School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath

[untermensche]

Palestinians didn't control shit. For one, there was no "Palestinian" as an ethnic term before PLO invented it. Second, Arabs didn't control it. Before WWI was Ottoman (Turks are not Arabs and they get pissed off if you think they are, so I would be careful!) and then it was under British rule after Ottoman Empire collapsed.

The Palestinians were the only people using the land. That is control.

It was a Partition Plan that the Arabs rejected, choosing to go to war instead. As it does not represent any actual borders, it has no place in a graphic that supposedly (but not really) shows how borders have shifted over time.

It was the UN plan. It was what the UN considered fair.

The Jews had just used force to take what they wanted. They used terrorism for years before that.

The reaction from neighboring states has nothing to do with the Palestinians.

And it does not change what the UN saw as fair.

after the Jews used violence to take what they wanted.

There was actually a lot of Arab violence against Jews. But you can't acknowledge that because of your deep-seated hatred against the Jews.

Right here you are ignoring the violence the Jews used to take what they wanted. They used violence, not diplomacy. They knew they had no legitimate right to much.

The third map shows what Palestinians have been willing to accept with joint control of Jerusalem for a long time.

Huh? They have not accepted anything. At that time, all Palestinian factions sought to destroy Israel.
And besides, it was Jordan that controlled East Jerusalem, not any "Palestine".

It is what the Palestinians have been willing to accept for a long time.

What do you not understand about that?

The fourth map shows the continual non-stop theft of land since 1967.

West Bank (or Judea and Samaria) are disputed territories.

Nothing in dispute about it. These are stolen lands controlled by Israel.

And Israel gave the entire Gaza Strip back in 2005.

Israel pulled a tiny few crazed settlers out.

So they could launch full scale war and not care as they have several times.

The Palestinians repaid that by shooting hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians, necessitating a blockade and three military engagements (Cast Lead 2008, Pillar of Defense 2012 and Protective Edge 2014) against the Strip's Naziesque rulers (i.e. Hamas).

Again, the sick trick of the oppressor.

They deny those they oppress the means to defend themselves and the means to create a safe modern state.

Then blame all when a tiny few criminals engage in criminal activity.

It is sickening and transparent.

 

[ruby sparks]

This bit of land must surely be the most contested on the planet throughout history. It's been ruled by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, The Romans, Persians, Muslims, Turks, the British and most recently by Jews, and whoever has been in charge has generally either pushed out or pushed down (or both) the previously indigenous population, and for the last 100 years that has been, in other words the most recent losers and those with the most recent claim to have been unfairly driven out are Palestinian arabs.

As far as I understand it, Israel has since its modern, 20th C, Jewish inception been propped up by both Britain and even more so by the USA for political (especially geopolitical) reasons.

To me it's daft to pick a side and say it's right and the other side is wrong. It's just a fight over a piece of land. All sides have gotten their hands dirty.

 

[Derec]

In other words they resisted theft and violent oppression with violence. And it is not "the Arabs". That is something a sick racist would say. It is the Palestinians.

Wrong. It's Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq which tried to attack Israel in 1967, supported by PLO and Lebanon. So, it's not just "Palestinians" but several Arab countries as well.

This is how oppression works.
You oppress and start stealing from a much weaker people.

That's what Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, together with volunteers from Muslim Brotherhood, Pakistan and Sudan, thought when they attacked the fledgling state of Israel in 1948. They thought Israel was weak, and that they would easily push the Jews into the sea.
It's not Israel's fault they lost.

Over time many of the oppressed become angry and over more time some people become violent.

Over time? Arabs have been attacking Jews in geographic Palestine since at least 1920!

The continual theft of land is why the oppression exists.[/B]

So how do you explain the increase in terror when Israel gave the entire Gaza Strip to the Palestinians?

 

[untermensche]

It is such a scam the US created a map to designate a fair distribution of land immediately.

 

[Derec]

This bit of land must surely be the most contested on the planet throughout history. It's been ruled by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, The Romans, Persians, Muslims, Turks, the British and most recently by Jews,

You are forgetting that Israelites lived there since at least early 1st millennium BCE. They were there while the Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and other empires fought over it. It was only the Romans who changed that for the long haul, but not forever, as Israel got reestablished in 1948. Palestinians do not have such historic connection to the land. Palestinians thus engage in revisionist history, claiming that there never was a Temple at the Temple Mount or that Jesus was a Palestinian (no Poe!). Before PLO invented it, there was no such a thing as "Palestinian identity". The Arabs living there did not see themselves as any different than those in Egypt or Syria or Iraq.

But you are right that this land has been fought over for millennia.

To me it's daft to pick a side and say it's right and the other side is wrong.

Except Israel is far more right than the Palestinians. Like 90%-10% if not more.
Israel made the land bloom. Before Israel, it was a crappy piece of real estate, a backwater. Israel is a modern, mostly secular state. Most Palestinians support Hamas, which is an Islamofascist party with clear Naziesque tendencies.

 

[Derec]

Isn't the impasse that the Palestinians want to kill all Israelis and the Israelis don't want to be killed? Certainly they can come to a compromise.

 

[Arctish]

Isn't the impasse that the Palestinians want to kill all Israelis and the Israelis don't want to be killed? Certainly they can come to a compromise.

Yeah, that about describes it, albeit in a completely one-sided way.

That about describes it in a completely racist, bigoted way.

Why is it that pro-Israel authoritarians get a free pass to post hateful anti-Semitic smears against people when others get called names for offering criticism of policies?

How about this: Isn't the impasse that the Jews want to keep stealing everything they can get their hands on, and the Palestinians don't want to be robbed? Isn't it true that a Jew once said something about making all of Palestine into a Jewish State and driving the non-Jews into the desert, so that means every Jew is motivated by greed to commit crimes against humanity?

Or is it true that the majority of people want to live peaceful lives in their hometowns, participate in their government, and be ruled by an authority whose primary purpose is to ensure their prosperity, protection, and welfare? Isn't it true that poverty, injustice, and oppression breed violence, whereas the most common result of justice and fairness is social harmony?

 

[Derec]

The Palestinians were the only people using the land. That is control.

No it isn't.

It was the UN plan. It was what the UN considered fair.

But it was rejected by the Arabs, who promptly attacked Israel.

Jews had just used force to take what they wanted. They used terrorism for years before that.

Arabs engaged in violence against the Jews, you mean?

The reaction from neighboring states has nothing to do with the Palestinians.

Well, Palestinians weren't invented yet back in 1948. The "neighboring states" did not see them as different from their own people.

re you are ignoring the violence the Jews used to take what they wanted. They used violence, not diplomacy. They knew they had no legitimate right to much.

And you are ignoring violence by Arabs. And it's not at all surprising that you think Jews don't have "right to much".

Besides, sometimes violence is necessary. Like against Nazis and their allies.

It is what the Palestinians have been willing to accept for a long time.

Repeating it does not make it true.

What do you not understand about that?

Nothing in dispute about it. These are stolen lands controlled by Israel.

Actually there is shared PA-Israel control, depending on the area, as a result of Oslo accords.
And yes, they are disputed. Final status is subject to negotiations. Not that the Palestinians are willing to negotiate.

So they could launch full scale war and not care as they have several times.

First of all, those were not "full scale wars". Second, they were necessary because Islamofascist Hamas kept attacking Israel. From the air (rockets and mortars), sea (yes, Hamas has a unit of frogmen) and even underground (terror tunnels).

Again, the sick trick of the oppressor.
They deny those they oppress the means to defend themselves and the means to create a safe modern state.

Hamas is not interested in a "safe, modern" state. They are interested in only two things
- establish a theocracy
- destroy Israel

Then blame all when a tiny few criminals engage in criminal activity.

The "tiny few criminals" are the terrorist organizations, largest of which runs Gaza and which collectively are supported by a vast majority of Palestinians.

It is sickening and transparent.

I think you just swallowed some ipecac.

 

[untermensche]

You have no answer for the continual and clear theft.

The continual theft of land gives the whole game away.

That is how we know why the oppression has existed these last decades.

Oppression to steal.

And cries that people that have been brutalized for decades are not all that friendly.

 

[Derec]

You have no answer for the continual and clear theft.

I have provided detailed answer to your baseless claims.
You are engaging in argument by repetition at this point.
Respond to what I actually wrote, come up with some new arguments, or move on to another thread.

 

[untermensche]

You have no answer for the continual and clear theft.

I have provided detailed answer to your baseless claims.
You are engaging in argument by repetition at this point.
Respond to what I actually wrote, come up with some new arguments, or move on to another thread.

You have not answered anything.

You just deny facts.

You deny that oppression created Hamas.

You deny the UN map was the fair distribution of land decided by the UN.

You deny the Palestinians have agreed to the '67 borders with joint control of Jerusalem for a long time.

You deny that land is slowly being stolen and that the Palestinians live in a fractured land under oppression.

And you call denial of facts "answering".

Why you deny these facts is the question.

 

[Arctish]

This bit of land must surely be the most contested on the planet throughout history. It's been ruled by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Greeks, The Romans, Persians, Muslims, Turks, the British and most recently by Jews,

You are forgetting that Israelites lived there since at least early 1st millennium BCE. They were there while the Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and other empires fought over it. It was only the Romans who changed that for the long haul, but not forever, as Israel got reestablished in 1948. Palestinians do not have such historic connection to the land.

You are either ignoring or are unaware of the fact that over the past 2000 years, Jews in Palestine converted to Christianity and Islam and raised their children in their new faiths, but they didn't leave. They stayed right where they were. They were, and their descendants are, the indigenous Semitic people of Palestine.

The Right of Return is based on the ancestral claim, but the Palestinians have a stronger ancestral claim to Palestine than nearly every Jew of the diaspora. All this Zionist apologist hand waving can't obscure the fact that people whose every ancestor for the past 1000 years have lived in or near Jerusalem have a stronger connection to it than people whose ancestors were European or American for as far back as anyone remembers.

Palestinians thus engage in revisionist history, claiming that there never was a Temple at the Temple Mount or that Jesus was a Palestinian (no Poe!). Before PLO invented it, there was no such a thing as "Palestinian identity". The Arabs living there did not see themselves as any different than those in Egypt or Syria or Iraq.

That is incorrect. Pan-Arabism was popular at the beginning of the 20th century but it was by no means universally accepted among the Arabic and Semitic peoples. There were real differences between the Bedouin of the Negev, the Samaritans and Muslims of the Jordan River Valley, and the Christian Palestinians who mostly lived in the urban areas and what is now Lebanon, but one thing they agreed on was that they were not Egyptians.

But you are right that this land has been fought over for millennia.

To me it's daft to pick a side and say it's right and the other side is wrong.

Except Israel is far more right than the Palestinians. Like 90%-10% if not more.
Israel made the land bloom. Before Israel, it was a crappy piece of real estate, a backwater. Israel is a modern, mostly secular state. Most Palestinians support Hamas, which is an Islamofascist party with clear Naziesque tendencies.

^ Appeal to Racism.

Before the 20th century, most farmland was less productive, most resources were less exploited, most towns and cities were less sanitary, and most people were less educated and well traveled. So what?

If Israel was so wonderfully secular citizens would be allowed to identify as Israeli on their national IDs, not forced to identify themselves by their religious affiliation or ethnicity. But Israel's highest court has ruled that the government needs to know who gets preferential treatment and who is discriminated against by law, because not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion and ancestry would thwart the purpose of the Jewish State. Bigotry and bias are baked into Israel's foundation. All your hand waving can't obscure that truth, either.

 

[repoman]

Rick Sanchez has been redpilled for a long time. Love the guy


They really do cry out in pain as they strike you...

 

[ruby sparks]

You are forgetting that Israelites lived there since at least early 1st millennium BCE.

Yeah. True. Oh wait. Who has lived in North America since at least the early 1st millennium BCE?

 

[untermensche]

You are forgetting that Israelites lived there since at least early 1st millennium BCE.

Yeah. True. Oh wait. Who has lived in North America since at least the early 1st millennium BCE?

No, not the same.

The people in North America have a continual presence, not a massive immigration beginning about 100 years ago.

 

[ronburgundy]

This anti-speech, anti-liberty law has nothing to do with BDS. It forbids people from engaging in any activity (including voicing objections) for any reason (including personal conscience with no connection to BDS) that might cause any economic harm to Israel or any company in Israel or that does business with Israel.
It is nothing short of fascist and would be thought horrifyingly unacceptable by all those who do not support a fascist state.

The law does not seem to do that. Can you point out the part of the law that you believe does this?

[P]"Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code:

1. “Boycott Israel” means refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israeli-controlled territory"[/P]

IOW, it covers any and all activities (hint: speech is an activity) that is done with any intent (no matter the underlying motive or any relation to BDS), to cause any level of negative impact on any type of commercial/economic interactions with Israel, which by definition includes criticism of companies that do business with Israel.

The language is extremely broad, inclusive, and unqualified, which means that covers every type of action, and every type of negative impact, and every type of connection (including only indirect) to Israel.

 

[ZiprHead]

This anti-speech, anti-liberty law has nothing to do with BDS. It forbids people from engaging in any activity (including voicing objections) for any reason (including personal conscience with no connection to BDS) that might cause any economic harm to Israel or any company in Israel or that does business with Israel.
It is nothing short of fascist and would be thought horrifyingly unacceptable by all those who do not support a fascist state.

The law does not seem to do that. Can you point out the part of the law that you believe does this?

[P]"Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code:

1. “Boycott Israel” means refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israeli-controlled territory"[/P]

IOW, it covers any and all activities (hint: speech is an activity) that is done with any intent (no matter the underlying motive or any relation to BDS), to cause any level of negative impact on any type of commercial/economic interactions with Israel, which by definition includes criticism of companies that do business with Israel.

The language is extremely broad, inclusive, and unqualified, which means that covers every type of action, and every type of negative impact, and every type of connection (including only indirect) to Israel.

How can this be legal?

 

[repoman]

Welcome to ZOG America

 

[Axulus]

This anti-speech, anti-liberty law has nothing to do with BDS. It forbids people from engaging in any activity (including voicing objections) for any reason (including personal conscience with no connection to BDS) that might cause any economic harm to Israel or any company in Israel or that does business with Israel.
It is nothing short of fascist and would be thought horrifyingly unacceptable by all those who do not support a fascist state.

The law does not seem to do that. Can you point out the part of the law that you believe does this?

[P]"Pursuant to Section 2270.001 of Texas Government Code:

1. “Boycott Israel” means refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israeli-controlled territory"[/P]

IOW, it covers any and all activities (hint: speech is an activity) that is done with any intent (no matter the underlying motive or any relation to BDS), to cause any level of negative impact on any type of commercial/economic interactions with Israel, which by definition includes criticism of companies that do business with Israel.

The language is extremely broad, inclusive, and unqualified, which means that covers every type of action, and every type of negative impact, and every type of connection (including only indirect) to Israel.

Sorry, but you are taking this section out of context. This specifically refers to her company. IOW, her profession and her business dealings through her profession.

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 2270.001 By signing below, Company hereby certifies the following: 1. Company does not boycott Israel; and 2. Company will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract.


1. "Boycott Israel" means refusing to deal with, terminating business activities with, or otherwise taking any action that is intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israeli-controlled territory, but does not include an action made for ordinary business purposes; and

2. "Company" means a for-profit sole proprietorship, organization, association, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or any limited liability company, including a wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company or affiliate of those entities or business associations that exist to make a profit.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/12/18/everyone-is-misreporting-the-texas-bds-l

Note that some government agencies replace the word "company" with "contractor" in the document they have the person sign, but the words are interchangeable in this context based on the way the law is written (the actual law uses "company" and is titled "Prohibition on Contracts With Companies Boycotting Israel".)

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.808.htm

Therefore, she may personally boycott Israel and cause economic harm to Israel so long as it is not done in her professional/business capacity.

 

[untermensche]

Why Israel?

Why have anybody sign anything about Israel?

Why should Americans be protecting Israel?