CNN drops Marc Lamont Hill after anti-Israel remarks

Serenity said:

You really are a long way off the mark with those figures.

There's almost 5 Million Palestinians in just Gaza and the West Bank alone.

This is why the Right of Return is arguably, (apart from the status of Jerusalem), the most contentious issue in the whole I/P conflict.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the illegal settlers too

CJ 2.0 said:

Well, to be fair we don’t know of that’s true either. The PA Does the demographics and they have an incentive to inflate the numbers. My recollection was they omit emigration, for example, and the numbers are not based on any real census.

I know some on the Israeli right are so confident that the number of Palestinians in the WB is so inflated by the PA that they advocate for annexation of the whole west bank and extending citizenship to the Palestinians living there (Caroline Glick has a book advocating that).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

According to Israeli sources the demographics over the entire territory of post Jordan Palestine put the two populations at more or less even. The right won't worry because they will have absolutely no problem changing that as and when required

oneworld2 said:

According to Israeli sources the demographics over the entire territory of post Jordan Palestine put the two populations at more or less even. The right won't worry because they will have absolutely no problem changing that as and when required

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

Chagos said:

Okay, so you didn't understand what you read and thus didn't understand how it speaks against the blatantly naive one-state solution that you are, just as naively, propagating.

One might try to follow your logic if one could discern any as existing, yet as things stand.........................

Not to mention the English used in the 2nd paragraph, which renders it virtually incomprehensible .

Click to expand...

Nope , I understood just fine and I suspect you did too and that's why you have decided to move the goalposts :roll:

In your post 39 you talk of a person not having been to a place delegitimizing their claim to have some knowledge about it. That was Rising Sun's argument and you were backing it in this post

That's the post I replied to and that was the context of my reply in post 47

In that reply I reminded you that you had been the one to correct Rising Sun's hopelessly inaccurate demographic figures. Thus proving that his being there on occasion had not stopped him from holding a completely ignorant view of the actual figures themselves. Thus undermining your claim that boots on the ground equated to a better knowledge.

My " logic " was thus fine and it was your own poor attempt at it that you exploded as nonsense with your own debunking of it as shown in the above

So having to face this inconvenient truth you decided to move the goalposts to a debate about the actual demographic figures and how that would effect the one state option............ a completely different subject and thus an obvious goalpost shifting

So no misunderstanding on my behalf but a demonstrable attempt by yourself to deceive the reader and evade having to admit you had debunked your own claim

It's all documented here so no point trying to deny it further

Chagos said:

Well, even where (as previously stated) I don't expect (let alone demand) that anybody needs "to have been there", I'll tend to favour those that have, over those that spout forth from the relative comfort of a faraway home, when the latter are clearly regurgitating something that fits a narrative already formed by the expediency of confirmation bias from an echo bubble.

That may not be particularly fair on my part but it's life.

As such one may see the demand of proof on personal experience as deflection of argument (which is quite okay with me), but it's in no way illegitimate.

What is subsequently made of it is what counts.

Click to expand...

Actually you will tend to favour any and all that disagree with those you don't like and it has precious little to do with any experience or knowledge as shown already in this thread ( and others btw ).

Those that " spout forth from the relative comfort of a faraway home " may have studied scholarly works on this subject over many years and those that have visited, even on many occasions , might have ventured only so far as to posit which side makes the best coffee or where to buy the best shoes

OlNate said:

Re: the San Miguel and paella, 100% down. If you ever make it up to Canada, it'll be Poutine and Labatt's...haha... but only whilst being stereotypical, after we get the selfies done and put the Mountie hats away, we'll get down to some real Canadian fare...

Re: boots on the ground experience being superior … not necessarily. The problem with boots on the ground experience is the emotional reaction attached...and the ME has had way too much emotional reaction over the years, that appears to be a big part of the problem. Statistics and numbers tell a different story, and are much easier to be objective with, when high emotion has clouded this issue for approaching a century. If you guys stopped trying to debate each other into the ground, and had an open minded conversation, I'm sure you'd reach a more accurate conclusion.

I also call out Israel for the lives they have taken, and the laws they have broken...and I've been called an anti-Semite by our resident propagandists here. But what they don't see, because we don't have a very strong Palestinian representation in this particular venue, are the times I've gone equally hard at the Arab propagandists claiming Israel is 100% to blame. And having read a lot of OW's stuff, I'd be surprised if he was any different. It's a mess down there, and no one is innocent...not the Jews, not the Arabs, and not the rest of us, who can't seem to help but meddle. After spending most of my life with this endless nonsense on the TV, that's the best version of the truth I can find, and no one, regardless of their statistics or first hand experience, has been able to convince me otherwise.

Click to expand...

If I were you I would trust your own readings of my posts and positions and the same for any other posters here ( positive or negative ) as I'm pretty sure you will do already. Be sure there is an attempt being made here to play you

Rising Sun said:

Maybe in his attacks against me and in support of antisemitics, I may have misunderstood what he advocates. What do you think he is advocating?

Click to expand...

A common sense realistic approach imo

oneworld2 said:

Nope , I understood .............................~

Click to expand...

oneworld2 said:

Actually you will tend to ...........................~

Click to expand...

The content of anything you let follow already confirms what could be determined some time ago, namely that discussing anything with you is pretty pointless on account of you appearing to be here mainly in pursuit of argument for argument's sake.

Seeing how you bring practically nothing else to the table in exchange with me, this will now end again since I'll make no more time for you.

Unitedwestand13 said:

Israel and Palestine both have the right to exist, and under the borders arranged in the 1947 agreements they both had the countries they needed.

Click to expand...

Just curious but would you accept as legitimate a recently arrived immigrant population being given 55% of the US with the US citizens , that outnumber them by around 2/3 rds , getting the other 45%. With their land ownership being less than 10% of the total ?

Would you accept as legitimate me arriving at your house one day with my religious book in one hand and a rifle in the other and telling you that my book says you are in a home my ancestors lived in 2500 years ago and you will have to leave so I can move back in ?

Chagos said:

The content of anything you let follow already confirms what could be determined some time ago, namely that discussing anything with you is pretty pointless on account of you appearing to be here mainly in pursuit of argument for argument's sake.

Seeing how you bring practically nothing else to the table in exchange with me, this will now end again since I'll make no more time for you.

Click to expand...

Reads I can't refute what you posted in reply 104 so will claim you are here just to argue for arguments sake whilst also oddly claiming how it is I that brings nothing to debate :roll: :roll:

The US vs. "recently arrived immigrants" analogy is invalid, seeing how the US are a sovereign state (and have been for over 250 years) while the territory described as Palestine was a British Mandate validated by the League of Nations, after having been taken by the British from Turkey as a result of WWI.

There was no sovereign Palestinian state that could be seen as being in the ownership of Palestinian Arabs and in fact such an entity never existed thruout the course of history.

One can argue whether the area should subsequently have been given to the Arabs that lived there or to the Jews that also lived there or even to both, but comparing it in sovereignty to the sovereign US is an invalid equation.

As is the myth of a group of Jews suddenly appearing from far afield to take land, seeing how there were always Jews living in the territory, experiencing a sizeable re-bound in their numbers from the mid-1500s onwards.

Under Turkish rule for both Arabs and Jews, eventually to be replaced by British rule for both.

oneworld2 said:

If I were you I would trust your own readings of my posts and positions and the same for any other posters here ( positive or negative ) as I'm pretty sure you will do already. Be sure there is an attempt being made here to play you

Click to expand...

I feel like you might have misunderstood what I was saying - if your comment is in response to me saying I'd be surprised if you were any different, what I mean to say is I'd be surprised if you had a different attitude and response to Palestinian claims of innocence.

If that's not what you were referring to, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Apocalypse said:

I hold a similar opinion in that I believe that the lack of historical claim or justification isn't relevant to whether or not a right to self-determination should be recognized when it comes to the Palestinians.
However I had to correct you on the analogy you have made.

I have to correct you again because you refer to the Palestinians as "Philistines" and these are two different groups of people.
The Philistines were an ancient people who came from Greece and were the nemesis of the Israelites, the modern Palestinians were the Arab citizens of Mandate Palestine.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. What is/was the history of these Arabs either going back to biblical times or more recently, and what is their historic claim to the land?

I wonder whether Marc Lamont Hill would have been dismissed by CNN as a commentator had he spoke publicly before the UN in favour of "the land between the rivers" (the Nile and the Euphrates) as a metaphor for Greater Israel? That idea is also still powerful in the minds of violent people and organisations in the region and that idea is also at the root of much of the troubles and strife which plague the Levant today. That idea drove Jewish terrorism for decades before the formation of the State of Israel and later drove the Israeli state-terrorism in Palestine and military incursions into surrounding countries right up to the present day.

Before some of you explode at my use of the phrase "state-terrorism", I remind you that the origin of the word "terrorism" came from Revolutionary France and the behaviour of the French Republic (a state) under the direction of the brutal Robespierre in the 1790's. Then a new state with a republican creed which was surrounded by hostile enemy states and factions felt that it was justified in making itself safe by using state execution/murder, state terror and continual military aggression against surrounding states. This plunged Europe into almost continuous war for a quarter century, killed millions by war, starvation and especially disease and finally led to the ruin of that republic. So if the term correctly applies to the state of France in the late 18th Century then it can also be applied correctly to the modern State of Israel today. Sure, guillotines, muskets and brass artillery have been replaced by Hellfire missiles, helicopters and jets, pamphlets and broadsheets have been replaced by modern media and the location is different. However the essential Kulturkampf is still the same, be it self-described revolutionairies of frightened lower classes seeking protection from what they believed were surrounding predatory and international aristocracies bent on their destruction or a self-described chosen people seeking protection from surrounding peoples of a different faith and for the most part a different culture, who they believe are bent on their destruction. It's Terrorism in either case and I mean state-terrorism.

So would Marc Lamont Hill have been dismissed by CNN for openly supporting state-terrorism if he had uttered publicly and supported the metaphor of "the land between the two rivers" rather than "the land between the river and the sea"? I don't know the answer to that question, but I have stong suspicions that the outcome might have been very different.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

I wonder whether Marc Lamont Hill would have been dismissed by CNN as a commentator had he spoke publicly before the UN in favour of "the land between the rivers" (the Nile and the Euphrates) as a metaphor for Greater Israel? That idea is also still powerful in the minds of violent people and organisations in the region and that idea is also at the root of much of the troubles and strife which plague the Levant today. That idea drove Jewish terrorism for decades before the formation of the State of Israel and later drove the Israeli state-terrorism in Palestine and military incursions into surrounding countries right up to the present day.

Before some of you explode at my use of the phrase "state-terrorism", I remind you that the origin of the word "terrorism" came from Revolutionary France and the behaviour of the French Republic (a state) under the direction of the brutal Robespierre in the 1790's. Then a new state with a republican creed which was surrounded by hostile enemy states and factions felt that it was justified in making itself safe by using state execution/murder, state terror and continual military aggression against surrounding states. This plunged Europe into almost continuous war for a quarter century, killed millions by war, starvation and especially disease and finally led to the ruin of that republic. So if the term correctly applies to the state of France in the late 18th Century then it can also be applied correctly to the modern State of Israel today. Sure, guillotines, muskets and brass artillery have been replaced by Hellfire missiles, helicopters and jets, pamphlets and broadsheets have been replaced by modern media and the location is different. However the essential Kulturkampf is still the same, be it self-described revolutionairies of frightened lower classes seeking protection from what they believed were surrounding predatory and international aristocracies bent on their destruction or a self-described chosen people seeking protection from surrounding peoples of a different faith and for the most part a different culture, who they believe are bent on their destruction. It's Terrorism in either case and I mean state-terrorism.

So would Marc Lamont Hill have been dismissed by CNN for openly supporting state-terrorism if he had uttered publicly and supported the metaphor of "the land between the two rivers" rather than "the land between the river and the sea"? I don't know the answer to that question, but I have stong suspicions that the outcome might have been very different.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

No need to twist and spin it all Evilroddy, you can just condemn a person who calls for the destruction of another state, no one will confront you for doing so.
If he calls for the destruction of any other state I'm sure the reaction would have been actually more severe, as there's a higher level of acceptance towards the destruction of Israel than of any other nation among the general population of the planet due to the popularity of the antisemitic ideology through the years. State terrorism like all forms of terrorism require the targeting of civilians and thus cannot be attributed to a state not targeting civilians.

Nickyjo said:

Thanks for the correction. What is/was the history of these Arabs either going back to biblical times or more recently, and what is their historic claim to the land?

Click to expand...

Arabs are from the Arab Peninsula as their name suggests which is mostly Saudi Arabia and the neighboring countries.
The first ones came through the Arab conquests during the 7th century, the same time that they arrived at the rest of the region as well as North Africa.

Further read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

Apocalypse said:

No need to twist and spin it all Evilroddy, you can just condemn a person who calls for the destruction of another state, no one will confront you for doing so.
If he calls for the destruction of any other state I'm sure the reaction would have been actually more severe, as there's a higher level of acceptance towards the destruction of Israel than of any other nation among the general population of the planet due to the popularity of the antisemitic ideology through the years. State terrorism like all forms of terrorism require the targeting of civilians and thus cannot be attributed to a state not targeting civilians.

Click to expand...

Apocalypse:

On the contrary I have witnessed many people call for the violent destruction of states and suffer no consequences for it. Throughout my life I have heard calls to destroy by violent means the USSR, the Peoples Republic of China, Taiwan, the kingdom of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran, South Africa, East Timor, Cuba, Venezuela, Indochina/North Vietnam, Hungary, Jugoslavia/Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Serbia, the United Arab Republic, Syria and many more including of course Israel. Those calling for the destruction of these states (excepting Israel quite recently) were not sanctioned or punished at all but were often encouraged and applauded for their speech. In only one state's case has it become too socially costly to publicly call for that state's destruction in recent years. Can you guess which state that is? It's quite a puzzle, isn't it? Why is this one state so dangerous to wish ill of for whatever reason? Could it be a massive international public relations campaign coupled with a targetted international legal arm which makes this state uniquely untouchable among the world's many states in the minds of people everywhere, through threat of social censure, legal jeopardy and loss of livelihood? I just don't know.

On a regular basis I hear or have heard or read or have read about Israelis calling for the violent destruction of states like the UAR, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran and yet the speakers are/were not sanctioned at all for their violent speech. I wonder why that is? Those calls have ranged from private citizens to the uppermost ranks of Israeli society including government leaders and yet I cannot recall anyone suffering negative consequences for such speech. So I think I'm going to have to take your counter argument with a very large measure of salt, since while it may seem rhetorically satisfying to some, it contradicts both historical and contemporary experience in my mind. Perhaps when Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Bolton are fired from their jobs for advocating the destruction of the present day Iranian state, then I will come around to your POV, but for now calling for the destruction of Israel or even seeming to do so appears to me to be in a consequence-class of its own these days, as evidenced by Marc Lamont Hill's recent fate. I wonder why that is?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Apocalypse said:

Arabs are from the Arab Peninsula as their name suggests which is mostly Saudi Arabia and the neighboring countries.
The first ones came through the Arab conquests during the 7th century, the same time that they arrived at the rest of the region as well as North Africa.

Further read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

Click to expand...

Apocalypse:

This is not true. Arabs were vassals of the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires and are known to have lived in established kingdoms outside the Arabian Peninsula since the 9th Cemtury BCE. That's 1500 years before the Islamic Arab Conquest and Diaspora. The Nabataeans were an Arab kingdom in Jordan/The Levant (with their capital at Raqmu, later called Petra) 1200 years before the rise of Islam. The Marsh Arabs of Iraq/Iran go back even further in history to the time of the Chaldeans. Arabs lived in what is now called Israel and the Occupied Territories for almost three millennia, not just for fourteen hundred years as your description would seem to indicate. Indeed, there were Jewish Arabs living in the region since antiquity.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Apocalypse:

On the contrary I have witnessed many people call for the violent destruction of states and suffer no consequences for it. Throughout my life I have heard calls to destroy by violent means the USSR, the Peoples Republic of China, Taiwan, the kingdom of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran, South Africa, East Timor, Cuba, Venezuela, Indochina/North Vietnam, Hungary, Jugoslavia/Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Serbia, the United Arab Republic, Syria and many more including of course Israel. Those calling for the destruction of these states (excepting Israel quite recently) were not sanctioned or punished at all but were often encouraged and applauded for their speech. In only one state's case has it become too socially costly to publicly call for that state's destruction in recent years. Can you guess which state that is? It's quite a puzzle, isn't it? Why is this one state so dangerous to wish ill of for whatever reason? Could it be a massive international public relations campaign coupled with a targetted international legal arm which makes this state uniquely untouchable among the world's many states in the minds of people everywhere, through threat of social censure, legal jeopardy and loss of livelihood? I just don't know.

On a regular basis I hear or have heard or read or have read about Israelis calling for the violent destruction of states like the UAR, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran and yet the speakers are/were not sanctioned at all for their violent speech. I wonder why that is? Those calls have ranged from private citizens to the uppermost ranks of Israeli society including government leaders and yet I cannot recall anyone suffering negative consequences for such speech. So I think I'm going to have to take your counter argument with a very large measure of salt, since while it may seem rhetorically satisfying to some, it contradicts both historical and contemporary experience in my mind. Perhaps when Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Bolton are fired from their jobs for advocating the destruction of the present day Iranian state, then I will come around to your POV, but for now calling for the destruction of Israel or even seeming to do so appears to me to be in a consequence-class of its own these days, as evidenced by Marc Lamont Hill's recent fate. I wonder why that is?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Your words are very easy to dismiss as they include no reference to anything.

As I said there's a higher level of approval towards calls for destruction of Israel among the general population than of any other country and that is because of antisemitism being such a popular ideology among the people of this planet through the years.

You can just condemn a person calling for the destruction of another country instead of trying to apply spins so to support such barbaric behavior.

Evilroddy said:

Apocalypse:

This is not true. Arabs were vassals of the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires and are known to have lived in established kingdoms outside the Arabian Peninsula since the 9th Cemtury BCE. That's 1500 years before the Islamic Arab Conquest and Diaspora. The Nabataeans were an Arab kingdom in Jordan/The Levant (with their capital at Raqmu, later called Petra) 1200 years before the rise of Islam. The Marsh Arabs of Iraq/Iran go back even further in history to the time of the Chaldeans. Arabs lived in what is now called Israel and the Occupied Territories for almost three millennia, not just for fourteen hundred years as your description would seem to indicate. Indeed, there were Jewish Arabs living in the region since antiquity.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Arab arrival in Syria was indeed earlier than the 7th century, more around the late first millenium BCE. These were however ancient nomadic Arab tribes no longer existing. Arabs as a people first expanded during the 7th century during the same time they have arrived in North Africa. There were several other expansions causing a further Arab settling of the region after that.

The region was not originally Arab — its Arabization was a consequence of the inclusion of Palestine within the rapidly expanding Arab Empire won by Arabian tribes and their local allies in the first millennium, most significantly during the Islamic conquest of Syria in the 7th century

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians#Origins

Studies done to trace the origin of the Arab citizens of Israel, for example, have found connection to migrants from the 7th century, as well as after that.

OlNate said:

I feel like you might have misunderstood what I was saying - if your comment is in response to me saying I'd be surprised if you were any different, what I mean to say is I'd be surprised if you had a different attitude and response to Palestinian claims of innocence.

If that's not what you were referring to, I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Click to expand...

Sorry for any confusion OlNate

You are correct in expressing an opinion that we both subscribe to the mantra that both sides are not either wholly innocent or free from blame .

My comment was not really concerned with addressing that tbh because I know it to be true already. It was to do with Chagos trying to play you into a change of opinion about me and the positions I hold/express

We have a soccer saying here in the UK that is to " play the man and not the ball ". Roughly translated it means to deliberately illegally block an opposition player from getting to the ball instead of playing the ball itself. If spotted by by the referee it results in a foul. That's what Chagos was doing in that conversation you were having about my participation in this thread imo

You were using reason and logic in what I consider to be something of a defence of me/my actions , for which I will take the opportunity to thank you for properly now , but were being confronted with a distortion/denial of them from a poster who was doing it for no other reason than they dislike me. No problem btw I can handle that all day long but I thought it dishonest of them to not be straight with you over it. Thus making you compile a number of posts in response that were never going to change anything wrt their fixed opinion. I appreciate it was done in a very polished and engaging way and thus might have slipped under your guard so to speak.

That's what I saw and that's what I responded to. The moral of the story being something like......... never waste time trying to reason out that which was never reasoned in. Which in this instance is to argue reason with Chagos over me because that dislike was never reasoned in and is just the result of a dislike , hence his convoluted gymnastics in order to undermine your logic and reason offensive all with the offer of beer and Paella.

I think I have spent as much time , and maybe too much time , trying to explain the dynamics as I saw them and just wanted to set things straight. I don't want the thread to be about me but obviously I can only have so much control over that and cannot stop others from making it so

Hope this all helps a little more as to my comments that you referred to and also that the wedge driver failed in their mission.

Other than that keep up the good work here eace

I will leave you with a link as to the nature of what is going on of late . The person under discussion for the last 3 posts is yours truly due to my refusal to answer a question in a different thread. BTW the question is easy enough to answer I just thought I would wait a little to see what happened when I didn't instantly jump as demanded. And just as I thought lol

https://www.debatepolitics.com/isra...ops-palestinians-improving-infrastruture.html

Chagos said:

One can question, rightly or wrongly, whether a fleeing population that numbered anything between 300,000 and 700,000 (depending on sources) in 1948

Click to expand...

What " source " puts the total of Palestinians refugees, fleeing or not , in 1948 at " 300 ,000 " ?

oneworld2 said:

According to Israeli sources the demographics over the entire territory of post Jordan Palestine put the two populations at more or less even. The right won't worry because they will have absolutely no problem changing that as and when required

Click to expand...

Well again, no. The right I am referencing here don’t see this as a problem because they would omit Gaza and are confident that trends would not jeopardize a Jewish majority in Israel.

It may be that they are also unconcerned if they think Israel could just switch governance models to be like most other middle eastern countries with non-democratic governments that favour particular groups, but I do not think that is even a dominant strain in their thinking. Jewish and democratic is actually taken pretty seriously as a philosophical maxim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Evilroddy said:

I wonder whether Marc Lamont Hill would have been dismissed by CNN as a commentator had he spoke publicly before the UN in favour of "the land between the rivers" (the Nile and the Euphrates) as a metaphor for Greater Israel? That idea is also still powerful in the minds of violent people and organisations in the region and that idea is also at the root of much of the troubles and strife which plague the Levant today. That idea drove Jewish terrorism for decades before the formation of the State of Israel and later drove the Israeli state-terrorism in Palestine and military incursions into surrounding countries right up to the present day.



Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

So none of this is true. Just antisemetic conspiracy theories that permeated the region while the Arab states were looking to destroy tiny vulnerable Israel that have caught on among the limited information set of the west.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Evilroddy said:

Apocalypse:

On the contrary I have witnessed many people call for the violent destruction of states and suffer no consequences for it. Throughout my life I have heard calls to destroy by violent means the USSR, the Peoples Republic of China, Taiwan, the kingdom of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran, South Africa, East Timor, Cuba, Venezuela, Indochina/North Vietnam, Hungary, Jugoslavia/Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Serbia, the United Arab Republic, Syria and many more including of course Israel. Those calling for the destruction of these states (excepting Israel quite recently) were not sanctioned or punished at all but were often encouraged and applauded for their speech. In only one state's case has it become too socially costly to publicly call for that state's destruction in recent years. Can you guess which state that is? It's quite a puzzle, isn't it? Why is this one state so dangerous to wish ill of for whatever reason? Could it be a massive international public relations campaign coupled with a targetted international legal arm which makes this state uniquely untouchable among the world's many states in the minds of people everywhere, through threat of social censure, legal jeopardy and loss of livelihood? I just don't know.

On a regular basis I hear or have heard or read or have read about Israelis calling for the violent destruction of states like the UAR, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran and yet the speakers are/were not sanctioned at all for their violent speech. I wonder why that is? Those calls have ranged from private citizens to the uppermost ranks of Israeli society including government leaders and yet I cannot recall anyone suffering negative consequences for such speech. So I think I'm going to have to take your counter argument with a very large measure of salt, since while it may seem rhetorically satisfying to some, it contradicts both historical and contemporary experience in my mind. Perhaps when Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Bolton are fired from their jobs for advocating the destruction of the present day Iranian state, then I will come around to your POV, but for now calling for the destruction of Israel or even seeming to do so appears to me to be in a consequence-class of its own these days, as evidenced by Marc Lamont Hill's recent fate. I wonder why that is?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Those calling for the destruction of those governments were not calling for a destruction of those states or those people.

Except for Israel of course, which you know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk