I don't view his response as negative. The piece doesn't really cover any of the underlying issues present in the conflict. And as Odessitt stated, Israel is a Jewish Nation, something that for some reason seems to rankle non-Jews. I mean these same people love the concept of Islamic Naitons but have a problem with a Jewish Nation state......
That's a litte misleading. In this context "Jewish" does not pertain to the religion Judaism, but rather the race or ethnic group. Israel is not Jewish state or should not be classified as one (ethnocracy) for the same reason America is not a white anglo-saxon or caucasian state, or Iran a Persian state. It should be classified as an Israeli state, ie a state of its citizens (over 1 million Israeli arabs), and not Jewish state. Insistence on defining Israel in ethnic terms and as exclusively Jewish is a little problematic imo. But in any case, why does it matter how other nations classify Israel? Egypts peace treaty with Israel and return of Sinai to Egyptian sovereignty, was NOT conditioned on Egypt accepting Israel as a "Jewish" state, but a sovereign one, with which it could uphold a treaty. Israel can define itself whichever way it pleases, as long as that has no negative implications for Israel's non-Jewish citizens with respect to equal rights etc. But demanding OTHERS to accept it as a Jewish state and demanding Palestinians to do it as a condition for Palestinian state, is absolute pure nonsense and just a means to divert attention. Its a made up issue.
Must others accept Iran as an Islamic Republic? North Korea as a Democratic People's Republic? In hindsight, perhaps the Palestinians should have opposed the partition of Palestine and welcomed the establishment of the State of Israel, as long as they were included within its borders. By now, even if afforded only second-class status in their birthplace, they would probably have the highest standard of living of all Arab countries, outside of the Gulf oil states, and may well have outnumbered Jewish Israelis. The civil rights movement throughout the world might even have brought them close to equality. After all, Christians & Jews lived under Muslim rule for centuries. One group of Muslims living under Jewish rule should not have been too big a pill to swallow. There were Christian Palestinians as well, a demographic in great decline in that area.
Welfare protest by the Haredim: http://news.yahoo.com/ultra-orthodox-jews-protest-pending-israeli-draft-145010381.html?.tsrc=getjar "In 2011, ... 55 percent of ultra-Orthodox women and 45 percent of the men held jobs, up from 48 percent and 33 percent respectively nine years earlier, ... while still far below the national average of around 80 percent"
The Haredim are some of the worst wellfare abusers on the planet (wherever they are). A bunch of assholes, to be honest. They are reproducing like rabbits (like many other fundamentalist crazies), so obviously a situation where the Haredi continues to get wellfare and subsidies, is a big strain for Israel economy.
John Kerry labelled 'anti Semite' for warning of possible boycott of Israel US Secretary of State has been labelled an 'anti Semite' for warning of a possible economic boycott if Israel fails to reach a peace accord with the Palestinians John Kerry, the US secretary of state, triggered an angry backlash from Israeli leaders on Sunday after warning Israel faces an economic boycott if it failed to reach a peace accord with the Palestinians. The uproar came as Mr Kerry held cordial talks with his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif in Munich at which the pair vowed to intensify nuclear diplomacy. Ministers in Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet accused Mr Kerry of effectively endorsing "anti-Semitic" efforts to impose sanctions on Israel by issuing the warning. "The risks are very high for Israel," Mr Kerry told the conference. "People are talking about boycott. That will intensify in the case of failure. "Do they want a failure that then begs whatever may come in the form of a response from disappointed Palestinians and the Arab community?" While the US secretary of state's remarks were made against a backdrop of new EU regulations barring deals with Israeli businesses based in West Bank settlements, they provoked accusations that he was threatening Israel in on-going peace talks with the Palestinians. Yuval Steinitz, the intelligence and strategic affairs minister and a close ally of Mr Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said America's top diplomat was "holding a gun to [Israel's] head". "The things Kerry said are hurtful, they are unfair and they are intolerable," Mr Steinitz told reporters. "Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to its head when we are discussing the matters which are most critical to our national interests." Naftali Bennett, the industry minister and leader of the far-Right Jewish Home party, said: "We expect of our friends in the world to stand by our side against the attempts to impose an anti-Semitic boycott on Israel, and not to be their mouthpiece." His comments were echoed by Adi Mintz, a senior official in the Settler's Council, who accused Mr Kerry of "an anti-Semitic initiative". "The anti-Semites have always resorted to a very simple method - hit the Jews in their pockets," he told Israel's Channel 10 TV station. Mr Netanyahu was more restrained, telling Sunday's cabinet meeting that efforts to impose a boycott were "immoral and unjust" and doomed to fail. The apparently choreographed chorus of criticism drew a sharp response from the US state department, which denied that Mr Kerry - who is currently trying to draw up a framework agreement between Israel and the Palestinians - was backing an international embargo. "His only reference to a boycott was a description of actions undertaken by others that he has always opposed ," said Jen Psaki, a state department spokeswoman. "[Mr Kerry] expected opposition and difficult moments in the process, but he also expects all parties to accurately portray his record and statements." The row overshadowed a meeting on Sunday between Mr Kerry and Mr Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, to discuss forthcoming talks on Tehran's nuclear programme, scheduled to resume in Vienna this month. Mr Kerry told Mr Zarif that existing international embargoes would remain in place, despite an interim deal concluded in Geneva last November that gave Iran limited sanctions relief in exchange for suspending some of its nuclear activities. The upcoming talks are aimed at achieving a definitive long-term agreement. Mr Zarif told the Munich conference that Iran had the political will to reached a "balanced" long-term agreement with the six world powers of America, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. "I think the opportunity is there, and I think we need to seize it," he said. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...or-warning-of-possible-boycott-of-Israel.html The good ol anti-Semite charge
It's lost all meaning now. It's almost a badge of honour to be called an anti-semite by some of those zealots. The Secretary of State of the USA is an anti-semite? They've lost touch with reality. It's good that a peaceful movement like BDS is getting their panties all kerfuffled. BDS is the way forward.
Kerry is technically not Jewish because, to be a Jew, you need to have a Jewish mother. In Kerry's case, his father was born to Jewish parents who had converted. But still calling him anti-semite just shows how ridiculous this label has become.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Kerry It's hard to believe that simply referring to a possible EU boycott can cause Kerry to be labeled anti-semetic. What will Israel do, if EU members ban flights from Israel passing over or landing at member airports?
Dude what are you talking about... If your a Zionist or a stalwart supporter of Israel just say that. Don't try to act like a third party unbiased American because clearly your not. You cannot partition land when he only constitute 35 percent of the population and mostly newly fresh immigrants from Europe. Let's call Israel what it is a colonial presence/western outpost in the ME used by western interests to keep a foothold in the region. You call it a "democracy" ok so was apartheid South Africa they had a parliament, political parties and elections. As long as Israel illegally occupies and dominates the West Bank and gaza it will be considered the pariah state that it rightfully is.
I'm not. What are you? An apologist for the Palestinians and their supporters in the Arab world, who could not defeat Israel in multiple wars, and are now reduced to sulking and whining? Who mistreat the Palestinians worse than the Israelis ever did? Another half-educated loser, who stumbled onto this board, and now want to impress somebody with your ignorance?
my brother gets his 15 minutes of fame...courtesy of Fox News and Megyn Kelly http://www.newshounds.us/20140403_richard_silverstein_responds_to_megyn_kelly_s_personal_attack
Well, there IS a difference... There are almost NO pictures of Arafat in the WH except with him being glad-handed by a Israeli leader and a distinctly awkward looking US president of one flavour or another, usually in a pea-brained 'photo-op'. With Sharon there are probably HUNDREDS of them. I mean, there are lots of other differences too but the degree of support for Sharon was pretty appalling bearing in mind the guy's history.