Maher: BDS a "Bullsh*t Purity Test"; Media Believes "Jews Must Be Wrong" In Coverage of Palestinians

It isn't often that I agree with Bill Maher.

Of course, Ms. Talib wants to 'boycott Maher's show'. She wants to stifle any voice that does not spew her beliefs and her words.

i often agree with Bill,

on this,

i must educate myself further to have more context and information so as i can make an informed decision.

Boycotting Maher, is not the right direction 

though, this much,  i need no further research on         just my opine

Bob Nelson has a great series on this here on NT. He is a liberal and supports Israel's right to exist, and spells out the history of the region. I would highly recommend this. 

It starts here and is in 4 parts:

thenewstalkers

thenewstalkers

thenewstalkers

thenewstalkers

Do not use the links that are at the bottom of the page. They from our previous platform and will not work. 

Thanx Perrie 

I've posted a fresher version, in a single article .

I don't agree with Maher on anything at all, except two things.  As a rare thinking atheist, he recognizes the threat that Islam really is to the modern world and on the seeded issue above he's exactly right 

the threat that Islam really is to the modern world

What threat is that? 

Yeah... what threat is that? 

When is the last time a Muslim country invaded the USA?  

How many times has the USA invaded Muslim countries?

Are there Muslim bases surrounding the USA?

Maybe there are secret Muslim bases in Greenland....

Could be. But they'd have to push out the Zybots from Zinram first.

What?!

Are those damned Zybots sneakin' across the border again?

A wall! We must build a wall!

No! We need a big beautiful dome. Zybots enter the country by flying into the airports on visas and simply overstaying their paperwork.

Sneaky Arblargs.  

Build a Dome!  Build a Dome!

"Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) called for people to boycott Maher's show after his recent commentary on the BDS movement."

Hmmmmm. Apparently free speech is only free if you happen to agree with the speaker.

I do happen to agree with Mr. Maher, the Dems seem to be going through the same purity measurements that they chided the GOP for engaging in a few years ago. I myself would be more concerned with winning 2020 rather than whether one is liberal, progressive or moderate enough.

I do happen to agree with Mr. Maher, the Dems seem to be going through the same purity measurements that they chided the GOP for engaging in a few years ago. I myself would be more concerned with winning 2020 rather than whether one is liberal, progressive or moderate enough.

Removing the stain, actually an irremovable stain, that at least must be power washed off our country,

should most definitely, be all of ours',     primary objective

 "primary objective"

That's correct, don't take your eyes off the prize.

the Dems seem to be going through the same purity measurements

Only some of them. There are also a lot of dems who wish that these 2 would just shut up already.

There are also a lot of dems who wish that these 2 would just shut up already.

I think those Dems need to speak out. Silence to these two means agreement.

They have not been quiet over it:

washingtonpost

Yes, that was then...still, the resolution was 'all hatred matters'. And now? Who's speaking out?

As with most things, it has become politicized. When Trump tweeted that letting them in would be a sign of weakness, the dems took a defensive position. I didn't think that the Trump should have gotten involved in Israeli politics but I also think that it's about time that the dems put politics aside and speak out firmly. But that is partisan politics for you. Hence why I am an independent. 

There are also a lot of dems who wish that these 2 would just shut up already.

I'm not a Dem (capital "D"), because they're too far right for my taste... but I've said several times that Bill Maher is a showman, not a politician. He makes a living by being outrageous, kind of a P T Barnum on the left.

Only a fool takes any showman's word at face value. When Maher makes headlines, he makes money!

Keep payin', suckers!

Umm...last time I checked free speech doesnt mean free from consequences!

We are all free to speak as we choose, consequences should come from actions not speech.

So you shouldnt go to jail for yelling fire in a crowded theater??!!.....good to know!

Certain speech can also have consequences.

You mean like saying “Israel has hypnotized the world”?  Ya, that may incite anti-Semites. I see.

You mean like saying “Israel has hypnotized the world”?  Ya, that may incite anti-Semites. I see.

So might calling 70+% of the Jews in the USa traitors. 

Apparently free speech is only free if you happen to agree with the speaker.

It's not a free speech thing.

It's a junior high school thing.

If you don't do what the popular girls want, you can't sit at their lunch table and they'll talk shit about you all day.

I think you might be a bit confused on the free speech thing.  Boycotting a show is free speech. Bill can say what he wants... other people can get together call Bill a bigot and decide not to go to his show.

Or is free speech only for one side?

Does anyone think that ISIS is going to defeat the USA or the EU?

BDS is an economic failure, it may make a few Palestinians feel better about their plight, but Israel should be thanking Barghouti.

Primarily through technology exports and counter to BDS intentions, Israel’s economy has grown significantly over the past number of years. What’s more, Israel’s economy grew by a staggering 7.2 percent during the fourth quarter of 2014 blogs.timesofisrael

In fact, the general consensus is that BDS contributes only to the Palestinians own economic woes.

forbes

breakingisraelnews

According to our calculations, based on the information we obtained from the companies, the cumulative proportion of economic damage since 2010 was 0.004%. To put it more colorfully, if the Israeli economy's yearly income were to average NIS 1 million, the damage from the sanctions would have been NIS 40 - a completely negligible amount.

msn

So no one is worried about BDS?  Except Bill Maher?

BDS is stupid.  My response to it is to directly invest in their economy via an ETF index of their stock Market.  I have a diversified portfolio including foreign markets.  I simply include Israel in the list of countries I have an ETF for (UK, Can, NZ, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Mexico, Israel) plus regional and global international funds.  I do invest to keep positions in companies based in Russia and China to zero or an absolute minimum possible in global funds. 

What happens if the money Israel loses to BDS outweighs your investment?

Not a chance that’s going to happen.  Of course I bought into the Israel 🇮🇱 stock market I-Shares ETF index as a direct response to hearing about BDS.  And no, it’s not a huge play that would make or break me, but more in solidarity with them and symbolic and a middle finger 🖕 to the people behind BDS. 

I don't care about your alleged stock market buys and sells. 

Seems to me that you've have to know how much you invested and how much BDS has cost Israel.

Are you willing to make those figure available?  With citations so that we can both see the truth?

If not I'm just gonna disregard your comment as braggadocio and opinion.

I dont approve of BDS for a very simple reason. A "boycott" of a small country like Israel would eventually threaten its existence. 

I think there are some people who think they can be both pro BDS and pro Israel at the same time but that is not really the case. 

I totally agree!

*Now waiting to get hit by lightning or something.

LMAO!

Its a lot better than a House Representative and President going on a shooting spree in a Walmart!

Me too in this case. ⚡️

I'd worry more about two congresswomen strapping suicide bomb vests on and knocking on your door.

I would be more worried that trump would try to nuke a hurricane and wipe out florida. 

John,

So, if Israel was a bigger country you'd approve of BDS?

I don't really understand your reasoning here.  

So what if Israel's existence might be threatened by BDS. (seems pretty speculative given that the USA props up Israel whenever needed but I'll stipulate that point.)

Israel's existence destroyed millions of lives and is continuing to do so.

Why shouldn't Israel be subject to the medicine it dished out?

What's your real reason...?

Why does Israel have a right to exist?  I mean if that could actually be proven, then it would simplify stuff in the Middle East to no end.

Does the Iroquois League have a right to exist?

What about the old Mexico?  I mean the old extent of Mexican territory?

The only right any group has to exist and claim any land at all is by force... that's it.

The only right any individual has to claim any land is by force.  All this property stuff is just made up.  Doesn't much matter how many people claim to believe it. Lots of people claimed to believe in Zeus, too.

We wandered about this planet in a sustainable way for about 190,000 years... we didn't really own anything... birds didn't own anything... or whales.  And things went along pretty smoothly.

Since we decided to do the whole farming thing we've pretty much screwed everything up.  And the farming thing is why we have property... and that other great fiction.  LAW!

And property is why we have the money religion and wars... and poverty.

And these big group thingies called nations that are all maintained by force, not consent.

So for example, since this article is about Israel, Israel is a creation of a small part of the international community that wants to prevent a resurgence of a Muslim Empire... oh and the destabilizing access to Middle Eastern oil though House of Saud terrorists is a nice little ancillary benefit.

Israel annexed the ground it holds by force and terror and apartheid.  Much like the USA.

Israel has no legitimate claim to any of the ground it holds... and the people Israel holds in captivity have not consented to being governed by Israel.  Same stuff the USA does.

Nations take and hold ground by force.  For some reason people allow groups immoral behavior they would not allow individuals

I mean how am I wrong here?

The simple fact of the matter is, Israel does exist and has defended itself against those wanting it's demise to this day. 

I don't see it throwing in the towel anytime soon.

BTW, I don't see the 500 year resistance going away anytime soon either. 

Hi dave,  Of course, Israel exists... that is different than having a right to exist.  Which is what I was commenting on.

And it seems pretty reasonable to me that the people that don't think Israel has a right to exist would seek it's demise.  I'm pretty sure that Israel is doing the same thing to it's enemies.

I'm not sure what 500 year resistance you are referring to.

Hi Dan, good to meet you.

Got another hour, hour and a half watching a movie with a pretty girl.

I'l follow up later.

Cheers.

Alright, my pretty girl is in bed now. She is currently 7 time zones ahead of GMT -5. That is east coast US time.

To be honest, a statement of your led me down the path of my answer about Israel. This one:

The only right any individual has to claim any land is by force.

It is true all sorts of declarations by powers "that be" at the time led to the creation of the state of Israel, it is also true, Israel did not play the victim role.

There were many vary bad military situations and they overcame the odds every time.

They used force as needed, come hell or high water.

They exist and they plan to continue their existence. 

BTW, I am a couple things on my maternal side. My grandfather was Russian, my grand mother was a Russian and Austrian Jew. As that was my maternal side, that makes me a Jew and allowed me to volunteer for certain contracting work in the 70s.

As you mentioned the Iroquois I tested your understanding with the 500 year resistance.

My paternal grandfather if 100% pure Cherokee, Eastern Band. Not a Hollywood or politico Cherokee. My paternal grandmother is turning out to be almost half Algonquin.

In all honesty, I am in learning mode too. Due to family situations there was a chasm between my father when young and his father. 

As time has passed, it is time to put the pieces together and 3 members of this site have played the most helpful roles in that.

If you read along enough, those 3 members will become obvious.

Anyhow, the 500 year resistance refers to the time from when Columbus landed until the present.

Be careful how you interpret that statement.

From a percentage standpoint, no other ethnicity has presented itself as defenders of our nation on the field of battle than Native Americans.

Hope that makes sense.

Cheers.

I don't understand how any of that gives Israel or the USA or any other nation a right to exist.

Which is what I was talking about.

I also don't understand how your family history has anything to do with it.

Just because someone has a Jewish ancestry does not give them an authoritative voice on the history of Israel.

Neither does having a Cherokee grandfather give anyone expertise in the history of this land we call now North America.

Generally speaking that kind of knowledge comes from study.

I don't understand how any of that gives Israel or the USA or any other nation a right to exist.

You are ignoring your own reasoning from this statement right here:

The only right any individual has to claim any land is by force.

Why did you state that then turn around and state this:

I don't understand how any of that gives Israel or the USA or any other nation a right to exist.

Both are your statements. Which is it you stand by?

Further where did I state anything to this effect (also your statement):

Neither does having a Cherokee grandfather give anyone expertise in the history of this land we call now North America.

I clearly stated this:

In all honesty, I am in learning mode too.

However, I do know this and I will not apologize for it:

Anyhow, the 500 year resistance refers to the time from when Columbus landed until the present.

Be careful how you interpret that statement.

From a percentage standpoint, no other ethnicity has presented itself as defenders of our nation on the field of battle than Native Americans.

Now it is up to you if you want too hold an honest conversation. 

My statements do not contradict each other. 

Is forcing someone to do something justified or a right?

Then force isn't a right. I was speaking to that fact... that the only possible way to explain property is that people use force to take and hold land. 

Did that clarify my position?

So why did you bring up your ancestry... the conversation had nothing at all to do with your ancestry.

Our nation?  Are you referring to the USA?

A few tribes have their own nations, within the USA borders. Not all tribes that once existed... but the Indian nations still exist.  And these tribes are recognized by the USA as domestic dependent nations.

hen force isn't a right.

the Rooster force is.. ?

as is forces of nature, but the laws of physics were meant to be broken like a fixture

I don't understand this comment at all.

I don't understand this comment at

Well,

either does anyone else around here including moi', but don't attempt to cut in line, for distribution for my secret orphan annie decoder ring dull distribution point, as in good time, you'll probably get mine, as for the threecomments ive read of yours, i've not been made to feel blue, so if your WhITE, i'm guessing according to Trump, you must b one of the "good" Americans, but

i won't judge

asz i prefer jury and executioner

but ,

thats just me 

Before we go any further, you will need to explain better than you just attempted, how these two statements do not contradict each other:

The only right any individual has to claim any land is by force.

and

I don't understand how any of that gives Israel or the USA or any other nation a right to exist.

"The only right any group has to exist and claim any land at all is by force... that's it. The only right any individual has to claim any land is by force."My quote no contradiction in that.

Then you quote this:

"I don't understand how any of that gives Israel or the USA or any other nation a right to exist."

You say there is a contradiction between that and the first.

Go ahead and point it out to me.

Even better you could explain how they do contradict each other since they do not.

Israel annexed the ground it holds by force and terror and apartheid.  Much like the USA. Israel has no legitimate claim to any of the ground it holds

False!

At the end of WWII there was no independent Arab or Jewish nation there. Britain controlled the area.  ("The British Mandate of Palestine"). Unlike your "alternative facts". here are the real facts-- what actually happened:

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181.

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem. 

Now you might not li,ke the UN, but that's how the plan for two new countries evolved-- by the UN. (several Arab states didn't want a second non-Muslim state in their midst so they attacked in order to prevent it. But when the fighting stopped, while Israel survived,  Egypt and Jordan occupied the areas that were supposed to be a new country of "Palestine"-- thus preventing its formation).

Krishna,

You did not contradict my statement other than say "false".

Britain did indeed control the territory... through force.  

If you understood the history of the region you wouldn't be all that surprised there wasn't a nation there.

The territory used to belong to the Ottoman Empire and when it fell Britain took over the region to manage it until something could be worked out.

So, you statement that there were no independent nations there is so of a duh.

Because the Ottoman held that territory and managed as part of their empire.  That empire fell leaving many areas without governments.  As you stated Britain was granted administrative control of the area after France declined and it was a League of Nations Mandate.

Here's the problem you have.  There were people there.  It was not empty country and none of the people who lived there were represented in the League Nations.

Further here is the relevant part of the mandate concerning how these territories were to be managed

" The mandate document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the  Covenant of the League of Nations of 28 June 1919 and of the  Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers '  San Remo Resolution  of 25 April 1920. The objective of the system of Class A mandates was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire "until such time as they are able to stand alone"

The the Western Nations made damned that key arab territories were never able to stand on their own... through regime change and war.

It was Western Allies that chose to give Israel a state on other people's territory in violation of the League of Nations Mandate.  

During the ensuing war... Israel displace close to a million Palestinians who do not have the right to return... in the process Israel simply stole the land those people owned.

So, in conclusion... I'm more than happy to back up everything I said with actual facts.

The other think you never responded to was the idea of consent of the governed

This is something you believe is necessary?

From the end of WW1 came chaos. Official Zionist terrorism started in 1924, against the British, the Arabs and any Jews who did not believe that the ends justified the means.

This continued from 1924 through 1948 and this is what the Arabs & "Palestinians" remember well.

When the Zionists did it they were eventually condemned by the UN, the USA and the Brits.

Somehow, Menachem Begin went from being a terrorist in the 40's to Prime Minister in the late 70's.

At some point, Israel has to drop the "moral high ground" nonsense and admit that much of what they did prior to 1948

was illegal and immoral

and try to work something out for the improvement of everyone in Israel, instead of a constant state of civil war.

1924 - 1948

en.wikipedia

Thats sorta what i recall, but i'm not up to speed on current affairs involving Israel, so i am not going to attempt to arguethat which i am inconclusive about, unless

.

what the hell, ive often been compared to an advocate, for Lew

If Israel hadn't been being heinous, I'd agree with you that some solution should be worked out.

But Israel has been being heinous and it did not stop in 1948.

Just speaking in terms of absolute right and wrong.  

It seems to me that the only justice is to de-legitimize Israel, bring the Palestine's in Gaza back home and put them in charge of the people in the region... along with any other Palestinians and Arabs that wish to be involved.

The reason why this seems just to me is that.

1) It's their land

2) Israel has already done this to them, and that wrong should be righted.

3) The Middle East would calm down

On a more practical note. It seem unlikely that Israel is going to last too much longer.  A lot of people think that Israel wags the US dog, but without the USA, Israel is screwed. And I don't know if anyone has noticed but the USA is in the middle of an historic fall.

My guess is that Israel will be gone in no more than 30 years.

Good chance they will fall or be forced to use nukes.  As soon as they do that, they are over and maybe the rest of us as well.  Of course Israel could change it's ways and adopt a conciliatory tone.  Seems pretty unlikely.

Israel has painted itself into this corner by intentionally forcing it's way into a region based on stone-age myths and greed... and then horrifically abusing the people it usurped governance over.

All in all very similar to the USA.

One final point, Zionism is incredibly anti-Semitic. People associate Israel with the Jewish faith, when Israel was built on a Zionist philosophy which merely uses the Jewish faith to hide very obvious secular concerns.

Jews are protesting ICE not killing Palestinians.  

But because of Zionist Israel ALL Jews get blamed for Israel not just Zionists.

What is a "terrorist"?

My own definition is "someone who uses violence against innocents to promote an agenda".

Imperial powers applied the word to independence fighters. The Brits labeled "terrorist", all the independence movements that threatened the Empire. Burma, India, Jewish Palestine, Kenya, ...

Some independence fighters did indeed come close to terrorism. Was the bombing of the King David Hotel "terrorism"? It targeted the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Armed Forces in Palestine and Transjordan, located in the hotel. It killed 91, including some innocents.

Were Allied fire-bombings "terrorism"?

The problem, of course, is that revolutionary movements often do not have the military means to go head-to-head with the government's better-trained and better-equipped troops. So they have no choice but to use "unconventional warfare". Are IEDs "terrorism", or are they just as  legitimate as the US Army's mass-produced antipersonnel mines ?

The US labels Hezbollah "terrorist". Hezbollah never targets innocents... according to its definition... Hezbollah targets military units, such as the USS Cole. Hezbollah runs government services. Hezbollah is an enemy. Undoubtedly. It declares itself to be an enemy. But is Hezbollah "terrorist"?

Are Chechen independence fighters "terrorists"? Russia says they are.

Israel has no legitimate claim to any of the ground it holds...

Actually... Israel's rights under international law are unquestionable. I spent a bit of time and effort condensing the history of that region, if you want to learn the facts: A Forgivable Genocide .

and the people Israel holds in captivity have not consented to being governed by Israel.

The history of the Palestinian people has been distorted by decades of propaganda. They have indeed been getting screwed since 1947... but the perpetrator is not Israel . Again... please read A Forgivable Genocide .

Bob, The article you cited merely confirms what I'm saying.

Israel is not solely at fault... the league of nations and the allies bear some responsibility.

And this was done quite purposefully, to prevent any further Muslim Empires.

Israel violates International law all the time... International law is a joke.  Nations follow it or not by consent since there is no universally accepted way to enforce it.

It a fiction.  Trying to borrow credibility from an international law that was used to steal land is sort of missing the point.

Prior to Israel and the West stealing that land international law empowered Britain to administrate the region with the stated idea of helping those territories stand on their own.

Instead Britain used that authority to screw Palestians and Arabs who were also advocating to be given their own states and sided with Israel.

Also beyond the moral deficit of referring to forgivable genocides your article is highly partisan and leaves out much detail that works against the one sided case you drew there.

And beyond all that you've done nothing but confirm that nations are taken and held only by force.

Law is a way for rich people to justify themselves and control you while they do what they want.

I'll be more than happy to prove this small detail to you if it will help you stop referring to law like it comes from god instead of people.

And when people write laws they are NEVER JUST or JUSTLY applied... all you have to do to confirm this is to look at your own country... whatever country that might be.

Israel violates International law all the time

Could you give a few examples? Most of the time, Israel is reacting.

Prior to Israel and the West stealing that land

If you read A Forgivable Genocide , then you should know that there was no theft.

Until the Arabs ended the rule of law by starting the 1948 war, Jews bought the land they farmed. This is important: the Arabs were the first to use violence on a massive scale . The Arabs have continued to use violence and to swear the destruction of Israel ever since.

The only way to blame Israel for the situation in the Middle East is to use completely different criteria when examining the protagonists.

Bob,

Not trying to be offensive but the article you refer is simply not a good source.  It is biased and leaves out the other side of the story.

In 1945, of the 26.4 million   dunams   (26,400 km²) of land in   Mandatory Palestine , 12.8 million was either owned or held in indefinite lease by Arabs, 1.5 million by Jews, 1.5 million was public land and 10.6 million constituted the desertic Beersheba district ( Negev ). Of the 9.2 million dunams of land that was arable, 7.8 million dunams was owned by Arabs, 1.2 million by Jews and 0.2 million was public land. ^{[2] [3]}   By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinian Arabs had fled or been expelled from their lands and villages. Israel was now in control of some 20.5 million   dunams   (approx. 20,500 km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandatory Palestine: 8% (approx. 1,650 km²) were privately controlled by Jews, 6% (approx. 1,300 km²) by Arabs, with the remaining 86% being public land. ^[4]   Land laws were passed to legalize changes to land ownership. ^[5]

As at 2007, the   Israel Land Administration   (ILA), which was established in 1960, manages 93% of Israel's land comprising 19,508 km² under the following laws and land policy. The remaining 7% of land is either privately owned or under the protection of religious authorities.

• Basic Law: Israel lands   (1960) states that all the lands owned by the state of Israel will remain in state ownership, and will not be sold or given to anyone, but allows for the   Kenesset   to override that ban on   privatization   by   legislation . ^[6]
• Israel Lands Law (1960) details several exceptions to the basic law.
• Israel Land Administration Law (1960) describes the details of establishing and operating the Israel Land Administration. ^[7]
• Covenant between the State of Israel and the   World Zionist Organization , establishing the Jewish National Fund (1960). ^[8]

13 percent of Israel's land belongs to the   Jewish National Fund , ^[9]   which is managed by the ILA.

Use of land in Israel usually means leasing rights from the ILA for a period of 49 or 98 years. Under Israeli law, the ILA cannot lease land to foreign nationals, which includes Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who have identity cards but are not citizens of Israel. In practice, foreigners may be allowed to lease if they show that they would qualify as Jewish under the   Law of Return . ^{[10] "}

" How much of Israel's territory consists of land confiscated with the Absentee Property Law is uncertain and much disputed.  Robert Fisk  interviewed the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property, who estimates this could amount to up to 70% of the territory of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip: ^{[ dubious   –   discuss ]"}

wiki

Absentee Property Law is when Israel simply defined the land as theirs.

My position is not controversial.  It's history. Some Zionists bought land using rich western sponsors.  But this did not account for anywhere near a majority of the land stolen when Israel was annexed

International law violations by Israel:

itisapartheid

But like I said International can't be enforced so it's not really meaningful, but since you asked I cited a list.

A decent example of this is how sanctuary cities exist in the USA.  Not much point in having a law if people say "Go eff yourself you racist wankers" and the so called law can't do jack about it.

Arabs are entitled to use violence to defend their homes from invaders all people are. 

It was Israel that had no right to force it's way in. And once they committed that original sin they became responsible for everything that happened after.  Sort of like if you rob a bank and some one dies as a result... even if you didn't actually hurt that person... you are responsible for murder.

Put simply:

Don't start none; won't be none.

You gonna tell me that if Central and South America decide to annex Texas you'd expect Texans to just lay there and take it?

And why does Britain get to decide for other people. You still haven't explained that.  What piece of paper could Brazil and Argentina produce to convince you that they were now the legal governor's of your state?

By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinian Arabs had fled or been expelled from their lands and villages. Israel was now in control of some 20.5 million   dunams   (approx. 20,500 km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandatory Palestine: 8% (approx. 1,650 km²) were privately controlled by Jews, 6% (approx. 1,300 km²) by Arabs, with the remaining 86% being public land. [4]   Land laws were passed to legalize changes to land ownership. [5]

At the same time, roughly the same number of Jews "had fled or been expelled from their lands and villages".

Roughly the same number.

The Jewish refugees were accepted by the new Israeli state. This was not easy. The refugees represented a significant portion of the total population. They were Sephardim, culturally and linguistically different from the Ashkenazim who had won independence.

The Arab refugees, linguistically and culturally indistinguishable from neighboring Arab populations, were an insignificant number, compared to the hundred million of the Arab world. But the refugees were not welcomed. They were put in camps, behind barbed wire... and kept there indefinitely.

(Overall, some ten million people were displaced after WWII. All were settled within a few years. The only exception, the ONLY exception, were the Palestinians.)

As I said, the Palestinians have been getting screwed since 1947.  By their "brother" Arabs.

The only way to see Israel as the bad guy is to apply totally different standards.

It was Israel that had no right to force it's way in.

Please read more carefully.

Israel did not "force its way in". Didn't happen.

The Arabs started the 1948 war, with the declared intention of destroying Israel before it could be born. O-o-o-p-s! The Arabs lost the war.

"At the same time, roughly the same number of Jews "had fled or been expelled from their lands and villages".

Roughly the same number"

"Again this is inaccurate.  Jews were about 30% of the total population at the time of Zionist invasion.  They owned about six percent of the land."  And displace Jews had the right of return.  Following the ethnic cleansing goal of Zionism, displaced Palestinians did not.

You do realize that Zionist planned to setup a Jewish majority democracy?  How were the gonna do that without getting rid of most of the Palestinians and Arabs?

ifamericansknew

You don't get to blame Arab treatment of refugees created by Israel's invasion of Palestine.  The USA creates refugees in South America all the time... and when those refugees we created come to the USA.  We don't want them... no everyone but a lot.

Same kind of thing with the Palestinian refugees.  And you don't seem to be realizing that there wouldn't be refugees at all if Israel hadn't created them.

Zionists grew this poisoned bush, they are responsible for the fruit.

And finally. You are ignoring the fact that Israel does and did abuse Palestinians and Arabs.  By taking their land usurping their right to choose their own government.

It's not Syria blockading Gaza.  That's Israel. 

It's not valid to tell one side of the story.

Following the ethnic cleansing goal of Zionism, displaced Palestinians did not.

Some Palestinian Arabs were chased out. Some were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies. Some hoped to benefit from siding with the invaders. All told, about 700 000.

Most Moroccan-Tunisian-Algerian-Lybian-Egyptian-Lebanese-Syrian-Iraqi Jews were chased out. Some left in search of a better life in the Promised Land. All told, about 700 000.

If one was an "ethnic cleansing", so was the other.

Why the double standard?

I don't see any double standard even in what you just said.

Israel was the aggressor.  This whole clusterfyck started with Israel's behavior.

All that other stuff you are talking about grew from Israel criminal behavior.

Did you read the article I posted?

The UN did not even create Israel as a state.  The resolution people always refer to thinking it did was non binding. General Membership votes are non binding by UN Charter, and the resolution needed UN security counsel action... which the security council declined to take.  Even though the resolution actually requested that necessary action from the Security Council.

Israel invaded and annexed. And the people living there have every right to object... but were not given a voice.

This is not controversial in the historical record.

You seem pretty fair minded, but you are avoiding a lot of the points I made.

How come?

It is no secret that I am no fan of Israel, but I am with Maher on this one, the shit cuts both ways. As I have said, I would prefer the entire region sink into the ocean so that none of us have to deal with the bullshit.

Maher said Jews in Israel are "mostly white" and the Palestinians are browner so they "must be innocent and correct" in the eye of the media. The 'Real Time' panel and Maher also discuss Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) being banned and unbanned from entering Israel.

Lately I've been hearing a lot about how Israel banned these "women of colour". Which raised an intriguing question in my mind-- what "colour" is Rashida Tlaib? Sher appears to me to be a "White" woman- i.e. "Caucasian" (Which would certainly be the case if she was really "Palestinian").

Maher said Jews in Israel are "mostly white"

Has he ever actually been in Israel?

Christ was undoubtedly "White", too... but only if we accept the idea that "White" has very little to do with skin color...

Jews are not the problem, their terrorist leader is.