iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

David Samel's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
Bulgaria Bus Bombing: Image Of Suicide Bomber Released

Bulgaria Bus Bombing: Image Of Suicide Bomber Released

Commented Aug 1, 2012 at 12:28:11 in World

“enderM, there is evidence of who, in general, perpetrated this act? You sure about that? Does it not bother you that Netanyahu announced who was at fault even before the bodies were removed from the scene? Does it not bother you that Netanyahu is trying to build a case for attacking Iran? As I.F. Stone stated succinctly, "All governments lie." And one reason they do so is because people like you are willingly gullible when a government they like says something they are predisposed to believe. Iran has denied responsibility, and you no doubt disbelieve that denial. Why don't you employ the same healthy skepticism about Israeli government pronouncements?”

BcemXAHA on Aug 2, 2012 at 16:29:17

“* Why don't you employ the same healthy skepticism about Israeli government pronouncements? *

I suppose the same can be asked of you in regards to Iran.”

Hally on Aug 1, 2012 at 15:45:26

“He's in the Michelle Bachman camp of first throw stones, lots of 'em, ask questions later.

Iran very well might be behind this attack, but no one should expect anyone of even slightly moderate intelligence and above to believe accusations without some shred of evidence.”

enderM on Aug 1, 2012 at 13:24:39

“oy!  israel, being more than familiar with her more than fair share of terrorst atkks, has learned some things along the way.  there are specific methods, and specific MO&telltale signs that stand out.  yes, i am sure that there is 'evidence' that exists that is not being publicized.  to think otherwise would be beyond silly and moving into what could only be called ig.nor.ance.  even local police departments keep certain 'evidence' 'close to the vest' and doesn't reveal it publicly….so why should israel…or bulgaria…for that matter.maybe yu are not aware of the previous attks whose evidence has led to iran/hezbola/afilliates….
as for 'iran has denied responsibility'…lol. seriously.  coming from a guy who denies the holocaust ever happened, and denies saying he wants to 'wipe israel from the map of history'….even when there is video of him saying exactly that…yet this is who yu choose to believe.  lol.  OK.  enjoy that fantasy.”
Bulgaria Bus Bombing: Image Of Suicide Bomber Released

Bulgaria Bus Bombing: Image Of Suicide Bomber Released

Commented Aug 1, 2012 at 10:39:53 in World

“Why don't we just ask the Israelis who he is? Netanyahu said Israel has rock-solid evidence of the complicity of Hezbollah and Iran in this bombing. Surely that would include the bomber's identity. Bibi wouldn't lie about this, and exploit this tragedy to advance his warmongering against Iran, would he?”

NoOne18 on Aug 2, 2012 at 01:29:49

“How naive of you to actually think that he hasn't told those in power everything they know. & even more naive of you to assume that they're going to blab it all over. Just keep your brainless hate to yourself, so you won't look even more stupid.”

enderM on Aug 1, 2012 at 11:57:45

“how silly. just because there is evidence of who, *in general*, perpetrated this act, does not
mean that the exact identity of one particular person is known…
nor does it mean that it will not be known in the future.
surely yu realize that there is more evidence than what is being publicly revealed...”
huffingtonpost entry

Should Israel Welcome Glenn Beck's Support?

Commented Aug 23, 2011 at 15:03:22 in World

“NY Lib, first of all, you did not acknowledge that your impression of Dersh on Tutu was wrong and mine was more accurate. How could you have done a search of how Dersh feels about Tutu and come up with "misguided" and "ignorant"?

Second, in another comment that does not yet appear, I linked to a youtube debate with Susan Abulhawa in which Dersh is accused of saying Tutu was most evil, and he is silent, even though he interrupts her all the time about other things. He said it to Lowenstein - no doubt about it.

Most importantly, you claim to be so impressed with the Dersh article I linked, yet you take at face value all of his Tutu quotes without checking them for accuracy. Dersh provides no links at all. I suggest you probe his accusations against Tutu, the way you probed my quote of Dersh, and see what you can corroborate. I think you'll be surprised.”

myopinion2 on Aug 23, 2011 at 17:11:02

“One can be misguided and ignorant, without being evil.

Silence is not an admission.

Tutu is a third worlder, an advocate not a statesman. His involvement in South African's fight against apartheid does not make him right on the I/P conflict, where he has traded in his moral mantle for a Palestinian kafiya.”
huffingtonpost entry

Should Israel Welcome Glenn Beck's Support?

Commented Aug 23, 2011 at 12:05:53 in World

“NYLib - you claim you did a search and still "believe that Dershowitz used the word "misguided­" and "ignorant"­. Not evil." You didn't do a very good search. If you did, you would have found this immediately:

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1742/bishop-tutu-is-no-saint-when-it-comes-to-jews
a long history of ugly hatred toward the Jewish people, the Jewish religion and the Jewish state

It's a Dersh smear job of Tutu that says, among other things:

"He has invoked classic anti-Semitic stereotypes and tropes about Jewish "arrogance", "power" and money. He has characterized Jews a "peculiar people," and has accused "the Jews" of causing many of the world's problems."

"Tutu's sordid history of anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions"

In this article, Dersh explicitly accuses Tutu of being virulently anti-Semitic.

As for the word "evil," apparently you and I have differing views of Lowenstein's credibility. I don't think he made the word up, but even if you do, read the article I linked to, and tell me whose characterization of Dersh's attitude toward Tutu is closer to the truth - yours or mine? Does Dersh believe Tutu is "evil" or simply "misguided and ignorant?”

NewYorkLiberal on Aug 23, 2011 at 14:13:52

“I think that the Dershowitz article you cite is a good one, and that people should read it. Dershowitz lays out his feelings, and provides plenty of direct quotes from Tutu to support his points.

He does not, however, use the word "evil" in the article you cite.

I not only "claim" that I did a search, I actually did a search. But thank you for linking to the article.”
huffingtonpost entry

Should Israel Welcome Glenn Beck's Support?

Commented Aug 23, 2011 at 09:12:49 in World

“"All decent people, whether on the left or the right, should support Israel's right to exist as the democratic nation state of the Jewish people."

One thing we expect from "democratic" nations is full equality to all their citizens regardless of characteristics of birth. It is not even theoretically possible for the "Jewish State" to treat its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens equally. Neither Dershowitz nor I nor any American Jew would tolerate living in a "Christian State" even if we still retained the right to vote and hold office.

Another feature of a democracy is that all people subject to government decision-making may vote for or against the government. While Israel's 1.5 million Palestinian citizens may vote, albeit with second-class citizenship in almost every respect, the 4 million Palestinians in the territories have no vote at all. Yet Israel reserves the right to control every aspect of their lives, including how much food they have access to, how long they spend in Israeli prisons, and even whether they are summarily executed by Israeli forces.

Dershowitz takes it for granted that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state, even though that is an obviously irreconcilable contradiction. Why is it "indecent" to support a truly democratic state that provides equal rights for all?

Dershowitz values the Christian philosophy of Beck over that of Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu, whom Dershowitz called one of the most evil people in the world. That about sums it up.”

NewYorkLiberal on Aug 23, 2011 at 09:52:12

“I believe that Dershowitz used the word "misguided" and "ignorant". Not evil.

I did a search, and the only reference I could find that Dershowitz may have used the word "evil" in regards to Tutu was in a blog by Antony Lowenstein, who claims to have been told this in a private conversation. Lowenstein seems to be a conspiracy theorist, ranting about Israel, the US and other Western imperialists, such as Australia.

Do you have a source for your accusation?”
huffingtonpost entry

Obama Explains -- and Makes It Worse

Commented May 26, 2011 at 13:05:05 in Politics

“Dershowitz proposes Israel agree to give up the territorie­s it conquered in 1967, as it is required to under internatio­nal law, while the Palestinia­ns concurrent­ly give up their right of return guaranteed under internatio­nal law. In exchange for Israel’s long overdue compliance with internatio­nal law, the Palestinia­ns must forgo another legal right. Dershowitz­’s claim that UNSC Resolution 242 "recognize­d the need for changes in the 1967 lines that will assure Israel's security” is a fabricatio­n; elsewhere, the resolution explicitly refers to "inadmissi­bility of the acquisitio­n of territory by war." Period. Dershowitz notes that “demograph­ic changes have occurred that will also require agreed-upo­n land swaps.” These changes were not acts of God or nature, but of Israel unlawfully moving its citizens into occupied territory. This should be rewarded?

Dershowitz­: ”Israel [is and should] remain both a Jewish and a fully democratic state in which every resident is equal under the law.” But in education, employment­, housing, marriage - surprise, surprise, non-Jews are not equal in the Jewish State. Imagine the US a “Christian State” where Jews were “assured” that they would be “equal under the law.” A “Jewish State” confers rights and privileges on some citizens over others based on ethnic background­, and that is unacceptab­le in the 21st century. Israeli Jews should live in security, but they must accept equality with their fellow residents. Until then, they will never know security, no matter how many arms they accumulate and how ruthlessly they use them.”
huffingtonpost entry

Emma Williams' Tale of Two Jerusalems

Commented Nov 14, 2010 at 09:31:17 in Books

“WBMD, your naivete would be galling if it were not shared by so many other willingly gullible people. It has never been the policy of the Israeli government to target civilians? What about the massacres of 1947-8, Qibya in 1953, the aftermath of the Munich Olympics in 1972, the wholesale bombardment of Beirut in 1982, the attacks on southern Lebanon in 1993 and 1996, and of course, Lebanon and Gaza over the past four years? And this is just a very incomplete list. Killing (and otherwise punishing) civilians has always been state policy. For example, Sharon is a terrorist for killing scores of civilians in Qibya and thousands in Lebanon.

As for Shalit, he is very lucky he was not treated like any armed Palestinians in Gaza. If Hamas employed Israeli justice, he'd be dead. I certainly hope he has not been tortured, like many of the "10,000 Arab prisoners" you pronounce, without a shred of evidence, are all guilty of trying to harm Israelis. And what of the recent high-profile arrests of non-violent resisters to the illegal wall?

Do you want to know why Israeli leaders spout the most ridiculous lies to cover up their crimes? It's because there are apparently intelligent people such as yourself, not to mention 500 members of Congress, who believe them without employing an iota of critical skepticism. Time to grow up.”
huffingtonpost entry

Separation Without Separating -- A Friendly Divorce for Palestine and Israel

Commented Nov 10, 2010 at 09:14:55 in World

“At first hearing, this proposal seems unnecessarily complicated, and parts of it unworkable. Nevertheless, I welcome as a step in the right direction any proposal that makes true equality among the residents of the area a core principle. (I assume that the authors envision that the present-day Jewish settlers who are permitted to remain in their residences could not continue to hog a grossly disproportionate share of water resources, maintain a monopoly of arms over their non-Jewish neighbors, and enjoy virtual immunity for their crimes.) Not only is the two-state solution physically unachievable, the continuation of a Jewish State that inherently provides rights and status to some citizens over others is a recipe for perpetual seething discontent. It is even more unfair considering that the average Jewish resident's roots in the area are much more recent than the average Palestinian's, and that superiority is offered to Diaspora Jews as well. The past few years have witnessed a shift toward a workable solution based on equality and security for all, and while this proposal appears flawed, it is high time to consider the feasibility and fairness of different ideas for a just solution.”
huffingtonpost entry

It's Time to Dismantle the Palestinian Authority

Commented Nov 9, 2010 at 09:05:26 in World

“It may be true that your Israeli friends, and most Israeli Jews, would not voluntarily give up their position of dominance over the native Palestinian population and settle for mere equality. Like South African whites from a generation ago, and southern US whites a generation before that, Israelis may have to be pushed, hopefully through non-violent tactics like BDS. Israelis claim that they have no problem bestowing equality on the 20% of the citizenry that is non-Jewish (though it isn't even close to being true), so accepting equality with in a roughly 50-50 environment should be quite doable as well. As an American Jew, I have felt unthreatened even though we are less than 3% of the population.

Your discussion of national aspirations is utter nonsense. Of course, Palestinians rejected partition in 1947, when it meant dipossession and exile for hundreds of thousands and subjugation for those who managed to remain. Today, after four decades of living under a foreign military dictatorship, they would no doubt accept the type of equality we in the US take for granted. Somehow, you imply that your Israeli friends, who would rip apart the world before accepting equality with the "inferior" natives, are more reasonable. Ethno-religious privilege is not a national aspiration. Also, your dire warning is an excellent reason for the world to pressure Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal.”

martin2 on Nov 9, 2010 at 22:35:07

“Fanned and Favorite for posting the truth.
Palestinians have been living under a dictatorship.”

NTT on Nov 9, 2010 at 09:57:32

“Hmmm, hi Sharmine-under-another-username.

The comparison with South Africa is artificial and baseless. There is no racial discrimination in the Israeli law. Full stop. All the rest is haters' propaganda.

Yes, Israelis do not have a problem with an Arab minority which holds equal rights. They do have a problem with an Arab majority, which is how things would be in a one state "solution". Judging by Lebanon, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, etc., etc., Jews have EVERY RIGHT to feel threatened. The Middle East is NOT America. However, this is not about "being threatened". It is primarily about a people's right to national self-determination. This has also nothing to do with "equality" (states are equal by definition), neither did I or my friends imply that anyone was "inferior". I never heard a Jew asking for any "ethno-religious privilege". What the Jews want is what every people is entitled to: a country of their own. And if that country is home to an ethnic minority (and Israel -- like most countries -- is), then that minority should have equal rights and obligations. Simple.

As for the partition, there was no reason why it should have resulted in "dipossession and exile for hundreds of thousands and subjugation for those who managed to remain". If the Arabs of Palestine had accepted the 1947 partition, there would have been no war and they would have had the state they SAY they want.”
huffingtonpost entry

Dershowitz Versus Horton on Lawfare: Real Threat or Illusion?

Commented Nov 8, 2010 at 12:20:42 in New York

“Let’s recap. I accused Dersh of changing the wording of the Goldstone report, you agreed that “he may have been a typical shyster by changing the wording,” but when I pointed out your agreement with my accusation, you cry foul. Well which is it? Did Dersh change the language of the report or not? If he did, and you surely seem to say he did, then my accusation that he did is accurate and you did agree with it. Next, you said that “only if you apply the same criteria first, foremost, with actual court conviction outcomes” should I, or anyone else presumably, be able to complain about Israel killing civilians. Or did you mean me alone? Do you think that others should be allowed to charge Israel with deliberately killing civilians before all Americans guilty of the same are convicted in court? What exactly is your position? That Israelis should get away with murder until Americans are prosecuted, or that Israelis are not guilty of murder? Frankly, I don’t have the slightest idea from your writings. You insist that Israelis killed civilians only accidentally, or as “collateral victims,” which seems to absolve them of murder. Then why should they be prosecuted at all? Btw, when a top Israeli general explicitly warned that it was Israeli policy to retaliate against civilian population centers causing widespread destruction (research the "Dahiya doctrine"), did you think he was kidding? Unlike you, I will not await an apology.”

WBMD on Nov 9, 2010 at 05:46:19

“You are both missing a very cogent point.No one denies that civilians were killed. The denial is that it is the policy of the government and people of Israel, and the IDF, to TARGET civilians intentionally. The Goldstone Report tries to suggest exactly that (the inquiry was set up to prove this pre-supposed hypothesis as its raison d'etre) and in so doing impugn, demonize, and delegitimize an entire nation and people. Are some Israelis criminals? Without a doubt. Is Israel, as a democracy committed to the rule of law, able to police itself, condemn and prosecute criminal behaviour? Also, without a doubt.Assigning commonality of criminal intent to an entire nation for the individual crimes of a miniscule few is the source of the hypocrisy, the source of contention, and the true goal of Goldstone, and indeed underlies "Lawfare".”

IhateNeoCons on Nov 8, 2010 at 16:56:43

“Go away. 1. You play the same lawyer games with words that you accuse Dershowitz of. Twisting what I say so unrecognizably as to suggest you are a paranoid schitzophrenic. This is hypocrisy, is not argument, is shoddy behavior. 2. You ignore the whole first half of the post, answering no questions to return to your same inane assertions that I've already destroyed. 3. I SPECIFICALLY, in PLAIN ENGLISH disavowed the idea that Israel get "away with" any crimes, for any reason, least of which your assinine reading of my assertion that you are hypocrite if you don't first apply your criteria to acts committed by your government in your name. How does your being a hypocrite absolve Israel of crimes? And yet you REPEATEDLY return to this mantra. If you have a mental problem, find a psychiatrist to write you a script and take your meds! 4. I don't have the space to deal with your propagandistic take on the Dahiya doctrine (you egregiously misstate it). Let's try this: Do you believe Ahmedinejad is kidding when he talks of wiping Israel off the map? I'm assuming you don't agree with an Israeli strike on Iran? If you want to take potential bombast out of context,while misquoting it in addition, relying solely on Goldstone for credibility, again, we come back to you believing only what suits your preconceived notions. Learn some objectivity.”
huffingtonpost entry

Dershowitz Versus Horton on Lawfare: Real Threat or Illusion?

Commented Nov 7, 2010 at 08:52:07 in New York

“Supposed hater of NeoCons, your accusation against me is absurd. I accused Dershowitz of changing the language of the Goldstone report to distort its accusations, and you accuse me of "twisting things" while admitting that my charge is true. You take umbrage at my claim that the Goldstone report accurately charged Israel with deliberately killing civilians, and gullibly believe Israel's preposterous defenses to that charge. You accuse me of hypocrisy because I do not deplore US actions against Afghan/Iraqi civilians. Actually, I do deplore such actions - really do - but I was writing accurately about Dershowitz's lie regarding the Goldstone report, and saw no need to reference Iraq and Afghanistan, or other off-topic matters. You go even further, and claim that Israel should be allowed to get away with deliberately killing civilians until US government officials and soldiers are successfully prosecuted for war crimes; otherwise I am a hypocrite. Are you serious? By the way, Israel also takes military action "directly in [my] name [I am Jewish], under [my] government's request, funded directly by [my] tax dollars." Of course, I feel quite free to criticize other governments' actions, military and otherwise, even though I have no connection to those countries and I haven't yet finished prosecuting US war crimes. Apparently you don't, and feel you must hold your tongue. Finally, as for excusing Dersh's conduct because he's a lawyer - so am I. I don't consider it even the slightest defense or explanation for dishonesty.”

IhateNeoCons on Nov 7, 2010 at 16:32:20

“3. I pointed out the difference between murdering a civilian, and the sleazy mischaracterization of collateral deaths as "targeting civilians". You twist what I said, and put words in my mouth asserting that I don't believe Israel should be accountable until Americans are! I said no such thing. Objective people like myself will ALWAYS hold Israel accountable for her crimes if we can. We simply won't do it in a racist, politically motivated manner. It isn't my fault the Goldstone report was so laughably biased that it holds little credibility. Indeed, I specifically decried the fact that crimes might not get due justice because of this. And yet...you somehow get all of these over-the-top illogical, immoral assertions on my behalf from what I wrote. Seems to me you have a tendency to hysterics or propaganda...or both. No wonder your read the Goldstone report and see it as credible. It could have come from your own hand. Unfortunately it will do little good if those who might otherwise be held accountable for negligence or criminality can dismiss it as lacking credulity, as I mostly do. If you haven't figured out that I'm not an apologist for crimes committed by the IDF, but interested in an unbiased treatment of Israel...then you have no interest in the substance of my words. You'd rather play lawyer games mischaracterizing my assertions for your own ends. Like the scorpion that stung the frog...it is your nature.”

IhateNeoCons on Nov 7, 2010 at 16:19:35

“Would'ga like a tissue...hypocrite? 1. "while admitting that my charge is true"...bold-faced lie. Read what I wrote in plain English. Understand it. Then apologize. 2. "You go even further, and claim that Israel should be allowed to get away with deliberately killing civilians until US government officials and soldiers are successfully prosecuted for war crimes". I never said that. I said hypocrites like you don't get to apply different rules to Israel, the IDF, and Israeli citizens the IDF commits their acts in the name of unless you are first prepared to apply the same standards in your own backyard where you have as much or more control over what happens in your name as any Israeli does. I await your apology for your mischaracterization of this point as well. Assuming of course you are American. If you are Israeli (you shyster around the point of exactly what nationality you are) then step up and do something other than whining on here. I suspect you are in fact not Israeli from the tap dancing you are doing. But until you come clean, we really can't progress with our little argument, can we... continued:”
huffingtonpost entry

Dershowitz Versus Horton on Lawfare: Real Threat or Illusion?

Commented Nov 7, 2010 at 00:19:06 in New York

“Dershowitz: "When asked about the claim that the IDF deliberately tried to maximize civilian casualties, Goldstone feigned ignorance that the claim was made in the Goldstone Report." Actually, Goldstone's "ignorance" was quite real. He is unaware that the claim is in his report because it is not in his report. This is a lie that Dershowitz has repeated ad nauseum. The report does accuse the IDF of intentionally killing civilians, but not of maximizing civilian casualties. Obviously, if Israel had wished to do so, it could have slaughtered many more. Goldstone's accusation of intentional killing is overwhelmingly supported by the facts, so Dershowitz pretends he made the "maximum casualties" claim instead. Unfortunately, the man has considerable rhetorical skills, and gets very positive responses from those inclined to his point of view, who remain blissfully unaware that he routinely resorts to outright fabrications passionately presented with a veneer of profound conviction and indignation.”

IhateNeoCons on Nov 7, 2010 at 06:09:18

“You are the one twisting things. He may have been a typical shyster by changing the wording, but that doesn't change the fact that accusing the IDF of intentionally targeting civilians is by and large BS. I have no doubt you can find specific instances where this is true, probably 1 event for every 100 committed by those fighting on your behalf in your name in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is however a big difference between intentionally targeting someone who ends up being identified as a civilian or was a civilian in a building from whence an attack issued, and deciding to murder in cold blood someone you know is a civilian. It may surprise you to learn I have no problem accepting your version of what criteria should apply to the IDF (no firing when civilians could be harmed). However, only if you apply the same criteria first, foremost, with actual court conviction outcomes to those troops fighting directly in your name, under your government's request, funded directly by your tax dollars. Otherwise your hypocrisy makes Dershowitz's look positively puny. And at least he can claim a lifetime of shysterism as an explanation for where he gets his sleazy behavior from.”
huffingtonpost entry

What Lebanon Can Teach the U.S. About Religious Tolerance

Commented Sep 2, 2010 at 08:56:02 in World

“Wolfman, it is you, not I, who are in need of a history lesson. If you cared to research the subject, you would find that Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon was not provoked by rocket fire from the Palestinians. There had been a cease fire in place for nearly a year, scrupulously adhered to by the Palestinians. Israel used as a pretext for the 1982 invasion the assassination attempt on its ambassador in London by a splinter group.

And in 2006, Israel again bombed and invaded, not in response to "thousands of rockets." After Israel's pullout in 2000, there were only a handful of incidents over the next six years against Israel, which were more than matched in the other direction. This time, Israel used as a pretext for a full scale bombing and invasion the cross-border raid on an Israel Army outpost.

As for the supposed resurgence of anti-Semitism in the US, I see no evidence of it. I've never felt victimized or unsafe as a Jew in America, and your experiences seem to date from childhood, whenever that was.

You say "The whole business of "this is a Christian nation," is threatening to anyone who isn't Christian." That's an extremely unlikely outcome here, but now you know how Palestinians, even those who are citizens of Israel, must feel. They must endure second class status in the land of their birth by virtue of their ethnicity, something we would find absolutely intolerable.”

WolfmanZ on Sep 2, 2010 at 11:35:47

“Last reply-post was cut off . . .

Here's the complete last part -

Lastly,
>> I've never felt victimized or unsafe as a Jew in America, and your experiences seem to date from childhood, whenever that was.

I grew up and got big enough to defend myself. That's when it stopped.

As for your experience, do you conduct yourself as a Jew or just blend in? I don't hide it.”

WolfmanZ on Sep 2, 2010 at 11:28:01

“I think you need to read some history other than that endorsed by Israel's enemies. You have a 1-sided picture. The word limit here is too short for me to set the record straight. You can research and read on your own - if you really want to have a full picture, that is.



As for the poor Palestinians disenfranchised in their own land -

>> now you know how Palestinians, even those who are citizens of Israel, must feel



There is one tiny country on the face of this Earth that is a home and haven for Jews; the only place where we need not be afraid or feel like outsiders. The Palestinians - a) they didn't seem to yearn for a state of their own under Jordanian rule, b) Jordan is 80% of the area originally proposed for a Jewish Homeland. The Palestinians are a majority in Jordan - it is their home. c) There are 20-odd Arab and Muslim countries where Arabs and Muslims need not feel like outsiders. There is only one tiny sliver of land called Israel, and it seems that you want to take even that little bit away.

Lastly,
>> I've never felt victimized or unsafe as a Jew in America, and your experiences seem to date from childhood, whenever that was.

I grew up and got big enough to defend myself. That's when it stopped.

As for your experience, do you conduct yourself as a Jew or just blend in? I don't”
huffingtonpost entry

What Lebanon Can Teach the U.S. About Religious Tolerance

Commented Sep 2, 2010 at 08:39:22 in World

“squiems, apparently you feel that whenever Israel bombs and invades another country, it is in legitimate protection of its citizens. Israel's right to self-defense is limitless, and excuses deliberate attacks on population centers, right?

And protect its citizens from what? Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon was not provoked by rocket fire from the Palestinians. There had been a cease fire in place for nearly a year, scrupulously adhered to by the Palestinians, and occasionally broken by Israel. Israel used as a pretext for the 1982 invasion the assassination attempt on its ambassador in London by a splinter group.

And in 2006 (I mistakenly said 2000 before), Israel again bombed and invaded, not in response to "thousands of rockets" which you hear now from the likes of Oren and Bibi. After Israel's pullout in 2000, there were only a handful of incidents over the next six years against Israel, which were more than matched in the other direction. This time, Israel used as a pretext for a full scale bombing and invasion the cross-border raid on an Israel Army outpost.

These military operations, the first taking an estimated 20,000 lives(!), and the second killing well over a thousand, were not undertaken to protect Israel's citizens. But if it makes you feel good to call me "stupid," knock yourself out. It's cheaper than therapy.”

squiems on Sep 2, 2010 at 15:16:30

“Ever heard of the Coastal Road Massacre? PLO terrorists infiltrated Israel (from South Lebanon) and killed almost 40 civilians. The Israeli army invaded south lebanon a few days later to remove PLO terrorists, who had de facto control over most of the south and had launched many terror attacks before the coastal road massacre. Any responsible government would have done what Israel did in order to protect its citizens.

The same was true in 2006. For years Hezbollah infiltrators entered israel and fought with/attempted to kidnap soldiers.

You seem to think Israel has been invading Lebanon...because it seems like fun? I have no idea. But it's pretty clear you're ignorant of the basic history of the conflict.”
huffingtonpost entry

What Lebanon Can Teach the U.S. About Religious Tolerance

Commented Sep 2, 2010 at 08:18:51 in World

“Maim, the right to worship is not dependent upon Hezbollah good will. The damaged synagogue (bombed by Israel's Air Force in 1982) seemed destined for destruction as part of a larger urban renewal project, no different from projects in many American cities. When the Jewish community tried to save the synagogue, they sought government approval to do so, just as some might seek to save an old building as a landmark. The government unanimously gave its approval, and Hezbollah, a political party, was on board. This has nothing to do with the right to worship, and everything to do with saving a landmark which, in this case, was a religious building. In NY, the "mosque" developers did require the approval of a political entity, the local community board.

Your reference to Lebanese fascism surely indicates you have no idea what you're talking about.

You suggest that all Hezbollah members be executed, presumably for firing rockets into Israeli population centers. I am absolutely opposed to indiscriminate violence against civilians, whether it be in northern Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, New York City, Hiroshima or Dresden. But consider that Israel’s actions against Lebanese civilians was much more destructive. For intent, research the "Dahiya doctrine," in which a top Israeli general acknowledged the scheme to hold all civilians responsible for any fire coming from their vicinity. Your sense of criminal retribution would condemn all members of Israel’s government, and the entire IDF, and throw in the reserves as well. That sounds somewhat irrational to me.”

maim on Sep 2, 2010 at 12:55:42

“David,

1) No Hezbollah (Hassan Nasrallah including) should be automatically executed, yet all of them are completely entitled to such a treatment. The final decision, who exactly should be hanged, belongs -- according to Nuremberg legal doctrine and the process -- to the victims of Hezbollah crimes. This prospect may look a bit distant today; still justice be better served late than never.

2) It was really offensive and indecent to compare this country (or Israel, for the occasion) with aggressive Lebanon, where Hezbollah not only tolerated, but even holds the veto power over all government decisions. Hezbollah is as legitimate as it was NSDAP in 1945 Germany. The more you add to the point that Hezbollah is a "political party" and a "part of the government", the more disgust this reasoning entails. It was exactly because NSDAP was a part of the German government (more than that -- it was the government), and its Fuhrer was the Reich Chancellor, US, Britain and Russia had to carpet bomb Dresden. Due to certain Japanese "politicians", like Hideki Tojo that US had to nuclear bomb Hiroshima, which absolutely deserved its fate as the aggressor's military base.

3) Propaganda of equivalence between Dresden, Hiroshima, Gaza, Lebanon and New York, Haifa, is beyond the pale. They deserved and still deserve their punishment, for they wished to conquer, enslave, and kill; and some of them still do kill and call for more.

You and Huffington Post should get better education.”

DrivingMissDaisy on Sep 2, 2010 at 11:55:04

“Your comment - "scheme to hold all civilians responsible for any fire coming from their vicinity" is false.

Civilians who aid and abet are complicit and fair targets. Without their support Hezbollah could not sustain it's murderous campaign against Israel, as did the PLO during the 1980's.”
huffingtonpost entry

What Lebanon Can Teach the U.S. About Religious Tolerance

Commented Sep 1, 2010 at 17:25:40 in World

“maim, the synagogue was located in an area of the city that was undergoing urban renewal. Those who sought to renovate it needed government approval. Hezbollah, a political party in Lebanon, as well as other parties, said yes. In New York, Park51 required community board approval and received it. So both projects required government approval and got it, but in Lebanon, there was not a groundswell of opinion of the public and many prominent politicians against the project.”

maim on Sep 1, 2010 at 22:07:58

“I have no objections to renovation of a synagogue in Lebanon, and I am also willing to accept any reasonable outcome of the New York mosque affair.

It absolutely outrageous, however, making people's right for worship dependent on Hezbollah good will. The right to build the disputed mosque does not depend on any opinion of any political entity in the US and does not need Obama or John McCain approval. The right of its opponents to speak against it, is also near absolute, and needs no Pelosi or Gingrich consent. This is the difference between American liberty and Lebanese fascism.

The distinguished members of Hezbollah, regardless of their rank and political affiliation with other Lebanese powers, has one and only one legal right - to be hanged (with the presence of a mullah, granted) on the tallest cedar tree in that country. We all should work hard to protect and defend that privilege.”
huffingtonpost entry

What Lebanon Can Teach the U.S. About Religious Tolerance

Commented Aug 31, 2010 at 20:30:09 in World

“dangor, do you really think that's the difference? As edgarcaycedoc notes, anti-Muslim fervor is sweeping the country. What's the excuse in Tennessee? And much of Beirut was destroyed by Israel, in 1982 and again in 2000. All of Beirut can legitimately be viewed as Lebanon’s Ground Zero.”

squiems on Sep 1, 2010 at 17:15:32

“Comparing Israel's protection of its citizens to an act of mass murder is as insulting as it is stupid.”
huffingtonpost entry

What Lebanon Can Teach the U.S. About Religious Tolerance

Commented Aug 31, 2010 at 20:27:21 in World

“Wolfman, you don’t seem to dispute my factual assertions about the casualties caused by Israel’s military actions in Lebanon over the years, but complain that I did not mention that “Israel was forced to intervene in an effort to protect itself and its own citizens.” Could you enlighten me regarding the danger faced by Israelis that required such protection in the form of a massive invasion and bombing campaign?

And could you supply evidence for your panicky claims that the Tea Partiers are threatening Nazi-like violence against American Jews? Your anxiety about an outbreak of murderous anti-Semitism in the US reflects a certain degree of paranoia.

You say that Israel “will exact an accounting for aggression against its people.” That suggests that if Israel sustains a terrorist attack perpetrated by Palestinian or Lebanese terrorists, then it will exact an accounting in Palestinian or Lebanese blood. I too think that is precisely what Israel does and has done for quite some time. Where we disagree is that you are proud of such “revenge” while I view it as collective punishment, terrorism and murder of innocents. It’s easy enough to call it that when Israeli civilians are randomly attacked with deadly violence, so why is it so hard to see when Israel does it to others?”

WolfmanZ on Sep 1, 2010 at 10:30:49

“Israel's invasion of Lebanon caused destruction and death. That's where the facts begin and end.

The history surrounding the Israeli response to repeated attack from Lebanon is well documented. Read the archives of the Washington Post or NY Times.

As for "panicky claims that the Tea Partiers are threatening Nazi-like violence" - I don't suggest that they are - just that it's a small step from where they are now to something much more sinister and threatening. The whole business of "this is a Christian nation," is threatening to anyone who isn't Christian. No one has yet suggested it, but you could easily see where it could go - we don't want Jews teaching our children their non-Christian ideas. They killed Christ and want to turn our children against Him.

Preposterous? I don't think so - I know from personal experience. As a child, I was beaten by Christian kids, every Easter, having just come from their Church service and told that the Jews killed Christ.

It also seems that you think Israel has no right to protect itself. If the Lebanese government asserted its authority and arrested the terrorists - different story, but they are complicit.

How do you think the U.S. would react if Mexican drug lords repeatedly strafed Texas border towns and killed U.S. law enforcement while Mexican authorities did nothing or applauded? We would be in there, like Iraq, and establish our own order. (Yes, Iraq didn't turn out very well - I know.)”
huffingtonpost entry

What Lebanon Can Teach the U.S. About Religious Tolerance

Commented Aug 31, 2010 at 20:20:13 in World

“Julian, you seem to have gone to a lot of trouble researching Lebanon in order to refute my argument that we should emulate that country’s socio-political environment. Too bad I didn’t make that argument. The worse you make Lebanon out to be, the more you prove my point, which is that the anti-Muslim hysteria here is truly frightening and must be vigorously opposed. The comparison between the two situations surely should act as a wake-up call for Americans. TraceyES and Raul Gomes made that point in reply to your earlier comment, and they were right; you should have heeded it instead of digging up dirt on Lebanon to knock down a straw man of your own making. One thing you and I agree on is how undesirable it would be to live in a country that prints your religion (or ethnicity) on national ID papers. That’s one reason I have no plans to “make aliyah” and exercise my “right” to “return” to Israel.”

julian101 on Aug 31, 2010 at 23:34:52

“Its the premise of the article that I disagreed with.
Since it is so anecdotal, while making the bold statement out of it that
"It seems that Americans and New Yorkers have a lot to learn about religious freedom and tolerance, and can take lessons from Beirut."
Its like saying the rest of America could learn a lot about tolerance for homosexuals by looking to Tucson, AZ, because the gay pride parade was undisturbed.

The reality is that on something like religious freedom and tolerance, there is pretty much no place on earth that beats the US system wise, and New York in general. Which is why I guess I found the whole thing a bit

"The worse you make Lebanon out to be, the more you prove my point, which is that the anti-Muslim hysteria here is truly frightening"

Not really....I actually did say that Lebanon was technically a christian ruled country....and the christians there are no prize peach either. Not really anti muslim hysteria....anti religious at best...

To be frank, it does get a bit annoying, maybe part of the reason I seem to have gotten defensive.
Yes, Often the right wing is given entirely to hysteria and lies, however then the left wing adjudges its positioning almost exclusively as counterpoise to those it opposes.
Which is something, I dont”