There are not too many, to me. I'm a Methodist, but so what? I don't know a lot, and willing to learn.

If the site ever has an article in praise of Gefilte fish , it will be time to scale things back ...

Concur John - I don't see anyone coming out opposing Israel's policies or activities - "usually" get attacked if they do.

This site has never seemed "too Jewish" to me. Thought never crossed my mind.

Gefilte fish doesn't have any scales - they've already been removed.

There is the possibility that the Palestinian "side" is not as credible or supportable as the Israel one.

What do you mean by "attacked"? Ad hominem, personal attacks? Or do you mean more credible arguments? Pointing out misconceived propaganda?

On the other hand there is also a real trepidation that a very pronounced Jewish group will launch an attack on anyone who disagrees with them.

No, I merely brought up a possibility. You may chose to distort my words as you see fit.

The statement John made; I don't think there is an effective spokesman for the Palestinian side on the site, but that isn't anyone's fault, is true...there are no Arab or Muslim's that I see here that have ever seen here. Why might that be?

With a large enough clique of supporters favoring one particular POV, it can be daunting for one person to speak out against them.

because there are (my quotation marks) "too many supporters of Israel" on the site.

I believe there are too many non-thinkers on site. I've never met an Israeli who didn't think. (Maybe they left them at home?)

Fada Ibr is here on NT. She is from Cairo, and a truly lovely person! I can't think of any others, but I don't know everyone, by any means.

Be careful, Randy. Too much Jewish food and you might be tempted to side with the Israelis. LOL

Then, AeonPax, why don't you invite a bunch of your friends to create what you consider to be "balance".

On the other hand, AeonPax, maybe you're uncomfortable here. I understand that because of the huge majority of Jews and Jewish sympathizers on this site, Perrie is considering renaming it TheNewsShpielers.

So you're working on the second step then. Did you ever read my article about Ziodine?

Did you know they were made in the "West Bank"? God forbid!!!!

I knew that would get to you.

I'll bet it wasn't the wurst liver you ever tasted. It's good if it has some grivelach mixed in.

If you don't understand this, ask your wife. Never buy grivelach from a Mohyle.

Differences in opinions and beliefs can often foster heated but instructional lessons. Forums are a great place to learn things. However, such learning stops when people, or in this case a group of people, become confrontational to a point where it induces real or perceived fear, hence shutting off any meaningful counterpoints or dialogue.

As for me, Im an army of one and I call them as I see them. I have no use for cliques or political mobs that force only one side of a story or issue to the complete exclusion of any opposing voices.

Be careful about being an army of one . Your POV can be misconstrued ...

BTW , we used to have a Muslim guy from Indonesia . But he proved impossible to have a dialogue with . All he wanted to do was convert everyone to Islam ... seriously . It happened .

I support a 3 state solution . No one else can get along with Hamas ...

Although I don't agree with some of what Randy has to say, I absolutely respect his right to state his opinion because I'm sure that he is honest and sincere in his motives. Not for one moment do I think he believes that there are "cliques or political mobs that force only one side of a story or issue to the complete exclusion of any opposing voices" here on NewsTalkers.

J4T;

Other than my ennui with the situation in the ME, I fully support the sovereignty of the State of Israel. However that's not my point.

What I am against is groups, not necessarily here, that use unchallenged propaganda and other various forms of subterfuge to insure theirs is the only voice heard and I will continue to challenge statements that are slanted, apocryphal or are false.

Too Jewish?!

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I know that there are people on this site that are strongly pro Israel, but I don't know if they're Jewish or not, nor do I care. All I know is that any anti Israeli comments made around here will bring out certain people ready to vigorously debate in favor of Israel. I will say that sometimes it can be a little annoying, because I feel there is often an over reaction, and I have said that on more than one occasion.

However, I do not find any of this very unusual, because I ran into the same situation on the site where I was previously very active. The fact of the matter is, Americans are very pro Israel and any anti Israeli comments are going to result in lively debate no matter where you go.

There is also a strong contingency of Native Americans on this site also, so does that make NewsTalkers too Indian? Or, how about the Christians on this site? Try making an anti Christian comment around here and see what kind of firestorm you've started. Maybe this site is too Christian, or too anti Christian. Or maybe there are too many goddamn Liberals around here or too many of those over opinionated Conservatives.

Or maybe, just maybe .... there is one too many anti-semitic on this site.

The insinuation that this site is "too Jewish" fails to recognize the Right to freedom of religion, and is an insult to every member of NewsTalkers. In my opinionthe article should be taken down.

What I am against is groups, not necessarily here, that use unchallenged propaganda and other various forms of subterfuge to insure theirs is the only voice heard and I will continue to challenge statements that are slanted, apocryphal or are false.

Ah, then you're against BDS. Commendable - I must have misjudged you.

The insinuation that this site is "too Jewish" fails to recognize the Right to freedom of religion, and is an insult to every member of NewsTalkers.

I don't think there was any insinuation of a challenge to the freedom of religion in this article. Jerry, I think you're exending the quirkiness of the title too far, and the article itself is not at all a development of the title. There is no insult whatsoever.

I don't think there was any insinuation of a challenge to the freedom of religion in this article.

Too Jewish, too Christian, too Islamic too any religion IMO, is a challenge to freedom of religion.

Jerry, I think you're extending the quirkiness of the title too far, and the article itself is not at all a development of the title.

The article does not develope the title?

"Is there a negative effect on the site by having too many articulate and knowledgeable supporters of the Jewish State?"

"Do you find an undercurrent of paranoia, or persecution complex running through some seeds?"

"Do you find that the supporters of Israel have an "attitude" that makes it difficult to interact with them in healthy debate?"

"Do you feel you're being "spoken down to" when you find you're not completely versed on certain events in history, UN Resolutions or historical timelines?"

I think that shows the title is fairly well developed.

Actually I agree with much of what he said, but don't start with me about this site being too Jewish, too Islamic, too Muslim, or too any religion.

Anyway, being pro Israel is not necessarily being pro Jewish. Debates regarding the State of Israel should have nothing to do with the religion of its people, and certainly should have nothing to do with how many members of NewsTalkers are Jewish.

Personally I do not like Israel, I do not like its politics, I do not like its leaders or its government and I don't like the attitude of its people. But that is notbecausethey are Jews, it isbecause they are Israelis.

Change the title to "NewsTalkers - Too Pro Israeli?" and maybe I'll calm down.

If they were credible arguments or not pointing out "misconceived" propaganda - they wouldn't be attacks, would they? Point made.

You don't look Jewish.

Neither does Scarlett Johansson, or Jake Gyllenhaal, or Paula Abdul.

In fact, I don't think we discuss Israel, or the middle east nearly enough.

In the old days, at the other place, I seeded 3 articles a day. There is economy of scale to consider, but on this site, I don't believe that it would be as effective a tool in creating a more informed environment on the subject. I plan on adding more content than I have been. I just see too many redundant articles on other subjects. I don't want to get sloppy.

I appreciate the input, ML.

And learn, we will. Presentation is everything, and I'm working on it.

Thank you for your feedback, Dowser.

With regard to being outnumbered:

The site that most of us used in the past has an overwhelming majority of folks who stand opposed to the cause of Israel. On that site, the battle still ensues on a daily basis.

I cannot speak for the Palestinian supporters, but those who remain on NV (myself included) are not in any way intimidated by the constant barrage of propaganda, dissimulation, snark and ad hominem attacks.

I don't know what would cause anyone here to be intimidated from the above list, except maybe for propaganda. In that case, some sourced material would serve to counter such falsity. I cannot speak for other supporters of Israel on NT, but I do not engage in personal attacks or resort to outright falsity in my posts.

Buzz,

It's the penitentiary for you.

Petey,

It's DEFINITELY an acquired taste.

1st,

So, you're saying that we need to be more patient with people, and explain to them why the information that they felt was reliable was in fact not?

ST,

I thank you for weighing in.

I think this should be referred to Peter.

Perhaps he can devote an article to healthy Jewish delicacies.

Healthy Jewish delicacies...

...I do believe that is an oxymoron.

Thank you for your kind words, Steve.

Jerry,

Thank you for your input. Your points are well taken.

I have changed the title of the article, as you suggested.

I hope it develops the content more appropriately.

Thank you again.

Did you ever see them before all the plastic surgery?

Jonathan - I'm never going to tell someone they have faulty/incorrect information. I will list/state my point of view, explain why/how I got that point of view and then listen to theirs. If we don't agree, that's the way good discussions begin.

Buzz says - "misconceived propaganda" - to whom?? The sender or the receiver and who makes the determination that it is "misconceived propaganda" - because it doesn't fit your agenda? "More credible arguments" - why??? Know what your talking about, or don't talk about it.

This thread is getting way off track anyway - never knew that Israel was a religion - always thought it was a nation/country in the Middle East.

I'm never going to tell someone they have faulty/incorrect information. I will list/state my point of view, explain why/how I got that point of view and then listen to theirs.

Why wouldn't you tell them they have incorrect information, ESPECIALLY if you're in the midst of a debate? It would be incumbentupon you to correct that. And furthermore, it would do them well if you provided them with a sourced link to proof. To let that slide is to give them the impression that they are right, and therefore embolden them to repeat the incorrect information ad infinitum.

because it doesn't fit your agenda?

No, because it's replete with inaccuracy, and again, serves to perpetuate falsehood.

never knew that Israel was a religion

Hey, I didn't know that supporting the New England Patriots was a religion, until I met a fan. Or NASCAR.

I don't know what would cause anyone here to be intimidated from the above list, except maybe for propaganda. In that case, some sourced material would serve to counter such falsity. I cannot speak for other supporters of Israel on NT, but I do not engage in personal attacks or resort to outright falsity in my posts.

I try very hard NOT to have any of our members feel intimidated. It is a very hard balance between "Speak your mind" and having that freedom being abused. But open dialog is important in any discussion, even if at the end of the day, we still disagree.

I actually don't think that they do even before, Dean... well Paula does a bit.

But what is looking Jewish? Heck, I know a lot of Italians and Greeks who look Jewish then.

Nor are there going to be new members giving a true picture of what diversity really is, because "kill the Jews" is against the COC.

It's against the CoC, because it is considered to be inciting and there for against hate laws.... and I would be the one getting charged along with the poster. Thank you but no thank you. Anyway, people can express their disdain for a people without being so forthright.

With people learning to hide their intentions within COC or COH compliant words and phrases.

Sorry, got to disagree. You get a real feel for people's intentions even playing within the minimum rules we have here.

Hey RG,

Nice post. Very meaty. Lots to address.

It is a great pretense to contend that the issues relating to the survival of Israel are just a matter of dialogue, and that the difficulties can be resolved if everyone is nice.

diplomatic niceties create gains. For a small price, pretense, they get smiles and handshakes from the US. And time to build....

These 2 quotes go in the "macro" situation as it relates to dealing with the Arab/Islamic world. This is point #1 where those who defend Israel are hamstrung by PC politics, and propagandists.

There is a piece of information that is quite clear, but taboo to address any further in public, and therefore given as an advantage to those who stand opposed, generally to the West, and specifically to Israel. That fact is that the Islamic/Arab world to not abide by treaties, or the written word. In other words, they cheat on all of their agreements. That is because their faith allows them to do that. Their canonical text exempts them from abiding by any deal, verbal or written, made with the infidel. Not making this up. Furthermore, what they abide by more often; what they respect more than the written word, are shows of force. That means intimidation. That means war. Killing. Maiming. They understand that. But now, they use the Western media, who frown upon this practice, to show how evil the West is. And finally, people who oppose Israel and the West read what I have just written, and declare Jonathan P to be an "Islamaphobe". I've given you completely factual, objective information, but it is NOT PC. Therefore, I am to be castigated for my "phobic" diatribe against the Islamic people. Is it phobic? Not at all. Phobias are based upon things imagined, not factual information.

So that's #1.

More to come...

Perrie,

Bottom line (and this is way out of your control even as an owner); There are no Palestinian voices here....none. At best, it's a circumstantial monoploy by one particular group.

At worst, and I have addressed this before, is the logical apprehensiveness about saying anything against the State of Israel least you be branded an antisemitic.

Unfortunately, you cannot force a balance between points view nor should you. It is what it is. I for one will not back down to anyone or any group especially if I can prove what they are saying is false or misleading. But not everyone is me and in many cases, people will back down and withdraw rather than face a larger, contentious, if not seemingly antagonistic group.

With people learning to hide their intentions within COC or COH compliant words and phrases. So that even those who don't know any better, and don't intend bigotry, cannot help but stumble into that stream without knowing it. Raising suspicion about their motives, to people who have followed the issues for more than a couple of weeks. If not raising irritations. ("I love all people. If BDS helps to solve the problems, it is a nice idea." )

As to knowledge, history, resolutions and timelines; You have yours. A billion others have their knowledge,and they have decided what counts as knowledge, as history, decided which resolutions matter to them, (the ones that condemn Israel,) and their own timelines.

And here's the micro. Where the illustrations that have been created by the deterioration of the media. Here's where "information" has been subjugated by "opinion", from the very quarter that we relied upon to give us the information we needed to make an objective decision. The manipulation and disregard of factual information in place of truth is the work of people who did not appreciate the way history turned out. Therefore, they expend great deals of energy, money and influence to change past history. RG, the winners write history. Except in Israel. The conquerers redraw the borders, not the vanquished. The sovereign nation decides who mayand who may not have citizenship, not some "quartet" of nations. But no, not anymore. The losers have somehow been given the pen. Don't know how it happened, but I'm going for those fingers, and I'm not going to stop until those fingers break, so that pen can drop, and we can pick it up and put it back in the hand that's supposed to be doing the writing.

I will offer other locations/links for information I feel they may not have, giving them an opportunity to "save face", after reviewing (if they do) the "other" sources. Even though John and I may have a disagreement and I don't believe he is right, I will ask if he has had an opportunity to read/look at/consider such-and-such. Who does it benefit to call someone out because I "think" they're wrong - hell, I may be the one that is wrong and they may direct me to some "new" information.

Who is to make the determination as to something's accuracy? Because of your beliefs, you could actually be wrong (heaven forbid) and then YOU would be the inaccurate one.

So are Harley's

Sorry, got to disagree. You get a real feel for people's intentions even playing within the minimum rules we have here

I get their intentions. You get their intentions. But the codes protect them from direct confrontation. They have initiated a dance, and are protected.

When someone calls me a Zionist in a pejorative manner, you know it's "Jew". But because they used the term Zionist, and not Jew, I may not call them an anti-Semite, which is what they are. That's hiding behind the "naughty word" rules.

Who is to make the determination as to something's accuracy?

One way you can determine bias is if a site takes only 1 side about a given topic . If there is no material on the other side that's a pretty good sign .

It would seems Johnathan's garrulous, incongruous replies are deliberately trying to side track his own thread.

There are no Palestinian people here to present their side of the story and yes, they have one. That's it. Presenting one side and one side only is NOT intelligent discussion, it's sheer propaganda.

Your exchange with Robert just shows exactly why people don't bother to put pro-Palestinian information on this site.

If you're saying that because they feel they need to source their arguments because they'd be in for a vigorous debate, then I say THANK YOU. If you're saying that because you think they'll be intimidated, I must also call bullshit.

You do quite a bit of reading through news every day. I can see that by the amount of content you seed. If you feel that I'm sending you on an errand, you can ignore this request.

John, or for that matter ANYONE READING THIS,I challenge you to seed a pro-Palestinian article that isPLAINLY pro-Palestinian. That is to say,NOT anti-Israel. If you can do that, you will be doing this site a major service, and I will join you, hand in hand, in lauding the content you have presented.

Petey,

I think it's a quality issue.

In an ideal environment, you'd have that kind of balance. Take note that the 2 largest "news" channels largely take one side of a political argument, with perhaps a minor sprinkle of opposition.

I believe that the integrity can be preserved by the amount of authoritative sourcing, and of course, tone. On this site, more than others, I believe there is a great deal of "backup" presented to these arguments. Of course, there's always something to be desired in the category of "tone".

pro-Palestinian information

WTF would be an example of that ? Their entire strategy is communicating their victim status .

There are no Palestinian people here to present their side of the story

Where is it required that we need Palestinian people to present their side? Are they granted more credibility simply because of that fact? No one here is stopping anyone from arguing their case. If their cause is indeed righteous, there should be no shortage of Newstalkers fearless enough to discuss the problems.

I certainly consider myself (proudly so) in the "too supportive of Israel" camp though I am neither Israeli nor Jewish. I happen to be an Italian-American Buddhist who clearly sees the difference between the cause of an American-allied, tolerant, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, stable democracy versus an opposition who revels in killing innocents, perpetuating intense hatred, and has repeatedly stated for decades their desire to eliminate the state of Israel and kill or exile all the Jews in it.

Petey,

Please do not prejudice the challenge.

The term pro-Palestinian has been used many, many times throughout the comment history here. Pro-Palestinian means PRO-Palestinian. It is not roundly anti-Israeli.

If by that you mean "fostering healthy debate", then I thank you.

Will you be accepting my challenge?

He's a brother from another mother.

John,

It is not propaganda. Check your dictionary. There is no attempt to mislead. If you would like to call it inherently biased, that's another story. If we need more people taking the other side for that bias to disappear, I don't object, but I won't stop making my point waiting for it. But it's not propaganda.

People who CLAIM to be pro-Palestinian, but NEVER put forth material that is PLAINLY pro-Palestinian are of questionable motive. Now, if you're implying that I don't believe there's any pro-Palestinian material out there, you may very well be right. That's why I challenge you to bring it.

dupes

There's actually a "technical term" for them.

Useful idiots...

So, if someone comes on and says that Israel needs to back off of their land grabbing, people killing, slandering, propaganda about the "rights" they "claim" were given to them in the 1940's and that they have way exceeded their abuse of human rights by pulling a United States and grabbing all the land they "WANT" versus what the international community gave them - we'd get a good discussion?

I doubt it - very seriously - I truly doubt it.

Key words; NOT anti-Israel. The gentleman sets the conditions by which he will discuss something, which is the entire point; a majority group which will not tolerate any criticism of Israel. Failure to do that subjects the poster to extreme criticism and reprisal from that group.

I think you better stop while you're ahead.

Are you saying that the pro-Israel group here doesn't play the victim card here all the time? They live for their victim status.

Why so doubtful?

There's clear history on how Israel got all the land that they did. UN Resolutions, annexation through war, UN Resolutions post-annexation. It's all sourceable material.

You'd tell me what land the "international community gave them".

We would discuss the human rights issues, and place them in there proper context.

It would be a very good discussion.

You'd be compelled to agree with quite a bit. Perhaps a few "impasses" on other things.

What could possibly go wrong?

And ahead I will stay.

I did not use the phrase over and over in the comments. The phrase was used by many other posters. To repeat, the phrase was "pro-Palestinian". They were going to take the pro-Palestinian position.

But you can posit that the anti-Israel stance is inherently pro-Palestinian.

And I would respond, "Not when that's all there ever is".

Healthy debate puts both parties in the goalie position at some point in time. When the pro-Israel camp has to play goalie for66 years, this is the type of stance you're going to experience. This is the what "extreme criticism and reprisal" is borne out of.

You're a "source" person. Having a source for the points you make gives you latitude. When both sides of the debate present source, you have healthy debate. When one side has to stand in the center and dodge every rotten tomato for so many years, you develop techniques for success. You keep your sources well documented. You continue to study the issues. And, when presented with the same canard for the hundredth time, you strike back hard.

No "pardon me's".

Supporters of Israel (mis)use the victim status, as do many other groups. Israel was created in spite of the Holocaust; not because of it. The idea of Israel began 40 years before WWII. Settlement began 30+ years prior.

What Israel is a victim of is 1)a double standard at the UN and 2)a double standard in the media.

If you'd like some sourced material, I'd be happy to comply.

• It is not propaganda. Check your dictionary. There is no attempt to mislead.

Apparently this poster either doesn't read what he writes or is so blinded by his own jingoism he is unable to tell see the hypocrisy behind his own statements.

This entire thread is testament to propaganda The question "too supportive of Israel" reeks of an inability to confront logical and rational criticism of Israel. Moreover, it again plays the sympathy card by portraying the majority as poor downtrodden people whom are up against some conspiratorial menace that attacks them for being "too supportive of Israel."

It's turning into a soap opera. Break out the kleenex someone.

As in all historical documents, there are errors - either intentionally or through omission. Depending on which website one would go to, the answers can/will be different.

"international community" means the UN.

"compelled to agree" - uuhhhhhh - that's open for discussion

HA! I just got and see the Title has been changed! I don't know if that is a result the suggestion I made in the comment I made last nigh t ; "Change the title to " NewsTalkers - Too Pro Israeli? " and maybe I'll calm down.", but this is much better. Thanks Jonathan.

This comment is total nonsense. I don't see any semitic comments on this site at all.

The title itself, "NewsTalker - Too Jewish?' is a suggestion of antisemitism. The title has been changed so it is is a moot issue.

Thank you for your input. Your points are well taken.

I have changed the title of the article, as you suggested.

Your welcome Jonathan, and thank you for your consideration.

I hope it develops the content more appropriately.

I'm confident that it will.

Wonder what kind of comments this will get? Look at the change in the size of Palestine. whatreallyhappened

youtube

and finally - care2

Yes, it was a direct result of your suggestion.

Your criticism was quite constructive.

As far as I know... Kerry isn't a member of NT and therefore hasn't weighed in on any issues here. Please have expressed this disapproval of many groups of people, and yes there is some dancing around what people mean with choice words, yet I am pretty damn sure, that almost everyone here has figured out who is who.

The CoC is only here to prevent site melt down. It can happen on a dime. It has happened even within the CoC.

I guess AP has decided to dodge your challenge Jonathan . Not surprising .

Jonathan ,

I agree . The description I gave was directed at the most extreme sites which make no attempt to hide their bias .
Baby steps ...

Too busy baiting and insulting on other threads. I'm sticking with the "constructive debate" that she is a proponent of in other instances.

Well, I don't want to go into the trenches on this article, so it is a little off-topic. But I'm not the type to be rude and dismissive. I'll identify all of them, as I've seen them all already.

1)That's a series of maps, showing the changes in the amount of land Israel occupied from 1947 to 2000. There is no mention of how this happened, only that it did. The page recites that Israel is the aggressor, without any further explanation.

2)That's a youtube video, and it's stuffed with nearly 100 years of history into 11 minutes. It is clearly pro-Israel, but took an inordinately long time to source all the information, which I did when it came out. I think it was maybe 2 years ago.

3)I guess you could call that a "NewsTalkers" for the "other side". If people feel disgusted with a too pro-Israel group, they could try that one on for size. Plenty of people with the opposite point of view there.

Constructive, please.

Pretty please.

Don't make me stop this car...

Just wondering - looked interesting but there were way too many opposing threads.

sheik and hip

I love the spelling. Did you do that on purpose?

feminist movement are so friendly with the most disgusting misogynistic people on the planet.

That's the biggest head-scratcher, followed closely by the gay community. I can't answer to that, except to say that there must be something in the conflict that makes them put their gender completely aside.

And that would be the only thing.

Ever.

What "occupied areas" ? They have no legal status ...

I don't see anyone coming out opposing Israel's policies or activities - "usually" get attacked if they do.

Part of My Comment:857907 ;

" Personally I do not like Israel, I do not like its politics, I do not like its leaders or its government and I don't like the attitude of its people. But that is not because they are Jews, it isbecause they are Israelis. "

"Usually" maybe, but not always.

I made that comment on this thread .... no response. I've made similar comments on other threads and received no response. I suppose it's all in what you say or how you say it.

the ignorant people on this site (and on this very thread) who claim there never was a Palestine country

It is absurd to conclude that Palestine was a country based on the writing on a map . It was the name given to that region by the Romans after they conquered the Jews who were living there . It is not a name that makes a country .
It is the people living there . Calling those of us who know our middle eastern history "ignorant" is quite a reach .
You know nothing about this region and are easily swayed by meaningless pictures . Learn some history or STFU .

We saw it in this thread in a comment by Buzz.

Please point out for me which comment you are referring to, John.

1. I'm with Jonathan P on this issue. There were some truly vicious Palestinian supporters on NV. Some whose whole record of comments demonized Israel with no other issues, but those of us who stood up for Israel did not cower. When we thought the personal attacks went overboard, and I was called a douchebag, a goat-fucker, a liar, etc. and when I complained to Sally and Tyler I got the cold shoulder, but that didn't cause me to snivel and whimper about it. The bias of the staff was certainly one of the reasons I feel more comfortable here, and the real reasons I quit were the change in format which I hated and because they are thieves who stole my money and that of many others. By the way, I wonder how that lawsuit is going.

2. How many times is it necessary to point out that I do not complain about valid criticism of Israel. I'm sure I've done it at least 3 times on NT and yet over and over again I see a complaint that anybody who criticizes Israel is called an anti-Semite.

So AGAIN, I will quote from the Ottawa Protocol, which I believe correctly identifies the issue, and with which I agree, as follows:

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.

For those of you who have trouble reading it, I repeat in bold print:

However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.

3. Both Krishna and I have posted both here and on NV many examples of POSITIVE articles concerning Palestinians. In particular those which show Palestinians and Israelis working together, or various kinds of camps where Palestinian and Israeli children play and learn together, even though such postings have earned criticism that they lead to "normalization". Normalization! Working and playing together in peace! What a fucking sin that is!!!

4. I'm not sure if I have done it here yet, but on NV I have posted many times my OWN criticisms of the Israeli government, judiciary, IDF, Haredim and settlers. In other words, I make it clear that I don't believe Israel is lilly white, yet I get criticized for being one-sided.

So what I'm sick and tired of are the whiners who, because they may not be in a majority position, feel they are intimidated. I've been a member of a minority all my life, and if I was in a minority before you wouldn't believe how much of a minority I am part of now. I'm one of perhaps a thousand or so Westerners in a city and environs with a population of 10,000,000 Chinese, and I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable.

By the way the annual Gallup poll as to what countries the American public support has been released, and the percentage of Americans who favour Israel has risen from 69% to 72%.

Okay, if you want to go THAT far out, how about him?

a majority group which will not tolerate any criticism of Israel.

Jesus Christ!! There it goes again. How many fucking times is it necessary to establish otherwise!!!

Hah! I opened the What Really Happened site and tried to find something that was pro-Palestinian. There are a number of links for different countries so I clicked on the 'Palestine' link. What I found there was a virtual litany of hundreds of articles - each one villifying Israel with NO exceptions. Not one thing had something positive to say about the Palestinians. Can anyone explain that to me and try to argue that the site is unbiased?

These kind of discussions, as what is happening in this thread, have absolutely no utility outside this forum.

We are arguing about what some consider to be the "correct" structure of a debate much like the North Vietnamese argued about the shape of the table before talks started with the US. Useless.

JP, you have stated your position in a non-confrontational way, which is to be commended. Still, I have not found your arguments to be compelling enough to change my position, however, I can narrow it down.

a) Israel exists and as a legitimately recognized state, has to duty, right and responsibility to protect itself and its people.

b) Discussions about what lead up to the creation of the State of Israel are arguments for the sake of arguments. It is history now and no amount of discussion or hand wringing is going to change that. The Balfour Declaration and all other ancillary documents and events are history. I deal in the present, not the past, so you will not find me participating in those arguments.

c) I have my own theory as to motivating forces behind the continual war and strife in the ME that are far apart from what is being discussed. As such a theory contains conjectures, I don't bring it up but if I were to sum it up, it would come out roughly as "Zionism" vs " Pan-Arabism ."

d) Lastly, Israel is NOT above reproach or criticism. If false, misleading or propaganda statements continue to be made, I will continue to challenge them.

e) Do you want Peace in the Middle East?

Presenting one side and one side only is NOT intelligent discussion, it's sheer propaganda.

Really? In other words there is no purpose in debating one side of an issue because it can't possibly be valid unless there's another side. As it happens it's been said that there's at least two sides to a story, but if nobody mentions another side then it can't possibly be true, only propaganda?That's an interesting theory, but I don't think anyone intelligent will agree with it.

1st - you said ""usually" get attacked if they do."

I asked you to explain as to whether it was a personal attack that you meant, and you just sidestepped the question. Are you afraid to answer it?

You asked on page 3, I answered on page 3, Jonathan asked on page 3, I answered on page 3, Jonathan asked on page 3, I answered on page 3, Peter asked, Jonathan answered. Thought I answered it pretty well.

I asked what you meant by "attacked". You danced around my question but you never answered whether or not you meant ad hominem attack - personal attack, or not. Get to the point. If by "attack" you explain it in a wishy washy way about providing information, backing up with sources then fine, you answered me your way. But my question was very specific and it deserved a specific answer and referring me to a bunch of gobbledeegook answers to a specific question may be considered by you to be answering a question but it isn't to me. So if you're not going to specifically address whether your meaning for "attacked" was ad hominem or not, then don't bother and I'll just write it off and forget I wasted my time by asking you.

a)here here

b)those declarations and ancillary documents are receipts that must be kept in a safe, dry place. When "debating" with the "supporters" of the Palestinian cause, I find myself constantly reminding and referring. The present is very important, I agree.

c)absolutely, positively and definitely.

d)I agree, as long as your definition of propaganda includes "misleading". I would consider it a great service to the truth to have any of my comments pointed out as such.

e)"peace" is a subjective term. I would define peace in the Middle East as more than a lack of war. I'd also include a clear understanding of all parties what their rights are under their respective governments, durable treaties of non-confrontation with any and allof its neighbors and I'll of course throw in clearly defined borders.

Propaganda is the presentation of misleading information. I do not agree that a statement with a source is necessarily misleading. The source acts as the check.

Can a source be unreliable? Yes. But the texts of treaties and documents, and oftentimes Wikipedia and the like are very reliable.

On the other hand there is also a real trepidation that a very pronounced Jewish group will launch an attack on anyone who disagrees with them.

Ummmm...interesting. So I take it that you don't feel the problem is the Zionists, per se (after all, "Zionism" is merely a political view not an ethnicity-- they can be of any ethnicity).

Rather, apparently what's upsetting you so much is the fear of a particular ethnic group (those pesky Jews)...????

Does someone slam me as an individual? No, that is not the "attack" I'm referring too. Do they slam/argue/ridicule my discussion or points I'm attempting to make? Yes, because, in their "opinion" my "opinion" is wrong and they will argue that to the death. Does it change my outlook or opinion? Not if they don't give me some valid substantiation as to how and why my "opinion" is skewed. As we all know, opinions are like noses - . . . . . .

Clear enough?

Lack of war in the Middle East?? Will Christmas come in July this year?

To me Buzz, that is one of the largest problems in trying to get "good" or adequate information of BOTH sides of the story. I am finding mostly Israeli and very little Palestinian. And, as you say, I also believe it is because of the biases - but why - why are the Palestinian "people"shunned/hidden under a rock - Hamas is NOT the Palestinian people - at least, IMHO.

'sigh'

I was merely answering the series of questions. I gave them my best shot. There's never really a lack of war in the Middle East. I think there's been a great leap in consciousness about it in recent years. The conventional wisdom insisted that if only Israel and the Palestinians would make peace, there would be peace throughout the region. The so called 'Arab Spring', and Sunni/Shi'ite conflicts have pretty much squelched that theory.

The "conventional wisdom" is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the source of much of the trouble in the region and the accompanying hatred of the U.S. as the Great Satan with Israel as the Little Satan. Does anyone actually believe that if every Jew moved out of Israel tomorrow, any semblance of peace would take hold there? The land would then become a brutal power struggle and land-grab among Hamas, Fatah, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, and foreign jihadis. Their only agreement would be the immediate destruction of every synagogue and residue of Jewish influence and progress. It would merely complete the line of Muslim Arab unrest and civil war along the Mediterranean from North Africa to Syria.

View at 4:10

Im not going to quote sources on this but reading into the ideology of Pan Arabism lead me to also reading into the Messiah Myths, but Im getting ahead of myself.

Does anyone actually believe that if every Jew moved out of Israel tomorrow, any semblance of peace would take hold there?

The short answer is no. To achieve a Pan Arabian state (similar to that of the Ottoman Empire) no infidels (see non-believers) can occupy territory or space within that state. No foreigners in other words, Arabs only. This is according to Wahhabi Islam. However, in-fighting between the different Muslim sects would continue if not accelerate if Israel were vacated. No peace.

The long answer is also no. Consider that region is the prime nexus of all three Abraham faiths, each with their own Messiah prophesies also containing their own apocalyptic versions of what is to come. Seriously intense devotees of all three religions claim a spiritual and supernatural ascendancy will occur that accompanies this Messiah who will appear in the region. Heavy stuff I do not understand but many will die for.

No peace.

However, that does not mean we should give up on it.

By the way, I wonder how that lawsuit is going.

That lawsuit never had a chance. In the first place there were front page articles re; the termination of revenue sharing a/o Nov 15, 2012 and thenecessityto cash out before Dec. 31.

Secondly, and more important, the User Agreement in place prior to NV 3.0 clearly stated payments for revenue sharing would be calculated and paid at the solediscretionof Newsvine. Therenever was a "promise to pay".

What's to argue about, Jerry? Or if you said, "I don't like Poles?" What is there to engage about?

My post is in response to those that are saying any criticism of Israel will bring, or usually will bring, an 'attack' by a wave of Israeli proponents. There are others on this thread that also said they have made anti-Israeli comments w/o being 'attacked' or overly criticized by pro Israelis.

However, that is not to say certain anti-Israeli comments will not often bevigorously challenged by one or more Israeli proponents. But that's what we're here for, right? Debate and the exchange of opinions.

My point is, with all due respect to Jonathan P., IMO the premise that NewsTalkers is "too supportive of Israel" is unfounded.

Do they slam/argue/ridicule my discussion or points I'm attempting to make? Yes, because, in their "opinion" my "opinion" is wrong and they will argue that to the death.

That is unless you can convince them their argument is invalid by presenting facts and using a logic that is superiorto their argument.

You can tell someone all day long their argument or opinion is wrong, but that will not change a thing. The only way you alter someones opinion orpositionis to convince them you are right.

and you are a far worse cynic than I am.

Try to find some unbiased sources ... BTW I looked at all the maps . Without the associated history they are close to meaningless .

The nature and appeal of religion is fear and weakness.

OK . What is the nature of rejection of careful scientific studies ? [I'm talking about by liberals .]

Yup

That's right Justice League . The maps are meaningless w/o the history behind them .

Guess you had to read the whole link to get the history behind the history of the historical maps.

ATTACK!!! Tie their hands with your tallit (prayer shawl), smack them down with your pais (sideburns) and pummel them with your black wide-brimmed hat!!! That'll teach them.

Then give them a dose of Ziodine.

No surprise, Jerry. After all they were free to tell members that commenting and posting can earn them money in order to scam and defraud them because the site gets the advertising money and then they take that benefit away. Very ethical of them. A reason I quit and will never post a single word there again.

Randy, since you naively feel that that site is an honest unbiased source of the truth, then I understand why you feel the way you do.

You might as well be basing your life and faith on Dune.

Aha Randy! Dune is my bible. I have faith in it. Did you read Dune Messiah? Worms are the spice of life.

Pan-Arabism: Tomorrow Israel and Spain, and then the world. Sharia uber alles.

Since the membership of NT is made up mostly of Americans, why would it be so unusual that the majority of members are pro-Israel when the latest Gallup poll indicates that 72% of Americans are pro-Israel? Does every American support the New York Yankees? Some might even support the Phillies (eh, A.Mac?).

By the way, not surprisingly Canada defeated the USA in hockey at the Sochi Olympics, both the men's and women's teams. Yaaay!!!

I don't like the attitude of its people.

Well, Jerry, unfortunately that's often the problem with tourism. You get to see the sights but don't usually get to know the people.

Just curious-- when you visited Israel, in addition to the major sights, did you get to meet many of the actual people? And of those you met-- how many did you actually get to know well?

This site has never seemed "too Jewish" to me.

I dunno. Maybe it is, in fact, "too Jewish". I guess its all a matter of opinion. I wonder if some people feel that maybe we should make some changes to the CoC? Not bar Jews entirely of course, but maybe just have a quota system-- so we could limit the number of Jews allowed on NT to a reasonable number?

I hope I live to see the day where the anti-American/Anti-Israel/Anti-Reason forces suffer the same shit they have propagated.

Oakland A's.

Where's the /S?

that there has never been a nation of Palestinian people.

That's right , with emphasis on the word "nation " .

Petey - try something new - look at the top of the map, get the name and do a "Google" - TA DA - a little honest research would show that the maps and stories are indeed authentic. Or since it doesn't have your signature on it, it can't be authentic, is that it???

For starters - geographicus

next - davidrumsey... -

and then there's - maps.library.utoronto.ca

OK, now you do some work - I'll wait.

Please repost the original links . I will take it from there .

They're on page 12, bottom of the page.

Thanks . To repeat here is the link :
whatreallyhappened

And here is the very first sentence on the page :

The truth is that far from being the poor victim it likes to portray itself as, Israel is in fact the most aggressive and belligerent nation in the region, having invaded pretty much everyone it shares a border with

If you can't see that is false propaganda you would be missing the regional history since 1949 . Do you know what I'm referring to ?

Justice League ,

I don't know any liberals that reject careful scientific studies from credible sources.

So the book "The Bell Curve" does not count as credible ? You need to explain why ...

clearly show that there have been nations of Palestine

What does that even mean ? It implies that the people who occupied it were a race called Palestinians . But that is not accurate . Sure there were a few nomadic tribes but that would hardly qualify as a nation .

bald faced liars.

That's pretty harsh . You are really overreaching here . One more thing : calling a bunch of nomadic tribes a nation is really stupid .

Now Petey - those are some really, really serious blinders you've got on my friend. Better go change them 'cause they'll get you into some serious issues with your "open" discussions.

OK fine . My definition of "nation" involves a group that stays put in one location . If they are nomadic that means they can't be defined by a geographical range . How is that being blind ?

am strongly opposed to the building of new settlements in the occupied territory, which will only will have to be removed as part of the 2 state solution, probably violently.

When the Jews "occupied" Gaza, they built lots of settlements there. Settlements that were supposedly "a permanent obstacle to peace".

But of course after Israel totally withdrew from Gaza (as I'm sure you are aware, Gaza is now an independent entity ruled solely by Palestinians" ), & of course these "permanent obstacles for peace" no longer exist.

So what makes you think the same thing wouldn't happen with settlements in the West Bank?

No Palestinians here. No one to represent their opinions?

So what?

There are two sides to every story, but:

There's a fair amount of bashing of Putin and Russia's policies on NT. But no Russians here. And I imagine if anyone here sang the praises of Putin, they would be "attacked"-- and, perish forbid,-- they might even feel "intimidated" !!!

At least two individuals have put up articles strongly criticizing Assad. But there are no Syrian Sunnis here to present the other side of the story. (And let's not forget that some of the atrocities committed by al Qaeda &some other anti-Assad forces are pretty horrifying as well).

Are there any Ukranians-- who are supporters of the government-- here to defend it. ..? I bet a few people here who take the minority view (on NT) are being "attacked", even "confronted" as we speak. Perhaps (Oh, the horror of it all) they may even feel..dare I say it.."intimidated"!!!

And btw, Fadaa occasionally appears here. She is not a big fan of the Muslim Brotherhood. But many other Egyptians are. How can we have a balanced view of the siituation in Egypt if we don't have any other Egyptians (supporters of the MB) here? i would imagine that if any US supporters of the MB are here, the poor dears must be feeling terribly intimidated when Fada speaks out!

Personally I do not like Israel, I do not like its politics, I do not like its leaders or its government and I don't like the attitude of its people.

Jerry, as I am sure you are well aware, 1 out of every 5 Israeli citizens is an Arab.

So I am wondering-- when you say you don't like Israel, and that you don't the attitude of Israelis, does that mean you don't like the part of Israel that is Arab as well?

That, in addition, you also don't like the attitudes of Israeli Arabs??? Or is your dislike limited only to members of one particular religion in Israel? (Curious minds want to know

Then you're saying that the Ottoman Empire, which started out with nomadic tribes - Germany and the Huns, Ghengis and his boys, King Arthur, the Pilgrims - yeah, guess you're right. Nobody was ever a nomad and nobody ever became a nation.

1st warrior @

thenewstalkers

Very interesting argument ... but irrelevant . We are talking about the "Palestinians" right ? This is a group that can't even join the 2 parts into 1 govt . How do you expect them to form a nation if they can only fight & kill each other ?

how many did you actually get to know well?

I'm not talking about individual persons and personalities, I'm referring to the collective political attitudes of Israelis in general, and I think you know that. I'm sure there are many people in Israel that,individually, have great personalities.

Nice try K......(name of the day)

By the way, not surprisingly Canada defeated the USA in hockey at the Sochi Olympics, both the men's and women's teams.

It appears the Canadians have a lot of luck on their side this time around.

I dont know that "we" support Israel too much here. I do know it's impossible to have any true discourse about Israel without people opposed to Israeli policies being directly or indirectly labelled as anti-semitic. I think it is actually impossible to have any real discourse on the topic anywhere, for the same reason.

I do know it's impossible to have any true discourse about Israel without people opposed to Israeli policies being directly or indirectly labelled as anti-semitic. I think it is actually impossible to have any real discourse on the topic anywhere, for the same reason.

True.

Perhaps we should move away from discussing Israel, and onto some topics where there's less stereotyping & less name-calling. Other issues. For example, any of the Liberal vs Conservative debates here on NT.

I do know it's impossible to have any true discourse about Israel without people opposed to Israeli policies being directly or indirectly labelled as anti-semitic. I think it is actually impossible to have any real discourse on the topic anywhere, for the same reason.

True.

Perhaps we should move away from discussing Israel, and onto some topics where there's less stereotyping & less name-calling. Other issues. For example, any of the Liberal vs Conservative debates here on NT

(rflmao :^)

true discourse

The problem is not so much that problems arise when we have true discourse. The problem is that there is very little true discourse.

The long answer is also no. Consider that region is the prime nexus of all three Abraham faiths, each with their own Messiah prophesies also containing their own apocalyptic versions of what is to come. Seriously intense devotees of all three religions claim a spiritual and supernatural ascendancy will occur that accompanies this Messiah who will appear in the region. Heavy stuff I do not understand but many will die for.

No peace.

However, that does not mean we should give up on it.

Sure. Just because you know that something's not possible...that's certainly not a good reason to stop doing it!

I disagree. The nature and appeal of religion is fear and weakness. Religion promises a protector to keep the boogieman away at night. And that's how god was created.

I assume you are speaking of Buddhism?

(Or perhaps the form of Judaism know as the "Kabbalists?)

If not either of those two... perhaps maybe:

The Unitarians?

No? Well perhaps you are speaking of the Ba'haii then?

(/sarcasm)

What I have observed is a knee jerk reaction whenever any opposition to Israel is brought up, even when it is rational (which admittedly is often not the case).

Whenever? Any examples of irrational knee-jerk reaction?

I do know it's impossible to have any true discourse about Israel without people opposed to Israeli policies being directly or indirectly labelled as anti-semitic.

I think it's impossible to point out to Israel criticizers that they just could be wrong or even forcing Israel to a double standard without being criticized as using the "anti-Semitism card".

So here we go again and again and again and again for those who are incapable of comprehending it. Maybe if it's repeated every single day it will be understood.

So AGAIN, I will quote from the Ottawa Protocol, which I believe correctly identifies the issue, and with which I agree, as follows:

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.
For those of you who have trouble reading it, I repeat in bold print:

However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.

On the other hand there is also a real trepidation that a very pronounced Jewish group will launch an attack on anyone who disagrees with them.

Jewish?

Or pro-Israel?

Did you know that polls (including Americans of all political affiliations) consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Americans are quite pro-Israel.

So-- do you have any idea what percentage of the U.S. population is Jewish?

(Aeon: only please: take a guess..without googling it. ).

whenever any opposition to Israel is brought up, even when it is rational (which admittedly is often not the case).

And that's the problem, Mike.

Opposition and criticism of Israel most of the time lacks context and balance. There have been times when Israel, while defending herself, has been heavy handed. These things happen in all conflicts. It is ignored that Israel conducts investigations on these bad moves. It is ignored that the IDF has subjected their own to prosecution for their misdeeds. 140,000 dead in Syria, Mike. If that isn't lack of context, I don't know what is.

There is also a great deal of falsity which has been repeated over and over again. The most prevalent is with the settlements in the occupied territories. Mike, there are legal grounds for the occupation. LEGAL GROUNDS. And yet, the UN General Assembly, NOT A LEGAL BODY, filled with 3rd world slime, declares them illegal. International law? Keep repeating a lie over and over again, and the world believes it.

Here, try this on for size. One more time. Maybe it'll sink in:

In Hebrew with English subtitles.

I saw no subtitles ...

Gotta click on the 'cc' sometimes...

OK got it . Apparently the argument is that Jordan was the initial illegal occupier . Israel merely removed that illegal occupier . And has since offered to respect the laws of occupation it is meeting any obligations it might have ...

OK got it . Apparently the argument is that Jordan was the initial illegal occupier . Israel merely removed that illegal occupier . And has since offered to respect the laws of occupation it is meeting any obligations it might have ...

Yup.

INALB, (nor do I POOTV) but IMNSO, the relevant challenge to the notion of Israel as an "occupier" would be to ask the question: "What country did they occupy"?

Before control of the so-called "West Bank" passed over to Israel, it was part of Jordan. (Jordan had first illegally invaded & administered it it, and then actually illegally annexed it).

Before that?

It was controlled by Britain who seized it by force*.

Before that?

It was ruled by The Ottoman Empire.

(The fact is, there was never any such thing as independent country of "Palestine" there-- or anywhere.)

___________________________________________

*The original "British Mandate of Palestine" has been divided up. It now consists of 4 parts.

-Three are independent areas: 2 are Arab (Jordan & Gaza) & 1 is Jewish (Israel).

-The fourth part (the "West Bank") is temporarily administered in part by Israel & in part jointly administered by Israel & the Palestinian Authority pending a final peace agreement between Israel & 5 of the 7 Arab nations that attacked Israel in 1948 in a miserably botched attempt to "drive the Jews into the sea").

So the reality is-- from a legal standpoint, there is no Israeli "occupation".

Fair enough Krishna .
IMNSO = in my not so opinion ?

I'm not arguing for or against anything here. Just pointing out what I've witnessed here since our inception, and obviously much of that has been carry over from everybody's past relationships on NV. My point here is that nobody here seems capable of actual discourse...or rather, the majority of people here arent, and so the topic inevitably becomes a flame fest. I dont think there is even any denying this, and so the point of whether or not NT members are too supportive of Israel is moot IMO.

My point here is that nobody here seems capable of actual discourse...or rather, the majority of people here arent, and so the topic inevitably becomes a flame fest.

IMO that's true for the most part.

However from my experience on Internet discussion sites (going back for many, many years) that's true on other internet discussion sites as well. The only exceptions being:

1. Sites that allow only people with one point of view, for example Kos & DU on the left, Free Republic on the right.

2. Some sites that consist of a very small group of friends (Some of the smaller Yahoo groups).

3. A very few sites that are very strictly moderated (LGF-- one of Perrie's favourites).

I don't think there is even any denying this, and so the point of whether or not NT members are too supportive of Israel is moot IMO.

If any site allows differing views to be expressed, in most it will end up with a preponderance of those on one side of an argument or the other-- pro or anti-Israel, conservatives or liberals, etc. Those on the side with less members generally don't like it. lol.

And different sites may even differ on what topics get more or less coverage. For example, on NT there's generally not a tremendous amt of discussion about gay issues or abortion. But there is a good amt of discussion on gun related issues. On other sites the opposite may be true.

And there you have it. And what do we have?

Not even crickets.

The greatest aid to understanding the most contentious of issues surrounding the conflict, and nary a comment.

There's greater efficacy in banging your head against the wall.