Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

by Guest Sat May 06, 2017 9:38 am

The interviewer, Dena Takruri, challenged Sanders for joining every other U.S. senator last month in signing a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urging him to remedy the body’s “anti-Israel agenda.”
Takruri asked why Sanders was “effectively trying to shield [Israel] from criticism.” Sanders interrupted, “No, no, no, no, no, I don’t accept that,” saying “there are many problems with Israel” and he would continue to “be critical of a lot of what Israel does.”

“On the other hand, to see Israel attacked over and over again for human rights violations which may be true, when you have countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria, Saudi Arabia – I’m not quite sure if a woman can even drive a car today,” Sanders said.

“So I think the thrust of that letter is not to say that Israel does not have human rights issues — it does — but to say how come it’s only Israel when you have other countries where women are treated as third-class citizens, where in Egypt, I don’t know how many thousands of people now lingering in jail, so that’s the point of that, not to defend Israel but to say why only Israel, you want to talk about human rights, let’s talk about human rights,” he said.

Asked by Takruri whether he “respected” BDS as a legitimate nonviolent protest movement, Sanders said, “No, I don’t.” The senator suggested in his reply that the tactic was counterproductive as a means of bringing the sides to peace talks.

“People will do what they want to do, but I think our job as a nation is to do everything humanly possible to bring Israel and the Palestinians and the entire Middle East to the degree that we can together, but no, I’m not a supporter of that,” he said.

“What must be done is that the United States of America is to have a Middle East policy which is even-handed, which does not simply supply endless amounts of money, of military support to Israel, but which treats both sides with respect and dignity and does our best to bring them to the table.”

Sanders also rejected Takruri’s assertion that the two-state solution is almost dead and said he would not embrace a one-state solution.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/why-bernie-sanders-defending-israel-on-al-jazeera-is-a-big-deal/

Video on link and about time this was said.

Good on Bernie for pointing out how ridiculously biased the UN is

by Original Quill Sat May 06, 2017 4:32 pm

Bernie Sanders wrote:“On the other hand, to see Israel attacked over and over again for human rights violations which may be true, when you have countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria, Saudi Arabia – I’m not quite sure if a woman can even drive a car today,” Sanders said.

“So I think the thrust of that letter is not to say that Israel does not have human rights issues — it does — but to say how come it’s only Israel…

What Sanders is saying is that Israel is a violator of human rights, lining up right alongside of Saudi Arabia and Syria. The real import of his logic is not that we should lessen the criticism of human rights violators, but that we should increase the criticism of others, notably Saudi Arabia and Syria. I can agree with him on that.

But his message goes astray when he tries to fit his logic in to a prescription:

Bernie Sanders wrote:“People will do what they want to do, but I think our job as a nation is to do everything humanly possible to bring Israel and the Palestinians and the entire Middle East to the degree that we can together...

This begs the question: How? Israel is opposed to peace in the middle east. It is involved in a massive land grab. It wants lebensraum, not peace. I would say that Sanders is not out of touch with America, but America is out of touch with Israel. Israel is using the massive amounts of money and support it receives from America, not for peace, but for lebensraum.

That's the point that Saunders misses...and the fact that his mind engages in such logic creep is a substantial reason why I couldn't support him.

by Guest Sat May 06, 2017 4:42 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Bernie Sanders wrote:“On the other hand, to see Israel attacked over and over again for human rights violations which may be true, when you have countries like Saudi Arabia or Syria, Saudi Arabia – I’m not quite sure if a woman can even drive a car today,” Sanders said.

“So I think the thrust of that letter is not to say that Israel does not have human rights issues — it does — but to say how come it’s only Israel…

What Sanders is saying is that Israel is a violator of human rights, lining up right alongside of Saudi Arabia and Syria. The real import of his logic is not that we should lessen the criticism of human rights violators, but that we should increase the criticism of others, notably Saudi Arabia and Syria. I can agree with him on that.

But his message goes astray when he tries to fit his logic in to a prescription:

Bernie Sanders wrote:“People will do what they want to do, but I think our job as a nation is to do everything humanly possible to bring Israel and the Palestinians and the entire Middle East to the degree that we can together...

This begs the question: How? Israel is opposed to peace in the middle east. It is involved in a massive land grab. It wants lebensraum, not peace. I would say that Sanders is not out of touch with America, but America is out of touch with Israel. Israel is using the massive amounts of money and support it receives from America, not for peace, but for lebensraum.

That's the point that Saunders misses...and the fact that his mind engages in such logic creep is a substantial reason why I couldn't support him.

1) That is not what he said and you clearly did not watch the video. He said Israel does commit human rights but never made this comparable to Saudi, as women have rights in Israel. What he said is there is far worse human rights abusers. He said Israel commits human rights abuses, but is constantly picked on whilst others get awy with human rights abuses

2) You really bore me with your claim of lebensraum. So answer me this?
Why has Israel given up land for peace to Egypt Quill? Again as I have said the Lukid party is something I do not support, but you ignore the fact that Fatah pays terrorists that murder Israeli's and refuse to accept the existence of Israel?

3) If Settlements are an obstacle to peace. Then this claim is based on ethnic ceasing and that no future Palestinian state can have Jews live there, that it has to be judenrein.

4) So do you support a future Palestinian state that is judenrein?

5) Do you back the right of Israel to exist?

6) The charge you make on lebensraum would make America the greatest champion of this in history.

7) So again we see you only centre on Israel, what about the Palestinian authorities wrongs here?

Or do they not matter?

by Guest Sat May 06, 2017 4:49 pm

On May 16th, 1948 – two days after Ben Gurion declared the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel – the New York Times ran a piece on the Jewish and Arab populations in the land. And as usual, it is a fascinating look back at the past, from which we can learn a lot.

Note in particular:

The area now known as the “West Bank” being referred to by its real name – Judea and Samaria
Contrary to the prevailing narrative peddled by the haters, Jews bought Arab land – and the Arabs were more than happy to sell it to them, given the land was arid
Mention of the Arabs having been in the land for 1,300 years – an acknowledgement they came with the Islamic conquest of the area in the 7th century (and not earlier as they claim)
Mention of Arabs here rejecting the term “Palestinian Arab”, instead seeing themselves as part of ancient Syria
How the Jews increased the standard of living for the Arabs, but this only increased anti-Zionist sentiment (believe it or not)

Note: I cannot provide a link to the full article since it is only available to those who have purchased a NY Times subscription. But I have provided screenshots below. As usual, click on the screenshots to enlarge.

Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal Times1-690x399

Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal Times2-690x399

Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal Times3

Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal Times4

Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal Times5a

Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal Times6

Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal Times7

Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal Times8

http://www.israellycool.com/2017/05/04/know-your-history-the-jewish-and-arab-populations-in-the-holy-land-ny-times-may-16-1948/

by Original Quill Sat May 06, 2017 4:57 pm

Thorin wrote:So answer me this?
Why has Israel given up land for peace to Egypt Quill?

Because it got caught. Egypt has better support.

You win some, you lose some. That's the game that Israel is playing. A lot of it has to do with who backs them, and against whom. Ask yourself, why hasn't Israel give up the Golan Heights?

by Guest Sat May 06, 2017 5:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:So answer me this?
Why has Israel given up land for peace to Egypt Quill?

Because it got caught. Egypt has better support.

You win some, you lose some. That's the game that Israel is playing. A lot of it has to do with who backs them, and against whom. Ask yourself, why hasn't Israel give up the Golan Heights?

So you bailed out of answering most of my questions

Hey ho

I guess the debate is over then, when its clear they would leave you in a difficult position.

As to the Golan heights, ask the people who live there through self determination.

Would you not agree?

by Original Quill Sat May 06, 2017 5:11 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Because it got caught. Egypt has better support.

You win some, you lose some. That's the game that Israel is playing. A lot of it has to do with who backs them, and against whom. Ask yourself, why hasn't Israel give up the Golan Heights?

So you bailed out of answering most of my questions

Hey ho

I guess the debate is over then, when its clear they would leave you in a difficult position.

Well, your other points are not relevant. I can see where they are headed, and it's the standard paste that bogs down these arguments. Why waste everyone's time? Why not use my better reasoning to get to the point?

Thorin wrote:As to the Golan heights, ask the people who live there through self determination.

Would you not agree?

Yes, under non-Israeli auspices. Why rig the deck? Get Israel out of there, then arrange an international body to ask the relevant question.

by Guest Sat May 06, 2017 5:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So you bailed out of answering most of my questions

Hey ho

I guess the debate is over then, when its clear they would leave you in a difficult position.

Well, your other points are not relevant. I can see whee they are headed, and it's the standard paste that bogs down these arguments. Why not use my better talents to get to the point?

Thorin wrote:As to the Golan heights, ask the people who live there through self determination.

Would you not agree?

Yes, under non-Israeli auspices. Why rig the deck? Get Israel out of there, then arrange an international body to ask the relevant question.

1) Really? So a Palestinian state that is judenrein to you is not relevant, yet you claim its lebensraum for Jews to settle and live in their ancestral lands?

Well that is a new copout I must say

2) You are saying that ther Palestinian authorities in Hamas and fatah have no responsibility here and that they never have to accept the right of Israel to exist?

Or that paying terrorists salaries is okay to you for murdering Jews? Even though they do not pay Palestinians that rape and murder other Palestinians?
Kind of like Serbia never accepting Bosnia or Hitler never accepting Poland's right to exist?

Or teaching a curriculum to teach the denial of existence of Israel is okay to you?

3) So again do you back the right of Israel to exist? As its about as important as it gets on the subject?:

4) So based on your view of the Golan heights, the deck is rigged in California, as we need to get the US out of there shall we?

Are you going to give up your home there Quill?

by Original Quill Sat May 06, 2017 5:23 pm

I've made my point. I've got other threads to visit.

by Guest Sat May 06, 2017 5:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:I've made my point. I've got other threads to visit.

Well like the Tommy claim on Nazism being Far left, I would say you were politically motivated to lie here.

Though fair enough that you bailed out of answering my points

Happy with that mate

by Sponsored content

Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Re: Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Re: Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Re: Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Re: Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Re: Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Re: Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Re: Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Re: Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Re: Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal

Re: Why Bernie Sanders defending Israel on Al-Jazeera is a big deal