No, she's not being driven out. Nor does Greenwald call for her to be fired. The theme of his article, as stated explicitly in the title, is that she won't be fired, while the e-mails demonstrate that the Ombudsman is well aware of a double standard in force, a double standard so powerful that he's afraid even to say so "on the record" - even though that's his job. How long would, say, Greg Sargent last at the WaPo if he was endorsing "someone else"'s blood-curdling, hate-drunk calls for the physical destruction of the Jews, right down to the little kids?
I dunno whether this one is going anywhere. I hadn't been aware of this story at all until I decided to take a look at Greenwald's blog, something I hadn't done for months. Caught my eye because it concerned our old friend JRub. I thought the Phrog would find it interesting. Haven't seen anything about it elsewhere, have you?
It's still nonsense. As long as the two sides are at war, the Pals will draw their recruits from a pool that's much larger than a couple hundred "recidivists." That is, it's a nonsense argument, unless your plan is to kill, imprison, or force into exile the entire Palestinian population. Except that is your plan, isn't it? And, if they resist, they're "guilty." Doesn't that about sum it up?
miguel cervantes: of which at least a fifth will murder and maim innocents
You know this how? And why exactly is the entire Arab population of Israel and Palestine (and beyond) guilty for what the Nazis did to the Jews of Europe, but collective guilt, retrospectively for the destruction of Pre-Israeli Palestine, prospectively to the genocide that Abrams proposes and her friends, including apparently you, would validate, doesn't apply to the Israeli "innocents"? Or are the Israelis the only ones capable of "innocence"?
You have a problem with accused murderers having lawyers? You prefer to have people declared summarily guilty, then taken out and shot, perhaps?
"Too candid" "Candid"? That implies that it would be perfectly alright with you for someone to think and act according to a genocidalist ideas, just as long as she wasn't open about it. So, the difference between her and her allies is only that she happens to have spoken the truth about them. That's what a lot of people suspected about them all along.
No, she's not being driven out. Nor does Greenwald call for her to be fired. The theme of his article, as stated explicitly in the title, is that she won't be fired, while the e-mails demonstrate that the Ombudsman is well aware of a double standard in force, a double standard so powerful that he's afraid even to say so "on the record" - even though that's his job. How long would, say, Greg Sargent last at the WaPo if he was endorsing "someone else"'s blood-curdling, hate-drunk calls for the physical destruction of the Jews, right down to the little kids?
I dunno whether this one is going anywhere. I hadn't been aware of this story at all until I decided to take a look at Greenwald's blog, something I hadn't done for months. Caught my eye because it concerned our old friend JRub. I thought the Phrog would find it interesting. Haven't seen anything about it elsewhere, have you?
It's still nonsense. As long as the two sides are at war, the Pals will draw their recruits from a pool that's much larger than a couple hundred "recidivists." That is, it's a nonsense argument, unless your plan is to kill, imprison, or force into exile the entire Palestinian population. Except that is your plan, isn't it? And, if they resist, they're "guilty." Doesn't that about sum it up?
You know this how? And why exactly is the entire Arab population of Israel and Palestine (and beyond) guilty for what the Nazis did to the Jews of Europe, but collective guilt, retrospectively for the destruction of Pre-Israeli Palestine, prospectively to the genocide that Abrams proposes and her friends, including apparently you, would validate, doesn't apply to the Israeli "innocents"? Or are the Israelis the only ones capable of "innocence"?
You have a problem with accused murderers having lawyers? You prefer to have people declared summarily guilty, then taken out and shot, perhaps?
"Too candid" "Candid"? That implies that it would be perfectly alright with you for someone to think and act according to a genocidalist ideas, just as long as she wasn't open about it. So, the difference between her and her allies is only that she happens to have spoken the truth about them. That's what a lot of people suspected about them all along.