Pages

Jump to bottom

112 comments

1 theheat  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 10:42:06am

Good thing we've seen fit to send them hundreds of millions of dollars.
//

2 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:00:29am

Why are "Palestinians" more deserving of a state than Jews?

3 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:00:34am

That's a lot to ask. By recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, they are saying - ahead of negotiations - that the palestinian right of return does not exist, as that would obviously undermine the concept of a jewish state (which is odd, if you think about it - don't think many Americans are that thrilled by the concept of a Muslism state, or a Catholic state, or any state that has a religious character as official state policy).

It would be like asking the Catholic Northern Irish to accept the concept of Northern Ireland as an English state prior to the start of peace negotiations. It's a useless prelude to negotiations - unless your real intent is not to negotiate, at all...which is what I think Netanyahu really would prefer.

4 sliv_the_eli  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:42:30am

re: #3 JohnCarroll

That's a lot to ask. By recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, they are saying - ahead of negotiations - that the palestinian right of return does not exist, as that would obviously undermine the concept of a jewish state (which is odd, if you think about it - don't think many Americans are that thrilled by the concept of a Muslism state, or a Catholic state, or any state that has a religious character as official state policy).

It would be like asking the Catholic Northern Irish to accept the concept of Northern Ireland as an English state prior to the start of peace negotiations. It's a useless prelude to negotiations - unless your real intent is not to negotiate, at all...which is what I think Netanyahu really would prefer.

Um,. no, no and no. Nobody has asked or insisted the Abbas recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition to negotiations. The issue is whether he is or will ever be willing to recognize Israel as the national state of the Jewish people as an outcome of such negotiations. His abject and repeated refusal to contemplate doing so has nothing to do with a desire to preserve "final status" issues for negotiation; if that was his intent, he would not be abrogating the Oslo accords and violating UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338 by attempting to unilaterally "establish" a Palestinian state and its "borders". Rather, Abbas' declaration reflects the fundamental refusal by Palestinian leadership -- even the so-called "moderates" -- to recognize Israel's right to exist as opposed to the mere fact of its existence despite Arab attempts to date to destroy it.
As for your query whether Americans would be comfortable with a state that defined itself as Muslim or Catholic, you might want to brush up on your world geography. Numerous countries define some for of Christianity or Islam as the official state religion. See, for example, the list compiled at the following link: [Link: au.answers.yahoo.com...]
Funny, though, how when Jews seek to assert their right to sovereignty in their own land some people suddenly have a problem with any connection between religion and the state.

5 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:59:59am
Rather, Abbas' declaration reflects the fundamental refusal by Palestinian leadership -- even the so-called "moderates" -- to recognize Israel's right to exist as opposed to the mere fact of its existence despite Arab attempts to date to destroy it.

Recognizing Israel's right to exist is one thing. Recognizing it as a JEWISH state automatically necessitates that very few Palestinian refugees are returning to the the land of their parents or grandparents, as to do otherwise would tip the state of Israel away from being a Jewish state by reason of simple demographics.

So, no, it is not as simple a declaration as you make it sound. It is like saying to the Irish Catholics up front that you have to embrace the Englishness of Northern Ireland. They didn't, and still don't. That in no way interfered with peace.

As for your query whether Americans would be comfortable with a state that defined itself as Muslim or Catholic, you might want to brush up on your world geography.

Yes, such states exist. That doesn't make it any less weird to American ears, a nation that, at least notionally, was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. For AMERICANS to respond favorably to the notion of a Jewish state is rather discordant.

Funny, though, how when Jews seek to assert their right to sovereignty in their own land some people suddenly have a problem with any connection between religion and the state.

Israelis need to deal with the fact that the foundation of Israel happened on top of large numbers of people whose ancestors had been there for thousands of years. Insisting those dispossessed embrace the notion of a Jewish state (as opposed to just a state that has a right to exist) rubs salt into the wounds.

Israel has a right to exist. Insisting on a statement of acceptance of a situation that refugees find insulting is ridiculous. That isn't the way you start a negotiation.

6 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:07:16pm

re: #3 JohnCarroll

That's a lot to ask. By recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, they are saying - ahead of negotiations - that the palestinian right of return does not exist, as that would obviously undermine the concept of a jewish state (which is odd, if you think about it - don't think many Americans are that thrilled by the concept of a Muslism state, or a Catholic state, or any state that has a religious character as official state policy).

Wrong analogy. Israel should be recognized as a "Jewish state" in the ethnic sense, certainly not in the religious sense (it should be secular). In this sence it's not different from Germany being a German state or France being a French state.

7 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:14:10pm
Wrong analogy. Israel should be recognized as a "Jewish state" in the ethnic sense, certainly not in the religious sense (it should be secular).

That would be hard to do. What ethnically links the disparate immigrant populations in Israel? And why isn't it an "Israeli" society?

Jewish is fairly inextricably linked with a particular religion. That is reflected to a degree in Israeli society. Look at the complexities of marriage in israel, which is controlled by the religious authorities of the faith practiced by those getting married. It makes life hard for atheists, or impossible for interfaith marriage.

It's a very strange notion, a "Jewish" state. At least, strange to this American's ears.

8 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:25:19pm

re: #7 JohnCarroll

That would be hard to do.

Bullshit: it already works. Although the LoR is a mixture of ethnic and religious defs, it's still not a purely religious law (tho it could be improved), and immigration policy is one of the root policies that makes an ethnos-based state such (cf. the German immigration policy which favors ethnic Germans).

Jewish is fairly inextricably linked with a particular religion. That is reflected to a degree in Israeli society. Look at the complexities of marriage in israel, which is controlled by the religious authorities of the faith practiced by those getting married. It makes life hard for atheists, or impossible for interfaith marriage.

That's such bullshit. Not your facts, but your argument. From the fact that marriage policy needs a complete overhaul does not follow that "Jewish is fairly inextricably linked with a particular religion". It historically is, but there could be a nation of, say, Jewish atheists and it still would be Jewish, tho they wouldn't be Jews in a religious sense. There is no reason why the Jewish ethnic group cannot be seen as any other ethnic group.

It's a very strange notion, a "Jewish" state. At least, strange to this American's ears.

You don't have a problem with a Dutch state, but you have a problem with the Jewish state. Why is that?

9 sliv_the_eli  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:27:25pm

re: #5 JohnCarroll

Recognizing Israel's right to exist is one thing. Recognizing it as a JEWISH state automatically necessitates that very few Palestinian refugees are returning to the the land of their parents or grandparents, as to do otherwise would tip the state of Israel away from being a Jewish state by reason of simple demographics.

So, no, it is not as simple a declaration as you make it sound. It is like saying to the Irish Catholics up front that you have to embrace the Englishness of Northern Ireland. They didn't, and still don't. That in no way interfered with peace.


Yes, such states exist. That doesn't make it any less weird to American ears, a nation that, at least notionally, was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. For AMERICANS to respond favorably to the notion of a Jewish state is rather discordant.


Israelis need to deal with the fact that the foundation of Israel happened on top of large numbers of people whose ancestors had been there for thousands of years. Insisting those dispossessed embrace the notion of a Jewish state (as opposed to just a state that has a right to exist) rubs salt into the wounds.

Israel has a right to exist. Insisting on a statement of acceptance of a situation that refugees find insulting is ridiculous. That isn't the way you start a negotiation.

If only your statements represented actual historical fact. The foundation of Israel did not happen "on top of large numbers of people whose ancestors had been there for thousands of years." Unless, of course, you are talking about the Jews who have a documented presence in the land for that period. To the extent that some of the Arabs residing in what became Israel prior to the invasion by multiple Arab armies in May 1948 became refugees after the war and were not allowed to return, that is a function of the collective Arab refusal to allow any sovereign Jewish presence in the land and their active efforts to destroy the Jewish state in its infancy and beyond.
As for the attempt to equate the Arab-Israel dispute with the Catholic-Protestant/Irish-British divide, until you can provide historical evidence of repeated Irish attempts to destroy England as an Anglican state -- you do, of course, realize that the Church of England remains the official state religion in England, right? -- or that a population exchange occurred between Catholic and Protestant Ireland in direct consequence of such invasions of England, the analogy is, as it has always been, a false one.

10 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:29:49pm

re: #5 JohnCarroll

Recognizing Israel's right to exist is one thing. Recognizing it as a JEWISH state automatically necessitates that very few Palestinian refugees are returning to the the land of their parents or grandparents, as to do otherwise would tip the state of Israel away from being a Jewish state by reason of simple demographics.

So, no, it is not as simple a declaration as you make it sound. It is like saying to the Irish Catholics up front that you have to embrace the Englishness of Northern Ireland. They didn't, and still don't. That in no way interfered with peace.

Yes, such states exist. That doesn't make it any less weird to American ears, a nation that, at least notionally, was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. For AMERICANS to respond favorably to the notion of a Jewish state is rather discordant.

Israelis need to deal with the fact that the foundation of Israel happened on top of large numbers of people whose ancestors had been there for thousands of years. Insisting those dispossessed embrace the notion of a Jewish state (as opposed to just a state that has a right to exist) rubs salt into the wounds.

Israel has a right to exist. Insisting on a statement of acceptance of a situation that refugees find insulting is ridiculous. That isn't the way you start a negotiation.

Israel as a Jewish state is not meant to be the subject of a negotiation. Your premise fails. The Balfour Declaration, which is generally acknowledged as setting the tone for the future establishment of Israel, states the commitment of the UK to provide for the foundation of a Jewish homeland. The UN declaration establishing Israel calls for the splitting of mandate territory into a nation for the Jewish population, and one for the arab population. You are either unwittingly falling into the Arab trap of declining to acknowledge facts and established law and then considering it a concession when they finally do so, or you are knowingly acting as a staling horse.

Either way, one more downding for your trouble. And I won't be engaging you in debtae; that too is a trap.

11 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:35:48pm

Sergey Romanov

You don't have a problem with a Dutch state, but you have a problem with the Jewish state. Why is that?

Because Palestinians exercising a to-be-negotiated right of return to lands they fled can automatically assumed not to be Jewish, but they could certainly be called Israeli. That's the "loaded nature" of calling Israel a Jewish state.

America is also an immigrant nation. They don't try to call themselves German or Catholic (just to name some aspects of some immigrant populations. They are called American, a reflection of the company name.

Calling it a Jewish state is very different, unless we are going to redefine Judaism to be something completely different than what most Israelis probably recognize it to be.

12 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:45:01pm

re: #11 JohnCarroll

Sorry, but where does Abbas say that he won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state because of a fear of losing leverage? If he doesn't use that argument, then you're just speculating.

In any case your response is disingenuous. You wrote that you have a problem with a Jewish state in principle, so don't try to tie that to negotiations.

America is not an ethnos-based state, so I don't see the relevance.

So again, if you don't have a problem with, say, European ethnos-based states, but you do have a problem with a state which has the Jewish ethnos as its basis, that is a very curious double standard.

13 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:46:26pm

sliv_the_eli

The foundation of Israel did not happen "on top of large numbers of people whose ancestors had been there for thousands of years."

So you are saying Palestinian refugees ancestors were NOT from the land now called Israel? You state otherwise further down in your response.

To the extent that some of the Arabs residing in what became Israel prior to the invasion by multiple Arab armies in May 1948 became refugees after the war and were not allowed to return, that is a function of the collective Arab refusal to allow any sovereign Jewish presence in the land and their active efforts to destroy the Jewish state in its infancy and beyond.

Fair enough. Israel's arab neighbors have certainly made it their mission IN THE PAST to destroy Israel. Now, however, the Arab league is willing to recognize Israel in return for approximate 67 borders and negotiations that satisfy palestinian refugees. Insisting on the jewish character of israel de facto rules out any massive return of Palestinians to lands abandoned in '48...before the negotiations have even been reopened.

They just don't have a reasonable negotiation partner in the Netanyahu government.

As for the remark about Arabs trying to destroy Israel making it not equivalent to the Irish situation, granted, Ireland had few allies in its long fight with England.

That doesn't make the lessons there any relevant. Palestinians WERE displaced, just as Irish people were displaced from Northern Ireland by English protestant settlers. The fact that Ireland didn't have neighbors making common cause with them (Catholic King James battle against William of Orange was more part of the internal civil war within England than a parallel to Arab support for Palestinians) doesn't make their rights as people who LIVED there any less legitimate.

14 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:50:50pm

imp_62

The UN declaration establishing Israel calls for the splitting of mandate territory into a nation for the Jewish population, and one for the arab population.

Yes, a "homeland" that was a heck of a lot smaller in 1948 than the current nation of Israel...though to be fair, Israel's Arab neighbors had something to do with that.

But UN mandates aren't the end-all and be-all of morality. If you are going to create a homeland for people where other people already exist, you should make darn sure that there is a mutually agreeable accomodation.

Insisting a recognition of the Jewish character of Israel by people displaced by land now occupied by Israel is rather insulting.

15 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:55:46pm

...and now I will properly use the Reply button (I don't normally participate in debates on LGF).

Sorry, but where does Abbas say that he won't recognize Israel as a Jewish state because of a fear of losing leverage? If he doesn't use that argument, then you're just speculating.

I don't think it is just leverage. You don't make people define the land they were forced to leave according to an adjective that excludes them as a prelude to negotiations that hopes to end the conflict.

America is not an ethnos-based state, so I don't see the relevance.

I would argue that there is as much ethnic cohesion to America as there is Israel, given the scattered nature of the Jewish diaspora who returned there. It is very much a "religious" glue that holds them together, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Clearly, a definition that excludes Palestinians from "Jewishness" is not one that the Palestinian diaspora is going to accept. That's why the insistence is clearly designed to prevent negotiations. It is a starting point that no Palestinian negotiator would ever accept. Netanyahu and his government knows this.

16 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 12:59:03pm

re: #15 JohnCarroll

You clearly don't wish to address the issue of your double standard towards different ethnic groups. Whatever, dude.

17 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 1:27:36pm

re: #15 JohnCarroll

...and now I will properly use the Reply button (I don't normally participate in debates on LGF).

I don't think it is just leverage. You don't make people define the land they were forced to leave according to an adjective that excludes them as a prelude to negotiations that hopes to end the conflict.

I would argue that there is as much ethnic cohesion to America as there is Israel, given the scattered nature of the Jewish diaspora who returned there. It is very much a "religious" glue that holds them together, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Clearly, a definition that excludes Palestinians from "Jewishness" is not one that the Palestinian diaspora is going to accept. That's why the insistence is clearly designed to prevent negotiations. It is a starting point that no Palestinian negotiator would ever accept. Netanyahu and his government knows this.

Well then that's just too bad. Israel is not going to let in hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been raised on a steady diet of Jew-hate. It would put every Jew and Christian in Israel in danger. That may not be a good shake for the Palestinians, but That's The Way It Is.

18 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 1:30:23pm

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have someone in the discussion whose knowledge of the Middle East is based on learnin' from the BBC.

How can we tell?

1. There is a twisted concept of the way that Americans think.

2. Mercury-like definitions of Jewish. Is it a religion, it is an ethnicity? Depends on the point that you're trying to make.

3. A virtual complete ignorance of Jewish history (in which oddly, Europe played a large role).

4. An almost blissful ignorance of Antisemitism.

5. And the same blissful ignorance of the history of the Middle East, outside of a few bromides about the exiled Palestinians.

6. He's a half-step away from saying that the State of Israel is based on the theory of Eugenics.

7. And it's pointless to argue with someone who has rolling definitions and blissful ignorance.

19 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 1:42:10pm

re: #16 Sergey Romanov

Maybe because I don't see it as a double standard in this case. It's one thing to call it an "Israeli" state. That's a moniker that INCLUDES Palestinians. A JEWISH state doesn't. That's using a quality of the current majority, one that automatically excludes palestinians.

Perhaps if "Jewish" was more like "British" we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are lots of people of Pakistani and Indian descent who call themselves British, as British is a nationality. Jewish isn't. Israeli is, but Jewish is, under common usage, a very different thing than Israeli.

Maybe you are arguing for a redefinition of what it means to be Jewish. However, Jewish means something very particular, and is different than the way "British" is used when describing someone who is a British citizen.

French is a moniker carried by Algerian-descended French citizens. I would have a hard time, though, seeing Palestinians call themselves Jewish (or other Israeli Jews saying yes, they are Jewish).

20 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 1:47:11pm

re: #19 JohnCarroll

You don't seem to understand that Jewish state doesn't entail discrimination again non-Jewish citizens, but rather a cultural and immigration policy in the interest of the Jewish people.

21 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 1:48:59pm

re: #19 JohnCarroll

Even though he's not on LGF anymore, I'm just going to reply to you with Nekama's Troll Hammer (It's from 2003, but still good for this):

MEMO

This is an automated reply from the Bullshit Detector at Little Green Footballs.
Your recent post contained troll-like characteristics which resembles the type of message sent by spoiled ISM members on summer holiday, college students who have recently inhaled Noam Chomsky’s foul rantings, Adam Shapiro wannabes, Nazi sympathizers, or genuine [bigoted word]s.

In order to prevent another thread being hijacked, and to send your message to the appropriate department for response (FOAD, GAZE, Go Away Gordon, or The Bus To Rachel Corrie’s Tomb Is Leaving - Be Sure You’re Under It), kindly reply to the following questions:

1. Are you aware that the Disputed Territories never belonged to the “Palestinians” and only came into Israeli possession as a result of the 1967 six day war in which Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon all massed forces at Israel’s border in order to “push the Jews into the sea”. The Arabs lost and Israel took control of the land. Do you agree that if the [bigoted word]s don’t want to lose territory to Israel, then they shouldn’t start wars? Do you agree that there is justice that Israel, who as far back as 1948 has always sought peace with her far larger neighbors, should live in prosperity - making the desert bloom - while the residents of 19 adjacent Arab countries who are blessed with far more land as well as oil wealth live in their own feces?

2. Did you know that the “Palestinians” could have had their own country as far back as 1948 had they accepted the UN sponsored partition plan which gave Israel AND the Palestinians a countries of their own on land which Jews had lived on for thousands of years before Mohammed ever had a wet dream about virgins? The Arabs rejected the UN offer and went to war with the infant Israeli nation. The Arabs lost and have been whining about it ever since. Do you agree this is like a murderer who kills his parents and asks for special treatment since he is now an orphan?

3. Can you tell us ANY Arab country which offers Jews the right to be citizens, vote, own property, businesses, be a part of the government or have ANY of the rights which Israeli Arabs enjoy? Any Arab country which gives those rights to Christians? How about to other Arabs? Wouldn’t you just LOVE to be a citizen of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, or Syria?

4. Since as many Jews (approximately 850,000) were kicked out of Arab countries as were Arabs who left present day Israel (despite being literally begged to stay), why should Arabs be permitted to return to Israel if Jews aren’t allowed to set foot in Arab countries? Can you explain why Arabs can worship freely in Israel but Jews would certainly be hung from street lamps after having their intestines devoured by an Arab mob if they so much as entered an Arab country?

5. Israel resettled and absorbed all of the Jews from Arab countries who wished to become Israelis. Why haven’t any Arab countries offered to resettle Arabs who were displaced from Israel, leaving them to rot for 60 years in squalid refugee camps? And why are those refugee camps still there? Could it be that the billions of dollars that the UNWRA has sent there goes to terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, El Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, or Hezbollah? How did Yassir Arafat achieve his $300 million in wealth? Why aren’t these funds distributed for humanitarian use?

6. Did you know that the Arabs in the disputed territories (conquered by Israel in the 1967 war which was started by Arabs) and who are not Israelis already have two countries right now? And that they are called Egypt and Jordan?

Continued in next post.

22 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 1:50:58pm

Troll Hammer continued:

7. If your complaint is about the security fence which Israel is finally building in the Disputed Territories, are you aware that it is built solely to keep the “brave” Arab terrorists out so that they can no longer self detonate on busses, in dining halls or pizzerias and kill Jewish grandmothers and schoolchildren? Why are the Arabs so brave when they target unarmed civilians but even when they outnumber their opponents they get their sandy asses kicked all the way to Mecca when they are faced with Jewish soldiers? Why do Arab soldiers make the French look like super heroes?

8. Please explain why you are so concerned about Arabs, who possess 99% of the land in this region and are in control of the world’s greatest natural resource, which literally flows out of the ground? Can’t their brother muslims offer some of the surplus land and nature’s riches to the “Palestinians”? Or is it true that Arabs are willing to die right down to the last “Palestinian”?

9. Why do you not exhibit the same level of concern for say, people in Saudi Arabia who are beheaded, subject to amputation, stoning, honor killing etc.? What about women who are denied any semblance of basic civil rights, including the right not to be treated as property for the entertainment and abuse of her father, brothers, or husbands? What about the Muslims in Sudan and Egypt who are still enslaved, or the women there whose genitalia are barbarically cut off? How about the oppression of Shiites by Sunnis, the gassing of the Kurds by Iraq, or the massacre of “Palestinians” by Jordan (Black September)? Why doesn’t this concern you?

10. Did you ever stop to wonder how much better off everyone in the region would be if Arabs stopped trying to kill Jews and destroy Israel? What would happen if the Israelis gave up their weapons and disarmed? Would they live to see the next day? But what would happen if the Arabs completely disarmed? You know the answer: They would all be AT PEACE! And if there is no war to rile them up, the Arabs would be forced to look at their own repressive, pre-medieval societies. Why would they want to do that when there are Jews to kill?

11. Have you heard “People who define themselves primarily by what they hate, rather than who they love, are doomed to failure and misery”? Can you see the parallels to the Arabs, who are blessed with land and oil, but still gladly train their children to kill themselves in order to kill Jews? Have you heard Golda Meir’s words to the effect of “There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours”? Why do the Arabs hate so much?


Please state your answers to the questions listed above. If you need assistance or require additional study, then please refer to the following links:

History of the Middle East Conflict:
[Link: [Link: www.infoclick.org...]...]

Thousands of women killed for honor: [Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

Muslims lament Israel’s existence:
[Link: [Link: www.iht.com...]...]

Disputed Territories – Forgotten Facts
[Link: [Link: www.mfa.gov.il...]...]

The size of Israel compared to neighboring countries in the region
[Link: [Link: www.iris.org.il...]...]

Jews expelled from Arab Countries
[Link: [Link: www.jpost.com...]...]

One Million Jews flee Arab countries – why no right of return for them?
[Link: [Link: www.forgottenexodus.com...]...]

Middle East Facts
[Link: yashiko.middleeastfacts.com...]

Middle East Truth
[Link: [Link: www.mideasttruth.com...]...]

Larry Miller on Hypocrisy
[Link: weeklystandard.com...]

Please respond to the items listed above. Based on your answers a thoughtful reply or instruction to FOAD will be provided.

Thank you for writing to Little Green Footballs.

Signed,

Troll Early Warning Detection Team

23 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 1:51:38pm

re: #19 JohnCarroll

I'll bet you didn't know that if you click on the karma number, you can see exactly who down-dinged or up-dinged you. Better click on your comments quickly, because they're about to change.

24 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 1:53:59pm

re: #18 Bob Levin

Ah yes, reality is some like some gnostic secret that only people who agree with me have. How about debating what I am SAYING as opposed to trying to place me into a paper tiger category? That's what these forums are for.

25 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 1:55:12pm

re: #23 Bob Levin

No I didn't. But then again, I didn't click any of these buttons on purpose yet. I wasn't using the reply button until just recently. I don't know the LGF response forum controls yet.

26 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 1:58:56pm

re: #20 Sergey Romanov

Okay, which lets very little room for NON-JEWS to become citizens of Israel, which is the essence of the problem. Israel has a massive group of people who would do more than just giggle at the notion of being called Jewish. These are people whose ancestors have lived in the land now occupied by Israel for thousands of years.

Why on EARTH does anyone expect them to say "yes, Israel (the land where our parents were born) is a JEWISH country, one that excludes the people who lived there for thousands of years?

You are hoping for a bit much if you think that is going to happen. Better to negotiate without that than think people whose grievance is based on losing their land that that land is now the Jewish homeland, a moniker that excludes them.

27 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:00:05pm

re: #24 JohnCarroll

If you know what you're saying, then Dark Falcon, Sergey, Sliv, and Imp have done an admirable job.

However, if what you are saying is informed by the BBC, then, I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're saying.

28 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:03:00pm

re: #26 JohnCarroll

Okay, which lets very little room for NON-JEWS to become citizens of Israel, which is the essence of the problem.

Hahahahahahahahaha! You're joking. Do you know how many citizens of Israel aren't Jewish? Blissful ignorance. The BBC, folks.

29 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:05:12pm

re: #28 Bob Levin

Yes, they are ISRAELI. I don't think the 1.5 million Palestinians would call themselves Jewish.

Of course, Avigdor Lieberman isn't much of a fan of those 1.5 million. He questions whether they should even be Israeli.

30 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:05:34pm

re: #26 JohnCarroll

> Okay, which lets very little room for NON-JEWS to become citizens of Israel,

That's Israel's business.

> Israel has a massive group of people who would do more than just giggle at the notion of being called Jewish. These are people whose ancestors have lived in the land now occupied by Israel for thousands of years.

They're called Israeli Arabs (among some other groups) and they're full citizens. If you meant Palestinians on the occupied territories, then it's not Israel that "has" them.

31 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:07:15pm

re: #29 JohnCarroll

Yes, they are ISRAELI. I don't think the 1.5 million Palestinians would call themselves Jewish.

You've repeated that strange idea that someone here suggested to Arabs to call themselves Jewish several times already. That's a stupid strawman.

32 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:08:21pm

re: #26 JohnCarroll

Okay, which lets very little room for NON-JEWS to become citizens of Israel, which is the essence of the problem. Israel has a massive group of people who would do more than just giggle at the notion of being called Jewish. These are people whose ancestors have lived in the land now occupied by Israel for thousands of years.

Why on EARTH does anyone expect them to say "yes, Israel (the land where our parents were born) is a JEWISH country, one that excludes the people who lived there for thousands of years?

You are hoping for a bit much if you think that is going to happen. Better to negotiate without that than think people whose grievance is based on losing their land that that land is now the Jewish homeland, a moniker that excludes them.

Reply to the bolded part: Wrong!
What it means is that Israelis intended as the national homeland of the Jewish People and as such does what it needs to do (within ethical limits) to ensure that the Jews have a nation that will provide them refuge if needed and will be a place where their history and culture are first among equals. It does not mean that others are to be marginalized or excluded.

33 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:09:34pm

re: #30 Sergey Romanov

> Okay, which lets very little room for NON-JEWS to become citizens of Israel,

That's Israel's business.

Perhaps, but their stance is not one likely to make peace with Palestinians. That's MY business as long as my country is involved in support of Israel.

They're called Israeli Arabs (among some other groups) and they're full citizens. If you meant Palestinians on the occupied territories, then it's not Israel that "has" them.

Which proves my point. It would be laughable to call Israeli Arabs "Jewish." For Palestinian negotiators to call Israel a Jewish state is to say that Israeli Arabs really aren't a part of that state, much less the people who would come under a hypothetical "right of return" policy (which of necessity would have to be a rather small group).

34 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:11:51pm

re: #33 JohnCarroll

> It would be laughable to call Israeli Arabs "Jewish."

There you go again.

35 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:12:52pm

re: #33 JohnCarroll

Please tell us that you're a member of the Oxford Union, just to make this a lovely day.

36 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:13:12pm

re: #32 Dark_Falcon

Okay, though the fiddly bit is when people like Avigdor Lieberman question whether Israeli Arabs should be citizens. This isn't just some quack ranting on the web...this is the current foreign minister.

Calling it a "jewish homeland" still grates to those who view that land as their home as well. It certainly was - demonstrably - for thousands of years, even though 2000 years ago, it was clearly a jewish homland.

Some kind of middle ground needs to be reached, and sorry, making displaced people declare their support for the notion of a jewish homeland on land that was THEIRS for thousands of years is ridiculous.

That, quite frankly, is the original point of my post at the very top of this thread.

37 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:13:57pm

re: #34 Sergey Romanov

> It would be laughable to call Israeli Arabs "Jewish."

There you go again.

Considering how Mr. Carroll is sounding like Jimmy Carter, your use of Reagan's line of dismissal is particularly apt.

38 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:14:11pm

re: #34 Sergey Romanov

Would you call Israeli Arabs jewish? That's a nonsensical definition, particularly as you aren't going to find many Israeli Arabs who would call themselves that.

39 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:14:56pm

re: #38 JohnCarroll

LOL.

40 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:21:39pm

The guy activates an account almost a year ago. Posts ZERO pages, and a total of 17 comments, most of them today in this thread. *sniffs* Is that sock puppet I smell?

41 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:21:40pm

re: #36 JohnCarroll

Okay, though the fiddly bit is when people like Avigdor Lieberman question whether Israeli Arabs should be citizens. This isn't just some quack ranting on the web...this is the current foreign minister.

Lieberman doesn't make policy on this matter, though. Netanyahu does. Liberman holds that post as a political plum to secure his party's support.

Calling it a "jewish homeland" still grates to those who view that land as their home as well. It certainly was - demonstrably - for thousands of years, even though 2000 years ago, it was clearly a jewish homland.

Some kind of middle ground needs to be reached, and sorry, making displaced people declare their support for the notion of a jewish homeland on land that was THEIRS for thousands of years is ridiculous.

That, quite frankly, is the original point of my post at the very top of this thread.

As for whether the designation of Israel as a Jewish homeland grates on the Palestinians, my honest answer is "Deal with it." If they want peace, they are going to have accept some things they don't like. As for the oath, I myself favor an oath for those who would be allowed to reside in Israel that would have them promise to not "incite, support, or engage in acts of violence against the state of Israel." That would make the point that needs making: That by accepting a peace deal, the Palestinians openly state (in Arabic, and without qualification) that the "armed struggle" is over.

42 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:22:56pm

re: #38 JohnCarroll

Would you call Israeli Arabs jewish? That's a nonsensical definition, particularly as you aren't going to find many Israeli Arabs who would call themselves that.

Could you please bring that strawman to Illinois? We grow lots of corn and need your strawman to serve as a scarecrow.

43 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:24:36pm

re: #31 Sergey Romanov

Missed this post in the midst of my responses:

You've repeated that strange idea that someone here suggested to Arabs to call themselves Jewish several times already. That's a stupid strawman.

So what, then, is the point of asking Palestinians to call their former homeland a "jewish state"? You're right, they aren't asking them explicitly to call themselves jewish. But living in the Jewish homeland for people who felt like they were shoved off their own homeland is, again, a heck of a lot to ask for.

It's one thing to ask that they accept the right to exist of Israel. For them to call it the Jewish homeland is an insult.

44 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:25:05pm

This thread has become an exercise in troll feeding. Let's all go somewhere else and hope JohnCarroll gets lonely and goes to a BDS rally where he can meet like-minded folks.

45 jaunte  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:27:52pm

re: #43 JohnCarroll

It's one thing to ask that they accept the right to exist of Israel. For them to call it the Jewish homeland is an insult.

It's not an insult to ask someone to accept reality.

46 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:29:02pm

re: #41 Dark_Falcon

As for the oath, I myself favor an oath for those who would be allowed to reside in Israel that would have them promise to not "incite, support, or engage in acts of violence against the state of Israel."

But that goes without saying.

Lieberman doesn't make policy on this matter, though. Netanyahu does. Liberman holds that post as a political plum to secure his party's support.

Lieberman represents a rather important constituency, one that doesn't think Israeli Arabs have any place in Israel. Sort of makes a palestinian declaration that Israel is a "Jewish" state that much more dangerous.

Really, this is a foolish debate over semantics. It is a completely unnecesary precondition to negotiations, one tailor made to be rejected by Palestinians (whose grievance is based around the issue).

47 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:29:23pm

By the way, bringing up Lieberman is code for Eugenics. Those who have a modicum of understanding of Jewish history will understand what this means. Those who have a modicum of understanding regarding Antisemitism will understand what 'code' means.

Sorry to leave you out of the discussion there, John.

48 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:30:02pm

re: #43 JohnCarroll

1) Most Jews who had been living in Iraq, Syria Egypt etc. for thousands of years did not choose to leave.
2) By your reasoning, those countries are Jewish homelands and should be reclaimed by Jews
3) When did the territory now comprising Israel suddenly morph into a former Palestinian homeland? DId you learn history in a Taleban madrassa?

49 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:31:24pm

re: #45 jaunte

..and the recognition that Palestinians were shoved aside to make room for that Jewish homeland is...where?

50 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:32:25pm

re: #46 JohnCarroll

But that goes without saying.

Lieberman represents a rather important constituency, one that doesn't think Israeli Arabs have any place in Israel. Sort of makes a palestinian declaration that Israel is a "Jewish" state that much more dangerous.

Really, this is a foolish debate over semantics. It is a completely unnecesary precondition to negotiations, one tailor made to be rejected by Palestinians (whose grievance is based around the issue).

Again, wrong. The whole problem was and still is the refusal of the Palestinians to accept a Jewish presence in the Holy Land. The Arabs were the first to violence and they have yet to renounce it.

51 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:33:33pm

re: #29 JohnCarroll

Yes, they are ISRAELI. I don't think the 1.5 million Palestinians would call themselves Jewish.

Of course, Avigdor Lieberman isn't much of a fan of those 1.5 million. He questions whether they should even be Israeli.

So you approve the establishment of a Palestinian NON-JEWISH state whose "Palestinianness" is defined by their being NOT JEWISH in spite of the fact that before 1948, the only people called "Palestinian" were...Jews.

Well, I see that everyone here has done an excellent job of hammering you so all I have to add is...

Shop at the Zionist Mall!

52 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:34:13pm

re: #49 JohnCarroll

..and the recognition that Palestinians were shoved aside to make room for that Jewish homeland is...where?

The proper response to you has now been decided:

Go Away Gordon.

53 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:36:18pm

re: #49 JohnCarroll

..and the recognition that Palestinians were shoved aside to make room for that Jewish homeland is...where?

Um. There was no non-Jewish "Palestinian" nationality before 1964. The Arabs created it by refusing to accept their Arab brothers into their already-established Arab homelands. There is nothing to distinguish "Palestinian" Arabs from Syrian, Egyptian, and Jordanian Arabs, except for artificial boundaries created by the British when they carved up the Ottoman empire.

54 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:36:24pm

re: #49 JohnCarroll

..and the recognition that Palestinians were shoved aside to make room for that Jewish homeland is...where?

Shoved aside? Most of the "refugees" responded to Arab exhortations to leave the country for a bit so the Arab Legion could get down to the dirty business of killing the pesky Israelis. In fact, if you knew any history, you would know that hundreds of Jews were killed during the 1920s in the Mandate while the British police looked the other way. And yet, somehow, this gang of Jews managed to defend themselves and beat back superior forces and ridiculous odds.

And THAT is what truly irks you, and other crypto-anti-Semites. That Jews defended themselves and are now standing up for themselves. Sorry to stress you out, but that is not going to change. Long after jokers who use the initials "JC" on the internet are pushing up daisies, there will be Jews fighting for their right to have a single, deplorable, sandy, sliver of beachfront property to call "home".

Fuck off.

55 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:38:54pm

re: #48 imp_62

1) Most Jews who had been living in Iraq, Syria Egypt etc. for thousands of years did not choose to leave.
2) By your reasoning, those countries are Jewish homelands and should be reclaimed by Jews

Given how often humans move around to new homes (voluntarily or not), clearly, historical claims are meaningless (which applies equally to Jewish claims, IMO). On the other hand, recent injury - and rude evictions - are harder to forget. It took a long time for an accomodation to be made in Northern Ireland. Lets hope it happens faster in Israel.

3) When did the territory now comprising Israel suddenly morph into a former Palestinian homeland? DId you learn history in a Taleban madrassa?

Where else would the people who lived there for thousands of years call home?

Again, don't ask the evicted to say their former homes are now a homeland for another people. That's crazy.

56 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:40:08pm

re: #55 JohnCarroll

Given how often humans move around to new homes (voluntarily or not), clearly, historical claims are meaningless (which applies equally to Jewish claims, IMO). On the other hand, recent injury - and rude evictions - are harder to forget. It took a long time for an accomodation to be made in Northern Ireland. Lets hope it happens faster in Israel.

Where else would the people who lived there for thousands of years call home?

Again, don't ask the evicted to say their former homes are now a homeland for another people. That's crazy.

Had they been actually willing to live in peace with the Jews, they would not have been evicted.

57 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:41:28pm

re: #53 Alouette

So what? I don't care if they called themselves the tribe of Mr. Clean clones. The fact is that they, and their ancestors, LIVED there for thousands of years. This notion that you have to have an identifiable culture that you can place alongside Mayan and Chinese and French culture in order to deserve the right to occupy a particular spot of land is crazy. You can pick any small spot on the globe and have trouble finding that (particularly for a people who had primarily been part of other people's empires for a very long time).

58 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:43:00pm

re: #56 Dark_Falcon

Ah, so they should have just accepted that the land they lived on was being bisected by foreign powers and live with it?

To be honest, I wish they had. But that's a big thing to ask for from anybody. I don't think citizens of New Jersey would willingly give away half the state to a group of, from their standpoint, newcomers....much less a group of people with much longer history on the land.

59 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:44:04pm

re: #54 imp_62

And now I'll leave you alone, as you are taking this far too personally.

60 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:44:24pm

re: #58 JohnCarroll

You don't know shit about US history either.

61 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:44:28pm

Done feeding the crypto anti-Semitic troll. As the used to say in the Pale of Settlement (before the pogroms and the gas chambers): "wu ist die schoire?" (where's the return/gain?).

Jews returning after millennia of diaspora to lands they inhabited for millennia before that. Sorry the squatters had to move out. Call me when the petro-dollar trillionaires next door help out the poor "refugees".

62 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:45:41pm

re: #59 JohnCarroll

And now I'll leave you alone, as you are taking this far too personally.

6 million dead, millions more displaced, bloodthirsty tribes baying for my blood from the border. Yes. I take it very personally.

63 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:47:22pm

re: #53 Alouette

You speak of Arabs as a monolithic and cultural whole. They speak a "similar" language (Arabic has many dialects), but are as cohesive as a single country as the nations of Latin America. I don't think Peruvians would agree to just accept a million Colombians into their country and call them Peruvian any more than Lebanon would just say "gee, sucks you lost your land, but you are "arab" so you can be lebanese now."

64 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:49:24pm

re: #63 JohnCarroll

GAZE

65 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:50:10pm

re: #57 JohnCarroll

So what? I don't care if they called themselves the tribe of Mr. Clean clones. The fact is that they, and their ancestors, LIVED there for thousands of years. This notion that you have to have an identifiable culture that you can place alongside Mayan and Chinese and French culture in order to deserve the right to occupy a particular spot of land is crazy. You can pick any small spot on the globe and have trouble finding that (particularly for a people who had primarily been part of other people's empires for a very long time).

Actually they did NOT live there for thousands and thousands of years. According to the UNRWA, refugees could qualify for assistance if they had been living in Palestine for TWO years.

There was a large influx of Arabs from surrounding areas, seeking jobs after Jews bought land and began turning wasteland into productive farms and vineyards. Before that, the land was very sparsely populated. Except for random Jews and Christians and some roaming Bedouins who, by definition, have no homeland.

66 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:50:16pm

re: #63 JohnCarroll

You speak of Arabs as a monolithic and cultural whole. They speak a "similar" language (Arabic has many dialects), but are as cohesive as a single country as the nations of Latin America. I don't think Peruvians would agree to just accept a million Colombians into their country and call them Peruvian any more than Lebanon would just say "gee, sucks you lost your land, but you are "arab" so you can be lebanese now."

Some Arabs have to be resettled after their brethren called them to leave Israel? Trillions of dollars in oils sales, vast tracts of land, and still they insist on maintaining a refugee class?

Cry me a fucking river.
Image: MEast-pol.gif

67 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:50:28pm

re: #59 JohnCarroll

You're Jew-baiting. What do you expect?

1. History begins when you say it does:

On the other hand, recent injury - and rude evictions - are harder to forget.

2. History goes the way you say it goes:

Ah, so they should have just accepted that the land they lived on was being bisected by foreign powers and live with it?

3. Essentially, you're making up your own universe and expecting us to accept it. An Antisemitic universe.

68 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:51:15pm

re: #63 JohnCarroll

You speak of Arabs as a monolithic and cultural whole. They speak a "similar" language (Arabic has many dialects), but are as cohesive as a single country as the nations of Latin America. I don't think Peruvians would agree to just accept a million Colombians into their country and call them Peruvian any more than Lebanon would just say "gee, sucks you lost your land, but you are "arab" so you can be lebanese now."

You know that the nations of Latin America did not exist for thousands of years? That they were created by the Spaniards?

You really are an annoying fuckball.

69 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:52:11pm

re: #68 Alouette

You know that the nations of Latin America did not exist for thousands of years? That they were created by the Spaniards?

You really are an annoying fuckball.

Sometimes I really love you, Babushka. Mainly when your ire is directed at someone other than me...

70 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:54:41pm

re: #67 Bob Levin

No, not an anti-semitic universe. You can't redefine what happened to the palestinians. imp_62 called them squatters, but at least doesn't pretend they were anything less than evicted.

71 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:56:30pm

re: #66 imp_62

And if Venezuela (also an oil country) could afford to absorb as many Colombian migrants as it wanted, that means that someone could PUSH OUT a bunch of colombians into Venezuela (and that it would be ethically right to do so)?

Obviously, that is an analogy, and people hate it when an analogy doesn't go their way, thus declaring that analogies are wrong and never to be used.

72 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:56:53pm

re: #70 JohnCarroll

You can't redefine what happened to the palestinians.

You did that. Everyone else here corrected you.

And, yes, an Antisemitic universe. Figure it out.

73 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:57:39pm

re: #70 JohnCarroll

No, not an anti-semitic universe. You can't redefine what happened to the palestinians. imp_62 called them squatters, but at least doesn't pretend they were anything less than evicted.

How do you define Palestinianism?

Why can't a Jew be a Palestinian?

74 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:58:10pm

re: #70 JohnCarroll

No, not an anti-semitic universe. You can't redefine what happened to the palestinians. imp_62 called them squatters, but at least doesn't pretend they were anything less than evicted.

But for the most part they were not. Some were forced out during the war the Arabs started, most left at the beck of the Arab Legion. Repeating falsehoods does not make them true. No matter what the Beeb and Ahmedinejad say.

75 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 2:59:50pm

re: #71 JohnCarroll

And if Venezuela (also an oil country) could afford to absorb as many Colombian migrants as it wanted, that means that someone could PUSH OUT a bunch of colombians into Venezuela (and that it would be ethically right to do so)?

Obviously, that is an analogy, and people hate it when an analogy doesn't go their way, thus declaring that analogies are wrong and never to be used.

It's not even an analogy. It's just a rhetorical mess that would get you kicked off the Junior High School debate "B" team.

76 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 3:02:18pm

re: #71 JohnCarroll

And if Venezuela (also an oil country) could afford to absorb as many Colombian migrants as it wanted, that means that someone could PUSH OUT a bunch of colombians into Venezuela (and that it would be ethically right to do so)?

Obviously, that is an analogy, and people hate it when an analogy doesn't go their way, thus declaring that analogies are wrong and never to be used.

It's a false analogy.

And if Colorado could afford to absorb as many New Jersey refugees as it wanted, that means that someone could PUSH OUT a bunch of New Jerseyans into Colorado (and that it would be ethically right to do so)?

77 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 3:04:35pm

Leaving for real now. The 5 dogs and 3 children running around my back yard are sane compared to this thread.

78 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 3:04:58pm

re: #71 JohnCarroll

And if Venezuela (also an oil country) could afford to absorb as many Colombian migrants as it wanted, that means that someone could PUSH OUT a bunch of colombians into Venezuela (and that it would be ethically right to do so)?

Obviously, that is an analogy, and people hate it when an analogy doesn't go their way, thus declaring that analogies are wrong and never to be used.

Most Palestinians left without being forced in any way by the Jews. In Haifa, the Jews begged the Palestinian residents to stay, but the Palestinians left anyways, fearing Arab reprisals. So they were not driven out by the Jews, but by their fellow Arabs. And since their fellow Arabs lost the subsequent war and left the Palestinians in question stateless, shouldn't those Arab nations be the ones to resettle the people they displaced.

79 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 3:07:06pm

I've got stuff to do also.

Alouette, that was a clever link. Kudos.

Bye all. And John, enjoy everything that's in your heart.

80 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 3:10:34pm

re: #76 Alouette

I clicked on the link again. The first time, I thought it came up as a subheading for the Oxford Union. I guess I still had that tab open. Whatever. ;-)

81 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 3:22:40pm

I enjoyed the debate, even if I disagree with everyone on this thread (which is, I think, a record).

Not sure why I decided to respond so much to this thread (massive procrastination, which is better than redesigning a messaging framework I am working on). As someone pointed out, I don't respond to many posts on LGF. He's right, I don't.

82 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 4:11:49pm

re: #5 JohnCarroll

That doesn't make it any less weird to American ears, a nation that, at least notionally, was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. For AMERICANS to respond favorably to the notion of a Jewish state is rather discordant.

No, it isn't. Plenty of other countries have different church/state relations than ours. Nobody ever complains about that, least of all those who complain about Israel being a Jewish state.

re: #7 JohnCarroll

It's a very strange notion, a "Jewish" state. At least, strange to this American's ears.

It shouldn't be. Whether ethnic or religious by designation, Israel is not the first or last "state" to stipulate a state religion, or right of return for whatever ethnicities they want.

Right of return from wiki link:

2.1 Armenia
2.2 Belarus
2.3 Bulgaria
2.4 People's Republic of China
2.5 Croatia
2.6 Cyprus
2.7 Czech Republic
2.8 Diego Garcia's Chagossians
2.9 Finland
2.10 France
2.11 Germany
2.12 Greece
2.13 Hungary
2.14 India
2.15 Iraqi Kurdistan
2.16 Ireland
2.17 Israel
2.18 Japan
2.19 Lithuania
2.20 Norway
2.21 Palestinian territories
2.22 Poland
2.23 Romania
2.24 Russia
2.25 Serbia
2.26 Spain
2.27 Taiwan (Republic of China)
2.28 Ukraine
2.29 United Kingdom

You should check that "state religion" link above. Dozens of countries do it. There is no vaild reason to deny Israel the same right other countries have.

83 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 4:28:34pm

re: #82 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

No, it isn't. Plenty of other countries have different church/state relations than ours. Nobody ever complains about that, least of all those who complain about Israel being a Jewish state.

Fine, at least you are being explict about the religious component of being Jewish. I would note that most Americans find the Iranian theocracy weird, and the British Anglican church an anachronism.

As for right of return for Jews, that's something to be decided AFTER they have made peace with the people who were displaced (and made a diaspora) as part of the establishment of the state of Israel.

Israel is far from doing what it should on that, with the biggest problem being ongoing settlements on land that is a key part of any peace agreement. And as I said, the very notion of insisting the displaced agree to describe their former homes as a Jewish homeland is ridiculous if you REALLY want to talk to the Palestinians...

...which the current government in Israel clearly does not.

84 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 4:31:52pm

re: #82 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

There should be no state religions, period.

85 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 4:36:16pm

re: #84 Sergey Romanov

I agree completely. But I'm not going to say people can't have them. Should is an expression of what I think is better, not what will happen in reality.

86 Etaoin Shrdlu  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 4:43:49pm

After World War II, approximately 3 million ethnic Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia, and approximately 7 million ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland. Many were descended from families who had lived in traditionally ethnic German areas for centuries. They were expelled because they had been used as an excuse for, and generally supported, German aggression.

Sixty years later, the descendants of these ten million refugees are somehow not blowing up buses in Gdansk, somehow not lobbing rockets into Liberec — and somehow, the existence of Polish and Czech states troubles John Carroll not at all.

87 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 5:09:58pm

re: #86 Etaoin Shrdlu

It would be nice if the events of 1948 had ended that way. But they didn't. We can theorize why they didn't. There's a 2000 year gap between the end of the last state of Israel and the beginning of the new one. Europe was so traumatized to end WII that there were too many wrongs to right (the middle east wasn't devastated the way Europe was). There was less sympathy for displaced germans at the end of WWII, forcing them to make do with new homes (other europeans didn't rally around them the way other arabs did around the palestinians). That, and the fact those former homes were in the east behind an iron curtain.

But none of that matters. The fact is that, like Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland, those dispossessed aren't going to dissolve into neighboring countries or regions and accept their displacement. Besides, the treatment of displaced germans is hardly a moral example by which to guide modern events.

88 Etaoin Shrdlu  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 5:24:41pm

re: #87 JohnCarroll

(other europeans didn't rally around them the way other arabs did around the palestinians)

By ‘rallying around’, you mean refusing to settle any refugees from the war they started?

Besides, the treatment of displaced germans is hardly a moral example by which to guide modern events.

It's not the treatment of displaced Germans that illustrates a contrast.

89 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 5:30:02pm

re: #88 Etaoin Shrdlu

As opposed to settling them and solving Israel's problem for them? As noted, the German example wasn't a moral one, and neither would be asking neighboring countries to simply absorb large numbers of refugees as their own citizens. Nice to have, yes, as I sure as hell would like this problem to go away, but not something that will happen now.

A civil war involves both sides, by the way, and that was what existed between 1947 and 48.

90 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 5:42:02pm

You keep offering up the same shit on different flavored crackers.

No, you keep offering up the same shit on the same crackers.

91 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 5:48:56pm

re: #83 JohnCarroll

Fine, at least you are being explict about the religious component of being Jewish.

No, that's not what I said at all. Your complaint was about state-stipulated religion; well, lots of countries have state religion. Point being, even if Israel did, so what?

Re: ethnicity, why single it out that it must change its right of return policies, when no one else is being scolded to do so?

And as I said, the very notion of insisting the displaced agree to describe their former homes as a Jewish homeland is ridiculous if you REALLY want to talk to the Palestinians...

Jewish state....which is what Israel is. Expecting that aspect to be negotiated away is not going to happen, nor should it.

re: #84 Sergey Romanov

There should be no state religions, period.

Perhaps there shouldn't be, but there is. I wish it were different, but, alas...

As long as we don't have to do it in the US, that's really all I care about. Other countries? That's on them.

92 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 6:03:41pm
No, that's not what I said at all. Your complaint was about state-stipulated religion; well, lots of countries have state religion. Point being, even if Israel did, so what?

No, my original complaint (at the top) was with insisting that Palestinians call Israel - a land they consider to be taken to them - a Jewish homeland. That's not the way to start a negotiation.

As for religion associated with the state, a key reason the Iranian government is so alien is that it is a theocracy. The fact that Britain still has an official state religion is fairly denatured these days, and has little meaning (it is an anachronism even to brits). That isn't the case in Israel right now, which I why I brought up marriage.

So what, as you say: maybe...but still something Americans aren't instinctively in favor of. Like I said, Americans do tend to prefer secular government, even if a loud minority do not.

Re: ethnicity, why single it out that it must change its right of return policies, when no one else is being scolded to do so?

I wouldn't say "no one else." You gave one example of ethnic germans from eastern bloc nations. It's generally enshrined as UN policy that diaspora populations have a right to return. Given that Israel was created (originally) as a UN fabrication, I should think that should have particular resonance for Israelis.

Jewish state...which is what Israel is. Expecting that aspect to be negotiated away is not going to happen, nor should it.

You're right, practically speaking, it isn't something that will be negotiated away. But, the brits didn't insist on the Irish opposition to concede the essential english character of northern ireland. Not a perfect analogy, but the parallels exist.

Neither should Israel. Besides, when the person touting the rejection (in the article) is Lieberman, a man who questions whether Arab Israelis should even be citizens, it has a lot more importance. Jewishness is a club that Israeli Arabs can never be a part of. They can be Israeli, yes. Jewish, no.

No Palestinian government will ever concede that. They'll concede Israel's right to exist, but they won't call their former homes the homeland of the people who took the land from them.

93 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 6:03:50pm

re: #86 Etaoin Shrdlu

After World War II, approximately 3 million ethnic Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia, and approximately 7 million ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland. Many were descended from families who had lived in traditionally ethnic German areas for centuries. They were expelled because they had been used as an excuse for, and generally supported, German aggression.

Sixty years later, the descendants of these ten million refugees are somehow not blowing up buses in Gdansk, somehow not lobbing rockets into Liberec — and somehow, the existence of Polish and Czech states troubles John Carroll not at all.

Interesting point re: Germany's right of return (from wiki link, #82):

Germany

German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler ("late emigrants"; de:Aussiedler), see History of German settlement in Eastern Europe) to return to Germany and claim German citizenship. As with many legal implementations of the Right of Return, the "return" to Germany of individuals who may never have lived in Germany based on their ethnic origin has been controversial. The law is codified in Article 116 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, which provides access to German citizenship for anyone "who has been admitted to the territory of the German Reich within the boundaries of December 31, 1937 as a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or as the spouse or descendant of such person".[12]

The historic context for Article 116 was the eviction, following World War II, of an estimated 9 million ethnic Germans from other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Another 9 million Germans from former eastern German provinces, over which Joseph Stalin and eastern neighbour states extended military hegemony in 1945, were expelled as well. These expellees and refugees (known as Heimatvertriebene) were given refugee status and documents and resettled by Germany; discussion of possible compensation is ongoing. Some German expellees desire to resettle in their territories of birth, youth and early life, but legal procedures often make remigration difficult, even after Poland and the Czech Republic joined the European Union.

94 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 6:14:02pm

re: #92 JohnCarroll

No, my original complaint (at the top) was with insisting that Palestinians call Israel - a land they consider to be taken to them - a Jewish homeland. That's not the way to start a negotiation.

What do you feel Israel -- the Jewish state -- should be called?

As for religion associated with the state, a key reason the Iranian government is so alien is that it is a theocracy.

...

but still something Americans aren't instinctively in favor of. Like I said, Americans do tend to prefer secular government, even if a loud minority do not.

Israel is a secular country, not a theocracy, and certainly not like the Islamic Republic of Iran. I also don't see what American views on government have to do with anything...look at all the business/diplomacy we do with other "theocracies" (using your definition) like Saudi Arabia (a real theocracy), Bangladesh, Egypt, UAE, Malaysia, etc.

I wouldn't say "no one else." You gave one example of ethnic germans from eastern bloc nations. It's generally enshrined as UN policy that diaspora populations have a right to return. Given that Israel was created (originally) as a UN fabrication, I should think that should have particular resonance for Israelis.

Lol! Czech Republic, Belarus, Belize, South Sudan, North Korea, South Korea, any number of countries...name one that isn't a UN "fabrication".

That wasn't me, that was Etaoin Shrdlu, btw.

You're right, practically speaking, it isn't something that will be negotiated away.

But the practical matter is the starting place, not the place one wishes or prefers to start.

95 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 6:35:45pm

re: #92 JohnCarroll

No, my original complaint (at the top) was with insisting that Palestinians call Israel - a land they consider to be taken to them - a Jewish homeland. That's not the way to start a negotiation.

No Palestinian government will ever concede that. They'll concede Israel's right to exist, but they won't call their former homes the homeland of the people who took the land from them.

So, why should Israel recognize a "Palestinian" homeland that gives the death penalty for selling land to Jews?

96 Vicious Babushka  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 6:43:00pm
97 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 7:24:04pm

Folks, he's Jew Baiting. Here's where he wants to go: that Israel is like Nazi Germany, the Palestinians being in the role of the Jews.

He's setting traps, if Judaism is a religion, then it's exclusive and therefore racist. He's said as much. If Judaism is an ethnicity, then Israel is in the act of ethnic cleansing. The Rosetta Stone for all of this is his use of Lieberman to represent all the citizens and government of Israel.

He himself doesn't even recognize the existence of the State of Israel, calling it a UN fabrication. He's changed history, and sticks to this revision irregardless of any historical facts that come his way.

He's demonstrated a will disregard for any history before the years of 1967, and in typical BBC fashion, he somehow sees a parallel between the situation in Northern Ireland and the Middle East.

He also has no knowledge of American history, European history, world history. The only thing he knows is that, in his mind, the Jewish people are fascists and racists. That is John Carroll.

98 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 10:51:05pm

re: #97 Bob Levin

Nonsense. But you aren't countering my points, and haven't even tried. Far easier to paint me with the racist brush. That has basically been the content of most of your posts.

As for the UN "fabrication" comment, here's what I was trying to communicate. Israel was set up as a Jewish homeland by the UN in 1947. Two-ish years of civil war was the result, and Israel declared independence in May of 1948.

However, the push came via the UN. It seems to be a lesson that has been learned by the Palestinians, which may explain the hostility within the Israeli government for a declaration of what everyone knows is bound to happen someday.

Israel is a valid country. It's founding principle, however, was an action by a newly constituted UN.

99 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 10:59:01pm

re: #94 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

What do you feel Israel -- the Jewish state -- should be called?

I'm fine with Israel, and realistically, it will be a Jewish state. Just don't ask the people displaced to make it a Jewish state to call it that as a prelude to negotiations. That's ridiculous and insulting.

Israel is a secular country, not a theocracy, and certainly not like the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I would say mostly secular (with certain key exceptions, as noted elsewhere), and you are right, it is far from a theocracy like Iran.

I also don't see what American views on government have to do with anything...look at all the business/diplomacy we do with other "theocracies" (using your definition) like Saudi Arabia (a real theocracy), Bangladesh, Egypt, UAE, Malaysia, etc.

Okay, it still is something that shouldn't resonate with many Americans. Calling someone Jewish is about more than just nationality. That's the issue, and the reason the Palestinians will NEVER concede that as a prelude to negotiations. Once final status has been reached, the Israelis can do whatever they want. But I'm beating a dead horse here...you can't convince the displaced to call their former homes the "homeland" of the displacer.

Lol! Czech Republic, Belarus, Belize, South Sudan, North Korea, South Korea, any number of countries...name one that isn't a UN "fabrication".

Fair enough, though I would call all countries, technically speaking, a "fabrication." Just witness the crazy knots people get into over workers born just south of an imaginary line along our southern border (our = the US border).

What I was trying to communicate with the term "fabrication" (which was unnecessarily loaded) was that the UN essentially created Israel via declaration. The Palestinians have finally taken note of that fact. It seems the way countries are made in a particular patch of land in the middle east.

100 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:00:41pm

re: #94 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

But the practical matter is the starting place, not the place one wishes or prefers to start.

No, negotiations over something as sensitive as land and refugees never starts with a practical matter that involves one side conceding that their fomer homes are someone else's homeland.

101 John Carroll  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:03:42pm

re: #95 Alouette

Desperation? Look, make a resolution with the Palestinians and we can see if they start to act more rationally. Right now, you just have a bunch of very pissed off people who watch as Israelis claim even MORE land for settlements in the west bank.

Really, I don't get the sense that the Israeli government (this one, others were more willing) is really serious about peace.

102 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:05:52pm

re: #99 JohnCarroll

I'm fine with Israel, and realistically, it will be a Jewish state. Just don't ask the people displaced to make it a Jewish state to call it that as a prelude to negotiations. That's ridiculous and insulting.

There's nothing insulting about it; it's a fact.

Okay, it still is something that shouldn't resonate with many Americans. Calling someone Jewish is about more than just nationality.

83rd time's a charm: there are Israeli citizens who are not Jewish. No one is required to refer to themselves as "Jewish" any more than someone living in Norway is required to refer to themselves as "Lutheran" or "ethnically Norwegian".

Doesn't matter what resonates with many Americans...how pretentious.

That's the issue,

No, that is not the issue.

103 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:11:31pm

re: #98 JohnCarroll

Nonsense. But you aren't countering my points, and haven't even tried. Far easier to paint me with the racist brush.

Not true. You paint yourself that way with your arguments.

104 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:20:35pm

re: #103 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Why are you still here? Can't find a wall to bang your head against instead of arguing with the junior BBC news editor?

105 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:22:06pm

re: #98 JohnCarroll

Are you paying attention?

1. I know Antisemitism when I hear it, and...

2. Everyone else has completely demolished all of your points. The only point you have left is that you don't like Jews.

106 shutdown  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:24:42pm

re: #105 Bob Levin

You know what comes next: "I have no problem with Jews. It's Israel I take issue with."
The older the meme...

107 Bob Levin  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:28:24pm

re: #106 imp_62

We know the script as well as he does. He could at least make a show of it by citing stats about plight of the Palestinian people. Over 100 comments, about 50 are his, and not one showing an ounce of interest in the Palestinian People. He isn't even very good at being Antisemitic.

108 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Aug 29, 2011 11:37:14pm

re: #101 JohnCarroll

Dead thread troll? I think so!

109 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Aug 30, 2011 1:26:42am

re: #91 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Perhaps there shouldn't be, but there is. I wish it were different, but, alas...

As long as we don't have to do it in the US, that's really all I care about. Other countries? That's on them.

Then we mostly agree, but the point is, no state can expect reasonable people to actually support its religious self-identification. They may support a state despite its having a state religion (e.g. if in the big picture it's not much of a deal, like in most of Europe and in Israel), and yet be against the fact of the state religion. As we've seen above, this distinction suddenly becomes relevant when we're dealing with ambiguous terms like "the Jewish state". It is reasonable of Israel to demand recognition on the ethnic basis. It certainly can't demand recognition of Judaism as its state religion of people who are for the strict separation of religion and state as a principle.

110 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Aug 30, 2011 4:17:26am

A list of the different governments in Palestine from the Roman Empire until 1850.

You will notice that at no time was it ever a sovereign nation, ruled by "Palestinians."

111 CuriousLurker  Tue, Aug 30, 2011 8:05:31am

This is a really bizarre, pointless thread (unless baiting is the point). It's like a Thaana Redux, but from the opposite extreme. Strangeness abounds.

112 Flavia  Wed, Aug 31, 2011 3:02:50am

re: #49 JohnCarroll

..and the recognition that Palestinians were shoved aside to make room for that Jewish homeland is...where?

It's recognized in what passes for brains in bigots - why do you ask? After all, people who actually know what went on in '48 know that the Arab Higher Committee told them all that "Arabs should conduct their wives and children to a place of safety until the fighting is over...[after which] we will share the wealth of the Jews." But it didn't happen that way, & Jew-hating Arabs (as opposed to other types of Arabs) & other Jew-haters have been whining about it ever since - all the while ignoring that Israel not only set up a governmental agency to actually recompense people who left property behind (How many other countries do things like that for those who openly abandoned them to their enemies?*), as well as let back in about a 6th of those who left.


*Yes, there were small, distinctly unofficial, groups who did terrorize Arabs out of Israel. My response to this (in addition to what else I have outlined above) is "If 60-100 guys could chase out 3/4 MILLION Arabs, then they need to be worshiped, not condemned.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Black Pumas - I’m Ready (Live on the Late Late Show With James Corden) "I'm Ready" is available on the GRAMMY-nominated Deluxe Edition of the Black Pumas debut album. The Deluxe Edition includes 11 bonus tracks (3 brand new songs, 4 covers, and 4 live recordings) and is available now in 2xLP, 2xCD ...
Thanos
1 day, 15 hours ago
Views: 278 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Tomorrow - Jimmy Wahlsteen, Vincent VegaProvided to YouTube by Epidemic Sound Tomorrow · Jimmy Wahlsteen · Vincent Vega Epidemic Presents: Crates (M. Bison Edition) ℗ Epidemic Sound Released on: 2020-03-13 Producer: Kasper LindgrenComposer: Jimmy Wahlsteen Auto-generated by YouTube.
Thanos
4 days, 8 hours ago
Views: 483 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 •
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 210221The waterfall bilge pump died three weeks ago.We're trying something new.Saturday we test installed two tiny aquarium pumps to get the waterfall going again.These pumps are very small but are designed to run all the time. Bilge pumps aren't. Though ...
Dangerman
4 days, 12 hours ago
Views: 485 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 0 •
The Staves - Best Friend [Live at Lafayette] The Staves - Best Friend [Live at Lafayette] Our new album 'Good Woman' is out now: lnk.to Follow The Staves:Facebook thestaves.lnk.toTwitter thestaves.lnk.toInstagram thestaves.lnk.to YouTube thestaves.lnk.toSpotify thestaves.lnk.toiTunes thestaves.lnk.to When I could be anythingThat I wanted OhWe could be better thanBetter ...
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 986 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
Sting - Shape of My Heart (Official Music Video)REMASTERED IN HD!Official Video For Sting's "Shape Of My Heart".#Sting #ShapeOfMyHeart #Remastered
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 1,138 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 •
Amy Macdonald - Statues (Single Mix) (Official Audio) One of Amy's best features is that she doesn't "Americanize" her singing voice, something too many UK performers do. The Official Audio for Statues (Single Mix) by Amy Macdonald, taken from the new album 'The Human Demands'. Listen now: ...
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 1,152 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 •
KALEO - Break My Baby (LIVE From Þrídrangar, Iceland) Break My Baby - Live from Þrídrangar - Iceland Music and Lyrics by JJ Julius Son Stream/Download: kaleo.lnk.to Þrídrangar means “three rock pillars” and is located 4.5 miles from Iceland's south coast. In 1939, three of Westman Islands' best ...
Thanos
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,917 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 6 •
Lake Street Dive - Hypotheticals [From Phantom Studios] Video Directed + Produced by Alex Chaloff for Bucket's Moving CompanyRecorded at Phantom Studios, Gallatin TN"Hypotheticals" from the upcoming Lake Street Dive album ObviouslyOut March 12th on Nonesuch RecordsPre-Order Obviously NOW: smarturl.it Produced by Mike ElizondoRachael Price: vocalsMike “McDuck” ...
Thanos
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,591 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 4 •
Jon Batiste - CRY (Lyric Video) Listen to “CRY” and order my album ‘WE ARE’: jon-batiste.lnk.to Shop merch: jonbatistestore.com Follow Jon:Instagram: jon-batiste.lnk.toFacebook: jon-batiste.lnk.toTwitter: jon-batiste.lnk.toSpotify: jon-batiste.lnk.to Apple Music: jon-batiste.lnk.toAmazon: jon-batiste.lnk.toSoundcloud: jon-batiste.lnk.toPandora: jon-batiste.lnk.toYouTube Music: jon-batiste.lnk.to Official Website: jonbatiste.com Video Credits:Director: Charles ToddDirector of Photography: Ben CareyProducer: Brian ...
Thanos
2 weeks ago
Views: 2,029 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 5 •
Robert Fripp & Peter Gabriel - Here Comes the Flood (1979) [RV VERSION] Robert Fripp & Peter Gabriel - Here Comes The Flood (1979) [RV VERSION] #Peter gabriel robert fripp here comes the flood#Robert fripp peter gabriel flood#robert fripp peter gabriel flood#gabriel fripp here comes the floodhere comes the flood#Fripp#Peter#Gabriel#robert fripp#King crimson ...
Thanos
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,671 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
Tweets: 6 •