Biden: 'Overwhelming frustration' with Israeli govt

[johnatong]

The only voiced "ambition" of the rabid,fanatical Palestinian "leadership" is to achieve the total destruction of Israel and the extermination of all Jews.

It is not possible to negotiate with these Terrorists. The only means of control is, as Israel has learnt, containment and measured retaliation to terrorist attacks.

At least a true troll is here.

"measured retaliation"..what a joke

You forgot to mention : let's grab all their land and kill them all

Perhaps you can list the objectives of the Terrorists?

Where on the list is "cease our terrorist activity and live in peace with our neigbour" ?

My neighbor doesn t invade my living room and tell me it is his property from now.

My neighbor doesn t steal my water, ny neighbor doesn t use white phosphorus on my family, my neighbor...

My neighbour does not fire hundreds of rockets at me no does the neighbour send suicidal fanatics to blow up children and civilians.

My nieghbour has not sworn to exterminate me and my family.

Rabid Terrorists must be corralled with walls, barbed wire and armed soldiers.

[Jingthing]

Yes there needs to be separation. Not at all ideal but that is the situation.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full..

Morch wrote...

I did not even quote you, less so misquote. When someone continually uses the litany of negative descriptors you normally associate with Zionism, I think "all bad" is a fair enough assessment of what is meant. Your definition precludes the possibility of dialogue between mainstream Israelis and the Palestinians. Now, this may serve well as a propaganda position, but does not strike me as a particularly constructive (or even reasonable) trade off.

Israel's raison d'etre is connected at the core with being a Jewish state. Objecting to it as such is tantamount for wishing it to cease to exist.

There is no argument that Israel's right wing politicians are burying their heads in the sand. I have commented in detail on this previously. As the OP states, Biden's criticism is leveled in that direction, whereas you take pains to conflate it with Israel and Zionism en masse.

No requirement to comment on each and every line, of course. Then again, claim that Biden's words are an exact reflection of your views is...an exaggeration.

OK, substitute the words "obtusely paraphrase" for misquote on the technicality that you didn't actually use "" marks. I have no idea what yours and others' definitions of Zionism are, because you won't tell us. So I wouldn't presume to say they are "all bad", although you appear to presume with remarkable mind reading ability that that is a fair assessment of my attitude.

I am not Palestinian, so nor would I be presumptious enough to tell their peace negotiating team who to have a dialog with. If negotiations with Zionists (my definition) lead to a viable 2 state solution acceptable to them and that brings peace..wonderful.

I can only tell you exactly what I mean when I condemn Zionism and regard it as evil and supremacist, and why I consider it the root cause of the entire conflict.

>>Israel's raison d'etre is connected at the core with being a Jewish state. Objecting to it as such is tantamount for wishing it to cease to exist.

Correct. As I said above I wish to see the end of Israel as a Jewish State, but not as a secular state. You tell me that's impossible. Fair enough, we agree to differ. I am more optimistic than you.

I wish no harm to its Jewish inhabitants, and suggested ways above of continuing Jewish migration to Israel but without its automatic inclusion of Jews and exclusion of non Jews. You and other Zionists (my definition) are the ones who are obsessive about demanding there must be a Jewish majority.

One day, after decades of peace and bridge building, this obsession with racist/religionist supremacy will end. Just as when I was growing up I did not give a hoot whether the boy sitting next to me was Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish, that will happen too one day in Israel or whatever name it has then.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are trying to nudge Israel in the correct direction of reinvigorating its democratic values. At the moment Israel has taken a wrong turn.

[MisterTee]

.

At least a true troll is here.

"measured retaliation"..what a joke

You forgot to mention : let's grab all their land and kill them all

Perhaps you can list the objectives of the Terrorists?

Where on the list is "cease our terrorist activity and live in peace with our neigbour" ?

My neighbor doesn t invade my living room and tell me it is his property from now.

My neighbor doesn t steal my water, ny neighbor doesn t use white phosphorus on my family, my neighbor...

My neighbour does not fire hundreds of rockets at me no does the neighbour send suicidal fanatics to blow up children and civilians.

My nieghbour has not sworn to exterminate me and my family.

Rabid Terrorists must be corralled with walls, barbed wire and armed soldiers.

Atrocities have been committed by both sides in this conflict.

Neither one is a paragon of virtue. To think so is either naïve or disingenuous.

The Middle East is in the process of self-destructing in much the same way that Europe did between 1914-1945.

How long the carnage will last, and what the outcome will be is anybody's guess.

[Morch]

Sorry thread full..

Morch wrote...

I did not even quote you, less so misquote. When someone continually uses the litany of negative descriptors you normally associate with Zionism, I think "all bad" is a fair enough assessment of what is meant. Your definition precludes the possibility of dialogue between mainstream Israelis and the Palestinians. Now, this may serve well as a propaganda position, but does not strike me as a particularly constructive (or even reasonable) trade off.

Israel's raison d'etre is connected at the core with being a Jewish state. Objecting to it as such is tantamount for wishing it to cease to exist.

There is no argument that Israel's right wing politicians are burying their heads in the sand. I have commented in detail on this previously. As the OP states, Biden's criticism is leveled in that direction, whereas you take pains to conflate it with Israel and Zionism en masse.

No requirement to comment on each and every line, of course. Then again, claim that Biden's words are an exact reflection of your views is...an exaggeration.

OK, substitute the words "obtusely paraphrase" for misquote on the technicality that you didn't actually use "" marks. I have no idea what yours and others' definitions of Zionism are, because you won't tell us. So I wouldn't presume to say they are "all bad", although you appear to presume with remarkable mind reading ability that that is a fair assessment of my attitude.

I am not Palestinian, so nor would I be presumptious enough to tell their peace negotiating team who to have a dialog with. If negotiations with Zionists (my definition) lead to a viable 2 state solution acceptable to them and that brings peace..wonderful.

I can only tell you exactly what I mean when I condemn Zionism and regard it as evil and supremacist, and why I consider it the root cause of the entire conflict.

>>Israel's raison d'etre is connected at the core with being a Jewish state. Objecting to it as such is tantamount for wishing it to cease to exist.

Correct. As I said above I wish to see the end of Israel as a Jewish State, but not as a secular state. You tell me that's impossible. Fair enough, we agree to differ. I am more optimistic than you.

I wish no harm to its Jewish inhabitants, and suggested ways above of continuing Jewish migration to Israel but without its automatic inclusion of Jews and exclusion of non Jews. You and other Zionists (my definition) are the ones who are obsessive about demanding there must be a Jewish majority.

One day, after decades of peace and bridge building, this obsession with racist/religionist supremacy will end. Just as when I was growing up I did not give a hoot whether the boy sitting next to me was Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish, that will happen too one day in Israel or whatever name it has then.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are trying to nudge Israel in the correct direction of reinvigorating its democratic values. At the moment Israel has taken a wrong turn.

My assumption of "all bad" is not based on a single post or a single topic. You've made it quite clear that you have a radical view of Zionism. As the vast majority of Israelis do vote for various Zionist parties, your position implies that this view is applied to all of them (re your "criteria" for assisting the IDF on previous topic). When posters make similar generalizations with regard to the Palestinians (based on the policies of their leaderships, or terrorist attacks etc.) these are rejected as bigotry and whatnot. Sounds like double standard to me.

The Palestinians have always negotiated with Israelis holding Zionist views. So did Israel's other neighbors. One does not always have the luxury of choosing. It would be quite meaningless to hold discussions with the electoral nothingness that is the Israeli fringe left.

As mentioned earlier, less worried about definitions. Hence you will rarely find me marginalizing whole populations based on assumed ideological definitions which rarely fully conform to reality.

Israel, disconnected from its Jewish heritage will cease to be Israel. Secular or otherwise. There might be a country there, but it would definitely not be Israel. And while many Israeli Jews wouldn't mind living in an Israel which applies a somewhat greater degree of separation between religion and state, I doubt this goes as far as casting off all formal ties with their heritage. Also, this is only half of the equation - can't see all Palestinians going for that sort of thing as well (Hamas comes to mind).

No one in the Middle East plans ahead in terms of decades, let alone considers decades of peace a reasonable proposition. Seem to recall something about lack of substance...? Painting rosy pictures of the future is what politicians and salesmen do, don't think most Israelis and Palestinians believe in these, and with good reason. Setting attainable goals and decreasing the level of animosity do more than spreading fantasies.

[NovaBlue05]

Biden is still around?

Unfortunately.

There is a tiny, tiny chance that Biden might still be president.

In the very unlikely event that Hillary Clinton does get into serious legal problems, there could be a real contested democratic convention.

The party establishment does not want Sanders. They fear, correctly, that he will be buried with "red scare" propaganda and lose the white house.

In such a scenario, Biden could still step in.

Very unlikely of course.

If he hadn't let Wassername-Schultz and the rest of the DNC Hillary Fan Club scare him off when he was reconsidering a few months ago, he would likely be the Democrat front runner by now

[Jingthing]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

In any case Sanders was always a long shot and he's performed MUCH better than expectations, but alas, he LOST.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full..

Morch wrote...

I did not even quote you, less so misquote. When someone continually uses the litany of negative descriptors you normally associate with Zionism, I think "all bad" is a fair enough assessment of what is meant. Your definition precludes the possibility of dialogue between mainstream Israelis and the Palestinians. Now, this may serve well as a propaganda position, but does not strike me as a particularly constructive (or even reasonable) trade off.

Israel's raison d'etre is connected at the core with being a Jewish state. Objecting to it as such is tantamount for wishing it to cease to exist.

There is no argument that Israel's right wing politicians are burying their heads in the sand. I have commented in detail on this previously. As the OP states, Biden's criticism is leveled in that direction, whereas you take pains to conflate it with Israel and Zionism en masse.

No requirement to comment on each and every line, of course. Then again, claim that Biden's words are an exact reflection of your views is...an exaggeration.

OK, substitute the words "obtusely paraphrase" for misquote on the technicality that you didn't actually use "" marks. I have no idea what yours and others' definitions of Zionism are, because you won't tell us. So I wouldn't presume to say they are "all bad", although you appear to presume with remarkable mind reading ability that that is a fair assessment of my attitude.

I am not Palestinian, so nor would I be presumptious enough to tell their peace negotiating team who to have a dialog with. If negotiations with Zionists (my definition) lead to a viable 2 state solution acceptable to them and that brings peace..wonderful.

I can only tell you exactly what I mean when I condemn Zionism and regard it as evil and supremacist, and why I consider it the root cause of the entire conflict.

>>Israel's raison d'etre is connected at the core with being a Jewish state. Objecting to it as such is tantamount for wishing it to cease to exist.

Correct. As I said above I wish to see the end of Israel as a Jewish State, but not as a secular state. You tell me that's impossible. Fair enough, we agree to differ. I am more optimistic than you.

I wish no harm to its Jewish inhabitants, and suggested ways above of continuing Jewish migration to Israel but without its automatic inclusion of Jews and exclusion of non Jews. You and other Zionists (my definition) are the ones who are obsessive about demanding there must be a Jewish majority.

One day, after decades of peace and bridge building, this obsession with racist/religionist supremacy will end. Just as when I was growing up I did not give a hoot whether the boy sitting next to me was Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish, that will happen too one day in Israel or whatever name it has then.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are trying to nudge Israel in the correct direction of reinvigorating its democratic values. At the moment Israel has taken a wrong turn.

My assumption of "all bad" is not based on a single post or a single topic. You've made it quite clear that you have a radical view of Zionism. As the vast majority of Israelis do vote for various Zionist parties, your position implies that this view is applied to all of them (re your "criteria" for assisting the IDF on previous topic). When posters make similar generalizations with regard to the Palestinians (based on the policies of their leaderships, or terrorist attacks etc.) these are rejected as bigotry and whatnot. Sounds like double standard to me.

The Palestinians have always negotiated with Israelis holding Zionist views. So did Israel's other neighbors. One does not always have the luxury of choosing. It would be quite meaningless to hold discussions with the electoral nothingness that is the Israeli fringe left.

As mentioned earlier, less worried about definitions. Hence you will rarely find me marginalizing whole populations based on assumed ideological definitions which rarely fully conform to reality.

Israel, disconnected from its Jewish heritage will cease to be Israel. Secular or otherwise. There might be a country there, but it would definitely not be Israel. And while many Israeli Jews wouldn't mind living in an Israel which applies a somewhat greater degree of separation between religion and state, I doubt this goes as far as casting off all formal ties with their heritage. Also, this is only half of the equation - can't see all Palestinians going for that sort of thing as well (Hamas comes to mind).

No one in the Middle East plans ahead in terms of decades, let alone considers decades of peace a reasonable proposition. Seem to recall something about lack of substance...? Painting rosy pictures of the future is what politicians and salesmen do, don't think most Israelis and Palestinians believe in these, and with good reason. Setting attainable goals and decreasing the level of animosity do more than spreading fantasies.

I truly thought you were intelligent enough to understand I am stating how I personally define Zionism. And it's not radical; it's the same one outlined by Zionism's founders. I have defined it very very clearly at least 5 times already in this thread. I can't make it any easier for you..there are are only 2 simple points I am making. Now I think you are either lacking in comprehesion skills or being deliberately obtuse.

If you, Biden, Stav Shaffir or even the most liberal of what you call Zionists (whatever you mean by that..we are yet to find out)

1) believe in an exclusive Jewish State and

2) an automatic right of immigration of Jews solely on the grounds of their religion while in the main excluding non Jews,

then in my opinion they espouse an evil racist/religionist supremacist ideology. And I will continue to condemn that, because it is plain wrong. Or are you trying to tell me they dont believe that?

Just as you look back on the history of various countries in the 19th and 20th centuries you know in your heart that certain laws and attitudes to inequality and injustices were indisputably wrong. If it upsets the sensibilities of Zionists who say well Israel will not be Israel anymore, so be it. And of course a secular Israel aint going to happen for another 50 years at least anyway. They'd probably have to go through a 2 state process first.

I have no doubt that Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat were poles apart re Zionism when they made a peace deal. Who cares? The peace deal remains and it is better than war. I dont give a hoot about who (Zionists or not by my definition) negotiates any future Israeli Palestinian peace deal, so long as it is acceptable to both parties and works.

So while I aspire to the idealistic vision of people living together normally in a civilised democracy not caring about what religion their fellow citizens believe in (Well hello...that's how most people live in the western world!), you can concern yourself with the minutiae of how Israel might get there...of course depends on whether you actually want it to get there or remain an exclusively Jewish majority state at all costs however undemocratic.

“Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.” (Shakespeare)

Edited April 22, 2016 by dexterm

[NovaBlue05]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

In any case Sanders was always a long shot and he's performed MUCH better than expectations, but alas, he LOST.

Biden wouldn't have been a long shot at the start. Think about it

[Jingthing]

Anyway, Biden is in his closing days of his distinguished political career. So he won't have to worry about being frustrated by Bibi anymore. Maybe the relationship between the next president Hillary Clinton and the Israel PM can be less frustrating ... and with the Palestinian leadership, whatever that is, as well.

[Steely Dan]

Anyway, Biden is in his closing days of his distinguished political career. So he won't have to worry about being frustrated by Bibi anymore. Maybe the relationship between the next president Hillary Clinton and the Israel PM can be less frustrating ... and with the Palestinian leadership, whatever that is, as well.

I think every future US president is liable to be frustrated, unless they can take on board the notion that foreign democracies are answerable to their own electorates and not to the views of foreign nations however well intentioned their advice is purported to be.

[Pakboong]

It is hard to tell whether it is about Netanyahu or the total of Israeli government but the times they are a changin. A hot mic converstation between the French and US leadership posted in theguardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/08/obama-netanyahu-comment-sarkozy

I find the issues with the corporate press to be far more telling than the day-to-day matters at the upper levels of government.

https://youtu.be/B3sBoLtZnsk

[Morch]

Sorry thread full..

Morch wrote...

I did not even quote you, less so misquote. When someone continually uses the litany of negative descriptors you normally associate with Zionism, I think "all bad" is a fair enough assessment of what is meant. Your definition precludes the possibility of dialogue between mainstream Israelis and the Palestinians. Now, this may serve well as a propaganda position, but does not strike me as a particularly constructive (or even reasonable) trade off.

Israel's raison d'etre is connected at the core with being a Jewish state. Objecting to it as such is tantamount for wishing it to cease to exist.

There is no argument that Israel's right wing politicians are burying their heads in the sand. I have commented in detail on this previously. As the OP states, Biden's criticism is leveled in that direction, whereas you take pains to conflate it with Israel and Zionism en masse.

No requirement to comment on each and every line, of course. Then again, claim that Biden's words are an exact reflection of your views is...an exaggeration.

OK, substitute the words "obtusely paraphrase" for misquote on the technicality that you didn't actually use "" marks. I have no idea what yours and others' definitions of Zionism are, because you won't tell us. So I wouldn't presume to say they are "all bad", although you appear to presume with remarkable mind reading ability that that is a fair assessment of my attitude.

I am not Palestinian, so nor would I be presumptious enough to tell their peace negotiating team who to have a dialog with. If negotiations with Zionists (my definition) lead to a viable 2 state solution acceptable to them and that brings peace..wonderful.

I can only tell you exactly what I mean when I condemn Zionism and regard it as evil and supremacist, and why I consider it the root cause of the entire conflict.

>>Israel's raison d'etre is connected at the core with being a Jewish state. Objecting to it as such is tantamount for wishing it to cease to exist.

Correct. As I said above I wish to see the end of Israel as a Jewish State, but not as a secular state. You tell me that's impossible. Fair enough, we agree to differ. I am more optimistic than you.

I wish no harm to its Jewish inhabitants, and suggested ways above of continuing Jewish migration to Israel but without its automatic inclusion of Jews and exclusion of non Jews. You and other Zionists (my definition) are the ones who are obsessive about demanding there must be a Jewish majority.

One day, after decades of peace and bridge building, this obsession with racist/religionist supremacy will end. Just as when I was growing up I did not give a hoot whether the boy sitting next to me was Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish, that will happen too one day in Israel or whatever name it has then.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are trying to nudge Israel in the correct direction of reinvigorating its democratic values. At the moment Israel has taken a wrong turn.

My assumption of "all bad" is not based on a single post or a single topic. You've made it quite clear that you have a radical view of Zionism. As the vast majority of Israelis do vote for various Zionist parties, your position implies that this view is applied to all of them (re your "criteria" for assisting the IDF on previous topic). When posters make similar generalizations with regard to the Palestinians (based on the policies of their leaderships, or terrorist attacks etc.) these are rejected as bigotry and whatnot. Sounds like double standard to me.

The Palestinians have always negotiated with Israelis holding Zionist views. So did Israel's other neighbors. One does not always have the luxury of choosing. It would be quite meaningless to hold discussions with the electoral nothingness that is the Israeli fringe left.

As mentioned earlier, less worried about definitions. Hence you will rarely find me marginalizing whole populations based on assumed ideological definitions which rarely fully conform to reality.

Israel, disconnected from its Jewish heritage will cease to be Israel. Secular or otherwise. There might be a country there, but it would definitely not be Israel. And while many Israeli Jews wouldn't mind living in an Israel which applies a somewhat greater degree of separation between religion and state, I doubt this goes as far as casting off all formal ties with their heritage. Also, this is only half of the equation - can't see all Palestinians going for that sort of thing as well (Hamas comes to mind).

No one in the Middle East plans ahead in terms of decades, let alone considers decades of peace a reasonable proposition. Seem to recall something about lack of substance...? Painting rosy pictures of the future is what politicians and salesmen do, don't think most Israelis and Palestinians believe in these, and with good reason. Setting attainable goals and decreasing the level of animosity do more than spreading fantasies.

I truly thought you were intelligent enough to understand I am stating how I personally define Zionism. And it's not radical; it's the same one outlined by Zionism's founders. I have defined it very very clearly at least 5 times already in this thread. I can't make it any easier for you..there are are only 2 simple points I am making. Now I think you are either lacking in comprehesion skills or being deliberately obtuse.

If you, Biden, Stav Shaffir or even the most liberal of what you call Zionists (whatever you mean by that..we are yet to find out)

1) believe in an exclusive Jewish State and

2) an automatic right of immigration of Jews solely on the grounds of their religion while in the main excluding non Jews,

then in my opinion they espouse an evil racist/religionist supremacist ideology. And I will continue to condemn that, because it is plain wrong. Or are you trying to tell me they dont believe that?

Just as you look back on the history of various countries in the 19th and 20th centuries you know in your heart that certain laws and attitudes to inequality and injustices were indisputably wrong. If it upsets the sensibilities of Zionists who say well Israel will not be Israel anymore, so be it. And of course a secular Israel aint going to happen for another 50 years at least anyway. They'd probably have to go through a 2 state process first.

I have no doubt that Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat were poles apart re Zionism when they made a peace deal. Who cares? The peace deal remains and it is better than war. I dont give a hoot about who (Zionists or not by my definition) negotiates any future Israeli Palestinian peace deal, so long as it is acceptable to both parties and works.

So while I aspire to the idealistic vision of people living together normally in a civilised democracy not caring about what religion their fellow citizens believe in (Well hello...that's how most people live in the western world!), you can concern yourself with the minutiae of how Israel might get there...of course depends on whether you actually want it to get there or remain an exclusively Jewish majority state at all costs however undemocratic.

“Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.” (Shakespeare)

As this is hardly the first time Zionism is brought up on these topics, my take on your position is not based on this topic alone. As far as I can recall, the claims made were usually general in nature, rather than personal definitions. As for your position not being radical - saying that your definition conforms to the that of Zionism's founders is akin to claims that Islam's teachings are precisely the same as the time of its founding. The same can be applied for most ideologies and religions - denying that they evolve over time, or that followers do not always live in complete accordance with original definitions and tenants is bogus.

I do not share the notion that Western Ideologies, sensibilities and social-political constructs can be directly applied anywhere. And as previously stated, I do not accept that such concepts can be strictly defined, or that their application always adheres to the relevant theories. In other words - no black and white in the real world. Considering that there are differences in application even among Western nations, it seems obvious that this IS a matter of degree and variation.

From an Western idealist point of view Israeli citizenship and immigration policies are problematical. From a more pragmatic point of view, grounded in reality, they represent an imperfect solution.

It ought to be pointed out again, that the demands to conform with these ideals are almost never consistently directed at other Middle Eastern countries (including the Palestinians). Treating Israel as a full pledged Western democracy gone wrong, rather than a fledgling democracy struggling with complex situations is just another tool for applying false premises on the situation. Relative to the West, Israel's got a long way to go, relative to the Middle East...perhaps not doing so bad.

Criticizing Zionism and Zionists, while glossing over or ignoring issues pertaining to ideological, political and religious thinking among one's "pet" side, does not lend much credibility to the arguments.

Social changes such as you describe took a long while to come about and were not, generally speaking, introduced by external pressure or handed top down. This refers to social changes which did not quickly end up in mayhem. For those wishing to dispute - review your own posts re Western intervention in the Middle East.

I do not think that anyone can meaningfully predict as far ahead. But if long term changes were to render the current concepts of Israel and Zionism as obsolete or irrelevant, that wouldn't be much on an issue. It is the attempts to prematurely bring about such changes that I reject. Especially when they are disconnected from realities and grounded in idealism.

Negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians are already difficult. Leaders on both side need to pander to public opinion, which is awash with demonization and vilification of the other side. People are not generally supportive of deals with the devil. Therefore, contributing to these perceptions is counter-constructive to any conflict resolution effort.

What you (claim to) aspire for got nothing to do with the reality of the Middle East. Simply copy pasting Western concepts with disregard to such realities is not a workable proposition, and will not be so for a long while (if ever). It is quite interesting that territorial and ideological compromises are demanded from sides, but that the underlying concepts of Western thought seem to be untouchable.

[Morch]

@Pakboong

But not hard to tell you're trying to derail the topic.

The funny part is where you link to a story originating from Sputnik.

Not to worry, sure another poster famed for his source policing prowess will come to denounce it.

Until then: http://www.businessinsider.com/george-friedman-russia-is-winning-the-internet-2016-4

[dexterm]

@Morch

I have stated my interpretation of Zionism previously I think as far back as sometime last year when you attempted the same nitpicking debate during the Israeli elections.

I have stated my position again in this thread very clearly several times already. If you want to create some other straw man definition to address, your problem not mine.

I think my definition of Zionism is extremely relevant because every injustice that Israel perpetrates against Palestinians stems directly from its aim to maintain a Jewish majority in a Jewish State.

The rest of your post is your usual filibuster that doesn't say anything new.

Of course substantial changes wont come quickly..I mentioned "decades" and "at least 50 years" which you seem to have ignored.

But what Biden is saying is that Israel better get moving quickly towards a 2 state solution, before it inherits an even bigger demographic problem, with a hint that the US may not always blindly veto any further moves towards Palestinian self determination.

Edited April 23, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

Anyway, Biden is in his closing days of his distinguished political career. So he won't have to worry about being frustrated by Bibi anymore. Maybe the relationship between the next president Hillary Clinton and the Israel PM can be less frustrating ... and with the Palestinian leadership, whatever that is, as well.

I think every future US president is liable to be frustrated, unless they can take on board the notion that foreign democracies are answerable to their own electorates and not to the views of foreign nations however well intentioned their advice is purported to be.

I wish Netanyahu would take on board your advice next time he addresses Congress and tries to undermine US foreign policy.

[Morch]

@Morch

I have stated my interpretation of Zionism previously I think as far back as sometime last year when you attempted the same nitpicking debate during the Israeli elections.

I have stated my position again in this thread very clearly several times already. If you want to create a some other straw man definition to address, your problem not mine.

I think my definition of zionism is extremely relevant because every injustice that Israel perpetrates against Palestinians stems directly from its aim to maintain a Jewish majority in a Jewish State.

The rest of your post is your usual filibuster that doesn't say anything new.

Of course substantial changes wont come quickly..I mentioned decades and at least 50 years which you seem to have ignored.

But what Biden is saying is that Israel better get moving quickly towards a 2 state solution, before it inherits an even bigger demographic problem, with a hint that the US may not always blindly veto any further moves towards Palestinian self determination.

Your definition is not much of an issue, even expected given your position. It is the implication that it represents a general agreed upon reality rather than a personal point of view. As this is used to discredit and reject any mainstream thinking on the opposing side, it seems like nothing but a tool to obstruct dialogue.

Given your position, apparently even a two-state solution is not satisfactory. The argument would simply be reapplied with reference to so-called Palestinian Right of Return. Even if this was to be an agreed upon solution, there would be no issues claiming the Palestinians hands were forced or that they were tricked into accepting (been there even on this topic). Hence, I guess, the "just peace" combo often used - makes it easier to invalidate any agreement by deciding it was not just at a later date.

The "nothing new" is simply the same issues which you cannot counter, or would rather not face. Calling it a "filibuster" is just a cop out.

[Jingthing]

As far as I'm concerned the Israel demonization agenda that can't accept the right of the Jewish people to have political self determination in IMMIGRATION policies in ISRAEL -- based on the thousands of years of the history of the Jewish people AND the specific location of Israel in the volatile Islamic majority MIDDLE EAST, a Jewish majority demographic AND (near) universal right of return for Jews are inflexible CORE VALUES -- is indeed a Jew hating, racist, extremely unreasonable and intolerant position. (Sorry run on sentence train wreck but you can get my meaning.)

To that racist agenda, it's as if the history didn't happen, it's as if Israel is in California not the middle east, it's as if the Jewish people have major numbers in the world, when in fact they are a TINY global minority. That's why I refuse to even directly engage with extremist Israel demonizers like that. There is no talking or reasoning with them, they just refuse to even consider the strong feeling of the vast majority of Jews in the word, only the narratives of people that demonize those majority of Jews has any value to them. They are radical anti-Jewish EXTREMISTS dedicated to the end of Israel, often OPENLY stated and at other times gingerly masked. They're irrationally and hatefully OBSESSED with the immigration policies of one small country, Israel, the "Jew" of countries way out of balance to their activism towards immigration policies of any other countries. The hatred is so obvious. The disdain towards what the Jewish people want is so obvious. It is a MENTAL SICKNESS.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

As far as I'm concerned the Israel demonization agenda that can't accept the right of the Jewish people to have political self determination in IMMIGRATION policies in ISRAEL -- based on the thousands of years of the history of the Jewish people AND the specific location of Israel in the volatile Islamic majority MIDDLE EAST, a Jewish majority demographic AND (near) universal right of return for Jews are inflexible CORE VALUES -- is indeed a Jew hating, racist, extremely unreasonable and intolerant position. (Sorry run on sentence train wreck but you can get my meaning.)

To that racist agenda, it's as if the history didn't happen, it's as if Israel is in California not the middle east, it's as if the Jewish people have major numbers in the world, when in fact they are a TINY global minority. That's why I refuse to even directly engage with extremist Israel demonizers like that. There is no talking or reasoning with them, they just refuse to even consider the strong feeling of the vast majority of Jews in the word, only the narratives of people that demonize those majority of Jews has any value to them. They are radical anti-Jewish EXTREMISTS dedicated to the end of Israel, often OPENLY stated and at other times gingerly masked. They're irrationally and hatefully OBSESSED with the immigration policies of one small country, Israel, the "Jew" of countries way out of balance to their activism towards immigration policies of any other countries. The hatred is so obvious. The disdain towards what the Jewish people want is so obvious. It is a MENTAL SICKNESS.

What about the strong feelings of the Palestinians who have been dispossessed by all these European Zionist immigrants? Are they just invisible people to you?

Despite Zionists' best efforts through ethnic cleansing and discriminatory immigration policies, these invisible Palestinians who also have very strong feelings of attachment to the homes, farms, and land taken without permission or compensation by Jewish immigrants, Palestinians are still the majority in historic Palestine. That is the growing demographic problem for Israel that it needs to address promptly. Biden can see these invisible Palestinians even if you can't.

You talk as if Jewish immigrants have the right to expel Palestinians from their homes. And the simple Palestinians and anyone who supports them are somehow deluded because we do not condone land theft and racism.

You use the euphemism "immigration laws" as though it were a matter of just getting the correct visa. There is no visa; in fact you get instant citizenship so long as you are Jewish and have never even set eyes on the place before. Whereas a Palestinian refugee born in present day Israel cannot even get a pass to visit his old home. He sometimes cannot even get a pass to go to the next town through numerous IDF checkpoints to visit a hospital.

Zionism is blatant racism/religionism. And it must end, as the Jewish state of Israel will one day become the secular state of Israel. It won't happen overnight. It will happen over decades by natural transmigrations when Israel repeals its racist Palestinian marriage laws forbidding Israeli Palestinians from marrying anyone outside Israel, supposedly under the guise of security. More discrimination.

Edited April 23, 2016 by dexterm

[Steely Dan]

The hatred is so obvious. The disdain towards what the Jewish people want is so obvious. It is a MENTAL SICKNESS.

You may find this of interest.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/10/30/could-strengthening-the-association-between-antisemitism-and-mental-illness-help-to-curb-it/

If the APA has the power to de-stigmatize human behavior by eliminating supposed disorders, might it have the power to stigmatize and shun other behavior by adding previously unlisted ones?

APA being American Psychiatric Association.

[dexterm]

@Morch

I have stated my interpretation of Zionism previously I think as far back as sometime last year when you attempted the same nitpicking debate during the Israeli elections.

I have stated my position again in this thread very clearly several times already. If you want to create a some other straw man definition to address, your problem not mine.

I think my definition of zionism is extremely relevant because every injustice that Israel perpetrates against Palestinians stems directly from its aim to maintain a Jewish majority in a Jewish State.

The rest of your post is your usual filibuster that doesn't say anything new.

Of course substantial changes wont come quickly..I mentioned decades and at least 50 years which you seem to have ignored.

But what Biden is saying is that Israel better get moving quickly towards a 2 state solution, before it inherits an even bigger demographic problem, with a hint that the US may not always blindly veto any further moves towards Palestinian self determination.

Your definition is not much of an issue, even expected given your position. It is the implication that it represents a general agreed upon reality rather than a personal point of view. As this is used to discredit and reject any mainstream thinking on the opposing side, it seems like nothing but a tool to obstruct dialogue.

Given your position, apparently even a two-state solution is not satisfactory. The argument would simply be reapplied with reference to so-called Palestinian Right of Return. Even if this was to be an agreed upon solution, there would be no issues claiming the Palestinians hands were forced or that they were tricked into accepting (been there even on this topic). Hence, I guess, the "just peace" combo often used - makes it easier to invalidate any agreement by deciding it was not just at a later date.

The "nothing new" is simply the same issues which you cannot counter, or would rather not face. Calling it a "filibuster" is just a cop out.

OK, you tell me any of the mainstream thinkers on the other side who would agree with 1) Israel not being a Jewish majority State 2) global Jewry not having a right of return.

If you cannot think of any, then QED; they are all Zionists that fit my definition, the definition of Zionisms' founding fathers, and the definition of some learned writers in the earlier Haaretz article I quoted.

If they adhere to any other brand of Zionism (this mysterious "generally agreed upon reality"..yet it's so generally agreed that you still haven't elucidated it), so be it. I am telling you what I and many others find objectionable about the supremacist Zionism followed by most if not all of both sides of Israeli politics. I am not on the Palestinian peace negotiating team so my opinion is an obstacle to nothing. My main motivation is to draw attention to Israel's mistreatment and repression of Palestinians.

A just two state solution as Biden, the whole US administration and the EU support would be satisfactory I believe to most Palestinians. Basically they have said they will accept land swaps, compensation in lieu of the right of return, and a capital in E Jerusalem. I believe it would be a stepping stone to an eventual one state confederation probably decades away.

[Morch]

@Morch

I have stated my interpretation of Zionism previously I think as far back as sometime last year when you attempted the same nitpicking debate during the Israeli elections.

I have stated my position again in this thread very clearly several times already. If you want to create a some other straw man definition to address, your problem not mine.

I think my definition of zionism is extremely relevant because every injustice that Israel perpetrates against Palestinians stems directly from its aim to maintain a Jewish majority in a Jewish State.

The rest of your post is your usual filibuster that doesn't say anything new.

Of course substantial changes wont come quickly..I mentioned decades and at least 50 years which you seem to have ignored.

But what Biden is saying is that Israel better get moving quickly towards a 2 state solution, before it inherits an even bigger demographic problem, with a hint that the US may not always blindly veto any further moves towards Palestinian self determination.

Your definition is not much of an issue, even expected given your position. It is the implication that it represents a general agreed upon reality rather than a personal point of view. As this is used to discredit and reject any mainstream thinking on the opposing side, it seems like nothing but a tool to obstruct dialogue.

Given your position, apparently even a two-state solution is not satisfactory. The argument would simply be reapplied with reference to so-called Palestinian Right of Return. Even if this was to be an agreed upon solution, there would be no issues claiming the Palestinians hands were forced or that they were tricked into accepting (been there even on this topic). Hence, I guess, the "just peace" combo often used - makes it easier to invalidate any agreement by deciding it was not just at a later date.

The "nothing new" is simply the same issues which you cannot counter, or would rather not face. Calling it a "filibuster" is just a cop out.

OK, you tell me any of the mainstream thinkers on the other side who would agree with 1) Israel not being a Jewish majority State 2) global Jewry not having a right of return.

If you cannot think of any, then QED; they are all Zionists that fit my definition, the definition of Zionisms' founding fathers, and the definition of some learned writers in the earlier Haaretz article I quoted.

If they adhere to any other brand of Zionism (this mysterious "generally agreed upon reality"..yet it's so generally agreed that you still haven't elucidated it), so be it. I am telling you what I and many others find objectionable about the supremacist Zionism followed by most if not all of both sides of Israeli politics. I am not on the Palestinian peace negotiating team so my opinion is an obstacle to nothing. My main motivation is to draw attention to Israel's mistreatment and repression of Palestinians.

A just two state solution as Biden, the whole US administration and the EU support would be satisfactory I believe to most Palestinians. Basically they have said they will accept land swaps, compensation in lieu of the right of return, and a capital in E Jerusalem. I believe it would be a stepping stone to an eventual one state confederation probably decades away.

There are quite a few Zionists who do not feel that the ideology needs to be taken to extremes or to the fullest extent of some interpretations. If this was not the case, and all would be aligned with your narrow notion of Zionism - there would probably be no Palestinian Authority and less Palestinians in general. The whole two state thing wouldn't even be discussed. As this is not the case - there are obviously different shades of Zionism.

At the beginning of your post you denounce Zionists for wishing to preserve Israel's Jewish majority, and yet later on claim that a two state solution will be acceptable. Allow me to not place a whole lot of trust in this contradictory formulation - sounds like the tirade will just go off again, and will not cease until the goal of eradicating Israel (as opposed to an imaginary Israel that is not quite Israel) will be achieved.

I never claimed Zionism to be a prefect ideology, as indicated earlier. It is mainly an imperfect solution and to a large extent it manifested itself at the expense of the Palestinians. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the Palestinian grievances are real and that they need to be addressed. It is also clear that this cannot be done by scraping Israel or to the full extent you seem to expect.

Zionism sure got its flaws, but it also serves a purpose. The creation of Israel as a home for the Jewish people. There is no way to achieve that without certain restrictions which contradict modern Western sensibilities. Your position seems to be that therefore Zionism and Israel as a home for the Jewish people should be dropped. My position is that the world can live with some anomalies (especially of the social-political kind) as long as their reach is limited. If, in time, these issues will cease to be issues on their own accord, that's fine. Until then, making whatever realistic amends to the Palestinians, while Israel keeps it's policies is the way to go.

You are, indeed, not on the Palestinian negotiation team (lucky for them), but public opinion is shaped outside of the negotiation room. Every inflammatory line adds a little to the difficulty of overcoming barriers between sides and changing public sentiment. In that regard, your rhetoric is a hindrance to conflict solution.

Palestinian public opinion, by the way, is hardly as supportive and accommodating of an agreement as you present. What you posted might have been a position expressed at one time or another by Palestinian leadership, but it hardly means that the public mandate to go ahead exists. That's part of the illusions often evident in your posts. To be sure, things are pretty similar on the Israeli side.

To clarify "It is the implication that it represents a general agreed upon reality rather than a personal point of view" - you claim your definition is a personal one, and yet implied (more so on previous topics) that it is a generally accepted conception of Zionism which conform to reality. Seems like it was misunderstood. I do understand it is hard for some to conceive of people wishing to keep their communities distinct, rather than go for Western multiculturalism. That does not have to go hand in hand with the negative descriptions employed. The same applies for the Palestinians as well, by the way.

[dexterm]

@Morch

I have stated my interpretation of Zionism previously I think as far back as sometime last year when you attempted the same nitpicking debate during the Israeli elections.

I have stated my position again in this thread very clearly several times already. If you want to create a some other straw man definition to address, your problem not mine.

I think my definition of zionism is extremely relevant because every injustice that Israel perpetrates against Palestinians stems directly from its aim to maintain a Jewish majority in a Jewish State.

The rest of your post is your usual filibuster that doesn't say anything new.

Of course substantial changes wont come quickly..I mentioned decades and at least 50 years which you seem to have ignored.

But what Biden is saying is that Israel better get moving quickly towards a 2 state solution, before it inherits an even bigger demographic problem, with a hint that the US may not always blindly veto any further moves towards Palestinian self determination.

Your definition is not much of an issue, even expected given your position. It is the implication that it represents a general agreed upon reality rather than a personal point of view. As this is used to discredit and reject any mainstream thinking on the opposing side, it seems like nothing but a tool to obstruct dialogue.

Given your position, apparently even a two-state solution is not satisfactory. The argument would simply be reapplied with reference to so-called Palestinian Right of Return. Even if this was to be an agreed upon solution, there would be no issues claiming the Palestinians hands were forced or that they were tricked into accepting (been there even on this topic). Hence, I guess, the "just peace" combo often used - makes it easier to invalidate any agreement by deciding it was not just at a later date.

The "nothing new" is simply the same issues which you cannot counter, or would rather not face. Calling it a "filibuster" is just a cop out.

OK, you tell me any of the mainstream thinkers on the other side who would agree with 1) Israel not being a Jewish majority State 2) global Jewry not having a right of return.

If you cannot think of any, then QED; they are all Zionists that fit my definition, the definition of Zionisms' founding fathers, and the definition of some learned writers in the earlier Haaretz article I quoted.

If they adhere to any other brand of Zionism (this mysterious "generally agreed upon reality"..yet it's so generally agreed that you still haven't elucidated it), so be it. I am telling you what I and many others find objectionable about the supremacist Zionism followed by most if not all of both sides of Israeli politics. I am not on the Palestinian peace negotiating team so my opinion is an obstacle to nothing. My main motivation is to draw attention to Israel's mistreatment and repression of Palestinians.

A just two state solution as Biden, the whole US administration and the EU support would be satisfactory I believe to most Palestinians. Basically they have said they will accept land swaps, compensation in lieu of the right of return, and a capital in E Jerusalem. I believe it would be a stepping stone to an eventual one state confederation probably decades away.

There are quite a few Zionists who do not feel that the ideology needs to be taken to extremes or to the fullest extent of some interpretations. If this was not the case, and all would be aligned with your narrow notion of Zionism - there would probably be no Palestinian Authority and less Palestinians in general. The whole two state thing wouldn't even be discussed. As this is not the case - there are obviously different shades of Zionism.

At the beginning of your post you denounce Zionists for wishing to preserve Israel's Jewish majority, and yet later on claim that a two state solution will be acceptable. Allow me to not place a whole lot of trust in this contradictory formulation - sounds like the tirade will just go off again, and will not cease until the goal of eradicating Israel (as opposed to an imaginary Israel that is not quite Israel) will be achieved.

I never claimed Zionism to be a prefect ideology, as indicated earlier. It is mainly an imperfect solution and to a large extent it manifested itself at the expense of the Palestinians. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the Palestinian grievances are real and that they need to be addressed. It is also clear that this cannot be done by scraping Israel or to the full extent you seem to expect.

Zionism sure got its flaws, but it also serves a purpose. The creation of Israel as a home for the Jewish people. There is no way to achieve that without certain restrictions which contradict modern Western sensibilities. Your position seems to be that therefore Zionism and Israel as a home for the Jewish people should be dropped. My position is that the world can live with some anomalies (especially of the social-political kind) as long as their reach is limited. If, in time, these issues will cease to be issues on their own accord, that's fine. Until then, making whatever realistic amends to the Palestinians, while Israel keeps it's policies is the way to go.

You are, indeed, not on the Palestinian negotiation team (lucky for them), but public opinion is shaped outside of the negotiation room. Every inflammatory line adds a little to the difficulty of overcoming barriers between sides and changing public sentiment. In that regard, your rhetoric is a hindrance to conflict solution.

Palestinian public opinion, by the way, is hardly as supportive and accommodating of an agreement as you present. What you posted might have been a position expressed at one time or another by Palestinian leadership, but it hardly means that the public mandate to go ahead exists. That's part of the illusions often evident in your posts. To be sure, things are pretty similar on the Israeli side.

To clarify "It is the implication that it represents a general agreed upon reality rather than a personal point of view" - you claim your definition is a personal one, and yet implied (more so on previous topics) that it is a generally accepted conception of Zionism which conform to reality. Seems like it was misunderstood. I do understand it is hard for some to conceive of people wishing to keep their communities distinct, rather than go for Western multiculturalism. That does not have to go hand in hand with the negative descriptions employed. The same applies for the Palestinians as well, by the way.

You keep bandying about the term Zionism but have so far failed to tell us what you mean by that, but are more than willing to criticize others' usage. Smacks of hypocrisy.

Whereas I have defined exactly what I and many others mean by Zionism, and have challenged you to tell me the names of any of the mainline Israeli thinkers and politicians who would disagree with it. You have failed to do so. My definition sounds pretty much "generally agreed upon."

So please stop carping when I use the term Zionist. I have made it as plain as day what I mean.

>>There are quite a few Zionists who do not feel that the ideology needs to be taken to extremes or to the fullest extent of some interpretations.

The reality is that it is has been and is taken to extremes and they do interpret it thus, because none of them disagrees with a majority Jewish State nor the automatic exclusively Jewish right of return. I presume so, because you can't tell me any who don't.

True, to maintain a Jewish majority state Zionists will go to different extremes. Some in the current Israeli cabinet would like a further round of ethnic cleansing, and many Israelis have no qualms about keeping a voting majority by denying Palestinians the vote (apartheid). Some in the Zionist Union would prefer a separation of the peoples. If its done formally in a peace agreement it will work. If it's just de facto separation by building more fences, restricting movements while expanding Zionist West Bank colonies, the conflict will fester, and Israel wont get international recognition for that band aid solution anyway. But one thing they and you all Zionists agree upon is a Jewish majority state, exactly as I said.

If as you suggest Palestinians and Israelis are cooling to the idea of a two state solution, then Biden is spot on with his warning. As I have previously said: Israel is sleepwalking its way into a de facto one state (its there already), with all the problems associated with that in the present climate, exacerbated every day by the increasing demographic imbalance. As usual,in politics, it may get darker before it gets better, and it may be a case of too little too late.

My motivation is Google Images: Palestinian children dead. When I see that I want to stop the monsters who caused these atrocities and those who support them. If in any way I can bring pressure to bear to prevent this obscenity and end this injustice by shaming Israel, I will. The international and social media are becoming ever more powerful, and people power elects politicians.

I have suggested peace scenarios, but I have no power to make any of them happen. It's up to the politicians such as Biden, and the next incumbent, and the EU to bang heads together and pressure for a peaceful resolution to this 100 year old conflict.

Edited April 23, 2016 by dexterm

[Scott]

The next person that brings up Zionism will be given a suspension. The topic is about the Vice Presidents remarks. Stay on topic or receiving a suspension. The trolling will stop now.

You have been warned.

[Morch]

Back on topic:

Biden's comments regarding the issues with the Israeli government's policies are quite spot on. I do not think that there are many realistic observers who would reach different very different conclusions from available figures. In that sense, Biden's speech novelty is not due to content (similar views are expressed regularly even by Israelis), venue (that many American Jews do not fully support all Israeli policies is no secret), but more to do with the seniority of the speaker and his traditional support of Israel.

Politicians rarely spontaneously vent in public, so while I'm sure the criticism and frustration expressed are real enough, the timing and venue may be seen as somewhat contrived. If a similar speech was given during Biden's recent visit to Israel, or while addressing AIPAC, it would have carried far greater significance. The choice of venue seems to be either an attempt to avoid a head on confrontation, and/or could be related to the ongoing primaries. J Street is more of a Sanders crowd, and bearing in mind Sanders' latest expressed views on the conflict, Biden's speech may have been just another piece of politicking.

Now, while some posters are quick to appropriate Biden's speech as fully conforming to their own views, this can hardly be achieved without ignoring the balanced nature of the address. As it also incorporates criticism directed at the Palestinians and acknowledges the existence of Israeli views differing from government policies. Attempting to make Biden's speech into a one-sided condemnation of Israel is misleading, dishonest and pretty much a reflection of some issues criticized in the speech.

""There is at the moment no political will that I observed from either Israelis or Palestinians to go forward with serious negotiations," Biden said."

And yet, some continue to spread the illusion that this unwillingness is one-sided, and would have international pressure applied only toward one of the sides. Never mind the obvious double standard, but seems like there is little regard for the very realistic negative consequences of such pressure. Those advocating actions leading to further hardship, suffering and prolonging of the conflict rarely stand the risk of facing any related adversity. In their minds, they are fighting the good fight, and are not overly bothered it being a rather starker reality for others. Those who believe the only answer being external pressure directed at one of the sides, seem to forget that agreements founded on coercion might not carry the best results. As per the usual double standard often displayed this is an argument often brought up as justification for various Palestinian actions.

The way forward will not be made easier by continuous inflammatory demonization from both sides. Rather than denouncement, more energy ought to be directed at building bridges between communities, or barring that, finding realistic ways to decrease friction. These propositions may not be as self gratifying as righteous indignation but are definitely more constructive in promoting the chances of peaceful resolution. Hate-mongering will simply beget more hate.

[dexterm]

Biden is probably obliged to balance his speech when he criticizes Israel to appease the other great lobby group AIPAC. What is interesting is that the US is breaking its taboo about showing its disenchantment with Israel in any form at all, especially in an election year. Maybe the writing is on the wall.

Interesting article on the OP in the Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/finally-israel-and-palestine-is-a-us-election-issue-the-last-taboo-is-not-broken-but-it-s-a6994156.html

Edited April 24, 2016 by dexterm

[Jingthing]

Back on topic:

Biden's comments regarding the issues with the Israeli government's policies are quite spot on. I do not think that there are many realistic observers who would reach different very different conclusions from available figures. In that sense, Biden's speech novelty is not due to content (similar views are expressed regularly even by Israelis), venue (that many American Jews do not fully support all Israeli policies is no secret), but more to do with the seniority of the speaker and his traditional support of Israel.

Politicians rarely spontaneously vent in public, so while I'm sure the criticism and frustration expressed are real enough, the timing and venue may be seen as somewhat contrived. If a similar speech was given during Biden's recent visit to Israel, or while addressing AIPAC, it would have carried far greater significance. The choice of venue seems to be either an attempt to avoid a head on confrontation, and/or could be related to the ongoing primaries. J Street is more of a Sanders crowd, and bearing in mind Sanders' latest expressed views on the conflict, Biden's speech may have been just another piece of politicking.

Now, while some posters are quick to appropriate Biden's speech as fully conforming to their own views, this can hardly be achieved without ignoring the balanced nature of the address. As it also incorporates criticism directed at the Palestinians and acknowledges the existence of Israeli views differing from government policies. Attempting to make Biden's speech into a one-sided condemnation of Israel is misleading, dishonest and pretty much a reflection of some issues criticized in the speech.

""There is at the moment no political will that I observed from either Israelis or Palestinians to go forward with serious negotiations," Biden said."

And yet, some continue to spread the illusion that this unwillingness is one-sided, and would have international pressure applied only toward one of the sides. Never mind the obvious double standard, but seems like there is little regard for the very realistic negative consequences of such pressure. Those advocating actions leading to further hardship, suffering and prolonging of the conflict rarely stand the risk of facing any related adversity. In their minds, they are fighting the good fight, and are not overly bothered it being a rather starker reality for others. Those who believe the only answer being external pressure directed at one of the sides, seem to forget that agreements founded on coercion might not carry the best results. As per the usual double standard often displayed this is an argument often brought up as justification for various Palestinian actions.

The way forward will not be made easier by continuous inflammatory demonization from both sides. Rather than denouncement, more energy ought to be directed at building bridges between communities, or barring that, finding realistic ways to decrease friction. These propositions may not be as self gratifying as righteous indignation but are definitely more constructive in promoting the chances of peaceful resolution. Hate-mongering will simply beget more hate.

As I've said I don't see much wrong with what Biden said, but I do think the implied "threat" Israel will stop being Israel just based on Arab demographics is a leftist SCARE tactic, and not actually real. Sure that would happen if Israel made all Arabs in West Bank and Gaza Israeli citizens, but that suggests they would ever consider doing that. Doing that would be national suicide. I don't see the Israelis committing national suicide. In other words, I think Israel will continue to do what they need to remain a majority Jewish demographic state and that Israel will continue to be successful doing that, because that is not negotiable and a vital CORE value of why Israel exists in the first place. You can't have a homeland for the Jewish people if the majority of people in that nation state are not Jews. That is basic and obvious.

You don't seem to have addressed that. Do you actually take that leftist scare tactic narrative seriously?

Sure, it's possible Israel could lose it all in a WAR, but the leftist demographic scare tactic narrative suggests Israel would ever WILLINGLY give it up.

I don't believe that.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

Biden is probably obliged to balance his speech when he criticizes Israel to appease the other great lobby group AIPAC. What is interesting is that the US is breaking its taboo about showing its disenchantment with Israel in any form at all, especially in an election year. Maybe the writing is on the wall.

Interesting article on the OP in the Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/finally-israel-and-palestine-is-a-us-election-issue-the-last-taboo-is-not-broken-but-it-s-a6994156.html

Must be my eyesight but could swear that the headline in the linked article says "is not broken".

Fisk is blowing a whole lot of interpretation into nothing on the scale alluded to. Bottom line this is election time, when illusions and promises are thrown about. I doubt that the next president would feel committed or that a major shift in USA policy is in the cards. The attitudes Fisk refers to got more to do with demographic changes pertaining to the USA electorate, and it would still be some time before their effects could be assessed.

There is no basis for assuming Biden was "obliged" to balance his speech. He is, for sure, critical of and frustrated by the Israeli government's policies, but hardly on board with the all of the ideas and tone expressed in your posts. Most likely, he was sent to play J Street, while HRC worked AIPAC.

[up-country_sinclair]

As I've said I don't see much wrong with what Biden said, but I do think the implied "threat" Israel will stop being Israel just based on Arab demographics is a leftist SCARE tactic, and not actually real. Sure that would happen if Israel made all Arabs in West Bank and Gaza Israeli citizens, but that suggests they would ever consider doing that. Doing that would be national suicide. I don't see the Israelis committing national suicide. In other words, I think Israel will continue to do what they need to remain a majority Jewish demographic state and that Israel will continue to be successful doing that, because that is not negotiable and a vital CORE value of why Israel exists in the first place. You can't have a homeland for the Jewish people if the majority of people in that nation state are not Jews. That is basic and obvious.

What Vice President Biden was saying is that Israel has a choice coming up in the very near future: it can be a Jewish state or it can be a democracy. The demographics won't allow for both to be true.

That is basic and obvious.

[Morch]

Back on topic:

Biden's comments regarding the issues with the Israeli government's policies are quite spot on. I do not think that there are many realistic observers who would reach different very different conclusions from available figures. In that sense, Biden's speech novelty is not due to content (similar views are expressed regularly even by Israelis), venue (that many American Jews do not fully support all Israeli policies is no secret), but more to do with the seniority of the speaker and his traditional support of Israel.

Politicians rarely spontaneously vent in public, so while I'm sure the criticism and frustration expressed are real enough, the timing and venue may be seen as somewhat contrived. If a similar speech was given during Biden's recent visit to Israel, or while addressing AIPAC, it would have carried far greater significance. The choice of venue seems to be either an attempt to avoid a head on confrontation, and/or could be related to the ongoing primaries. J Street is more of a Sanders crowd, and bearing in mind Sanders' latest expressed views on the conflict, Biden's speech may have been just another piece of politicking.

Now, while some posters are quick to appropriate Biden's speech as fully conforming to their own views, this can hardly be achieved without ignoring the balanced nature of the address. As it also incorporates criticism directed at the Palestinians and acknowledges the existence of Israeli views differing from government policies. Attempting to make Biden's speech into a one-sided condemnation of Israel is misleading, dishonest and pretty much a reflection of some issues criticized in the speech.

""There is at the moment no political will that I observed from either Israelis or Palestinians to go forward with serious negotiations," Biden said."

And yet, some continue to spread the illusion that this unwillingness is one-sided, and would have international pressure applied only toward one of the sides. Never mind the obvious double standard, but seems like there is little regard for the very realistic negative consequences of such pressure. Those advocating actions leading to further hardship, suffering and prolonging of the conflict rarely stand the risk of facing any related adversity. In their minds, they are fighting the good fight, and are not overly bothered it being a rather starker reality for others. Those who believe the only answer being external pressure directed at one of the sides, seem to forget that agreements founded on coercion might not carry the best results. As per the usual double standard often displayed this is an argument often brought up as justification for various Palestinian actions.

The way forward will not be made easier by continuous inflammatory demonization from both sides. Rather than denouncement, more energy ought to be directed at building bridges between communities, or barring that, finding realistic ways to decrease friction. These propositions may not be as self gratifying as righteous indignation but are definitely more constructive in promoting the chances of peaceful resolution. Hate-mongering will simply beget more hate.

As I've said I don't see much wrong with what Biden said, but I do think the implied "threat" Israel will stop being Israel just based on Arab demographics is a leftist SCARE tactic, and not actually real. Sure that would happen if Israel made all Arabs in West Bank and Gaza Israeli citizens, but that suggests they would ever consider doing that. Doing that would be national suicide. I don't see the Israelis committing national suicide. In other words, I think Israel will continue to do what they need to remain a majority Jewish demographic state and that Israel will continue to be successful doing that, because that is not negotiable and a vital CORE value of why Israel exists in the first place. You can't have a homeland for the Jewish people if the majority of people in that nation state are not Jews. That is basic and obvious.

You don't seem to have addressed that. Do you actually take that leftist scare tactic narrative seriously?

Sure, it's possible Israel could lose it all in a WAR, but the leftist demographic scare tactic narrative suggests Israel would ever WILLINGLY give it up.

I don't believe that.

Not sure which of the scenarios relating to demographics is considered "leftist scare tactic".

Israel cannot annex the West Bank (and the Gaza Strip) while hoping to maintain a Jewish Majority. Nor can it realistically (not to mention morally) annex the same without granting the Palestinians voting rights. Maintaining current policies simply amounts to delaying taking inevitable decisions - and makes them much harder to apply.

Given a two-state solution, and barring an implementation of an expanded version of the so-called Palestinian Right of Return - Israel would be much better poised to maintain its Jewish majority. Of course, under all of these scenarios, there are internal demographics trends which may change the character of Israel even without "help" from Palestinian demographics.

With regard to demographics pertaining to Arab citizens of Israel, the effect changes between scenarios. More pronounced in case of annexation and/or maintaining current policies, diminished under a two-state solution.

As for how realistic such scenarios are....it's the Middle East.

There was an idea floated by Naftali Bennett, which included partial annexation (more details here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naftali_Bennett#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict ), but it didn't quite get the reaction he expected. Generally speaking, though, annexation of the West Bank (and more so, the Gaza Strip) is not really on the Israeli agenda, other than some fringe right groups.

That said, and as mentioned in Biden's speech, there is nothing much by way of moving things along. This could be attributed to ideological and religious beliefs, political survival considerations, and issues relating to the Palestinian side. Pretty much exemplifies that leadership crisis often mentioned in my posts. It does seem incredible, but yeah....its not that they are not aware, same figures available all around. The Israeli opposition is, for the most part, pretty straightforward and occasionally vocal on this issue, but being tainted as "leftist" its pretty easy for the coalition to disregard and discredit.