Remember all of the "controversy" over Pete Hegseth's tattoos? Who knew all that he needed to do was to switch parties! Funny how the only thing that really seems to matter for some people is what party someone belongs to.
I was about to comment, "Hey, doesn't Piker have dual loyalties to America and to the Palestinian cause?", but then I realized he has no loyalty to America.
Graham Platner should be disqualified, but not just for the infamous tattoo. He's the Democratic poster boy only because he spouts empty socialist platitudes ad nauseam. He has no experience. He has publicly deprecated at least two military men, he appears to be a misogynist, and—if there's a grain of truth to the story of how the Totenkopf appeared on his chest ("I was drunk and...") he has a drinking problem.
"Anti-Semitism has never gone away; it will always be there because it's a very convenient prejudice. The gene of it, the original DNA, is buried deep within our history. And even within some Jews as well."
-Leading English Actor and Playwright, Steven Berkoff
Zionism is the principled belief in the Jewish people’s inalienable right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. There are 57 Muslim states, 21 Arab; the rest are Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or secular/communist. This is a right equal to—or even greater than—that of any other people. Anything less is a crime against humanity, and we will not tolerate it. That’s a heads-up.
What I want to know is whether it’s “anti-Zionist” to hold the position that Israel should exist but be limited to something along the lines of its 1967 borders, with an independent Palestine alongside in the West Bank and Gaza at some future date when the Palestinians have earned it. Because right now it quite clearly DOES seem to be “anti-Zionist”, and hence en suite “antisemitic”, to hold that position in any conversation with an Israeli. We’re being told it’s “anti-Zionist” and hence “antisemitic” to suggest that the multiple-decade-long progressive Jewish settlement of the West Bank is morally wrong, that Judea and Samaria should NOT ultimately become part of Israel so as to preserve some land for the 5 million Palestinians to ultimately carve out a state of their own, or to opine that saying “never” to such a Palestinian state is a gross moral injustice perpetrated against millions of Palestinians not yet born who’re apparently supposed to acquiesce to living in stateless limbo permanently, effectively subject to Israeli rule but without the option of either participation in government or withdrawal into a separate state.
Better perhaps to ask it this way; what sort of criticism of Israel’s West Bank settlement policy and permanent denial of Palestinian self-determination is NOT seen as “anti-Zionist” / “antisemitic” by a majority of Israelis and their right-wing supporters here in the US nowadays?
a) Can someone support Israel's existence while opposing certain Israeli territorial policies, or b) is that no longer regarded as a legitimate position? If that's the essence of the question, my answer is 'yes' and 'no'. Question away, there are legit questions, Israelis ask them vociferously all the time, and no, that doesn't mean you are not a friend. That said, see below:
Mike, I appreciate the thoughtful tone of your comment, but I find myself wondering something different. Why does this particular issue occupy so much of your bandwidth?
The Jewish people are one of the oldest surviving peoples on Earth. They have endured exile, conquest, expulsions, pogroms, and genocide, yet somehow survived and contributed enormously to civilization, from the Decalogue to modern science and, yes, Relativity. Their connection to their ancestral homeland predates Christianity and Islam by many centuries.
Against that backdrop, I am always curious when someone sitting anonymously behind a keyboard, no where near a Hezbollah rocket or a Hamas tunnel, feels comfortable rendering moral judgments on what this ancient people should or should not be permitted to do in the one tiny state they have managed to re-establish after two thousand years. How do they acquire that particular standing?
That does not mean Israel is beyond criticism. No nation is. It does mean I question the disproportionate attention. There are dozens of territorial disputes, occupations, civil wars, ethnic conflicts, and denied national aspirations around the globe. Yet for many people, Israel seems to attract a level of scrutiny, passion, and moral outrage that far exceeds its size or significance in world affairs.
Why is that? That is the question that interests me more than another debate about borders, settlements, or diplomatic formulas.
Perhaps there is a perfectly objective explanation. Perhaps not. Yet when Israel and the Jewish people occupy such an outsized place in someone's thinking, it is reasonable to ask whether something deeper is at work than a detached analysis of international affairs.
It's coincidentally ironic that the current progressive notion that being anti-Israel (anti-Zionist) does not equal antisemitism is exactly the same position that ultra right-wingers like Pat Buchanan and John Birchers had 40 years ago.
Democrats: “Vote blue no matter who, even with a Nazi tattoo!”
Remember all of the "controversy" over Pete Hegseth's tattoos? Who knew all that he needed to do was to switch parties! Funny how the only thing that really seems to matter for some people is what party someone belongs to.
Nice!
So it’s ok to have dual loyalty to USA and the nazi party but not ok to think both Israel has a right to exist and support the USA. Got it.
I was about to comment, "Hey, doesn't Piker have dual loyalties to America and to the Palestinian cause?", but then I realized he has no loyalty to America.
Platner isn't even the craziest anti-Semite
Reality is turning out to be the best ad campaign for your book!
These are indeed crazy times, batsh!t crazy.
Graham Platner should be disqualified, but not just for the infamous tattoo. He's the Democratic poster boy only because he spouts empty socialist platitudes ad nauseam. He has no experience. He has publicly deprecated at least two military men, he appears to be a misogynist, and—if there's a grain of truth to the story of how the Totenkopf appeared on his chest ("I was drunk and...") he has a drinking problem.
He was in the marines. Nice try!
Can’t wait to read your book!
"Anti-Semitism has never gone away; it will always be there because it's a very convenient prejudice. The gene of it, the original DNA, is buried deep within our history. And even within some Jews as well."
-Leading English Actor and Playwright, Steven Berkoff
https://substack.com/@thinktorah/note/c-153345624
Israel = Jewish state = Home = Given by God. Period.
Honest to God, sometimes I can't fathom what is happening. It's backwards and upside down to say the least. It's disgusting.
Zionism is the principled belief in the Jewish people’s inalienable right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. There are 57 Muslim states, 21 Arab; the rest are Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or secular/communist. This is a right equal to—or even greater than—that of any other people. Anything less is a crime against humanity, and we will not tolerate it. That’s a heads-up.
What I want to know is whether it’s “anti-Zionist” to hold the position that Israel should exist but be limited to something along the lines of its 1967 borders, with an independent Palestine alongside in the West Bank and Gaza at some future date when the Palestinians have earned it. Because right now it quite clearly DOES seem to be “anti-Zionist”, and hence en suite “antisemitic”, to hold that position in any conversation with an Israeli. We’re being told it’s “anti-Zionist” and hence “antisemitic” to suggest that the multiple-decade-long progressive Jewish settlement of the West Bank is morally wrong, that Judea and Samaria should NOT ultimately become part of Israel so as to preserve some land for the 5 million Palestinians to ultimately carve out a state of their own, or to opine that saying “never” to such a Palestinian state is a gross moral injustice perpetrated against millions of Palestinians not yet born who’re apparently supposed to acquiesce to living in stateless limbo permanently, effectively subject to Israeli rule but without the option of either participation in government or withdrawal into a separate state.
Better perhaps to ask it this way; what sort of criticism of Israel’s West Bank settlement policy and permanent denial of Palestinian self-determination is NOT seen as “anti-Zionist” / “antisemitic” by a majority of Israelis and their right-wing supporters here in the US nowadays?
a) Can someone support Israel's existence while opposing certain Israeli territorial policies, or b) is that no longer regarded as a legitimate position? If that's the essence of the question, my answer is 'yes' and 'no'. Question away, there are legit questions, Israelis ask them vociferously all the time, and no, that doesn't mean you are not a friend. That said, see below:
Mike, I appreciate the thoughtful tone of your comment, but I find myself wondering something different. Why does this particular issue occupy so much of your bandwidth?
The Jewish people are one of the oldest surviving peoples on Earth. They have endured exile, conquest, expulsions, pogroms, and genocide, yet somehow survived and contributed enormously to civilization, from the Decalogue to modern science and, yes, Relativity. Their connection to their ancestral homeland predates Christianity and Islam by many centuries.
Against that backdrop, I am always curious when someone sitting anonymously behind a keyboard, no where near a Hezbollah rocket or a Hamas tunnel, feels comfortable rendering moral judgments on what this ancient people should or should not be permitted to do in the one tiny state they have managed to re-establish after two thousand years. How do they acquire that particular standing?
That does not mean Israel is beyond criticism. No nation is. It does mean I question the disproportionate attention. There are dozens of territorial disputes, occupations, civil wars, ethnic conflicts, and denied national aspirations around the globe. Yet for many people, Israel seems to attract a level of scrutiny, passion, and moral outrage that far exceeds its size or significance in world affairs.
Why is that? That is the question that interests me more than another debate about borders, settlements, or diplomatic formulas.
Perhaps there is a perfectly objective explanation. Perhaps not. Yet when Israel and the Jewish people occupy such an outsized place in someone's thinking, it is reasonable to ask whether something deeper is at work than a detached analysis of international affairs.
It's coincidentally ironic that the current progressive notion that being anti-Israel (anti-Zionist) does not equal antisemitism is exactly the same position that ultra right-wingers like Pat Buchanan and John Birchers had 40 years ago.
🙄Oh, boy. He ran for president in '92 and '96, but he was politically active and worked with the Ford and Reagan administrations.
That would be horseshit, Rob. Buchanan didn't suddenly come to his views on Israel in '92. They're both antisemites.
Yep, you're right. That's all the left has.