"Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for 50 generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith."

Me: You don't accept Israel's right to exist...You are not for a two-state solution...You want the complete eradication of Israel...You want everything done one way, as long as Israel has no say and can take no action.

You to all:
Where have I said this? Show the exact quote (s).

You believe Israel has a right to exist, are for a two-state solution, and believe an Israeli voice is integral in the peace process. Glad we cleared that up.

You can neither be for and against a position. You have to take a stand.

Continually avoiding it is intellectual cowardice. It's not only illogical, but stupid.

If you choose to make a fool of yourself by playing the, "Where have I said this? Show the exact quote." nonsense yet "again" to avoid having your position pinned down in this debate, let's look at it logically.

Look, Israel is there to stay. They are NOT going to unilaterally march onto boats, leave everything they've built and struggled for over 60+ years behind, and vanish into yet another huge global Diaspora. They have already shown, time and again, they will fight for their country and not be pushed around.

Once again I will state:

My position will become clear once those apparently necessary conditions have either been clarified or renounced.

I personally don't want them to unilaterally take out a pre-operational nuclear facility in Iran, even for self-defense ...

Whaaa??? I've seen piles of BS and nonsense before on here, but the above takes the cake for obfuscation and double-talk?

Motownmaniax, msg 113

Let’s get some simple agreements out of the way first.

Israel has a right to exist.

Definition of “aggressor”: For one side to be considered the principal aggressor means they must attack first without “any” provocation. That also does NOT include defending oneself by responding to attacks instigated or initiated by others.

mungojoe, msg 115

So let's clear some of this up...

by...


Do you mean Israel as a nation in the usual definition of a specific geographic region with more or less defined boundries containing a self-governing community of people (regardless of who is "running the show" whether they are jewish, muslim, christian, etc.)?

or...

Do you mean Israel specifically as a jewish homeland?

and...

by...


Do you mean that you may attack first on any provocation and not be considered the aggressor?

Why don't you come up with a constructive "plan" to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem instead of your tired and insufferable bleating about straw mans and red herrings and ad hominems? (by the way, which is it?...they can't "all" be? You don't even understand the proper context they're used in, do you?...lol)

Israel being attacked and wiped out by either overwhelming conventional military power or nuclear weapons.

An excerpt ...
On antisemitism
... Massad asserts that 19th Century European anti-Semitic characterizations of Jews have transformed in the present era to target Arabs, while maintaining the same racialist characterizations, and thus, racism towards Arabs and Muslims today is a form of "Euro-American Christian anti-Semitism and...Israeli Jewish anti-Semitism." Massad bases this belief on an understanding of anti-Semitism as a specific historical phenomenon originating in Europe, rather than simply as hatred of Jews; he writes: "...the claims made by many nowadays that any manifestation of hatred against Jews in any geographic location on Earth and in any historical period is 'anti-Semitism' smack of a gross misunderstanding of the European history of anti-Semitism."

On Israel and Zionism
Massad has characterized Israel as "a racist Jewish state." In Massad's view, Zionism is not only racist but anti-Semitic, and anti-Semitic not only towards Arab Palestinians, but also towards Jews. Massad writes that after Europeans invented the racialist conception of the "Semite," the Zionist movement "adopted wholesale anti-Semitic ideologies" and describes Zionism as an "anti-Semitic project of destroying Jewish cultures and languages in the diaspora", which has ultimately led to "the transformation of the Jew into the anti-Semite, and the Palestinian into the Jew." Massad further accuses Zionists of unjustly "appropriating the fruit of the land that Palestinian peasants produced," and specifies the renaming of "Palestinian rural salad (now known in New York delis as Israeli salad)" as an example of Israeli "racism."

Massad has spoken of genetic links being established between 19th century European Jews and the ancient Israelite kingdom and the creation of a "semitic" identity for Jews at that time as actually a European, racist construction designed to portray European Jews as foreigners. Massad considers claims to Israel made by the Zionists movement based on that connection to be "problematic." In a debate with Israeli historian Benny Morris, Massad said:

The claim made by the Zionists, and by Professor Morris, that late nineteenth-century European Jews are direct descendants of the ancient Palestinian Hebrews is what is preposterous here. This kind of anti-Semitic claim that European Jews were not European that was propagated by the racist and biological discourses on the nineteenth century, that they somehow descend from first-century Hebrews, despite the fact that they look like other Europeans, that they speak European languages, is what is absurd.

On the United States
Massad argues that US imperialism is ultimately behind Israeli actions. He has attacked the Israel Lobby thesis, saying, "the lobby is powerful in the United States because its major claims are about advancing US interests and its support for Israel are contextualised in its support for the overall US strategy in the Middle East." Massad is especially critical of "rabidly pro-Israeli American President Obama."

Student comments about Joseph Massad

Course: CLME W3042 Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies

"Wow, tensions were flying high in this class between Zionist- sympathizers and Massad (and, to a lesser extent, between Zionist-sympathizers and Palestinian-sympathizers). Massad is clearly pro-Palestine in outlook, and while some students find this troubling, others find it refreshing. His descriptions of the suffering endured by Palestinians make great scholarship -- but he seems unable at times to see why the Jews, in their own words, would support and perpetrate such horrible policies. I agree with Massad`s stance, and I am glad to be able to take a class where the professor isn`t afraid to condemn a country for chronic flouting of UN resolutions and international law. At the same time, the lack of zionist voices in the (generally mixed-quality, sometimes brilliant) reading list and the strict guidelines on paper topics (they steer you towards making Massad`s own points) make this class not as thought-provoking as it should be. In all, most students were at least a little bit disappointed, though I felt this was because they felt frustrated having to learn the brutal history of Israel as fact, not because of shortcomings on Massad`s part. The course may not be perfect, but in scholarly terms, Massad is after something real, and there is a lot to be learned if you go along with him -- even if you criticize him all the way."

"The underlying argument has been simple ......
...... namely, that absent the pro- Israel lobby, America would at worst no longer contribute to the oppression of Arabs and Palestinians and at best it would be the Arabs' and the Palestinians' best ally and friend.
I contend that the attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States' government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world..."

well you give me much credit if you think I made those words up!

I don't recall Israel ever saying they wanted to wipe out an entire people

And, if you think his words support the premise of this post, that Israel is "sucking the U.S." into anything, then I think you need to reread it as many times as needed to understand it's the exact OPPOSITE of the point he was making!

... you still missed his point.

... absent the pro- Israel lobby, America would at worst no longer contribute to the oppression of Arabs and Palestinians and at best it would be the Arabs' and the Palestinians' best ally and friend.

I contend that the attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States' government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world..."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you want to know where his words came from, do some research.

Now, after rereading the statement I posted several times, if you don't get his position, I can't help you.

... absent the pro- Israel lobby, America would at worst no longer contribute to the oppression of Arabs and Palestinians and at best it would be the Arabs' and the Palestinians' best ally and friend.

I contend that the attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States' government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world..."

My job on this thread is done.

I found several links for that specific quote on the first search ...

And cotter, if you're putting the guy's name in quotes, that implies you don't think he exists ...

... your personal brand of racism ...

... and a nuclear iran is a global issue that concerns everyone.

as for israel and nukes, officially it doesn't have any, cause that would be illegal ;)
so it's not a matter of double standards. find another argument.

Olmert's nuclear slip-up sparks outrage in Israel
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, faced calls for his resignation today after admitting - in an apparent slip of the tongue - that Israel has got nuclear weapons.

But Israeli officials tried to push the cat back into the bag, denying that Mr Olmert had made any such admission and falling back on the Jewish state's policy of "nuclear ambiguity".

Widely considered the Middle East’s sole nuclear power, Israel has for decades refused to confirm or deny whether it possesses the atomic bomb. Mr Olmert appeared to break that taboo in an interview with a German television station as he began a visit to Berlin.

******

Mr Olmert’s spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, was quick to deny that the Prime Minister had admitted to Israel having nuclear weapons, saying that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the region."

Israel's Negev nuclear research centre has been capable of creating nuclear-grade weapons material since the early 1960s, but has never been subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The IAEA has said, however, that it considers Israel "to be a state possessing nuclear weapons" and proliferation experts reckon that it could have more than 100 devices.

Israel's policy of silence also allows it to skirt a US ban on funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction and collect about $2 billion a year in military and other aid.

******

"The staggering comments of Ehud Olmert only serve to reinforce the doubts on his capacity to remain Prime Minister," said Yossi Beilin, a leftist MP.

Yuval Steinitz, from the opposition Likud bloc, Yuval Steinitz called on Mr Olmert to step down after having made "an irresponsible slip which puts into question a policy that dates back almost half a century".

Meanwhile, observers warned that Mr Olmert’s statement threatened to undercut efforts by Israel and the West to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear programme, which Tehran says is for civilian purposes and the West fears is a cover for acquiring atomic weapons.

Mordechai Vanunu, who served 18 years in jail after blowing the whistle on Israel’s nuclear program in 1986, welcomed the comment.

"Olmert’s remark is nothing new, but it is a good thing that Israel decided to make it public," he told AFP.

"The world should now not only talk about Iran but also about Israel as a nuclear threat that has to be dealt in order to make a nuclear-free Middle East and bring peace."

In scrambling to contain the damage, Israeli officials said that Mr Olmert’s slip would not change the decades-old policy of silence on the country's nuclear capacity.

"I support the policy of ambiguity and I don’t see Olmert’s statement as a declaration that Israel has nuclear weapons," said Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, the Infrastructure Minister. "I would suggest that all those who want to talk about the issue, for God’s sake and for the sake of Israel’s security, stop it."

i still don't understand (from your off-the-topic drivel) how israel sucked the US into 2 wars in iraq and the war in afghanistan.