I've read through the bulk of this thread. I have to admit it saddens me. First, frankly, I had expected more from you, CP, than another attempt to paint Socialists (and then the thread turned to Democrats) as "them" so they can simply be hated. And to accuse the entire party of antisemitism is as wrong as accusing the entire Republican party of being Nazi's. What was said years ago does not change the fact that we have many predominantly socialist nations today (Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands) where antisemitism is not an aspect of the national value system, and antisemitism is comparatively rare, several of which appear on the list of least antisemitic countries.
The situation in Israel and the Middle East is a difficult one. There are points to be made for both sides - and compromise is illusive because it requires both sides to give up something very precious to them - which neither side has shown a willingness to do. Then you have the hard-line extremists in both groups: the Israeli extremists who want an end to Palestine and uncontested national, ethnic, theocratic sovereignty; and the Muslims who want and end to the incursion of Israel into lands that they occupied before the resettlement. To call Muslims who advocate for such positions to account for their hatred and bigotry is not being anti-Islam. To call Israelis who who advocate for such positions to account for their hatred and bigotry is not being antisemitic.
I have no position on a one-state or two-state solution for the simple reason that this is not my home and not my place to dictate how they should fix their problem. I think the proper role of the rest of the world is to do what one would do in a neighborhood with feuding neighbors: advocate for peace, offer to help mediate meetings to discuss solutions, and stand fast against acts of hatred and violence. But the solution needs to be arrived at by them.
The situation in Israel and the Middle East is a difficult one. There are points to be made for both sides - and compromise is illusive because it requires both sides to give up something very precious to them - which neither side has shown a willingness to do. Then you have the hard-line extremists in both groups: the Israeli extremists who want an end to Palestine and uncontested national, ethnic, theocratic sovereignty; and the Muslims who want and end to the incursion of Israel into lands that they occupied before the resettlement. To call Muslims who advocate for such positions to account for their hatred and bigotry is not being anti-Islam. To call Israelis who who advocate for such positions to account for their hatred and bigotry is not being antisemitic.
I have no position on a one-state or two-state solution for the simple reason that this is not my home and not my place to dictate how they should fix their problem. I think the proper role of the rest of the world is to do what one would do in a neighborhood with feuding neighbors: advocate for peace, offer to help mediate meetings to discuss solutions, and stand fast against acts of hatred and violence. But the solution needs to be arrived at by them.
Comment