Social Tlaib urges boycott of Bill Maher after he slams BDS movement. Update: Maher responds

kinda funny that far left posters and far right posters come together to hate Israel and Jews.
 
Jewish guy sides with Jews, Muslim sides with Muslims, what else is new?

No matter how much we attempt to portray ourselves as "beacons of objectivity", ultimately, when it comes down to it, we will eventually side with our "pack", above the others.

That's just how it is and always will be.
There's truth to that but consider for a moment that the two most prominent critics of the Israeli occupation in the US are Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky, both of Jewish ancestry(in fat Finkelstein's parents were exterminated in the Holocaust). And I would go as far as to say that Bernie might be the one candidate I would expect to be the most sympathetic to the Palestinians.

This is why antisemitism has no place in the anti-Zionist movement. There's the obvious moral reason that its just wrong but also from a practical perspective it can alienate some of the most important voices critical of the occupation.
 
I am not a fan of Maher. I don't find him funny. I saw a short clip of this and he didn't say intifada correctly.

Anyway. Tlaib lost people like me when she worked to get J Street's (center or center left American group) endorsement and they endorsed her, gave her a small amount of funding before the primary and let her express her views on their website.

She wrote that believes that the U.S. should be directly involved with negotiations to reach a two-state solution and that she supports all current aid to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, particularly to fund initiatives that ‘foster peace, as well as economic and humanitarian services. She did not support the expansion of settlements and believes that they make it difficult to reach a sustainable two-state solution.

That was all consistent with J Street's goals and agenda. And all reasonable to me.

But after she won the primary and pretty much guaranteed she would win the election, she said fuck that and endorsed the one-state agenda. J Street then was left going wtf and rescinded their endorsement.

If comes off as more of an activist than a politician who wants to get things done. I get that with this and how she talks about Trump. Some people like activists types and who won't bend.

When she was given the opportunity to go to visit her grandmother if she was a good politician she should have gone. The trip would have gotten a lot of press and she could have shown what is going on the West Bank.

If she stuck with her platform before the primary, there would have not been any reason for Trump or Israel block her from going in the first place.
Maybe she went with the 1 state option because she knows it won't happen and people talking about it are just giving Israel time to keep stealing land from the Palestinians. So she wants a 1 state , where Israel is forced to give Palestinians in the W.B. the right to vote, because as it sits Israel controls them in large measure but does not allow them to vote in Israeli elections.
 
BDS is almost like the left version of Build the Wall.

It isn't a solution. BDS isn't only about the occupation. If the three demands of BDS are met, there would be no Israel that serves as the homeland of the Jewish people. The co-founder of BDS openly says that he supports the one-state solution. Jewish Israelis are not going to give up their national project and welcome being a minority in the middle east.

And while Jews were treated better in the Middle East by Muslims than in Europe, they had no security. There were times they were treated ok but at the whim of a new ruler, they could be persecuted and be second class citizens. When Israel was formed, many Jews left the Middle East states because they wanted to escape, others left because they wanted to be part of a Jewish state, others were pushed out. The idea that there was peace and harmony with Jews and Muslims in the Middle East before Israel is largely a myth.

The problem with BDS is that it doesn't make Palestinians believe they will need to make compromises. They have a sacred like the belief that they will be able to return to their old villages and any negotiation will not deny them that right. Well, that isn't going to happen. Their villages and homes are gone. The best they should hope for is compensation and an apology and East Jerusalem as their capital.

This is not to say the current Israeli government wants peace. Bibi was doing all he can to maintain the status quo and not looking for a solution. He is a pile of shit and hurting Israel's long term interests. Recently his only interest has been trying to stay out of jail and has moved to the right to try stay in power.
 
I am not a fan of Maher. I don't find him funny. I saw a short clip of this and he didn't say intifada correctly.

Anyway. Tlaib lost people like me when she worked to get J Street's (center or center left American group) endorsement and they endorsed her, gave her a small amount of funding before the primary and let her express her views on their website.

She wrote that believes that the U.S. should be directly involved with negotiations to reach a two-state solution and that she supports all current aid to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, particularly to fund initiatives that ‘foster peace, as well as economic and humanitarian services. She did not support the expansion of settlements and believes that they make it difficult to reach a sustainable two-state solution.

That was all consistent with J Street's goals and agenda. And all reasonable to me.

But after she won the primary and pretty much guaranteed she would win the election, she said fuck that and endorsed the one-state agenda. J Street then was left going wtf and rescinded their endorsement.

If comes off as more of an activist than a politician who wants to get things done. I get that with this and how she talks about Trump. Some people like activists types and who won't bend.

When she was given the opportunity to go to visit her grandmother if she was a good politician she should have gone. The trip would have gotten a lot of press and she could have shown what is going on the West Bank.

If she stuck with her platform before the primary, there would have not been any reason for Trump or Israel block her from going in the first place.
She's right to support a one state solution, the two state solution is dead in the water and those who support it are either ignorant of that fact or purposefully doing so to allow the status quo, one where the Zionists continue to evict the Palestinians off their land, to continue.
 
I don't think that is true for all peoples and all cultures. Gentile Whites don't necessarily side with Gentile Whites in opposition to Jews, Muslims, non-Whites .

There are Jewish and Israeli critics of Israel. Phillip Weiss and Ilan Pappe are 2, and there are others. The Jewish groups IfNotNow and Jews for Peace are also critics of Israeli policies. On the Muslim front, there are Muslims who criticize Muslim society for its treatment of minorities.

Yes they do, when it comes down to it.

In the modern West, it's not a matter of survival, territory, economic competition, atleast not to the extent to where the tensions would boil over, forcing people to pick such a "side". There is an over-abundance of goods, a number of aligning interest, and thus people find it easier to share and to co-operate with one another.

For Palestinians and the Israeli, it is most certainly a matter of survival. Every inch of lost ground may very well be lost forever, as the Palestinians have witnessed.

Obviously there are disagreements about the methods, but even the staunchest critics, of Jewish origin, would rather keep the Israel ship afloat, unless they suffer from serious mental illnesses. It's mostly just a matter of "how". Obviously trying to pull 2019 Apartheid stuff can be seen as potentially counter-productive by a number of high IQ people, which is why they denounce such measures as short-sighted.
 
BDS is almost like the left version of Build the Wall.

It isn't a solution. BDS isn't only about the occupation. If the three demands of BDS are met, there would be no Israel that serves as the homeland of the Jewish people. The co-founder of BDS openly says that he supports the one-state solution. Jewish Israelis are not going to give up their national project and welcome being a minority in the middle east.

And while Jews were treated better in the Middle East by Muslims than in Europe, they had no security. There were times they were treated ok but at the whim of a new ruler, they could be persecuted and be second class citizens. When Israel was formed, many Jews left the Middle East states because they wanted to escape, others left because they wanted to be part of a Jewish state, others were pushed out. The idea that there was peace and harmony with Jews and Muslims in the Middle East before Israel is largely a myth.

The problem with BDS is that it doesn't make Palestinians believe they will need to make compromises. They have a sacred like the belief that they will be able to return to their old villages and any negotiation will not deny them that right. Well, that isn't going to happen. Their villages and homes are gone. The best they should hope for is compensation and an apology and East Jerusalem as their capital.

This is not to say the current Israeli government wants peace. Bibi was doing all he can to maintain the status quo and not looking for a solution. He is a pile of shit and hurting Israel's long term interests. Recently his only interest has been trying to stay out of jail and has moved to the right to try stay in power.

If it was ok for Jews to support an international boycott of Germany in 1933. If it was ok for a boycott of Apartheid South Africa . If it is ok to use force to boycott countries Israel does not like, like Iran, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Why should she? Maher never plays fair, he stacks the guests in his favor and his audience tends to back him up as well. It wouldn't accomplish anything good for her and would probably only be good for Maher, no reason for her to entertain that idea.

She's not forcing anyone to do anything, she's calling for a boycott. That's her right, her hat in the so called marketplace of ideas. In the end I doubt anyone will actually boycott his show over this, those who like Maher will keep watching and those who don't probably weren't anyway.
A coward's defense. I hope other political TV shows, radio shows, podcasts, conferences, universities, and assemblies that give her a platform to speak boycott her. Perhaps she might learn to appreciate the irony.
 
Maybe she went with the 1 state option because she knows it won't happen and people talking about it are just giving Israel time to keep stealing land from the Palestinians. So she wants a 1 state , where Israel is forced to give Palestinians in the W.B. the right to vote, because as it sits Israel controls them in large measure but does not allow them to vote in Israeli elections.

BDS is a waste of time and is a rallying point to the right in Israel. BDS isn't a real threat and the right in Israel knows it. Jewish Israelis are not going to support her one-state utopian vision she may want nor the one-state solution hamas wants. They are paranoid about losing their state.

Tlaib had the chance to work with a center or center left Jewish group that was willing to work with her. She made a mistake when she said fuck that. She has her far left supporters but her agenda isn't going to go anywhere and in the end Trump is the big winner of this whole incident.
 
Why should she? Maher never plays fair, he stacks the guests in his favor and his audience tends to back him up as well.

That wouldn't excuse her unwillingness to debate though(hypothetically. I don't think she's been offered). Maher has all sorts of guests on that staunchly disagree with him, and no amount of clapping seal applause can silence anyone, and that is a very weak point to excuse anyone from debate. "Never plays fair"? Really?

Tons of staunch conservatives have been interviewed on his show. It's enemy territory to plenty of folks, and he does debate a lot of them free from the panel. Keep saying "what's the point" for these types of debates on partisan grounds, and you only end up talking to an echo chamber. Someone confident in their views would embrace the opportunity to debate someone on the opposite side, regardless of the environment.

I'm not a big Maher fan, but that shit is weaksauce.
 
A coward's defense. I hope other political TV shows, radio shows, podcasts, conferences, universities, and assemblies that give her a platform to speak boycott her. Perhaps she might learn to appreciate the irony.
Alright Didlo Baggins, go bore someone else.
 
If it was ok for Jews to support an international boycott of Germany in 1933. If it was ok for a boycott of Apartheid South Africa . If it is ok to use force to boycott countries Israel does not like, like Iran, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

A boycott is fine and good. The tactic isn't the problem. The problem is the objective of global bds. If the global bds movement was directed or targeted at Israeli goods produced on the west bank and the objective was a two-state for two people's solution, it would have a lot more support and a lot less to dislike about it. The right in Israel would have a lot less excuse to rally behind it.
 
Yes they do, when it comes down to it.

In the modern West, it's not a matter of survival, territory, economic competition, atleast not to the extent to where the tensions would boil over, forcing people to pick such a "side". There is an over-abundance of goods, a number of aligning interest, and thus people find it easier to share and to co-operate with one another.

For Palestinians and the Israeli, it is most certainly a matter of survival. Every inch of lost ground may very well be lost forever, as the Palestinians have witnessed.

Obviously there are disagreements about the methods, but even the staunchest critics, of Jewish origin, would rather keep the Israel ship afloat, unless they suffer from serious mental illnesses. It's mostly just a matter of "how". Obviously trying to pull 2019 Apartheid stuff can be seen as potentially counter-productive by a number of high IQ people, which is why they denounce such measures as short-sighted.

Well Gentile Whites are NOT all supporting Nationalist politicians and parties in the West, which has seen a very significant change where White supremacy has been downgraded as a result. It's not a matter of hardcore survival in S.Korea or Japan or even many parts of China or rich MidEastern cities, but these countries are all very xenophobic . India is about as gritty a society as it gets but they are still pretty tolerant of Muslims, relative to Pakistan's treatment of non-Muslims.
 
kinda funny that far left posters and far right posters come together to hate Israel and Jews.

Almost word for word what I told a buddy of mine recently, in a half-serious fashion: "Can't we all agree that everyone hates Jews equally?"
 
Well Gentile Whites are NOT all supporting Nationalist politicians and parties in the West, which has seen a very significant change where White supremacy has been downgraded as a result. It's not a matter of hardcore survival in S.Korea or Japan or even many parts of China or rich MidEastern cities, but these countries are all very xenophobic . India is about as gritty a society as it gets but they are still pretty tolerant of Muslims, relative to Pakistan's treatment of non-Muslims.

All of that would see a very rapid change if the economy went into tank and blood started spilling on the streets.

If just a couple of half-assed terror attacks conducted by individuals serve to put the "fear of Allah" into people, one can only imagine the reception if there was any sort of organized resistance, a live threat to people's well-being. Rockets being fired, bombs being dropped, and people becoming a witness to all these things, seeing people that they know perishing at the hands of another ethnic group.

India may (or may not) be tolerant enough, but that is on account of having a nuclear bomb which they can drop on the neighbouring Muslim populations at any time they choose. It's not really a relationship that has been built on solid ground.
 
A boycott is fine and good. The tactic isn't the problem. The problem is the objective of global bds. If the global bds movement was directed or targeted at Israeli goods produced on the west bank and the objective was a two-state for two people's solution, it would have a lot more support and a lot less to dislike about it. The right in Israel would have a lot less excuse to rally behind it.
I have no issue with a boycott of goods from Israel proper also, because it is Israel proper that is carrying out and enabling the occupation and oppression.

The fairest solution would be either a 1 state or 2 state . If the later then within the 1967 borders. And right of return of Palestinians . If Jews anywhere can emigrate to Israel despite not having any ancestry there for 2000ish years, then why can't Palestinians, who are native Levantines, be allowed back. It is just Israeli racism that stops them .

Western governments are scared of the domestic Israel lobbies and their MidEast policy is controlled in large measure by the Israel lobby so they will never support BDS. The Israel lobby sees BDS as a serious threat because they can not attack it as a violent group, so they lose the ability to smear it as 'terrorism' and portray Israel as the victim . They fear it will have a serious impact on Israel's ability to continue disenfranchising Palestinians.
 
Last edited:
All of that would see a very rapid change if the economy went into tank and blood started spilling on the streets.

If just a couple of half-assed terror attacks conducted by individuals serve to put the "fear of Allah" into people, one can only imagine the reception if there was any sort of organized resistance, a live threat to people's well-being. Rockets being fired, bombs being dropped, and people becoming a witness to all these things, seeing people that they know perishing at the hands of another ethnic group.

India may (or may not) be tolerant enough, but that is on account of having a nuclear bomb which they can drop on the neighbouring Muslim populations at any time they choose. It's not really a relationship that has been built on solid ground.
Nukes don't protect India from Muslim demographics within. Nukes will not prevent Muslim militants from carrying out bombings. Al Qaeda were not afraid of American nukes or else they wouldn't have carried out 9-11. Nukes are only effective deterrent against other militaries / States.
 
That wouldn't excuse her unwillingness to debate though(hypothetically. I don't think she's been offered). Maher has all sorts of guests on that staunchly disagree with him, and no amount of clapping seal applause can silence anyone, and that is a very weak point to excuse anyone from debate. "Never plays fair"? Really?

Tons of staunch conservatives have been interviewed on his show. It's enemy territory to plenty of folks, and he does debate a lot of them free from the panel. Keep saying "what's the point" for these types of debates on partisan grounds, and you only end up talking to an echo chamber. Someone confident in their views would embrace the opportunity to debate someone on the opposite side, regardless of the environment.

I'm not a big Maher fan, but that shit is weaksauce.
A better effort than what SadDildo offered.

Sure many conservatives go on his show but most aren't politicians so I think there is less risk for them. To be fair there have been conservative politicians on there like Rick Santorum but IIRC when he was there he was trotted out as a never-Trump right winger. Anyway the point is there is more downside for a politician who has to win elections to go on there. Plus his show is filmed in Los Angeles so kinda out of the way for a DC politician.

Maye when she's out of office it'll make more sense for her though I doubt she'd go on even then.
 
People watch Bill Maher?
 
Nukes don't protect India from Muslim demographics within. Nukes will not prevent Muslim militants from carrying out bombings. Al Qaeda were not afraid of American nukes or else they wouldn't have carried out 9-11. Nukes are only effective deterrent against other militaries / States.

Possessing over a 85+% majority of non-Muslims protects India from Muslim demographics within.

I don't really see the point in bringing up India anyway, since it seems like the latest government has rallied support by railing against Muslims. Their level of "tolerance" wouldn't really be considered tolerant in 1st world circumstances.

If both Palestine and Israel possessed nukes, I would reckon that a similar level of "tolerance" between the two populations could be observed. As for the matter at hand, only one side possesses such calibre of weapons (along with a host of other advantages), which is why they use their advantageous position to hammer the other one into the ground.

Which, in all fairness, would be the exact same scenario if the tables were turned.

This is why I do not personally believe in subjecting a bunch of ethnic groups to a struggle for control over the same government, in scenarios where it is clearly not in anybody's best interests. Often times it just leads to one group ousting the other, due to demographics, or other advantages (such as foreign support).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top