School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath

[repoman]

The Zionists rule the roost

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/u-s-senates-first-bill-in-midst-of-shutdown-is-a-bipartisan-defense-of-the-israeli-government-from-boycotts/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Palestinians have never persecuted the Jews. It is amazing how you can see decades of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians as persecution of the Jews.

The nations that border Israel never persecuted the Jews. They tried to throw a violent intruder and thief out.

Do you not know what the word "predates" means? I want to know how Israel did anything long before it was formed.

2) Both side had a fair amount of immigration to the area in the 1800's--1948 period.

The Palestinians were there and expanding.

Crazed Zionists with nothing but a magic book were immigrating.

Both sides were growing faster than their reproductive rate.

As for their claim--it was by their existence. The land was distributed, the majority-Jewish areas (and the basically empty Negev) to Israel, the majority-Arab areas to Palestine. Seems fair to me.

Israel had no legitimate claim to exist in the first place. A magic book gives you no legitimate claim.

It was TOTALLY a gift to the Jews because of what happened during WWII. The Jews had no right to anything.

Thus showing you see it as which book controls rather than which people controls. That's the fundamental reason for the ongoing war--the Muslims consider the land conquered by their magic book and can't accept it's no longer in control.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The recent immigrants were given land taken from the indigenous resident population, far more than their percent of population could justify. It was a naked land grab that suited Europeans. There was no justice or fairness to it.

And even though I already knew you would go there, I'm still disgusted you dismiss the Bedouin of the Negev Desert as nothing, and call them and their land useless trash. If the Negev was useless to Israel, then Israel should not have taken it, nor kept the Bedouin in designated villages by force, nor kept them off their grazing land, nor taken over their water supplies, nor denied them their human rights, nor continued to discriminate against them to this very day.

That wasn't even the yardstick that was in use. Rather, they looked at where Jews were in the majority and where Arabs were in the majority and drew somewhat reasonable borders (for example, rural areas went with their corresponding cities) that as much as possible reflected this.

 

[Trausti]

The Zionists rule the roost

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/u-s-senates-first-bill-in-midst-of-shutdown-is-a-bipartisan-defense-of-the-israeli-government-from-boycotts/

I'd consider myself a supporter of Israel. But this is foreign interference. This is wrong.

 

[Arctish]

The recent immigrants were given land taken from the indigenous resident population, far more than their percent of population could justify. It was a naked land grab that suited Europeans. There was no justice or fairness to it.

And even though I already knew you would go there, I'm still disgusted you dismiss the Bedouin of the Negev Desert as nothing, and call them and their land useless trash. If the Negev was useless to Israel, then Israel should not have taken it, nor kept the Bedouin in designated villages by force, nor kept them off their grazing land, nor taken over their water supplies, nor denied them their human rights, nor continued to discriminate against them to this very day.

That wasn't even the yardstick that was in use. Rather, they looked at where Jews were in the majority and where Arabs were in the majority and drew somewhat reasonable borders (for example, rural areas went with their corresponding cities) that as much as possible reflected this.

There was nothing reasonable about talking land from the indigenous native population and giving it to immigrants so the immigrants could form a country in which the native people weren't welcome.

 

[untermensche]

The Palestinians have never persecuted the Jews. It is amazing how you can see decades of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians as persecution of the Jews.

The nations that border Israel never persecuted the Jews. They tried to throw a violent intruder and thief out.

Do you not know what the word "predates" means? I want to know how Israel did anything long before it was formed.

No Jew was ever persecuted by a Palestinian.

Millions of Palestinians have been persecuted by some Jews for decades.

 

[James Madison]

To the contrary, the YouTube speaker in your post was addressing the preliminary injunction issued by the district court. The lawsuit in the district court in Kansas proceeded as far as issuing a preliminary injunction.

James, according to the report, the case was dismissed.

The case was dismissed later. The district court entered a preliminary injunction. The Kansas legislature then spent a few months amending the law. In response to changes in the law, the district court dismissed, I suspect, for Article III reasons and the relevant legal doctrines related to Article III requirements to bring a lawsuit in federal court.

Are you citing to the dismissal by the court to help your argument? The dismissal hardly helps your argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ruby sparks]

To the contrary, the YouTube speaker in your post was addressing the preliminary injunction issued by the district court. The lawsuit in the district court in Kansas proceeded as far as issuing a preliminary injunction.

James, according to the report, the case was dismissed.

The case was dismissed later. The district court entered a preliminary injunction. The Kansas legislature then spent a few months amending the law. In response to changes in the law, the district court dismissed, I suspect, for Article III reasons and the relevant legal doctrines related to Article III requirements to bring a lawsuit in federal court.

Are you citing to the dismissal by the court to help your argument? The dismissal hardly helps your argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I've been saying to you, over and over, is that the dismissal of the case (and the education authority being ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs) was de facto the outcome of the case. The preliminary injunction was not the outcome of the case.

So this, by you: "The lawsuit in the district court in Kansas proceeded as far as issuing a preliminary injunction" was wrong. Get the fuck over it already.

 

[ruby sparks]

There was nothing reasonable about talking land from the indigenous native population and giving it to immigrants so the immigrants could form a country in which the native people weren't welcome.

Without taking sides, I think it is possible to say that in comparative terms, there were reasonable aspects to the Jewish colonisation of the territory in question.

1. The jews were arguably a 'people without a nation' and could be said to deserve one, somewhere, as much as any other people.
2. They were returning to what could be described as their ancestral home, which had been conquered and taken over by others over the intervening centuries.
3. They were in many if not most cases fleeing persecutions.
4. They had the support of much of the international community, in the form of the UN.
5. The arabs had also been promised a homeland in Palestine (the British Mandate territory) and were given most (75%) of the land and nation status. They could have acceded to the jews getting the remaining 25% and they certainly could have gone along with the original partition plan.
6. The Jews arguably could not be expected to have a great deal of sympathy for the local inhabitants in the circumstances, since many of them (apparently the majority) had supported extermination of jews only recently, in the holocaust. So, much of the local population was hardly morally neutral or innocent.

How many colonisations could we say all those of? I can't think of one.

 

[untermensche]

1. The Jews were arguably a 'people without a nation' and could be said to deserve one, somewhere, as much as any other people.

In other words the Jews had long ago abandoned the lands they claimed and took.

2. They were returning to what could be described as their ancestral home, which had been conquered and taken over by others over the intervening centuries.

According to their book of magic they got there when the Red Sea parted.

So I guess that gives them ownership for eternity.

3. They were in many if not most cases fleeing persecutions.

Nations not taking them in should be seen for what they are. Immoral entities.

4. They had the support of much of the International Community, in the form of the UN.

It is so easy to give away land that is not anywhere near to you. And these are the same nations that refused to take in Jewish refugees. Immoral entities. In the US antisemitism was rampant.

The nations that surrounded this proposed new nation based on a book of magic did not want it.

5. The arabs had also been promised a homeland in Palestine (the British Mandate territory) and were given most (75%) of the land and nation status.

The people living in lands controlled by a Western power had natural rights to a homeland. They were not placed there based on a primitive book of magic.

6. The Jews arguably could not be expected to have a great deal of sympathy for the local inhabitants in the circumstances, since many of them (apparently the majority) had supported extermination of jews only recently, in the holocaust. So the local population were hardly neutral or innocent.

Violent intruders are unwelcome.

Everywhere.

 

[lpetrich]

No Jew was ever persecuted by a Palestinian.

What gives you that idea? They tried to drive those pesky Zionists into the sea for decades, without any success.

 

[Arctish]

There was nothing reasonable about talking land from the indigenous native population and giving it to immigrants so the immigrants could form a country in which the native people weren't welcome.

Without taking sides, I think it is possible to say that in comparative terms, there were reasonable aspects to the Jewish colonisation of the territory in question.

1. The jews were arguably a 'people without a nation' and could be said to deserve one, somewhere, as much as any other people.

It is equally arguable that the French Jews were French, the German Jews were Germans, the Russian Jews were Russians, the Belgian Jews were Belgians, etc. , and that what they deserved was the same rights, privileges, and protections as their fellow citizens. What they did not deserve was a free pass to do unto Palestinians what was done unto them by Cossacks, Nazis, and other violent bigots.

How many generations does it take for a family to be 'from' a place, anyway? I know we Americans think it only takes one or two, but what's the European timeline? Jews were in Italy for 2,000 years. They were in the Ukraine and most of Europe for over 1,500 years. At what point is it fair to call them Italian or Ukrainian or European? The indigenous population of Palestine has been there for more than 9,000 years. Why is it that the right of European Jews to live in Palestine is recognized even after a 2,000 year absence, but 9,000 years of continuous residence isn't enough to establish a similar right for Palestinians?

That makes no sense to me.

2. They were returning to what could be described as their ancestral home, which had been conquered and taken over by others over the intervening centuries.

Conquered, yes. Taken over by others, not so much. The locals were the descendants of the same set of ancestors that European Jews claim. Over the past 2,000 years most of them had converted to Christianity or Islam, but that in no way affected their ancestry or place of origin. They had more right to Palestine than the European Jews by virtue of having never left and having almost no non-local ancestry, unlike the European Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

3. They were in many if not most cases fleeing persecutions.

That might give them more sympathy but it doesn't give them special rights to steal land or carry out ethnic cleansing.

4. They had the support of much of the international community, in the form of the UN.

Yes, they did. But they did not have the UN's support in expanding beyond the proposed borders, or denying refugees rights guaranteed in UN resolutions, or carrying out collective punishments.

Zionists wanted UN support for the existence of Israel and were glad they got it, but they ignored everything else the UN said, especially the part about a Palestinian State and the right of refugees to return to their homes.

5. The arabs had also been promised a homeland in Palestine (the British Mandate territory) and were given most (75%) of the land and nation status. They could have acceded to the jews getting the remaining 25% and they certainly could have gone along with the original partition plan.

They could have settled for less than half of their homeland and surrendered the rest to the European immigrants, but why would they want to? They wanted their homeland undivided, and they wanted to stay in their homes and villages. They wanted to participate in their government, a government dedicated to their welfare, protection, and prosperity. Is that unreasonable?

Also, it should be noted that the Zionists would not have accepted a mere 25% of the land, so that was a non-starter all around. Ben Gurion had to persuade his fellow Zionists to accept the UN proposal in principle in order to get support for Israel's existence while assuring them that Israel would expand far beyond what the UN proposed.

6. The Jews arguably could not be expected to have a great deal of sympathy for the local inhabitants in the circumstances, since many of them (apparently the majority) had supported extermination of jews only recently, in the holocaust. So, much of the local population was hardly morally neutral or innocent.

Untrue.

The Palestinians of that time had lived peaceable with Jews for centuries. DNA evidence and family histories indicate most of them had Jewish ancestry within a couple of generations. They did not hate Jews, did not support the extermination of Jews, and had no fight with Jews until European Zionists started arriving by the tens of thousands, singing The East Bank of the Jordan and vowing to create a Jewish State for Jews only in all of Palestine.

Sure, you can find a few who said nasty things about Jews. I can find Jews who said nasty things about Palestinians. I can also show you Palestinians who were friendly and helpful to Jews, and Jews who felt the same way about Palestinians.

How many colonisations could we say all those of? I can't think of one.

I'm glad you recognize it as colonization. That's what the Palestinians have refused to accept, and who can blame them? No one wants to be forced out of their homeland by hostile invaders, even if the invaders have the UN's blessing.

 

[untermensche]

No Jew was ever persecuted by a Palestinian.

What gives you that idea? They tried to drive those pesky Zionists into the sea for decades, without any success.

That is a fable.

What they did was resist oppression.

To the oppressor resistance is a crime.

 

[untermensche]

I think the Catholics deserve a homeland.

And the Mormons.

And the Scientologists.

If we are going to go crazy why stop at the Jews?

 

[Arctish]

I think the Catholics deserve a homeland.

And the Mormons.

And the Scientologists.

If we are going to go crazy why stop at the Jews?

I hear Gypsies were treated pretty badly during the Holocaust. Perhaps someone wants to argue why they should be allowed to invade Punjab and cleanse it of the resident Punjabis.

 

[ruby sparks]

6. The Jews arguably could not be expected to have a great deal of sympathy for the local inhabitants in the circumstances, since many of them (apparently the majority) had supported extermination of jews only recently, in the holocaust. So, much of the local population was hardly morally neutral or innocent.

Untrue.

The Palestinians of that time had lived peaceable with Jews for centuries. DNA evidence and family histories indicate most of them had Jewish ancestry within a couple of generations. They did not hate Jews, did not support the extermination of Jews, and had no fight with Jews until European Zionists started arriving by the tens of thousands, singing The East Bank of the Jordan and vowing to create a Jewish State for Jews only in all of Palestine.

Sure, you can find a few who said nasty things about Jews. I can find Jews who said nasty things about Palestinians. I can also show you Palestinians who were friendly and helpful to Jews, and Jews who felt the same way about Palestinians.

There was, apparently, widespread support among arabs, including in Palestine, for the nazis, and a good deal of antismitism (as there was in other parts of the arab world). As to whether the local arabs did or didn't hate jews, that's surely questionable if it's the case that many of them supported the nazis. In fact, the nazis planned to exterminate Palestinain Jews, with the support of local arab collaborators, including arab nationalist leaders, but it didn't work out for them.

 

[James Madison]

The case was dismissed later. The district court entered a preliminary injunction. The Kansas legislature then spent a few months amending the law. In response to changes in the law, the district court dismissed, I suspect, for Article III reasons and the relevant legal doctrines related to Article III requirements to bring a lawsuit in federal court.

Are you citing to the dismissal by the court to help your argument? The dismissal hardly helps your argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I've been saying to you, over and over, is that the dismissal of the case (and the education authority being ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs) was de facto the outcome of the case. The preliminary injunction was not the outcome of the case.

So this, by you: "The lawsuit in the district court in Kansas proceeded as far as issuing a preliminary injunction" was wrong. Get the fuck over it already.

Bullcrap.

I referenced the “outcome” of this case, a clear reference to an outcome of the Texas case. You, irrationally, took my comment about the “outcome” of this case to be a reference to the outcome of the Kansas case.

The YouTube video you linked to was discussing the preliminary injunction. Apparently what really mattered was the dismissal.

All along I was operating under the assumption you were relying upon the Kansas case as support for your view, and not as some irrelevant talking point that you were making. The preliminary injunction in the Kansas case is the only part of the case relevant to assisting your argument. Who knew you were discussing the one thing about the Kansas case that didn’t do anything for your argument, the dismissal.

The issue was never about the dismissal. The issue was never about the ultimate outcome of the Kansas case. You cited to the Kansas case as having some bearing on the Texas law. It doesn’t. It never did.

To deflect, you converted the issue into the issue of the outcome of the case being a dismissal, a point that doesn’t help your position. Fine, you won the irrelevant point of whether the outcome was a preliminary injunction or dismissal. Bravo!

Fact is, the Kansas case NEVER helped your argument. You were wrong to ever think it did. You can get over that already.

Now, any other non-helpful cases you want to invoke? Any other cases you want to cite to that do not assist your argument but you can instead discuss some irrelevant feature of the case? Any?

And this is “entirely clear” since the Texas law refers to companies, not people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ruby sparks]

I referenced the “outcome” of this case, a clear reference to an outcome of the Texas case.

Now you are just being dishonest. You were talking about the outcome of the Kansas case:

The outcome of the Kansas case was a preliminary injunction.

I'm putting you on ignore James. Don't expect any further responses.

 

[James Madison]

I referenced the “outcome” of this case, a clear reference to an outcome of the Texas case.

No. You were talking about the outcome of he Kansas case.

The outcome of the Kansas case was a preliminary injunction.

No, my initial use of the word “outcome” was in reference to the Texas case. Your retort was to discuss the Kansas case.

Post number 283, in responding to your reference to the Kansas case, I said:

“That district court entering a preliminary injunction does not determine the outcome of this case.”

Clearly, I’m referencing the “outcome” of the Texas case.

I followed you down the tangent of the outcome of the Kansas case, not realizing that you were discussing the irrelevant dismissal! I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that your reference to the outcome of Kansas case, you were referencing an outcome that could assist your argument, such as the preliminary injunction, which is why I referenced the preliminary injunction of the Kansas case. Apparently, you were more interested in discussing the outcome of the case in terms of finality, how the case was concluded, a dismissal, which has no relevance to your position, and so I assumed couldn’t possibly be what you were referencing.

Not my fault you’re too stupid to follow along.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

I referenced the “outcome” of this case, a clear reference to an outcome of the Texas case.

No. You were talking about the outcome of he Kansas case:

The outcome of the Kansas case was a preliminary injunction.

Which it wasn't. You are lying. I'm putting you on ignore James. Don't expect any further responses.

Good. Which means no more of your stupidity for me to address in relation to my posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk