School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath

[ruby sparks]

The matter is still at the 1967 map........But Israel does not accept this.

Ooh. A smooth segue from 1948 to 1967. Neat. Slightly odd given that the 'original' 1948 map was actually, of the two maps, the fairer to the Palestinians but hey.

Yeah, Israel is the baddie. I get your schtick. All I'm saying is that it's nowhere near that simple. Night night.

 

[untermensche]

The matter is still at the 1967 map........But Israel does not accept this.

Ooh. A smooth segue from 1948 to 1967. Neat. Slightly odd given that the 'original' 1948 map was actually, of the two maps, the fairer to the Palestinians but hey.

Yeah, Israel is the baddie. I get your schtick. All I'm saying is that it's nowhere near that simple. Night night.

The only way to look at this fairly is to look at the UN maps.

Fairness is not the Palestinian position or the Israeli position.

The last map accepted by the UN and the only legitimate map that exists is the 1967 map.

Exactly why should we start with anything else?

Because some long dead Jordanian leader talked to Hitler?

Because Israel has created prison conditions, has maintained them for decades stealing land the whole time and is frightened?

 

[James Madison]

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.

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.

Really? The word “contractor,” “it” and reference to the Texas statute titled, “Prohibition on Contracts With Companies Boycotting Israel,” and the contract language specifically invoking the Texas law, is ambiguity? Those facts in a reasonably clear manner limit the applicability of the Texas law and the contract provision invoking the law to the misses work wok and related activities.

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.

That district court entering a preliminary injunction does not determine the outcome of this case. The district court cited to a Supreme Court decision that involved termination of a contract by government officials in retaliation for speech by the contractor critical of the government officials.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Regarding specifically Israel, yes it definitely acts unfairly towards Palestinians, and violates International Law by continuing to colonise areas such as the West Bank, but, given that Israel not unjustifiably feels it is defending its very existence against hostile neighbours and a hostile element within its own territory, it has a cause.

Actually, they're not violating international law. It's illegal to relocate one's population to occupied territory (which is conveniently ignored when it's Morocco doing it) but that requires that there be occupied territory. Occupied territory requires that there be a nation that is occupied--and the Palestinians have never had a nation and explicitly have not declared the existence of one. (To declare a nation would require declaring borders, something they are unwilling to do.)

In modern times, the problem started with Jews resettling Palestine and dislodging what were at that time the existing population of mainly arabs. That much is surely clear. Was that right or wrong? That's up for grabs. It happened. Those were different times (the British Empire was still intact for instance, and Britain played a big role in the Jewish colonisation of Palestine, countries were still being divvied up post WW2, the situation was fluid, assisting Jews in obtaining a nation had a lot of support because of the holocaust). In hindsight it was bad, because it created the problem that is still ongoing today.

Started? You mean the Arab attacks on Jews there before said settlement didn't happen?

I do agree that the creation of Israel was a mistake but that's the way the world operated back then, I don't see any great wrongdoing and it certainly shouldn't be undone.

In hindsight, other countries encouraging and assisting the Jews to colonise (mainly arab) Palestine before 1947 may have been a big mistake made in different times and circumstances. It pitted two opposing cultures directly against each other in an explosive mix on territory they contested with the other. It's a power struggle, a fight over land. What is needed is a compromise, shared solution.

The problem is a failure of compromise on both/all sides.

The Jews compromised--they didn't like the 1948 partition but accepted it. It's Islam that is unwilling to compromise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 19544

The 1947 UN-proposed two-state solution. Looking at it now, it's a patchwork. The shapes are oddly intertwined. It's hard to imagine any sort of stability. Has there ever been a stable country, other than a series of Islands separated by water or connected only by peninsulas and bridges, the shape that the arab lands are on that map?

Perhaps a simpler north-south division (as happened in Korea, and Northern Ireland) or east-west (as in Germany) would have been at least a slightly better idea. I doubt it would have solved the problem, but it might have been worth a shot.

Perhaps even a shared one state solution would have been better, with equal rights and opportunities enshrined for all etc. Reasonable limits on Right of Return for both Jews and arabs.

Actually, if you look at Europe you'll find borders far more mixed up than that. When both sides get along it's not a problem. The reason for the patchwork was they gave majority-Jewish areas to the Jews and majority-Arab areas to the Palestinians, as well as giving the basically-empty Negev to the Jews. A more sensible partition line would have put far more people on the wrong side of the dividing line.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The 1967 borders are the only internationally accepted borders that exist. To settle beyond them is theft.

They are also where fair negotiations begin.

Israel has chosen expansion over fair negotiation for a long time.

The Palestinians don't accept them. In a condition of ongoing war borders are fluid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel opposed because Jerusalem was surrounded by land controlled by the Palestinians.

Israel (ie Jewish Israelis) accepted it (the 1947 UN map) as I understand it. The arabs did not accept it, and to cut a long story short there was a war in 1948, started by the arabs, and as a result Israel gained more territory than allocated to it in 1947.

Post 1949 (pre-1967) map:

View attachment 19551

So the arab attempt to kill Israel at its (modern) birth failed and the arabs lost territory as a result of trying.

We're talking about Israel and the Palestinians.

Not about Israel and the Arabs.

What you call a glorious inception of a new nation is really a land grab by force, a taking, an intrusion, terrorism.

It is natural for people to try to expel violent intruders on their borders.

And nothing changes about the fair distribution of land between Israel and the Palestinians because a handful of leaders of neighboring nations try to expel a terrorist intruder.

This is between Israel and the Palestinians, not Israel and the Arabs.

The Palestinians are pawns of the Arabs in this, not primary actors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Nobody's borders were infringed in the creation of Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No.

1) The issue was the creation of Israel--which infringed nobody's borders. It was about the partition of land, not the conquest of land.

2) You are right that all Israeli wars have been defensive. However:

3) Egypt, Lebanon and Syria have lost land due to those wars. Egypt and Lebanon have made peace and got their land back, Syria hasn't (and they probably wouldn't get their land back anyway, it is too important strategically to Israel.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The land belonged to neither side at that point. The Palestinians no more had a country than the Jews did.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The matter is still at the 1967 map........But Israel does not accept this.

Ooh. A smooth segue from 1948 to 1967. Neat. Slightly odd given that the 'original' 1948 map was actually, of the two maps, the fairer to the Palestinians but hey.

Yeah, Israel is the baddie. I get your schtick. All I'm saying is that it's nowhere near that simple. Night night.

The only way to look at this fairly is to look at the UN maps.

Fairness is not the Palestinian position or the Israeli position.

The last map accepted by the UN and the only legitimate map that exists is the 1967 map.

Exactly why should we start with anything else?

Because some long dead Jordanian leader talked to Hitler?

Because Israel has created prison conditions, has maintained them for decades stealing land the whole time and is frightened?

You realize the refugee camps were built by the Arabs? And when Israel took over they wanted to replace them with proper cities but the Arabs objected?

And the prison conditions you refer to didn't exist until the second intifada when it became too dangerous for the Jews to allow Palestinian access. Blame the instigators of the second intifada--the Palestinian leaders.

 

[ruby sparks]

Really? The word “contractor,” “it” and reference to the Texas statute titled, “Prohibition on Contracts With Companies Boycotting Israel,” and the contract language specifically invoking the Texas law, is ambiguity? Those facts in a reasonably clear manner limit the applicability of the Texas law and the contract provision invoking the law to the misses work wok and related activities.

I can't say any more without repeating myself. Yes, it seems reasonably clear but it is not entirely clear, imo. More to the point, nothing much hinges on it and certainly nothing much that I am particularly interested in.

That district court entering a preliminary injunction does not determine the outcome of this case. The district court cited to a Supreme Court decision that involved termination of a contract by government officials in retaliation for speech by the contractor critical of the government officials.

The outcome was more than the preliminary injunction. I posted about the outcome. But you are right, even the outcome of that case will not necessarily determine this one. I already said that.

 

[ruby sparks]

Actually, they're not violating international law.

Actually they are.

The Jews compromised--they didn't like the 1948 partition but accepted it. It's Islam that is unwilling to compromise.

It's clearly and demonstrably both.


Loren, I've just had an extended debate with someone not willing to see both sides and I'm not about to have another one.

 

[untermensche]

The only way to look at this fairly is to look at the UN maps.

Fairness is not the Palestinian position or the Israeli position.

The last map accepted by the UN and the only legitimate map that exists is the 1967 map.

Exactly why should we start with anything else?

Because some long dead Jordanian leader talked to Hitler?

Because Israel has created prison conditions, has maintained them for decades stealing land the whole time and is frightened?

You realize the refugee camps were built by the Arabs? And when Israel took over they wanted to replace them with proper cities but the Arabs objected?

And the prison conditions you refer to didn't exist until the second intifada when it became too dangerous for the Jews to allow Palestinian access. Blame the instigators of the second intifada--the Palestinian leaders.

What you mean is the Palestinians withstood years of oppression before they fought back.

And when they fought back the oppression and thievery increased.

You think Israel is justified in turning up the oppression because the Palestinians resisted it.

Again, Israel only legitimately exists as part of a fair distribution of land with the Palestinians.

Until there is a fair distribution of lands Israel has no legitimacy. It is an outlaw rouge terrorist nation.

 

[untermensche]

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.

The land belonged to neither side at that point. The Palestinians no more had a country than the Jews did.

The Palestinians were actually living there and had been for years.

The Zionists were intruders.

With a book of magic claiming some god gave them the land a while back.

 

[untermensche]

Loren, I've just had an extended debate with someone not willing to see both sides and I'm not about to have another one.

You call totally ignoring what is going on "looking at both sides".

For some reason you can't see one powerful nation oppressing, stealing from, and denying the rights of a much weaker fractured people.

Because the people being oppressed for decades have resisted the oppression.

And because some neighboring nations tried to remove a violent oppressive intruder on their borders.

You're so busy looking at both sides you can't see anything.

Israel as it exists has no legitimacy.

It only legitimately exists with a fair distribution of land with the Palestinians as neighboring states with the exact same rights. Including the right of self defense for the Palestinians who have been denied that right for decades with force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, they're not violating international law.

Actually they are.

The Jews compromised--they didn't like the 1948 partition but accepted it. It's Islam that is unwilling to compromise.

It's clearly and demonstrably both.


Loren, I've just had an extended debate with someone not willing to see both sides and I'm not about to have another one.

I explained why they aren't violating international law, you made no attempt to rebut my point. The repeated claims of Israel violating the law ignore the little detail that the land they are accused of occupying doesn't belong to any other nation and thus can't be occupied.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only way to look at this fairly is to look at the UN maps.

Fairness is not the Palestinian position or the Israeli position.

The last map accepted by the UN and the only legitimate map that exists is the 1967 map.

Exactly why should we start with anything else?

Because some long dead Jordanian leader talked to Hitler?

Because Israel has created prison conditions, has maintained them for decades stealing land the whole time and is frightened?

You realize the refugee camps were built by the Arabs? And when Israel took over they wanted to replace them with proper cities but the Arabs objected?

And the prison conditions you refer to didn't exist until the second intifada when it became too dangerous for the Jews to allow Palestinian access. Blame the instigators of the second intifada--the Palestinian leaders.

What you mean is the Palestinians withstood years of oppression before they fought back.

And when they fought back the oppression and thievery increased.

You think Israel is justified in turning up the oppression because the Palestinians resisted it.

Again, Israel only legitimately exists as part of a fair distribution of land with the Palestinians.

Until there is a fair distribution of lands Israel has no legitimacy. It is an outlaw rouge terrorist nation.

The borders of Israel have no effect on whether they are going to be attacked or not, thus simple pragmatism shows they aren't going to do what you want. It's the very existence of a non-Muslim state on land the Muslims considered conquered that is the true source of the problem, the Palestinians are simply pawns.

And there were plenty of Palestinian attacks in the 48 to 67 time period.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The land belonged to neither side at that point. The Palestinians no more had a country than the Jews did.

The Palestinians were actually living there and had been for years.

The Zionists were intruders.

With a book of magic claiming some god gave them the land a while back.

There were plenty of Jews living there for a long time, also. The real trouble started when they refused to accept being second class citizens.

 

[untermensche]

The Palestinians were actually living there and had been for years.

The Zionists were intruders.

With a book of magic claiming some god gave them the land a while back.

There were plenty of Jews living there for a long time, also. The real trouble started when they refused to accept being second class citizens.

No there weren't.

The madness of Zionism begins in the late 1800's.

The only reason the Jews got a country was because of what happened in WWII. They never deserved one.

Their magic book gives them no rational claims to anything.

 

[James Madison]

Really? The word “contractor,” “it” and reference to the Texas statute titled, “Prohibition on Contracts With Companies Boycotting Israel,” and the contract language specifically invoking the Texas law, is ambiguity? Those facts in a reasonably clear manner limit the applicability of the Texas law and the contract provision invoking the law to the misses work wok and related activities.

I can't say any more without repeating myself. Yes, it seems reasonably clear but it is not entirely clear, imo. More to the point, nothing much hinges on it and certainly nothing much that I am particularly interested in.

That district court entering a preliminary injunction does not determine the outcome of this case. The district court cited to a Supreme Court decision that involved termination of a contract by government officials in retaliation for speech by the contractor critical of the government officials.

The outcome was more than the preliminary injunction. I posted about the outcome. But you are right, even the outcome of that case will not necessarily determine this one. I already said that.

The outcome of the Kansas case was a preliminary injunction.

I can't say any more without repeating myself. Yes, it seems reasonably clear but it is not entirely clear, imo. More to the point, nothing much hinges on it and certainly nothing much that I am particularly interested in.

Oh? Those facts I referenced previously do not constitute as entirely clear?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk