I'll make it very simple for you: The problem with Iran is Iran. It refuses to accept the presence of a Jewish state in our ancestral homeland. It has nothing to do with who lives on what side of the Green Line.
For liberal Zionists such as myself, the primary concern in the maintenance of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state. That right-wingers such as yourself fail to understand this is your problem, not mine. As for me, I much prefer a Jewish state without the West Bank to a Palestinian state with Tel Aviv.
I very much want to thank Reuven for making "it" simple for me.
I always very much appreciate it when people are so inclined. That being the case, let us take this simple bit by simple bit.
The problem with Iran is Iran. It refuses to accept the presence of a Jewish state in our ancestral homeland. It has nothing to do with who lives on what side of the Green Line.
I find myself in agreement that the problem with Iran is, in fact, Iran.
I also agree that Iran refuses to accept the presence of a Jewish state in our ancestral homeland and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with who lives on what side of the green line.
That being the case I have to assume that Reuven does not mind if Jewish people move into and live in and build housing for themselves in that part of the world, a part of the world that has been known as Judea and Samaria for millenia.
So far, we seem to be entirely in agreement.
For liberal Zionists such as myself, the primary concern in the maintenance of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state.
I agree with this, as well.
Israel is a Jewish and democratic state (although not a Democratic one) and will continue to be so on into the future. I agree with Reuven 100 percent.
That right-wingers such as yourself fail to understand this is your problem, not mine.
It is unusual that since we agree entirely that Reuven suggests that we disagree. Just where is our disagreement, I wonder? What makes him "left-wing" and what makes me "right-wing" on this issue? And, more importantly, what makes one good and the other bad?
As for me, I much prefer a Jewish state without the West Bank to a Palestinian state with Tel Aviv.
What I would say is that I much prefer a Jewish state without the West Bank to a Palestinian state with Tel Aviv.
And, yet, somehow, Reuven considers himself a liberal Jew, of the progressive persuasion, yet he considers me a right-wing knuckle-dragger.
We agree entirely, yet he considers me the enemy.
How odd... and how sad, really.
*The image is the one that I used on my last diary at Daily Kos entitled Breaking: Jew Builds Second Bathroom in East Jerusalem
I wanted to use some image and could not think of anything so I landed on this.
I think that Reuven is a decent guy, and a smart guy, and I am sad that he has such a low opinion of myself.
The truth is, whether he likes it or not, we're brothers.
Hey you missed where I said that I agreed with Reuven as well... Does that mean you and I are in agreement here too? Ruh-ROHReplyDelete
If you agree with me, then why do you move lockstep with the Yesha, which opposes any agreement that would permanently divide the Land?ReplyDelete
As for calling you a right-winger, given the way that you vilify President Obama that leaves effectively two options. The first is that you're a frustratus -- a critic from the left. The second is that you're a critic from the right. It is clearly the latter, especially considering the way that you spew talking points from the right wing.
Let me point out, also, something I pointed out in the other thread: The worst presidents for Israel have all been Republicans, at least while they were in office. Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush all engaged in actions considerably graver than anything you have criticized President Obama for.
Mike, please, as a fellow Jew, let me remind you that the Evangelicals and the Republicans are not our friends. They "support" Israel not out of any love for us, but because of their apocalyptic fantasies.
Hey Btw Reuven.. you know which President it was who signed the law saying it was illegal for companies to boycott Israel? Why it was Jimmy Carter - Democrat. How's that for a little known fact. Mr. "Now I hate Israel" himself. Just goes to show you.ReplyDelete
I am also going to come right out and say that those who claim you aren't a liberal, Mike, are simply being dishonest with themselves, and everyone else.ReplyDelete
If they'd like to claim otherwise they need to prove it, and I'm sorry but "he doesn't have an Obama sticker on his backpack!!!1!" does not make that case.
Despite what five or six little trolls on the internet would love to believe.
Ummm so voting for the Romney / Ryan ticket, two guys who stand completely against anything that would be on the Liberal political agenda for the U.S. is Liberal? You mean that voting for people that want to end Medicare as we know it, destroy Medicaid, loosen regulations on large corporations who pollute, defund the EPA, Privatize Education, end civil rights for LGBT people, expand voter suppression efforts and end the Affordable Healthcare act is somehow liberal?Delete
When you can make a relevant reply to what I actually said, then perhaps we can have a discussion.Delete
Because I'm just not interested in spending any time replying to your usual non-sequiturial games.
Reuven, as I have explained before, I and I believe Mike and others perhaps, have risen above partisan politics. Naturally that makes us right wing in the eyes of partisans like yourself. You have only two speeds, you see. Otherwise you wouldn't spout such conspiratorial nonsense as " They "support" Israel not out of any love for us, but because of their apocalyptic fantasies."ReplyDelete
Truth is, some may, but that big a brush is just crazy talk.
Yeah, this comment about sums the attitude up. The illogic inherent in the claim that if one has problems with the current president, then one must stand against civil rights and for defunding the EPA and whatnot is just astounding.Delete
Know what I also just got around to realizing, Doodad? I was once so extreme in my own partisanship that I would always, each and every time, use the word 'correct' in place of 'right.' Because clearly, Rush Limbaugh was winning, or something, when I'd say something like "this is the 'right' thing to do."Delete
So I sure know the mindset, and I'm also quite glad those days are over.
Call me a post-partisan, urban planning, food justice activist liberal. ;)
Jay, you have my comment wrong.Delete
I did not say that:
"if one has problems with the current president, then one must stand against civil rights and for defunding the EPA and whatnot"
What I specifically said was that if someone VOTES for the Romney/Ryan ticket then their vote puts them as standing "against civil rights and defunding the EPA and whatnot" (your words).
Having a problem with the President is one thing, there are all things we disagree with the President on. ACTIVELY voting is quite another. OR are you telling me that the Romney/Ryan ticket DOES NOT stand against civil rights, the EPA and so forth?
I mean I know you are "superior" to me on all levels (isn't that what you said) but perhaps you can quote me correctly. Is that too much to ask?
Well, as for the last thing, that's just a self-evident truth. I do like to get under your skin, but I realize it's a bad habit. It's just so easy to do, though.Delete
And as for the other thing, what you said still has nothing to do with my original comment above to which you were replying. I am not into playing your goalpost-moving games.
Let's forget the personality delusion you are under here and tell me.. exactly how I "moved the goal posts". I wrote a comment that was specific to VOTING for the Romney / Ryan ticket. Something Mike has said he would do.Delete
You claimed that my comment was regarding people that "have a problem" with the President. I directly quoted you Jay. How is that "moving the goalposts" or anything else. If that wasn't your point then what was?
Have a nice night, volleyboy. I'm going to follow through on the promise I made earlier, yet which I failed to fulfill, and from now on I will not feed the stalker troll.Delete
What's the matter, Ian hasn't written anything lately so you have nothing to do at your little blog that nobody reads or comments at?
For someone who claims to not want to have anything to do with us, you sure can't stay away from us can you?Delete
Jay, I once too had the partisan bug until I realized what crazy company I was in. The demonization of roughly half the electorate just finally got to me and made me rethink my outlook and beliefs. Now there is LOTS about the right I dislike, even hate BUT the same is true about the left.ReplyDelete
And if I cannot abide demonization of Israel, how can I in good faith abide demonization elsewhere? No, criticism needs to be rational. Obama is not going to be eating our babies but neither is Romney either. I post on a blog called Israel Thrives, not America Thrives. So if Obama is not IMO doing the best for Israel I'm gonna call him on it (whether I'm right or wrong.) OTOH, he's probably a better choice for America than Romney in November. I think most of us here have been saying that. So I don't get the uproar. I predict he will be re-elected and I predict he will start throwing Israel under the bus. If Romney's elected, he will likely do the same...just not as fast. See, non-partisan. I call them all on it.
This nails it...Delete
"And if I cannot abide demonization of Israel, how can I in good faith abide demonization elsewhere?"
...for me, as well. I pretty much took the same path, but just very recently. Excellent comment. I'm sure I'm more forgiving of the president on the Israel issue here than others, but yeah. We can disagree on that, and ideally also have reasonable conversation, on that and other issues.
The best part about leaving the extreme partisanship game is no longer having to pretend that the world is going to end if the folks who represent "my side" don't clean up in every election. Do I want them to win? Sure. But it's freeing to not have to panic when Democrats lose a House seat in Indiana. Just let it slide, man. Heh.
As for my main issue, neither party is serious about getting us off of our fossil-fuelishness at any time soon, anyway, so very local politics is what I'm going to mainly concern myself with now. And I have the time now, too, since I don't have to worry about letting everyone know that some Republican in suburban Seattle, or something, is the most evil person in the world and the most severe threat facing our nation. I'm much more concerned about Maria Quinones-Sanchez's zeal to tear down every good-looking building in her district for parking lots and shitty condos. Okay, exaggerating slightly, but still... ;)
And as far as post-partisan goes, I can confidently state that there are few organizations in the world more useless than the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee. These losers are even building their (hideous! the thing looks even worse in person) new headquarters in a location whose primary advantage is apparently its proximity to their favorite bar!Delete
"Then there's this whole thing on about Finnegan's Wake next door. The bar is supposedly a favored watering hole for the committee... also, a committeeperson owns it. They're currently engaged in controversy over their renovation plan, acquisition of Bodine Street, and sweetheart deal they arranged to attempt to get public funds for the project. Yeah, no dirty dealings there.
So this is another message the DCC wants to get across? We're such wastoids that we built our new headquarters right next to our favorite bar? Are that you that much of drunks? Are you gonna set up a puking station in the lobby so your committeefolk can let loose after drinking their lunches? Jeez..."
I think too that a lot of the hate towards some of us for being "right wing" is tied up in our non-support of various Obama policies towards Israel ie settlers. For me it is simply counterintuitive that settlers are the problem. I mean, Gaza kind of says it all doesn't it? Hilary and others say it is provocation. Hell, Jews being anywhere there is freaking provocation and everyone knows it but no one says it. Why should Israel's supposed best friend be spouting the Palestinian narrative? The answer is, it shouldn't. Maybe it's time for the supposed adults in the room to start telling the truth.ReplyDelete
I agree. I suppose one could make the case that it's worth peace to make some serious concessions on that issue first, and in an ideal world I'd of course agree with that. But even if every Israeli Jew were to evacuate the entirety of Judea and Samaria tomorrow, would the other side then sit down for immediate final status negotiations? I'm thinking I'm going to say no on that.Delete