-
That Kingston guy is one who voted against the minimum wage increase several times. So it doesn't matter to him if other people have to work 2 and 3 jobs, cutting into their family time.
-
This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.
Will Rogers
-
My own opinion is that a representative earns enough to live within commuting distance of the capital. We pay these geek big bucks to do their jobs.
As Superchicken used to say to his sidekick Fred the Lion, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it!"
He wasn't elected to do his job for a three day week part of the year gig. I'd throw the silly sumbitch out if he were my congressman.
-
My own opinion is that a representative earns enough to live within commuting distance of the capital.
Reps are paid $165,200 per year currently. The DC area is one of the most expensive housing markets in the US. Also, a rep would be required to maintain a household in his district as well, if he wants to be re-elected (not having a household in the district he represents would make him invalid to represent that district in future elections).
-
Surely this info didn't come as a big surprise? What did he think, this was some sinecure he could put in an easy 2 and a half, 3 days a week at plus free health care plus huge pension etc.etc.etc. all on the taxpayer's dollar? Alert Lou Dobbs. He gets mad about FEMA ripoffs. I get mad about this.
Our new governor roomed with someone, so do a lot of lawmakers.
-
Time spent in the home district is time spent providing constituent services and translating and helping to navigate laws on the books. Apparently Kingston thinks the dems believe the service end of the equation is overrated.
-
Time spent in the home district is time spent providing constituent services and translating and helping to navigate laws on the books.
Isn't that work mostly provided by staff? Notice that Jack Kingston never makes that argument Bt (at least according to the initial post). He only makes the argument that he will be away from his family (which may or may not be valid), but not once does he say that he will not be able to provide his constituents with proper services.
Ami is correct though, Washington DC is an unbelievably expensive housing market. Then again, imagine being a government employee and making $36,000 a year and having a family. Do they have a choice on leaving their family in Georgia or North Carolina?
The United Kingdom helps their civil servants purchase homes in one of the world's most expensive cities (among other benefits). Somehow I don't feel sorry for Kingston and his six-digit salary.
-
Reps are paid $165,200 per year currently. The DC area is one of the most expensive housing markets in the US. Also, a rep would be required to maintain a household in his district as well, if he wants to be re-elected (not having a household in the district he represents would make him invalid to represent that district in future elections).
==================================================
I am pretty sure that he could afford to rent a home in DC. I bet he isn't actually sleeping in his office now. As for his district office, he only needs to have a small (as in rented apartment, possibly a mobile home) residence.
In the early 70's, I once taught in the MD suburbs of Washington, in Charles County. Houses in Waldorf were very expensive. I sublet half a duplex belonging to a squeaky-voiced real estate tycoon named William Zantzinger, who had killed a Black barmaid with a cane in a fit of drunken rage and been freed with minimal jail time. Bob Dylan actually wrote a song about it. When Zantzinger heard I was subletting his dingy duplex, he cancelled the lease of the woman he had originally rented it to, named Nancy Shimansky, who was a single parent who had moved in with her mother, and told me the rent was now three times what I had been paying.
Hell, I was a schoolteacher at the HS in Waldorf. I couldn't his rent, so I moved 35 miles down the road into the top half of a farmhouse on a tobacco farm owned by Pauline Bolin, for $150 a month including utilities. She gave us all the kale we could eat. Actually MORE kale than anyone could eat. It seems that they grew kale to revitalize the soil before replanting the field in tobacco. This representive could cut his expenses a lot by learning to eat more kale.
One piece of bacon and a little balsamic vinegar helps a lot towards making kale edible. Not delicious, but edible.
I am not going to feel sorry for some guyy who can't make it on $165,000 per year.
All I can offer this whining sod is a line from the Mary Tyler Moore Show "You can make it if you try!"
-
Notice that Jack Kingston never makes that argument Bt
Kingston doesn't need to make the argument for it to be valid. And when i have a constituency issue i speak directly to my rep, being an elected official helps. His staff is for followup grunt work.
-
How many Americans spend a lot of hours on the road away from their families? This guy should be shot. Especially if he voted in support of the war. Soldiers' families are being eaten away at constantly and i bet there aren't very many of them that make nearly as much as this fuck.
Anybody defending this guy is merely a contrarian or GOP stooge. Stoyer didn't say they'd NEVER go home or that it was an open-ended Congress like the soldiers who have absolutely NO idea when they'll get to go home and have been told OVER AND OVER AGAIN that they were going home and gotten their deployment extended.
This guy is a shitheel who is out of touch with Americans. He should resign and go home to his family permenantly. The fucking unmitigate gall of this piece of shit.
-
Check out Whiney's vote on the Iraq timetable.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000220/key-votes/
6/16/06 Vote 288: H RES 861: This vote pledged support for the War in Iraq and rejected a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Yes
Guess he hates the families of the soldiers.
-
One piece of bacon and a little balsamic vinegar helps a lot towards making kale edible. Not delicious, but edible.
---------------------------------------------
Try "Glory" canned greens. Oh my gosh, I've never tasted the like. So good! It's like...cooked in spicy broth, vinegary and garlicky and delicious.
-
Kingston doesn't need to make the argument for it to be valid. And when i have a constituency issue i speak directly to my rep, being an elected official helps. His staff is for followup grunt work.
Well, let's see what else Kingston gets as a benefit for being a Congressman, shall we?
$165,200 salary
Free parking (which is extremely expensive in Washington DC)
Special license plates
Private gymnasiums
Low-cost barbers
Franking
Unlimited use of the Library of Congress
How much of that does an entry level federal employee receive?
I'm still not feeling sorry for this guy. Besides, you know as well as I that with modern communication technology, a Congressman doesn't have to be in his home constituency to respond to issues at all times. Plus, there are large breaks in Congressional sessions.
Imagine Andrew Jackson traveling all the way from the Hermitage to Washington D.C. in the 1830's. Do you think he went home every Thursday? What about Congressmen from Florida or Maine at that time? I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy?
No offense Bt, but this guy is a crybaby. He ought to be thankful there are airplanes, Internet connections, and six-figure salaries. Maybe some American history wouldn't hurt him either.
-
My email to that tool.
"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families — that's what this says."
How about the families of American Soldiers abroad in Iraq DYING who don't get to go home OR see their families EVERY WEEK that you told with your vote against a timetable (6/16/06 Vote 288: H RES 861) that you "could care less" about them?
Get to work. If there is nothing to vote on at the moment, pick up a broom. You were elected and get a check from your constituents to be there voting. Not to be at home with your family. See them on the weekend like the rest of us who work 40 hours a week or more and don't make a third of what you make, sir.
I signed it with my name and city.
-
No offense Bt, but this guy is a crybaby.
Don't see what his salary or perks has to do with it. Is this a class warfare thing?
-
Anybody defending this guy is merely a contrarian or GOP stooge.
Nonsense. If the best you can do is demagogue your philosophical opponents perhaps your argument just isn't that strong.
-
No offense Bt, but this guy is a crybaby.
Don't see what his salary or perks has to do with it. Is this a class warfare thing?
Yeah, it is a class warfare thing. So what?
The guy is a Tool. He is getting paid a pile of money to go to Washington and serve the people of his state. In that role, this shitheel is keeping military families in a constant state of dread, fear and despair with his votes to return them home in any number of months or years. Then this shitheel has the absolutely mendacity to whine about spending five days a week working instead of TWO days a week working.
He started the class war. I'm willing to step up and fight him.
Calling class warfare is like sending up a flare to me to come participate. We need MORE class warfare because there's more of us than there are of them and they ain't so special and they ain't doing anything particular that I think they deserve so much money for.
If you don't like class warfare, you're going to be really angry in a couple of years when the Dems start balancing the budget on the backs of the Hiltons and Gates.
-
Don't see what his salary or perks has to do with it. Is this a class warfare thing?
My point is that he has more salary and perks than many of the Federal employees who have to live and work in Washington DC.
He's a crybaby because it used to be a hell of a lot more difficult to be a Congressman than it is now.
Class struggle is an historical constant. I'm willing to discuss it at anytime.
-
It is a class warfare thing in a way.
It's the "Entitled Class" against those who pay their wages and I'm one in the latter group... and I say, get to work, whiner. Or go home. Surely there's a Lowe's Garden Section calling Kingston's name somewhere in Georgia.
I have no sympathy for any of that crap.
-
I am pretty sure that he could afford to rent a home in DC. I bet he isn't actually sleeping in his office now. As for his district office, he only needs to have a small (as in rented apartment, possibly a mobile home) residence.
Actually, the Federal Government provides barracks-style living quarters to Reps who leave their families at home.
I couldn't his rent, so I moved 35 miles down the road into the top half of a farmhouse on a tobacco farm owned by Pauline Bolin,
I'm not so sure that there tobacco farms within 35 miles of Waldorf anymore. It's built up quite a bit since the 70s.
Heck, my house - which was over 50 miles from the Capital - doubled in value in 12 years, from 1992 to 2004. And it wasn't so cheap to start with, and I didn't have to maintain a second house somewhere else.
-
He started the class war.
How so?
If you don't like class warfare, you're going to be really angry in a couple of years when the Dems start balancing the budget on the backs of the Hiltons and Gates.
so much for libs being for equal protection under the law. Go after Gates. Maybe he'll just pay the minimum taxes allowed by law instead of donating the millions he does through his foundation. Bye Bye Aids initiative, bye bye education initiative. poor people don't need those programs anyway.
right?
-
Imagine Andrew Jackson traveling all the way from the Hermitage to Washington D.C. in the 1830's. Do you think he went home every Thursday? What about Congressmen from Florida or Maine at that time? I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy?
The 1830 Congressional session lasted a little over 3 months. So, he had 9 months of vacation to spend with his family.
It wasn't until partway through the 20th century that being a rep in the House had become a full time job. Prior to that, people took a few months off work to go to DC, then came back home to their full-time job.
-
My point is that he has more salary and perks than many of the Federal employees who have to live and work in Washington DC.
He's a crybaby because it used to be a hell of a lot more difficult to be a Congressman than it is now.
Class struggle is an historical constant. I'm willing to discuss it at anytime.
Still don't see the relevance. He could just as easily be a wal-mart employee who was hired in at a certain schedule and then have that deal revoked because some new manager wanted to make a splash.
The only time a rep needs to be in town is when they vote. Less voting means less laws, and that certainly works for me.
-
Leaving aside the issue of availability for a continuing string of bill passages, which as an aside, is one way of keeping pace with a fast-developing nation and world, the presence of Congresspersons in Washington, especially in this age of fast-breakingt events, provides the collabortive style we not only seek but demand of our representatives, like representative bodies were originally conceived: a crucible of ideas and political interests, diluted if not destroyed by dispersion.
-
Still don't see the relevance. He could just as easily be a wal-mart employee who was hired in at a certain schedule and then have that deal revoked because some new manager wanted to make a splash.
Who says I agree with that?
The only time a rep needs to be in town is when they vote. Less voting means less laws, and that certainly works for me.
Is that all they do in Washington?
-
Who says I agree with that?
No one said you agree with that, certainly i didn't. But would the wal-mart employee be denigrated as a whiner, even though the circumstances would be the same?
-
You mean that he has to work five days a week and earn a six figure salary?
I understand that you want to make the situations parallel to draw an abstract argument, but they simply aren't similar.
-
Still don't see what the salary has to do with it. And the issue is whether the rep works in DC or not. Not that they work 5 days.
-
hey !!!!!!!!!
I just realize he can telecommute his duties in D.C.
it`ll save money for the flights back and forth
doesn`t this sound like a good idea???
too bad we can`t out source them .
or can`t we??
-
Surely this info didn't come as a big surprise? What did he think, this was some sinecure he could put in an easy 2 and a half, 3 days a week at plus free health care plus huge pension etc.etc.etc. all on the taxpayer's dollar? Alert Lou Dobbs. He gets mad about FEMA ripoffs. I get mad about this.
Our new governor roomed with someone, so do a lot of lawmakers.
Rick Santorum bought a home in the DC area and moved his kids there to spend time with them where he worked. The leftists back home in PA attacked him for not being a resident. This was a major campaign issue in his past election.
When John Kerry was running for president he missed 73% of his votes. When I pointed that out in here and said he should give back his salary as a senator, the liberals in here pooh poohed what Kerry was doing as no big deal. When a Democrat doesn't work, I guess it's ok.
What does Sirs always say? Did/Didn't? The hypocritical whiners seem to be the liberals.
-
What does Sirs always say? Did/Didn't? The hypocritical whiners seem to be the liberals.
=======================================
Actually, I have noticed that you only complain about "liberals". We haven't heard a peep out of you about Ney, Cunningham, DeLay, Cheney or any of the corrupt GOP assh*les.
You deserve the Supreme Dittohead Trophy for Kvetching about Liberals far beyond the Call of Duty.
-
We haven't heard a peep out of you about Ney, Cunningham, DeLay, Cheney or any of the corrupt GOP assh*les.
And Lanya doesn't complain about corrupt Dems.
Have you discovered something?
-
We haven't heard a peep out of you about Ney,
RR is on record as saying Ney should have stepped down and let another candidate run for his seat. Both Sirs and RR condemned Cunningham for his actions.
-
I don't recall being all broken up about old Jefferson getting booted out.
-
I don't recall being all broken up about old Jefferson getting booted out.
I don't recall you condemning his actions, either.
-
I don't recall you condemning his actions, either.
I haven't seen you condemning atrocities in the Ituri conflict.
Should we assume by your non-condemnation that you support the atrocities taking place there?
-
I haven't seen you condemning atrocities in the Ituri conflict.
I'm pretty sure I'm on record as saying the UN and Europe need to clean up the problems in Africa. That's the job of the UN, not the US. I've specified Darfur and a few other conflicts when they've up, and feel the same way towards all the conflicts currently going on in Africa.
Besides, you're expanding the scope from within the US to outside of it.
I've been on record as saying both the Republican and Democratic parties need to clean their houses of the crooks. Lanya only seems to see crooks in one party.
-
Ah, so broad condemnations are acceptable? We should start an official condemnation thread for the records so everyone can be on record as condemning every possible condemnable act.
Or, we could make the statement that:
If an individual does not condemn X, it does not necessarily mean that they condone X.
Otherwise we're lost in a petty game of who didn't condemn what and when. That is just childish.
-
Ah, so broad condemnations are acceptable? We should start an official condemnation thread for the records so everyone can be on record as condemning every possible condemnable act.
Or, we could make the statement that:
If an individual does not condemn X, it does not necessarily mean that they condone X.
Otherwise we're lost in a petty game of who didn't condemn what and when. That is just childish.
Kinda like not condemning Apartheid means you support Apartheid?
Besides, my jab was aimed at Lanya, who has frequently used the "if you didn't condemn them, then you supported them" argument. This was highlighted for a long period of time in the "Republicans want women to get cancer" episode. Seems that since Republicans didn't condemn a small group that wanted to prevent a vaccine from becoming mandatory, it meant that all Republicans wanted women to get cancer.
-
Kinda like not condemning Apartheid means you support Apartheid?
Yes.
But that isn't what I did and you know it.
Hey, I just offer the advice. By all means let the non-condemning accusations fly.
-
But that isn't what I did and you know it.
Actually, I don't. Sirs only mentioned not liking Mandela and criticizing Mandela's government. Your response was to call that "arguing in support of the aprtheid [sic] regime in South Africa." Not criticizing Apartheid led you to claim that Sirs was supporting Apartheid.
It may be of interest to you to realize that people can not like Apartheid and not like Mandela, either.
Original Post (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=1035.msg8735#msg8735)
-
That was combined with another debate I had had with Sirs that concerned the topic of apartheid.
Anything else?
-
That was combined with another debate I had had with Sirs that concerned the topic of apartheid.
Anything else?
JSov, Dont you recognize that Sirs & Ami are the same? Just like the chatter in WRoom that used two browsers and would always agree with and declare his other persona the winner!
-
That was combined with another debate I had had with Sirs that concerned the topic of apartheid.
Actually the topic was Carter, and his Presidential "legacy". But some how in that thread, I was accused of supporting aparthied because I dared to criticize Mandela :-\
-
JSov, Dont you recognize that Sirs & Ami are the same?
Always wrong, Ms. Knute.
-
Actually the topic was Carter, and his Presidential "legacy". But some how in that thread, I was accused of supporting aparthied because I dared to criticize Mandela
The topic was former President Carter daring to criticize Israel, which as it happens was the connection between both our conversations concerning apartheid (Israel, not Carter). You did and do support apartheid policies in Israel because you claim they are necessary for "security" purposes. Whether you supported apartheid in South Africa matters little, as it is an unfortunate and disconcerting historical legacy.
You certainly have not condemned the practice in Israel and neither has Ami. By the logic of this thread you must both condone it.
-
The topic was former President Carter daring to criticize Israel, which as it happens was the connection between both our conversations concerning apartheid (Israel, not Carter). You did and do support apartheid policies in Israel because you claim they are necessary for "security" purposes. Whether you supported apartheid in South Africa matters little, as it is an unfortunate and disconcerting historical legacy.
Actually, I went back and re-read the thread just now. First mention of Apartheid was XO, then you. Sirs' only claim was that Carter's policies while he was president were bad, and he provided a list of those policies he disagreed with. You and XO both made the claim that since Sirs did not like Carter's support of Mandela, he was a defacto supporter of Apartheid.
I already provided the link, feel free to go back and re-read it yourself.
-
You certainly have not condemned the practice in Israel and neither has Ami.
You do not know this to be true.
-
You do not know this to be true.
So you do condemn apartheid policies in Israel?
-
So you do condemn apartheid policies in Israel?
I think they're justified in defending themselves from outsiders, but a lot of what they do to those within their borders is wrong.
-
I think they're justified in defending themselves from outsiders, but a lot of what they do to those within their borders is wrong.
A bit tepid, but I guess it counts as a condemnation.
-
A bit tepid, but I guess it counts as a condemnation.
You want specific condemnations, bring up specific charges. Unlike others around here, I don't make blanket accusations. Unless it's targetted at a specific person, a kind of "this is how you're treating others."
-
Actually the topic was Carter, and his Presidential "legacy". But some how in that thread, I was accused of supporting aparthied because I dared to criticize Mandela
The topic was former President Carter daring to criticize Israel, which as it happens was the connection between both our conversations concerning apartheid (Israel, not Carter).
I looked back quite thoroughly, and the topic was Carter's overt failures as a President, from my end, & I don't recall myself ever taking this into how Carter dared to Criticise Israel. When did Carter, as President ever criticize Israel?
You did and do support apartheid policies in Israel because you claim they are necessary for "security" purposes. Whether you supported apartheid in South Africa matters little, as it is an unfortunate and disconcerting historical legacy. You certainly have not condemned the practice in Israel and neither has Ami. By the logic of this thread you must both condone it.
A) their not the same "apartheid" practices. South Africa wasn't suddenly provided a place to live by the UN, then had to deal with the enemies both external & internal that were trying to abolish them right then & there.
B) Palestinians are free to work where they want & when they want. If they wish to work in Isreal, they must abide by Israeli laws. If they don't like them, they're free to move & work elsewhere
C) Whatever racist actions that Israel may employ, would be condemned by myself, if it had no bearing on Israel ability to exist in the region
-
I looked back quite thoroughly, and the topic was Carter's overt failures as a President, from my end, & I don't recall myself ever taking this into how Carter dared to Criticise Israel. When did Carter, as President ever criticize Israel?
When Begin was helping arm the Iranians for one. When Israel was helping aid Somoza in Nicaragua for another. The list is long.
their not the same "apartheid" practices. South Africa wasn't suddenly provided a place to live by the UN, then had to deal with the enemies both external & internal that were trying to abolish them right then & there.
They are much the same. Israel destroyed entire villages, many of which weren't hostile in the least. They massacred Arab villages and a couple of Greek Christian villages for which they thought might prove trouble later. As an example of these heroic Jews, who learned so much from the Holocaust, here is what they did at Al-Dawayima during the 1948 War:
Rape, summary executions, looting, plundering, and the children were killed by hitting them in the head with poles.
Was this done in the heat of combat? No, it was done as part of a process of "depopulation." Purely racist in orientation
To this day there are cities within Israel where only Jews may live. Is that apartheid? Damn well believe it is. South African Jews have evn said so.
Palestinians are free to work where they want & when they want.
Absolutely and unequivocally a lie.
If they wish to work in Isreal, they must abide by Israeli laws. If they don't like them, they're free to move & work elsewhere
Right, just like the blacks of South Africa who were "citizens" of homelands despite never having lived in them. Sorry Sirs, just because it is a law and because Israel tells them that they are citizens of a land they've never lived in doesn't make it so. A law is not just simply by action of being a law. I'm really surprised you'd take such a tact.
Whatever racist actions that Israel may employ, would be condemned by myself, if it had no bearing on Israel ability to exist in the region
A cop out. I gave you a specific situation, very specific in our last debate on this topic, and you still did not support the Palestinian man's right to his own property. You still supported racist policies in Israel.
Why do you support the right of existence to a nation that does not support democratic principles?
-
JS seems to be long in his criticism of Israel, but the seeds of truth he builds upon do not grow a tree capable of shading the whole field. One vital fact is that Israel has survived in a hostile environment. Did the "apartheid practices," as security measures, contribute to or enable that survival? What would the situation now be like if the Israelis, as is my preference, adopted a more hand-extending policy? Indeed, throughout the decades, were the Palestinians, through sworn opposition and terrorism, not highly contributory to their own fate? At what point does the history of the conflict recede as the dynamo that guides action here, a history that most prominently and tragically starts with the Holocaust, and is replaced -- suddenly -- by the simple architecture of social and political relations among these peoples? In this regard, like a hand grenade, is history stored like an explosive here, capable of detonation at the pull of a pin? Yes, I'm suggesting that the whole apparatus could explode.
-
Israel is essentially a European-style colony plunked down in the midst of the Arab world. The UN was originally based on an end to colonialism, being as what Hitler did to Poland was rather like what Israel did to the Palestinians, ie, shove aside the locals and colonize the choice places with themselves. True, the Israelis did not build extermination camps, but neither did they treat the Palestinians decently.
The Germans sought to colonize Poland and other European nations. This was morally wrong.
The Israelis sought to colonize Palestine, which was equally wrong.
Great injustices were done to the Jews and others, but not by the Palestinians.
Still, it was the Palestinians who lost their country to the Zionist colonists.
-
Israel was "seized" -- created -- in a whirlpool of horror and fear as a very survivors' haven. The emotions which drove the exodus and resettling were heightened, perhaps immeasurably, by the character of the land as the immigrants' historical and Biblical home, to which their religious yearnings perhaps bonded inextricably. As a Christian of European extraction, I am not neutral in the conflict that has developed. I have a strong interest to see the Jews with a homeland, settled and secure, able to crown their valuable culture with yet further contributions to mankind. In a way, my heritage, though obliquely, has been central to the Jewish fate in the 20th century. I want that corrected; perhaps you could call it animating cultural guilt.
That does not mean that the Palestinians don't have (and don't create for the Israelis) valid grievances. It just makes the job of sorting the moral and the ethical, especially after such a long time has passed, that much more difficult, if not virtually impossible.
-
When Begin was helping arm the Iranians for one. When Israel was helping aid Somoza in Nicaragua for another. The list is long.
I stand corrected. Too bad my criticisms of Carter had nothing to do with Isreal or Apartheid
They are much the same. Israel destroyed entire villages, many of which weren't hostile in the least. They massacred Arab villages and a couple of Greek Christian villages for which they thought might prove trouble later. As an example of these heroic Jews, who learned so much from the Holocaust, here is what they did at Al-Dawayima during the 1948 War:
"heroic Jews"? Who's claiming that? And the 1948 war?? Is this like Tee using some event during Vietnam as some bizarro validation of current military actions and condoned behavior? Have anything a tad more recent, or perhaps more relevent to the current state of affairs, Js? And please note, that doesn't let Isreal off the hook if they did perpetrate such acts, back in 1948, as it doesn't let the U.S. off for whatever transgressions they allowed to happen during the Vietnam war. Relevence & perspective however, play key components in this current debate, however.
To this day there are cities within Israel where only Jews may live. Is that apartheid? Damn well believe it is. South African Jews have evn said so.
That wouldn't fall on my list of condoned or supported activities, though I doubt that has any influence on you. It appears, much like Brass's labelings of Bushlovers, unless I condemn the very existance of Israel, I must then support every one of their practices.
Palestinians are free to work where they want & when they want.
Absolutely and unequivocally a lie.
You're saying they're not allowed to leave Israel to work where they want, when they want?? That was the point of my comment, supported by the follow-up If they wish to work in Isreal, they must abide by Israeli laws. If they don't like them, they're free to move & work elsewhere
Sorry Sirs, just because it is a law and because Israel tells them that they are citizens of a land they've never lived in doesn't make it so. A law is not just simply by action of being a law. I'm really surprised you'd take such a tact.
No more than my surprise of how you have no problem what-so-ever if Israel were literally run over by the Palenstinian population
A cop out. I gave you a specific situation, very specific in our last debate on this topic, and you still did not support the Palestinian man's right to his own property. You still supported racist policies in Israel.
No, I support the right for Israel to survive. THAT's what I support. Now, if you wish to take this into a tangential discussion about how racist Israel is supposed to be, I'd suggest opening up a new thread, and make sure to include your condemnations of every Arab nation around Isreal & that region, that have either public policies, party platforms, and/or religious edicts condemining the very existance of Israel, how Jews are to be treated (pretty much like dogs), and the Arab schools that perpetuate that hate, including geography books that don't even recognize the state of Israel. As this really was about my criticisms of President Carter, then requiring me to some how figure out how I supposedly supported apartheid by my criticism of the Carter Presidency
-
In the same vein Domer, would you support Utah and part of Arizona becoming a separate nation devoted to Mormonism?
I believe we can agree that Mormons have been subject to historical mistreatment. In fact, they escaped persecution by fleeing to Utah and settling the area. True, they did comit their own atrocities against other settlers, but they have also contributed to society as a whole. Therefore, should we not allow a Mormon nation to be created?
And note that I am not neutral either. I'm half-German and have visited Dachau. I am a Christian as well. I feel extreme guilt for what was one of the worst crimes perpetrated upon a people of the 20th century. Yet, there were other victims of the gas chambers. In the context of history, the Holocaust was a terrible atrocity, but it was the continuance of a number of atrocities that continue today. It was horrible, but was not the first nor has it been the last (unfortunately) of atrocities.
The Holocaust should certainly give no nation or people the right to act in a manner where racism and their own atrocities are viewed as appropriate in the name of "security."
-
In fact, they escaped persecution by fleeing to Utah and settling the area. True, they did comit their own atrocities against other settlers, but they have also contributed to society as a whole. Therefore, should we not allow a Mormon nation to be created?
Well, they only "escaped persecution" until the US Army caught up to them...
-
I feel extreme guilt for what was one of the worst crimes perpetrated upon a people of the 20th century.
Must be something wrong with me, because i don't.
-
Therefore, should we not allow a Mormon nation to be created?
=================================================
The Mormon War and the various documents agreed upon when Utah became a state were basically the US government stating precisely that: Utah is a part of the US. Non-Mormons will be accorded equal rights with Mormons in Utah and everywhere else in the Union. Mormon poligamy, a frequent source of conflict between Mormons and "gentiles" was abolished.
Israel is something entirely different: Utah in under the US Constitution and the state constitution: Israel has no constitution, and therefore no one has any constitutional rights in Israel.
In Utah, the Mormons do not have a Mormon party or parties as Israel has various Jewish religious parties, territory is not taken by force, trees of non-Mormons are not destroyed, there are no highways for Mormons only, Mormons do not detain non-Mormons at hundreds of checkpoints.
The idea that a state should be based on a single nationality and worse, a single religion is among the worst ideas that humanity has ever devised. The Muslims are also guilty of this, but that does not make it acceptable, simply more abhorrent.
Utah would be an ideal role model for all Palisrael (a unified non-sectarian nation).
Were it not for the intolerant nature of the more fundamentalist sects og Judaism and Islam, this would be possible, and better off for all concerned.
-
Have anything a tad more recent, or perhaps more relevent to the current state of affairs, Js?
Yes. I gave you an example of an Arab doctor and Israeli citizen not allowed to live in a Jewish city in our last discussion, that is currently ongoing. I also gave you an example of a Palestinian man who lived in his father's (and grandfather's home) near Jerusalem. One day he was told that it was not his home (though he was the third generation owner) and that he was a citizen of the West Bank, despite never having lived there. He was no longer an Israeli citizen. His two daughters were removed from a good school in Jerusalem to a slum school in the West Bank. He was no longer allowed to possess an Israeli license plate. He was arrested multiple times for being an "illegal alien" because he attempted to reside in his home. Eventually the City of Jerusalem rezoned his home. Why did they do all of this? Because he is a Palestinian. Happening right now, recent enough for you Sirs? I explained this in our last conversation.
These things you excuse with "laws" and "Israeli security." The truth is they are racism, pure and simple. They are exactly like apartheid policies and before you disagree I suggest you read about Bantustan and the Bantu Authorities Act before you start making statements about how "free" the Palestinian states are in the West Bank and Gaza. They are no more than homelands and an attempt to do exactly what South Africa did. And this is not a term that only South African Jews have recognised or Palestinian biased sources. Jews within Israel have also claimed that the system is unfair and that it is similar to apartheid. An Israeli human rights group made the statement that:
Palestinians are barred from or have restricted access to 450 miles of West Bank roads, a system with 'clear similarities' to South Africa's former apartheid regime.
The Israeli government calls the program Hafrada a Hebrew word meaning "separation". Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning "apartness." Seeing a similarity now? The Israeli Government calls it a two-nation system. The South African Government called the homelands "honourable independent states."
If you don't believe me, perhaps Archbishop Desmond Tutu would be more suitable a reference: Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,706911,00.html)
And here is a partial article from an interesting source: Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4909958-103677,00.html)
Be sure and note the author: Meron Benvenisti is an Israeli writer and political scientist, and former deputy mayor of Jerusalem.
If they wish to work in Isreal, they must abide by Israeli laws. If they don't like them, they're free to move & work elsewhere
How? Like the blacks in South Africa could so freely leave the country? Do you have any idea what it means to be desperately poor? Or to have lived in the same town that numerous generations of your family had lived in? That was callous and shows a poor grasp of reality. "Just move" - real humane Sirs. I guess you could have told the Jews and Roma in Europe under Nazism to do the same thing, huh?
No more than my surprise of how you have no problem what-so-ever if Israel were literally run over by the Palenstinian population
I'm saying if they are a democracy they should act like one. And the United States leaders, from both parties, should stop giving them a free pass to enact apartheid policies on their own people. If they cannot handle it then they should become like their neighbors and we should treat them as such, without all this special dispensation.
No, I support the right for Israel to survive. THAT's what I support.
By any means necessary, yes I understand. Even if it means apartheid you give them a thumbs up.
and make sure to include your condemnations of every Arab nation around Isreal & that region, that have either public policies, party platforms, and/or religious edicts condemining the very existance of Israel, how Jews are to be treated (pretty much like dogs), and the Arab schools that perpetuate that hate, including geography books that don't even recognize the state of Israel
Take your false indignation and place it you know where. I have condemned those nations and certainly have no respect for their governments and their policies towards Jewish persons. What you really mean is that Israel is allowed a free pass because their neighbors are crap. I'm sorry, but that is bullshit logic and you know it.
The reality is that we support an awful regime in Israel and give them a great deal of support in cases where we should not, and would not if it were any other nation. We should treat them as the nation that they are. The people are fantastic, but the Government is horrible and it is high time Americans recognize that.
-
Must be something wrong with me, because i don't.
You're not German. It was taught to me.
-
I am of German extraction. Then again, i don't feel guilty about slavery either.
-
Take your false indignation and place it you know where. I have condemned those nations and certainly have no respect for their governments and their policies towards Jewish persons. What you really mean is that Israel is allowed a free pass because their neighbors are crap. I'm sorry, but that is bullshit logic and you know it.
A) I'm going to have to take your word on the supposed condemnations, since I don't recall any
B) I see we're back that unless I condemn every aspect of Israeli law & rule, I must then be stating that they are "allowed a free pass, because their neighbors are crap". You're right it is BS, since that's not my position
-
If you cannot take an in-depth look at the country you support then just say so. The games are growing stale.
The point is that the United States offers special significance to Israel which overlooks the many problems with Israel's policies. The question is, should we? Or should we treat them as any other nation that would so willfully choose apartheid? Moreover, should we (as a nation) be taking an active role in the process of aiding the formation of Bantustan states for Palestinians?
My answer is simple: no. Just because they are Israel doesn't make it right.
-
The point is that the United States offers special significance to Israel which overlooks the many problems with Israel's policies. The question is, should we? Or should we treat them as any other nation that would so willfully choose apartheid? Moreover, should we (as a nation) be taking an active role in the process of aiding the formation of Bantustan states for Palestinians?
My answer is simple: no. Just because they are Israel doesn't make it right.
Even pretendeding for a moment that everything you've said is 100% accurate (which I don't), they're not trying to abolish their neighbors. But since I don't accept your premise that they are this overtly racist nation identical to South Africa vs a nation that has policies that many would deem inappropriate, largely the only true democratic nation in the region, and a staunch ally, my answer is simple, yes, in supporting their ability to survive, surrounded by countries & enemies that would wish to see them completely disappear.
-
Even pretendeding for a moment that everything you've said is 100% accurate (which I don't), they're not trying to abolish their neighbors. But since I don't accept your premise that they are this overtly racist nation identical to South Africa vs a nation that has policies that many would deem inappropriate, largely the only true democratic nation in the region, and a staunch ally, my answer is simple, yes, in supporting their ability to survive, surrounded by countries & enemies that would wish to see them completely disappear.
First of all, I never ask anyone here to accept what I say as Gospel. By all means check it out, but don't simply dismiss it and walk away pretending ignorance is bliss. I posted an article written by a former Israeli official from Jerusalem, Sirs. I can give you an abundance of links and articles to check out if you wish. These policies are blatantly racist and are the equivalent or worse than South Africa's.
largely the only true democratic nation in the region
Based on what? They deprive a large segment of their people from participating in their "democracy." By all means explain the democratic principles of Israel.
and a staunch ally
Pinochet, Somoza, and at one time even South Africa were staunch allies as well. Even then we did not offer them the same blind eye we turn to Israel.
in supporting their ability to survive, surrounded by countries & enemies that would wish to see them completely disappear
Can we not support their existence without supporting their government? We support Eqypt quite a bit as well, but we make no pretense that they are some fantastic democracy. Why not do the same with Israel? Why all the bias and false pretense? As you are so fond of saying, why not call a duck a duck?
-
First of all, I never ask anyone here to accept what I say as Gospel. By all means check it out, but don't simply dismiss it and walk away pretending ignorance is bliss. I posted an article written by a former Israeli official from Jerusalem, Sirs. I can give you an abundance of links and articles to check out if you wish. These policies are blatantly racist and are the equivalent or worse than South Africa's.
Your definition of "blatant" and mine are obviously different, especially when you used yourself as how poor they are and unable to move out of Israel. That's not a racist policy preventing them from going elsewhere & working where they want
largely the only true democratic nation in the region
Based on what? They deprive a large segment of their people from participating in their "democracy." By all means explain the democratic principles of Israel.
Based on Israelis elect their representatives. Based on they have an open democratic government. Based on they have elections every year, and pick new Prime Minisiters from time to time. Based on the fact their Government body has a multitude of political parties, and not just our 2+. Just because they don't have the open borders we do, or a Constitution that gives an illegal immigrant's newly born baby immediate citizenship status, doesn't make them undemocratic. This has already been addressed before, as the # of Palnestinians far out# that of the Israelis. Giving non-Isrealis electorate ability as Jews, would be giving themselves a legislative death penalty as a country. Again, apparently you don't have a problem with that. I do
Pinochet, Somoza, and at one time even South Africa were staunch allies as well. Even then we did not offer them the same blind eye we turn to Israel.
Oh yea, they're identical to Israel ::)
Can we not support their existence without supporting their government?
How is that done? Just words?
-
This has already been addressed before, as the # of Palnestinians far out# that of the Israelis. Giving non-Isrealis electorate ability as Jews, would be giving themselves a legislative death penalty as a country.
Actually, only about 19% of the population of Israel is Palestinian. Also, 10% of the seats in the Knesset are currently held by Arabs, and legal Arabs are allowed to vote. Only groups that have denied the legitimacy of the State of Israel to exist are prevented from holding office.
-
Your definition of "blatant" and mine are obviously different, especially when you used yourself as how poor they are and unable to move out of Israel. That's not a racist policy preventing them from going elsewhere & working where they want
*sigh*
No, that was a comment on how out of touch with reality your reply was. It was also a parallel that the same comment (yours) could have been made about the blacks in South Africa and would have been equally as meaningless. Israel's racism comes from many separating policies including the fact that there are roads on which Palestinians may not legally drive upon. Add that to the many other examples including revoking citizenships, denying property rights, and government segregated communities.
Based on Israelis elect their representatives. Based on they have an open democratic government. Based on they have elections every year, and pick new Prime Minisiters from time to time. Based on the fact their Government body has a multitude of political parties, and not just our 2+. Just because they don't have the open borders we do, or a Constitution that gives an illegal immigrant's newly born baby immediate citizenship status, doesn't make them undemocratic. This has already been addressed before, as the # of Palnestinians far out# that of the Israelis. Giving non-Isrealis electorate ability as Jews, would be giving themselves a legislative death penalty as a country. Again, apparently you don't have a problem with that. I do
An open democratic government? Well that is easy to do when you forcibly remove people from your nation plus when you allow people to become citizens whose grandparents were Jews. Sure, you can out vote any other minority by wide margins when you write the rules on elections and citizenship. South Africa did the same thing.
Based on they have elections every year, and pick new Prime Minisiters from time to time.Based on the fact their Government body has a multitude of political parties, and not just our 2+.
Checks for South Africa. South Africa's Parliament had more than 2 parties as well. Welcome to the Parliamentary system.
Just because they don't have the open borders we do, or a Constitution that gives an illegal immigrant's newly born baby immediate citizenship status, doesn't make them undemocratic.
Same for South Africa under apartheid. They even set up the Homelands so that they could call the blacks "illegal immigrants" just as you are doing with the Palestinians. Congratulations!
This has already been addressed before, as the # of Palnestinians far out# that of the Israelis. Giving non-Isrealis electorate ability as Jews, would be giving themselves a legislative death penalty as a country. Again, apparently you don't have a problem with that. I do
My favorite argument and it only makes my point! Let me rewrite it for you Sirs.
"This has already been addressed before, as the number of Blacks far outnumbers that of the Whites. Giving non-Whites electorate ability as Whites, would be giving themselves a legislative death penalty as a country. Again, apparently you don't have a problem with that. I do."
Welcome to apartheid Sirs. I'm sure P.W. Botha would be glad to know his legacy continues. Now do you see why I say you support it? Look at your very own paragraph? Apartheid, plain and simple.
Oh yea, they're identical to Israel ::)
You've clearly demonstrated that South Africa is identical.
How is that done? Just words?
No. We sanction them as we did South Africa, until these policies are reversed.
-
Your definition of "blatant" and mine are obviously different, especially when you used yourself as how poor they are and unable to move out of Israel. That's not a racist policy preventing them from going elsewhere & working where they want
*sigh*
No, that was a comment on how out of touch with reality your reply was....................................
........................How is that done? Just words?
No. We sanction them as we did South Africa, until these policies are reversed.
When Aparthied departed Uganda and Rodesia it was replaced with aparthied , South Africa has succeded in keeping most of its citizens and truely createing a new situation rather than just reverseing a bad one to produce a bad one running the other way.
Palestinians are not showing much sign of being ready to take over and tolerate Israeli society as it would be with everyone equal.
I don't beleive that a two state solution is ever going to be a solution , it will always be on one side or the other something like the "homelands" solution that South Africa tried for a few decades.
If ever the two sides get to the point that they can exist in tolerance then a working solution will be pretty easy , till then the tribal war is kinda hard to end.
What is the point for us to want to reverse the present situation ? It would only mena a long period of shooting and refugees followed by an opressive regime no better than what exists now.
-
I don't beleive that a two state solution is ever going to be a solution , it will always be on one side or the other something like the "homelands" solution that South Africa tried for a few decades.
Make no mistake Plane, the South African homelands were never meant to be a "solution." They were an attempt by apartheid apologists to reframe the debate and continue their policies of using and abusing black South Africans by dehumanising them. The South African government merely attempted to change the way in which the blacks were viewed. Instead of being looked upon as a repressed majority, they would become a "foreign workforce." In fact, it is very similar to the path Israel has taken because many black South Africans were given citizenships to homelands in which they never lived.
The difference is that the world saw through South Africa's plans, for the most part. On the other hand the United States not only doesn't call attention to Israel's glaringly similar plan but even avidly advocates it! You're right, the "two-state solution" is not a real solution at all. Just like in South Africa, the Palestinian states can never be self-financing and can never be a real functioning state. They are defacto controlled regions of Israel, just like the South African Bantustans. They are woefully poor and will never be given the means to correct that - you guessed it - just like the Bantustans. So what use are they?
Purely political. They serve a purpose so that Israel can practice apartheid and when a missile attack comes from the chattle of one of her Bantustans Israel can call them "foreign aggressors" and act with impunity. When they elect Hamas to lead them, Israel and the United States remove their funding. When they take to the streets, Israel cuts off their source of work and income. When bad stuff happens in a Bantustan, guess who the South African government blamed? That's right - the Bantustan police and government. Now look at who the United States and Israel blame when the West Bank or Gaza has trouble - the Palestinian police and the Palestinian government. Neither of whom has nor will ever be capable of doing an effective job.
Apartheid. Racism. Israel = South Africa. They didn't invent this, South Africa wrote the book and Israel is just selecting a few good excerpts. The beauty for Israel is that they aren't such a small minority as the South Africans - so it may actually work for them.
What is the point for us to want to reverse the present situation ? It would only mena a long period of shooting and refugees followed by an opressive regime no better than what exists now.
You are misrepresenting me. I never said "reverse the present situation." I said Israel needs to remove their apartheid policies. There is a gulf of difference and I'd appreciate it if you did not paint me as being out of touch with reality without using my actual arguments.
-
I think you ignore the deep truths of the Israeli-Palestinian situation and indeed sacrifice them to your superficial comparison of South Africa with Israel itself. In the case of the latter, leaving aside Biblical claims, which have profound emotional effect but not, in my view, not "moral" ones, the founding of Israel must be seen in the context of world history and specifically an attempted genocide under the most harrowing of circumstances. To my mind, discounting other factors, this is sufficient to establish Israel as sui generis among the nations of the world: not a colonial power but a survivors' refuge. These facts color its practices, for two reasons: one immediate impetus was to form a uniquely Jewish state to celebrate what had been in danger of perishing. Then again, it found itself (again) in hostile territory, beleagured and warred upon and terrorized. These additional facts dictated a circumspection that may, as things do, trail off into oppression in the heat and blur of an active armed conflict. That is the status quo. Any changes must be matched with correlative security advances. As I see it, Jewish culture in general is one of the most advanced mankind has ever witnessed, and that wouldn't be true -- for so long -- if it didn't carry an admirable set of values that would, when the crisis wanes, recoil at its own excesses.
-
Domer,
I have nothing against Jewish culture and the Jewish people. In fact, I couldn't agree more with your admiration for it, but that does not mean that one has to support the current policies of the state of Israel. The two do not have to be intrinsically tied to one another. I have even posted an article written by an Israeli Jew who condemns the policies as Bantustan (Homeland) policy.
What you label superficial, is what South African Jews, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and some notable Israelis have noted as a very real comparison between Apartheid and Hafrada. You defend it as security, but South Africans made precisely the same argument. I think you ought to ask yourself how much of the current security problems are caused by Israel's "security" solutions?
Moreover, would you accept this behavior from the Roma? Would you accept this behavior from the Communists? They were extremely and harshly persecuted by the Nazis at the death camps. We did not accept this behavior from the Serbians, yet they were also harshly treated victims of the death camps in Croatia. Why the double standard? Simply because these are Jews, not Serbians?
Would you accept this behavior from the Armenians? The Chinese?
Think about that, all were brutally mistreated at the hands of an atrocity, yet do we accept such policies from them?
-
As I see it, Jewish culture in general is one of the most advanced mankind has ever witnessed, and that wouldn't be true -- for so long -- if it didn't carry an admirable set of values that would, when the crisis wanes, recoil at its own excesses.
========================================================================
The flaw in your argument is that Jewish culture can only exist in a country in which the Jews are dominant.
There is no discrimination against Jews in Canada or the US. Jews are welcome here in Miami, perhaps even more welcome than Americans from the Midwest.
Missourians have no private "spare country" to go to, neither do Nebraskans or Kansans or Dakotans, and if Missouri or Nebraska or the Dakotas are overrun by Mexicans, well, tough sh*t.
I suggest that the most vibrant aspects of Jewish culture are not to be found among the intolerant and freeloading Hassids who think their entire lives should be dedicated to studying the Torah, but the inventors, scientists, writers and businesspersons and even comedians and entertainers who have always been welcome in the US and Canada and almost certainly always will be.
Zionism is a really bad idea. Judaism is not.
-
JS, from MY PERSPECTIVE, taking all into account and lamenting the Israeli excesses with a keen eye toward reform, I must yet find that the "morality" of the situation is tinged indelibly and uniquely -- in MY PERSPECTIVE -- by the continuing struggle for Israeli survival.
-
No, that was a comment on how out of touch with reality your reply was. It was also a parallel that the same comment (yours) could have been made about the blacks in South Africa and would have been equally as meaningless.
Lemme check my history here. UN partitions land following WWII for Israel to relocate in lands it historically was, following the brutal effort by the nazis to exterminate the Jewish race. Late 1940's I do believe. In 1948, when Israel was established, Arab citizens were granted full civil, cultural and political rights, including the right to vote, correct? And land that was largely double the size of Gaza was allocated as a state for Palestinians. And what happened again? The Arab nations refused to acknowledge Isreal's right to exist, refused to sign off on the UN's decision, and began attacking Isreal from all sides. Isreal managed to repell these attacks, largely without ANY aide from ANYONE else (which includes the U.S.), and set up much greater stringent boundries, both in their immigration policies, and in extending their borders for better self defense. Are you still with me?? Now show me this "identical series of events" in South Africa, if you don't mind, Js. Perhaps you could start with whatever UN charter was invoked in the birth of South Africa, and the surrounding nations that immediately went to war against them
An open democratic government? Well that is easy to do when you forcibly remove people from your nation plus when you allow people to become citizens whose grandparents were Jews. Sure, you can out vote any other minority by wide margins when you write the rules on elections and citizenship. South Africa did the same thing.
Any country in power writes their own rules. The rules in South Africa, though similar in some respects are not identical to both what Israel has done, or why they have done them. Again, that's the #'s game. If Palestinians were ever allowed to "return" (which I'm including the right to vote in Israeli law), Isreal would soon cease to exist.
"This has already been addressed before, as the number of Blacks far outnumbers that of the Whites. Giving non-Whites electorate ability as Whites, would be giving themselves a legislative death penalty as a country. Again, apparently you don't have a problem with that. I do."
Always with the substantive ommissions, aren't we. Sad. Let me know when you come up with that comparable history
You've clearly demonstrated that South Africa is identical.
No, that's still your version, I'm afraid. You are so hung up on the what, you're completely ignoring the why & the when
No. We sanction them as we did South Africa, until these policies are reversed.
No, we go back to encouraging 2 completely independent states, and more importantly for the surrounding Arab nations to not only recongize the state of Israel to be a sovereign nation, completely allowed to remain precisely where it is, but to also condemn any nation &/or it's leader who claims otherwise and/or advocates its abolishment. When THAT's done, then we can tackle your "racist Israeli policies"
Deal?
-
IN the United States People who are very diffrent are expected to hire each other and tolerate pretty large diffrences in habit.
If this had been the ideal of the foundiung of Israel there might have been a place for the Arabs and the Jews without moveing anyone and building fences.
Untill both sides take a new attitude twards tolerance fenses are better than getting shot or blown up.