democrat Debates

[GG]

 

I disagree and think you're generalizing to a large degree. Current foreign policy aside (because it's non existent), what Bernie said last night took political guts, whether you agree with what he said or not ("you" in the general sense).

 

On stage in Brooklyn, four days before the NY primary, the safe pandering play is to do what Clinton did. What Bernie did cost him far more than it gained, especially in Tuesday's primary.

Of course it cost him, simply for the fact that he's using the soft bigotry of expecting far less of the Palestinians than of Israelis. The enlightened and powerful Israel shouldn't be as ruthless as any other country who's facing a hostile neighbor.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Of course it cost him, simply for the fact that he's using the soft bigotry of expecting far less of the Palestinians than of Israelis. The enlightened and powerful Israel shouldn't be as ruthless as any other country who's facing a hostile neighbor.

 

I'm not sure if that's worse than the soft racism (actually, it's outright hatred) employed by the right when it comes to Israel. Considering the primary reason the defense of Israel is so important to right leaning politicians is due to their need to pander to the evangelical base and its belief that Jerusalem must be controlled by the Jews in order for the rapture to take place.

 

Considering that evangelical base believes that when the rapture comes, anyone of Jewish faith who hasn't converted will be sent to hell, it seems far more disingenuous (not to mention hateful and spiteful) to pretend to be a friend of Israel in order to bring about the second coming does it not?

 

So... yeah, I'm thinking a politician standing on the debate stage asking for the US to take a reasonable stance when it comes to arbitrating peace between two factions isn't quite as horrific as what motivates much of the political speak on the right when it comes to Israel.

 

You know it's true.

[meazza]

 

I'm not sure if that's worse than the soft racism (actually, it's outright hatred) employed by the right when it comes to Israel. Considering the primary reason the defense of Israel is so important to right leaning politicians is due to their need to pander to the evangelical base and its belief that Jerusalem must be controlled by the Jews in order for the rapture to take place.

 

Considering that evangelical base believes that when the rapture comes, anyone of Jewish faith who hasn't converted will be sent to hell, it seems far more disingenuous (not to mention hateful and spiteful) to pretend to be a friend of Israel in order to bring about the second coming does it not?

 

So... yeah, I'm thinking a politician standing on the debate stage asking for the US to take a reasonable stance when it comes to arbitrating peace between two factions isn't quite as horrific as what motivates much of the political speak on the right when it comes to Israel.

 

You know it's true.

You're so misinformed on the subject, it's hilarious.

[Deranged Rhino]

You're so misinformed on the subject, it's hilarious.

 

Disagree. Grew up with a lot of evangelicals who would openly tell you this is their primary motivation for supporting Israel. And considering the GOP is still beholden to that base (and is what played a primary role in destroying the GOP's ability to field competitive national candidates), it's pretty much spot on.

 

Here's a good read: https://www.iiss.org/en/publications/survival/sections/2014-4667/survival--global-politics-and-strategy-february-march-2014-e67d/56-1-02-miller-0ca4

Edited April 16, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

Here's another article talking about how what Sanders did hadn't been done before during a presidential election, let alone on a stage in NY days before a primary:

 

The Democratic debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on Thursday night was electrified by a series of feisty exchanges, but one especially pugnacious discussion stood out as a potentially historic moment in presidential politics: the candidates’ dispute over Israel and the fate of Palestinians.

Close observers of New York politics and the place within it of the city’s prominent Jewish population were astonished that Sanders spoke openly and directly about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza while criticizing Israel and its prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for responding disproportionately to Hamas provocations. Never before had such an outspoken pro-Palestinian message been delivered from the presidential campaign stage.

(snip)

But what was unprecedented about his intervention was that he broke the unwritten rule that has held firm in US presidential races for decades: that candidates emphasize their commitment to supporting Israel while maintaining virtual silence over the Palestinian side of the Middle Eastern equation.

Sanders tore that convention apart by talking at length about the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, where unemployment stands around 40% and where there is a landscape of “decimated houses, decimated healthcare, decimated schools. I believe the United States and the rest of the world have got to work together to help the Palestinian people.”

It was an extraordinary moment in presidential politics, said Chemi Shalev, US editor and correspondent of the Haaretz newspaper. It is extremely rare for presidential candidates to express sympathy for Palestinians, and the two individuals who came closest in recent times – Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Barack Obama in 2008 – still went nowhere near where Sanders did in talking directly about it on the campaign trail.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/15/sanders-clinton-brooklyn-debate-israel-palestine-comments

[meazza]

Asshat

[Deranged Rhino]

Asshat

 

Okay. I mean, if you don't want to talk about it we don't have to. But it helps to be honest about where the pro-Israel love truly stems from on the right, otherwise there can never be a real solution to the issue.

 

And, for the record, I'm not at all saying EVERY Christian republican voter believes that, or even the majority, in fact quite the opposite.

[meazza]

 

Okay. I mean, if you don't want to talk about it we don't have to. But it helps to be honest about where the pro-Israel love truly stems from on the right, otherwise there can never be a real solution to the issue.

 

And, for the record, I'm not at all saying EVERY Christian republican voter believes that, or even the majority, in fact quite the opposite.

It is related more to the anti Israel article you posted after as if the author is being objective in his depiction of the situation. The plight of the Palestinians is their own mess and they'll keep poking the bear because it's what they like to do.

[Deranged Rhino]

It is related more to the anti Israel article you posted after as if the author is being objective in his depiction of the situation. The plight of the Palestinians is their own mess and they'll keep poking the bear because it's what they like to do.

 

I'm in no way arguing that the Palestinians are completely innocent in regards to the troubles there. Never have been. I'm also not even agreeing with Sander's stance (just pointing out it's historical significance in presidential politics).

 

All I've said is that LA's generalization about the majority of the left being anti-Israel and GG's statement that Sander's points were soft racism, are debatable at best. Plus, neither takes into consideration the highly conflicted history of how the right got so anchored to defending Israel in the first place. So much so that there cannot even be a political discussion about the POSSIBILITY Israel's response in 2014 was disproportionate without it being assumed Sanders (a Jewish man himself) is being ant-Israel.

 

That's not going to solve any issues. It's only going to further the divide, further the hate, and further the violence. There cannot be much hope of peace without at least agreeing that the Palestinians are in fact human beings themselves.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[meazza]

Except the response was due to underground tunnels that were started in Gaza and end up under hospitals, schools and homes of Israelis.

 

The left and the the bern are so out of their element when it comes to this subject that there is no point of discussion.

[Deranged Rhino]

Except the response was due to underground tunnels that were started in Gaza and end up under hospitals, schools and homes of Israelis.

 

The left and the the bern are so out of their element when it comes to this subject that there is no point of discussion.

 

That's not the issue though. That's the distraction that prevents discussion.

 

Sanders never said Israel didn't/doesn't have a right to defend itself, nor are any serious people on the left (or right) advocating that the US should abandon Israel. All Sanders is calling for is reason. It's reasonable to think no true peace will ever be found when politics make it impossible for an American President (let alone official) to concede the very simple point that Palestinians are human beings. Most of whom are not Hamas funded extremists in any way.

 

How can any arbiter for peace hope to achieve it without, at the very least, acknowledging the Palestinian people are just that; people.

 

After all, you can not get a positive from a negative.

[GG]

 

That's not the issue though. That's the distraction that prevents discussion.

 

Sanders never said Israel didn't/doesn't have a right to defend itself, nor are any serious people on the left (or right) advocating that the US should abandon Israel. All Sanders is calling for is reason. It's reasonable to think no true peace will ever be found when politics make it impossible for an American President (let alone official) to concede the very simple point that Palestinians are human beings. Most of whom are not Hamas funded extremists in any way.

 

How can any arbiter for peace hope to achieve it without, at the very least, acknowledging the Palestinian people are just that; people.

 

After all, you can not get a positive from a negative.

 

And it's a classic false equivalence of providing cover with admitting that Israel can defend itself but with the impossible qualifier that in doing so, it should take it easy in defending itself. What Bernie is asking Israel to do, would not hold up to any other country in the world. Imagine the US response if Mexico lobbed thousands of itty bitty rockets over the Rio Grande?

 

Glad that the article unwittingly lumped Bernie in with the presidents who are acknowledged to have the worst foreign policy record in the last 100 years.

[DC Tom]

And it's a classic false equivalence of providing cover with admitting that Israel can defend itself but with the impossible qualifier that in doing so, it should take it easy in defending itself. What Bernie is asking Israel to do, would not hold up to any other country in the world. Imagine the US response if Mexico lobbed thousands of itty bitty rockets over the Rio Grande?

We'd invite the rockets with open arms and label anyone who complained a racist?

[GG]

We'd invite the rockets with open arms and label anyone who complained a racist?

I imagine the would be a few of those. But think of the beautiful fence that Trump would build then.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

And it's a classic false equivalence of providing cover with admitting that Israel can defend itself but with the impossible qualifier that in doing so, it should take it easy in defending itself. What Bernie is asking Israel to do, would not hold up to any other country in the world. Imagine the US response if Mexico lobbed thousands of itty bitty rockets over the Rio Grande?

 

Glad that the article unwittingly lumped Bernie in with the presidents who are acknowledged to have the worst foreign policy record in the last 100 years.

 

Bernie didn't ask, nor is he asking, them to do anything. His statement was a judgement on the events of 2014 specifically.

We'd invite the rockets with open arms and label anyone who complained a racist?

 

No one is saying the people launching the rockets are justified, least of all Bernie.

[GG]

 

Bernie didn't ask, nor is he asking, them to do anything. His statement was a judgement on the events of 2014 specifically.

 

 

No one is saying the people launching the rockets are justified, least of all Bernie.

So exactly what is Bernie saying?

[unbillievable]

So exactly what is Bernie saying?

He's asking how his babee gone git his clothes fo school, if he can't rob noboby.

[/dev/null]

 

And it's a classic false equivalence of providing cover with admitting that Israel can defend itself but with the impossible qualifier that in doing so, it should take it easy in defending itself. What Bernie is asking Israel to do, would not hold up to any other country in the world. Imagine the US response if Mexico lobbed thousands of itty bitty rockets over the Rio Grande?

Depends on who the President is

 

Obama would apologize for stealing Texas. Give them back Arizona and declare a Federal holiday for Poncho Villa

Hiliary would bomb somebody and blame the War on Drugs on George Bush (either one)

Bernie would redistribute rockets to Mexico

Trump's response is gonna be yuuuuuuuge. You're gonna love it

[Deranged Rhino]

So exactly what is Bernie saying?

 

He was asked if he felt Israel's response in 2014 was disproportionate. He said it was. That's it.

 

He never said Israel doesn't have a right to exist or to defend itself -- in fact he said the opposite -- he was making the point that just because they are our allies doesn't mean they're above reproach. Taking the position that they are above reproach will never, ever, ever, bring peace. It only furthers the divide and the violence.