Thursday, March 17, 2011

Sharmine Narwani Quotes of the Day

Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani has been going on a posting spree lately, insulting users, bloggers, the usual. Here are some comments of hers that were too numerous to screengrab but I knew I had to get (emphasis mine):
"Your allegations that Arabs seek to exterminat­e Israel are a lie. They may not accept Israel's right to exist, but that has nothing to do with exterminat­ion whatsoever­, and don't think everybody doesn't realize why you folks use that word: to intimidate and to cynically utilize the language of the Holocaust for your political gain."
"You are so hysterical in your last post, that I think I am going to ignore you from here on. How about we make it mutual?"
"[To another HuffPo blogger.] Oh, if I had a penny for every Israeli who thought some new la-la-let's-hold-han­ds initiative would bring us to peace...I' d have bought us all a Palestine long time ago. And the fact that I am having to post this a third time on your blog shows me that you posturing - rather than being serious - about any real debate....You obviously chose to bypass settler-zealots like Daniella Weiss and the Hilltop youth. Why? Because it wouldn't fit your narrative? The narrative that is meant to take us down the garden path yet again?"
"There is only one terrorist here and it is the Israeli body politic that has unleashed unimaginable horrors on civilian population­s since before its inception - with impunity and no mercy whatsoever." [Does that sound racist to anyone?]
You are going to need to revise that "more rights than other Arabs" argument real soon. Back to the old propaganda drawing board for you folks. Very telling though, how you are unable to say "Christians and Muslims in Israel have the same rights as Jews." I guess you do realize that it is an apartheid state, after all.”


Many of these are from a very informative thread that you can read here. Hopefully the comments have not all been deleted at this point. Below the cut is a screengrab of that second to last one just in case.

25 comments:

  1. You just hate truths being pointed out to you, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The truth is being pointed out here; that's the reason this site exists, actually, if you're curious. The fact that people on the other side don't like it doesn't change that. If you want to be S-Nar's PR agent, it's a free country, and it's not going to change the reality of how vile she is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This site has no interest in pointing out truth. It's a game being run by immature fools for their own amusement. You have been gulled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean the entire Huffington Post?
      No; that goes to far --- but inane, lying bigotry spewed by far too many on the
      I/P comment threads ALWAYS deserves to be countered and refuted.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous Amanda, Sharmine Narwani isn't a credible spokesperson on the Middle East. Katyushas from Gaza can maim and kill... the fact Narwani makes light of it shows the moral universe she inhabits.

    And that kind of truth, unlike the good guys who run this website, is something you take no interest in. You're the one who has been gulled.

    ReplyDelete
  5. HPM,

    You guys are clearly partisan hack when it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict. My guess is that you see everything through the lens of your self-identified ethnicity and believe that you are doing said ethnicity a service by shamelessly defending the indefensible actions of the state of Israel.

    After skimming through your blog I think that I disagree with about 99.99% of your opinions not to mention “facts”. I stopped becoming a supporter of Israel after learning about the history of the region from authors such as Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, and Schlomo Sand. Once the historical facts are clear (and today there is uniform agreement among serious scholars) the justice/morality questions fall easily into place. You remind me of a lawyer tenaciously pleading the case for a guilty defendant hoping you can persuade the jury with obfuscation and half-truths. Commendably, you are at least honest about aligning yourself with such disgusting racists like David Horowitz.

    Anyway, I look forward to challenging your distorted worldview in upcoming posts. Until then, perhaps you would be kind enough to give me your opinion on one issue. Why do you believe it is that when the UN general counsel votes annually on the Israel/Palestine issue, Israel and the US is on one side and the rest of the world is on the other?

    I anxiously await your reply…

    Nate

    ReplyDelete
  6. Aww Norman. You must have a pretty low opinion of your buddy's blog since you seem to be assuming every single pro-Palestinian poster who comes on here is me. Believe it or not, there actually are more than one or two pro-Palestinian posters who've found their way over here and occasionally find it worth commenting. But I'm touched you find my name worth remembering *heart soars*

    -Amanda

    ReplyDelete
  7. Two points:
    1. There are two plausible reasons why it's assumed that Amanda is the only pro-Palestinian poster here. One is that "she" actually is; the other is that both her and other like-minded posters make the same stupid and tired arguments she does and they all blur together.
    2. The reason most of the world votes on the Palestinian side in UN resolutions is simple: they want to throw a bone to Palestinians and their suporters, and it's the cheapest possible way to do that, because...what the hell does a UN resolution, especially a non-binding one, actually accomplish 99% of the time? There are countries that vote for almost all of these resolutions (China, Russia, India, most of Europe, large parts of Latin America) which also have diplomatic ties/do large-scale business with Israel, which is something the anti-Israel side dislikes but it's recorded fact. Some international forces want to deal with both sides. Some don't care. Some are avowedly pro-Palestinian but too messed up to bring any real influence to bear there. And some genuinely loathe Arabs and Muslims. Do you honestly believe that an organization like the UN is going to tie off all those elements and take control of the I-P dispute? I don't. That's why the UN votes are good for the Palsabra effect and that's really it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well Ben, I appreciate you trying to share your perspective but I think you are missing the point of my question. The point is that the entire world recognizes that in the interest of peace and stability a just resolution to this conflict is essential. They are equally unified on exactly what a just resolution of the conflict would look like:

    “In order for a peace settlement to be reached, Israel must withdraw from "Palestinian territory occupied since 1967," resolve the refugee problem, and recognize the Palestinians' "inalienable rights," and their "right to self-determination and the right to their independent State."

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/annual.html

    The votes on this obvious solution typically are over 100 countries for and two countries against. Now, could you please elaborate as to why the whole world except for the US and Israel agree how the Palestine/Israel conflict should be resolved and no, “because they want to throw a bone to Palestinians and their supporters” is not a complete answer.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

    Nate

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Nate,

    Before I answer your question, let me give you a little tip about interacting with people. If your goal is in fact to engage in constructive dialogue, you probably should not lead with "I disagree with 99% of your opinions". I highlighted a post a week ago in which a HPer spewed hatred against "the racist chosenites". I assume then that you disagree with me in my belief that those comments are anti-Semitic? Leading with the argument that "you are always wrong" doesn't really make me want to write a lengthy response to your question, as I now have serious doubts you will read and take my response to heart, or are even interested in anything beyond trolling. That being said, I will respond to your question in a new comment because I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Why do you believe it is that when the UN general counsel votes annually on the Israel/Palestine issue, Israel and the US is on one side and the rest of the world is on the other?"

    That vote happens because of that black liquid that makes the world go around: oil. The Arab states sponsor the solution you described, the so called "just" solution, and because they provide oil from most of the world, the other countries voting in the UN see no reason to rock the boat and vote against them. Only the US, which has its own oil sources, and Israel are able to vote mostly free of Arab influence. Most of the world doesn't know the best solution to the I/P conflict, so they vote with the Arab states because they won't make any enemies that way.

    Now that I have answered your question, Nate, I have one for you. The UN votes annually on only one issue: the I/P conflict. Not India/Pakistan, not Northern Ireland, not the Iraq war, not Afghanistan, not apartheid in Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. The UN declared one form of nationalism "racism": Jewish nationalism. Not Arab nationalism, not Greek nationalism, not Mexican nationalism, just Jewish nationalism. The UN changed the definition of refugee exclusively for the Palestinians. No other group of people in the world passes refugee status to their descendants. What does all of that tell you about the UN?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "1. There are two plausible reasons why it's assumed that Amanda is the only pro-Palestinian poster here. One is that "she" actually is; the other is that both her and other like-minded posters make the same stupid and tired arguments she does and they all blur together."

    So much for your theories on how you only get excited about who is who is because you don't want pro-Palestinian posters pretending to be a specific gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. to manipulate the debate. I've never used any of my personal information to make a point on here or Huff Po. Yet ya'll keep harping on it...

    And you don't do yourself or your intellect any favors by trying to claim maybe none of you can tell the difference in tone and arguments from poster to poster. I don't spend that much time on this site and yet have the ability to recognize the difference in tone and style from between say Norman and Zach. They believe the same things and make some of the same arguments but even a slightly observant and intelligent person can tell the differences.

    -Amanda (amake616)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I feel I should also point out that "Nate" is asking a loaded question based on a false premise. He declares that in most of these votes it is "Israel and the US is on one side and the rest of the world is on the other."

    But this is not true, and never has been true. Let's look at just one example, UNGA 4686.

    This was the resolution that decided to rescind the other resolutions that declared Zionism to be racism. 111 nations were in favor, 25 were against. Hardly America and Israel alone, huh?

    We can see this in many other votes. It is hardly the US and Israel voting against while everyone else votes in favor. The majority of nations (the poor, Third World ones I might add) vote in favor, but many others abstain or vote "present."

    It is very dishonest of you to imply otherwise, Nate, and this combined with your obvious attempt to troll leads me to conclude that there is no point at all in trying to open a dialogue.

    Oh, and Amanda, I don't believe all the same things as Norman, so I'd appreciate if you didn't act as if I did.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well Matt, I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt and I ask the questions I do because I believe that this is the easiest way to get to the crux of the issue and although I disagree with you, I am interested in understanding your perspective as it is exactly the opposite of mine. Of course I have certain opinions on Israel/Palestine and I believe that my opinions are informed by history, reality, and rational considerations of justice and morality. Now, if you tell me that your opinions of Israel are also shaped by the same considerations yet your opinions are exactly the opposite, one of us in error either historically, or morally. Now, I encourage you, if you truly believe that Israel has history, justice, and morality on her side to further explain this to me. On the other hand, if you tell me that your opinions are shaped primarily through ethnocentric bias and not on considerations of history/justice/morality, I will appreciate your honesty but will not see any point in further discussion.

    But, we have already made a little bit of progress. I think with your latest response we have come a little bit closer to truth.

    Now, once again, you have given a most unsatisfactory explanation why the entire world agrees on the basic principles for a just solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict yet this solution is continually blocked by two countries, the US and Israel. I recall your initial response was that the rest of the world wanted to “throw the Palestinians a bone” or something to that effect. Well, now we have moved on to your next hypothesis which is “OIL”. You argue that “most of the world doesn’t know the best solution to the I/P conflict” and they basically don’t rock the boat because the Arab states supply their oil.

    Of course there is no historical or reality based evidence to support this hypothesis. The US gets more Oil from Canada and Venezuela than from Arabia so your hypothesis would not account for the votes of non-Arab oil producing countries like Canada, Venezuela, Russia, Trinidad Tobago etc. Additionally, I am curious why you assume the governments of the world to be so ignorant that they “don’t know the best solution for the I/P conflict.”

    Continued Below

    Nate

    ReplyDelete
  14. My suspicion however is that you don’t really believe the explanation that you offered and what you really believe based on the underlying assumptions of the questions you asked me is that the UN is simply Anti/Israel and probably Antisemitic. This of course has nothing to do with oil and I wonder why you even bring up oil if in the next paragraph your leading questions insinuate rampant Anti-Israel bias.

    So, I will for now simply disregard your “OIL” explanation and address your UN = Unfair anti Israel bias argument (I will be happy to revisit your oil explanation if you care to share any evidence that supports it.)
    First of all, when we talk about “the UN” we might as well be saying “the government of the world” because after all, this is what “United Nations” means. So, why is the only annual issue brought up for vote the I/P conflict and not any of the other examples you mentioned? If your statement is true and it very well may be, I’m not sure, is because of the intrinsic role that the UN had with the creation of Israel. Remember it was the UN partition plan and subsequent unilateral declaration of Independence of the state of Israel that gave Israel legitimacy in the first place. IMO, it is hardly noteworthy that as hostilities have continued over the past several decades and Israel has refused to implement the necessary steps for a just and lasting peace that the UN would make a declaration reaffirming what those steps continue to be. Again, IMO, the only thing noteworthy about this is that every year, it is the US and Israel vs. the world.

    Your next question is, why did the UN condemn Jewish nationalism as racism but not Arab nationalism, Greek nationalism, or Mexican nationalism. Again, I believe that you are deliberately obfuscating the issue here. Please correct me if you think I am in error. It is not nationalism per se, but the treating of citizens who are not identified by the state as “Jewish” as second class citizens that is apartheid like and racist. This is why the most accurate comparison to the state of Israel is to South Africa and not Greece or Mexico.

    Regarding the refugees, it is to Israel’s everlasting shame that this issue has not been dealt with for the last 60 years. According to Ilan Pappe in 1948, Israel “deliberately expelled the local population. And, if you want a solution today, Israel has to take into account that act, in terms of compensation and in terms of return. Without that, there will be no just solution for the Palestine problem. This is a very simple truism which Israelis refuse to accept.”

    IMO it is entirely appropriate that refugees from 1948 are still considered refugees because they have rights which are still being trampled by the state of Israel. Just because decades have gone by doesn’t absolve Israel of its responsibilities or strip her victims of their rights. If the “races” in the situation were reversed and Arabs came to Manhattan in order to violently dispossessed Jewish homes, would they be free and clear if they were able to wait it out for 60 years?

    Now, certainly the UN has its problems, but those problems have nothing to do with Anti-semitism IMO.

    Now that I have done my best to address your question, would you please give me the same courtesy and honestly answer the same question yourself. The insinuation of the rhetorical question you proffered suggest that you believe the whole world (or at least all the governments of the world) are bias against Israel and Anti-Semitic. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth so therefore, what do the “facts” you listed “tell you about the UN”?

    Nate

    ReplyDelete
  15. Tell you what Nate, I'm going to ask you to do me a favor and shoot us an email with your responses so you don't fill up the comments section. It'll be easier for me to read and respond to your comments that way. Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Zack you said,

    “I feel I should also point out that "Nate" is asking a loaded question based on a false premise. He declares that in most of these votes it is "Israel and the US is on one side and the rest of the world is on the other… It is very dishonest of you to imply otherwise, Nate, and this combined with your obvious attempt to troll leads me to conclude that there is no point at all in trying to open a dialogue.”

    Clearly Zach the annual vote of which I am and have been referring is the “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine”. I even quoted from the Zionist friendly website that was my source and then provided the URL link. Hardly any dishonesty on my part. I stand by my statement as the following evidence bears out.

    58th Session Resolution 58/21 160-6-5 (Yay-Nay-Abstain)
    57th Session Resolution 57/110 160-4-3
    56th Session Resolution 56/36 131-6-20
    55th Session Resolution 55/55 149-2-3
    54th Session Resolution 54/42 149-3-2
    53rd Session Resolution 53/42 154-2-3
    52nd Session Resolution 52/52 155-2-3

    Why so quick to end the dialogue Zack?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sorry Nate, but you continue to be dishonest, because you ignored the voting record. Here are the results from the last vote taken on this issue in 2009:

    http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=108V0691N26Y9.82&menu=search&aspect=power&npp=50&ipp=20&profile=voting&ri=&index=.VM&term=A/RES/64/19

    As you will see, there were 164 nations in favor, 7 against, 4 abstentions, and 17 who didn't vote. So you were either exaggerating or lying when you said that "it is "Israel and the US is on one side and the rest of the world is on the other." I have a feeling that if I looked up the rest of the results I would find something similar.

    As for your question as to why I am "so quick to end the dialogue," I am always happy to have dialogue with people, even those with whom I disagree. However, I do not see the point in speaking with people who *enter a conversation* with accusations of "partisan hacks," and "ethnocentrism." This only indicates to me a rigid mindset that will never be changed by anything. And so it is not worth my time to engage.

    If you would like to prove me wrong, please do so.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Tell you what Nate, I'm going to ask you to do me a favor and shoot us an email with your responses so you don't fill up the comments section. It'll be easier for me to read and respond to your comments that way. Thanks in advance."

    What? No printer, Matt?

    Or is it that Nate is asking questions that you can't/won't answer in your own blog for fear of looking like an ass?

    Zach seems to think that a massively overwhelming majority doesn't reflect a world view.

    No surprise there.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Zach seems to think that a massively overwhelming majority doesn't reflect a world view."
    It reflects the cost of something bereft of tangible meaning today and for decades past, of support that requires no sacrifice and produces no results. If you would like to pretend it's impactful beyond that, it's a free country.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ok Zack,

    If you prefer to use the numbers from the 2009 vote, please do. By enlarge, and for all intents and purposes, the 2009 numbers are not substantively different than the vote tallies I offered above. Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Australia, the US, and Israel against 164 other nations. If we reduce the number of citizens represented by the various governments, my guess it would be considerably upwards of 100:1. I apologize if you think I “exaggerated” when I stated that it is the US and Israel against the rest of the world. I guess you are technically correct and I hope to achieve your high standard of technical accuracy in all further statements (of course I will expect you to do the same).

    The bottom line however is that you still haven’t answered my simple question. Why is there agreement between the hugely vast majority of world governments regarding how to resolve the P/I conflict. And why is it only the US and Israel that consistently disagree with the hugely vast majority of world governments?

    Thanks for your response…

    Nate

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Oh, and Amanda, I don't believe all the same things as Norman, so I'd appreciate if you didn't act as if I did."

    I didn't act it- I stated it. And if you don't share all his views you certainly have an interesting way of showing it seeing as how he comments on damn near everything ya'll write and you have yet to call him on a single one of his paranoid, post-apocalyptic, slightly rabid, armchair Zionist warrior rants. If you have and I've missed it feel free to correct me but there's no denying you both let him and his issues run amok (and then complain about hoo Huffington Post should do a better job policing *their* racists, but that's another story.)

    -Amanda

    ReplyDelete
  22. Amanda, Norm posts every day saying pretty much the same thing. I stopped reading what he writes months ago.

    And I wouldn't moan and groan too much about letting Norm post as much as he wants, as we have stopped deleting comments here, including ones that contain personal attacks on us. Free speech cuts both ways.

    As for the HuffPo, it has terms of service. We don't. So there's no comparison.

    Nate, I'll answer your question in email.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Nate, I daren't expose my response to the light of day."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sharmine Narwani sounds like a vicious bigot. Is she a fascist?

    ReplyDelete

Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.