PDA

View Full Version : Israel-Palestine / religious terrorism (was non-islamic religious terrorism)



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Ian Murray
01-03-2011, 05:30 PM
It's talking still does a lot of damage. It was used as a justification for constant attacks on Israel.
Attacks by whom? Hamas and Hezbollah don't look for justification from the UN.

Capablanca-Fan
02-03-2011, 03:22 AM
Ignore the General Assembly - it can only talk, not act.
OK, so why fund this kakistocracy with billions of taxpayer dollars? What do Australia and America get out of it?

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2011, 03:38 PM
The Deep, Virulent Evil of the United Nations (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2011/03/16/the-deep-virulent-evil-of-the-united-nations/)
By Ben Shapiro, 16 March 2011

Blood on the bed. That's what 12-year-old Tamar Fogel saw last week when she opened the door to her parents' bedroom in Itamar, Israel. The blood covered the blankets and the bodies of her father, Rabbi Udi Fogel, and her 3-month-old sister, Hadas. In the other room, her mother, Ruth, lay murdered. So did her brothers, Yoav, 11, and Elad, 4.

Five members of the Fogel family were slaughtered in their home last week because they dared to live on historic Jewish land. They were not murderers and were not occupiers. They were people who simply wished to leave in peace and be left alone to bring up their children. Now those children have been buried along with their parents.

And the Arab Palestinian populace [Antichrist's favorite people], which by and large constitutes the most evil population on the face of the planet, celebrated. Residents of Gaza -- an area already handed over to the Arab Palestinians by the Israeli government, supposedly in the interests of peace -- handed out candy in exultation over the crimes. These are the same people who train their small children to wear suicide vests and force them to watch propaganda about Muslims dying to "liberate" Jerusalem.

Hamas [Hebrew for "violence"], naturally, cheered wildly and suggested that the murder of a 3-month-old fell short of Muslim expectations: "The report of five murdered Israelis is not enough to punish someone," said the Hamas spokesperson. The leader of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, was slightly subtler, equating instead the murder of children in their beds with Israeli anti-terrorism military action.

antichrist
16-03-2011, 04:01 PM
The Deep, Virulent Evil of the United Nations (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2011/03/16/the-deep-virulent-evil-of-the-united-nations/)
By Ben Shapiro, 16 March 2011

Blood on the bed. That's what 12-year-old Tamar Fogel saw last week when she opened the door to her parents' bedroom in Itamar, Israel. The blood covered the blankets and the bodies of her father, Rabbi Udi Fogel, and her 3-month-old sister, Hadas. In the other room, her mother, Ruth, lay murdered. So did her brothers, Yoav, 11, and Elad, 4.

Five members of the Fogel family were slaughtered in their home last week because they dared to live on historic Jewish land. They were not murderers and were not occupiers. They were people who simply wished to leave in peace and be left alone to bring up their children. Now those children have been buried along with their parents.

And the Arab Palestinian populace [Antichrist's favorite people], which by and large constitutes the most evil population on the face of the planet, celebrated. Residents of Gaza -- an area already handed over to the Arab Palestinians by the Israeli government, supposedly in the interests of peace -- handed out candy in exultation over the crimes. These are the same people who train their small children to wear suicide vests and force them to watch propaganda about Muslims dying to "liberate" Jerusalem.

Hamas [Hebrew for "violence"], naturally, cheered wildly and suggested that the murder of a 3-month-old fell short of Muslim expectations: "The report of five murdered Israelis is not enough to punish someone," said the Hamas spokesperson. The leader of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, was slightly subtler, equating instead the murder of children in their beds with Israeli anti-terrorism military action.

They were not on historic Jewish land but historic Semitic land, that includes many other Arab tribes. The Jews genocided the other Semitics there 3,000 years ago, but they are still fighting back.

They were according to UN and internationally law illegal occupiers, only protected by the Jewish lobby in US Democrats and Repubicans, from being thrown out of place by UN.

The Palestinians are only fighting for their traditional land, where they have lived for about 1500 years, if not longer. They claim to be decendants of Philistines that Jews wiped out 3,000 years go.

Gaza was not given for peace, there were no discussions or agreements, it was a unilateral decision by Israel coz it could no longer control the population's revolts. Inspite of all the heavy firepower used against the Palestinians, including cluster bombs.

Israeli Jewish fanatics are becoming the hated people on the planet due to their Nazi tactics aganst the Palestinians. The voting was 13-1 against Israel the other day. Only vetoed by the USA Jewish lobby.

Israel bombed "innocent" Lebanese villages with cluster bombs disguised as tops so that children would pick up unexploded bombs that would then explode in their hands.

In Israel there are numerous groups of fantastic just Jews who completely support the Palestinians in their just cause - they can't bear to witness Israeli Nazi tactics and sit on their hands.

If Jews have land rights in Israel going back 3,000 years, even though the originally stole the country anyway, why dont also American indians also have full land rights and could toss all the whites out of Americas. The indians could get high powered weapons like Israel has and just run amok, driving whites out into the ocean.

Desmond
17-03-2011, 11:10 AM
That's not fighting AC, it's murder. Sick.

Ian Murray
17-03-2011, 11:38 AM
The slaughter of children is sickening, but it seems a little premature to be laying blame. Neither Hamas nor anyone else has claimed responsibility, while there is an allegation that the family was slain by a Thai migrant worker employed by the family, over non-payment of wages.

antichrist
17-03-2011, 12:25 PM
That's not fighting AC, it's murder. Sick.

without final verdict re Ian Murray's post, I always remember what an old WW2 vet told me "dont judge a person until you have walked in their shoes". In similar circumstances to what he was referring to I had judged a person for decades as a bit deficient. It turns out I was wrong, I had not been in his shoes to know what he had been up against. And it was terrible what he had been put through.

Similarly with the Palestinians, yes it was sick those murders, but their have been tens of thousands of murders of Palestinians going back to the Jewish terrorist Stern gang and others pre 1948 and ever since.

Israel's tactic is to enforce "facts on the ground", that is occupation or possession is 9/10 of the law when it comes to final solution of the problem. They use their children as colateral damage in this strategy, just as the Palestinians also use their children for bombings as they are less suspected than the adults.

It could be seen as the Palestinians having a lot less choice in exploitation of their children as the Orthox Jewish robber settlers have. The Palestinians have no where else to go, theJewish settlers/robbers came from specifically from Europe or somewhere to come and steal more land from people already down and out. They already had somewhere else.

I welcome your contribution all the same.

Desmond
17-03-2011, 05:11 PM
without final verdict re Ian Murray's post, I always remember what an old WW2 vet told me "dont judge a person until you have walked in their shoes". In similar circumstances to what he was referring to I had judged a person for decades as a bit deficient. It turns out I was wrong, I had not been in his shoes to know what he had been up against. And it was terrible what he had been put through.

Similarly with the Palestinians, yes it was sick those murders, but their have been tens of thousands of murders of Palestinians going back to the Jewish terrorist Stern gang and others pre 1948 and ever since.

Israel's tactic is to enforce "facts on the ground", that is occupation or possession is 9/10 of the law when it comes to final solution of the problem. They use their children as colateral damage in this strategy, just as the Palestinians also use their children for bombings as they are less suspected than the adults.

It could be seen as the Palestinians having a lot less choice in exploitation of their children as the Orthox Jewish robber settlers have. The Palestinians have no where else to go, theJewish settlers/robbers came from specifically from Europe or somewhere to come and steal more land from people already down and out. They already had somewhere else.

I welcome your contribution all the same.
I see nowhere is #754 where you either 1) dispute who did it, or 2) express regret that it occurred. Only justification.

antichrist
17-03-2011, 05:19 PM
I see nowhere is #754 where you either 1) dispute who did it, or 2) express regret that it occurred. Only justification.

well how can I dispute it, I am here in Australia minding my own business.

I have not expressed regret over the earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones etc. either. Frankly I just consider expressing public regret false, self-serving, grandstanding etc etc. I see others on this board do it all the time and I consider artificial, attention whores they are - nothing more. Politicians do it to get votes and to appear to be sympathetic - at least they get paid for it.

Those Israeli parents knew what they were doing when illegally squatting on Palestinian land, they were using their families as pawns nothing more. They know all the shit that has been put on the Palestinians and they want to put more - well sometimes it comes back.

As I stated that if it was the Palestinians walk a mile in their shoes first before commenting.

Desmond
17-03-2011, 05:26 PM
well how can I dispute it, I am here in Australia minding my own business.

I have not expressed regret over the earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones etc. either. Frankly I just consider expressing public regret false, self-serving, grandstanding etc etc. I see others on this board do it all the time and I consider artificial, attention whores they are - nothing more. Politicians do it to get votes and to appear to be sympathetic - at least they get paid for it.

Those Israeli parents knew what they were doing when illegally squatting on Palestinian land, they were using their families as pawns nothing more. They know all the shit that has been put on the Palestinians and they want to put more - well sometimes it comes back.

As I stated that if it was the Palestinians walk a mile in their shoes first before commenting.If I ever walk a mile in the shoes of someone who slaughters children in their beds it will be to climb a tall building and jump.

antichrist
17-03-2011, 05:31 PM
If I ever walk a mile in the shoes of someone who slaughters children in their beds it will be to climb a tall building and jump.

I know an old woman whose husband and father had their head chopped off their shoulders in front of her by the Japanese to teach them a lesson not to join the guerrilla movement during WW2. She still intensely hates them now - if she done something against them I would not blame her.

I have read cases of Palestinians only becoming radical after their homes and family were blown up by Israeli planes, colaterial damage it is called. there are butchers on both sides.

antichrist
17-03-2011, 05:44 PM
Boris, look what the Yanks did with their nuke bombs on Japan, did they express regret? I dont know, but if they did it would be hopeless. You either do it and accept the consequences or you dont do it. There was not one little yellow foot on US soil when those bombs were dropped, and those bombs are still defended to today.

Ian Murray
17-03-2011, 06:16 PM
Notable are the beliefs of extremists among the Jewish settlers:
Rabbinic Text or Call to Terror? (http://forward.com/articles/123925/)
The Jewish Daily Forward
20 Jan 2010

...“The prohibition ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder’” applies only “to a Jew who kills a Jew,” write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. Non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and attacks on them “curb their evil inclination,” while babies and children of Israel’s enemies may be killed since “it is clear that they will grow to harm us.”...

Oepty
17-03-2011, 10:38 PM
Notable are the beliefs of extremists among the Jewish settlers:
Rabbinic Text or Call to Terror? (http://forward.com/articles/123925/)
The Jewish Daily Forward
20 Jan 2010

...“The prohibition ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder’” applies only “to a Jew who kills a Jew,” write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. Non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and attacks on them “curb their evil inclination,” while babies and children of Israel’s enemies may be killed since “it is clear that they will grow to harm us.”...

The Rabbi has no idea what he is talking about.
Scott

Ian Murray
17-03-2011, 11:34 PM
The Rabbi has no idea what he is talking about.
Scott
Rabbis - there are two of them. Nevertheless, it is passing strange that religious leaders should be espousing the killing of babies. Despite what we are led to believe, Islamic fundamentalists have not cornered the market on inciting violence.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2011, 03:38 AM
Rabbis - there are two of them. Nevertheless, it is passing strange that religious leaders should be espousing the killing of babies. Despite what we are led to believe, Islamic fundamentalists have not cornered the market on inciting violence.
So where are these Jews going around butchering families, flying planes into buildings, blowing up school buses, murdering apostates, flogging rape victims, etc. Finding the occasional fringe writings by Jews, widely condemned in the Jewish community, is nothing like the cheering in the "Palestinian" Arab streets whenever Jews are murdered.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2011, 03:39 AM
Boris, look what the Yanks did with their nuke bombs on Japan, did they express regret? I dont know, but if they did it would be hopeless. You either do it and accept the consequences or you dont do it. There was not one little yellow foot on US soil when those bombs were dropped, and those bombs are still defended to today.
As they should be, since they encouraged a relatively quick surrender. Even after they were dropped, the Japanese were killing Asians and POWs at a horrifying rate, and were preparing to defend the main islands with every man, woman, and child to the death. After the Okinawa carnage, the Allies were calculating that it would have cost over a million Allied troops and many more Japanese deaths to take the main islands and force unconditional surrender. Without this, the Japanese would have remained militarized and an ever-present danger.

Anyway, there is another thread about Hiroshima (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=207170#post207170).

Israel, unlike Japan, did not start a murderous war, or butchers people in POW camps. Israel just wants to live in peace, while the Arabs want to annihilate the country. Boris is right that this latest murder of an Israeli family was just evil.

Oepty
18-03-2011, 07:54 AM
Rabbis - there are two of them. Nevertheless, it is passing strange that religious leaders should be espousing the killing of babies. Despite what we are led to believe, Islamic fundamentalists have not cornered the market on inciting violence.

One, two, a dozen, it doesn't matter how many still would be wrong
Scott

Ian Murray
18-03-2011, 08:42 AM
So where are these Jews going around butchering families, flying planes into buildings, blowing up school buses, murdering apostates, flogging rape victims, etc. Finding the occasional fringe writings by Jews, widely condemned in the Jewish community, is nothing like the cheering in the "Palestinian" Arab streets whenever Jews are murdered.
To us applauding the killing of children is grotesque, but is the norm in the Middle East, it seems. As Israeli journalist Yossi Gurvitz writes (http://972mag.com/the-itamar-victimization-dance-is-disgusting/):

...Is there any Israeli, who would kill a Palestinian child? Of course there is: You only need a bit of memory. The Bat ‘Ayin Underground tried to activate a cart bomb next to a Palestinian girls’ school. Its members were acquitted of the killing of eight other Palestinians, one of them a child (then who did kill them? the case were never closed). Two of the Bat ‘Ayin conspirators were sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, another was sentenced to eight years, and two others received two years’ imprisonment each. The security coordinator of the Hadar Beitar settlement, Nahum Korman, was convicted of the killing of a 10 year-old Palestinian child, Hilmi Shusha, after hitting him on the head with the butt of his pistol. Korman was sentenced to six months of community service (!). Pinchas Wallerstein, one of the mainstays of the settler movement, chased a Palestinian boy, Rabbah Rhanem Ahmed, whom he claimed threw stones at his car, and shot him dead. Naturally – Wallerstein is a Jew and a settler – he was not charged with murder, but with manslaughter, was convicted of wrongful causing of death, and atoned for his actions with a mere four months of community service.

Korman and Wallerstein, and to a lesser extent the men of the Bat ‘Ayin group, were embraced by their communities. Turns out that if you’re a Jew who shoots a Palestinian child in the back, or bashes his head in with a pistol, or just try to blow him to kingdom come with his classmates, you’re not a two-legged beast; you’re a pillar of the community....

Oepty
18-03-2011, 08:51 AM
PEOPLE STOP KILLING PEOPLE

Rincewind
18-03-2011, 09:02 AM
PEOPLE STOP KILLING PEOPLE

Now there is a headline I'd like to see.

antichrist
18-03-2011, 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by Jono
So where are these Jews going around butchering families, flying planes into buildings, blowing up school buses, murdering apostates, flogging rape victims, etc. Finding the occasional fringe writings by Jews, widely condemned in the Jewish community, is nothing like the cheering in the "Palestinian" Arab streets whenever Jews are murdered.

It is only because individual Jews don't have to, their state terrorist Israel Defense Army does most dirty work for them.

Even the Jewish holy book states that it is all right to genocide other races but keep the virgins to rape - that is how the ancient Hebrews obtained the Holy Land in the first place. They were no better than Hitler then and not much better now.

But not including the fantastic leftist, liberal Jews who are the best people in the world for the way they try to protect the battered Palestinians.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2011, 12:31 AM
To us applauding the killing of children is grotesque, but is the norm in the Middle East, it seems. As Israeli journalist Yossi Gurvitz writes (http://972mag.com/the-itamar-victimization-dance-is-disgusting/):
So the best you can do is one self-loathing Israeli muckraker, who has to admit the case was not proven? Typical of leftard moral equivalence rhetoric, which is basically antisemitism since crimes against Israelis are excused, paralleled or explained away, while Israel is singled out for wrongs that are always much worse in its enemies.

antichrist
19-03-2011, 08:56 AM
Some Jews are anti-semitic themselves how they demolish their Arab/Palestinian Semitic neighbours, physcially and culturally. But the Arabs have not out have not had hordes of converts like the Jews have, so ethnically speaking many Jews don't deserve to have land rights in the Middle East.

The situation now is that we have ethnic Europeans, non Semitic people, terrorising Semitic Arabs/Palestinians out of their ancient lands. EThnic Jews are only one tribe of Semitic people - they have no more rights than other Semitic people.

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2011, 09:39 AM
Some Jews are anti-semitic themselves how they demolish their Arab/Palestinian Semitic neighbours, physcially and culturally.
No they don't. When they left Gaza, supposedly trading land for peace, they left lots of functioning infrastructure. It was the "Palestinian" savages who trashed it.


But the Arabs have not out have not had hordes of converts like the Jews have, so ethnically speaking many Jews don't deserve to have land rights in the Middle East.
Rubbish. Note also, the Jews don't butcher infidels or "apostates".


The situation now is that we have ethnic Europeans, non Semitic people, terrorising Semitic Arabs/Palestinians out of their ancient lands.
Come off it.


Ethnic Jews are only one tribe of Semitic people - they have no more rights than other Semitic people.
If you want to dwell on the past, it's the Arabs who were the outside invaders from the Arabian Peninsula. Later on, Jews acquired land by buying malaria-infested swamp land at a fair price, drained the swamps and made the land productive, and then the former owners claim they were ripped off.

antichrist
19-03-2011, 09:41 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjD4eWEUgMM

cop a dose of this for a change, it is saturday morn and the rain is coming down, the grass always looks greener in someone's elses yard - and the Sydney Morning Herald is waiting , and great coffee and Janis Joplin, I am taking Boris's advice and livin for 2day

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2011, 09:41 AM
PEOPLE STOP KILLING PEOPLE
Why? Some people need to be killed, e.g. those who butchered that Israeli family, and those who cheered them on.

Ian Murray
19-03-2011, 07:06 PM
So the best you can do is one self-loathing Israeli muckraker, who has to admit the case was not proven?
It is revealing that a dissenting Israeli is always a 'self-hating' or 'self-loathing' Jew (whatever that is supposed to signify), even an atheist as in this case. Divergence of opinion is the lifeblood of a true democracy, but criticism within the palisade undermines Israel's self-perception of righteousness as the chosen people.

In the occupied territories the settlers are governed by Israeli civil law, with its protection of civil rights not available to Palestinians who are subject to military law (e.g. detention for no longer than 48 hours without charge under civil law, 90 days under military rule). The administration of justice is blatantly biased in favour of the settlers, with little or no protection against settler attacks provided by the IDF.
www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=Palestine&article=2676
www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/resources/fact-sheets/1685-settler-violence-september-october

...Israel is singled out for wrongs that are always much worse in its enemies.
As Gurvitz writes in the same article:

The person who popularized the term “two legged beasts” in Hebrew was Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who dispatched the Israeli air force to bomb Beirut indiscriminately. The Lebanon War of 1982 cost the Lebanese no less than 17,000 dead (this number does not include the number of Palestinian and Syrian fighters killed, estimated at 9,798). The total sum of Israeli dead from terrorism since the creation of Israel did not, at that time, exceed 500. Begin, one of the more decent prime ministers we’ve had, had no qualms at killing 34 Lebanese civilians for each Israeli dead.
That war was started in retaliation for the capture by Hezbollah of two Israeli soldiers. Much of southern Lebanon is still uninhabitable due to seeding with cluster bomblets.

antichrist
20-03-2011, 12:34 AM
I can well understand decent Jews being self hating or self loathing when considering all the embarrassment the extremists cause, they even killed their own peace-making PM

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2011, 07:07 AM
It is revealing that a dissenting Israeli is always a 'self-hating' or 'self-loathing' Jew (whatever that is supposed to signify), even an atheist as in this case.
Proves my point. An atheist hates the Hebrew Bible.


Divergence of opinion is the lifeblood of a true democracy,
Yes it is. Israelis have the freedom to dissent. Arab dissenters are butchered.


In the occupied territories the settlers are governed by Israeli civil law, with its protection of civil rights not available to Palestinians who are subject to military law (e.g. detention for no longer than 48 hours without charge under civil law, 90 days under military rule).
If the Palestinians would renounce terrorism, then this would not be necessary. And this proves my point about the antisemitism of the Left: criticism of Israel for detention, but no condemnation of the torture and murder when Israelis and even peace-loving Arabs fall into their hands.


The administration of justice is blatantly biased in favour of the settlers,
Over terrorists? How terrible, even if doubtful.


That war was started in retaliation for the capture by Hezbollah of two Israeli soldiers.
What a good thing: back then, Israel didn't let people getting away with attacking their soldiers.

Death tolls are meaningless unless we compare like with like. I've pointed out before that the terrorists target innocent civilians, while Israelis target terrorists who hide among civilians. Many terrorist plots are foiled, otherwise the Israeli toll would be higher. Palestinian casualty reports often count the suicide bombers, terrorists shot in self-defense while planting or throwing bombs, bomb-makers (and their neighbors) killed when the bombs they were making blew up, “collaborators” killed by other Palestinians, etc.

antichrist
20-03-2011, 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
Some Jews are anti-semitic themselves how they demolish their Arab/Palestinian Semitic neighbours, physcially and culturally.

Jono
No they don't. When they left Gaza, supposedly trading land for peace, they left lots of functioning infrastructure. It was the "Palestinian" savages who trashed it.

AC
Biggest lie re supposed trading land for peace - there were absolutely no negotiations, it was a unilateral decision because the Nazi occupiers could not longer hold out.

What do you mean Palestinians trashing the place - it was the Israeli invasion that killed thousands and bombed everything. Do you live in fantasy land. Gee I wish I could be of such a tribe and be so fantasylike.------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
But the Arabs have not out have not had hordes of converts like the Jews have, so ethnically speaking many Jews don't deserve to have land rights in the Middle East.

Jono
Rubbish. Note also, the Jews don't butcher infidels or "apostates".

aC
Your response is totally irrelevant and is not universal anyway. Palestinians is also full of Christians who also oppose everything that Israel is doing.

You did not answer my point that many Jews are only converts so dont deserve to live in the Middle East. It would be like every Roman Catholic has the right to live in Rome or the Vatican - the whole 1 billion of them.

The blood groups of some Jews have proven that they are not originally from the Middle East at all. Yet they are illegally occupying stolen land. Send the theives back to Europe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
The situation now is that we have ethnic Europeans, non Semitic people, terrorising Semitic Arabs/Palestinians out of their ancient lands.

Jono
Come off it.

AC
that is not a response. Blood group testing have proven that they dont belong to middle east at all.

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
Ethnic Jews are only one tribe of Semitic people - they have no more rights than other Semitic people.


JOno
If you want to dwell on the past, it's the Arabs who were the outside invaders from the Arabian Peninsula. Later on, Jews acquired land by buying malaria-infested swamp land at a fair price, drained the swamps and made the land productive, and then the former owners claim they were ripped off.


AC
The Arabs come from many places but all from the immediate and surrounding areas - whereas the converted Jews from Europe dont deserve to be anywhere near the place making the situation much worse. And many of them are extremely arrogant and racist to go with it. That is why they were hated by Arabs and local Jews even before Israel was made.

antichrist
29-03-2011, 11:52 AM
Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
A ghost wanders about Europe....
In other words, the malignant tumour is spreading.

AC
sorry to say it Igor but this reminds me of old movies of Adolf speaking to the crazy multitudes - say no more

Kevin Bonham
29-03-2011, 05:11 PM
I think that's what it is intended to remind you of actually.

antichrist
30-03-2011, 06:55 PM
The property called Shepherd’s Hotel was built in the 1930’s by Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, as his family home outside of the Old City of Jerusalem. The British exiled him in 1937, and the British used it as a military outpost.

AC
Now if this is the same Mufti who the Jews for collaborating with Hitler fair enuf, but many other countries also collaborated with Hitler, I learnt only last week that Hungary did also. All with the same purpose of furthering their own national/ethnic interests.

But the difference with the Mufti's case is that he was appointed to be the Grand Mufti by the British occupying forces and not his own people so blame the British not the Palestinians.

antichrist
06-04-2011, 04:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rincewind
The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, 1572, immediately springs to mind as an instance of christian mobs going on a rampage killing (in the case 1,000's of protestants).

Christians have killed countless people in the name of their religion. Sometimes as a result of organic mob violence, other times as the result of calculated persecution of the establishment.

Igor
Welcome to 21st century.
__________________
AC
Igor, I take it that now we could say the same about mentioning the Holocaust - it is so last century?

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2011, 11:48 AM
Goldstone: You Cannot Undo a Slander (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/mona-charen/2011/04/05/goldstone-you-cannot-undo-a-slander/)
By Mona Charen, Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Richard Goldstone, the formerly respected South African jurist who disgraced himself by lending his name to a sinister and libelous U.N. report condemning Israel for war crimes, has now issued a very public retraction. "If I had known then what I know now," he wrote in The Washington Post, "the Goldstone Report would have been a different document." New information has persuaded him, he said, "that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy" by Israel.

While this recantation is better than none, it invites the question: How could Goldstone not have known the relevant facts? A 10-year-old could have known the relevant facts.



As for Hamas, which is never labeled a terrorist organization throughout the Goldstone report, there has been copious evidence since 1987 that this offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (and client of Iran) has engaged in massive human rights violations including deliberate targeting of civilians (Arabs as well as Israelis), kidnapping, torture, and hiding military equipment in mosques, hospitals, and schools. The Hamas Charter states that "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad."

For the better part of four years, Israel suffered more than 10,000 missile attacks against its civilians from Gaza. When it finally used military force to stop the attacks, Israel, in the words of British Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, "did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare. Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population."

All of this was not just knowable when Goldstone signed on as front man for the U.N. lynch mob, it was known. The Goldstone Report was intended, and has since been employed, to stigmatize any Israeli self-defense as a war crime. In 2009, Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, canceled a trip to London after learning of an arrest warrant. Just recently, Israeli President Shimon Peres was threatened with arrest in Switzerland.


Ian Murray
06-04-2011, 03:10 PM
^^^^
An ultra-right beat-up

Goldstone says he won’t seek Gaza report nullification, denies discussing it with Israeli (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/goldstone-says-he-wont-seek-gaza-report-nullification-denies-discussing-it-with-israeli/2011/04/06/AFTCTYmC_story.html)
The Washington Post
6.4.2011

South African jurist Richard Goldstone said Tuesday that he did not plan to seek nullification of his highly critical U.N. report on Israel’s 2008-2009 offensive in the Gaza Strip and asserted that claims to the contrary by Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai were false.

The 2009 Goldstone report initially concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed potential war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during three weeks of fighting. The findings that Israeli forces had intentionally fired at Palestinian civilians triggered outrage in Israel and a personal campaign against Goldstone, who is Jewish....

Igor_Goldenberg
06-04-2011, 03:38 PM
South African jurist Richard Goldstone said Tuesday that he did not plan to seek nullification of his highly critical U.N. report on Israel’s 2008-2009 offensive in the Gaza Strip and asserted that claims to the contrary by Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai were false.

Yet he admitted he was wrong in his vilification of Israel.

Ian Murray
06-04-2011, 03:58 PM
Yet he admitted he was wrong in his vilification of Israel.
One error of fact only. As he said:-
“As appears from the Washington Post article, information subsequent to publication of the report did meet with the view that one correction should be made with regard to intentionality on the part of Israel,” the judge said. “Further information as a result of domestic investigations could lead to further reconsideration, but as presently advised I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time.”

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2011, 04:05 PM
To IM, anyone to the left of Stalin and Hitler is "ultra-right". Typical that he would defend Goldstone's Hamas-appeasing hatchet job.

Ian Murray
06-04-2011, 09:55 PM
To IM, anyone to the left of Stalin and Hitler is "ultra-right". Typical that he would defend Goldstone's Hamas-appeasing hatchet job.
You're unreal, Jono. If you wanted to initiate debate on Goldstone's recent public statements, you could have linked to his actual op-ed piece in The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html). But no, you trot out a neocon diatribe against Goldstone and the UN.

I counter with a link to the truth rather that a rant, and you accuse me of bias :wall:

antichrist
06-04-2011, 10:25 PM
Impartial commentators are directly linking it to the Jewish Lobby going into overdrive. They showed him so much hatred when he first reported no wonder - calling him self hating self loahing Jew.

If the UN had picked an Arab or Muslim to chair the enquiry we would never have heard the end of it by the Jewish Lobby

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 02:17 PM
You're unreal, Jono. If you wanted to initiate debate on Goldstone's recent public statements, you could have linked to his actual op-ed piece in The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html). But no, you trot out a neocon diatribe against Goldstone and the UN.

I counter with a link to the truth rather that a rant, and you accuse me of bias :wall:
And from that link the most damning revelation:
"The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.

Ian Murray
07-04-2011, 03:42 PM
And from that link the most damning revelation:
"The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.
Perhaps it would have helped if the fact-finding mission has been allowed to enter Israel and obtain evidence of the Israeli policies and operations, do you think?

antichrist
07-04-2011, 04:31 PM
Perhaps it would have helped if the fact-finding mission has been allowed to enter Israel and obtain evidence of the Israeli policies and operations, do you think?

or they could have joined that blockade-breaking flotilla and not lived to tell the tale

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 04:39 PM
Perhaps it would have helped if the fact-finding mission has been allowed to enter Israel and obtain evidence of the Israeli policies and operations, do you think?
Perhaps it would help if they didn't swallow Hamas propaganda hook line and sinker (or wanted to spruik it in the first place).

Ian Murray
07-04-2011, 04:56 PM
Perhaps it would help if they didn't swallow Hamas propaganda hook line and sinker (or wanted to spruik it in the first place).
If that were true, how do you explain the Goldstone Report's condemnation of Hamas for was crimes and possible crimes against humanity?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 05:37 PM
If that were true, how do you explain the Goldstone Report's condemnation of Hamas for was crimes and possible crimes against humanity?
I guess it was so evident and blatant the best they could do is to try and equate Israel with it.

By the way, how many demonstration against the Hamas war crimes and crimes against humanity Left organised in Australia? Or anywhere else in the world?

Ian Murray
07-04-2011, 05:47 PM
I guess it was so evident and blatant the best they could do is to try and equate Israel with it.
Thus spake Zarathustra

Rincewind
07-04-2011, 05:54 PM
Some people need to be killed

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. (Matthew 7:1)

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2011, 09:25 AM
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. (Matthew 7:1)
This was in the context of hypocritical judgment, not that RW knows anything about contextual analysis. Jesus actually told us to judge: John 7:24, “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.” See also Thou shalt judge (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/10/08/thou-shalt-judge/).

Ian Murray
09-04-2011, 11:17 AM
This was in the context of hypocritical judgment, not that RW knows anything about contextual analysis. Jesus actually told us to judge: John 7:24, “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.” See also Thou shalt judge (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/10/08/thou-shalt-judge/).
How about “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” (John 8:7)?

antichrist
10-04-2011, 09:15 AM
How about the IMF and World Bank are about to accept the accept the Palistinian claim to statehood on original boundaries - so all those illegal Zionist settlers in occupied territories end up under Palestinian government. that will teach the coz they knew the legalities of it all before setttling there.

Then the Palestinians can be just as Nazi-like to the Zionists as the Zionists were to the Palestinians

antichrist
11-04-2011, 01:00 PM
I find it quite strange (to say the least) that you guys are actively debate/attack Axion/-V who is permanently banned and cannot respond.

AC
the Palestinians feel exacaly the same when they can't respond with equal weaponry, nor with USA vetoing everything against Israel in the UN

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2011, 04:08 PM
How about “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” (John 8:7)?
What about it? First, it's one of the few textually debatable parts of Scripture, i.e. not part of the original Gospel of John. Second, As Hebrew Christian scholar Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out:


Now verse 7 has usually been misunderstood to mean that what Jesus is saying is; “Unless you are sinlessly perfect, you shouldn’t judge people.” So if you are sinlessly perfect, then you can go ahead and cast the first stone. If that’s what Jesus was saying here, he was violating the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law did not require sinless perfection for punishment to be carried out. If that was the basis under the Law then no-one under the Law could be executed by anybody, and the Mosaic Law clearly mandated execution for specific sins. So for him to say that only if you are sinlessly perfect can you cast the first stone, he would be violating what the Mosaic Law taught.

But that’s not his point at all. His point is this in conjunction with the writing with the finger. Yes, the Mosaic Law did say; “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Yes, the Mosaic Law did say that if you violated the commandment you had to be stoned at the mouth of the two or three witnesses. You had to have those two or three witnesses, but this they have because they claimed she was caught in the very act.

But that’s not all that the Mosaic Law demanded. The Mosaic Law also said, it is the witnesses at whose testimony someone is being executed, they must be the ones to cast the first stone. But that’s not all. In Exodus 4 and Exodus 17, it’s also pointed that the witnesses at whose word someone is being executed, they must not be guilty of that same sin. The point that Jesus is making is this. If you are a witness, and you are innocent of this same sin, then proceed to cast the first stone. And guess what happens. One by one, they squirrel away, implying that they were not innocent of this same sin. And perhaps standing among them is the one with whom she was caught in the very act. This was the one time effort they made to get Jesus to violate the Mosaic Law. It failed miserably. They don’t try this trick again. From here on in they go back to the old course where they accuse him of violating the Mishnaic law, but not the Mosaic Law.

There is nothing in Jesus’ words that would make him a cross between Neville Chamberlain and Karl Marx, despite what leftard apostates would like. He indeed blessed the peacemakers, not pacifists, which is a huge difference. Pacifist appeasers in the 1930s are the ones largely responsible for WW2, while Reagan’s willingness to build up strength the Soviets could not match actually ended the Cold War without firing the shot. Reagan, not Chamberlain, was the peacemaker.

antichrist
12-04-2011, 06:56 AM
I have witnessed on TV the Palestinians casting thousands of stones at Israelis, that proves that they are completely without sin

Ian Murray
12-04-2011, 07:33 AM
What about it? First, it's one of the few textually debatable parts of Scripture, i.e. not part of the original Gospel of John. Second, As Hebrew Christian scholar Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum points out:


Now verse 7 has usually been misunderstood to mean that what Jesus is saying is; “Unless you are sinlessly perfect, you shouldn’t judge people.”
This is truly interesting. One of the best-known verses from scripture may not be part of scripture at all, and even if it is, it doesn't mean what the average layman thinks it means. Times have changed to such an extent that references to Mosaic law are open to quite different interpretations in this day and age from those intended.

Reagan’s willingness to build up strength the Soviets could not match actually ended the Cold War without firing the shot. Reagan, not Chamberlain, was the peacemaker.
I think you'll find that Gorbachev had more to do with ending the cold war than Reagan and his sabre-rattling.

antichrist
13-04-2011, 10:01 PM
KB from state election
There was supposed to be a referendum and Indonesia rorted it by turning it into a council of elder types (who of course could be easily leant-on). Did they actually use illiteracy as an argument? In any case the party most at fault is most likely the UN for recognising the outcome of a suspect poll that deviated massively from the agreed format.

AC
now what is the difference when Israel uses lack of democracy of Arab countires for deny Palestinains land rights, human rights etc?

yet no one sees through it, is even repeated by sympathetic Aust commentators - how sickening

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2011, 05:37 AM
This is truly interesting. One of the best-known verses from scripture may not be part of scripture at all,
Yes, that is the consensus among textual experts, since it is not found in the earliest papyri dating back to just over a century after composition, or the famous 4th century Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Here is one article with debate about it (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html); at best, it is an authentic event in Jesus' life but was not part of the original Gospel.


and even if it is, it doesn't mean what the average layman thinks it means.
Correct, because of ignorance of the Jewish context--as well as common sense, since the Bible never demands sinless perfection from those who mete out just punishment, otherwise there would be no punishment at all.


I think you'll find that Gorbachev had more to do with ending the cold war than Reagan and his sabre-rattling.
I think you'll find the opposite, e.g. "Tear down this war" from Reagan, and Gorbachev's realization that the moribund Soviet economy could not keep up. Previous policies like Carter's wimpiness just emboldened Soviet aggresssion.

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2011, 06:22 PM
HR Comment: How Moral Equivalence Erodes Accurate Reporting (http://honestreporting.com/hr-comment-how-moral-equivalence-erodes-accurate-reporting/)
APRIL 13, 2011 15:48 BY ALEX MARGOLIN

...

What’s left out of the coverage is the element of intentionality. More specifically, it glosses over the reality that Hamas’s intention was to kill Israeli school children and Israel’s intention, in firing back, was to defend its citizens.

The distinction between the two sides is most clearly evident when their intentions are examined. The original, flawed Goldstone Report, however, was so mired by the biases of its authors that no distinctions were made.

Even Goldstone now admits that there was no evidence pointing to any Israeli intention to target Palestinian civilians during the Gaza war. In the absence of evidence pointing clearly in either direction, his “reasonable conclusion” was to assume Israeli guilt:


That the crimes allegedly committed by Hamas were intentional goes without saying — its rockets were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets.

The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion.

In other words, the committee decided that since Palestinian civilians suffered, Israel targeted them on purpose unless it proved otherwise – just as Hamas intentionally targeted Israeli civilians.

Amazingly, the committee could not recognize that Israel’s sole intention for going to war in Gaza was to stop Hamas rocket fire targeting Israeli civilians. Had there been no rocket fire, there would have been no war.

But in a world of moral equivalence between aggressor and victim, intentions are irrelevant. Both sides fired and both sides caused civilian casualties. Therefore, both sides are morally equal.

...

antichrist
15-04-2011, 07:20 PM
Jono
Amazingly, the committee could not recognize that Israel’s sole intention for going to war in Gaza was to stop Hamas rocket fire targeting Israeli civilians. Had there been no rocket fire, there would have been no war

AC
also if they had been no stolen Palestinian land by the Zionists there would have no rocket fire. Hamas were only firing onto their own land, they are allowed to do that. If the robbers got off it no one would be hurt.

antichrist
15-04-2011, 07:27 PM
Why there about at least a dozen Palestinian-sympathetic Jewish human rights group in Israel? Because they consider that what the Zionists are doing is not much different from Hitler. End of case.

Rincewind
15-04-2011, 07:32 PM
This was in the context of hypocritical judgment, not that RW knows anything about contextual analysis.

Sorry just amusing that the village Christian comes out with quotes like "Some people need to be killed". Classic stuff. Keep it up.

Hobbes
15-04-2011, 07:34 PM
Why there about at least a dozen Palestinian-sympathetic Jewish human rights group in Israel?

Splitters!

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2011, 07:20 AM
Those so-called Palestinians are such thugs that they even murder their own supporters (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/04/palestinians-murder-their-supporters). In one case, they murdered one Italian antisemite called Angelo Frammartino (http://www.danielpipes.org/3909/the-fatal-stabbing-of-angelo-frammartino-palestinian):


These signals from Qabatiya to Monterotondo and back amounted to a curious and despicable pas de deux, with each side remorsefully implying things would be just fine if only Hanaisha had killed his intended victim: "Sorry, I thought he was a Jew," reads the headline in La Stampa. The Palestinians conveyed a message of "Excuse us, we did not mean to kill your son," while the family replied with a "Understood, we accept that you made a mistake."

Like AC, neither had any problem with condoning the murder of Jews, just that they mistook a non-Jew for one. Funny, he looked like a Jewish Israeli... (http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=1813) Oh, that's OK then, better luck next time.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2011, 07:30 AM
Sorry just amusing that the village Christian comes out with quotes like "Some people need to be killed". Classic stuff. Keep it up.
Of course. Those who butcher Israeli families, blow up Israeli school buses, those who hijack aeroplanes. Similarly, the leading Nazi war criminals needed to be killed.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2011, 07:34 AM
Splitters!
Modern day Kapos (http://benjaminshapiro.com/index.php/articles/143-an-open-letter-to-american-jews). Dictionary.com defines "kapo" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Kapo)as "a Nazi concentration camp prisoner who was given privileges in return for supervising prisoner work gangs: often a common criminal and frequently brutal to fellow inmates."

Rincewind
16-04-2011, 10:06 AM
Of course. Those who butcher Israeli families, blow up Israeli school buses, those who hijack aeroplanes. Similarly, the leading Nazi war criminals needed to be killed.

I guess you moved to the right country. Most developed countries don't believe that the death penalty is necessary.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2011, 04:24 PM
I guess you moved to the right country. Most developed countries don't believe that the death penalty is necessary.
That's their problem. Now murderers can murder again once they are released from prison. When it comes to Israel, there are cases were terrorists sentenced to "life without parole" have been exchanged for (usually dead) hostages. Think also Lockerbie bomber, still alive although released because he was allegedly near death, and of course he got a hero's welcome.

I detest the initiation of force, but if I see someone building a cannon aimed at my house, I'm not going to wait for him to fire it. I would eliminate him and anyone else in his house before he gets a chance to fire it. But then again, I'm not a member of America's sissified generation.—Walter Williams

Desmond
16-04-2011, 05:38 PM
I detest the initiation of force, but if I see someone building a cannon aimed at my house, I'm not going to wait for him to fire it. I would eliminate him and anyone else in his house before he gets a chance to fire it. But then again, I'm not a member of America's sissified generation.—Walter WilliamsWhy wait for him to start building the cannon? You could pick him off when he brings some metal home it's clear he's about to build something. Or to save time you could get him even before that, when he's just a guy heading down to the lcoal mall. Then you'd be really safe, wouldn't you.

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2011, 08:55 PM
I would eliminate him and anyone else in his house before he gets a chance to fire it.

"Anyone else in his house" seems a bit harsh. Means you can die just for having a violent flatmate.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2011, 06:33 PM
"Anyone else in his house" seems a bit harsh. Means you can die just for having a violent flatmate.
I think he was talking about the collateral damage, if that is what it took to eliminate a clear and present danger.

Ian Murray
17-04-2011, 08:01 PM
I think he was talking about the collateral damage, if that is what it took to eliminate a clear and present danger.
Israel has every right to defend its citizens from the Hamas rocket attacks by counter-attack - in war situations all civilians have rights under international law, predominantly the right to life. It is a war crime to fire weapons indiscriminately where civilians are present and in harm's way.

Palestinian civilians have the same rights. In urban warfare unintentional civilian casualties (euphemistically referred to as collateral damage) are commonplace and are hard to avoid or fault. Nevertheless combatants are obliged to exercise fire discipline in situations where the risk to civilians outweighs any military necessity or objective. Reprisals against civilians are illegal, as is deliberate destruction of non-military industry, infrastructure and housing.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2011, 09:57 PM
I think he was talking about the collateral damage, if that is what it took to eliminate a clear and present danger.

Hmmm. So, suppose A lives with B and B is aiming a cannon at C's house. C, applying the Williams Doctrine, decides to blow up B's house, which will kill A as well. Unfortunately, while C is discussing this plan with his cat, C is overheard by a friend of A who reports C's intention. A now applies the Williams Doctrine to his own situation - he is innocent but has a clear and present danger of being killed by C. A therefore protects himself by firing B's cannon at C, destroying C's house and killing not only C but also D, E, F, G and H - all of whom were visiting for dinner. A is killed by a reprisal lynch mob, B (the originally intending murderer) lives happily ever after with house intact and enemy dead. Fortunately, the cat escapes.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-04-2011, 10:15 PM
Israel has every right to defend its citizens from the Hamas rocket attacks by counter-attack - in war situations all civilians have rights under international law, predominantly the right to life. It is a war crime to fire weapons indiscriminately where civilians are present and in harm's way.

Palestinian civilians have the same rights. In urban warfare unintentional civilian casualties (euphemistically referred to as collateral damage) are commonplace and are hard to avoid or fault. Nevertheless combatants are obliged to exercise fire discipline in situations where the risk to civilians outweighs any military necessity or objective. Reprisals against civilians are illegal, as is deliberate destruction of non-military industry, infrastructure and housing.
If Hamas puts a rocket launcher next to a hospital and keeps firing at Israel, what Israel is supposed to do?

Rincewind
17-04-2011, 10:33 PM
I detest the initiation of force, but if I see someone building a cannon aimed at my house, I'm not going to wait for him to fire it. I would eliminate him and anyone else in his house before he gets a chance to fire it. But then again, I'm not a member of America's sissified generation.—Walter Williams

If you are in a state of war that might be the only option. However within the confines of a sovereign state which isn't entirely dysfunctional - the death penalty is widely accepted as unnecessary. (Except for China, Japan, the US and a handful of smaller developed countries).

Igor_Goldenberg
17-04-2011, 10:55 PM
If you are in a state of war that might be the only option. However within the confines of a sovereign state which isn't entirely dysfunctional - the death penalty is widely accepted as unnecessary. (Except for China, Japan, the US and a handful of smaller developed countries).
Israel is in the de-facto war with Hamas (that controls Gaza).
IIRC, there is a separate thread that deals with death penalty.

Ian Murray
17-04-2011, 10:59 PM
If Hamas puts a rocket launcher next to a hospital and keeps firing at Israel, what Israel is supposed to do?
Obviously it is not OK to saturate the area with artillery fire or aerial bombs, destroying a civilian hospital and its occupants in the process. Israel has smart weaponry it could use to selectively destroy the launcher.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-04-2011, 11:22 AM
Obviously it is not OK to saturate the area with artillery fire or aerial bombs, destroying a civilian hospital and its occupants in the process. Israel has smart weaponry it could use to selectively destroy the launcher.
What about the launcher inside the hospital? It does not matter how smart the weaponry, the hospital will be damaged.
1. What do you expect Israel to do?
2. Who is to blame for hospital damage?

Ian Murray
18-04-2011, 12:04 PM
What about the launcher inside the hospital? It does not matter how smart the weaponry, the hospital will be damaged.
1. What do you expect Israel to do?
2. Who is to blame for hospital damage?
Is the point you are trying to make that hospital patients and medical staff are expendable? Or just Arabs? If you were the IDF unit commander, how many innocent civilians would you be prepared to kill to achieve a small military objective like a two- or three-man launcher team?

It is a war crime to use a hospital as a firing position. It is a war crime to fire on a hospital. One crime doesn't justify another.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2011, 08:38 AM
Is the point you are trying to make that hospital patients and medical staff are expendable? Or just Arabs?
Amazing how anti-Israel types don't answer the question: what are the Israelis supposed to do when murderers of their people hide among civilians. We would never have won WW2 if the Allies had been that squeamish. But the Nazis and Japs knew that hiding in hospitals would not have saved them.


If you were the IDF unit commander, how many innocent civilians would you be prepared to kill to achieve a small military objective like a two- or three-man launcher team?
A team that could launch a rocket that could kill hundreds.


It is a war crime to use a hospital as a firing position. It is a war crime to fire on a hospital. One crime doesn't justify another.
But in every other case, the ones hiding in the hospital are responsible.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2011, 08:42 AM
Israel has every right to defend its citizens from the Hamas rocket attacks by counter-attack - in war situations all civilians have rights under international law, predominantly the right to life. It is a war crime to fire weapons indiscriminately where civilians are present and in harm's way.
They are present there only because Hamas deliberately hide there. No country does more than Israel to avoid collateral damage.


Palestinian civilians have the same rights. In urban warfare unintentional civilian casualties (euphemistically referred to as collateral damage) are commonplace and are hard to avoid or fault. Nevertheless combatants are obliged to exercise fire discipline in situations where the risk to civilians outweighs any military necessity or objective. Reprisals against civilians are illegal, as is deliberate destruction of non-military industry, infrastructure and housing.
Yet where is the condemnation of Hamas for committing all these atrocities? They are still given aid.

antichrist
21-04-2011, 12:45 AM
[QUOTE=JaK]The Australian flag is a symbol of freedom and democracy. As such is proudly hailed and respected allover the world.
Our Australian Day is a symbol of creation of a new nation which not only upheld the ideals of our western civilisation, but created its own values of equal opportunity for all to enjoy!
To equate our Australian Flag and Australian Day to symbols of oppression, hatred and bigotry is at least unfortunate[/QUOTE

ACthe Australian flag is similar to the Star of David Israeli flag - full of bulldust and robbery, genocide and oppression.

And i appreciate Aborigine hotheads here at Byron as much as Palestinian hotheads. I still have not been forgiven for replacing the Union Jack with Aboriginal flag in counter demo at Byron on Aust Day here in 1988. That design was then taken up by Aboriginal flag mob. Peter Garrett could have sang "...long memories"

Ian Murray
21-04-2011, 12:45 AM
Amazing how anti-Israel types don't answer the question: what are the Israelis supposed to do when murderers of their people hide among civilians.
Employ tactics which distinguish between military targets and civilians - basic infantry skills rather than calling in artillery or air strikes

We would never have won WW2 if the Allies had been that squeamish. But the Nazis and Japs knew that hiding in hospitals would not have saved them.
WW2 was not a counter-insurgency war. Even so, how do you know that is why the Germans and Japanese did not hide in hospitals?

A team that could launch a rocket that could kill hundreds.
Igor's hypothetical hospital-based rocket launcher is straining the bounds of credibility. The 4000-plus rockets fired into Israel by Hamas killed 15 Israeli civilians between 2001 and 2009.

But in every other case, the ones hiding in the hospital are responsible.
Non sequitur, but in any case the defending force is not absolved from its obligation to discriminate between military targets and civilians.

antichrist
21-04-2011, 12:50 AM
Originally Posted by Jono
Amazing how anti-Israel types don't answer the question: what are the Israelis supposed to do when murderers of their people hide among civilians.

AC
how is that different from what were the Palestinians supposed to do when Israeli Stern Gang terrorist murderers hid among the IDF when Israel was created?

Israel is effed, in a recent vote only the USA vetoed action against Israel. Now the world is about to recognise Palestinians without Nazi Israel having a say in it. Just as the world turned on Hitler they should also turn on Israel.

A lot of the illegal Zionist settlers are not even ethnic Jews but converts who have no business in the Middle East at all.

Ian Murray
21-04-2011, 12:58 AM
Israel has every right to defend its citizens from the Hamas rocket attacks by counter-attack - in war situations all civilians have rights under international law, predominantly the right to life. It is a war crime to fire weapons indiscriminately where civilians are present and in harm's way.

They are present there only because Hamas deliberately hide there. No country does more than Israel to avoid collateral damage.
I was actually talking about the rights of Israeli civilians and the war crimes committed by Hamas.

Yet where is the condemnation of Hamas for committing all these atrocities? They are still given aid.
See the Goldstone Report and the Human Rights Watch report Rockets from Gaza: Harm to Civilians from Palestinian Armed Groups’ Rocket Attacks at www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ioptqassam0809web.pdf
The Gazan civilian population receives international aid, not Hamas.

antichrist
21-04-2011, 01:14 AM
Employ tactics which distinguish between military targets and civilians - basic infantry skills rather than calling in artillery or air strikes

WW2 was not a counter-insurgency war. Even so, how do you know that is why the Germans and Japanese did not hide in hospitals?

Igor's hypothetical hospital-based rocket launcher is straining the bounds of credibility. The 4000-plus rockets fired into Israel by Hamas killed 15 Israeli civilians between 2001 and 2009.

Non sequitur, but in any case the defending force is not absolved from its obligation to discriminate between military targets and civilians.

An ex-IDF guy I know told me that you cannot defeat a guerilla army, that was his experience in Palestine anyway. Maybe they should be clarified by "without resorting to war crimes and crimes against humanity" - the path that Israel has chosen. So now the Star of David is forever stained

Capablanca-Fan
21-04-2011, 03:19 AM
Employ tactics which distinguish between military targets and civilians - basic infantry skills rather than calling in artillery or air strikes
Thank you, General Murray, but there are no guarantees in infantry attacks, and they risk the lives of the good guys (the Israelis). They are also slower, so give the scum time to regroup. As long as rockets are fired, the defender has every right to fire back at the source. Blame the scum who shoot rockets among civilians.


WW2 was not a counter-insurgency war.
It was a war to rid the world of Nazis and Japanese warlords.


Even so, how do you know that is why the Germans and Japanese did not hide in hospitals?
Because the Allies bombed cities.


Igor's hypothetical hospital-based rocket launcher is straining the bounds of credibility. The 4000-plus rockets fired into Israel by Hamas killed 15 Israeli civilians between 2001 and 2009.
Irrelevant, since the intent was there, and Israel should not have to wait for the weaponry to improve.


See the Goldstone Report and the Human Rights Watch report Rockets from Gaza: Harm to Civilians from Palestinian Armed Groups’ Rocket Attacks at www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ioptqassam0809web.pdf
Not good enough: just the absurd moral equivalence so beloved of Leftards, the UN and their kapo Goldstone, which was the only evidence that Israel must have deliberately targeted civilians the way Hamas did. But the opposite has been the case: Israel has been way too soft on the scum; they should instead react like the Allies in WW2, since antisemitic "world opinion" will hate them regardless.


The Gazan civilian population receives international aid, not Hamas.
You means the ones who voted for the Hamas thugs and dance in the street when ever Jews or Americans are murdered?

antichrist
21-04-2011, 05:31 PM
Originally Posted by Ian Murray
The Gazan civilian population receives international aid, not Hamas.

Jono
You means the ones who voted for the Hamas thugs and dance in the street when ever Jews or Americans are murdered?
__________________

Ac
well Jono Israel fostered Hamas in it's early days to try to divide PLO under our mate Yasser, so they harvest what they sow.

The USA trained and financed the Muslim terrorists onto the old USSR but unfortunately they could not put them back in the box again. So they harvest what they sow.

Some Jews and some americans have caused 6o years of tragedy for Palestinians, Orthodox Jewish settlers still illegally steal Palestinaian land and you wonder they they get killed - wake up. The Yanks finance and protect the robbers in the UN - so they somewhat deserve what they get as well.

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2011, 04:06 PM
Is this the most un-PC woman in America? Ann Barnhardt on why the Koran is not "Holy"

vRTLT8MKz5w&feature=player_embedded#at=63

Rincewind
22-04-2011, 05:31 PM
Is this the most un-PC woman in America?

She is pretty close to the stupidest person in America. The whole 12 minute polemic is pretty low-brow and even racist at one point however a few basic problems of logic are...

(1) definition of holy is fabricated and certainly not acceptable for an interfaith comparison. A more acceptable definition of holy would be a quote from a reputable lexicographical source like OED which says


dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred

This can definitely be applied to the Qur'an as it is dedicated to Allah and has a religious purpose.

(2) She is very protestant and seems ignorant of other denomination which (like the catholics for example) include other books as a part of the Bible. She also seem to disenfranchise Judaism which include the Tanakh as a holy scripture which relates to the old testament but contains some differences but more significantly the Talmud which is described as holy (and certainly is by a normal definition of the word but not by the fundamentalist approach of the idiotic Ann Barnhardt). Funny then that later she talks about the Judeo-Christian faith after effectively denouncing a central text of Judaism seems more than a little hypocritical

(3) She is totally off-base trying to equate the Qur'an to the Communist Manifesto of Mein Kampf. That was laugh out loud, side-splittingly funny. The evil warmongering, etc was likewise funny and I thought more than a little self-satirical since the God of the "holy" bible is certainly a warmongering racist. She did keep the race issue out of it for the most part but I did not she did slip in Bedouin as a derogatory adjective at one point.

Ian Murray
22-04-2011, 10:15 PM
Thank you, General Murray, but there are no guarantees in infantry attacks, and they risk the lives of the good guys (the Israelis). They are also slower, so give the scum time to regroup. As long as rockets are fired, the defender has every right to fire back at the source. Blame the scum who shoot rockets among civilians.
A measured response saves innocent lives, a primary aim of the armed forces of countries upholding liberal democratic values. Australian expeditionary forces don't bombard civilian-occupied areas.

It was a war to rid the world of Nazis and Japanese warlords .... Because the Allies bombed cities.
Time you loosened your fixation with WW2. Military doctrine has evolved exponentially over the intervening three generations

Not good enough: just the absurd moral equivalence so beloved of Leftards, the UN and their kapo Goldstone, which was the only evidence that Israel must have deliberately targeted civilians the way Hamas did. But the opposite has been the case: Israel has been way too soft on the scum; they should instead react like the Allies in WW2, since antisemitic "world opinion" will hate them regardless.
But Israel did deliberately strike civilian targets (e.g. the Legislative Council building, the Gaza prison and police stations) claiming they were legitimate military objectives as part of the Hamas government infrastructure. Obviously they do not serve any military purpose so are not military objectives. Likewise the destruction of civilian infrastructure (e.g. flour mill, chicken farm, sewerage treatment plant) cannot be justified as military objectives.

You means the ones who voted for the Hamas thugs and dance in the street when ever Jews or Americans are murdered?
44% of the voter turn-out voted for Hamas, which equates to 11% of the total population of the Palestinian territories. Punishing the 89% who didn't is brutality.

Capablanca-Fan
23-04-2011, 04:02 AM
A measured response saves innocent lives, a primary aim of the armed forces of countries upholding liberal democratic values.
Israel has done that more than any other country.


Time you loosened your fixation with WW2. Military doctrine has evolved exponentially over the intervening three generations
Really? How do you know it hasn't devolved? In case you haven't noticed, WW2 is over, and the Nazis and Japanese Warlords are no more. This is because the Allies did what it took to force unconditional surrender, and took over their countries for years. The current softly softly policy leaves the scumbags able to continue their terrorism.

Also, the Allies gave Geneva Convention rights to enemy soldiers following the Geneva Convention themselves. They executed spies and war criminals. This gave the bad guys an incentive to behave properly. But the current wimpy policy of giving all enemies Geneva Convention rights doesn't punish those who violate the rules of war, so there is no incentive to behave.


But Israel did deliberately strike civilian targets (e.g. the Legislative Council building, the Gaza prison and police stations) claiming they were legitimate military objectives as part of the Hamas government infrastructure. Obviously they do not serve any military purpose so are not military objectives.
Not so obvious considering how the terrorists hide in "civilian" places, and how widespread the support for destruction of Israel.


Likewise the destruction of civilian infrastructure (e.g. flour mill, chicken farm, sewerage treatment plant) cannot be justified as military objectives.
Who destroyed it? When Israel pulled out of Gaza, the Arabs destroyed infrastructure the Israelis left behind for them.


44% of the voter turn-out voted for Hamas,
Those that didn't voted for Fatah which is almost as bad. Hamas's charter officially calls for the annihilation of Israel, so Hamas needs to be destroyed.


which equates to 11% of the total population of the Palestinian territories. Punishing the 89% who didn't is brutality.
Whose fault is that? The scum who hide among them, of course. You would deny Israel the right to defend itself because its enemies use human shields.

antichrist
24-04-2011, 01:57 AM
Originally Posted by Ian Murray
A measured response saves innocent lives, a primary aim of the armed forces of countries upholding liberal democratic values.

Jono
Israel has done that more than any other country.

AC
of course it has, by locking up and torturing about half of the democratically elected Hamas govt of Palestine - effeing fascists are Israel

Ian Murray
25-04-2011, 02:40 PM
Israel has done that more than any other country.
On the contrary, Israel forecasts harsh and disproportionate retaliation
Israeli PM vows 'harsh and disproportionate' retaliation as rocket attacks continue (http://news.scotsman.com/world/Israeli-PM-vows-39harsh-and.4935050.jp)

Really? How do you know it hasn't devolved? In case you haven't noticed, WW2 is over, and the Nazis and Japanese Warlords are no more. This is because the Allies did what it took to force unconditional surrender, and took over their countries for years. The current softly softly policy leaves the scumbags able to continue their terrorism.
With 60% of the world's population to be urbanised by 2020 (75% by 2040), urban warfare is a major facet of current military doctrine. Carpet bombing of cities in no longer included.

Not so obvious considering how the terrorists hide in "civilian" places, and how widespread the support for destruction of Israel.
The parliament building, prison and 50+ police stations were attacked by air in the first minutes of the Israeli offensive. Noone was hiding anywhere.

Who destroyed it? When Israel pulled out of Gaza, the Arabs destroyed infrastructure the Israelis left behind for them.
Yair, sure. The crippling of the Gazan economy has nothing to do with Israel

Financial Times: Attacks devastate Gaza infrastructure
January 8 2009


The Gaza economy had been destroyed long before the Israeli bombardment and ground assault started. Now, following 13 days of death and destruction, even the most basic infrastructure required for private sector activity lies in ruins.

Israel’s long-running closure of the Gaza Strip has starved companies of raw materials and robbed them of the chance to ship goods and agricultural produce abroad. The results have been nothing short of catastrophic: 98 per cent of industry was shut before the assault started, according to the World Bank. During the past week, even small bakeries have closed owing to a lack of electricity.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85a73644-ddaf-11dd-87dc-000077b07658.html#ixzz1KVQHsvAO

Those that didn't voted for Fatah which is almost as bad.
Not quite - 41% of the vote turnout voted for Fatah, i.e. 10% of the Palestinian population. 79% of the total population did not vote (38% of the total are children under 14). Those are the innocentsbeing collectively punished by Israeli reprisals.

Whose fault is that? The scum who hide among them, of course. You would deny Israel the right to defend itself because its enemies use human shields.
You still don't get it. Regardless of who is at fault or who started it or who gave which orders, all parties to a conflict are bound by the international laws of war.

Capablanca-Fan
25-04-2011, 03:40 PM
On the contrary, Israel forecasts harsh and disproportionate retaliation
Israeli PM vows 'harsh and disproportionate' retaliation as rocket attacks continue (http://news.scotsman.com/world/Israeli-PM-vows-39harsh-and.4935050.jp)
What does that mean though? Nothing like the way the Allies bombed the crap out of Germany and Japan, unfortunately. Thankfully they didn't ponce around with a "proportionate" reaction: Japan bombed an American harbour, so America bombs a Japanese harbour and calls it quits.

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed out:


“If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.”

So all the Hamas need to do to stop the problems is stop firing rockets into Israel.


The parliament building, prison and 50+ police stations were attacked by air in the first minutes of the Israeli offensive. Noone was hiding anywhere.
If you believe Pallywood propaganda, then I have an opera house in Sydney to sell you.
Eww7BkkvFdomXVstrwA7OM&feature=relmfu


Yair, sure. The crippling of the Gazan economy has nothing to do with Israel

Financial Times: Attacks devastate Gaza infrastructure
January 8 2009


The Gaza economy had been destroyed long before the Israeli bombardment and ground assault started.
Yes, by the Arabs.


Now, following 13 days of death and destruction, even the most basic infrastructure required for private sector activity lies in ruins.
When the Israelis left Gaza in 2005, in one of their many futile appeasing "land for peace deals", they left behind infrastructure such as fully functioning greenhouses that could be used to grow food for the people of Gaza, irrigation, farmlands that had been developed, machinery. The Arabs looted and destroyed it in days.


Not quite - 41% of the vote turnout voted for Fatah, i.e. 10% of the Palestinian population. 79% of the total population did not vote (38% of the total are children under 14). Those are the innocents being collectively punished by Israeli reprisals.
The ones who dance in the streets whenever Israeli familes are butchered or after 11-9?


You still don't get it. Regardless of who is at fault or who started it or who gave which orders, all parties to a conflict are bound by the international laws of war.
When Germans soldiers dressed in American uniforms and infiltrated American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, and were captured, they were simply lined up against a war and shot. Everyone then understood that the Geneva Convention protected only those following the rules. And international laws blame the ones hiding among civlians, not those retaliating.

We know that Ian al-Muri doesn't agree with the right to self-defence, whether by individuals or Israel, but in reality, the attacked party has the right to neutralize the attacker not sit back and wait for more.

antichrist
25-04-2011, 08:25 PM
When the Israelis left Gaza in 2005, in one of their many futile appeasing "land for peace deals", they left behind infrastructure such as fully functioning greenhouses that could be used to grow food for the people of Gaza, irrigation, farmlands that had been developed, machinery. The Arabs looted and destroyed it in days.

AC
how many times are you going to repeat this blatantly untruth. I have already set the record straight a few times that can be verified by just looking up announcements at the time.

Again, it was a unilateral decision by Israel to withdrawal coz it could no longer counter the second Intifada. There were no discussions between the sides before or afterwards. It was a defeat of Israel's fascist policies, probably the first one at that and has set the stage for more.

Ian Murray
29-04-2011, 11:54 AM
What does that mean though? Nothing like the way the Allies bombed the crap out of Germany and Japan, unfortunately. Thankfully they didn't ponce around with a "proportionate" reaction: Japan bombed an American harbour, so America bombs a Japanese harbour and calls it quits. .
You must have been bitterly disappointed that Bush didn’t nuke Baghdad while he had the chance
.
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pointed out:

“If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.”
So all the Hamas need to do to stop the problems is stop firing rockets into Israel. .
And Israel will withdraw behind its legal borders?

If you believe Pallywood propaganda, then I have an opera house in Sydney to sell you.
You can deny the attacks all you like. However Israel admits them, claiming that all civilian government infrastructure is a legitimate military objective while Hams is running the government.

When the Israelis left Gaza in 2005, in one of their many futile appeasing "land for peace deals", they left behind infrastructure such as fully functioning greenhouses that could be used to grow food for the people of Gaza, irrigation, farmlands that had been developed, machinery. The Arabs looted and destroyed it in days
They didn’t leave it behind, they sold the assets (the remainder that hadn’t been dismantled) to the Palestine Authority via European donors for $14 million. According to Israeli media (http://www.haaretz.com/news/palestinian-militants-ransack-former-gush-katif-greenhouses-1.179788), the militia elements hired by the PA to guard them turned renegade and looted then destroyed the glasshouses before engaging in a gun battle with police. That 2006 crime is still being used as a smokescreen to obscure Israeli attacks on infrastrucrure.

The ones who dance in the streets whenever Israeli familes are butchered or after 11-9?
You’ll need to produce your proof that those dancing in the streets were the 79% of Palestinians who did not vote for Hamas or Fatah. Otherwise you’re just making up stories.

When Germans soldiers dressed in American uniforms and infiltrated American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, and were captured, they were simply lined up against a war and shot. Everyone then understood that the Geneva Convention protected only those following the rules
Summary execution of prisoners is a crime; there is no exclusion for captives out of uniform, spies, saboteurs or similar – all are entitled to humane treatment (except their right of communication may be curtailed).

And international laws blame the ones hiding among civlians, not those retaliating
International laws hold accountable those breaching the laws. Retaliation is not carte blanche for breaches of the laws..

We know that Ian al-Muri doesn't agree with the right to self-defence, whether by individuals or Israel, but in reality, the attacked party has the right to neutralize the attacker not sit back and wait for more.
Read again my Post #823:


Israel has every right to defend its citizens from the Hamas rocket attacks by counter-attack - in war situations all civilians have rights under international law, predominantly the right to life. It is a war crime to fire weapons indiscriminately where civilians are present and in harm's way
Exactly how do you interpret that to mean I don’t agree with the right to self-defence

antichrist
19-05-2011, 12:03 AM
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=783914&ht=Schnabel-Film-Chronicles-Lives-of-4-Palestinian-Women

Should be good film

Miral, a new film by acclaimed director Julian Schnabel, is based on a book by Palestinian author Rula Jebreal. It chronicles the lives of four Palestinian women - from 1948 when the state of Israel was created to the 1990s. Through the four women, and especially Miral, the youngest, the film tells the story of the ongoing Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Director Julian Schnabel, a Jewish American, looks at that conflict through Palestinian eyes and that has sparked controversy among Jews in America.

"We have children from every corner of Palestine," said Hind al-Husseini. "And every day there'

AC
I have often said that some Jews are amongst the best of the world

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2011, 07:46 AM
Nakbacide (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/05/nakbacide.html)
(An Islamofascist dream of mass genocide of the Jews that was frustrated when their victims fought back)
by Daniel Greenfield
16 May 2011

Imagine if every year on the 7th of May, Germans held an annual commemoration of the defeat of the Nazi state, complete with Swastikas, anti-Jewish chants and slogans, and a historical narrative claiming that the Volksdeutsche expelled from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were the real victims of WW2. That disgusting spectacle is exactly what takes place on May 15th as Arab Muslims chant and riot to protest their unsuccessful genocide of a regional minority.

It's hard to think of a more repulsive spectacle of historical obliviousness, than a regional majority responsible for multiple genocides dressing up as the victims because their invasion of Israel ended in a stalemate, rather than a genocidal purge of its residents. Perhaps only the Japanese, with their annual commemorations of a history that begins briefly before Hiroshima and ends after Nagasaki, leaving out Nanking and Pearl Harbor, are a match for the Palestinian Nakba.

The Arab history of Israel leaves out thousands of years of history of the original Jewish inhabitants and a thousand years of persecution under Arab rule. It leaves out the massacres and atrocities carried out by the Arab Muslim invaders against the Jewish inhabitants in the 20th century, including the Hebron Massacre, and the Nazi collaboration of their leader, the Mufti of Jerusalem. Instead it begins and ends with Deir Yassin and angry old women holding up oversized housekeys and reminiscing about the good times they had massacring Jews. ...

antichrist
19-05-2011, 08:22 PM
Jono
The Arab history of Israel leaves out thousands of years of history of the original Jewish inhabitants and a thousand years of persecution under Arab rule.

AC
what are you on about, the Muslims protected the Jews during the Inquisitions.

The Hebron massacre was for the European Jews, treating the locals like turds, they were even resented by Middle Eastern Jews, that is real Jews not converts and robbers using religion as a pretext to rob.

Many European leaders collabrated with the Nazis because of their nationalist aspirations. So what else is new. That Mufti was appointed by the British as I have pointed out before.

On the next flotilla against the Gaza blockade will even be decent Jewish protesters - who realise how sick some Zionist leaders are and what a bad a image they are giving all Jews. On a previous flotilla were Holocaust survivors who can see the parallel between Israel's Nazism and German Nazism - they are close relatives.

antichrist
20-05-2011, 12:12 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/gaza-welcomes-egypts-move-to-ease-suffering-20110513-1em4l.html

at last Egypt will end it lblockade of the Gaza strip. Now that it has the corrupt Maburak govt out of the way the people's true will is shining through of their concern for the Palestinians in the world''s largest concentration camp that the UN shuns due to pressure from USA and Nazi Israel.

antichrist
20-05-2011, 12:18 AM
http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16309

this article shows how pathetic Israel is about reaching Peace and justice with the Palestinians - they are just fascist land robbers and murderers.

antichrist
20-05-2011, 12:22 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/travelling-palestinians-stripped-of-residency-20110512-1ekou.html

Nazi Israel uses every trick in and outta the book to rob Palestinians of land, and they wonder why people hate them

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2011, 12:19 AM
ytWmPqY8TE0&sns=fb

The antisemite Commissar Hussein Obamov demands that Israel gives back still more land, so it's only nine miles wide at its narrowest point. Yet Israel has already given away so much "land for peace", and not received peace. Thus they need to take back this land taken under false pretences.

antichrist
21-05-2011, 11:55 AM
The antisemite Commissar Hussein Obamov demands that Israel gives back still more land, so it's only nine miles wide at its narrowest point. Yet Israel has already given away so much "land for peace", and not received peace. Thus they need to take back this land taken under false pretences.[/QUOTE]

how many times have you got to be told - Gaza was not given back for peace, it was given back because it did not belong to Israel or Jews or Zionists in the first place, and secondly because Isreal could not control the second Palestinian revolt.

Israel does not deserve any of Palestine coz there claim is only based on a genocide 2800 years ago when they even raped virgins of the other Semitic tribes - now they want to be considered heroes for doing such and have it given back to them - the world ain't stupid all the time you know

Ian Murray
21-05-2011, 12:11 PM
The antisemite Commissar Hussein Obamov...
Boy, US politics is hard to keep up with. Obama is now an anti-semite as well as a Muslim communist, while at the same time reviled by the loony right as a tool of the zionists:


WHO OWNS OBAMA? (http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=319)
Zionist Jews own Obama, his ‘administration,’ and essentially control America via its monetary system, its professions, its education system, its media culture, and every other crucial piece of America’s societal infrastructure. If an incumbent president doesn’t play ball with the Zionist Jews, his political career is over.

And with “Rahmbo” Emanuel literally running the Obama White House, Mossad HQ will enjoy an unprecedented direct flow of America’s highest level national security information…and consequently, even MORE control over US policies.

antichrist
22-05-2011, 02:29 PM
The Zionists are very unhappy at Obama's suggestion that Israel follow international law and relinquich all occupied terroritories that it seized in the `1967 Invasion and has since built homes on for 500,000 illegal settlers.

3,000 years ago they claimed divine providence in performing exactly the same war and international crimes on the same terroritory - I wonder what trick they will try and pull this time?

ER
23-05-2011, 06:06 PM
ytWmPqY8TE0&sns=fb

The antisemite Commissar Hussein Obamov demands that Israel gives back still more land, so it's only nine miles wide at its narrowest point. .

Hehe he didn't last long with this kind of ridiculous suggestions! Benhjamin hardrocked him a little! :lol:



Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu has warned Barack Obama against chasing what he called a Middle East peace "based on illusions" as he lectured the US president amid a widening rift in US-Israeli ties.

In a dramatic Oval Office appearance, after 90 minutes of talks Friday, Prime Minister Netanyahu emphatically vowed Israel would never return to its 1967 borders and laid down a set of non-negotiable conditions for peace talks.

The exchange, which left hopes for Obama's peace drive more remote than ever, came a day after the US president called on Israel to accept a return to territorial lines in place before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, with mutual land swaps with Palestinians to frame a secure peace.

and as a result we had various reactions that could not hide the fact that Obama and his administration would never come with such nonsensical, biased and politcally unacceptable statements ever again! ;)


Asked whether Netanyahu was willfully misinterpreting Obama's remarks, White House spokesman Jay Carney said such an observation was "interesting."

Cool story bro! :P


Privately, White House officials appeared infuriated by Netanyahu's combative approach, which even included a lecture for Obama on the historic struggles of the Jewish people.

LOL what did they expect him to do? pray for divine interference?


In his first reaction to Obama's comments on the border issue, in a major speech on the Middle East on Thursday, Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas said that Obama should press Netanyahu to accept his position.
"Netanyahu's position is an official rejection of Mr Obama's initiative, of international legitimacy and of international law."

Cool story bro! :P



Obama admitted that he and Netanyahu had "differences" on language and formulations over the best approach to reviving peace talks stalled since last year, but saw a moment of opportunity amid the "Arab spring."

"I think that it is possible for us to shape a deal that allows Israel to secure itself, not to be vulnerable, but also allows it to resolve what has obviously been a wrenching issue for both peoples for decades now."

Someone is learning fast! ;)


Obama also noted that he shared Israel's concerns over Syria and Iran and backed the Israeli position on the tie up between the Palestinian Fatah movement and the Islamist group Hamas.

Someone is learning fast! ;)


Netanyahu said Abbas had to pick between Hamas, which advocates Israel's destruction and peace, or making peace with Israel.

As if! :P

....


Analysts said Obama became the first president to specifically state that the 1967 borders should be the basis for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, shut down over a settlements row last year.

and most likely the last! :)

antichrist
23-05-2011, 06:54 PM
if the case is so convincing as JOno and JAK make it out to be, why is it that motions in the UN that support the Palestinian cause get voted in favour by about 20-1, only the USA vetoing just action Israel.

One day the USA people will wake up to the trrouble that Israel is getting her into. And they can rightfully blame the Jewish Lobby for that.

Oepty
23-05-2011, 07:09 PM
Israel will never die, it will last forever, it is God's will.
Scott

antichrist
23-05-2011, 07:38 PM
Israel will never die, it will last forever, it is God's will.
Scott

did God go to sleep in 68-70AD?

Oepty
23-05-2011, 08:46 PM
did God go to sleep in 68-70AD?

NO

antichrist
23-05-2011, 09:26 PM
NO

well then what happened?

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2011, 12:55 AM
if the case is so convincing as JOno and JAK make it out to be, why is it that motions in the UN that support the Palestinian cause get voted in favour by about 20-1, only the USA vetoing just action Israel.
Simple: the UN is a thugocracy. Israel's ambassador Abba Eban said about the UN general assembly:


“If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.”

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2011, 12:57 AM
Hehe he didn't last long with this kind of ridiculous suggestions! Benhjamin hardrocked him a little! :lol:
Good post! :clap:

antichrist
25-05-2011, 10:10 AM
Simple: the UN is a thugocracy. Israel's ambassador Abba Eban said about the UN general assembly:


“If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.”

if it is a quote by an Israeli embassador of the past ten years that says it all - they have been all proper fascist bastards

antichrist
26-05-2011, 12:01 PM
Hehe he didn't last long with this kind of ridiculous suggestions! Benhjamin hardrocked him a little! :lol:




and as a result we had various reactions that could not hide the fact that Obama and his administration would never come with such nonsensical, biased and politcally unacceptable statements ever again! ;)



Cool story bro! :P



LOL what did they expect him to do? pray for divine interference?



Cool story bro! :P




Someone is learning fast! ;)



Someone is learning fast! ;)



As if! :P

....



and most likely the last! :)

Yes, you and Jono can gloat but nothing lasts forever. Below is what decent Israeli commentators have been saying about the right-wing Netanyahu's speech:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/netanyahu-speech-an-obstacle-to-peace-20110525-1f4h5.html


Israeli political commentators were also scathing in their assessment.

''Netanyahu knows very well that the conditions that he set yesterday for a peace process are a complete non-starter, that there is no Palestinian in the world who will accept them, that there is no Arab state in the world that will support them, that there is not a single person in Europe who will take them seriously, and that they will only make Barack Obama angry,'' wrote Ben Caspit in the leading daily Maariv.

Writing in Haaretz, Akiva Eldar said: ''Netanyahu's peace plan, if that is the right phrase for the collection of unrealistic terms he presented to Congress on Tuesday, leads straight to the burial of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, an international crisis and a UN declaration of a Palestinian state.''



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/netanyahu-speech-an-obstacle-to-peace-20110525-1f4h5.html#ixzz1NQ3id4so
--------------------------------------------------------

so you are only fools of the Zionist Jewish Lobby.

Later when USA goes more broke and is finally forced to stop supporting Israel, and surrounding countries also have nuke weapns (copying Israel), what will be achieved? Only 60 years of hatred that will never be solved. All because Zionists believe they have some holy right to Palestine where they never originally come from, they only took it over by a genocide 2800 years ago.

Kevin Bonham
23-06-2011, 10:34 PM
Wilders Dutch hate speech case 'should be dropped' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11554635)
Dutch prosecutors have recommended acquitting leading anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders on all five charges of hate speech.

Wilders has been acquitted.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/netherlands-court-acquits-freedom-party-leader-wilders-of-defaming-muslims.html

antichrist
24-06-2011, 09:19 AM
Well only this morning I heard of another case of Lebo Maronite Catholics in Sydney assulting a protestor at their procession in public streets. And again the police arrested the peaceful protestor and let the violent penetrators go lebo (scot) free.

So the Muslims are only a degree worse than Catholics in Australia. I was also heavily threatened and assualted by Prodo marchers.

antichrist
26-06-2011, 09:57 AM
[A source quoted by] KB whinging about Yankee repulican hopeful
This, form [sic] the guy who argued that Texas had the right to legally harass gay people for having sex because it was their local, community standard. What about lynching? Was that a local, community standard as well? The community standard excuse is one Paul holds to, except when he doesn't. So community standards in DC didn't matter, the Christianist agenda of the Moral Majority mattered more."

AC
well the Israelis do the same to the Palestinians and you don't seem to mind at all. On stealing land, road blocks, harrassment, blockades, military attacks - I never heard a word out of you

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2011, 07:40 PM
well the Israelis do the same to the Palestinians and you don't seem to mind at all. On stealing land, road blocks, harrassment, blockades, military attacks - I never heard a word out of you

AC, every time you badger me for not commenting about I/P you make it more likely I will either not bother commenting, or else support Israel just to discourage such hassling in the future.

Firstly, the quote you attributed to me wasn't mine but was from a blog called Classically Liberal that I chose to quote from. I have edited your post to fix your misattribution.

Secondly, the quote you used was about double standards - about a politician invoking the "community standard" defence to vote one way on some bills, and ignoring it while voting the other way on others. The quote is not about the offensiveness of defending harassment per se - it is saying if you are going to defend completely pointless harassment you should at least be consistent about it.

Thirdly, I don't see a clear equivalence. Harassing people over their sexuality is just completely pointless and benefits nobody. All the items you mention are in the context of Israel trying to defend its own interests and people in the context of a complex conflict situation. A lot of information is needed to make any confident assessment of whether any given action of that sort is reasonable or going too far.

antichrist
27-06-2011, 01:09 PM
Those opt-in polls on commercial internet sites are utterly useless - they're the back door of opinion polling, if you like. The viewer base for commercial sites tends to be right-wing and the polls are very easily stacked. Actually 62% against is pretty low in the circumstances.

So if the same result came out in favour of Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians you would come to the same verdict?

But if gays are correct in demanding isn't a plebesite inappropriate? Can't you just make a moral stand without popular vindication?

I know you can't make a stand at all in Palestinian conflict

ER
27-06-2011, 02:04 PM
Good post! :clap:

Thanks! :)

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2011, 02:34 PM
So if the same result came out in favour of Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians you would come to the same verdict?

Of course. I will criticise any poll if I disagree with its polling methods, even if I agree with what the poll says is the majority view, and also agree that that view is the majority view. I even objected to the Galaxy 2010 poll on gay marriage (which showed 60-36 in favour) because it had a potentially distorting preamble. See discusssion in comments here (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/12/06/public-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage/comment-page-1/#comments). Furthermore I objected to the process for the current Toolbox "elections" even though the outcome (the existing moderators remaining) is the one I would have voted for if I could vote.

The question of whether plebescites are appropriate is a completely different one to that of whether opinion polling accurately reflects public opinion. Most of the time when people want a plebescite it is a bad idea - either because the issue is one involving rights that should be granted irrespective of majority sentiment, or because the issue is sufficiently mundane that the government should be able to take a stance and face the voters at the next election. Sometimes they are useful though.

antichrist
05-07-2011, 04:04 AM
http://www.livebreakingnews.org/greece-detains-gaza-bound-flotilla/

Greece has stopped a Gaza blockading-breaking peace flotilla from leaving it's waters - the boat was from the USA

Shame on Greece and there are protests about it.

.

antichrist
05-07-2011, 10:34 PM
A few flotilla boats have been sabotaged by Israel, and others blockaded by Greece, prevented from leaving Greece waters.

Pathetic Greece and Israel say we will deliver the goods, that is not the point, the point being that Israel has no right to do anything, they are just monster fascist robbers

Kevin Bonham
05-07-2011, 11:04 PM
Given Greece's economic situation I suspect they just want to keep the boats themselves and sell them!

antichrist
06-07-2011, 10:04 AM
I think they are even detaining/sabotaging Holocaust survivors who are against the Israeli government's blockage coz it reminds them of blockades in Jewish Polish and Hungarian ghettos during WW2.

Over long periods, I mean over periods of many decades, the actions of Israeli governments of past 30 years will eat at Israel's moral heart, it already is dong so to an extent. There is an excellent book about it.

Jewish historical moral position is not that of fascism, like that of Israel of past 50 years, the historical moralists detest Jews being brought down to the level of barbarians - that was the currency of Gentile bogans (from out the far western suburbs of Sydney for example).

antichrist
06-07-2011, 10:05 AM
Given Greece's economic situation I suspect they just want to keep the boats themselves and sell them!

It is a shame when you do dip your toe in the water it is only a flimsy nature - not deserving of a person with your political qualifictions who could seriously go through the issues of a hundred years.

Kevin Bonham
06-07-2011, 03:13 PM
It is a shame when you do dip your toe in the water it is only a flimsy nature - not deserving of a person with your political qualifictions who could seriously go through the issues of a hundred years.

Well those ranting about the issue will have to inspire me to take more interest by being less boring then.

antichrist
07-07-2011, 10:33 AM
You'll find lots of different translations of it but that's the gist of it. It's Beyond Good and Evil, Maxims and Interludes 146.

The Hollingdale translation gives it as:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

Its meaning probably needs to be considered in the context of other Nietzsche monster references, eg the State as a "cold monster", "moral monsters", "beautiful monsters" etc. I'm too rusty to attempt to do it justice at the moment but I suspect that the monster concept refers to moralists and their corrupt moral systems rather than to misbehaving individuals...............

AC
maybe you will find your own quote more inspiring - ha ha

That bold print is that how Israel has become? Now dont get upset like Scott does when I quote his own words back to him - ha ha again

Ian Murray
10-07-2011, 10:15 PM
Doing the math - 1.6 million people, zero export (http://www.gazagateway.org/2011/06/doing-the-math-1-6-million-people-zero-export/)
Gaza Gateway
Gisha.org
Thursday, June 30, 2011

On December 8th, the Israeli Security Cabinet decided to ease some of the restrictions on export of goods from Gaza. It announced that Israel would increasingly allow export of textile, furniture and agricultural produce from the Strip. These promises were reiterated as part of a package of gestures that the prime minister announced in February. The same promises reappeared in an April report to donor countries which also included the news that Israel was installing special inspection equipment at Kerem Shalom that would allow for increased exports. However, six months after the cabinet decision, the volume of exports from Gaza has only decreased.

From January to May 2011, Israel allowed only 187 truckloads of goods to leave Gaza – an average of two truckloads per day. Since May 12th, not a single truck has left Gaza. Since goods cannot be transported through the Rafah Crossing, there is presently no way to export goods from the Strip. More than one and a half million people – zero export....

...No economy can survive over time without trade and export, and the present condition of Gaza’s economy is a painful reminder of that fact. A stable economy is one of the conditions for a functioning society – a vital interest both for Palestinians and Israelis. Without export there can be no independent private sector and the only alternative that leaves is an economy in which money flows only from top to bottom – from the government and foreign donors to citizens. This is exactly what is happening today in Gaza where the public sector has become the biggest employer. Whereas in the past 60% of the workforce was employed in the private sector and 40% in the public sector, today the ratio has been reversed.

Israel began the closure of Gaza with the declared goal of ending Hamas rule. Four years later, it is clear that this policy has failed. Restrictions on export have brought increasing harm on residents of the Gaza Strip and made them more dependent on Hamas than ever.

Recently there has been an improvement in the situation in the Gaza Strip: while unemployment remains high, it dropped some in relation to 2010, and new building projects have begun. This is a welcome development, but there is nothing that will help more than allowing Gaza’s businesses to access markets beyond the Strip. Four years on, maybe it is time to finally consider a change in policy.

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2011, 09:34 PM
To refer back to the original thread subject, it is being reported that the suspect apprehended over what may be the worst recorded rampage killing by a single gunman (in Norway) self-identified as a conservative Christian and has been described as fundamentalist.

This will need to be watched to see whether the act was in fact one of non-Islamic religious terrorism (or even political terrorism by someone who happened to be self-professedly religious). Initial reports of the views of such killers are quite often misleading.

antichrist
23-07-2011, 10:19 PM
I think in Christian conservatives who go haywire there is also an element of poverty, usually social isolation plus failure.

There are the right wing groups who stir up the hate to get them going in vegance.


whereas Muslim terrorists have totally differently background

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2011, 05:00 PM
Andrew Bolt, not a Christian, shows up leftard media hypocrisy about the Norwegian murderer (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/suddeny_the_faith_of_the_killer_is_relevant_to_the _abc_after_all/):

Alan RM Jones notes how often the ABC stresses that that Norwegian mass murderer Behring Breivik is a “Right wing Christian” - although relevance of his Christianity seems obscure, given nothing in the New Testament and nothing said by any Christian leader possibly justifies his murder of so many young Norwegians …

Now contrast that determination to mention the murderer’s (at this stage seemingly irrelevant and certainly anomalous) Christian faith with the ABC’s extreme reluctance to mention the faith of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he shot dead solders at Fort Hood, after telling a colleague “: “Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.”

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2011, 05:31 PM
Alan RM Jones notes how often the ABC stresses that that Norwegian mass murderer Behring Breivik is a “Right wing Christian” - although relevance of his Christianity seems obscure, given nothing in the New Testament and nothing said by any Christian leader possibly justifies his murder of so many young Norwegians …

The man clearly self-described as "Christian" and from what has come out so far it appears he was motivated by an islamophobic conservative agenda. What is not clear at this stage is whether his religious views played any part in that agenda, which is also a viewpoint to which some atheists adhere. At this point I suspect that his professed Christianity was incidental to rather than causative of his politics and that this was an act of political terrorism without a clear religious dimension. If his religious views were a contributing factor then of course it would have been via a warped interpretation. But that is normal with any kind of religious terrorism.


Now contrast that determination to mention the murderer’s (at this stage seemingly irrelevant and certainly anomalous) Christian faith with the ABC’s extreme reluctance to mention the faith of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he shot dead solders at Fort Hood, after telling a colleague “: “Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.”

Extreme reluctance (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2735992.htm)
Even more extreme reluctance (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2735355.htm)
Still more extreme, it's quite incredible now (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2736749.htm)
This one even gives Fred Nile a free kick! (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-11-09/muslims-in-ranks-a-recipe-for-disaster-nile/1135314)
Did someone really say the M word? (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-11-09/senate-may-probe-texas-army-massacre/1134778)

Bolt is cherrypicking those ABC reports that did not mention Hasan's religion while ignoring the many that did.

antichrist
24-07-2011, 05:51 PM
Now contrast that determination to mention the murderer’s (at this stage seemingly irrelevant and certainly anomalous) Christian faith with the ABC’s extreme reluctance to mention the faith of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he shot dead solders at Fort Hood, after telling a colleague “: “Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor.”

AC
I can understand that in many instances that Muslims would justifiable feel that the USA are agressors and they should be opposed. Muslims are not the only ones who suffer from US policies but all religious groups get the benefit from their struggle. - when they happen to be justified.

Capablanca-Fan
25-07-2011, 12:30 AM
The man clearly self-described as "Christian" and from what has come out so far it appears he was motivated by an islamophobic conservative agenda.
What is the evidence? I've read what the Norwegian police have claimed about his website. But go further (http://weekendlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-rightwing.html), and we find that he liked the leftist show Dexter about a murderer, quoted atheopathic philosopher John Stuart Mill with approval, and, most anomalous for a supposed Christian Fundamentalist, did NOT list the Bible among his reading.


What is not clear at this stage is whether his religious views played any part in that agenda, which is also a viewpoint to which some atheists adhere. At this point I suspect that his professed Christianity was incidental to rather than causative of his politics and that this was an act of political terrorism without a clear religious dimension.
Agreed.


If his religious views were a contributing factor then of course it would have been via a warped interpretation. But that is normal with any kind of religious terrorism.
Whether Islamofascist terrorism really is a warped interpretation is highly doubtful.


Extreme reluctance (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2735992.htm)
Even more extreme reluctance (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2735355.htm)
Still more extreme, it's quite incredible now (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2736749.htm)
This one even gives Fred Nile a free kick! (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-11-09/muslims-in-ranks-a-recipe-for-disaster-nile/1135314)
Did someone really say the M word? (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-11-09/senate-may-probe-texas-army-massacre/1134778)
The site is down for maintenance so it's not showing the right articles.


Bolt is cherrypicking those ABC reports that did not mention Hasan's religion while ignoring the many that did.
The cherrypicking is due to the fact that there are heaps more examples of trying to avoid mentioning Islam, even when the murderer is shouting Allahu Akbar, while going out of the way to mention the slightest hint of Christianity.

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2011, 01:11 AM
I've read what the Norwegian police have claimed about his website. But go further (http://weekendlibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/anders-behring-breivik-rightwing.html), and we find that he liked the leftist show Dexter about a murderer, quoted atheopathic philosopher John Stuart Mill with approval,

So what? It isn't forbidden for a Christian to like a leftist TV show or a quote unrelated to religion by a philosopher who happened to be atheist. But in any case I suggest you check your labelling of Mill as atheopathic or even atheist against the evidence (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#VieRel).


and, most anomalous for a supposed Christian Fundamentalist, did NOT list the Bible among his reading.

From what we can see now I very greatly doubt he was a "fundamentalist". "Fundamentalists" don't tend to get involved in Freemasonry, for instance. Also if he was a fundamentalist I would have expected references to religion alongside his behaviour.


The site is down for maintenance so it's not showing the right articles.

Indeed. Until it comes back up you will just have to take my word for it that those are all articles on the ABC website that mentioned that killer by name and mention that he is a Muslim. Didn't have to go very far down the list of hits to find them either.


The cherrypicking is due to the fact that there are heaps more examples of trying to avoid mentioning Islam, even when the murderer is shouting Allahu Akbar, while going out of the way to mention the slightest hint of Christianity.

"Heaps more"? If you know that for a fact then tell me how many articles there are mentioning said killer's religion, and how many avoided doing so, of those that mentioned him on the ABC site. If you knew what you were talking about in making the above claim, with respect to the ABC site, then you would already have seen the articles I linked to above and would already know there were several up there that referred to his religious status, and you would be able to tell me about what the actual empirical ratio was. And even if it turned out that it was, say, 2:1 in favour of not mentioning, then it would have been correct for Bolt to mention that a substantial minority of articles did name the killer's religion. But as usual Bolt is more interested in his shallow polemical propaganda than in thoroughly researching the facts.

If you want to make the same claim concerning reporting of other killers then please name them.

Capablanca-Fan
25-07-2011, 11:37 AM
So what? It isn't forbidden for a Christian to like a leftist TV show or a quote unrelated to religion by a philosopher who happened to be atheist.
Should be obvious. There seems no evidence that this alleged Christian fundamentalist was inspired by the Bible, but rather by shows and philosophers opposed to it.


But in any case I suggest you check your labelling of Mill as atheopathic or even atheist against the evidence (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#VieRel).
Fair enough.


From what we can see now I very greatly doubt he was a "fundamentalist". "Fundamentalists" don't tend to get involved in Freemasonry, for instance. Also if he was a fundamentalist I would have expected references to religion alongside his behaviour.
Nor do they say (http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/07/2083manifesto.pdf):

"As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

His own manifesto reveals that he was a Darwinist, somewhat unusual for a "fundamentalist", and seems more of an agnostic.

Reminds me of the overly anti-Christian Timothy McVeigh being called a "Christian" by the Leftmedia.

Rincewind
25-07-2011, 12:12 PM
Reminds me of the overly anti-Christian Timothy McVeigh being called a "Christian" by the Leftmedia.

I think the parallels you see there are your own delusions.

Based on the "manifesto" Breivik doesn't appear to be a christian fundamentalist in the sense of being a Biblical literalist. However there is no doubt he knows what Christianity is and identifies with it and he sees himself as a right-wing reaction to the threat of Islamic Jihadism.

While you cherry picked one quote out of his "manifesto" (some of which is plagiarised from other sources) there are plenty of other more overt connections to religion and the fact that religion does occur as a theme in a large portion of it is evidence that claiming religion had no part to play in his motivation is a fiction.

For example...

"I consider myself to be 100% Christian."

"I support a Church that believes in self defence and who are willing to fight for its principles and values..."

"I fully support that the Church gains more or less monopoly on religion in Europe (government policies, school curriculum etc at least) in addition to granting the Church several concessions which have been taken from them the last decades."

...and there are plenty of others...

BTW These last two quotes in particular are the antithesis of Mill who was vaguely theist but opposed organised religion.


Regarding the reports in the media I think when the attack was first reported there was a general assumption that this was an attack on Norway by a foreign organisation and possibly Islamic extremists were responsible. From memory several world leaders deplored the attack along those lines. When it turned out to be the exact opposite (Norwegian Christian) then it is entirely newsworthy.

In my terminology I certainly would not call Breivik a Christian literalist which to my way of thinking is a common feature of fundamentalism. However he is self identifying Christian, politically right-wing and by his actions undeniably extremist, therefore right-wing Christian extremist is certainly a fair description.

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2011, 04:50 PM
Yes, here is that section Jono quoted from in full:


Q: Are you a religious man, and should science take priority over the teachings of the Bible?

A: My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion. At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian. However, I strongly object to the current suicidal path of the Catholic Church but especially the Protestant Church. I support a Church that believes in self defence and who are willing to fight for its principles and values, at least resist the efforts put forth to exterminate it gradually. The Catholic and Protestant Church are both cheering their own annihilation considering the fact that they embrace the ongoing inter-faith dialogue and the appeasement of Islam. The current Church elite has shown its suicidal face, as vividly demonstrated last year by the archbishop of Canterbury's speech contemplating the legitimacy of Shariah in parts of Britain.

I trust that the future leadership of a European cultural conservative hegemony in Europe will ensure that the current Church leadership are replaced and the systems somewhat reformed. We must have a Church leadership who supports a future Crusade with the intention of liberating the Balkans, Anatolia and creating three Christian states in the Middle East. Efforts should be made to facilitate the de-construction of the Protestant Church whose members should convert back to Catholicism. The Protestant Church had an important role once but its original goals have been accomplished and have contributed to reform the Catholic Church as well. Europe should have a united Church lead by a just and non-suicidal Pope who is willing to fight for the security of his subjects, especially in regards to Islamic atrocities.

I fully support that the Church gains more or less monopoly on religion in Europe (government policies, school curriculum etc at least) in addition to granting the Church several concessions which have been taken from them the last decades.

As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way.

Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.

So clearly a self-identifying believer and follower (and pro-Christian extremist exclusivist) but not a fundamentalist/literalist. I suspect the term "fundamentalist" was used inaccurately where "extremist" or "exclusivist" would have been better.

I had wondered if the guy was only praising Christianity because he was first and foremost anti-Islamic. But it's quite clear at various points of his text that he doesn't give atheism much time of day either and sees it as part of his problem.

With the usual cautionary note that he is not a fundamentalist/literalist, it seems to me that Breivik is a "Christian terrorist".

Rincewind
25-07-2011, 06:29 PM
Yes, here is that section Jono quoted from in full.

Thanks for that but I would like to add that much of the rest of the document is an apologetic that deals with how religious ideologies are portrayed by contemporary historians. Apparently looking to set the record "straight" on the violence of Islamic history and the comparative defensive nature of many Christian reactions which he believes have been portrayed unfairly as unwarranted aggressions.

So there is little doubt that the author of that manifesto sees things along religious lines, that is ideology vs ideology, and sees himself firmly in the Christian camp fighting against the "threat" of Islam.

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2011, 02:24 AM
So clearly a self-identifying believer and follower (and pro-Christian extremist exclusivist)
Yet this following was more cultural, not theological. No claim that God told him to do it, that he was God's instrument, or that he was following biblical precepts.


but not a fundamentalist/literalist. I suspect the term "fundamentalist" was used inaccurately where "extremist" or "exclusivist" would have been better.
That's for sure.


I had wondered if the guy was only praising Christianity because he was first and foremost anti-Islamic.
Seems more like praising the Christian culture of times past rather than the Dhimmitude of the present.


But it's quite clear at various points of his text that he doesn't give atheism much time of day either and sees it as part of his problem.
But he likes Darwinism.


With the usual cautionary note that he is not a fundamentalist/literalist, it seems to me that Breivik is a "Christian terrorist".
A "Christian terrorist" who doesn't really care about foundational doctrines, like God and the Bible!


"Yet, while McVeigh rejected God altogether, Breivik writes in his manifesto that he is not religious, has doubts about God's existence, does not pray, but does assert the primacy of Europe's "Christian culture" as well as his own pagan Nordic culture."

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2011, 04:49 PM
But he likes Darwinism.

Plenty of self-labelled "Christians" do. Simon Conway Morris is an obvious example and in my own field (invertebrate research) I have known quite a few like him, one of whom arranged for Morris to come and speak here. One of my colleagues in land snail research (now no longer with us) was quite prominent in the heirarchy of the Anglican Church - and not in the Yes Minister joke sense of Anglicans all being atheists either; the guy showed all outward signs of believing strongly in God (although he did admit to me once that he wasn't absolutely certain and envied the certainty of my "atheism"!)

But as for Breivik, he only mentions Darwin by name six times. These are:

* one while approvingly citing Windschuttle (I'm sure Windschuttle is stoked. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy).

* one while strawmanning "strict, atheist Darwinism" by claiming that it implies "the purpose of life is to reproduce."

* references to "Social Darwinism" or "darwinistic", "national Darwinism"

* A reference to Origin of Species in the category "Other important books I’ve read" following on from a list of his favourite books. The Bible is in the same list (Ayn Rand however made the top division!)

He clearly believes evolution is true but doesn't understand it very well and doesn't talk about it all that much, and he derides Dawkins.


A "Christian terrorist" who doesn't really care about foundational doctrines, like God and the Bible!

I think he does care about his own conception of God. He frequently defends God from criticism and opposition. He does say that he does "not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God" but (even though he is unsure that God exists) says that "I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill."

I think what we may be dealing with here is that fairly rare creature the theistic agnostic, who believes in God while also believing it is impossible to know for sure that God exists.

As for scripture he does appeal to it from time to time. Example (p 1134):

Christian leftism is ultimately based on a mistaken theological premise: that God has a "preferential love for the poor." Scripture, however,
informs us that God is no respecter of persons. As such, true Christianity refuses to romanticise either wealth or poverty (Prov. 30:8-9).

An even stronger example is "God will anoint you with his power to go into battle" (p. 1330-3) in which he cites numerous scriptural passages that "show you that God can anoint you with His power to defeat any enemy that may come your way".

Rincewind
26-07-2011, 05:36 PM
Plenty of self-labelled "Christians" do.

I suspect part of the problem is that Jono uses the term Darwinism as a pejorative term. If he means the theory of evolution as understood by modern science (common descent and origin of biological diversity) then I would post most educated Christians accept it since it is officially recognised by the Catholic church and also accepted by high profile protestants like Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams, the current AB of Canterbury.

If you mean social Darwinism or some other "survival of the fittest" social theory that has nothing to do with Charles Darwin other than name, then there may be some cross-purpose discussion going on.

Zwischenzug
26-07-2011, 09:41 PM
From what I read, the killer's views more in line with white supremacists. Yes, he was islamaphobic, but he also hated people what supported the idea of multiculturalism. Not sure if there is a religious dimension to his views.

antichrist
26-07-2011, 10:06 PM
From what I read, the killer's views more in line with white supremacists. Yes, he was islamaphobic, but he also hated people what supported the idea of multiculturalism. Not sure if there is a religious dimension to his views.

I think opposition of multiculturalism could be interpreted as being in Zionism, philosophically and practically, that is itself based on theistic and or racial grounds. Such opposition may also be in Judaism.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2011, 06:39 AM
Plenty of self-labelled "Christians" do.
But hardly what one would expect from a Christian fundamentalist. But then you, unlike much of the Leftmedia, agree he is not one. He is hardly a "Christian extremist" either in the sense of someone who is "extreme" in his profession of Christianity, as opposed to an "extremist" who happens to call himself a Christian sometimes but is not motivated by Christ's teachings.

Even Dawkins has called himself a "cultural Christian" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm):


Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied: "I'm not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.

"This is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.

"So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.

"If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."


But as for Breivik, he only mentions Darwin by name six times. These are:

....

* A reference to Origin of Species in the category "Other important books I’ve read" following on from a list of his favourite books. The Bible is in the same list (Ayn Rand however made the top division!)
She was a rabid atheist!


He clearly believes evolution is true but doesn't understand it very well and doesn't talk about it all that much, and he derides Dawkins.
All the same, nothing fundamentalist about it. More like a "liberal Christian" in the mold of GoughFather, for example, or that Dhimmi Anglican archbishop RW cited—I'm talking theologically not politically or ethically, note.


I think he does care about his own conception of God. He frequently defends God from criticism and opposition. He does say that he does "not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God" but (even though he is unsure that God exists) says that "I’m pretty sure I will pray to God as I’m rushing through my city, guns blazing, with 100 armed system protectors pursuing me with the intention to stop and/or kill."
But not praying to God before, although one would think that a real Christian would believe that we don't need to pray to God about what He has revealed in the Bible, such as "Do not murder". Compare James 2:14, which does NOT say, “What good is it, if someone has (true) faith but does not have works?” Rather, it says, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?”


I think what we may be dealing with here is that fairly rare creature the theistic agnostic, who believes in God while also believing it is impossible to know for sure that God exists.
Yes, once again, not really much of a Christian then.


As for scripture he does appeal to it from time to time. Example (p 1134):

Christian leftism is ultimately based on a mistaken theological premise: that God has a "preferential love for the poor." Scripture, however,
informs us that God is no respecter of persons. As such, true Christianity refuses to romanticise either wealth or poverty (Prov. 30:8-9).
He is right there actually, like a stopped clock is twice a day.


An even stronger example is "God will anoint you with his power to go into battle" (p. 1330-3) in which he cites numerous scriptural passages that "show you that God can anoint you with His power to defeat any enemy that may come your way".
Ignoring what this battle is, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10:4–5:


The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2011, 06:01 PM
But hardly what one would expect from a Christian fundamentalist.

The description of him as a "fundamentalist" seems to have been a single error by a policeman speaking in his second language (that said many Norwegians speak excellent English) that of course got picked up by many news outlets as newsworthy (which it was, whether the claim was correct or not) and hence repeated widely. I am not sure how many news outlets are still flogging it beyond the reporting of the initial comment. Those news outlets that reported the initial comment should also be reporting the facts about Breivik's beliefs but I will bet that many lazily omit to do so.


He is hardly a "Christian extremist" either in the sense of someone who is "extreme" in his profession of Christianity, as opposed to an "extremist" who happens to call himself a Christian sometimes but is not motivated by Christ's teachings.

Correct but "extremism" is typically defined by deeds and deeds supported rather than by strict adherence to the motivating ideology or its texts. Even Marxism faces this conundrum, hence Marx's famous denial that he was a Marxist. Of course this is all much simpler when the deeds themselves do not contradict the scripture/ideology.


She was a rabid atheist!

He'd hardly be her first fan who believed. Breivik would have been strongly attracted to her shrill denunciations of anything with even the slightest whiff of Marxism (and of politically liberal theologies), and his delusions could easily have been fuelled by stuff like The Fountainhead. Roark blowing up Cortlandt Towers, pleading not guilty and being acquitted by the jury and so on - probably a distorted megalomaniac echo of that in his current trial tactics.


Compare James 2:14, which does NOT say, “What good is it, if someone has (true) faith but does not have works?” Rather, it says, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?”

In some respects Breivik seems to be the ultimate sucker for both the cultural-Catholic sin-and-repent game, and also Pascal's Wager. He also thinks you can decide what you believe based on what is "pragmatic".

It will be interesting to see whether Breivik is considered legally sane. Reading his rubbish I strongly suspect he will be found to have at least one psychiatric disorder. But his actions were actions of targeted, calculated political terrorism and should be treated as such.

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2011, 08:40 PM
Anti-Semitism the real issue that dare not speak its name (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/anti-semitism-the-real-issue-that-dare-not-speak-its-name/story-e6frg6zo-1226144877560)
by: Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
The Australian September 24, 2011

...

First, Israel cannot will a peace agreement into existence if there is not a partner on the other side both willing and able to make and enforce a peace agreement that provides for Israel's security.

Second, a failed peace agreement, or one not enforced, could gravely compromise Israel's security, in far more damaging ways than exist today.

Third, Israel's security position has grievously deteriorated in recent months, through dynamics that have nothing to do with the Israel-Palestinian dispute, but which provide a far more dangerous context in which to ask Israel to take existential risks.

Fourth, you cannot have a lasting peace settlement when Israel's neighbours are consumed with hatred for Jews and contempt for Israel as a political entity.

...

Is there a peace partner for the Israelis? This is not a rhetorical question. It's a practical one. If you make peace with an enemy, you must be confident the enemy can control the forces on his side, that attacks won't continue on you.

Now here is the situation Israel confronts. Nearly half the Palestinian population is controlled by Hamas, designated by Australian and US law as a terrorist organisation. Hamas is also formally part of the broader national Palestinian government. It has not, as Western interlocutors once required, renounced terrorism, accepted Israel's right to exist, nor agreed to abide by any past agreements of the Palestinian Authority. Israel cannot just magically make Hamas into a Kumbaya peace movement. Even in the West Bank, the Fatah-led government promotes incitement and hatred against Israel from earliest school materials through to TV broadcasts and the rest. Every map of Palestine contains the whole of Israel, not just the occupied territories. More importantly, perhaps, the Palestinian government maintains itself in Ramallah only through the force of Israeli arms. It is not unreasonable for Israel to have extreme concerns about the sort of government that would eventually emerge in Ramallah.

...

Capablanca-Fan
03-10-2011, 03:14 PM
wVWa6wKYjD8&feature=player_embedded#!

Ian Murray
04-10-2011, 08:08 PM
wVWa6wKYjD8&feature=player_embedded#!
An impressive speech

Ian Murray
06-10-2011, 04:41 PM
Then the hand extended in peace signs off on another 1100 housing units (http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-told-jerusalem-plan-a-provocation-20110928-1kx9j.html) on Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, virtually guaranteeing scuttling of any new peace initiative

Capablanca-Fan
07-10-2011, 01:46 PM
Then the hand extended in peace signs off on another 1100 housing units (http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-told-jerusalem-plan-a-provocation-20110928-1kx9j.html) on Palestinian land in East Jerusalem, virtually guaranteeing scuttling of any new peace initiative
What crap. Jerusalem is the Jewish capital and has been that for three millennia, when your ancestors were painting themselves blue and living in mud huts. It's not even mentioned in the Koran. How would you like a bunch of Gillard's immigrants telling us not to build new housing in Canberra for Australians.

Rincewind
07-10-2011, 01:48 PM
What crap. Jerusalem is the Jewish capital and has been that for three millennia, when your ancestors were painting themselves with blue and living in mud huts. It's not even mentioned in the Koran. How would you like a bunch of Gillard's immigrants telling us not to build new housing in Canberra for Australians.

You're a class act Jono. Make no mistake about that. :lol:

Ian Murray
07-10-2011, 06:10 PM
What crap. Jerusalem is the Jewish capital and has been that for three millennia, when your ancestors were painting themselves blue and living in mud huts. It's not even mentioned in the Koran. How would you like a bunch of Gillard's immigrants telling us not to build new housing in Canberra for Australians.
I realise your grasp of matters legal is tenuous at best but, strange as it may seem, a historical connection with territory within another state's borders does not confer the right to annexure by force. Otherwise the German invasion of Sudetenland would have been perfectly legal.

A better analogy than yours would be the Ngunnawal people reclaiming Canberra, based on their 21,000-year occupation of the land prior to European immigration.

Redmond Barry
07-10-2011, 09:24 PM
How would you like a bunch of Gillard's immigrants telling us not to build new housing in Canberra for Australians.

what do these gillard immigrants look like ?

are they from england, peru, india or new zealand ? :confused:

Capablanca-Fan
08-10-2011, 08:40 AM
I realise your grasp of matters legal is tenuous at best but, strange as it may seem, a historical connection with territory within another state's borders does not confer the right to annexure by force. Otherwise the German invasion of Sudetenland would have been perfectly legal.
What a pathetic analogy. Fact: Jews have had a continuous presence in the land all this time, including the Jerusalem area. But there was no "Palestinian Arab" people until recently when it became politically correct; they originally claimed to be part of Syria.

A better Sudetenland analogy comes from law professor Alan Dershowitz: the Sudeten Germans were thrown out after WW2 because some of them joined the Nazi force's attacks on Czechoslovakia. Similarly, those Arabs who joined the wars against Israel should not whinge when they are forced out. We also hear very little about the 800,000 Jews thrown out of Islamic countries after Israel became a state. Yet Israel resettled them in a land 600 smaller than Islamic territories.


A better analogy than yours would be the Ngunnawal people reclaiming Canberra, based on their 21,000-year occupation of the land prior to European immigration.
Some of your leftard ilk would like that.

Ian Murray
08-10-2011, 09:14 AM
What a pathetic analogy. Fact: Jews have had a continuous presence in the land all this time, including the Jerusalem area.
The legal entity at issue is the State of Israel, which has only a very recent presence in the region

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2011, 12:05 PM
Arab Spring, Coptic Winter (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279714/arab-spring-coptic-winter-mark-steyn)
October 10, 2011 11:09 P.M.
By Mark Steyn

… good luck rousing the western media to the plight of Egypt’s Christians. …

Because it’s not just that in Egypt a Jew can’t be Finance Minister but that a Jew can’t be. Because Egypt spent the second half of the 20th century getting worse, and is spending the new century getting worser. We now accept a Jew-free Egypt as a normal feature of life. No doubt we shall soon do the same with a Copt-free Egypt. But we could at least stop insulting those on the receiving end of the “Arab Spring” by pretending that it’s any kind of flowering of freedom. …

Capablanca-Fan
12-10-2011, 12:08 PM
The legal entity at issue is the State of Israel, which has only a very recent presence in the region
This was just an international ratification of the reality of the Jewish right to their ancestral homeland in which they have always had a presence. They had just escaped from the Holocaust by the Nazis and their Islamic/Arab allies like Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

kT1_R2nnTbk

Ian Murray
13-10-2011, 08:20 PM
This was just an international ratification of the reality of the Jewish right to their ancestral homeland in which they have always had a presence. They had just escaped from the Holocaust by the Nazis and their Islamic/Arab allies like Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Actually the League of Nations espoused the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine when establishing the Palestinian Mandate under British administration in 1922. Formalisation of a two-state Palestine was subsequently encompassed in UN GA Resolution 181 in 1947, ending the British mandate and dividing Palestine into two - 54% as the Jewish state and 46% as an Arab state.

The resolution specifically excluded Jerusalem in great detail, instead proposing the city as a UN protectorate in view of its significance to the three major monotheistic religions (Jews, Christians, Moslems), with guarantees of free access to all.

With the outbreak of war, the resolution was not implemented by the Security Council. The status of Jerusalem remains unresolved - there is certainly no international legal carte blanche for Israel to claim the city and establish civilian colonies.

Capablanca-Fan
13-10-2011, 10:26 PM
Australia condemns Coptic persecution (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2011/10/australia-condemns-coptic-persecution)
by Peter Day
Quadrant, 13 October 2011

The Australian parliament this morning did the right thing.

It unanimously condemned the ‘persecution’ of Coptic Christians in Egypt, and called on the Government to make ‘immediate’ representations on the Coptic issue both to the UN and to the Egyptian government.

The vote comes at a time of uproar in Egypt over the army’s brutal attacks last Sunday on Coptic protestors in Cairo, which have left at least 24 dead and more than 200 injured.

The unanimity of the Canberra vote is a tribute to the tireless efforts of Liberal MP Craig Kelly, who incorporated the condemnation in a private member’s bill introduced some time ago. Mr Kelly’s bill was a response to the continuing failure of the Egyptian government to protect Egypt’s estimated eight million Christians – about 10 per cent of the population – from the endemic anti-Christian violence that has worsened since the fall of the Mubarak regime in February.

But it was last weekend’s killings of Coptic demonstrators by the army that gave the bill its added urgency and timely significance. …

For the record, the Kelly bill:


(1) recognises that Coptic Christians in Egypt are suffering ongoing and increasing persecution;

(2) condemns the recent attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt;

(3) expresses its sympathy for Coptic Christians who have been victims of recent attacks in Egypt; and

(4) calls on the Government to:


(a) issue a public statement condemning the ongoing attacks against the Coptic Christian minority in Egypt;

(b) make immediate representations to the United Nations to end the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt; and

(c) strongly urge the Egyptian Government to provide equal rights and protection for all Egyptian citizens regardless of race or religion.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2011, 04:35 AM
Actually the League of Nations espoused the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine when establishing the Palestinian Mandate under British administration in 1922. Formalisation of a two-state Palestine was subsequently encompassed in UN GA Resolution 181 in 1947, ending the British mandate and dividing Palestine into two - 54% as the Jewish state and 46% as an Arab state.
Actually, according to Slanders against Israel (http://patriotupdate.com/articles/slanders-against-israel):


Jews have always been a strong presence in this land. Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish Nation. By contrast, there never was a Palestinian Arab nation; both Jews and Arabs were part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. But even back then, more Jews immigrated, acquired land by fair purchase when it was apparently worthless, and by hard work and ingenuity turned malaria-infested swamps and sandy deserts into productive lands.

When the British took over the land from the Ottomans after World War 1, they formed the Palestinian Mandate, then partitioned it into 1/4 Jewish and 3/4 Arab. The Arab part was called “Transjordan” (“across the Jordan River”), which later became simply “Jordan”. The tiny Jewish part—barely any bigger than our 5th smallest state, New Jersey—declared independence in 1948, and became the State of Israel. There was never any talk of a Palestinian Arab state—they already had one, called Jordan, and the ones in the land of Israel considered themselves part of Syria.

During the Six Day War, Jordan attacked Israel although Israel pleaded with them not to, and as a result, Israel took back the remainder of what was always the Jewish capital. So tough titties—it's also the spoils of war, and usually accepted to be a just punishment for an aggressor. Unlike just about every other country, Israel has returned most of the land it took after Arab countries attacked it. But it's never enough for the Islamofascist thugocracies, which will never be happy until Israel is annihilated.

Capablanca-Fan
19-10-2011, 02:54 AM
Gilad Shalit Reunited with Family (http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.ewJXKcOUJlIaG/b.7797299/k.4745/The_Gilad_Shalit_Prisoner_Exchange.htm?tr=y&auid=9710385#letter)
First Time in 5 Years, 4 Months
October 18, 2011


The exchange involves Israel releasing 1,027 Palestinian prisoners to Gaza, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and abroad in exchange for Shalit. More than 300 of them were serving life sentences, for involvement in the killing of Israeli civilians. A number of them did not want to sign a waiver saying they will renounce terror when they return home, Israel Radio reported.

Another good reason to support the death penalty for murderers: "life means life" is meaningless as long as there is the possibility of hostage taking in return for release.

Kevin Bonham
19-10-2011, 04:28 AM
Another good reason to support the death penalty for murderers: "life means life" is meaningless as long as there is the possibility of hostage taking in return for release.

On the other hand if a country kills its own potential hostages then it provides no incentive for its opponents to take hostages alive instead of killing. And in any case were any actual murderers released in this instance, or just accessories to murder?

Capablanca-Fan
19-10-2011, 10:13 AM
On the other hand if a country kills its own potential hostages then it provides no incentive for its opponents to take hostages alive instead of killing. And in any case were any actual murderers released in this instance, or just accessories to murder?
There are costs and benefits. In this case, over a thousand terrorists serving life sentences (so presumably murderers) were released for one Israeli. The additional cost is the additional people these thugs will likely kill.

Kevin Bonham
20-10-2011, 12:11 AM
In this case, over a thousand terrorists serving life sentences (so presumably murderers)

I question the "presumably". Check the examples on the sidebar of your link, eg:


Amna (Amana) Muna: Female terrorist from the West Bank charged for luring a 16-year old Israeli boy, Ofir Rahum, over the internet to Ramallah who was then shot to death by two Fatah terrorists.

Accessory to murder, but not murderer.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-10-2011, 03:42 PM
The legal entity at issue is the State of Israel, which has only a very recent presence in the region
Were there any other legal entities west of Jordan river?

Igor_Goldenberg
20-10-2011, 03:58 PM
Actually the League of Nations espoused the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine when establishing the Palestinian Mandate under British administration in 1922. Formalisation of a two-state Palestine was subsequently encompassed in UN GA Resolution 181 in 1947, ending the British mandate and dividing Palestine into two - 54% as the Jewish state and 46% as an Arab state.


Actually the British mandate in Palestine included Transjordan. They created an Arab state east of Jordan river in early 20-s, but did not allow a Jewish state west of Jordan. The decision to further divide Jewish part of Palestine in 1947 was unjust, but, nevertheless, accepted by Jews.



With the outbreak of war, the resolution was not implemented by the Security Council.

Let's not forget that "outbreak of war" is a euphemism for aggression against newly founded Jewish state by five neighbouring Arab states.
Let's not forget that nobody in Arab world ever demanded or suggested an Arab state in either Gaza, Judea or Samaria between 1948 and 1967.
Let's not forget that neither Jordan nor Egypt ever contemplated creation creation of independent Arab state until their last aggression in 1973 collapsed.
Let's not forget that word "Palestinian" originally referred to Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, and was hijacked by Arafat in 1960s.
Let's not forget that PLO (which is currently a governing body in Judea and Samaria) was founded in 1964, three years before the six-day war.

It shows that the push for Palestinian state has been largely driven by anti-Israel hatred, not compassion to the Arabs. If that compassion was ever present, so called "refugees" would've been resettled many decades ago.

Capablanca-Fan
23-10-2011, 09:03 AM
Let's not forget that "outbreak of war" is a euphemism for aggression against newly founded Jewish state by five neighbouring Arab states.
Let's not forget that nobody in Arab world ever demanded or suggested an Arab state in either Gaza, Judea or Samaria between 1948 and 1967.
Let's not forget that neither Jordan nor Egypt ever contemplated creation creation of independent Arab state until their last aggression in 1973 collapsed.
Let's not forget that word "Palestinian" originally referred to Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, and was hijacked by Arafat in 1960s.
Let's not forget that PLO (which is currently a governing body in Judea and Samaria) was founded in 1964, three years before the six-day war.

It shows that the push for Palestinian state has been largely driven by anti-Israel hatred, not compassion to the Arabs. If that compassion was ever present, so called "refugees" would've been resettled many decades ago.
All true above. Anti-Zionism is just the politically correct neologism for age-old antisemitism. Most of the Arab states are still judenrein; it's no accident that many Arab and Muslim leaders allied with the Nazis. 800,000 Jews were thrown out of Arab lands after Israel attained official recognition by the UN, and Israel resettled them in their tiny country. As Golda Meir said, there will be no peace until the Arabs love their own children as much as they hate Jewish children.

Ian Murray
23-10-2011, 02:39 PM
An impartial history of the Middle East is hard to find, with so many axes being ground. However http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm seems factual and non-partisan.

Capablanca-Fan
23-10-2011, 03:59 PM
An impartial history of the Middle East is hard to find, with so many axes being ground. However http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm seems factual and non-partisan.
Thanks for that. Note that 3/4 of the original Palestine was given to the Arabs, in the form of the Emirate of Transjordan (across the Jordan river), which became the Hashemite [Arab] Kingdom of Jordan. Thus the Arabs already have their Palestinian state, ruled by Abdullah II.

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2011, 12:50 AM
Posts moved

Just moved the chess-boycott posts on this thread to the "Sanctions against Israel" thread just to limit the number of threads the issue is covered on to two for now.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2011, 11:28 AM
From Ian Murray's favorite Dhimmi Jewish appeaser Goldstone:
Israel and the Apartheid Slander (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/israel-and-the-apartheid-slander..html?_r=1)
New York Times, 31 October 2011

THE Palestinian Authority’s request for full United Nations membership has put hope for any two-state solution under increasing pressure. The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.

One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.

While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.
I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.” Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital. “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.

In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.

In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.

To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.

The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.

But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of “apartheid” is invoked.

Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an “apartheid wall” and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.

Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.

Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.
The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.

Richard J. Goldstone, a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9.

Ian Murray
11-11-2011, 02:16 PM
Goldstone and the futility of repentance (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011115141434848384.html)
Mark Levine
Al Jazeera


After writing a damning report on Israel's military actions during Cast Lead, Goldstone wants to get back in the fold.

It has not been a good two years for South African Justice Richard Goldstone. Handed the politically explosive task of heading a UN fact-finding mission into Operation Cast Lead, Israel's 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza, whatever conclusions arrived at by the eminent juror and his colleagues were sure to anger one or both parties to the conflict. And so they did.

But Hamas had far less to lose than Israel from the findings of the mission, which responded to the report by mobilising an international campaign to delegitimise not just its findings, but its main author as well. That process has continued to today, even as Goldstone has written yet another op-ed piece for a major US newspaper attempting to rehabilitate Israel's international image, and in so doing, his own standing within the Jewish community.
...
The claim that both sides are ultimately to blame for the ongoing violence is equally problematic. Hamas can and should be called to account for its terrorist actions against Jews and a host of crimes it has committed against Palestinians. But the ultimate responsibility for the violence and decades-long systematic violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories is Israel's, both as the recognised belligerent occupier of the territories, and as the perpetrator of the vast majority of the violence on the ground.

It's important to note here that Israel could in fact have occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and continued the military occupation to this day under the justification of protecting the security of its citizens, within the framework of international law.

It could have done so, however, only if it never established a single settlement, or bypass road or seized and/or destroyed huge swaths of Palestinian property and territory - that is, if it maintained a purely military occupation that did little to disturb the daily life and natural development of the occupied population.

But the occupation has never been about security, it's been about settlement, pure and simple.

And as long as the occupation remains essentially a settlement enterprise, analogies between Israeli policies in the occupied territories and apartheid South Africa will be accurate, no matter how hard Israel's supporters, even when they are as eminent as Justice Goldstone, try to deny this reality.

Mark LeVine is a professor of history at UC Irvine and senior visiting researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University in Sweden. His most recent books are Heavy Metal Islam (Random House) and Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989 (Zed Books).

Igor_Goldenberg
11-11-2011, 08:59 PM
Notable difference between two opinion piece: the first one tries to provide arguments in support of the view, the other one states the opinion as a fact without even trying to substantiate it.

Rincewind
11-11-2011, 09:17 PM
Notable differences:

- 1st one agrees with Igor's a priori view and make him feel comfortable, the 2nd poses some difficult questions for Igor and he finds that confronting

- 1st one the link provided by the poster is broken, the 2nd one isn't

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2011, 03:29 PM
Notable difference between two opinion piece: the first one tries to provide arguments in support of the view, the other one states the opinion as a fact without even trying to substantiate it.
Hardly surprising for a neo-kapo like Mark LeVine writing for an Islamist outfit like al Jazeera. All the same trash: Israel is ultimately to blame for Hamas brutalities.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2011, 03:31 PM
Will these Israel-boycotters refuse to take anti-cancer vaccines?

Breakthrough: Israel Develops Cancer Vaccine (http://unitedwithisrael.org/israel-develops-cancer-vaccine/)

Vaxil’s groundbreaking therapeutic vaccine, developed in Israel, could keep about 90 percent of cancers from coming back.

The vaccine is being tested against a type of blood cancer called multiple myeloma. If the substance works as hoped — and it looks like all arrows are pointing that way — its platform technology VaxHit could be applied to 90 percent of all known cancers, including prostate and breast cancer, solid and non-solid tumors.

antichrist
12-11-2011, 03:47 PM
Will these Israel-boycotters refuse to take anti-cancer vaccines?



but was it necessary for Israel to create these miracles on stolen ground - stolen 3 thousand years ago and stolen again now and/or receiving stolen property

Israel steals water from surrounding populations to perform their so-called agricultural miracles, they bulldoze Palestinian olive groves - nothing but Hitler copiers that mob

antichrist
12-11-2011, 03:58 PM
Hardly surprising for a neo-kapo like Mark LeVine writing for an Islamist outfit like al Jazeera. All the same trash: Israel is ultimately to blame for Hamas brutalities.

In an indirect and direct manner Israel is responsible. Israel helped Hamas in its early days as an opposition to the effective PLO and your friend and mine Yasser.

Also Israel by provoking the conflict for so long has ensured the continuation of Palestine on a war footing under the same leadership. Of course after 50 years corruption and dictatorial habits kick it of which Hamas is a response to. Even Israel with democracy has such problems.

At least the Palestinians don't go around stealing other people's land as well as killing them and evicting them into refugee camps, forcing them to be come guerilla fighters and terrorists to try and get their land back. Those methods of fighting are the only weapons of the weak against the strong.

antichrist
12-11-2011, 05:00 PM
The recent Putin-Medvedev announcement has made a lame duck of President Medvedev, who clearly no longer has any significant say in matters political or economic. But did he ever? Were Russians not just going along with the deception, as older children do to get presents from Santa Claus, in whom they no longer believe?

AC
But Israel still believes in Santa's presents - they got Palestine by deception and violence, and terrorism that it was their God-given homeland, well there is no God just as there is no Santa go give anyone anything.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2011, 10:22 AM
Hardly surprising for a neo-kapo like Mark LeVine writing for an Islamist outfit like al Jazeera. All the same trash: Israel is ultimately to blame for Hamas brutalities.

Brilliant logic from Levine:
Israel is apartheid state because it builds settlement. But the lefties happy to swallow it hook line and sinker.

antichrist
21-11-2011, 06:01 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/between-heaven-and-earth--and-israeli-law-20111120-1npel.html

IMNEIZIL, West Bank: A freezing wind blows across the south Hebron hills and the people of the tiny village of Imneizil are steeling themselves for winter and the prospect they may have to face it without electricity.

Situated between two Israeli settlements - Susiya and Beit Yattir - Imneizil, like so many Palestinian towns, is off the grid, with no electricity, water or sewerage due to severe restrictions on Palestinian development.

Two years ago, the Energy Research Centre at Al-Najah University in Nablus and SEBA, a Spanish non-government organisation, installed solar panels in the village to replace its petrol generators. The venture received €292,000 ($394,000) in funding from the Spanish government.


The panels, which provide power for the 390 residents, their school and a small medical clinic, are now under a demolition order by the Israeli authorities. ''We are suspended between heaven and earth; the solar panels were a glimmer of hope for us and now they are trying to destroy them,'' the village head, Ali Mohammad Ali Hreizat, said.

.................................................. ..........................


''Before the solar panels, we had no electricity at night - the children could not study, if they wanted to go to the toilet they had to go in the dark, when our animals gave birth we could not see when they needed our care,'' said Mihad Moor, a 25-year-old mother of three. ''Now we are able to pump water and have access to television, which helps us stay connected with the world.'' Access to power also means Ms Moor can use an electric churn to prepare labneh - a soft cheese made from yoghurt - that takes half a day to make by hand.


But it is not just the solar panels that may be destroyed. A new classroom and toilet block at the village school are also under threat of demolition.
''They are making things as miserable as possible so people will just pack up and leave,'' said Paul Raymond, from the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel, a non-government organisation that works with vulnerable communities and monitors human rights abuses. ''It is part of a much bigger picture where even basic infrastructure is not allowed to be built in these areas.''


The pace of Israeli-mandated demolitions has increased significantly since January, with at least 387 structures including 140 homes and 79 agricultural structures demolished by August, a report from three United Nations independent experts found. It has resulted in the forced displacement of 755 people and ruined the livelihoods of another 1500.
At least 23 Palestinian schools teaching 2250 children are under pending stopwork or demolition orders. The Israeli authorities have already demolished some medium-voltage power lines in other villages.
And while Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank - illegal under international law - continue to expand, Palestinian applications for permits to build basic infrastructure are denied, almost without fail.

.................................................. .


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/between-heaven-and-earth--and-israeli-law-20111120-1npel.html#ixzz1eKCtN2Xq


How can the Palestinians be expected to compromise with such fascists

Why do the Australian Government on behalf of the Australian people vote for Israel in any disputes that come before the United Nations?

The only hope is for fair-minded Jews from all around the world to pressure the Zionist govt - because they will not listen to anyone else, unfortunately some choose to be Israeli running dogs instead

Ian Murray
06-12-2011, 08:33 AM
Leading Palestinian intellectual: We already have a one-state solution (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/leading-palestinian-intellectual-we-already-have-a-one-state-solution-1.399629)

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority should unite, unequivocally renounce violence and jettison the U.S.-led peace process which is “a corpse that has had formaldehyde pumped into its veins for over a decade” – this is the diagnosis and prescription of Professor Rashid Khalidi, one of the leading Palestinian intellectuals in the world.

“Nobody believes that firing rockets and getting 1,400 people killed in response is ‘resistance’ that is going to liberate Palestine, and nobody believes that talking with the U.S., with Dennis Ross putting his thumb on the scales in favor of Israel, which is already overwhelmingly superior, is going to produce an equitable and just and lasting solution of the Palestine question....

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2011, 01:17 PM
Leading Palestinian intellectual: We already have a one-state solution (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/leading-palestinian-intellectual-we-already-have-a-one-state-solution-1.399629)

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority should unite, unequivocally renounce violence and jettison the U.S.-led peace process which is “a corpse that has had formaldehyde pumped into its veins for over a decade” – this is the diagnosis and prescription of Professor Rashid Khalidi, one of the leading Palestinian intellectuals in the world.
Good! Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel, and Israel has honoured that peace.

Ian Murray
06-12-2011, 08:45 PM
Good! Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel, and Israel has honoured that peace.
I'm not sure whether you're implying that Egypt and Jordan haven't

antichrist
06-12-2011, 11:22 PM
Good! Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel, and Israel has honoured that peace.

Israel was making Egypt do it's dirty work to help control Israel's concentration camp of Palestinians - and Egyptian hierarchy was getting bribed by USA as well as was Israel, both by arms

antichrist
08-12-2011, 10:24 PM
Bedouin dislodged by Israeli expansion
Harriet Sherwood
December 7, 2011


Threatened … the Jahalin Bedouin school. Photo: Reuters/Mohaman Torokman
KHAN AL-AHMAR, West Bank: About 20 Bedouin communities between Jerusalem and Jericho are to be forcibly relocated from the land on which they have lived for 60 years under an Israeli plan to expand a Jewish settlement.

The removal of about 2300 members of the Bedouin Jahalin tribe, two-thirds of whom are children, is due to begin next month. The Israeli authorities plan to relocate the families from the West Bank to a site close to a municipal rubbish dump on the edge of Jerusalem.

The Bedouin say the move would expose them to health hazards, deny them access to land and endanger their traditional lifestyle. They say the viability of their communities has been seriously eroded by the growth of Jewish settlements, the creation of military zones, demolitions of homes and animal pens and the building of a highway which cuts through their camps.


''Because of the [military] closures and the settlements, we are living in a jail which gets smaller every year,'' said Eid Hamis Swelem Jahalin, 46, who was born in the encampment of Khan al-Ahmar and has lived there almost all of his life.

The relocation plan is the first phase of a longer-term program to remove about 27,000 Bedouin Arabs from ''Area C'', the 62 per cent of the West Bank under Israeli military control. The communities have not been formally notified of the plan, which was disclosed by Israel's civil administration, the military body governing Area C, to a United Nations agency.

The area on which the Jahalin live has been designated by Israel for the expansion of Ma'ale Adumim. Many Palestinians see this as part of a strategic plan to close a ring of Jewish settlements that would cut East Jerusalem off from the West Bank. By stretching down to the Jordan Valley, an expanded Ma'ale Adumim would also bisect the West Bank, making a contiguous Palestinian state impossible.

''They want to empty the Bedouin from the whole area and they will put settlers in our place and there will be no Palestinian state,'' Mr Hamis said.

The Jahalin were originally from the Negev desert, from which they fled or were forced following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Now the extended tribe is scattered across the West Bank.

Guardian News & Media



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/bedouin-dislodged-by-israeli-expansion-20111206-1oh9x.html#ixzz1fwfAFd13
------------------------------------------------------
AC
NOw Israel likes to boast OH it is the only democratic country in the Middle East, well Nazi Germany was also democratic and they did exactly the same things. They are self serving governments who dont care if they exterminate minorities by hook or by crook, fast or slow - ethnic cleansing that is what it is by Israel!

antichrist
10-12-2011, 07:27 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/bedouin-battle-to-stay-in-their-villages-ends-in-rubble-20111104-1mzzf.html

Nazi Israel at it again

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2011, 09:57 PM
NOw Israel likes to boast OH it is the only democratic country in the Middle East, well Nazi Germany was also democratic and they did exactly the same things.

Nazi Germany was not "democratic" AC. Hitler never won a majority in a remotely fair election. He was appointed Chancellor of a minority government and then entrenched his power by arresting and intimidating parliamentary opponents so they could not vote against him in sufficient numbers to stop him from concentrating power in the executive; "elections" held during Nazi rule were all rigged farces that do not deserve the name.

And your Nazi comparisons in general are so melodramatic and stupid they make me want to support Israel just to punish you for not debating properly.

antichrist
11-12-2011, 10:01 AM
Nazi Germany was not "democratic" AC. Hitler never won a majority in a remotely fair election. He was appointed Chancellor of a minority government and then entrenched his power by arresting and intimidating parliamentary opponents so they could not vote against him in sufficient numbers to stop him from concentrating power in the executive; "elections" held during Nazi rule were all rigged farces that do not deserve the name.

And your Nazi comparisons in general are so melodramatic and stupid they make me want to support Israel just to punish you for not debating properly.

But you must realise that it is only that is only you who is pedantic - and if you can't see the woods for the trees already (as every correspondent who is shafted to the M/E does) then there is not much hope for you anyway.

Another irrelevant point similar to yours is that Zionists always blast the Grand Mufti of Palestine during WW2 for supporting HItler. First of all Palestinians at that time already had honest gripes against Zionists and secondly the Mufti was appointed by the British and not elected by the Muslims. Yet the Palestinians get the blame for him, they did not choose him.

You have earlier stated you support a 2 state solution - there are a hundred solid reasons to be against such. If you stand by that solution I will list for you.

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2011, 10:31 AM
But you must realise that it is only that is only you who is pedantic - and if you can't see the woods for the trees already (as every correspondent who is shafted to the M/E does) then there is not much hope for you anyway.

Er, no, if you are the one trying to claim the Nazis as "democratic" for the purposes of your braindead and self-defeating analogy then it is you who is guilty of misusing an irrelevant technicality.

Democracy is not the same thing as just having "elections".


Another irrelevant point similar to yours

It isn't similar. Take it up with Jono or someone else who cares.


You have earlier stated you support a 2 state solution - there are a hundred solid reasons to be against such. If you stand by that solution I will list for you.

In other words you will cut and paste something from another website; there's no way you would come up with "a hundred" by yourself. I'd ask what solution you support but I'm not entirely sure I want to know.

antichrist
11-12-2011, 01:31 PM
Setting up a religious state is contrary to human rights. It automatically makes the Palestinians living there second class citizens without many rights. It discourages people of different faiths or atheist to live there or stay there. Even for Jews there the religious state is now what many liberal Jews want.

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2011, 03:00 PM
I don't support any religious states anywhere AC, so that is an argument against a solution involving a religious state, not a 2-state solution as such.

antichrist
11-12-2011, 05:06 PM
I don't support any religious states anywhere AC, so that is an argument against a solution involving a religious state, not a 2-state solution as such.

But Israel is legislating many laws that either directly create a religious state or by intention and by default create such. The Orthodox Jews want to create a religious state by expelling

must go urgent will come back shortly to fiish

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2011, 06:33 PM
But Israel is legislating many laws that either directly create a religious state or by intention and by default create such.

All the more reason for Palestine to be independent - assuming it would not choose to be a religious state (directly or indirectly) itself.

antichrist
12-12-2011, 11:35 PM
All the more reason for Palestine to be independent - assuming it would not choose to be a religious state (directly or indirectly) itself.

but Israel takes in hundreds of Palestinians town and villages, and those Palestinians driven out have the legal right of return under international law, if Israel succeeds in having Israel declared a Jewish state it gives them the right to make it more difficult and to drive out more Palestinians, just as they are doing. So more legal human rights destroyed. If to be a two state solution Israel must find a new unoccupied plot of ground to locate it's state

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2011, 03:06 AM
Dershowitz: Israel Has Legal Right to Attack Iran (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150630#.TuYzkmPWxKg)
Israel has every legal and moral right to stage a pre-emptive strike on Iran, says renowned legal expert Prof. Alan Dershowitz.
By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, 12/12/2011



Dershowitz stated that regardless of whether or not it would be wise for Israel to attack, “Israel has the right morally and legally to strike Iran just as it did on [the nuclear facility] in Iraq in 1981. Having the right to attack does not mean that it should do so, but I would defend Israel’s right.”



Dershowitz also advised Israel to be more aggressive against countries’ threats to arrest visiting IDF officers and political leaders for alleged war crimes.

Israeli officials should not "duck back into their planes,” admonished Dershowitz. “That is not the way great nations behave,” he continued. He advised officers and politicians to "hold their heads high" and challenge countries’ authority to put them on trial.

Dershowitz vowed if they are arrested, he would ”put together the greatest legal team ever assembled.”

He added that Israel’s record is better than that of Turkey and NATO and others when it comes to the ratio of civilians to terrorists who are killed in warfare. Deshowitz declared that "the double standard against Israel." whereby countries are far more guilty of the same charges made against Israel, represents "the depths of international law and the hijacking by the left."

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2011, 03:10 AM
"Hamas does not admit the right of Israel to exist and says publicly not a single Jew will remain. The ambassador to India said last month there is no difference between Fatah and Hamas. Both agree Israel has no right to exist. Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say 'if there are 13 Jews and 9 Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?' We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. Time for somebody to say enough lying about the Middle East," Newt Gingrich said at the ABC News debate (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/10/newt_gingrich_palestinians_are_terrorists.html).

antichrist
13-12-2011, 08:57 AM
Of course Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state, but certainly some ethnically Jewish people have the right to live there. The Jewish state was was artificially overlaid over a Palestinian community that had been there for about 1400 years. Zionist claim is only based on a terrorist God whose people has perpetrated terrorism since Day One 3,000 years ago. America was founded on terrorism but now you support the white country there. Why aren't you against white America how I am, to be consistent you should be.

If Zionists can be given the whole country back after 3000 years, and it was only obtained by terrorism, then why can't the American natives get back all of north America after only 500 years and they did not use terrorism to get in the first place?

Ian Murray
13-12-2011, 04:22 PM
...Newt Gingrich said at the ABC News debate.
Anything goes to claw back some of the Florida Jewish vote

antichrist
13-12-2011, 04:26 PM
Anything goes to claw back some of the Florida Jewish vote
'
A lot of what goes on, on behalf of Israel and Zionism, sickens intellectual liberal Jews. They are isolated in a turbulent world with no hope anywhere, only trying to lessen the burden of the Palestinians and getting abused for it.

Ian Murray
14-12-2011, 12:47 AM
Recent polling (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106067) gives an interesting insight into the views of Israeli Jews and Arabs, as opposed to the Netanyahu line.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2011, 06:24 AM
Anything goes to claw back some of the Florida Jewish vote
It might have that as a useful side effect. For far too long, Jews have been voting for the anti-Israel party (for reasons explained in that Prager article you cited).

antichrist
14-12-2011, 08:39 AM
I don't support any religious states anywhere AC, so that is an argument against a solution involving a religious state, not a 2-state solution as such.

but as Israel is founded on being a religious state, a homeland for all Jews (including religious) and not just ethnic it is becoming, via ultra Orthodox Jews, a more and more religious state in practise. It is the policy of these Zionists to expel all Palestinians out of Israel (Palestine) and to isolate Palestinians from Israel (Palestine).

The two state model promoted by Israel has a condition that the Arab countries recognise Israel as a religious state, which the Palestinian Authority of course refuses to do, knowing the consequences of what will happen to the Palestinians in Israel (Palestine).

So what model of two state solution do you support? One that either legally or by geurrilla tactics by extreme Zionists becomes a defacto religious state so the same result in practise?

If you do not then you must oppose the current two state solution proposed and that seems to be accepted by the international community just to ""solve"" the problem.

ER
14-12-2011, 05:34 PM
Hardly surprising for a neo-kapo like Mark LeVine writing for an Islamist outfit like al Jazeera. All the same trash: Israel is ultimately to blame for Hamas brutalities.

But as it's well known Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and even Hamas themselves take it in turns to kick Palestinian butt, why Israel takes all the credit?

antichrist
14-12-2011, 06:20 PM
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2006/01/27/hamas-son-of-israel/

It is a shame that a simple search can reveal how Israel had helped Hamas for years to try and diminish the power of the PLO

Israel financially supported Hamas for years

ER
14-12-2011, 06:24 PM
But as it's well known Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and even Hamas themselves take it in turns to kick Palestinian butt, why Israel takes all the credit?

I left out Kuwait and Hezbollah too, I am not so sure about the Saudis!

Kevin Bonham
14-12-2011, 08:55 PM
So what model of two state solution do you support?

One founded primarily along national identity/ethnic lines such that each grouping is self-determining and there is ample opportunity for those identifying more with one grouping than another to move onto the territory of their chosen nationality. I would hope that neither would be religious states but at least if they were, then no-one could say they were being unavoidably discriminated against because they were a Muslim in the Jewish nation or similar. (This model comes with a free herd of flying pigs for each of the new states of course, but we're talking about what we support in theory here.)

antichrist
14-12-2011, 11:08 PM
One founded primarily along national identity/ethnic lines such that each grouping is self-determining and there is ample opportunity for those identifying more with one grouping than another to move onto the territory of their chosen nationality. I would hope that neither would be religious states but at least if they were, then no-one could say they were being unavoidably discriminated against because they were a Muslim in the Jewish nation or similar. (This model comes with a free herd of flying pigs for each of the new states of course, but we're talking about what we support in theory here.)


By allowing chosen nationality it lets anyone who identifies as a Jew, now or in the future, to migrate to Israel which automatically (it seems) to displace more Palestinians off their land - due to the ""fascist" nature of the Israeli govt. Or at least that has been going on for about 100 years due to other reasons as well. And is continuing due to Israel advertising in the USA for more Jews to move to Israel - thereby exaggerating the existing problems. This point has been the major problem for preventing any meaningful peace talks for 60 years!

My point is that ethnic Jews who have a history of living in Palestine of course have the right to live there in peace but all others have no right to displace Palestinians, with or without UN approval, from day one.

If anything other than this allowed then there always will be problems - and the same problem in any other country where this occurs.

The Jewish identity with the so called stupid ""Holy Land"" is only based a book of fable and terrorist tactics from 3,000 years ago - yet every day hundreds of Palestinians are displaced and harassed to get out of the place for new settlers. All of this on such a flimsy premise.

A state build on injustice does not deserve to survive - which is what I say about all colonialist countries, including Australia and America. That's right remember I said that on Oz day that we should be bred out and upset a few whiteys.

Ian Murray
15-12-2011, 04:38 PM
Mideast can accept Israel if Netanyahu will let it (http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/mideast-can-accept-israel-if-netanyahu-will-let-it-1.401403)
Haaretz
14.12.2011

...At least in the more sophisticated layers of Arab society the picture is less black-and-white than you would assume from what you gather from the media – certainly the Israeli ones. Israel may not be loved in the Arab world, but neither is there as much visceral hatred across the board as you would suspect.

The repeated message is: “the Israel-Palestine conflict has an enormous symbolic role. Do something about it – and you will find ways to gradually integrate into the Middle East. Help us to undercut radical Islam by getting this conflict that has become the symbol of the West’s arrogance and disregard for Arab culture out of the focus. We want to take care of our own problems, and we want this conflict off the table.”

There is no mention of wiping Israel off the map; for the overwhelming majority of Arab elites Israel is a fact of life with which they are coming to terms. Most of them see radical Islam as a threat they want to defuse – and the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the stumbling blocks on the way to do so. ..

antichrist
15-12-2011, 04:53 PM
Ian I can be sympathetic with this view, coz people finally want stability in their lives even if means accepting an unjust status quo - and that is what I have always thought Israel was aiming at by dragging everything out for generations.

The ones still with land can accept and adjust but those refugees are in sh.. for the rest of their lives and generations. Many loved ones have been lost unjustly etc etc, so much water detoured for Israel expansion, legal and otherwise.

Strictly speaking no one say, ""bad luck I am okay and want peace and you have to accept being a serf"".

Palestinian land that Zionists brought after breakdown of Ottoman Empire in some cases were from Lebanese who bought the land from departing Turks who had stolen it from the Palestinians for hundreds of years. The deprived Palestinians during Ottoman times having serf status, but at least a home. When bought by Zionists they were turfed out. Where is the justice in all this for deprived stateless people?

No one can give away your legal rights for right of return etc. That was why Arafat could not sign that last peace effort - he knew he would be killed for giving way people's right of return. But the Zionists were happy to portray it as Arafat walking away from a true fair chance for peace - when it was nothing of the sort. It was going to cement in the status quo

Kevin Bonham
15-12-2011, 10:38 PM
By allowing chosen nationality it lets anyone who identifies as a Jew, now or in the future, to migrate to Israel which automatically (it seems) to displace more Palestinians off their land - due to the ""fascist" nature of the Israeli govt.

No, I propose that each nation be given fixed and distinct boundaries, the setting of which would of course involve major compromises on both sides. So if more Jews migrate to (post-split) Israel, Israel will become more crowded.

Ian Murray
15-12-2011, 11:02 PM
Ian I can be sympathetic with this view, coz people finally want stability in their lives even if means accepting an unjust status quo - and that is what I have always thought Israel was aiming at by dragging everything out for generations....
Pragmatically the Right of Return is a lost cause - any surviving refugees from 1948 would barely remember their original homes, which no longer exist anyway. It needs some realpolitiking to reshufle territory into Israel and Palestine states.

Moderate Arabs in the ME region would seem to be willing to live with Israel and the West, and contain Islamic extremism. The endless Palistinian confrontation is an ongoing distraction. Better than two out of three Israeli Jews would also settle for peace and two states negotiated around the 1967 borders:

By a 66 percent to 31 percent margin (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106067), Israeli Jews said they believe their government should be doing more to "promote comprehensive peace with the Arabs based on the 1967 borders with agreed modifications", indicating dissatisfaction with the way the Netanyahu government has handled this issue.

antichrist
16-12-2011, 12:20 AM
Pragmatically the Right of Return is a lost cause - any surviving refugees from 1948 would barely remember their original homes, which no longer exist anyway. It needs some realpolitiking to reshufle territory into Israel and Palestine states.

Moderate Arabs in the ME region would seem to be willing to live with Israel and the West, and contain Islamic extremism. The endless Palistinian confrontation is an ongoing distraction. Better than two out of three Israeli Jews would also settle for peace and two states negotiated around the 1967 borders:

By a 66 percent to 31 percent margin (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106067), Israeli Jews said they believe their government should be doing more to "promote comprehensive peace with the Arabs based on the 1967 borders with agreed modifications", indicating dissatisfaction with the way the Netanyahu government has handled this issue.


But why do the Palestinians have to compromise on anything? Dont they have equal rights to other people around the world? What right does the UN have to create a colonialist power (Israel)? To rob land etc etc! Europe created the M/E problem with the Holocaust so it is theirs to fix and compromise on, not the Palestinians. The Jewish leaders in Europe were offered other homelands, even in Australia but rejected such, even to the point they let many more Jews die in gas chambers rather than compromise on where their homeland will be. This is a great crime that is unspoken because the victims are dead. There are two guilty parties the Nazis and the Jewish leaders. The major powers that set up Israel are guilty of turning away Jewish refugees during the Nazi era, they are guilty as well, not the Palestinians. The Palestinians were against massive immigration due to land disputes as well the the shocking attitude of European Jews to Palestinians and even to M/E Jews. They were racist, acted superior, arrogant etc. Israel is almost full of such people now if you were to meet Israelis. I have met many. They may actually believe they are God's Chosen People, I have no idea. If they were not that way they would not have exasperated the problem in Palestine by stealing more and more land etc etc

Remember the motto: there is no peace without justice

If the superpowers wanted to be generous to the Zionists they should have offered them land in their own countries, not somebody elses

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2011, 03:13 AM
But why do the Palestinians have to compromise on anything? Dont they have equal rights to other people around the world? What right does the UN have to create a colonialist power (Israel)? To rob land etc etc!
No land was robbed; it was acquired legally. The Jews bought malaria-infested swampland from the Arabs, and by immense hard work and sacrifice, made it highly productive.


The Jewish leaders in Europe were offered other homelands, even in Australia but rejected such, even to the point they let many more Jews die in gas chambers rather than compromise on where their homeland will be.
Mistakes were made, and even worse ones, such as the British turning back refugees into Palestine, but the Nazis were the killers.


This is a great crime that is unspoken because the victims are dead. There are two guilty parties the Nazis and the Jewish leaders. The major powers that set up Israel are guilty of turning away Jewish refugees during the Nazi era, they are guilty as well, not the Palestinians.
While the Arab nationalists of the region allied closely with the Nazis
yLRTe-lZMB0


The Palestinians were against massive immigration due to land disputes as well the the shocking attitude of European Jews to Palestinians and even to M/E Jews.
The Palestinian Arabs were rioting against Jews, including massacres.


They were racist, acted superior, arrogant etc.
Nothing like the Jew-hatred in Palestinian Arab schools.


Israel is almost full of such people now if you were to meet Israelis. I have met many.
Not likely. They want peace. Their peace with Egypt and Jordan show that Israel honours treaties and will leave others alone if they will leave Israel alone.


They may actually believe they are God's Chosen People, I have no idea.
The modern State of Israel has always been quite secular.


If the superpowers wanted to be generous to the Zionists they should have offered them land in their own countries, not somebody elses
Palestine was their historic homeland. Every passover for 1,800 years, they said "Next year in Jerusalem!".

Are you playing "bad cop" to IM's "good cop", to help make his moderate statements more acceptable? :P For the record, Netanyahu has said he would be the first to recognize a Palestinian Arab state, as long as they finally recognized the Jewish State.

antichrist
16-12-2011, 08:28 AM
There were minor Arab massacres of Jews in Palestine and it was due to what I mentioned above, the European Jews being total ar..holes. I even seen an Israeli movie about it on SBS, how arrogant, rude etc. Just like many I have met in Australia.

There could be anti-Jewish propaganda now in Islamic schools, but what do you expect after 60 years of Zionism Nazism.

The Jews whilst in enclosed ghettos in Europe used terrorist tactics against the German forces, exactly the same as the Palestinians use in Jewish-imposed ghettoes in Israel and West Bank and Gaza.

If the Mufti sided with Hitler maybe it was because of the hatred that locals had acquired for the arrogant European Jews who were invading Palestine. The same people are still doing the same tricks now, stealing more land and treating Palestinians like poop. Consistency is their virtue.

Of course Israel will keep peace with Egypt, it is in it's own interest to do so. And Egypt is not part of the God's gift to the ancient Hebrews.

The biggest con trick in history that Zionists are trying to pull over the world. What stupid God is there to back up their claim - the one who left to die under the Nazis. That is why the Jews rely on their own resources to survive - they know that relying on a god is totally useless and self defeating - but still valuable currency for bluffing the rest of the world with - the Promised Land concept.

So what if Palestine was the Jewish passover for 1800 or even 2800 years. If we are going to recognise ""land rights"" after such a gap then other displaced peoples all over the world have the same rights. That is the American natives can tell the whites to piss off, put them in concentration camps etc etc. The same can go for Aussie Aborigines. We know that Oz Aborigines have been in Oz for between 50,000 and 100,000 years and had constant occupancy here. Where the Hebrews only had a ""passing"" connection with Palestine. It is not their homeland, back of Iraq is.


If the Arabs recognise a Jewish state it means that Right of Return can be denied to millons of Palestinian refugees - that is cementing in more injustice. The importance is in the fine detail and fine print.

The modern Jewish state until about 20 years ago was quite secular, but since Rabins assassination by Zionist extremist, it has gone Nazi. And the Nazis are winning there. Which is why the world is totally turning off Israel except those countries that have a extremely well funded and connected Jewish lobby, i.e, Australia and USA.


But the tides are slowly turning.

Ian Murray
16-12-2011, 08:57 AM
... For the record, Netanyahu has said he would be the first to recognize a Palestinian Arab state, as long as they finally recognized the Jewish State.
Israel is occupying/blockading that Palestinian state and colonising occupied territory in breach of the Geneva Conventions ("The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"). Along with recognition the territory needs to be returned, where Netanyahu is part of the problem not part of the solution. He has no intention of yielding any occupied territory regardless of any statements he may make to placate international opinion.

An insight into the man here (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/03/21/110321taco_talk_remnick)

Mephistopheles
16-12-2011, 10:27 AM
There could be anti-Jewish propaganda now in Islamic schools, but what do you expect after 60 years of Zionism Nazism.

(emphasis mine)

It is drivel such as this that makes it impossible to offer reasonable criticism of the actions of Israel without being labelled an anti-Semite. It adds nothing to the debate and essentially makes a reasonable position indefensible due to its extremity.

Zionism != Nazism.

Learn it.

antichrist
16-12-2011, 11:08 AM
(emphasis mine)

It is drivel such as this that makes it impossible to offer reasonable criticism of the actions of Israel without being labelled an anti-Semite. It adds nothing to the debate and essentially makes a reasonable position indefensible due to its extremity.

Zionism != Nazism.

Learn it.

The quote is not anti-Semitic and I am not anti-Semitic. The Zionists will label it anti-Semitic to try to stem just criticism. Zionism as currently practised in Israel is adopting many traits of what the Nazis did in the 1930s and early 1940s. Zionism has been labelled as racist by UN (since undone under pressure from Zionist lobby).

I will give an example: http://www.smh.com.au/world/crackdown-on-settler-attacks-20111215-1owyo.html

"We need to stop bad things when they are small, and this is small and we will stop it now" ... Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu Photo: Reuters

(this quote if had been utilised when occupied territories were first conquered we would not have the settler problem now, it took the might of Sharon to undo some of the damage. ..AC)


JERUSALEM: Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, after meeting senior defence and judicial officials, has announced steps aimed at curbing the ''price tag'' campaign by radical Jewish settlers who attack Palestinians and Israeli security forces.

The steps include two controversial tools being used by Israel only against Palestinians - keeping suspected perpetrators in prison under administrative detention, meaning without charge or trial, and trying them in military courts.
The move came after a second day of Jewish settler violence on Wednesday, in which a disused Jerusalem mosque was defaced and set aflame and Palestinian vehicles in the West Bank were pelted, burnt and spray-painted.

Mr Netanyahu said he rejected, for now, officially describing the radical settlers as ''terrorists'', which would have allowed the government to apply anti-terror legislation against them, urged on Mr Netanyahu by many on the political left.

Mr Netanyahu said the radicals were not representative of the larger settler population.
The New York Times

AC
As I was saying a few posts up, it is the shocking attitude of the Zionists, either now or a hundred years ago that turns the Palestinians against them. They have not learnt that you just should not do such things. The liberal left wing Jews understand perfectly and try to ease the burden inflicted on the Palestinians. They are heroes and martyrs.

antichrist
16-12-2011, 11:28 AM
FaithWorld
Religion, faith and ethics


Jewish settlers’ “Price Tag” mosque-burning campaign spreads to Israel
OCT 6, 2011 11:40 EDT


ISRAEL PALESTINIAN JEWISH MUSLIM MOSQUE ARSON SETTLERS WEST BANK ATTACK

A Palestinian stands near a vandalised mosque door in the West Bank village of Yatma near Nablus September 8, 2011. The graffiti includes the Hebrew acronym for the words "Price Tag."/Abed Omar Qusini)

They strike in the dead of night, setting fire to mosques and daubing their walls with “Price Tag” graffiti, the defiant slogan of Israeli settlers waging a vigilante campaign branded as “un-Jewish” by President Shimon Peres.

The “price-taggers” have vowed to avenge any move by Israeli authorities to uproot settlement outposts built in the occupied West Bank without Israeli government permission.

Dozens of those outposts, which Israel has repeatedly promised its main ally, the United States, to remove, remain on lonely West Bank hilltops on land to which many settlers claim a Biblical right and where Palestinians want to build a state.

On some of the few occasions when Israeli army bulldozers have torn down structures at the outposts, Palestinian villagers have awoken the next morning to find a local mosque charred by fire and with the now-familiar graffiti on its walls.

Israeli leaders have condemned the incidents. But no one has been charged in the three arson attacks in the West Bank over the past year, an indication, Palestinians say, of indifference by a right-wing government that includes pro-settler parties.

Now the “Price Tag” campaign has widened to include vandalism at an Israeli army base in the West Bank and the torching of two mosques, one this week in a Bedouin village inside Israel, touching a nerve among the country’s leaders and the public.

At stake is the delicate fabric of co-existence between Israel’s Jewish majority and its Arab minority, which makes up some 20 percent of the population.
-------------------------------------------------------

AC
and what was I saying about the Zionists imitating the Nazis?

Mephistopheles
16-12-2011, 06:41 PM
The quote is not anti-Semitic and I am not anti-Semitic.
I made no claim that it was and I made no claim that you were. If you think I did, post your proof or STFU.


The Zionists will label it anti-Semitic to try to stem just criticism.
And that is exactly my point. The claim that Zionism == Nazism is not only ridiculous (as it is patently untrue) but it allows Zionists to label any criticism of Israeli government actions as anti-Semitic. Stupid claims like that just play into the hands of those who will brook no criticism of Israel and they add nothing to the debate. In short, they are idiotic.

[snip irrelevance]

antichrist
16-12-2011, 07:11 PM
Just for the sake of arguing a minor point....

Zionism and Nazism are extreme racist theories

Zionism and Nazism are extreme nationalist theories

Zionism and Nazism both call on a higher power for authority

Zionism and Nazism both consider their races superior to other people and others being degenerates (similar to first)

Zionism and Nazism both consider themselves a persecuted, suffering people needing redemption

Zionism and Nazism both have a Holy Book

Zionism and Nazism both have saviours

Zionists and Nazists both want to steal other people's land and resources
-----------------------------------------

BTW I appreciate what you are getting at and will answer soon

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2011, 03:45 AM
Israel is occupying/blockading that Palestinian state
Of course, because it is attacking Israel by firing rockets at it.


and colonising occupied territory in breach of the Geneva Conventions ("The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies").
I didn't realise that Hamas and Hezbollah were signatories. If they want the protections of the Conventions, that comes with the responsibilities as well.


Along with recognition the territory needs to be returned, where Netanyahu is part of the problem not part of the solution. He has no intention of yielding any occupied territory regardless of any statements he may make to placate international opinion.
Why yield still more? They already made "land for peace" deals and got no peace. Let the Arabs first show that they can be trusted to honour the deals they already have, and renounce violence and stop the rockets, before demanding still more concessions of their tiny land which has few concessions to spare.


An insight into the man here (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/03/21/110321taco_talk_remnick)
Another leftard rag.

antichrist
17-12-2011, 06:50 AM
Why yield still more? They already made "land for peace" deals and got no peace. Let the Arabs first show that they can be trusted to honour the deals they already have, and renounce violence and stop the rockets, before demanding still more concessions of their tiny land which has few concessions to spare.


AC
Jono, I have repeatedly pointed out to you, and it is in everyone's memory as only a few years ago, that there was no land for peace deals re Gaza. Zionist Nazis could no longer control the situation due to Infitadas etc, and because of this had become too costly as well. There were not agreements when the Zionists Nazis moved out of Gaza. It was a unilateral decision.

Ian Murray
17-12-2011, 07:48 PM
Of course, because it is attacking Israel by firing rockets at it.
In retaliation for air/artillery strikes, in retaliation for rocket attacks, and on it goes. Both sides have to talk to each other; platitudes like "[Netanyahu] said he would be the first to recognize a Palestinian Arab state, as long as they finally recognized the Jewish State" are weasel words alongside complete intransigence in making real concessions, as revealed in the "Palestine Papers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession)".

I didn't realise that Hamas and Hezbollah were signatories. If they want the protections of the Conventions, that comes with the responsibilities as well.
You're not too aware at all when it comes to matters of law. Quite apart from the fact that the Conventions are ratified by States only (a Palestinian attempt to ratify in 1989 was not acted upon, due to the legal uncertainty of Palestinian statehood), the Fourth Convention gives protection to civilians affected by armed conflict. As the occupying power, Israel is obliged during transition of power to administer the civil population and provide security and maintain order. Colonisation is explicitly illegal.

Why yield still more? They already made "land for peace" deals and got no peace. Let the Arabs first show that they can be trusted to honour the deals they already have, and renounce violence and stop the rockets, before demanding still more concessions of their tiny land which has few concessions to spare.
The Camp David Accords successfully brokered the return of Sinai in exchange for normal relations with Egypt. There have been no other land-for-peace deals. The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was not any sort of deal; Israel maintains a stranglehold by controlling the borders and air space and solely decides who and what enters and leaves the Strip.

Another leftard rag.
Of course. Netanyahu is really an honourable man of his word, leading a coalition of moderates. Why Sarkozy would call him "such a liar" is inexplicable.

antichrist
17-12-2011, 07:56 PM
Jewish mothers fight jail over segregation



Michael Blum


JERUSALEM: Dozens of ultra-Orthodox Jewish fathers spent their first morning in jail yesterday for defying a school integration ruling by Israel's Supreme Court, a day after huge protests.

But 22 mothers of pupils at an ultra-Orthodox girls' school in a West Bank settlement were given a stay of arrest while the court met to hear a plea to let them stay at home to care for their families.

.................................................. .........

About 100,000 angry ultra-Orthodox Jews rallied in Jerusalem on Thursday in protest at the court's decision to jail a group of parents of European origin, or Ashkenazim, for refusing to send their daughters to a school with Jewish girls whose families originate from Arab countries, known as Sephardim.

The 35 fathers who turned themselves in at Jerusalem police headquarters on Thursday evening were taken to Maasiyahu prison in the central city of Ramle to serve an initial two-week sentence for contempt of court.

The issue erupted when the Supreme Court intervened in a dispute at the ultra-Orthodox school in the Immanuel settlement, where parents from the strictly observant Slonim Hassidic sect of Ashkenazic Jewry refused to let their girls attend classes with Sephardic girls.

The court had given the parents until Wednesday to send their children back to school or be imprisoned for contempt of court. The parents refused.

.................................................. ......

On Thursday the streets were flooded with men in trademark black wide-brimmed hats and lined with police as the rally stretched several blocks and paralysed traffic in and around the city. The scale of the demonstration, for a city whose Jewish population is half a million, was enormous.

.................................................. ........

Some held banners proclaiming ''The Torah Rules!'', referring to the supremacy of biblical law over the secular justice system.



Agence France-Presse, Guardian News & Media

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/jewish-mothers-fight-jail-over-segregation-20100618-ymrk.html#ixzz1gmdwyCHA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AC
this is exactly the point have been making earlier. When European Jews came to the Middle East 100+ years ago they refused to integrate with local Jews or Arabs, this led to the Arabs not wanting any more of them coming into the area.

How can Palestinians be expected to live with such arrogant people who have invaded and stolen their land, and who get treated a hundred times worse than the local Jews do.

Oh just deport more Palestinians to create a pure Jewish state to satisfy people like KB and others who won't dare support the just cause of the Palestinians to throw the Zionist yoke off their necks, that they have suffered under for 60 years. That is revoke the Right of Return of millions of dislocated Palestinians that they have under international law.

Ethnic cleansing and nothing short of is what they are practising. UN officials have even stated such.

antichrist
18-12-2011, 12:13 PM
"As a comment on modern Israel, its hard to look past the wire mesh installed above the Palestinian markets in Hebron's Old City to catch rubbish burled down by Jewish settlers in the apartments above - dirty nappies, broken glass, rocks. Try to talk there...and there's every chance you will wear a bag of warm urine"

AC
this is the poop that Palestinians have to put with from international-law-breaking land-robbing settler Zionists for 60 years - no wonder the Zionists are not wanted over there! If the Zionists cannot respect the people that they have stolen land, pride, water etc from then they should deported back to Europe and wherever

Capablanca-Fan
19-12-2011, 09:30 AM
O7ByJb7QQ9U#at=71

Ian Murray
19-12-2011, 10:08 AM
Hamas moves away from violence in deal with Palestinian Authority (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/18/hamas-moves-from-violence-palestinian)
Phoebe Greenwood in Gaza City
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 December 2011

Hamas has confirmed that it will shift tactics away from violent attacks on Israel as part of a rapprochement with the Palestinian Authority.

A spokesman for the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniya, told the Guardian that the Islamic party, which has controlled Gaza for the past five years, was shifting its emphasis from armed struggle to non-violent resistance....

Ian Murray
19-12-2011, 09:24 PM
Sujet: Avnery on Gingrich
Date : Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:46:47 +0200
De : Uri Avnery <avnery@actcom.co.il>
Répondre à : avnery@actcom.co.il
Pour : uri-avnery@list.avnery-news.co.il


Hi,
Hope this may interest you.
Shalom, Salamaat,
uri



Uri Avnery
December 17, 2011


“With Friends Like These…”


MY GOD, what a bizarre lot these Republican aspirants for the US
presidency are!


What a sorry bunch of ignoramuses and downright crazies. Or, at best,
what a bunch of cheats and cynics! (With the possible exception of the
good doctor Ron Paul)”.


Is this the best a great and proud nation can produce? How frightening
the thought that one of them may actually become the most powerful
person in the world, with a finger on the biggest nuclear button!



BUT LET’S concentrate on the present front-runner. (Republicans seem to
change front-runners like a fastidious beau changes socks.)


It’s Newt Gingrich. Remember him? The Speaker of the House who had an
extra-marital affair with an intern while at the same time leading the
campaign to impeach President Bill Clinton for having an affair with an
intern.


But that’s not the point. The point is that this intellectual giant *
named after Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist ever * has
discovered a great historical truth.


The original Newton discovered the Law of Gravity. Newton Leroy Gingrich
has discovered something no less earth-shaking: there is an “invented”
people around, referring to the Palestinians.


To which a humble Israeli like me might answer, in the best Hebrew
slang: “Good morning, Eliyahu!” Thus we honor people who have made a
great discovery which, unfortunately, has been discovered by others long
before.



FROM ITS very beginning, the Zionist movement has denied the existence
of the Palestinian people. It’s an article of faith.


The reason is obvious: if there exists a Palestinian people, then the
country the Zionists were about to take over was not empty. Zionism
would entail an injustice of historic proportions. Being very idealistic
persons, the original Zionists found a way out of this moral dilemma:
they simply denied its existence. The winning slogan was “A land without
a people for a people without a land.”


So who were these curious human beings they met when they came to the
country? Oh, ah, well, they were just people who happened to be there,
but not “a” people. Passers-by, so to speak. Later, the story goes,
after we had made the desert bloom and turned an arid and neglected land
into a paradise, Arabs from all over the region flocked to the country,
and now they have the temerity * indeed the chutzpah * to claim that
they constitute a Palestinian nation!


For many years after the founding of the State of Israel, this was the
official line. Golda Meir famously exclaimed: “There is no such thing as
a Palestinian people!”


(To which I replied in the Knesset: “Mrs. Prime Minister, perhaps you
are right. Perhaps there really is no Palestinian people. But if
millions of people mistakenly believe that they are a people, and behave
like a people, then they are a people.”)


A huge propaganda machine * both in Israel and abroad * was employed to
“prove” that there was no Palestinian people. A lady called Joan Peters
wrote a book (“From Time Immemorial”) proving that the riffraff calling
themselves “Palestinians” had nothing to do with Palestine. They are
nothing but interlopers and impostors. The book was immensely successful
* until some experts took it apart and proved that the whole edifice of
conclusive proofs was utter rubbish.


I myself have spent many hundreds of hours trying to convince Israeli
and foreign audiences that there is a Palestinian people and that we
have to make peace with them. Until one day the State of Israel
recognized the PLO as the sole representative of the “Palestinian
people”, and the argument was laid to rest.


Until Newt came along and, like a later-day Jesus, raised it from the dead.



OBVIOUSLY, HE is much too busy to read books. True, he was once a
teacher of history, but for many years now he has been very busy
speakering the Congress, making a fortune as an “adviser” of big
corporations and now trying to become president.


Otherwise, he would probably have come across a brilliant historical
book by Benedict Anderson, “Imagined Communities”, which asserts that
all modern nations are invented.


Nationalism is a relatively recent historical phenomenon. When a
community decides to become a nation, it has to reinvent itself. That
means inventing a national past, reshuffling historical facts (and
non-facts) in order to create a coherent picture of a nation existing
since antiquity. Hermann the Cherusker, member of a Germanic tribe who
betrayed his Roman employers, became a “national” hero. Religious
refugees who landed in America and destroyed the native population
became a “nation”. Members of an ethnic-religious Diaspora formed
themselves into a “Jewish nation”. Many others did more or less the same.


Indeed, Newt would profit from reading a book by a Tel Aviv University
professor, Shlomo Sand, a kosher Jew, whose Hebrew title speaks for
itself: “When and How the Jewish People was Invented?”


Who are these Palestinians? About a hundred years ago, two young
students in Istanbul, David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the future
Prime Minister and President (respectively) of Israel, wrote a treatise
about the Palestinians. The population of this country, they said, has
never changed. Only small elites were sometimes deported. The towns and
villages never moved, as their names prove. Canaanites became
Israelites, then Jews and Samaritans, then Christian Byzantines. With
the Arab conquest, they slowly adopted the religion of Islam and the
Arabic Culture. These are today’s Palestinians. I tend to agree with them.



PARROTING THE straight Zionist propaganda line * by now discarded by
most Zionists * Gingrich argues that there can be no Palestinian people
because there never was a Palestinian state. The people in this country
were just “Arabs” under Ottoman rule.


So what? I used to hear from French colonial masters that there is no
Algerian people, because there never was an Algerian state, there was
never even a united country called Algeria. Any takers for this theory now?


The name “Palestine” was mentioned by a Greek historian some 2500 years
ago. A “Duke of Palestine” is mentioned in the Talmud. When the Arabs
conquered the country, they called it “Filastin”, as they still do”.
The Arab national movement came into being all over the Arab world,
including Palestine * at the same time as the Zionist movement * and
strove for independence from the Ottoman Sultan.


For centuries, Palestine was considered a part of Greater Syria (the
region known in Arabic as 'Sham'). There was no formal distinction
between Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians and Jordanians. But when, after
the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the European powers divided the Arab
world between them, a state called Palestine became a fact under the
British Mandate, and the Arab Palestinian people established themselves
as a separate nation with a national flag of their own. Many peoples in
Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America did the same, even without asking
Gingrich for confirmation.


It would certainly be ironic if the members of the “invented”
Palestinian nation were expected to ask for recognition from the members
of the “invented” Jewish/Israeli nation, at the demand of a member of
the “invented” American nation, a person who, by the way, is of mixed
German, English, Scottish and Irish stock.


Years ago, there was short-lived controversy about Palestinian
textbooks. It was argued that they were anti-Semitic and incited to
murder. That was laid to rest when it became clear that all Palestinian
schoolbooks were cleared by the Israeli occupation authorities, and most
were inherited from the previous Jordanian regime. But Gingrich does not
shrink from resurrecting this corpse, too.


All Palestinians * men, women and children * are terrorists, he asserts,
and Palestinian pupils learn at school how to kill us poor and helpless
Israelis. Ah, what would we do without such stout defenders as Newt?
What a pity that this week a photo of him, shaking the hand of Yasser
Arafat, was published.


And please don’t show him the textbooks used in some of our schools,
especially the religious ones!



IS IT really a waste of time to write about such nonsense?


It may seem so, but one cannot ignore the fact that the dispenser of
these inanities may be tomorrow’s President of the United States of
America. Given the economic situation, that is not as unlikely as it sounds.


As for now, Gingrich is doing immense damage to the national interests
of the US. At this historic juncture, the masses at all the Tahrir
Squares across the Arab world are wondering about America’s attitude.
Newt’s answer contributes to a new and more profound anti-Americanism.


Alas, he is not the only extreme rightist seeking to embrace Israel.
Israel has lately become the Mecca of all the world’s racists. This week
we were honored by the visit of the husband of Marine Le Pen, leader of
the French National Front. A pilgrimage to the Jewish State is now a
must for any aspiring fascist.


One of our ancient sages coined the phrase: “Not for nothing does the
starling go to the raven. It’s because they are of the same kind”.


Thanks. But sorry. They are not of my kind.


To quote another proverb: With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2011, 12:19 PM
Sujet: Avnery on Gingrich
Date : Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:46:47 +0200
De : Uri Avnery <avnery@actcom.co.il>
Répondre à : avnery@actcom.co.il
Pour : uri-avnery@list.avnery-news.co.il

What a waffly politically correct leftard rant. Yet the historical fact remains: the Arabs in the region did not consider themselves a separate people until recently. Rather, they considered themselves to be part of Syria. Before that, they were part of the Ottoman Empire. They had no president, distinct language or culture, or currency. Even now, all they agree about is annihilation of the "Zionist Entity".

It's actually a huge improvement on previous Israel-criticising Arab-appeasers like the Bushes to have a GOP candidate prepared to puncture the manufactured "Palestinian" people. It wasn't that long ago, i.e. the Buenos Aires olympiad of 1939, that the "Palestine" team was led by Jews like Moshe Czerniak.

antichrist
20-12-2011, 12:30 PM
What a waffly politically correct leftard rant. Yet the historical fact remains: the Arabs in the region did not consider themselves a separate people until recently. Rather, they considered themselves to be part of Syria. Before that, they were part of the Ottoman Empire. They had no president, distinct language or culture, or currency. Even now, all they agree about is annihilation of the "Zionist Entity".

It's actually a huge improvement on previous Israel-criticising Arab-appeasers like the Bushes to have a GOP candidate prepared to puncture the manufactured "Palestinian" people. It wasn't that long ago, i.e. the Buenos Aires olympiad of 1939, that the "Palestine" team was led by Jews like Moshe Czerniak.

Yes a unified one party state for Palestine is how it should be, for Sephardim Jews and Arab Palestinians, all living according to John Lennon's Imagine recipe (love throwing you this one at you Jono). No segregation or racism or religiouis extremism as many of the Ultra-Orthdox and Ashkenazim Jews are prone to. In such a hot situation there the Sephardim Jews are the only ones that I believe should be allowed to live there. With 100% full rights of course.

Once two state concept comes in it displaces millions of Arab Palestinians forever, a further erosion of human rights that has been happening for 65 years.

antichrist
20-12-2011, 12:44 PM
strictly speaking if the European Ashkenazim Jews did not come to Middle East there would have been very little problems between the peoples there.

antichrist
21-12-2011, 07:05 PM
http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=684

I dont agree with all this guys definitions etc but with the central message yes

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2011, 01:53 AM
Christians in imminent danger across the world are refused refugee status while Muslim refugee immigration goes unimpeded (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/11/-afghan-christians-in-danger-at-home-and-abroad-are-refused-refugee-status-while-muslim-refugee-emig.html)

US policy regarding the refugee resettlement program would shock most Americans if they only knew. The UN picks who becomes US refugees. Christians are being refused refugee status and face persecution and many times certain death for their religious beliefs under the sharia, while whole Muslim communities are entering the US by the tens of thousands per month despite the fact that they face no religious persecution.

It is horrifying that Afghan Christians are being refused refugee status by the UN and many Western nations, including Britain. The UN claims that Afghan Christians do not meet the criteria for refugees under Statute 6B of the UN High Commission of Refugees (UNHCR), which requires refugees to have "a well founded fear of persecution by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion." …

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2011, 02:39 PM
“I think there is an Arab nation. I do not think there is a Palestinian nation. I think it is a colonialist invention … When were Palestinians? … until the 19th century Palestine was the south of greater Syria.”—Arab Member of Israeli Knesset MK Azmi Bishara, 1994.

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2011, 02:50 PM
Mr. Islam's Blindfold and Machete (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/12/mr-islams-blindfold-and-machete.html)
Daniel Greenfield

Islam is peaceful. At least that is the likely defense of Rafiqi Islam, a loving husband, who told his wife that he had a present for her, blindfolded her to make it a surprise and then cut off her fingers. Then the rest of the Islam family mopped up the blood, while Mr. Islam threw her fingers into the trash, and after a few hours took her to the hospital where they warned her to tell the doctors that she had an accident.


The proximate cause of this event was that Mrs. Islam wanted to continue her education and Mr. Islam being a good Emirati Muslim was not so fond of the idea. Islam must be given credit for directness. When Muslims want to punish women for their sexuality, such as not wearing the Hijab, they throw acid in their faces. When they want to punish them for getting an education, they cut off their fingers with a machete.

But before the machete comes down, the blindfold goes up. …

There are a number of lessons here. The first is don't go into a room with Mr. Islam. The second is don't put on a blindfold when he tells you that he has a surprise for you. The third is don't marry Mr. Islam in the first place.

Unfortunately the free world has been forced into an arranged marriage with Mr. Islam. One day he just showed up on our doorstep and the authorities told us we would be living with him from now on. Sometimes he cuts off a head, plants a bomb or kills a few thousand people—but when we complain to the authorities, they warn us not to cast any aspersions on the good name of Mr. Islam. There might be people doing these terrible things, but it's only because we haven't made them feel at home. We didn't make their coffee just right, we told the wrong jokes and didn't prop up their self-esteem. But whoever those people are, they are certainly not Mr. Islam who is a fine peaceful gentleman and would never harm a fly. …

Rincewind
22-12-2011, 02:59 PM
Christians in imminent danger across the world are refused refugee status while Muslim refugee immigration goes unimpeded (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/11/-afghan-christians-in-danger-at-home-and-abroad-are-refused-refugee-status-while-muslim-refugee-emig.html)

US policy regarding the refugee resettlement program would shock most Americans if they only knew. The UN picks who becomes US refugees. Christians are being refused refugee status and face persecution and many times certain death for their religious beliefs under the sharia, while whole Muslim communities are entering the US by the tens of thousands per month despite the fact that they face no religious persecution.

It is horrifying that Afghan Christians are being refused refugee status by the UN and many Western nations, including Britain. The UN claims that Afghan Christians do not meet the criteria for refugees under Statute 6B of the UN High Commission of Refugees (UNHCR), which requires refugees to have "a well founded fear of persecution by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion." …

I see this blog entry repeats the story of the boiling water/acid in the face of an asylum seeker in Norway. Just a question as I haven't been following this thread very closely.

Has any evidence surfaced that this story is actually true and not just made up ex nihilo in the anti-Islamic bloggosphere?

Ian Murray
22-12-2011, 04:44 PM
Christians in imminent danger across the world are refused refugee status while Muslim refugee immigration goes unimpeded (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/11/-afghan-christians-in-danger-at-home-and-abroad-are-refused-refugee-status-while-muslim-refugee-emig.html)
Where are these refugee camps full of Christian refugees awaiting processing and resettlement?

Ian Murray
22-12-2011, 07:10 PM
“I think there is an Arab nation. I do not think there is a Palestinian nation. I think it is a colonialist invention … When were Palestinians? … until the 19th century Palestine was the south of greater Syria.”—Arab Member of Israeli Knesset MK Azmi Bishara, 1994.
There are many Arab nations. The long-standing inhabitants and ousted inhabitants of what is now called Palestine lived there for centuries. Where the former colonial powers drew the lines on a map is irrelevant - they remain the native population (plus a 5% Jewish minority).

Ian Murray
22-12-2011, 07:13 PM
I see this blog entry repeats the story of the boiling water/acid in the face of an asylum seeker in Norway. Just a question as I haven't been following this thread very closely.

Has any evidence surfaced that this story is actually true and not just made up ex nihilo in the anti-Islamic bloggosphere?
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. The Norwegian beat-up has entered the realms of an urban myth.

antichrist
22-12-2011, 07:15 PM
There are many Arab nations. The long-standing inhabitants and ousted inhabitants of what is now called Palestine lived there for centuries. Where the former colonial powers drew the lines on a map is irrelevant - they remain the native population (plus a 5% Jewish minority).


AC
The Jews are also Arabs - just another tribe - except for the European ones and other converts

From wiki just checked now: Arab Jews (Arabic: اليهود العرب‎ al-Yahūd al-ʿArab; Hebrew: יהודים ערבים‎ Yehudim `Aravim) is a term referring to Jews living in the Arab World, or Jews descended from such persons.[1]
The term was occasionally used in the early 20th century, mainly by Arab nationalists, to describe the 1 million Jews living in the Arab world at the time. Most of this population has either been forced out, or voluntarily left, after the founding of Israel in 1948, for the new Jewish state or Western Europe, and to a smaller degree the United States and South America. They spoke Arabic, using one of the many Arabic dialects (see also Judæo-Arabic languages) as their primary community language, with Hebrew reserved as a liturgical language. They usually followed Sephardi Jewish liturgy, making them one of the largest groups among Mizrahi Jews.
In recent decades the term has come back into some usage by Jews who self-identify as Arab Jews, such as Albert Memmi, a Zionist who uses the term to claim his rights in the Middle East, and Ella Shohat, an anti-Zionist who uses the term in contrast to the Zionist establishment's categorization of Jews as either Ashkenazim or Mizrahim; the latter, she believes, have been oppressed as the Arabs have. Other public figures who refer to themselves as Arab Jews include David Shasha, Director of the Center for Sephardic Heritage, and Amiel Alcalay, a professor at Queens College in New York who began emphasizing the importance of his identity as an Arab Jew in the 1990s.[2] André Azoulay, Jewish adviser to Moroccan King Mohammed VI, also defines himself as an Arab Jew,[3] as does Sasson Somekh in a recent memoir [4]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AC
so it appears that my own conclusion was correct. Real Jews are Arabs!

the passage highlighted in navy I completely agree with, they have full rights regardless of what any side says, genuine Jew or convert or any Arab

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2011, 08:19 AM
Where are these refugee camps full of Christian refugees awaiting processing and resettlement?
Are you doubting the very real persecution of Christians in places where Islamists have taken over? Afghanistan lost its last church not long ago, and converts face the death penalty.

Ian Murray
23-12-2011, 08:25 AM
Are you doubting the very real persecution of Christians in places where Islamists have taken over? Afghanistan lost its last church not long ago, and converts face the death penalty.
Your post claims they are being refused refugee status. For their refugee status to be considered, first they must become refugees - they must flee the country.
If they remain, obviously they are not refugees.

antichrist
23-12-2011, 08:28 AM
Are you doubting the very real persecution of Christians in places where Islamists have taken over? Afghanistan lost its last church not long ago, and converts face the death penalty.

JOno, why dont you care about all the Palestinian refugees of many faiths, there are millions of them and all because of Nazi Israel