Pages: 1 … 53 54 55 56 57 … 67

 

2011-11-10 02:32:07
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Or, alternatively...they've offered essentially the same thing the Pals have offered to Israelis living in what would become Palestine. Seems fair.
Not really, since the Palestinians have been there continuosly for the last hundred generations and the 'Israelis' are mostly Russian immigrants.
I'm not sure how 'Israelis' should have rights in Palestine while Palestinians shouldn't.
Such as for someone who claims to be well-versed in this topic...you should know.
Just asking you to back up your point.
Wrong again. Offering to give up much of what you have is pretty much the opposite of "cementing what you have and taking more."
They have offered land exchanges--to include relocation of existing settlements in the OT and parts of Jerusalem.
Read what you wrote, the net effect is they aren't giving up anything. While they're continuing to expand their settlements they're taking more.
International law? Not so much. International emotion? Maybe.
Its very clear.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-11-10 02:33:06)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-10 02:34:41
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

Spearhead wrote:

reuters wrote:

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.
lelelel
Interesting...
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-10 02:41:18
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Or, alternatively...they've offered essentially the same thing the Pals have offered to Israelis living in what would become Palestine. Seems fair.
Not really, since the Palestinians have been there continuosly for the last hundred generations and the 'Israelis' are mostly Russian immigrants.
We've been over that failed argument repeatedly. Your argument is only valid if, for some reason, you refuse to accept Israel's existence. Unless you and Dinnerjacket party, I recommend you drop that line of thought. Israel exists, has existed, and will continue to exist. Deal with it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Such as for someone who claims to be well-versed in this topic...you should know.
Just asking you to back up your point.
Just asking you to do a modicum of research.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Wrong again. Offering to give up much of what you have is pretty much the opposite of "cementing what you have and taking more."
They have offered land exchanges--to include relocation of existing settlements in the OT and parts of Jerusalem.
Read what you wrote, the net effect is they aren't giving up anything. While they're continuing to expand their settlements they're taking more.
I know exactly what I wrote. You're forgetting those little "wars" where Israel's "peaceful" neighbors did everything in their power to eliminate it from existence. Wars have consequences. Israel is giving some of its hard-won security back to the Palestinians in exchange for peace. The other side is essentially holding its breath until it gets exactly what it wants.

The argument still stands. Giving something up is the opposite of "continuing to expand and taking more."

Dilbert_X wrote:

International law? Not so much. International emotion? Maybe.
Its very clear.
I know. It's very clear that it's an emotion-driven, vice a fact-driven, issue for most.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-11-10 02:54:18
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Or, alternatively...they've offered essentially the same thing the Pals have offered to Israelis living in what would become Palestine. Seems fair.
Not really, since the Palestinians have been there continuosly for the last hundred generations and the 'Israelis' are mostly Russian immigrants.
We've been over that failed argument repeatedly. Your argument is only valid if, for some reason, you refuse to accept Israel's existence. Unless you and Dinnerjacket party, I recommend you drop that line of thought. Israel exists, has existed, and will continue to exist. Deal with it.
That isn't the issue, you're arguing the Israelis have the right to boot all Palestinians out of what is now Israel, they don't and its bizarre that they're expecting to get that right.
Israeli settlements are illegal and Israelis have no right to be in the Occupied Territories.
I know exactly what I wrote. You're forgetting those little "wars" where Israel's "peaceful" neighbors did everything in their power to eliminate it from existence. Wars have consequences. Israel is giving some of its hard-won security back to the Palestinians in exchange for peace.
Countries don't get the right to steal other people's land for security.

Australian security would be a whole lot better if Indonesia and Papua New Guinea were under Australian military control and only white people lived there.
The Japanese attacked Australia, does that give us the right to slaughter or expel the Papuans or Indonesians 50 years later in the name of 'security'?
We could give them New Zealand in return I guess.

This 'security' argument is spin and smokescreen, they're only interested in taking biblical land for 'security', other land doesn't interest them, so its obviously a lie.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-10 03:08:08
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


Not really, since the Palestinians have been there continuosly for the last hundred generations and the 'Israelis' are mostly Russian immigrants.
We've been over that failed argument repeatedly. Your argument is only valid if, for some reason, you refuse to accept Israel's existence. Unless you and Dinnerjacket party, I recommend you drop that line of thought. Israel exists, has existed, and will continue to exist. Deal with it.
That isn't the issue, you're arguing the Israelis have the right to boot all Palestinians out of what is now Israel, they don't and its bizarre that they're expecting to get that right.
Israeli settlements are illegal and Israelis have no right to be in the Occupied Territories.
1. When have I made that argument?
2. I'm in full agreement on the settlements. Have been for a looong time. So take it easy, Francis.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I know exactly what I wrote. You're forgetting those little "wars" where Israel's "peaceful" neighbors did everything in their power to eliminate it from existence. Wars have consequences. Israel is giving some of its hard-won security back to the Palestinians in exchange for peace.
Countries don't get the right to steal other people's land for security.

Australian security would be a whole lot better if Indonesia and Papua New Guinea were under Australian military control and only white people lived there.
The Japanese attacked Australia, does that give us the right to slaughter or expel the Papuans or Indonesians 50 years later in the name of 'security'?
We could give them New Zealand in return I guess.

This 'security' argument is spin and smokescreen, they're only interested in taking biblical land for 'security', other land doesn't interest them, so its obviously a lie.
Your analogy is flawed on many levels:

1. None of those are contiguous with Australia.
2. Australia's security issues regarding them are primarily maritime in nature, not land-based (see point #1)
3. Australia IS involved in maritime security in that area, as well as peacekeeping operations in E Timor and the like...so your argument kind of falls flat there.
4. Oh, and none of those nations attacked Australia with the intent of wiping it off the face of the earth simply because a bunch of whiteys lived there, using the false argument that it was "for the Aboriginals" who they really couldn't give a squirt of piss about.
5. But...using YOUR logic, all those whiteys should GTFO back to Britain and wherever else they came from. Their cities are illegal, Australia doesn't have the right to exist. It was stolen from the Aboriginals. They were there for hundreds of generations before a bunch of British immigrants/criminals decided they needed it more than the people who already lived there.

But other than those points, your analogy is spot on!
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-11-10 03:15:26
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
1. So what.
2. No they aren't, the Japanese were going to use PNG as a jumping off point
3. It would be a whole lot easier if there were no yellow people there, Japanese or otherwise. We have a god given right to security for the Australian people.
4. Intention doesn't matter, yellow people attacked Australia, we should be allowed to boot them out of PNG and Indonesia to ensure our security.
No-one attacked Israel 'with the intent of wiping it off the face of the earth simply because a bunch of jews lived there'. They did it to protect their neighbours'
5. If they want any more back they're free to ask. As it is they own huge tracts of the most valuable bits.

1. When have I made that argument?

FEOS wrote:

Or, alternatively...they've offered essentially the same thing the Pals have offered to Israelis living in what would become Palestine. Seems fair.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-11-10 03:18:40)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-10 03:29:53
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. So what.
2. No they aren't, the Japanese were going to use PNG as a jumping off point
3. It would be a whole lot easier if there were no yellow people there, Japanese or otherwise. We have a god given right to security for the Australian people.
4. Intention doesn't matter, yellow people attacked Australia, we should be allowed to boot them out of PNG and Indonesia to ensure our security.
No-one attacked Israel 'with the intent of wiping it off the face of the earth simply because a bunch of jews lived there'. They did it to protect their neighbours'
5. If they want any more back they're free to ask. As it is they own huge tracts of the most valuable bits.
So you're saying that Jews just living there threatened "their neighbors"? Which neighbors would those be? The ones they've turned a blind eye to for the past sixty years? The ones they've used as political pawns instead of actually helping? Or was there some other neighbor that a bunch of Jewish immigrants were threatening by living in Israel?

Wiping out Israel simply because it was a Jewish state is exactly the goal of the first war there. And the second. And the third. Every war Israel has fought has been a war of existence. Every war its neighbors have fought has been a war of choice, with the intent of destroying one of their neighbors. And you side against the one that was attacked with the intent of being destroyed--every time. And that they have no right to anything after winning those wars. Have to go back to act like nothing happened. Nonsensical.

BTW, you didn't actually back up your argument with the first four. At all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. When have I made that argument?

FEOS wrote:

Or, alternatively...they've offered essentially the same thing the Pals have offered to Israelis living in what would become Palestine. Seems fair.
So...you're making the argument that the Palestinians have the right to boot all Israelis out of Palestine, but the Israelis don't have the right to reciprocate? Is that really a position you want to take?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-11-10 03:36:55
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6717
Australia did use to own papua dilbert...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_and_ … a_Act_1949

The act established local rule, although the territory remained under control by Australia.
and in fear of getting another attack by Japan Australia signed the ANZUS defence pact and had a huge forward defence policy.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-11-10 03:46:09
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Wiping out Israel simply because it was a Jewish state is exactly the goal of the first war there.
Wow you really have swallowed the spin.

The goal of the first war was to prevent the land being taken by European invaders, protect the Palestinians from being slaughtered and turn back the tide of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing attack.

Since then Israel has not been on good terms with its neighbours.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-10 03:46:50
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

Cybargs wrote:

Australia did use to own papua dilbert...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_and_ … a_Act_1949

The act established local rule, although the territory remained under control by Australia.
and in fear of getting another attack by Japan Australia signed the ANZUS defence pact and had a huge forward defence policy.
I know, it should never have been returned, we'll regret it next time the Japs attack.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-10 03:49:29
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6717

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Australia did use to own papua dilbert...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_and_ … a_Act_1949

The act established local rule, although the territory remained under control by Australia.
and in fear of getting another attack by Japan Australia signed the ANZUS defence pact and had a huge forward defence policy.
I know, it should never have been returned, we'll regret it next time the Japs attack.
ANZUS treaty and Japan's constitution pretty much made sure Japan will no longer be a threat, but an ally in the Pacific.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-11-10 04:02:22
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Wiping out Israel simply because it was a Jewish state is exactly the goal of the first war there.
Wow you really have swallowed the spin.

The goal of the first war was to prevent the land being taken by European invaders, protect the Palestinians from being slaughtered and turn back the tide of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing attack.

Since then Israel has not been on good terms with its neighbours.
"European invaders"?

"hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing attack"?

Now who has swallowed whose spin?

A small band of Zionist zealots performed some atrocities against both Palestinians and British Mandate authorities alike and you say "European invaders" and "tide of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing attack" as if a massive Jew Army was rolling through, lopping off heads and eating babies or something.

Why don't you go ahead and start saying "Crusade"? Then the Kool-Aid will be completely drunk...

Israel hasn't been on good terms with its neighbors because they are intent on getting rid of Israel, not because Israel has any intention of doing the same to them. It's one-way animosity.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-11-14 04:08:20
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

"European invaders"?

"hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing attack"?
History, its terrific, you should try reading some one day.
For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

Over 700,000 Palestinians fled, from the Israeli Army and atrocities by various jewish terror groups.

Israel hasn't been on good terms with its neighbors because they are intent on getting rid of Israel
Israel hasn't been on good terms with its neighbours because Israel has already got rid of their neighbour and is intent on threatening them.
You're surprised they're hostile to Israel?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-11-14 04:10:44)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-14 04:37:36
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

"European invaders"?

"hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fleeing attack"?
History, its terrific, you should try reading some one day.
For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

Over 700,000 Palestinians fled, from the Israeli Army and atrocities by various jewish terror groups.
Yes. Reading is fun.

So is basic math.
The intent of Plan Dalet is subject to much controversy, with historians on the one extreme asserting that it was entirely defensive, and historians on the other extreme asserting that the plan aimed at maximum conquest and expulsion.

Gelber rejects what he calls the "Palestinian-invented" version of Plan Dalet.[37]

Military historian David Tal writes that "the plan did provide the conditions for the destruction of Palestinian villages and the deportation of the dwellers; this was not the reason for the plan’s composition", and that "its aim was to ensure full control over the territory assigned to the Jews by the partition resolution, thus placing the Haganah in the best possible strategic position to face an Arab invasion".

On the Arab side, Jewish counter-attacks and offensives precipitated a mass exodus of 250,000-300,000 people.
Weird how there's more than one side to a story, isn't it?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Israel hasn't been on good terms with its neighbors because they are intent on getting rid of Israel
Israel hasn't been on good terms with its neighbours because Israel has already got rid of their neighbour and is intent on threatening them.
You're surprised they're hostile to Israel?
Which neighbors has Israel "gotten rid of" now? Would it be Syria? Or Jordan? Or Lebanon? Or Egypt? Pretty sure all those "neighbors" (which have all attacked them at one point in time, btw) are still there, even after getting their asses handed to them by Israel, after attacking Israel simply for existing (see 1948).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-11-15 00:49:29
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Which neighbors has Israel "gotten rid of" now? Would it be Syria? Or Jordan? Or Lebanon? Or Egypt? ).
Palestine - derp.
after attacking Israel simply for existing
No, after attacking Israel for attacking the Palestinians.
Weird how there's more than one side to a story, isn't it?
On the one hand there is the Israeli version of events, then there's the version accepted by the rest of the world.
Whats weird is that you always prefer the Israeli version.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-15 03:17:32
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Which neighbors has Israel "gotten rid of" now? Would it be Syria? Or Jordan? Or Lebanon? Or Egypt? ).
Palestine - derp.
That nation never existed, Dilbert. There was the British Mandate, which was a protectorate of sorts. There was never a stand-alone nation of Palestine.

Derp.

Dilbert_X wrote:

after attacking Israel simply for existing
No, after attacking Israel for attacking the Palestinians.
Wrong again. The Arab states wanted to divide up the area amongst themselves. It had nothing to do with the Palestinians. And at least one of them (al-Husayni) advocated "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."

Dilbert_X wrote:

Weird how there's more than one side to a story, isn't it?
On the one hand there is the Israeli version of events, then there's the version accepted by the rest of the world.
Whats weird is that you always prefer the Israeli version.
I don't prefer it...I just don't ignore it out of hand.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-11-15 04:16:38
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

That nation never existed, Dilbert. There was the British Mandate, which was a protectorate of sorts. There was never a stand-alone nation of Palestine.
Effectively it did.

Wrong again. The Arab states wanted to divide up the area amongst themselves. It had nothing to do with the Palestinians.
You don't think its odd that they'd do nothing for hundreds of years, wait until the jews invaded and then decide to invade to carve up Palestine amongst themselves? And I thought you said they invaded because they hated jews?
I don't prefer it...I just don't ignore it out of hand.
LOL OK.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-15 04:27:16
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That nation never existed, Dilbert. There was the British Mandate, which was a protectorate of sorts. There was never a stand-alone nation of Palestine.
Effectively it did.
In reality, it didn't. Try again.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Wrong again. The Arab states wanted to divide up the area amongst themselves. It had nothing to do with the Palestinians.
You don't think its odd that they'd do nothing for hundreds of years, wait until the jews invaded and then decide to invade to carve up Palestine amongst themselves? And I thought you said they invaded because they hated jews?
Why would you think I said something I didn't say?

The Jews didn't "invade", Dilbert. They had been there for decades. They waited until the Brits decided to pull out, and the only people they had to worry about was the Israeli army.

Put words in someone else's mouth.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't prefer it...I just don't ignore it out of hand.
LOL OK.
Try objectivity. It's quite refreshing.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-11-15 04:32:44
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

The Jews didn't "invade", Dilbert. They had been there for decades.
Then so had the arabs, they didn't try to invade 'Israel' as they'd always been there

Small numbers of jews had been living in Palestine, as had christians, muslims and presumably peoples who believed in other fairy stories, not forgetting aetheists I guess. All living together fairly peacefully.

Lets not call it an 'invasion' then, lets call it a coordinated mass migration by millions of foreigners all of one religion who took up arms and attacked any members of the indigenous population of a different religion forcing them to flee.

I find 'invasion' apt though.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-11-15 04:33:26)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-15 16:08:33
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The Jews didn't "invade", Dilbert. They had been there for decades.
Then so had the arabs, they didn't try to invade 'Israel' as they'd always been there

Small numbers of jews had been living in Palestine, as had christians, muslims and presumably peoples who believed in other fairy stories, not forgetting aetheists I guess. All living together fairly peacefully.

Lets not call it an 'invasion' then, lets call it a coordinated mass migration by millions of foreigners all of one religion who took up arms and attacked any members of the indigenous population of a different religion forcing them to flee.

I find 'invasion' apt though.
Considering that the nations involved were defined and declared war before invading, it's safe to call what Egypt, Jordan, Syria, et al did an invasion. They certainly do, when they bother to speak of it.

Completely different situation than what the Israeli army did, and what you mischaracterize as an invasion. That would be akin to the PA security forces "invading" if there was another Intifada. Nobody would be stupid enough to characterize it that way.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-11-16 00:32:35
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6107|eXtreme to the maX
Right, so european jews were free to walk into Palestine and start shooting people and expelling people from their homeland but arabs from neighbouring countries weren't.

I think I understand.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-11-16 04:05:47
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6412|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Right, so european jews were free to walk into Palestine and start shooting people and expelling people from their homeland but arabs from neighbouring countries weren't.

I think I understand.
There was an established international immigration regime for those dirty joos. There wasn't an established regime for the surrounding Arab countries to come in and try to force those same dirty joos out, IIRC.

So...it would appear you don't.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-11-16 13:08:38
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6716|US
Yes, there was quite a bit of terrorism used in the the 1940s by Irgun and other organizations.  It wasn't right, but it happened. 


Most of the Jewish population got to the area in non-murderous ways.  Some became violent.  Others weren't.  (Now, advance the timeline)  Once Israel was legally established, its neighbors did NOT have the right to invade to "solve the Jewish question" (VERY thinly veiled reference to one of history's worst genocides!)
2011-11-16 21:15:50
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6717
shouldve sent jews to madagascar
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-12-02 18:36:38
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5587

One video advertisement shows a Jewish elderly couple distraught that their Israeli granddaughter in the United States thinks Hanukkah is Christmas. Another shows a clueless American boyfriend who does not get why his Israeli expatriate girlfriend is saddened on Israel’s memorial day. A third shows a toddler calling “Daddy! Daddy!” to his napping Israeli expatriate father, who finally awakens when the child switches to Hebrew: “Abba!”

For many American Jews, the Israeli government-sponsored ads, intended to cajole Israelis living in the United States to come home, smacked of arrogance, ignorance and cultural disrespect of America. Jewish groups in the United States expressed outrage, saying they were causing a rift with American Jews who support Israel. On Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aborted the campaign.

The ads — short videos and billboard posters — were intended to touch the sensibilities of Israeli expatriates and tap into their national identity, according to the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, which oversaw the campaign.

But critics said the ads implied that moving to America led to assimilation and an erosion of Jewish consciousness. The Jewish Federations of North America called them insulting. Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called the videos “heavy-handed, and even demeaning.”

Israeli officials defended the desire to encourage Israeli expatriates to return, but the reaction of American Jewry, a crucial mainstay of support for Israel, clearly caused alarm.
American Jews - good enough to give you money. Not good enough for expatriates to marry.

 

Pages: 1 … 53 54 55 56 57 … 67

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard