It is a lousy speech by all means. Here are excerpts:
"and removed the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon from the list of global threats." Notice he does not care say a word about the threat of Israel's WMDs.
The criteria for Sandars are always (like every member of US congress) is the security of the occupation state: "In contrast, the Iran nuclear deal helped the security of the U.S. and its partners – yes, it helped the security of Israel, as many Israeli security experts have acknowledged".
He then brazenly says: "I saw and experienced for myself many of the progressive values upon which the State of Israel was founded." Yes, Israel was founded on such progressive values: ethnic cleansing, occupation, settler colonialism, mass explosion, apartheid, sectarianism, massacres and war crimes. But this Vermont Senator was very impressed.
"to acknowledge the enormous achievement of establishing a democratic homeland for the Jewish people". Would you support a homeland for Muslim people? How could a secular support a religious identity based state? And democratic? You mean democratic for the European Jewish segment of the population but not for the rest, right?
Whenever someone uses the word "painful" about Israeli war crimes, I know that the person is about to justify war crimes. Also, the analogy with the US is intended to convince listeners that it is OK and that the victims have to move on: "But as you all know, there was another side to the story of Israel’s creation, a more painful side. Like our own country, the founding of Israel involved the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people already living there, the Palestinian people. Over 700,000 people were made refugees."
And here he provides the typical ignorant narrative: "Nobody gains when children are trained to be suicide bombers." Nobody is training anyone on anything. Some people are driven to commit extreme acts of violence by virtue of the mass violence of the occupiers. Read Richard Pepe's Dying to Win and you will understand what you are ignorant of: regarding the impact of foreign occupation on the occupied.
He concludes the speech by asserting that in his view George W. Bush has the best solution to the conflict.
"and removed the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon from the list of global threats." Notice he does not care say a word about the threat of Israel's WMDs.
The criteria for Sandars are always (like every member of US congress) is the security of the occupation state: "In contrast, the Iran nuclear deal helped the security of the U.S. and its partners – yes, it helped the security of Israel, as many Israeli security experts have acknowledged".
He then brazenly says: "I saw and experienced for myself many of the progressive values upon which the State of Israel was founded." Yes, Israel was founded on such progressive values: ethnic cleansing, occupation, settler colonialism, mass explosion, apartheid, sectarianism, massacres and war crimes. But this Vermont Senator was very impressed.
"to acknowledge the enormous achievement of establishing a democratic homeland for the Jewish people". Would you support a homeland for Muslim people? How could a secular support a religious identity based state? And democratic? You mean democratic for the European Jewish segment of the population but not for the rest, right?
Whenever someone uses the word "painful" about Israeli war crimes, I know that the person is about to justify war crimes. Also, the analogy with the US is intended to convince listeners that it is OK and that the victims have to move on: "But as you all know, there was another side to the story of Israel’s creation, a more painful side. Like our own country, the founding of Israel involved the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people already living there, the Palestinian people. Over 700,000 people were made refugees."
And here he provides the typical ignorant narrative: "Nobody gains when children are trained to be suicide bombers." Nobody is training anyone on anything. Some people are driven to commit extreme acts of violence by virtue of the mass violence of the occupiers. Read Richard Pepe's Dying to Win and you will understand what you are ignorant of: regarding the impact of foreign occupation on the occupied.
He concludes the speech by asserting that in his view George W. Bush has the best solution to the conflict.
