School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath

[ruby sparks]

The people the UN recognized in 1948 as just as deserving a homeland as the Jewish terrorist intruders.

Yes of course. But the arabs rejected that offer.

When we say 'arabs' in this context we mean those in power, those not in power but motivated to war (the Palestinian arab nationalists willing to go to war) and those in the populations who agreed with them. Not all arabs, obviously. Many average arabs-in-the-street-or-in-the-fields probably didn't want a war. Many probably did, if they thought 'their side' could win easily. People are like that. Be careful about automatically putting the common man on a pedestal. There was widespread if covert and undeclared support for the IRA in Ireland during the Troubles, and probably in Germany for Hitler, while it looked like he was going to win.

A few leaders rejected it.

It was generally rejected by the arabs, Palestinian and otherwise. That's why they started the war in 1948. No, it was not done on the basis of a democratic referendum of the population. Wars rarely are. There'd almost certainly be fewer if they were, especially if they allowed women to vote on it. A lot of innocents suffer.

 

[ruby sparks]

Adhering to the facts of this situation, is there an instance where it’s ambiguous whether “she” or “it” is acting?

I'm not sure what you're asking. In this case the 'it' in the declaration is her. The ambiguity, such as it is, is whether the declaration applies to her in her private life as well as at work, or not. I would guess it's not intended to, but then it is not clear. Also, it's only relevant if the bone of contention is based on her not being able to boycott Israel in her private life, and I'm not even sure that's the bone of her contention, or the only one. In fact, reading her case, it doesn't seem to be the basis of her case. She seems to me to be objecting to an anti-boycott-Israel law even as it applies to her work, and possibly to such laws in general, on principle.

Looking at the similar case in Kansas that's already gone through the legal system there, it appears that authorities may have to water down the terms of such things so as, for example, to exclude individual, sole proprietors such as her. But I suppose the Texas Courts may not necessarily be bound by decisions made by courts in Kansas, so maybe there will be a different outcome in Texas.

In any case, that, if it happened, would still allow a modified version of the law to pertain (for larger businesses). In other words, it wouldn't shed much light on the general arguments for or against such laws in principle. But for her, the woman in the OP, it would mean she would in theory be able to get her job back without having to sign a declaration of that sort.

 

[untermensche]

It's a power struggle over territory.

Hardly.

It is one extremely powerful group oppressing and stealing from a much weaker group of people.

It is one group squeezing another into a smaller and smaller area. And preventing that group from being able to defend itself.

The denial of the right to self defense is horrible oppression. It creates a prison mentality and the strongest gang ends up dominating.

It doesn't make sense to make one side the goodies and the other the baddies.

If you look at it as a situation between equal parties that may be possible.

But the situation is between a very powerful nation and a much much weaker group of people denied the rights of statehood, denied the right of self defense.

If you can't see a bad player in that you are looking at something else.

 

[ruby sparks]

If you can't see a bad player in that you are looking at something else.

If you limit the framing of the issue to only be between Israeli Jews and Palestinian arabs, yes. But that is arguably an incomplete analysis. Another way of looking at it is that Israeli Jews are a tiny minority in a hostile and often antisemitic region, where those arranged against them are more powerful and assisting in the dispute on the arab side.

If you similarly limited the discussion of Northern Ireland between its inception and the end of the 20th century, you could also say that a powerful protestant majority abused the catholics. That would be true, but it's not the whole picture. You know that arab states tried to deprive Israel of water since the 1960's for instance, by diverting watercourses.

Oh and when the Israelis won the 1948, 1967 & 1973 wars, it wasn't against a tiny powerless minority.

Hey, pick sides if you want. I will just note that you did not even know that at the inception of modern Israel, it was the arabs and not the (soon-to-be-Israelis) Jews who rejected the opportunity for a half-decent two-state solution, and so I will wonder where your prior opinions came from if you got that wrong.

 

[untermensche]

There are several situations.

There is the situation of the hostile oppressive intruder and taker of land illegally and the nations that surround such an intruder.

And the Superpower that protects the law breaking intruder from any consequences at the UN.

And there is the situation of the very powerful state of Israel crushing and stealing from the very weak Palestinians.

The people the makers of the 1948 map recognized as having a legitimate claim to statehood.

 

[ruby sparks]

The people the makers of the 1948 map recognized as having a legitimate claim to statehood.

Yes but the arabs rejected that in favour of going for the whole hog, killing Israel at birth.

Israelis, not unjustifiably, have a siege mentality. Annihilation, to them, is just around the corner, and lies underneath many requests for fair treatment. Just as annihilation of NI lay beneath many requests from NI Catholics for fair treatment. Many of them wanted more than fair treatment, they wanted NI to not exist.

 

[untermensche]

The people the makers of the 1948 map recognized as having a legitimate claim to statehood.

Yes but the arabs rejected that in favour of going for the whole hog, killing Israel at birth.

The map concerns the Palestinians and fairness.

That Israel has attacked Lebanon and the Palestinians over and over doesn't change what is fair.

That some leaders of surrounding nations tried to expel an intruder doesn't change what is fair.

The only way Israel legitimately exists is with a fair distribution of land with the Palestinians.

 

[ruby sparks]

That Israel has attacked Lebanon and the Palestinians over and over doesn't change what is fair.

Right. Because only Israelis have been the aggressors. I suppose you think that's a balanced perspective.

Whether you agree or not, this isn't just about the Israelis and the Palestinian arabs. That's just one aspect of it.

That some leaders of surrounding nations tried to expel an intruder doesn't change what is fair.

It wasn't just the leaders of surrounding nations.

 

[untermensche]

That Israel has attacked Lebanon and the Palestinians over and over doesn't change what is fair.

Right. Because only Israelis have been the aggressors. I suppose you think that's a balanced perspective.

Whether you agree or not, this isn't just about the Israelis and the Palestinian arabs.

Only Israel has been an oppressor and thief.

Again: The only way Israel legitimately exists is with a fair distribution of land with the Palestinians.

 

[ruby sparks]

The only way Israel legitimately exists is with a fair distribution of land with the Palestinians.

Yes, or some other compromise solution. It doesn't have to be about each having a fair share of the land.

- - - Updated - - -

Only Israel has been an oppressor and thief.

Rubbish. Jordan grabbed land from 'Palestine' in 1948. Syria claims the Golan Heights.

You can't take the arab nations out of the equation.

 

[untermensche]

The only way Israel legitimately exists is with a fair distribution of land with the Palestinians.

Yes, or some other compromise solution. It doesn't have to be about each having a fair share of the land.

- - - Updated - - -

Only Israel has been an oppressor and thief.

Rubbish. Jordan grabbed land from 'Palestine' in 1948. Syria claims the Golan Heights.

You can't take the arab nations out of the equation.

The situation with neighboring nations that didn't like an intrusion onto their borders is not the situation between Israel and the Palestinians.

To conflate the two situations is irrational and a smokescreen to prevent examination of the Israel/Palestinian situation.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, or some other compromise solution. It doesn't have to be about each having a fair share of the land.

- - - Updated - - -



Rubbish. Jordan grabbed land from 'Palestine' in 1948. Syria claims the Golan Heights.

You can't take the arab nations out of the equation.

The situation with neighboring nations that didn't like an intrusion onto their borders is not the situation between Israel and the Palestinians.

To conflate the two situations is irrational and a smokescreen to prevent examination of the Israel/Palestinian situation.

No, they are not the same situation, but they are part of the overall problems in the region.

Limiting the discussion to only Israel versus Palestine arabs is also arguably a smokescreen, or at least a diversion and if not that then just an incomplete analysis of the problem. Just as limiting discussion on NI to what went on between the protestant and catholic inhabitants and ignoring the Irish Republic and the rest of the UK is an incomplete analysis.

Also, currently and since 2007, Hamas is the de facto governing body of the Gaza strip and they don't even recognise Israel's right to exist.

 

[ruby sparks]

The situation with neighboring nations that didn't like an intrusion onto their borders ....

What intrusions onto their borders by who? I'm not aware of any moves instigated by Israel onto other arab nation's territories. As far as I'm aware, all the wars with neighbouring nations have been defensive on the part of Israel.

 

[untermensche]

The entire state of Israel is a recent intrusion. So recent many people are alive that were living when it happened.

And the intrusion put an intruder on Jordan's border.

It put an intruder on Lebanon's border and Syria's border and Eqypt's border.

And they tried to expel the intruder, which is not unusual.

 

[ruby sparks]

And the intrusion put an intruder on Jordan's border.

Ah yes. Jordan. Or Transjordan as it was in 1948 (since only a year before, having been granted independence by the British) when it attacked Israel and then held on to and later annexed the 'Palestinian' West Bank in 1950 for itself (by which time it had become Jordan). Yeah. Jordan. Israel was no threat to noble, newly-formed intruder-repelling Jordan. In 1948 when modern Israel was offered and accepted nation status in a two-state solution, only 2 years after Transjordan was given its nation status, Transjordan (soon to be Jordan) was a threat to Israel (not the other way around) and demonstrably to Palestine too, since it annexed lands allocated to Palestine by the UN.

 

[untermensche]

The disputes between Jordan and Israel have nothing to do with the fair distribution of land as outlined in 1948, as a goal of the UN.

Talking about Jordan is a smoke screen to hide the Palestinians behind.

 

[ruby sparks]

The disputes between Jordan and Israel have nothing to do with the fair distribution of land as outlined in 1948, as a goal of the UN.

I'm not just doing Jordan versus Israel. In 1950 Jordan annexed for itself part of the lands allocated to Palestine by the UN in 1948. Maybe stop thinking of arabs as merely intruder-repellers or necessarily pro-Palestinian, is what I'm saying. That seems to be a feature of your goodies and baddies paradigm.

Also, did you know that after the promulgation of the Nuremberg Laws as early as 1935, Hitler received telegrams of congratulations from all over the Arab and Muslim world (including, indeed especially Palestine)? The Palestinian arab Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was later a nazi collaborator during WW2:



https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...stinian-mufti-visiting-nazi-germany-1.5483980

It has been estimated that 60% of Palestinian arabs supported the nazis when the nazis were in power.

I'm not taking sides with Israel or Israeli Jews against the Palestinians and I'm not denying that they mistreat the Palestinian (and indeed Israeli) arabs or that they are illegally colonising the West Bank. And Zionism is pretty racist, imo, but so, arguably, is Arab Nationalism. All I'm saying is that divvying up arabs or even just Palestinian arabs on the one hand into goodies (or innocents) and Israeli Jews on the other hand as baddies, is far too simple.

And take on board that in 1948, as a new nation, Israel was willing to share Palestine with the Palestinians. Many Palestinians did not accept the offer and neighbouring arab states encouraged them not to, with (as it turned out mistaken) promises of a swift annihilation of Israel (ie the Jews).

 

[untermensche]

Many long dead people supported the Nazi's.

The 1948 map recognizes both the right of Israel to exist and the right of the people that were already there to have a nation too.

The only way Israel legitimately exists is with a fair distribution of lands with the Palestinians.

The Palestinians have never been allowed to have a nation. They have never been allowed to have the things a nation has, like a military and free access to the world.

This has created continual prison conditions where the strongest gang can dominate.

 

[ruby sparks]

Many long dead people supported the Nazi's.

Sure. But the majority of Palestinian arabs apparently supporting the nazis and many prominent arabs, including Palestinian ones, collaborating with the nazis (and almost certainly knowing about the holocaust) still puts a bit of a dampener on the idea of arabs, and Palestinian arabs especially, as innocents regarding the Jews, prior to 1948.

The 1948 map recognizes both the right of Israel to exist and the right of the people that were already there to have a nation too.

The only way Israel legitimately exists is with a fair distribution of lands with the Palestinians.

You keep saying this and I keep agreeing, and throwing it that it wasn't the Israelis who spurned the first chance to have that, in 1948.

Though as I said, it doesn't have to be based on a fair distribution of land, necessarily, I don't think. A fair, compromise-on-both-sides arrangement of some sort, yes.

 

[untermensche]

Many long dead people supported the Nazi's.

Sure. But the majority of Palestinian arabs supporting the nazis and many prominent arabs, including Palestinian ones, collaborating with the nazis, still puts a bit of a dampener on the idea of Palestinainas as innocents as regards the Jews.

The 1948 map recognizes both the right of Israel to exist and the right of the people that were already there to have a nation too.

The only way Israel legitimately exists is with a fair distribution of lands with the Palestinians.

You keep saying this and I keep agreeing, and throwing it that it wasn't the Israelis who rejected the first chance to have that,

Of course Israel accepted.

The Zionists had no legitimate right to anything so by accepting they gained a nation.

The Palestinians already had legitimate rights to the lands.

They did not need to accept anything.

But none of this means anything.

The matter is still at the 1967 map.

No other legitimate map exists.

That is the starting point for fair negotiations.

But Israel does not accept this.