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

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2011, 08:40 AM
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.
It should be obvious: to be able to flee, in many cases, they must be granted refugee status. If the Islamofacists kill them before they can pass the christophobic bureaucratic hoops, then they can't become refugees according to your definition. But it's something of a Catch-22. What part of the following was too difficult to understand:


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.

But leftards, including Obamov as well as home grown ones, have never cared about persecution of Christians.

antichrist
23-12-2011, 08:49 AM
The Zionists are picking on the Muslim Palestinians in Israel/Palestine the same way, why dont you pick on the Zionist-Nazis as well

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2011, 08:54 AM
JOno, why dont you care about all the Palestinian refugees of many faiths, there are millions of them and all because of Nazi Israel
Because they are bogus refugees. A lot left because of Arab promises that they could return after the Jews were pushed into the sea. Some just fled the war zone. But they seem to be the only "refugees" with a problem after several generations. Israel resettled 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. Alan Dershowitz says:


"But the Arab leaders did not want peace. They used the refugee issue to encourage continuing belligerency. It became an excuse for not making peace - for not accepting the reality that the ancient land of Israel-Palestine could be populated by two peoples and divided into two nations. It should be recalled that between 1948 and 1967, Israel posed no barrier to the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. There was no Palestinian state because the Arab leaders did not want a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state. Their collective goal was the total destruction of the Jewish state. The Palestinian refugees would better serve that goal if they were kept in camps as a homeless people than if they were allowed to move out of the camps and establish their own state.

"I believed then, and I believe now, that those who singled out the "plight" of the Arab refugees were more interested in singling out those who had allegedly caused the problem - namely the Jews - than they were in helping those who were its victims. Elevating the Arab refugee problem above the more compelling problem of other groups was a form of indirect international anti-Semitism, acceptable in a world too close to the Holocaust to legitimate direct anti-Jewish bigotry.

"A New York Times story of August 12, 1990, described the plight of 'fifteen million men, women and children' who have been 'internationally recognized as refugees.' Following World War II, the number was between thirty-three and forty-three million, and at the time the Palestinian refugee problem began - with 600,000 to 750,000 refugees - the number throughout the world was between sixteen and eighteen million. Many of the current group are refugees from Islamic nations. Yet the world knows little of their situation. Only the Palestinian refugees have received widespread international support. It is fair to ask why."

antichrist
23-12-2011, 09:08 AM
Because they are bogus refugees. A lot left because of Arab promises that they could return after the Jews were pushed into the sea. Some just fled the war zone. But they seem to be the only "refugees" with a problem after several generations. Israel resettled 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries. Alan Dershowitz says:


"But the Arab leaders did not want peace. They used the refugee issue to encourage continuing belligerency. It became an excuse for not making peace - for not accepting the reality that the ancient land of Israel-Palestine could be populated by two peoples and divided into two nations. It should be recalled that between 1948 and 1967, Israel posed no barrier to the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. There was no Palestinian state because the Arab leaders did not want a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state. Their collective goal was the total destruction of the Jewish state. The Palestinian refugees would better serve that goal if they were kept in camps as a homeless people than if they were allowed to move out of the camps and establish their own state.

"I believed then, and I believe now, that those who singled out the "plight" of the Arab refugees were more interested in singling out those who had allegedly caused the problem - namely the Jews - than they were in helping those who were its victims. Elevating the Arab refugee problem above the more compelling problem of other groups was a form of indirect international anti-Semitism, acceptable in a world too close to the Holocaust to legitimate direct anti-Jewish bigotry.

"A New York Times story of August 12, 1990, described the plight of 'fifteen million men, women and children' who have been 'internationally recognized as refugees.' Following World War II, the number was between thirty-three and forty-three million, and at the time the Palestinian refugee problem began - with 600,000 to 750,000 refugees - the number throughout the world was between sixteen and eighteen million. Many of the current group are refugees from Islamic nations. Yet the world knows little of their situation. Only the Palestinian refugees have received widespread international support. It is fair to ask why."


love this jono will get back later

Ian Murray
23-12-2011, 09:18 AM
It should be obvious: to be able to flee, in many cases, they must be granted refugee status. If the Islamofacists kill them before they can pass the christophobic bureaucratic hoops, then they can't become refugees according to your definition. But it's something of a Catch-22. What part of the following was too difficult to understand:


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.
Again you display your ignorance of international law. The Refugee Convention and subsequent Protocol define a refugee as follows:

For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who .... owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Note my emphasis. There is no UN conspiracy to exclude Christians. Under the Convention no-one can be considered a refugee unless he meets the criteria, including having left his country. There is no provision for seeking refugee status before fleeing.

antichrist
23-12-2011, 09:29 AM
Note my emphasis. There is no UN conspiracy to exclude Christians. Under the Convention no-one can be considered a refugee unless he meets the criteria, including having left his country. There is no provision for seeking refugee status before fleeing.

AC
And so the Palestinians in Israel are not refugees because they are still in their own country - get it! But as living under an occupied force they are just as worse off as those Christians getting persecuted in Muslim countries.

And if Israel formally becomes recognised as a Jewish state it can refuse Right of Return to millions of Palestinians refugees. Just as some of those Muslim-dominated Arab countries want to do to the Christians and Jews in their midst.

So the conclusion is the same: Zionists are no better than Islofacists! Actually the Zionists are worse because they are a foreign occupier and the Muslim Arabs are locals. That is they genuinely are entitled to live there as opposed to European Ultra-Orthodox

antichrist
25-12-2011, 07:41 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/world/if-jesus...223-1p8lj.html

If Jesus was born today he would not gave got anywhere near Bethlehem due to Israeli checkpoints, walls, curfews, IDs etc


If Jesus was born today 'Bethlehem would be closed'
Phoebe Greenwood

BETHLEHEM: If Joseph and Mary were making their way to Bethlehem today, the Christmas story would be a little different, says Father Ibrahim Shomali, a parish priest in the town. The couple would struggle to get into the city, let alone find a hotel room.

''If Jesus were to come this year, Bethlehem would be closed,'' says the priest of Bethlehem's Beit Jala parish. ''He would either have to be born at a checkpoint or at the separation wall. Mary and Joseph would have needed Israeli permission - or to have been tourists.

''This really is the big problem for Palestinians in Bethlehem: what will happen when they close us off completely?''
.........................................
Bethlehem swells with pride every Christmas. Manger Square is transformed into a grotto of lights and stalls crowned by a towering Christmas tree. Strings of illuminated angels, stars and bells festoon the streets. But just a few minutes' drive to the north, the festive atmosphere stops.

A strip of Israeli settlements built on 18 square kilometres of what was once northern Bethlehem threatens to cut the city off from its historic twin, Jerusalem.

To the Israeli authorities, these have been neighbourhoods of Jerusalem since 1967. One of the settlements, Har Homa, is built on land where angels are said to have announced the birth of Christ to local shepherds. A narrow corridor of land between Har Homa and another settlement, Gilo, still connects Bethlehem to Jerusalem, but the construction of Givat Hamatos, a settlement announced in October, will fill this in a matter of years.

The European Union foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, warned the construction of Givat Hamatos was ''of particular concern as [it] would cut the geographic contiguity between Jerusalem and Bethlehem''.

After the four EU members who sit on the UN Security Council - Britain, France, Germany and Portugal - this week issued a statement condemning the construction of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israel's foreign ministry responded by advising them to concentrate their efforts on restarting direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians, instead of interfering in Israel's internal affairs.

Concern is not slowing Israel's progress. Last week, 500 new units were approved for Har Homa and a further 348 in Betar Illit, on Bethlehem's western boundary.

The separation wall already prevents Palestinians from entering Jerusalem from the town without an Israeli permit. But the settlements will permanently change the geography: even if a peace agreement razes the separation wall, the two cities will remain divided.

The Israeli activist Hagit Ofran, the director of Peace Now's Settlements Watch project, reads a clear political intention in Israel's plans: ''These efforts are being made to prevent a possible two-state solution because in order for that to work, you would need a viable Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem.

''The more Israel is building, the higher the price of a Palestinian state is becoming.''

Israeli officials say the barrier has significantly contributed to a reduction in terrorist attacks and fills a crucial role in Israel's security apparatus.

Guardian News & Media, Tribune Media

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/if-jesus...#ixzz1hXOelkp7
__________________

Ian Murray
30-12-2011, 01:45 PM
Israeli fundamentalists attack children (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/12/27/ultar-orthodox-jews-israel-protest.html):


...The protests were also spurred on, in part, by another incident last week, in which some ultra-Orthodox men in the town of Beit Shemesh harassed an eight-year old girl on her way to her religious Jewish girls school — spitting on her, calling her a "whore" and claiming she was dressed immodestly.

Naama Margolese, a second-grader, is now afraid to walk to school, even if she is accompanied by her mother...

antichrist
30-12-2011, 02:55 PM
Israeli fundamentalists attack children (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/12/27/ultar-orthodox-jews-israel-protest.html):


...The protests were also spurred on, in part, by another incident last week, in which some ultra-Orthodox men in the town of Beit Shemesh harassed an eight-year old girl on her way to her religious Jewish girls school — spitting on her, calling her a "whore" and claiming she was dressed immodestly.

Naama Margolese, a second-grader, is now afraid to walk to school, even if she is accompanied by her mother...

And as they are prepared to do that to their own it makes it easy to accept what they do to helpless Palestinians

Ian Murray
31-12-2011, 07:53 AM
Palestine, a history rich and deep (www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/palestine-a-history-rich-and-deep/2011/12/21/gIQALJ6GLP_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines)

Washington Post op-ed
28.12.11

antichrist
02-01-2012, 10:43 PM
Religious hardliners fight back
January 2, 2012
Read later

Backlash … protesters donned death camp uniforms. Photo: Reuters

JERUSALEM: Hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Jews, some wearing yellow stars or the uniforms of Holocaust death camp inmates, have demonstrated against what they called media attacks against them over their efforts to segregate the sexes.

The bearded men and young boys in Jerusalem's ultra-Orthodox Mea Shearim neighbourhood were ostensibly gathered to protest about the jailing of a member of their community for leading vigilante attacks against a local religious bookshop, considered not religious enough by hardliners.

But the ultra-Orthodox news website Kikar Hashabbat said the main purpose of the rally had become that of fighting back against ''incitement against the ultra-Orthodox public''.


During World War II, Jews in Germany and countries occupied by the Nazis were forced to wear yellow stars to identify themselves in public. Kikar Hashabbat said the wearing of them at Saturday's rally was ''an exceptional protest measure''.

A police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld, said there had been no incidents or arrests.

Israeli TV channels have screened images from Beit Shemesh, where hardline residents are waging a sometimes violent gender-segregation campaign.

The images showed an ultra-Orthodox man in Beit Shemesh spitting at a woman and others hurling verbal abuse at an eight-year-old schoolgirl. The scenes prompted outraged newspaper editorials and vows from politicians to get tough with troublemakers.

''The exclusion of women from ultra-Orthodox streets is an act of intolerable barbarism,'' the Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, told Israel's top-selling Yediot Aharonot newspaper. ''It is inconceivable for the state to continue financing those who defy it and for the ultra-Orthodox to continue receiving subsidies, such as free [religious] schooling for their children.''

AFP


AC
It is a big shame that the Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman can't see 1,000 time worse acts against Palestinians as also an act of intolerable barbarism

antichrist
12-01-2012, 06:46 PM
http://justicenownetwork.blogspot.com/
There is no country Israel

antichrist
13-01-2012, 08:51 PM
the USA threatened to boycott games if Hitler discriminated against Jewish atheletes but when Israel discriminates against Palestinian ones the world does not care

antichrist
14-01-2012, 08:13 AM
Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

Kevin Bonham
14-01-2012, 12:15 PM
Looks like you'll be needing it again sooner than you think. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2012, 09:19 PM
Palestine, a history rich and deep (www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/palestine-a-history-rich-and-deep/2011/12/21/gIQALJ6GLP_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines)

Washington Post op-ed
28.12.11
Seriously? The Palestinian Arabs inhabited Jericho from 10,000 BC? “Palestinian Christians are the descendants of Jesus”. although He had no descendants? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Of course, this pillock omits the fact that for the longest time, the Arabs in the region wanted to be part of Syria, and before that they were part of the Ottoman Empire.

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2012, 09:21 PM
the USA threatened to boycott games if Hitler discriminated against Jewish atheletes but when Israel discriminates against Palestinian ones the world does not care
When have they done that? Certainly Islamonazi countries have done that to Israeli athletes, and the Dubai Chess Olympiad of 1986 banned Israel's participation.

antichrist
14-01-2012, 09:29 PM
When have they done that? Certainly Islamonazi countries have done that to Israeli athletes, and the Dubai Chess Olympiad of 1986 banned Israel's participation.

America threatened to boycott the Berlin Games in about 1936 that Hitler had made a showcase for Nazism, he attended everyday, and Jewish athletes from Germany were prohibited from attending, if I remember the program correctly.

Whereas Zionist-Facists have many times prevented Palestinian athletes from attending major sporting functions for decades. That was the reason for the PLO kidnapping Israeli athletes during the Munich game forty years ago. Israel still does it today preventing the scattered Palestinian team from getting together and even leaving Palestine. Whereas the USA have never threatened to boycott games in response to Zionist facism. That is one of part reason for 9/11.

antichrist
14-01-2012, 09:30 PM
Seriously? The Palestinian Arabs inhabited Jericho from 10,000 BC? “Palestinian Christians are the descendants of Jesus”. although He had no descendants? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Of course, this pillock omits the fact that for the longest time, the Arabs in the region wanted to be part of Syria, and before that they were part of the Ottoman Empire.

Ethnic Jews are just another Arab tribe from back of Iraq, they have no rights to Palestine, there claim is based on a God that does not exist, and a genocide to get there in the first place 3,000 years ago. What kind of claim are they?

Capablanca-Fan
15-01-2012, 02:26 AM
Whereas Zionist-Facists have many times prevented Palestinian athletes from attending major sporting functions for decades. That was the reason for the PLO kidnapping Israeli athletes during the Munich game forty years ago.
Oh, silly me, I thought it was because they were antisemitic thug out to murder any innocent Israelis they could find. Now I see that these athletes deserved to be murdered. So now israel should make even more concessions even though the previous "land for peace" deals have not achieved peace.

antichrist
15-01-2012, 09:11 AM
Oh, silly me, I thought it was because they were antisemitic thug out to murder any innocent Israelis they could find. Now I see that these athletes deserved to be murdered. So now israel should make even more concessions even though the previous "land for peace" deals have not achieved peace.

there has not been land for peace Palestinians, this is the untruth you keep saying. Gaza had to be deserted by Israel as too troublesome to keep, there was not discussion with the Palestinians. One day the West Bank will to the same way - Sharon led the way, he knew how to treat the Zionist zealots. A lot of them after just become settlors just to get compensation to move again. A quarter million each time - it is a business for them.

The army is forced to defend them though they escape miliary service that is compulsory for rest of Israelis. They dont have to work either. Biggest bludgers in history those Ultra Orthodox are. Now they want to close down the Sabbath to stop those actually producing from producing and enjoying themselves on their day off . The Ultra Orthodox get off every day, a bit like me they are.

Biggest parasites in history they are, do they already try to bar chess on the Sabbath, would not surprise me?

Ian Murray
16-01-2012, 07:21 AM
False Flag (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag?page=0,0)
A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran
Foreign Policy
13 Jan 2012

antichrist
16-01-2012, 08:57 AM
False Flag (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag?page=0,0)
A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran
Foreign Policy
13 Jan 2012

but due to Jewish lobby in USA no action will be taken against Israel, they are indeed the Chosen People

antichrist
23-01-2012, 08:40 AM
Originally Posted by Jono
While there were mandates to help the poor directly, this was a small part of the overall theme even in the Decalogue that people had private property that others should neither steal nor covet. Leftardism is all about demagoguing the mobs to covet, and so that the mobs will give the demagogues the power to st..

AC
so people had private property that neither should be stolen or coveted. Well we know that the Israelites were only temporary in Israel as they came from back of Iraq and maybe via Egypt, yet they murdered, raped and plundered other people to get Israel - and Zionists are still doing so to this day!

Why does there seem to be one law for robbing and murdering Zionists and another for non-Zionists who have been there thousands of years earlier?

antichrist
29-01-2012, 07:09 PM
What I seen the Nazis do to the Jews during the Allied bombing of German cities, turfing the Jews out to make way for dehoused Germans seems quite similar to what I see Zionists in Israel to do the Palestinians.

antichrist
14-02-2012, 11:09 PM
14-02-2012 11:34 PMantichrist
[Edit | Delete] Jewish intellectuals 60 years ago was calling the Israel Defense Forces Judeo-Nazis and accusing them of leading to genocide against the Palestinians - know you not interested


14-02-2012 11:38 PMantichrist
[Edit | Delete] the author is president of the Shalem Center, an institute for Jewish social thought and public policy in Jerusalem! - shows I read books from both sides

antichrist
16-02-2012, 10:54 AM
No, I was just talking about a general philosophy with regards the acquisition of knowledge. I prefer wide research -> synthesis -> opinion. You seem to prefer opinion -> narrow research. Just something to think about. You know, next time your trying to out-swim a bull shark.

You can move this discussion elsewhere I am not.

Now what are we on about? My whole life I have been arrogant that everything I decide, politically and philosophically, I am correct. How shocking it is, in chess it has the benefits of pushing me to study chess and fight real hard in chess to prove that is correct or can match anyone.

In my lifetime I have sleeved my heart on many new and controversial topics, being part of revolting sixties there were many to choose from. On reflection I don't consider I adopted the wrong posi on any of them.

I went OTT on Palestinian issue, calling the Israeli's forces Nazis, of course there was reaction to this when I had that poster in newspaper showing Star of David and Swastika. Well now about 15 years later I read book by Israeli intellectual that 60 years ago Jewish liberals in Israel also called the Israeli army ""Judeo-Nazis"" and said Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinians. Just as I had claimed.

So for me a'priori holds out - I don't need heavy analysis, just my commonsense and justice conscious, imprinted by RCC, is sufficient and holds out.


Does that answer your complaint. PLease don't delete my work.
(keep this up and I will be unable to control my triumphalism)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





I wouldn't judge all yoga/meditation groups by that dreadful fraud Sai Baba.

From language thread (though I might move it from there for being off-topic soon) :



Just because Jewish "liberals" had used similar labels and made similar claims doesn't mean their claims were appropriate and nor does it legitimise yours.

Since there have been 100 times more shocking things done by IDF and ultra robbers/settlors - I am sure those intellectual would even be more disgusted with their government's actions. I have often said that Jewish liberals are great and fair people.

For purposes of general discussion those claims are sufficiently legitimate. They can't be legally legitimate coz Israel (and USA its supporter) refuses to subject themselves to International Court of Justice and other similar agencies.

If it was good enuf for the Nazi's to be subjected to such international tribunals of justice they why is it not also good enuf for their imitators,so they can be legitimately and legally be called genocidists, racists etc. and also face death penalty for crimes against humanity.

Rincewind
16-02-2012, 11:08 AM
So for me a'priori holds out - I don't need heavy analysis, just my commonsense and justice conscious, imprinted by RCC, is sufficient and holds out.

So what you are saying in essence is that you are an anti-intellectual and you prefer to stick to your prejudices not to think too much.

antichrist
16-02-2012, 01:32 PM
So what you are saying in essence is that you are an anti-intellectual and you prefer to stick to your prejudices not to think too much.

What is that saying about can't see the log in your own eye? You are prejudiced against me coz you dont like my style, same with a few others here you pick on. I can live with that.

Rincewind
16-02-2012, 04:05 PM
What is that saying about can't see the log in your own eye? You are prejudiced against me coz you dont like my style, same with a few others here you pick on. I can live with that.

I'm not talking style, I'm talking modus operandi. You say silly things and then when they are shown to be silly to continue to labour the point even though it is clear you have never looked into them to any great depth and you are just throwing up whatever arguments Google is able to find for you regardless of how relevant they are to the original claim or how questionable they are anyway.

Other people who say silly things which they are likewise unable to defend is likely to receive similar treatment. But that is just demonstrating that I am consistent and not picking on your "style" but rather your lack of reason.

antichrist
16-02-2012, 04:52 PM
I'm not talking style, I'm talking modus operandi. You say silly things and then when they are shown to be silly to continue to labour the point even though it is clear you have never looked into them to any great depth and you are just throwing up whatever arguments Google is able to find for you regardless of how relevant they are to the original claim or how questionable they are anyway.

Other people who say silly things which they are likewise unable to defend is likely to receive similar treatment. But that is just demonstrating that I am consistent and not picking on your "style" but rather your lack of reason.

discussion moved Poor Antichrist thread

Rincewind
16-02-2012, 04:58 PM
When I stated ""Janis earnt her money"" I could not care less how it is considered and still don't. You made an issue out of it so I went along for the ride. I dont consider language that important or worth getting in a bother about unless it is sprouty's pidgeon english who you don't pick on -strangely, just to be consistent.

You using earnt is not a problem and only provided the seed of a potential discussion point. You aren't the only user of the term even here Boris, Charles, Phil, Trevor to name a few have used it from time to time.

Your MO became problematic during the process you describe as going "along for the ride". To recap, after a few spurious references to the bible (which were busted first by Hobbes and only later by me) you then go down the path of a rearguard google action. This is not an isolated incident (see for example the WWII xmas amnesty and soccer game you tried to claim a couple of months ago).

Regarding Sprouty, his idiom is unique and doesn't involve the pretense of grammatical exactness. In some sense neither does yours. However, since as I said, the term "earnt" is not used solely by you I thought the point warranted some discussion. Just not with you.

antichrist
17-02-2012, 08:22 AM
We are lucky the Palestinians and Israelis are not fighting about to pronounce felafel and babaganoush (Sharon's favourite) as well - that would be never ending

Ian Murray
19-03-2012, 10:15 PM
Migron deal distances Israel from two-state solution (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/migron-deal-distances-israel-from-two-state-solution-1.419271)
Haaretz
18 March 2012


The government's compromise with Migron's residents puts Israel another step further away from a two-state solution, and from an end to the conflict with the Palestinians.

Last Wednesday, seven years after a cabinet decision to accept a report on illegal outposts - which stated that Migron is an illegal outpost and must be evacuated - the state petitioned the High Court of Justice to postpone evacuation of the largest outpost in the West Bank until the end of 2015.

Until then, according to the petition submitted by the State Prosecutor's Office, a new settlement will be built for the settlers two kilometers away from the present outpost. During that entire time, the settlers will continue to enjoy free housing on land that the State Prosecutor's Office itself admitted had been stolen from the Palestinian inhabitants of nearby villages...

Igor_Goldenberg
20-03-2012, 09:07 PM
Shooting at Jewish school draws global condemnation (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/eu-slams-jewish-school-shooting-in-france/story-e6frf7lf-1226304622549)


The children aged four, five and seven, and a 30-year-old religious education teacher, the father of two of the young victims, were shot dead on Monday as they arrived at the Ozar Hatorah school in the southwestern city of Toulouse.

Adamski
20-03-2012, 11:17 PM
Shooting at Jewish school draws global condemnation (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/eu-slams-jewish-school-shooting-in-france/story-e6frf7lf-1226304622549)


The children aged four, five and seven, and a 30-year-old religious education teacher, the father of two of the young victims, were shot dead on Monday as they arrived at the Ozar Hatorah school in the southwestern city of Toulouse.
Yeah I saw that story - terrible.

Ian Murray
21-03-2012, 08:14 AM
Yeah I saw that story - terrible.
Certainly was. A lone gunman on a killing spree. it seems, targeting ethnic minorities - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17428860

Igor_Goldenberg
23-03-2012, 11:12 AM
The perpetrator of the savage attack is killed in a police stand-off.
Why nobody requested an "enquiry into hate media" which constantly fan anti-Israel sentiment world-wide?
The terrorist mentioned that he wanted to avenge Palestinian children.
It brings to memory Muhammad al-Durrah incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident), where savage Israel bashing was sustained for years. And it's just one example.

Hobbes
23-03-2012, 11:43 AM
Certainly was. A lone gunman on a killing spree. it seems, targeting ethnic minorities - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17428860

Lather, rinse and repeat (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294130/lather-rinse-and-repeat-mark-steyn)

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2012, 02:29 PM
The perpetrator of the savage attack is killed in a police stand-off.
Why nobody requested an "enquiry into hate media" which constantly fan anti-Israel sentiment world-wide?
The terrorist mentioned that he wanted to avenge Palestinian children.
It brings to memory Muhammad al-Durrah incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident), where savage Israel bashing was sustained for years. And it's just one example.
Back in Nuremberg, Streicher was sentenced to death for his fanatical antisemitic propaganda that contributed to the Holocaust. The modern hate-Israel mass media are filling his shoes admirably, with their part in modern Jewish deaths. Of course, in many Islamist nations, overt Jew hatred is taught to schoolkids, and the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery is still sold widely.

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2012, 12:06 PM
Rocket fired from Egypt hits Israeli city of Eilat (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17620925)


A Grad rocket has landed in the southern Israeli city of Eilat, but has caused no damage or injuries, Israeli security officials said.

… The blast took place as thousands congregated in the resort town for the Jewish holiday of Passover.
Obviously Israel's fault, according to this site's resident antisemites.:wall: :wall:

Capablanca-Fan
23-04-2012, 08:43 AM
:wall: :wall:

Ian Murray
23-04-2012, 07:12 PM
^ ^
Very droll, although the facts are somewhat distorted.
a. Israel has the heavy weapons (and nukes), not Hamas and Hezbollah
b. Israel does not give land for peace, but takes Palestinian-owned land by force (and in breach of the Geneva Conventions)

Adamski
23-04-2012, 11:29 PM
Lather, rinse and repeat (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294130/lather-rinse-and-repeat-mark-steyn)
That is a good piece!

Capablanca-Fan
25-04-2012, 11:43 AM
Very droll, although the facts are somewhat distorted.
a. Israel has the heavy weapons (and nukes), not Hamas and Hezbollah
They don't use them though, because Israel actually tries to avoid civilian deaths, which Hamas and Hezbollah major on.


b. Israel does not give land for peace, but takes Palestinian-owned land by force (and in breach of the Geneva Conventions)
Nonsense, as usual from the anti-Israel lobby. They have given back huge amounts of land for "peace". The land they took was quite normal given the fact that they were attacked by troops using this land as a launching pad, like the Golan Heights. Further back in the War of Independence, the Arab leaders themselves called for the Arab inhabitants to leave, assuring them that it would be temporary until they pushed the Jews into the Mediterranean.

BTW, Geneva Conventions apply only to signatories, which Hamas and Hezbollah are not. Back in WW2, because the USSR refused to sign, their soldiers captured by the Germans had no legal rights under this convention, and were treated appallingly.

Ian Murray
26-04-2012, 08:00 PM
They don't use them though, because Israel actually tries to avoid civilian deaths, which Hamas and Hezbollah major on.
Nevertheless the civilian body count is way in favour of Israel

Nonsense, as usual from the anti-Israel lobby. They have given back huge amounts of land for "peace". The land they took was quite normal given the fact that they were attacked by troops using this land as a launching pad, like the Golan Heights.
Revisionism. Israel launched the first strike in 1967.

BTW, Geneva Conventions apply only to signatories, which Hamas and Hezbollah are not.
Israel is, but the current government is still allowing and supporting the seizure of Palestinian-owned land for Jewish settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank, circumventing the Genevaa Conventions and Israeli Supreme Court injunctions in the process.

Art 49 of the Fourth Convention stipulates:
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies
and
http://972mag.com/govt-committed-to-saving-illegal-west-bank-neighborhood/43297/

Capablanca-Fan
01-05-2012, 10:43 AM
Nevertheless the civilian body count is way in favour of Israel
How is this counted? As I explained earlier, some of the Palestinian body counts include those killed by other Palestinians as "collaborators", those killed trying to make a bomb which goes off too soon (heh), and even those killed by the moronic practice of firing live ammo during weddings. Nor does it take into account the attempts at murder of civilians by the "Palestinians", which are morally equivalent; or the better life-saving of the Israelis, compared with injured Islamists refusing tranfusions with "Jewish blood".


Revisionism. Israel launched the first strike in 1967.
First strike in response to acts of war. See Obama’s anti-Semitism: Israel should return to Auschwitz borders (http://patriotupdate.com/articles/obama%E2%80%99s-anti-semitism-israel-should-return-to-auschwitz-borders) which discusses the reasons for the Six Day War. Golan was used to launch rockets against Israeli farmers, who needed armoured tractors.


Israel is, but the current government is still allowing and supporting the seizure of Palestinian-owned land for Jewish settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank, circumventing the Geneva Conventions and Israeli Supreme Court injunctions in the process.
Good for them. Geneva Convention is for those who sign it, unlike Hamas. If they refuse to accept the Convention's obligations, then they can't expect the benefits.

Of course, your ilk cared nothing about the 800,000 Jews expelled from Islamic countries after Israel became a nation. These are forgotten refugees (http://www.theforgottenrefugees.com/), yet Israel settled them in a tiny strip of land.

Ian Murray
01-05-2012, 09:21 PM
How is this counted? As I explained earlier, some of the Palestinian body counts include those killed by other Palestinians as "collaborators", those killed trying to make a bomb which goes off too soon (heh), and even those killed by the moronic practice of firing live ammo during weddings. Nor does it take into account the attempts at murder of civilians by the "Palestinians", which are morally equivalent; or the better life-saving of the Israelis, compared with injured Islamists refusing tranfusions with "Jewish blood".
How abour some specifics. 129 Israeli children/youths under 18 killed since Sep 2000, 1476 Palestinian. For their names, dates and causes of death see Remember these Children (http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2012.html)

First strike in response to acts of war.
A tenet of faith later debunked (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html?pagewanted=1) by Moshe Dayan, IDF CinC at the time

See "Obama’s anti-Semitism: Israel should return to Auschwitz borders"
A blatant distortion of the facts. Obama actually said (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israel-palestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS):

"The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine,"

"We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states,"

...Obama reiterated unwavering U.S. support for Israel's security, and he endorsed major negotiating positions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, including an incremental handover of security responsibilities by Israel when conditions on the ground allow it.

Obama declared the U.S. commitment to Israel's security "unshakable," and said "every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself -- by itself -- against any threat."

"Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security," Obama continued, touching on the major concerns of Israel in facing a new Palestinian neighbor. "The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated."

In a later interview with the BBC, Obama said that "the basis for negotiations will involve looking at that 1967 border, recognizing that conditions on the ground have changed and there are going to need to be swaps to accommodate the interests of both sides."

"That's on the one hand and on the other hand, and this was an equally important part of the speech, Israel is going to have to feel confident about its security on the West Bank and that security element is going to be important to the Israelis." Obama said in the interview.

A strange form of anti-semitism

Good for them. Geneva Convention is for those who sign it, unlike Hamas. If they refuse to accept the Convention's obligations, then they can't expect the benefits.
No, it's for those who wish to and are permitted to sign it. Only recognised States may do so, as should be obvious. Palestine's attempt to become a signatory has been deferred pending settlement of the Palestinian statehood issue. Hamas of course is not a State and would not be considered as a signatory.

A government which defies its own high court injunctions, as does the Netanyahu government, is not a democracy.

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2012, 01:07 PM
How abour some specifics. 129 Israeli children/youths under 18 killed since Sep 2000, 1476 Palestinian. For their names, dates and causes of death see Remember these Children (http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2012.html)
Again, how were they killed? I've pointed this out before, in reply to PaulB (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=168188&postcount=92). While Israel is blamed, in many cases the deaths were caused by the Arabs.


A tenet of faith later debunked (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html?pagewanted=1) by Moshe Dayan, IDF CinC at the time
Hearsay many years later. Yet at the time, Israel had everything to fear from the virulent language about wiping out the Zionist Entity and warlike actions of Nasser in Egypt, and the rocket launches from the Golan.


A strange form of anti-semitism
Obamov is certainly strange, but still antisemitic. The 1967 borders are moronic because they are so tiny.


No, it's for those who wish to and are permitted to sign it. Only recognised States may do so, as should be obvious. Palestine's attempt to become a signatory has been deferred pending settlement of the Palestinian statehood issue. Hamas of course is not a State and would not be considered as a signatory.
And of course, they regularly violate its tenets. It's typical of leftards to insist that Israel brings a knife to a gunfight.


A government which defies its own high court injunctions, as does the Netanyahu government, is not a democracy.
Nonsense. I'm not sure about Israel's situation, but in America, the judiciary is one of three co-equal branches of government, at least in the Consitution. But it's hypocritical to attack the only democracy in the Middle East for some alleged flaws, while ignoring the depradations of its enemies.

Ian Murray
08-05-2012, 09:17 PM
Again, how were they killed? I've pointed this out before, in reply to PaulB[/URL]. While Israel is blamed, in many cases the deaths were caused by the Arabs.
The site Remember these Children (http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2012.html) tells you how they were killed. Note that some Israeli deaths are attributable to 'friendly fire' and unexploded IDF munitions, which does nothing to allay the ongoing carnage of young people on both sides, e.g.

27 January 2011

Basel Muhammad Nafe abu-Edwan, 14, of al-Shouka, near Rafah, Gaza, killed by an unexploded IDF ordinance of while he and his brother were herding sheep near their home.

28 January 2011

Yousef Fakhri Musa Ikhlayl, 15, of Beit Omar, near Hebron, killed by Israeli settler gunfire to his head during an attack by dozens of Israelis from the Beit Ain settlement on neighboring Safa, near Hebron.

11 March 2011

Yoav Udi Fogel, 11, of Itamar settlement, killed, with his parents, brother and sister, by Palestinian assailants from Awarta, near Nablus, who stabbed the family with knives while they sleep in their house.

Elad Udi Fogel, 4, of Itamar settlement, killed, with his parents, brother and sister, by Palestinian assailants from Awarta, near Nablus, who stabbed the family with knives while they sleep in their house.

Hadas Udi Fogel, 3 months, of Itamar settlement, killed, with her parents and two brothers, by Palestinian assailants from Awarta, near Nablus, who stabbed the family with knives while they sleep in their house.

18 August 2011

Malek Khaled Hamad Shaat, 2, of Rafah refugee camp, Gaza, killed by an IDF missile while at home in Block J of the camp. He was killed during the targeted killing of his father, a member of the Popular Resistance Committees' Nasser Saladin Brigades.

19 August 2011

Islam Motaz Basem Quraiqe, 1, of Shujaiya, east of Gaza City, Gaza, killed, along with his uncle and father, by an IDF drone while riding on a motor cycle during the targeted killing of his father, a leader in Islamic Jihad's al-Quds Brigades.

Hearsay many years later. Yet at the time, Israel had everything to fear from the virulent language about wiping out the Zionist Entity and warlike actions of Nasser in Egypt, and the rocket launches from the Golan.
Hearsay confirmed by Dayan's daughter. Egypt (then UAR) mobilised based on Soviet intelligence of an Israeli build-up which was dead wrong. There were no rockets launched from the Golan. There were regular artillery duels, provoked by Israel according to Dayan, and Israeli air strikes.

The 1967 borders are moronic because they are so tiny.
Which is why Obama said: "We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states"

And of course, they regularly violate its tenets. It's typical of leftards to insist that Israel brings a knife to a gunfight.
It is Israel which is colonising occupied territory, no-one else

Nonsense. I'm not sure about Israel's situation, but in America, the judiciary is one of three co-equal branches of government, at least in the Consitution. But it's hypocritical to attack the only democracy in the Middle East for some alleged flaws, while ignoring the depradations of its enemies.
Israel also has a legislature, an executive and a judiciary, intended to exercise democratic checks and balances. The High Court of Justice has ruled that specified outposts and settlements illegally occupy stolen Palestinian land and must be demolished. The executive is legally bound to comply with the orders, but keeps stalling with the obvious intent to evade the orders somehow. That's not how democracy works.

High Court may have ruled against West Bank outpost, but the story isn't over (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/high-court-may-have-ruled-against-west-bank-outpost-but-the-story-isn-t-over-1.428903)
Haaretz, Jerusalem
8 May 2012


In the printed version of Monday's High Court of Justice decision reiterating the order to vacate Beit El's Ulpana neighborhood, there's something interesting about the punctuation: Two sentences end with both a question mark and an exclamation point, something rare, if not unprecedented, in a court document.

"Does the state, every time a new policy is considered, plan to ask the court to reopen proceedings that have ended in a ruling?!" wrote court President Justice Asher Dan Grunis, who also wondered, "What ... would be the reason for providing the exceptional remedy of reopening a legal proceeding .. in which the state has committed to act in a certain fashion?!"

On the one hand, one must welcome the court's decision to reject the request to reopen the hearing on Ulpana Hill, which reinforces not only the finality of court decisions but reinforces the basic principle of carrying them out.

On the other hand, if in the case of Migron, the fact that there had to be a petition to the High Court to enforce a previous court ruling demonstrated the degree to which the occupation tramples on equal rights and the rule of law, in the Ulpana case there's been an even further slide down the slippery slope.

Here the High Court had to deal with a specific request from the state not to obey a ruling it received.

So while it looks like the High Court was defending the rule of law, woe unto a generation that needs the High Court to tell the government that it's meant to obey its rulings. No wonder the High Court had to append exclamation points to its question marks.

But the biggest question mark of all still remains: Will the structures built on private Palestinian land near Beit El be demolished by July 1, the date the court set? Migron, don't forget, is meant to be dismantled by August 1. ...

Ian Murray
10-05-2012, 07:26 PM
New Hamas force in Gaza is foiling rocket attacks against Israel (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/new-hamas-force-in-gaza-is-foiling-rocket-attacks-against-israel-1.429297)
Haaretz
10 May 2012


The Hamas government in Gaza has been operating a force over the past few months whose sole task is to prevent the firing of rockets into Israel.

Hamas, which has always championed jihad against Israel, is now using its authority to foil the firing efforts of cells from other organizations such as the Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees.

The new force was formed by and is under the direct command of Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad, who in the past has been considered an extremist in regard to Israel. According to a Gaza source, the force of some 300 men operates, "day and night, 24 hours, everywhere in the Strip, particularly near the borders with Israel."...

Igor_Goldenberg
11-05-2012, 02:22 PM
How abour some specifics. 129 Israeli children/youths under 18 killed since Sep 2000, 1476 Palestinian. For their names, dates and causes of death see Remember these Children (http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2012.html)

This site is factually incorrect (and I am being very polite here).
The very first case (September 2000) is Muhammad Jamal Muhammad al-Durrah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident), who, in fact, was killed by Palestinians. I doubt the rest of the list is anymore accurate.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-05-2012, 02:26 PM
New Hamas force in Gaza is foiling rocket attacks against Israel (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/new-hamas-force-in-gaza-is-foiling-rocket-attacks-against-israel-1.429297)
Haaretz
10 May 2012

How genuine is:
1. Hamas?
2. The article itself?

Hamas has a pretty tight reign on Gaza. They don't need a special force to stop firing rocket, not ordering the strike is sufficient.
Looks like a farce to me.

Ian Murray
11-05-2012, 07:09 PM
This site is factually incorrect (and I am being very polite here).
The very first case (September 2000) is Muhammad Jamal Muhammad al-Durrah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident), who, in fact, was killed by Palestinians.
"In fact" based on which source? Certainly not the Wikipedea entry you link to, which arrives at no conclusion. Whether the fatal shots were Israeli or Palestinian, a 12yo boy is no less dead.

I doubt the rest of the list is anymore accurate.
You casually dismiss the violent deaths of 1604 children for no valid reason. What is it, a "gut feeling" you have?

Ian Murray
11-05-2012, 07:15 PM
How genuine is:
1. Hamas?
2. The article itself?

Hamas has a pretty tight reign on Gaza. They don't need a special force to stop firing rocket, not ordering the strike is sufficient.
Looks like a farce to me.
Hamas does not control the splinter groups like Fatah and Islamic Jihad, which do their own thing. Hamas does have its own ceasefire in place, and seems willing to intervene with force to enforce it throughout Gaza.

Capablanca-Fan
11-05-2012, 11:08 PM
"In fact" based on which source? Certainly not the Wikipedea entry you link to, which arrives at no conclusion. Whether the fatal shots were Israeli or Palestinian, a 12yo boy is no less dead.
It makes all the difference in the world! It was not Israel's fault, so the resident ChessChat antisemites Blame Israel First crowd has even less of a leg to stand on.


You casually dismiss the violent deaths of 1604 children for no valid reason. What is it, a "gut feeling" you have?
Yes, the love of death from the "Palestinians", who iike nothing better than to blow up Israeli school buses. Israel by contrast does far more than it should to avoid civilian deaths in the face of an enemy sworn to annihilate it.

Your silly list also shows that most deaths attributable to Israel are to IDF ordinance, which means accidental death. But the kids killed by Palestinians were killed by knives along with their families, meaning intentional targeting and murder. You moral-equivalence leftards always conflate these.

Hearsay confirmed by Dayan's daughter.
Yael Dayan is a well known leftard self-loathing Israeli. Also, Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren has another perspective on Dayan's alleged comments:

There is an element of truth to Dayan's claim, but it is important to note that Israel regarded the de-militarized zones in the north as part of their sovereign territory and reserved the right to cultivate them—a right that the Syrians consistently resisted with force. Syria also worked to benefit from the Jordan river before it flowed into Israel, aiming to get use of it as a water source; Syria also actively supported Palestinian resistance movements against Israel. Israel occasionally exploited incidents in the de-militarized zones to strike at the Syrian water diversion project and to punish the Syrians for their support of the Palestinian resistance. Dayan's remarks must also be taken in context of the fact that he was a member of the opposition at the time. His attitude toward the Syrians changed dramatically once he became defense minister. Indeed, on June 8, 1967, Dayan bypassed both the Prime Minister and the Chief of Staff in ordering the Israeli army to attack and capture the Golan.

What a crass statement that Hamas doesn't control Fatah. Fatah has long supposed to be the moderate Palestinian group, although that's not saying much.

Ian Murray
17-05-2012, 07:51 PM
It makes all the difference in the world! It was not Israel's fault, so the resident ChessChat antisemites Blame Israel First crowd has even less of a leg to stand on.
The boy and his father were sheltering from Israeli fire, as is clear from the photo and location diagram. There is no proof how the boy was killed, but the balance of probability is that the fatal shots were from the Israeli position.

Yes, the love of death from the "Palestinians", who iike nothing better than to blow up Israeli school buses. Israel by contrast does far more than it should to avoid civilian deaths in the face of an enemy sworn to annihilate it.

Your silly list also shows that most deaths attributable to Israel are to IDF ordinance, which means accidental death
Counting the Palestinian deaths from 2000 - 2004 (it was too depressing to keep counting), of the 919 deaths in total, 324 were from IDF gunshot wounds to the head and/or torso, mainly teenagers involved in demonstrations. That's far too many to be accidental - that indicates soldiers shooting to kill. Anyone using lethal force for crowd control rightly deserves international condemnation.

But the kids killed by Palestinians were killed by knives along with their families, meaning intentional targeting and murder
An horrific crime, which is why I included it in my examples to balance the ledger. Israeli lethal force is no less intentional, but much more efficient.

Yael Dayan is a well known leftard self-loathing Israeli
Of course. All liberal Israelis must be self-hating. They even have a daily newspaper - Haaretz - to make it public.

What a crass statement that Hamas doesn't control Fatah. Fatah has long supposed to be the moderate Palestinian group, although that's not saying much.
It was Igor who claimed: "Hamas has a pretty tight reign [sic] on Gaza"

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2012, 04:46 PM
Into the darkness (http://phillipsblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/05/into-the-darkness.html)
Melanie Phillips
15 May 2012

On and on it goes, this deranged vendetta against Israel and the Jews that we are not allowed to call by its proper name, on and on with obsessional intensity into ever-more alarming and astonishing bigotry and violence that is even now passing virtually without comment in wider British society. ...

have these high-minded souls called for a boycott of Lebanon where Palestinians are excluded from citizenship? Have they called for a boycott of Syria where countless thousands have been slaughtered? Have they called for a boycott of Iran for threatening a second genocide of the Jews and jailing, torturing, stoning and hanging its own dissidents, women and gays?
Have they indeed called for a boycott of the Palestinian Authority for censoring and intimidating Palestinian and western journalists, and for brainwashing Palestinian children with Nazi-style propaganda in order to raise them to hate and murder Jews and Israelis?

No, of course not. The only country they want to boycott is the one country in the whole of the Middle East that is a true democracy, that affords human rights to all its citizens, that allows freedom of worship to all religions, that treats women as equals and safeguards the welfare and liberties of gay people—and treats in its own hospitals, alongside its own citizens, Palestinians from these ‘excluded’ territories including those who are trying to murder as many Israeli citizens as possible.

This irrational obsession is madness. It is terrifying. And no-one in the wider community is saying anything about it.

Ian Murray
18-05-2012, 10:05 PM
An opportunity for an opportunist (http://www.economist.com/node/21554527)
A sudden change in the shape of Israel’s government offers a flicker of hope

The Economist
12 May 2012

ISRAELIS have enjoyed one of their longest spells of relative peace since their army hammered the Gaza Strip more than three years ago. Their hawkish leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, who emerged shortly afterwards as prime minister for the second time, has been riding high. Israel’s economy, though not without the odd tremor, has boomed in comparison with those of its floundering Arab neighbours, where governments have been driven to distraction or overthrown amid the turbulence of the Arab spring. Meanwhile the Palestinians’ quest for a state of their own has been as futile as ever, as the Israelis continue to build on land that is supposed to form the basis of Palestine. Nearly three years ago Mr Netanyahu said he accepted the principle of two states, Jewish and Palestinian, existing side by side in peace and security. But he has since shown precious little appetite for putting that principle into practice. Now, however, thanks to an unforeseen but welcome change in the composition of his government coalition, it has become easier for him to do the right thing....

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2012, 12:42 PM
Meanwhile the Palestinians’ quest for a state of their own has been as futile as ever, as the Israelis continue to build on land that is supposed to form the basis of Palestine. Nearly three years ago Mr Netanyahu said he accepted the principle of two states, Jewish and Palestinian, existing side by side in peace and security. But he has since shown precious little appetite for putting that principle into practice. Now, however, thanks to an unforeseen but welcome change in the composition of his government coalition, it has become easier for him to do the right thing....
However, Netanyahu has made it clear that he would be the first to recognize a Palestinian Arab state, and all they had to do is to recognize the Jewish State. The Palestianian Charters of both Hamas and Fatah show Israel as Palestinian land.

Ian Murray
19-05-2012, 03:12 PM
However, Netanyahu has made it clear that he would be the first to recognize a Palestinian Arab state, and all they had to do is to recognize the Jewish State. The Palestianian Charters of both Hamas and Fatah show Israel as Palestinian land.
Peace can't be achieved with sound bites. It takes negotiations with mutual good will. In the Oslo Accords Palestine recognised Israel's right to exist, renouncing terrorism and its call for the destruction of Israel. Then the process bogged down.

Revival of the peace process won't be easy, but there never will be an easy time. At the moment has instigated a cease-fire. If Israel instigates another moratorium on settlements, maybe we have a starting point.

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2012, 04:04 PM
Peace can't be achieved with sound bites.
How about a very simple sound bite from the Palestinian "leaders" like "We recognize the right of Israel to exist"?


It takes negotiations with mutual good will.
If one side doesn't even recognize the right of the other to exist, then there is no good will on their part.


In the Oslo Accords Palestine recognised Israel's right to exist, renouncing terrorism and its call for the destruction of Israel. Then the process bogged down.
I.e. Arafat rejected Israel's offer of over 90% of the disputed territory and began his murderous intifada.


Revival of the peace process won't be easy, but there never will be an easy time. At the moment has instigated a cease-fire. If Israel instigates another moratorium on settlements, maybe we have a starting point.
Why should Israel make yet another concession? They have made so many "land for peace" deals, giving land but not getting peace. Let's see the Palestinians give say 6 months of peace first this time.

Ian Murray
19-05-2012, 07:34 PM
How about a very simple sound bite from the Palestinian "leaders" like "We recognize the right of Israel to exist"?...If one side doesn't even recognize the right of the other to exist, then there is no good will on their part.
The PLO and the Arab League have already offered to recognise Israel. That's no barrier to negotiations.

Arafat rejected Israel's offer of over 90% of the disputed territory and began his murderous intifada.
The offer was a bunch of isolated enclaves with access (and all Palestinian air space) controlled by Israel. Arafat couldn.t sell that to his people even if he wanted to.

Why should Israel make yet another concession? They have made so many "land for peace" deals, giving land but not getting peace. Let's see the Palestinians give say 6 months of peace first this time.
Calling a halt to further seizure of Palestinian land is not a concession. It's a sine qua non.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2012, 01:01 PM
The PLO and the Arab League have already offered to recognise Israel. That's no barrier to negotiations.
Then recognize it already! How can Israel negotiate unless the other party agrees that it exists?


The offer was a bunch of isolated enclaves with access (and all Palestinian air space) controlled by Israel. Arafat couldn.t sell that to his people even if he wanted to.
It was a humungous concession. But the Islamists explicitly regard it all as Muslim land, and don't want ANY Jews there. Remember how 800,000 Jews were expelled from Islamist properties and all their property stolen confiscated.


Calling a halt to further seizure of Palestinian land is not a concession. It's a sine qua non.
Who says it's Palestinian land? It's the height of arrogance to demand that Israel stops building in its capital city Jerusalem. How would you like it if the Kiwis demanded that Australia stops building in Canberra?

No, the sine qua non is recognition of Israel and a halt to terrorist violence.

Ian Murray
20-05-2012, 04:59 PM
Then recognize it already! How can Israel negotiate unless the other party agrees that it exists?
It's called realpolitik. The details get sorted out during the negotiation process.

It was a humungous concession.
No it wasn't. Rather than allow Palestinian sovereignty Israel wanted to maintain its iron grip a la Gaza.

But the Islamists explicitly regard it all as Muslim land, and don't want ANY Jews there. Remember how 800,000 Jews were expelled from Islamist properties and all their property stolen confiscated.
Luckily for them the Israeli government gave them the land, homes, businesses and property belonging to the 720,000 Palestinian refugees who fled from the war or were expelled, and prevented from returning.

Who says it's Palestinian land? It's the height of arrogance to demand that Israel stops building in its capital city Jerusalem.
Well, as we speak there are orders by the Israeli High Court for the Israeli government to demolish settlements and return the land to the rightful Palestinian owners. International law also prohibits an occupying power to colonise occupied territory. I'd say it is the height of arrogance to claim ownership of occupied territory and drive out the existing owners.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-05-2012, 07:11 PM
Peace can't be achieved with sound bites. It takes negotiations with mutual good will. In the Oslo Accords Palestine recognised Israel's right to exist, renouncing terrorism and its call for the destruction of Israel. Then the process bogged down.
Bogged down is a euphemism for "Arabs didn't stop terrorism and call for the destruction of Israel".

Ian Murray
20-05-2012, 07:37 PM
Bogged down is a euphemism for "Arabs didn't stop terrorism and call for the destruction of Israel".
Thus spake Igor. Other sources cite four principal obstacles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit) to agreement:

Territory
Jerusalem and the Temple Mount
Refugees and the right of return
Israeli security concerns

Igor_Goldenberg
20-05-2012, 08:09 PM
Thus spake Igor. Other sources cite four principal obstacles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit) to agreement:

Territory
Jerusalem and the Temple Mount
Refugees and the right of return
Israeli security concerns
I didn't know that disagreement on those obstacles justifies the wave of Arab terrorism.

Ian Murray
20-05-2012, 08:14 PM
I didn't know that disagreement on those obstacles justifies the wave of Arab terrorism.
It doesn't

Igor_Goldenberg
20-05-2012, 08:18 PM
It doesn't
Yet you don't see it as the main obstacle to piece, do you?

Ian Murray
20-05-2012, 08:26 PM
Yet you don't see it as the main obstacle to piece, do you?
There hasn't been a wave of Arab terrorism since the end of suicide bombers. What do you have in mind?

Igor_Goldenberg
20-05-2012, 08:47 PM
There hasn't been a wave of Arab terrorism since the end of suicide bombers. What do you have in mind?
1st wave (smaller) - increase in terrorism since Oslo Accord (1993-2000).
2nd wave (much bigger) - since October 2000.

Ian Murray
20-05-2012, 09:07 PM
2nd wave (much bigger) - since October 2000.
Second Intifada - finished years ago

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2012, 09:25 PM
1st wave (smaller) — increase in terrorism since Oslo Accord (1993–2000).
2nd wave (much bigger) — since October 2000.
Ian Murray would probably call these terrorist thugs "freedom fighters". Never mind that there would be no freedom under Islamofacist dominance that they want.

Capablanca-Fan
20-05-2012, 09:37 PM
It's called realpolitik. The details get sorted out during the negotiation process.
Nonsense. If the "Palestinians" don't even recognize that Israel exists, with whom do they want to negotiate.


No it wasn't. Rather than allow Palestinian sovereignty Israel wanted to maintain its iron grip a la Gaza.
Palestinian sovereignty = Judenrein and terrorist bases. Israel's iron grip means stopping murderous thugs.


Luckily for them the Israeli government gave them the land, homes, businesses and property belonging to the 720,000 Palestinian refugees who fled from the war or were expelled, and prevented from returning.
More Palestian agitprop. The land was acquired legally, when it was still malaria-infested swampland with a very low population. The hard-working Zionists turned it into productive land. But notice that IM condones the expulsion and doesn't make a peep to demand compensation from the Islamist bigots who expelled innocent Jews. And why are the Arabs so incapable of settling the "refugees" although they have oil wealth and 600 times more land?


Well, as we speak there are orders by the Israeli High Court for the Israeli government to demolish settlements and return the land to the rightful Palestinian owners.
So, the Court is just one branch of government, and very leftist.


International law also prohibits an occupying power to colonise occupied territory.
International law is a joke. So is the UN, with murderous despots on "human rights" councils.


I'd say it is the height of arrogance to claim ownership of occupied territory and drive out the existing owners.
Yawn, it was the Arabs who told the Palestinians to leave in 1948 so they could wipe out the Jews, then let them return. Others fled because it was a war zone.

Alan Dershowitz points out in Chutzpah:

"But the Arab leaders did not want peace. They used the refugee issue to encourage continuing belligerency. It became an excuse for not making peace—for not accepting the reality that the ancient land of Israel-Palestine could be populated by two peoples and divided into two nations. It should be recalled that between 1948 and 1967, Israel posed no barrier to the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. There was no Palestinian state because the Arab leaders did not want a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state. Their collective goal was the total destruction of the Jewish state. The Palestinian refugees would better serve that goal if they were kept in camps as a homeless people than if they were allowed to move out of the camps and establish their own state.

"I believed then, and I believe now, that those who singled out the "plight" of the Arab refugees were more interested in singling out those who had allegedly caused the problem—namely the Jews—than they were in helping those who were its victims. Elevating the Arab refugee problem above the more compelling problem of other groups was a form of indirect international anti-Semitism, acceptable in a world too close to the Holocaust to legitimate direct anti-Jewish bigotry.

Footnote:

"A New York Times story of August 12, 1990, described the plight of 'fifteen million men, women and children' who have been 'internationally recognized as refugees.' Following World War II, the number was between thirty-three and forty-three million, and at the time the Palestinian refugee problem began—with 600,000 to 750,000 refugees—the number throughout the world was between sixteen and eighteen million. Many of the current group are refugees from Islamic nations. Yet the world knows little of their situation. Only the Palestinian refugees have received widespread international support. It is fair to ask why."

Igor_Goldenberg
20-05-2012, 09:59 PM
Second Intifada - finished years ago
Really? How come nobody noticed?

Ian Murray
21-05-2012, 08:59 AM
Jerusalem as the eternal capital (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=270667)
The Jerusalem Post
20 May 2012

As we mark the 45th anniversary of the Israeli conquest of east Jerusalem on the third day of the Six Day War, it is timely that we explore the concept of Jerusalem as the eternal, undivided capital of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

This is a statement that leaders from across the political divide love to espouse – it is perhaps one of the most popular political declarations of Israeli and Diaspora leaders – but in order to fully appreciate Jerusalem Day today, we must analyze this statement critically. It is easy to champion slogans, but they do not necessarily help us understand reality.

A few weeks after Israel conquered east Jerusalem it unilaterally expanded the boundaries of the city – to its north, east and south – making it the size of the city of Paris, and incorporating within its population tens of thousands of Arabs.

These people were residents not only of Jordanian-held east Jerusalem itself (the Old City and a half-dozen Arab neighborhoods adjacent to it), but also of surrounding Arab villages, which previously had never been part of Jerusalem.

Along with the passage of the 1980 Basic Law Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, this action remains unrecognized by the entire world. Along with the fact that the Palestinians claim east Jerusalem as their future capital, it is logical to assume that any future comprehensive peace agreement will necessarily involve some element of Israeli concessions in Jerusalem....

Ian Murray
24-05-2012, 08:44 PM
Nonsense. If the "Palestinians" don't even recognize that Israel exists, with whom do they want to negotiate.
The same Israel they've been negotiating with on and off for decades

The land was acquired legally, when it was still malaria-infested swampland with a very low population. The hard-working Zionists turned it into productive land.
The land in question was 10 million hectares owned, farmed and grazed by Palestinians. When they fled as refugees, the land was seized under the Absentees Property Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws#The_.27Absentees_Pr operty_Law.27) and redistributed to Jews.

But notice that IM condones the expulsion and doesn't make a peep to demand compensation from the Islamist bigots who expelled innocent Jews.
As you well know, I do not support the Right of Return claim, being unworkable after such length of time. If Israel chooses to pursue loss of property claims against Jordan on behalf of the dispossessed Jews, fine. However those Jews were resettled on dispossessed Palestinian property. Only the Palestinians were short-changed.

So, the Court is just one branch of government, and very leftist.
You really should have taken Civics 101 at school. In democracies government is divided into three branches - legislature, executive and judiciary - for very good reasons - to allow a system of checks and balances and to maintain the Separation of Powers. So if, for example, the executive acts beyond the law the judiciary is empowered to compel compliance (e.g. in Australia High Court scuttles Malaysia swap deal (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218)). In Israel the executive flaunts High Court orders, so Israel cannot be described as a democracy.

International law is a joke. So is the UN, with murderous despots on "human rights" councils.
The International Committee of the Red Cross administers the Geneva Conventions. I do not regard the Red Cross as a joke.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2012, 04:29 AM
The same Israel they've been negotiating with on and off for decades
Missing the point: if they don't recognize that Israel even exists, then how can they demand to negotiate with a non-existent body?


You really should have taken Civics 101 at school. In democracies government is divided into three branches - legislature, executive and judiciary - for very good reasons - to allow a system of checks and balances and to maintain the Separation of Powers.
You need remedial education yourself. What you describe is not necessarily democratic. This is the American Republican form of government, for example. Democracy means only that people vote; it says nothing about the result of that vote. The American founders explicitly rejected democracy as leading to tyranny by the majority. A democracy in an Islamist country means 10 Muslims voting to kill one Christian or Jew.


So if, for example, the executive acts beyond the law the judiciary is empowered to compel compliance (e.g. in Australia High Court scuttles Malaysia swap deal (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-31/high-court-rules-on-asylum-seeker-challenge/2864218)).
In America, the judiciary officially has no enforcement powers, so was called "the least dangerous branch". It must rely on moral force alone, and hope the executive will enforce the orders. You also presuppose that the exec is acting beyond the actual law as opposed to made-up law by a liberal judiciary.


In Israel the executive flaunts High Court orders, so Israel cannot be described as a democracy.
It is the only democracy in the area. A despotic high court that is empowered to override democratically elected legislators is not democratic.


The International Committee of the Red Cross administers the Geneva Conventions. I do not regard the Red Cross as a joke.
It was once a good organization. But the Geneva Convention applies only to signatories. The Soviets were not protected under this convention when captured by the Germans, because they refused to sign it, so Soviet POWs were treated much worse than British Commonwealth and American POWs. The Palestian terrorists are likewise not signatories.

Ian Murray
26-05-2012, 09:56 AM
Missing the point: if they don't recognize that Israel even exists, then how can they demand to negotiate with a non-existent body?
Demand? Who said anything about demanding? The slight prospect for peace was posited by The Economist following the shift to a less redneck Israeli coalition government

You need remedial education yourself. What you describe is not necessarily democratic. This is the American Republican form of government, for example. Democracy means only that people vote; it says nothing about the result of that vote. The American founders explicitly rejected democracy as leading to tyranny by the majority.
Democracy means the people rule. Not literally possible in a large population, so in practice democracy means the people elect representatives to govern for them as in a republic or parliamentary democracy. It was the European monarchy model the founding fathers rejected, opting for a republic. Israel is a parliamentary democracy.

In America, the judiciary officially has no enforcement powers, so was called "the least dangerous branch". It must rely on moral force alone, and hope the executive will enforce the orders.
You mean if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Healthcare Act next month, the US can only hope that Obama does not proceed with it? Get real.

You also presuppose that the exec is acting beyond the actual law as opposed to made-up law by a liberal judiciary.
Only the legislature, not the judiciary, can make laws. And the liberal/conservative make-up of the court, if any, is decided by the executive and legislature, which nominate and ratify the appointment of judges to the court.

It is the only democracy in the area. A despotic high court that is empowered to override democratically elected legislators is not democratic.
The court is the only check on the unfettered use and abuse of power by the executive. The legislature is free to make and amend laws, provided there is no breach of the constitution

It was once a good organization. But the Geneva Convention applies only to signatories. The Soviets were not protected under this convention when captured by the Germans, because they refused to sign it, so Soviet POWs were treated much worse than British Commonwealth and American POWs. The Palestian terrorists are likewise not signatories.
We've been here before. Israel is a signatory. Palestine has attempted to sign, but remains locked out pending establishment of a Palestinian state.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2012, 05:48 PM
Demand? Who said anything about demanding? The slight prospect for peace was posited by The Economist following the shift to a less redneck Israeli coalition government
Hardly "redneck", when Netanyahu has offered to recognize a Palestinian state, as long as they recognize Israel. He also recently formed a coalition government with the more leftist opposition (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2012/05/11/echoes-of-67-israel-unites/), instead of calling an election he would have won easily.


Democracy means the people rule. Not literally possible in a large population, so in practice democracy means the people elect representatives to govern for them as in a republic or parliamentary democracy. It was the European monarchy model the founding fathers rejected, opting for a republic.
Walter Williams shows that the Founders rejected democracy (http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2009/04/15/democracy_and_majority_rule/page/full/):

The founders of our nation held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams predicted, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Our founders intended for us to have a republican form of limited government where the protection of individual God-given rights was the primary job of government.

Alert to the dangers of majoritarian tyranny, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. One such rule is that election of the president is not decided by a majority vote but instead by the Electoral College. Nine states have over 50 percent of the U.S. population. If a simple majority were the rule, conceivably these nine states could determine the presidency. Fortunately, they can't because they have only 225 Electoral College votes when 270 of the 538 total are needed. Were it not for the Electoral College, that some politicians say is antiquated and would like to do away with, presidential candidates could safely ignore the less populous states.

Part of the reason our founders created two houses of Congress was to have another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the designs of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to weaken the power of 535 members of both houses of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.


Israel is a parliamentary democracy.
Thanks for making my point. No other democracy exists in the area. But Israel is the country leftards hate.


You mean if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Healthcare Act next month, the US can only hope that Obama does not proceed with it? Get real.
Obamov has already defied court orders to lift moratoria on oil drilling according to a source, Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html), you cited recently:

The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater-drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.
It might be harder for Obamov to ignore a SCOTUS ruling against Obamovcare, since he has been an ardent advocate of judicial supremacy and the "living Constitution" crap.


Only the legislature, not the judiciary, can make laws. And the liberal/conservative make-up of the court, if any, is decided by the executive and legislature, which nominate and ratify the appointment of judges to the court.

The court is the only check on the unfettered use and abuse of power by the executive. The legislature is free to make and amend laws, provided there is no breach of the constitution
All agreed. But the liberal judges have invented rights never before seen in the Constitution, but in reading their own preferences into it (http://patriotupdate.com/articles/over-ruling-obamacare-and-judicial-activism).


We've been here before. Israel is a signatory.
So was Nazi Germany. But since the Soviet Union was not, their PoWs had no protection under the Geneva Convention, and were treated far worse than American and British Commonwealth PoWs. The USSR likewise treated German PoWs far worse, with only a small percentage surviving.


Palestine has attempted to sign, but remains locked out pending establishment of a Palestinian state.
But then they have no rights under it. They could get a Palestinian Arab state if they would just recognize Israel.

Kevin Bonham
27-05-2012, 06:42 PM
Thread renamed

as this seems to now be the prevailing I-P discussion thread.

Ian Murray
28-05-2012, 09:09 PM
To normalise or not to normalise with Israelis? (http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=31281&lan=en&sp=0)
Tahseen Yaqeen
Common Ground News Service
17.4.2012

Ramallah - Toward the end of January a group of young Palestinians held a silent demonstration in front of the Palestinian Authority headquarters in Ramallah, demanding that their leadership halt the negotiations that were taking place in Amman between the Palestinian Authority’s representative Saeb Erekat and Israeli chief negotiator Yitzhak Molcho. This small protest soon moved to social media sites and became a large-scale discussion about normalisation between Palestinians and Israelis.

The protest marked one of the latest events in a campaign by Palestinians who oppose normalisation with Israel. Although I understand those who argue that anti-normalisation, or the refusal to cooperate with Israelis, is a legitimate non-violent means to struggle against the Israeli Occupation, I believe it is ultimately misguided and harms Palestinians on many levels. Moreover, normalisation between ordinary people can only encourage our leaders to see that their constituents are serious about making peace...

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2012, 09:03 AM
Zionism and bigotry
Melanie Phillips, 28 May 2012

In the wake of the festival of Shavuot, when Jews have been celebrating the giving of the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai from where he presented them to the Jewish people camped at its foot, I have been brooding over the fact that Zionism has become a dirty word in Britain and the west.

For many in these societies, Zionism has now become equated with racism. This group libel, once regarded with revulsion by decent people when the Soviet-Arab axis got the UN to endorse it in 1975, has now become the prism through which the BBC, academia, the artistic and theatrical world and much of the rest of the cultural establishment now frame all references to Israel. …

This is as grotesque as it is terrifying. Zionism is no more nor less than the self-determination of the Jewish people -- as a people, and not just as adherents of the Jewish religion. Jews are in fact the only people – as a people -- for whom Israel (ancient Judea and Samaria) was ever their national homeland. Those who deny Zionism thus deny Jewish peoplehood and the fundamental right of Jews to live as a people in their own ancestral homeland, Israel.

Unique in the world, Jews are both a people and adherents of a religion. Intrinsic to and inseparable from the religion of Judaism is the land of Israel; more specifically, the centrality of and longing for Jerusalem and its Temple. Deny that centrality and you rip the heart and soul out of Judaism. Those who deny the right of the Jews to Israel and Jerusalem deny the right of the Jews to their own religion. …

The right of the Jews to their own historic national homeland has been recast, entirely falsely, as a usurpation of the ‘right’ to that land of ‘Palestinians’ – who never actually existed as a discrete people in the first place. Those Jews who are Zionists now find themselves as a result cast as racists and social pariahs – merely for asserting the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their own historic homeland.

Ian Murray
29-05-2012, 09:55 PM
....Those Jews who are Zionists now find themselves as a result cast as racists and social pariahs – merely for asserting the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their own historic homeland.
If the Jewish people have such a right, do also other peoples who have been dispossessed of their historic homelands?

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2012, 04:34 AM
If the Jewish people have such a right, do also other peoples who have been dispossessed of their historic homelands?
IM shows his true colours, denying Israel's right to exist. Of course, the population of what was then an obscure part of the Ottoman Empire, not an Arab Palestinian state, was very low, and Zionists helped to make it a thriving land.

From Berlin to Jerusalem (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/13692)
By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison
June 2, 2012



The Obama administration insists that the Israelis must negotiate for their own capital.

Negotiate with whom? Not Jordan. Not Syria. Not Egypt. Not Saudi Arabia. Presumably, they mean with the Arabs of Palestine. That means the former Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO. Or, as it is known in Arabic, Fatah. Or, if they ever hold an election on the West Bank, the openly terrorist outfit, Hamas. Hamas is pledged to the destruction of Israel. (Fatah [One of IM's favorite organizations] could not get billions in U.S. aid dollars if it openly called for the destruction of Israel, so it simply publishes maps of "Palestine" that show no Israel. The Fatah leaders dedicate public squares to suicide bombers who murder Israelis—and they still cash their U.S. taxpayer checks.)

What connection is there between Jerusalem and Berlin? The late Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, spent World War II in Berlin, helping Hitler. He managed to get out of the city before it fell to the Russians. He returned to the Middle East, where he continued his calls for annihilation of the Jews. His great work was continued by his nephew, Yassir Arafat, the founder and promoter of the PLO -- whose objective was unvaryingly the elimination of Israel. Offered 97% of the land he claimed by the Ehud Barak government of Israel in 2000, in a Clinton-backed deal, Arafat instead launched another intifada -- a revolt of stone-throwing teens.

Instead of giving the Israelis the same goodwill and encouragement we gave to democratic, peaceful Germany, the Obama administration bitterly denounces Israel for building houses for Jews in Jerusalem. This administration, as Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) has noted, denounces Israel more fiercely for building homes than it has denounced Iran for building nuclear weapons.

Ian Murray
03-06-2012, 09:12 AM
IM shows his true colours, denying Israel's right to exist.
I didn't say that, Jono. I've never said that. I asked a serious question:
If the Jewish people have such a right, do also other peoples who have been dispossessed of their historic homelands? (referring to the article you quoted: ....Those Jews who are Zionists now find themselves as a result cast as racists and social pariahs – merely for asserting the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their own historic homeland.")

I'd like to hear your answer. Do dispossessed people have the right to self-determination in their own historic homelands? Or only Jewish people?

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2012, 01:16 AM
In 1954, when David Ben Gurion was prime minister of Israel, he travelled to the USA to meet with President Eisenhower to request his assistance and support in the early and difficult days of the State of Israel. John Foster Dulles who was the then secretary of state confronted Ben Gurion and challenged him as follows:


“Tell me, Mr. Prime Minister – who do you and your state represent? Does it represent the Jews of Poland, perhaps Yemen , Romania , Morocco , Iraq , Russia or perhaps Brazil ? After 2000 years of exile can you honestly speak about a single nation, a single culture? Can you speak about a single heritage or perhaps a single Jewish tradition?”

Ben Gurion answered him as follows:


“Look, Mr Secretary of State – approximately 300 years ago the Mayflower set sail from England and on it were the first settlers who settled in what would become the largest democratic superpower known as the United States of America. Now, do me a favour - go out into the streets and find 10 American children and ask them the following:

· What was the name of the Captain of the Mayflower?

· How long did the voyage take?

· What did the people who were on the ship eat?

. What were the conditions of sailing during the voyage?

I’m sure you would agree with me that there is a good chance that you won’t get a good answer to these questions.

Now in contrast – not 300 but more than 3000 years ago, the Jews left the land of Egypt . I would kindly request from you Mr. Secretary that on one of your trips around the world, try and meet 10 Jewish children in different countries. And ask them:

· What was the name of the leader who took the Jews out of Egypt ?

· How long did it take them before they got to the land of Israel ?

· What did they eat during the period when they were wondering in the desert?

· And what happened to the sea when they encountered it

Once you get the answers to these questions, please carefully consider the question that you have just asked me!

Rincewind
04-06-2012, 02:13 AM
Now in contrast – not 300 but more than 3000 years ago, the Jews left the land of Egypt . I would kindly request from you Mr. Secretary that on one of your trips around the world, try and meet 10 Jewish children in different countries. And ask them:

· What was the name of the leader who took the Jews out of Egypt ?

· How long did it take them before they got to the land of Israel ?

· What did they eat during the period when they were wondering in the desert?

· And what happened to the sea when they encountered it

Yes, although it is a pity that story was made up.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2012, 05:32 AM
Shutting down city for whine and posers
Tim Blair, The Daily Telegraph, 21 May 2012

SYDNEY traffic was delayed last week by an event that took place 64 years ago in a land 14,000km away. Even for Sydney, which can turn on a traffic jam at the drop of a hat, if that hat should descend anywhere near the central business district, this must be some kind of record.

The cause of the trouble? A pro-Palestinian demonstration and march marking Nakba Day, when the tiny (one-third the size of Tasmania) state of Israel was formed and surrounding Arab nations suddenly found a minority religious presence in their midst. Nakba translates as "catastrophe", giving some idea of the tolerance felt towards the Jewish state.

The Left's dumb hostility towards Israel, and judicial support for charades such as Nakba Day, remains bewildering to anyone familiar with maps. If the Middle East were a capacity crowd at the SCG, Israel would be 175 people. Yet Israel is, and probably forever will be, demonised by Western leftists who insist on portraying this democracy as a colossal villain.



For a movement that nominally worships diversity, the anti-Israel Left has an odd way of showing it.

Support for Nakba Day is support for a monocultural Islamic Middle East, where diversity isn't highly valued.

When the Left is confronted over this, a game of moral twister generally ensues.

Earlier this year, for example, a bunch of left-wing US gay activists visited Palestine to show their solidarity against Israel. One of that bunch, professor of women's and gender studies Jasbir Puar, was subsequently asked about Islamic homophobia. "It doesn't take away from the fact that there is an occupation," she reportedly replied.

"We can't judge a country by its attitudes towards homosexuals."

Unless that country is non-Islamic. Happy Nakba Day, diversity fans.

Ian Murray
05-06-2012, 12:52 PM
Yes, although it is a pity that story was made up.
Most peoples have their folklore and mythology, passed down from generation to generation

Rincewind
05-06-2012, 02:24 PM
Most peoples have their folklore and mythology, passed down from generation to generation

I just wish fewer people would rely on folklore to justify aggressive foreign policy.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2012, 03:39 PM
I just wish fewer people would rely on folklore to justify aggressive foreign policy.
I agree, starting with Islamists and Communists. Israel on the other hand has the real history of its people, and a good record of peace with those who make treaties with it, such as Egypt and Jordan.

Rincewind
05-06-2012, 04:16 PM
Israel on the other hand has the real history of its people

No they don't. In the words of Thomas L. Thompson...

"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough."

Desmond
05-06-2012, 06:40 PM
· What was the name of the Captain of the Mayflower?The Owl. The Pussycat was second mate.

· How long did the voyage take?
They were away for a year and a day.

· What did the people who were on the ship eat?
Honey

. What were the conditions of sailing during the voyage?
Fine. Stars visible.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2012, 11:53 PM
No they don't. In the words of Thomas L. Thompson...
Some liberal theologian who is behind the times, e.g. False History—‘out with David and Solomon!’ Archaeological challenges to the historicity of the Bible are the latest ‘fad.’ What are the facts? (http://creation.com/false-history-out-with-david-and-solomon)

Rincewind
06-06-2012, 12:53 AM
Some liberal theologian who is behind the times, e.g. False History—‘out with David and Solomon!’ Archaeological challenges to the historicity of the Bible are the latest ‘fad.’ What are the facts? (http://creation.com/false-history-out-with-david-and-solomon)

Good to see you linking to scholarly histories. :lol:

Desmond
07-06-2012, 07:18 AM
Some liberal theologian who is behind the times, e.g. False History—‘out with David and Solomon!’ Archaeological challenges to the historicity of the Bible are the latest ‘fad.’ What are the facts? (http://creation.com/false-history-out-with-david-and-solomon)
My favourite part was this:

So let’s face it—if the usual archaeological chronology is correct, we have to abandon confidence in the historical records of the Bible.
I suppose abandoning whole fields of scientific inquiry because they contradict the bible is nothing new for you guys.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2012, 07:23 AM
My favourite part was this:

So let’s face it—if the usual archaeological chronology is correct, we have to abandon confidence in the historical records of the Bible.
I suppose abandoning whole fields of scientific inquiry because they contradict the bible is nothing new for you guys.
No, just false histories motivated by atheopathic naturalistic dogma masquerading as science or archaeology.

Rincewind
07-06-2012, 09:20 AM
No, just false histories motivated by atheopathic naturalistic dogma masquerading as science or archaeology.

Not at all. For a long time now the scholarly interpretation has been the bible (or more precisely the collection of writings upon which the old testament was based) was redacted in the time and Josiah and everything before that is more and more unreliable. The archaeological evidence does not support a central Kingdom in the time of Solomon let alone David. The conquests of Joshua are likewise contrary to the evidence with some settlements not inhabited at the time of Joshua and in the other cases the destructions of towns not occurring at near to the same time. Finally of course, despite a well-documented Egyptian history, there is no evidence that the Israelites were ever there in any number or left at the one time in the manner or in the magnitude described in the Bible. In all cases (as mentioned by Thompson above) this lack of evidence is conspicuous because it is expected to have been found or in the case of the early kingdom and Joshua legends, the archaeological evidence contradicts the legend.

Ian Murray
07-06-2012, 07:19 PM
My favourite part was this:

So let’s face it—if the usual archaeological chronology is correct, we have to abandon confidence in the historical records of the Bible.
I suppose abandoning whole fields of scientific inquiry because they contradict the bible is nothing new for you guys.
The bible can't be wrong, so the historical data needs a bit of fine-tuning. We'll just shuffle some dates around by a few centuries to get a better fit. And hey presto, the bible was right all along!

Desmond
07-06-2012, 07:30 PM
The bible can't be wrong, so the historical data needs a bit of fine-tuning. We'll just shuffle some dates around by a few centuries to get a better fit. And hey presto, the bible was right all along!Yeah, the search for truth is just the latest fad, it too shall pass.

Capablanca-Fan
07-06-2012, 10:39 PM
The bible can't be wrong, so the historical data needs a bit of fine-tuning. We'll just shuffle some dates around by a few centuries to get a better fit. And hey presto, the bible was right all along!
Of course, since the other dates use a very dubious chronology based on Manetho's dynasties of the Pharaohs, and other cultures correlated with them. Often they whinge about a lack of evidence in the archaeological record, but it's there if they look in the right place.

In any case, many Israelis are secular, and can easily point to at least 2500 years in the land, and those outside the land always had a special attachment to it. There was never any Palestinian Arab nation there. When Israel declare independence, the Arabs wanted to be part of Syria.

Rincewind
08-06-2012, 12:17 AM
Of course, since the other dates use a very dubious chronology based on Manetho's dynasties of the Pharaohs, and other cultures correlated with them. Often they whinge about a lack of evidence in the archaeological record, but it's there if they look in the right place.

No it isn't.


In any case, many Israelis are secular, and can easily point to at least 2500 years in the land,

Not so easily as you might think. For a small number of present day Israelites that may be true but even some of those in the Middle East prior to independence came their via Spain and other subsequent diasporae. In any case Israel/Judea as a political entity was absent for most of that 2,500 years.


and those outside the land always had a special attachment to it.

Sounds like special pleading. The Arabs actually living there for the last few centuries also had a attachment to it. It was their home.


There was never any Palestinian Arab nation there.

The last of an independent Palastine does not mean the people living there have no claim on their homes. That is like saying we should set up a Jewish nation in the Northern Territory since there has never been an Northern Territorian nation there.


When Israel declare independence, the Arabs wanted to be part of Syria.

I'm sure they are happy for someone as neural and unaligned as you to be their spokesman.

Ian Murray
09-06-2012, 12:57 PM
Of course, since the other dates use a very dubious chronology based on Manetho's dynasties of the Pharaohs, and other cultures correlated with them.
The dates would be rather inconvenient for you - how to explain flourishing civilisations in Egypt, the Indus Valley etc, when they were officially wiped out with no survivors by the Noahic flood in 2304 BCE

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2012, 08:50 AM
The dates would be rather inconvenient for you—how to explain flourishing civilisations in Egypt, the Indus Valley etc, when they were officially wiped out with no survivors by the Noahic flood in 2304 BC
How do you know they were before that? It all relies on the discredited inflated chronology of Egypt and correlations with that with the other civilizations. See Timing is everything: A talk with field archaeologist David Down (http://creation.com/timing-is-everything).

ER
10-06-2012, 08:57 AM
Just to break the tension a little, here is a collection of photos from the Jewish NYC Community parade which took place last Sunday, June 3rd, at 5th Av, Manhattan NYC. Tens of thousands of youngsters of all ages paraded carrying messages of peace and friendship!

https://picasaweb.google.com/117579133234979286240/JEWISHPARADEIN5thAVNYC?authkey=Gv1sRgCMuR0MvipMGML g#

Capablanca-Fan
10-06-2012, 09:03 AM
Just to break the tension a little, here is a collection of photos from the Jewish NYC Community parade which took place last Sunday, June 3rd, at 5th Av, Manhattan NYC. Tens of thousands of youngsters of all ages paraded carrying messages of peace and friendship!

https://picasaweb.google.com/117579133234979286240/JEWISHPARADEIN5thAVNYC?authkey=Gv1sRgCMuR0MvipMGML g#
Thanks for that. Will IM be able to find an Arab/Palestinian parade for peace and friendship?

Ian Murray
10-06-2012, 10:04 AM
How do you know they were before that? It all relies on the discredited inflated chronology of Egypt and correlations with that with the other civilizations. See Timing is everything: A talk with field archaeologist David Down (http://creation.com/timing-is-everything).
Harappa (http://www.harappa.com/har/har0.html) in the Indus Valley was founded ca 3300 BCE and lasted till 1770 BCE, as dated from the site by qualified scholars rather than an amateur archaeologist.

ER
10-06-2012, 10:27 AM
Thanks for that. Will IM be able to find an Arab/Palestinian parade for peace and friendship?

I am sure he will Jono, here is a collection of some fine examples of peaceful and friendly gestures of co-operation between peoples. (there are some parades as well)!

http://freeisraelnow.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/mufti-in-photos-nazism-arab-racism.html

Ian Murray
10-06-2012, 10:11 PM
Thanks for that. Will IM be able to find an Arab/Palestinian parade for peace and friendship?
The Jewish parade is the annual Israel Day bash, similar to the annual St Patrick's Day parade in NYC - there is no peace and friendship with Palestinians theme (although not all American Jews are hawks).

They don't have much to celebrate, but Palestinians and Israeli Arabs (and some liberal Jews) have their annual Land Day of peaceful demonstrations, which in some places degenerate into violence between demonstrators and the military and police.

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2012, 07:30 AM
They don't have much to celebrate,
They would if they let go of their hatred for Jews, and if their fellow Arabs would help them assimilate instead of expelling them and keeping them poor.


but Palestinians and Israeli Arabs (and some liberal Jews) have their annual Land Day of peaceful demonstrations, which in some places degenerate into violence between demonstrators and the military and police.
Ah yes, these peaceful demonstrators preach the end of Israel, carry rocks to throw at police, cheer child-murdering terrorists and even support naming places after them.

Ian Murray
11-06-2012, 08:26 PM
Ah yes, these peaceful demonstrators preach the end of Israel, carry rocks to throw at police, cheer child-murdering terrorists and even support naming places after them.
Like Rachel Corrie (http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/rachel)

Capablanca-Fan
12-06-2012, 12:37 AM
Like Rachel Corrie (http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/rachel)
Ah yes, the sily bint who threw herself in front and out of sight of an Israeli bulldozer that was destroying Palestinian rocket launchers in the bush near a Palestinian home. People like Corrie would never offer themselves as human shields when Palestinian Arabs are murdering school children, or Iranians killing peaceful demonstrators. She had joined International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which officially supports the “right to armed resistance against occupation”,. This recruited naive Westerners to put themselves in danger in what they admitted was a “war zone”, but assured them they would be safe thanks to “white person's privilege”. One article, Rachel Corrie's Dreams (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/rachel-corries-dreams/), points out:

Oddly, too, while Rachel condemned various IDF actions that she witnessed, she inadvertently revealed that they were justified. When she and other ISM internationals ran to retrieve the body of a “martyr,” she did note that the terrorist group, DFLP, had sent him on his mission to attack soldiers. While she bemoaned the IDF’s destruction of Gazan homes, she admitted that most were located near tunnels—the arms smuggling tunnels the IDF was trying to destroy—or just along the border, precisely where Israel was trying to create a buffer zone to prevent more arms smuggling. She blamed the IDF for blowing up a Palestinian greenhouse, even while she acknowledged that someone from the “Palestinian resistance” had planted an explosive there and the IDF was merely defusing it.

“The surreal thing is that we are safe” here, she wrote. More surreal is the fact that Rachel Corrie, indoctrinated by the ISM, her college, and suspect sources, imposed her preconceived notions on a situation that did not match those preconceptions. Tragically, anti-Israel activists are exploiting her accidental death to promote this surreal narrative.

Ian Murray
13-06-2012, 05:48 PM
Ah yes, the sily bint who threw herself in front and out of sight of an Israeli bulldozer that was destroying Palestinian rocket launchers in the bush near a Palestinian home...
That image might turn you on, but it's pure fiction. Affidavits by eyewitnesses can be found here (http://electronicintifada.net/content/affidavits-eyewitnesses-rachel-corrie-killing-schnabel-dale-purssell/1248) - she was standing in front of the bulldozer, wearing a fluoro-orange high-visibility vest. There were no rocket launchers about - the Israelis were simply flattening everything.

American Killed By Israeli Bulldozer, As Civilian Deaths Mount (http://forward.com/articles/9497/american-killed-by-israeli-bulldozer-as-civilian/)
The Jewish Daily Forward
21 March 2003


JERUSALEM — In any other week, the death of Rachel Corrie would have touched off furious international shock waves. A blond, attractive 23-year-old American college student, Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer last Sunday while she stood with a group of fellow peace activists trying to stop a home demolition in Gaza.

The army called her death a “regrettable accident,” claiming the bulldozer driver had not seen her through his narrow windshield. Her fellow activists rejected the claim, insisting she had been standing on a mound of earth and was clearly visible to the driver, who rolled his massive machine back and forth over her body before halting. Some eyewitness reports indicated she had slipped and fallen at a moment when the driver may have been looking behind him....

For Israelis, however, Corrie’s death was something else: the latest in a growing number of signs that Israel’s own war has taken a new and worrying turn in recent days. Just days earlier, two Israeli security guards outside the P’nei Hever settlement, near Hebron, had been killed by troops who mistook them for terrorists. Within 24 hours after Corrie’s death, Israeli anti-terrorism sweeps had resulted in 13 new Palestinian deaths, including a 2-year-old toddler.

Figures published this week by the army indicate that some 18% of the Palestinians killed since the outbreak of the intifada in September 2000 have been civilians with no connection whatsoever to terrorism.

The study, undertaken by the defense establishment itself, shows that of the estimated 1,945 Palestinians killed, 365 were people in no way connected with terrorist activities; of the total killed, 130 (7%) were children under the age of 16 and 235 (11%) were adults unconnected with terrorism, many of them women and elderly people. The army’s figures of the number of people killed are lower than figures compiled by Palestinian organizations, which set the number of Palestinian deaths in the intifada at 2,181.

The deaths of the two Israeli guards, however, seemed to many Israelis to represent something new, bringing home the relentless toll of blood in a way that other deaths had not. One of the two was killed in a hail of Israeli bullets when army sharpshooters saw the pair squatting on a barren hillside and opened fire without asking questions. The other managed to escape the bullets, only to be killed by a missile fired from a helicopter gunship.

The deaths of the two young Israelis, Yoav Doron and Yehuda Ben-Yosef, stayed in the headlines for days, prompting rounds of soul-searching and finger-pointing over how Israel’s vaunted soldiers could have made such a mistake....

Igor_Goldenberg
15-06-2012, 02:08 PM
Figures published this week by the army indicate that some 18% of the Palestinians killed since the outbreak of the intifada in September 2000 have been civilians with no connection whatsoever to terrorism.


So 82% of Palestinians killed are connected to terrorism. Not a bad result by itself. Fatah and Hamas are notorious for using innocent civilians (their own!) as human shield, which makes this figure remarkable.
I wonder how many Jews murdered by Arab terrorists are in any way connected to military?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-06-2012, 02:15 PM
Like Rachel Corrie (http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/rachel)
You also might want to read this excerpt from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie) (references and links available in the article):



Criticism of the International Solidarity Movement's role

Joseph Smith (aka Joseph Carr) acknowledged in an interview that the International Solidarity Movement knowingly put its activists' lives at risk. Per Making of a Martyr by Sandra Jordan, "'We knew there was a risk,' Smith said, 'but we also knew it never happened in the two years that we (the ISM) have been working here. I knew we take lots of precautions so that it doesn't happen, that if it did happen it would have to be an intentional act by a soldier, in which case it would bring a lot of publicity and significance to the cause.'"[56] The Electronic Intifada reported that the activists continued to interact with the bulldozers despite at least one close call earlier in the day: "In the instance pictured, the bulldozer did not stop and Rachel was pinned between the scooped earth and the fence behind her. On this occasion, the driver stopped before seriously injuring her. Photo by Joseph Smith (ISM Handout)."[57] George Rishmawi is quoted thus in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle: "“When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is interested anymore,” Rishmawi said. “But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice.”"[58] And Joseph Smith has said: "The spirit that she died for is worth a life. This idea of resistance, this spirit of resisting this brutal occupying force, is worth anything. And many, many, many Palestinians give their lives for it all the time. So the life of one international, I feel, is more than worth the spirit of resisting oppression."[59]

Ian Murray
15-06-2012, 04:53 PM
So 82% of Palestinians killed are connected to terrorism.
Flawed assumption. If 18% were confirmed as civilians with no connection whatsoever to terrorism (largely by age or gender), then the 82% balance are confirmed as having a connection, or their status is unknown or unconfirmed.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-06-2012, 05:20 PM
Flawed assumption. If 18% were confirmed as civilians with no connection whatsoever to terrorism (largely by age or gender), then the 82% balance are confirmed as having a connection, or their status is unknown or unconfirmed.
Doubt it. Electronic intifada et al rule out everyone they can.

Ian Murray
15-06-2012, 07:42 PM
Doubt it. Electronic intifada et al rule out everyone they can.
Israel makes no such claim as your 82%, e.g. teenagers throwing stones at soldiers get killed; they're protesters, not terrorists

Capablanca-Fan
16-06-2012, 01:48 PM
Israel makes no such claim as your 82%, e.g. teenagers throwing stones at soldiers get killed; they're protesters, not terrorists
They are violent thugs. They throw rocks not "stones" which can be maiming or even lethal. They would also never dare to throw stones at Palestinian Arab soldiers, who would machine gun them on the spot with hardly a whisper of protest from their Western enablers.

Ian Murray
16-06-2012, 08:09 PM
They are violent thugs. They throw rocks not "stones" which can be maiming or even lethal.
Then so are stone-throwing Israelis:

Youth from the Jewish enclave in Hebron and Palestinians threw stones at each other on Saturday and caused damage to property. Hebron police held two settler youths for investigation.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/settlers-throw-stones-at-palestinian-homes-in-hebron-1.175158

Two Israeli settlers from the illegal outpost Havat Ma'on hurl stones with slingshots at Palestinian shepherds and international peace activists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQQy0RwHdv8

Settlers throw stones at woman and baby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EUUrE8Lm14

Israeli Settlers attack Palestinian School Girls in Hebron
http://eappi.org/fr/photos-videos/photos/84-photo-essay-israeli-settlers-attack-palestinian-school-girls-in-hebron.html

Around 40 Israeli settlers threw stones at Palestinians and IDF security forces near Havat Gilad in the West Bank
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=273008

and the list goes on ...

Of course the settlers select unarmed civilians as their targets. The Palestinians are willing to risk their lives against the military operating under shoot-to-kill orders - lots of them die as a result. No soldiers have been killed from stone-throwing.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2012, 01:56 AM
Of course the settlers select unarmed civilians as their targets.
And they are out of step with the vast majority of Israelis. And no town squares are named after them, and Israeli schools don't teach kids to hate Arabs.


The Palestinians are willing to risk their lives against the military operating under shoot-to-kill orders - lots of them die as a result.
Where are these orders? And although they are violent provacateurs, they fare much better than even peaceful protesters in Egypt, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinian-ruled places.


No soldiers have been killed from stone-throwing.
It's still very dangerous to be hit by a rock.

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2012, 01:32 PM
IAF strikes back at Gaza terror groups 3rd time in 24 hours (http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=274367)
Jerusalem Post, 19 June 2012


Most recent airstrike hit terrorists planting explosives on Gaza border; Earlier airstrikes target Islamic Jihad operatives; IDF maintains high alert along Gaza border in expectation of terrorist retaliation.

The Israel Air Force on early Tuesday morning struck a terrorist cell which was in the process of planting an explosive device near the border with Central Gaza, the IDF confirmed.

The IDF also said that the IAF had confirmed a direct hit on the terrorist target. This was the third airstrike in twenty four hours.

The third airstrike followed a continuing escalation between Israel and Gaza terror groups.

Only hours before the latest airstrike, terror groups fired two rockets, one at Sderot and one into the Ashkelon Regional Council area. Neither rocket caused casualties or damage. …
The mainstream antisemitic Leftmedia will probably report this as a "cycle of violence" instead of Israel targeting terrorists attempting to kill innocent civilians, and their dupes like IM will agree.

Ian Murray
19-06-2012, 09:33 PM
And they are out of step with the vast majority of Israelis. And no town squares are named after them, and Israeli schools don't teach kids to hate Arabs.
There are over half a million Israelis in illegal settlements in the occupied territories. They receive overt or tacit support from the IDF and police while they wage a campaign of terror against the Palestinian population. By definition they are terrorists. The Palestinian protesters are not terrorising civilians - they are not terrorists.

Where are these orders? And although they are violent provacateurs, they fare much better than even peaceful protesters in Egypt, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinian-ruled places.
Use of Firearms (http://www.btselem.org/firearms)
B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
1 Jan 2011

...Unlike past practice, since the outbreak of the al-Aqsa intifada the IDF has not issued soldiers serving in the Occupied Territories booklets containing the Open-Fire Regulations. However, soldiers' testimonies to B'Tselem and information published in the media provide numerous examples of the changes in the Regulations which greatly increased the range of situations in which soldiers are allowed to use their firearms. Examples of the changes are:

The term “life-threatening” is expanded to include situations not previously considered life-threatening, such as stone throwing;...
Being killed is not really my idea of faring much better than other protesters.

Capablanca-Fan
20-06-2012, 02:03 AM
There are over half a million Israelis in illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
Illegal according to whom? That kakistocracy called the UN?


They receive overt or tacit support from the IDF and police while they wage a campaign of terror against the Palestinian population. By definition they are terrorists. The Palestinian protesters are not terrorising civilians — they are not terrorists.
What blinders the anti-Israel crowd wear. Where are the Israeli suicide bombers? What Israelis have blown up Arabic school buses? What Israeli schools teach that Arabs are subhuman? Where are the Israeli town squares named after terrorists?


Use of Firearms (http://www.btselem.org/firearms)
B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
1 Jan 2011

... However, soldiers' testimonies to B'Tselem and information published in the media provide numerous examples of the changes in the Regulations which greatly increased the range of situations in which soldiers are allowed to use their firearms. Examples of the changes are:

The term “life-threatening” is expanded to include situations not previously considered life-threatening, such as stone throwing;...
"Rock throwing" is a better term. Once such violence is started, it is legitimate to respond with force.

Note also the double standards of the anti-Israel lobby. They harp on about alleged brutality by Israeli soldiers against protestors, but are almost silent about the far more lethal reaction by the Arabic and Iranian governments in that geographical area.

There is one case of equable standards though: both Israel and Palestinian/Arab/Islamic government permit groups that criticise Israel's government and military policies!

Ian Murray
20-06-2012, 09:24 PM
Illegal according to whom?
International Humanitarian Law

Where are the Israeli suicide bombers? What Israelis have blown up Arabic school buses?
The Palestinian equivalents are terrorists of course, but they are outside the current argument. Seizing on the IDF admission that 18% of those it killed had no connection to terrorism (largely by age or gender), Iggy proclaimed that 82% were terrorists. I challenged his flawed logic (post 1119) leading to my assertion that Palestinian teenagers throwing stones at Israeli soldiers were protesters not terrorists. Jews stoning Arab women and children are terrorists (the aim of terrorism is to terrorise).

"Rock throwing" is a better term.
Jesus preferred "stone throwing", as in John 8:7

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2012, 01:52 AM
International Humanitarian Law
Since when did Israel's enemies care about that?


Jesus preferred "stone throwing", as in John 8:7
I've told you before that this is most likely not part of the original manuscript, but you prove my point: this was part of capital punishment. I.e. these "stones" were potentially lethal weapons, not harmless kids' pranks.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2012, 12:10 PM
Hatred of Israel Brings the KKK and Democrats Back Together (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/13906)
Congressional race in New York highlights the growing strand of extremism on the Left.
By Arnold Ahlert
June 23, 2012


A primary contest taking place in New York next Tuesday portends yet another embarrassment for the Democrat Party. In the newly re-drawn 8th Congressional District, City Councilman Charles Barron is running against state Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries for the Democratic nomination to succeed retiring Rep. Ed Towns. Yesterday, the African-American Barron picked up an endorsement from former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. How is this possible? As Duke explained, "The possible election of a dedicated anti-Zionist to the U.S. Congress, has thrown the Zionist-influenced media and the Zio-political establishment in a tizzy," he said in a web video.

Duke, a self-described "white nationalist," clarified his reasoning for backing one black American against another black American in a race far away from his home state of Louisiana. "In a race for Congress between an anti-Zionist black activist and a black activist who is a bought and paid for Zionist Uncle Tom, I'll take the anti-Zionist any day," Mr. Duke continues in the video. "In this election of limited choices, I believe that Charles Barron is the best choice. Why? Because I think there's no greater danger facing the United States of America and facing the world than the unbridled power of Zionist globalism."

The reason for Duke's support is obvious: Since Barron's election to City Council in 2001, he has associated himself with anti-Israel groups and regularly demonized the State of Israel. In a 2009 interview with the Amsterdam News, he referred to the Gaza Strip as "a virtual death camp, the same kind of conditions the Nazis imposed on the Jews," further claiming the Jews "massacre the Palestinian people, bomb their homes, churches and schools, and then block anybody trying to deliver aid to them. What this amounts to is genocide."



See also Darwinism’s influence on modern racists and white supremacist groups: the case of David Duke (http://creation.com/darwinisms-influence-on-modern-racists-and-white-supremacist-groups-the-case-of-david-duke).

Ian Murray
30-06-2012, 01:12 PM
The creeping annexation of Judea and Samaria (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=275689)
The Jerusalem Post
28.6.12

One of the most effective ways for an expansionist state to annex territory conquered by its armed forces is to populate it with its own people. That is what Israel seems to be doing in the West Bank: Performing a demographic fait accompli in which the number of Jewish inhabitants eventually may equal or even outnumber the Palestinians there.

This technique is termed unacceptable by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Its stand was prompted by the situation that occurred during World War II in which Nazi Germany sent its nationals, known as volksdeutsche, to settle in occupied Poland as a prelude to Poland’s Germanization and eventual annexation.

However, its applicability to the post-Six Day War situation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was deemed inappropriate by the Israeli authorities. One of the postwar deputy directors of the Foreign Ministry, Shlomo Hillel, maintained in mid-1967 that the West Bank was taken from a power that had no right to control it – the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan – and not from a state whose possession of it was accepted internationally....

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2012, 12:24 AM
The creeping annexation of Judea and Samaria (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=275689)
The Jerusalem Post
28.6.12
Quite a good article actually, in its entirety.

Ian Murray
01-07-2012, 07:17 PM
Quite a good article actually, in its entirety.
It is indeed. Progress needs to be made somehow, with the effective demise of a two-state solution.

Capablanca-Fan
25-07-2012, 09:09 AM
Egyptian Celebs React Violently When Told They Are On Israeli TV (VIDEO) (http://www.jspace.com/news/articles/egyptian-celebs-react-violently-when-told-they-are-on-israeli-tv-video/9981)
By Jspace Staff on 7/24/2012 at 12:09 PM

See the virulent Jew-hatred and violence from Egyptian actors when told (falsely) that they were on Israeli TV. And that bint of a hostess puts it down to "patriotism".

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2012, 01:13 PM
Indeed, Israel is the only country in the Middle East where there is religious freedom and full rights for women. Arabs in Israel have more freedom than anywhere else in the region.
uIEeiDjdUuU&feature=player_embedded

Capablanca-Fan
10-09-2012, 02:24 PM
cn4r7ZjG9Nc&feature=player_embedded

Video - THE PALESTINIAN MYTH

Must watch and share video about the true story of what happened to the Arabs due to the 1948 war. It is a video that interviews the Arabs themselves who tell their stories! There was no Jewish expulsion of Arabs! Listen to what the Arabs say and share this video with all!!!

This is not just about clarifying whether or not the idea of a Palestinian Nation is a myth – it is also an excellent short video that explains how much of the recent Arab refugee problems began in the Middle East.

Ian Murray
16-09-2012, 07:22 PM
Muslim rage
Why they won’t calm down
Mischief, not madness, often underlies Muslim anger (http://www.economist.com/node/21562960)
The Economist
15.9.2012


TO OUTSIDE eyes it is as bizarre as it is repellent. A single event, book, cartoon, film or teddy bear, which represents nothing but its originator, who may not even be American, sparks lethal outbursts of mass protest. What, to prejudiced Westerners, could better exemplify Muslim backwardness and depravity?

The latest bloody furore was provoked by the belated release on the web of an amateurish film, probably made by a Coptic Egyptian resident in America, attacking the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, brute and pervert. Yet the film had been available (with stunning lack of success) for months, though dubbed in Arabic more recently. Undoubtedly offensive, it could count as an incitement to religious hatred—illegal in some countries, though not in America. But it is no worse than plenty of other material only a mouse-click away.

So why the ire?...

Goughfather
17-09-2012, 01:04 AM
The latest bloody furore was provoked by the belated release on the web of an amateurish film

From the 15 minute trailer I have seen, "amateurish" is perhaps a little kind. The cinematography would be laughable if not for current events in Africa.

Capablanca-Fan
17-09-2012, 01:20 AM
The coordinated attacks on different embassies and consulates around the Islamofascist world must have been planned for months. Obamov wants to restrict the First Amendment rights of amateurish film makers rather than blame those absurdly easily offended murderous thugs of the Religion of Peace. No Christians murdered people after amateurish christophobic films like The Last Temptation of Christ, Religulous, or The Da Vinci Code.

As Fox News commentator Kirsten Powers wrote (http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-obama-stumbles-in-response-to-embassy-attacks/article/2508062#.UFW6xxzmnlp):

Our leaders shouldn't let our enemies know that when they kill our people and attack our embassies that the U.S. government will act like a battered wife making excuses for her psychotic husband.

From German Paper: ‘Obama’s Middle East Policy Is in Ruins’ (http://freebeacon.com/german-paper-obamas-middle-east-policy-is-in-ruins/):

In a roundup (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-press-review-on-middle-east-violence-against-us-embassies-a-855835.html) of international opinion, German Der Spiegel featured this take from the conservative Die Welt:


“US President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world. After some initial hesitation, he came out clearly on the side of the democratic revolutions. … In this context, he must accept the fact that he has snubbed old close allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military. And now parts of the freed societies are turning against the country which helped bring them into being. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It’s a bitter outcome for Obama.”

“Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. In practice, the policies of the Obama administration in the region were not as naive as they may have seemed at times, and the Americans have always been much more involved in the Middle East than the passive Europeans. But Washington has provided the image of a distracted superpower in the process of decline to the societies there. This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali.”

“One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America’s deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check.”
what a sick joke when on 21 November 2007, the then junior senator from Illinois, B. Hussein Obamov, said The Day I’m Inaugurated Muslim Hostility Will Ease (http://patriotupdate.com/29495/obama-flashback-the-day-im-inaugurated-muslim-hostility-will-ease).

Mrs Jono
17-09-2012, 10:58 PM
what a sick joke when on 21 November 2007, the then junior senator from Illinois, B. Hussein Obamov, said The Day I’m Inaugurated Muslim Hostility Will Ease (http://patriotupdate.com/29495/obama-flashback-the-day-im-inaugurated-muslim-hostility-will-ease).
No honour among thieves, I guess.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-09-2012, 12:13 PM
Yet the film had been available (with stunning lack of success) for months, though dubbed in Arabic more recently.

So why the ire?...
It's telling the film was available for months. Doubt anybody would ever found out.
Yet the protests miraculously coincided with both 9/11 and terrorist attack on American embassy in Lybia.
Answers the question "why the ire".

And how many more pretexts are waiting to be used by Islamists worldwide (when it suits them).

Igor_Goldenberg
18-09-2012, 12:15 PM
An excellent joke I read recently (translated from Russian):

"Islam is a religion of peace. Those who disagree must be beheaded"

Capablanca-Fan
18-09-2012, 12:43 PM
An excellent joke I read recently (translated from Russian):

"Islam is a religion of peace. Those who disagree must be beheaded"
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Welcome back!

Goughfather
19-09-2012, 12:26 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Welcome back!

The separated lovers have been reunited. Nice knowing you Mrs Jono - your job here as a seatwarmer is done.

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2012, 06:25 AM
Obama’s Mideast Strategy More Like Battered Wife Syndrome (http://patriotupdate.com/articles/obamas-mideast-strategy-more-like-battered-wife-syndrome)
Tad Cronn, 17 September 2012


Recent events in the Mideast reminded me of that scene as we learned that our ambassador had been killed and our poorly guarded embassies attacked, yet the Obama Administration was busy issuing apologies to the mob for an unknown little film and imagined insults to Islam.

This is typical behavior for this president, who began his administration with an apology tour around the world. It’s also typical behavior for liberals in general, who on the whole seem to think that apologizing to bullies will somehow shame them into changing their behavior.

There’s somewhere else you can find that behavior pattern, and that’s in every battered women’s shelter across this land.

Abused women and children have a difficult road to travel and should be applauded for taking the first step to get out of a bad situation, but there is a pattern to abusive relationships.

Far too many women put up with verbal and physical abuse out of some subconscious notion that they deserve to be punished. Ask any cop about cases where women have been subject to often frightful beatings then turn right around and forgive the SOB who hurt them.

There follows the “honeymoon period,” in which things seem better for a while, but then the cycle repeats itself. Such abusive cycles don’t end until something happens to break them — either the woman leaves or someone dies.

In the case of our president, the belief that the U.S. deserves punishment is not subconscious at all, but part of his personal dogma endorsed by his liberal supporters. His entire presidency has been about bringing down the people of the United States and trying to buy the good graces of foreign nations.

Ian Murray
19-09-2012, 08:13 AM
Obama’s Mideast Strategy More Like Battered Wife Syndrome
The Patriot Update, 17 September 2012

Psychobabble. Does he mean the US should have supported the Gaddafi, Mubarak and Assad regimes against their popular uprisings? That would certainly endear America to the people of the Middle East and North Africa.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-09-2012, 11:43 AM
Psychobabble. Does he mean the US should have supported the Gaddafi, Mubarak and Assad regimes against their popular uprisings? That would certainly endear America to the people of the Middle East and North Africa.
False dichotomy.

Rincewind
19-09-2012, 12:07 PM
An excellent joke I read recently (translated from Russian):

"Islam is a religion of peace. Those who disagree must be beheaded"

That really would be an excellent joke if no one has ever been stoned to death for violating the Shabbat.

Capablanca-Fan
19-09-2012, 12:19 PM
Psychobabble. Does he mean the US should have supported the Gaddafi, Mubarak and Assad regimes against their popular uprisings?
How about staying the *$#% out of it?


That would certainly endear America to the people of the Middle East and North Africa.
You mean, as opposed to the love the Islamofascists are showing now? No ambassadors were killed under the previous despots who were at least keeping the Islamonazis under some sort of control. Perhaps IM thinks that the hapless Jimmy Carter was right to support the Ayatollahs over the Shah. Obamov certainly gained no benefit for America by supporting the rebels, but then he hates America as shown by the movie 2016: Obama's America (http://2016themovie.com/).

Mrs Jono
20-09-2012, 03:41 PM
An excellent joke I read recently (translated from Russian):

"Islam is a religion of peace. Those who disagree must be beheaded"

:lol:

(Who else read that with a Russian accent? :lol:)

Capablanca-Fan
22-09-2012, 03:16 AM
Free Speech Isn't the Problem (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/14827)
By Jonah Goldberg · September 21, 2012


Amidst all of the talk of religious tolerance and the hand-wringing over free speech in recent days, one salient fact is often lost or glossed over: What we face are not broad questions about the limits of free speech or the importance of religious tolerance, but rather a very specific question about the limits of Muslim tolerance and the unimportance of free speech to much of the Muslin world.

It's really quite amazing. In Pakistan, Egypt and the Palestinian territories, Christians are being harassed, brutalized and even murdered, often with state support, or at least state indulgence. And let's not even talk about the warm reception Jews receive in much of the Muslim world.

And yet, it seems you can't turn on National Public Radio or open a newspaper or a highbrow magazine without finding some oh-so-thoughtful meditation on how anti-Islamic speech should be considered the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a movie theater.

It's an interesting comparison. First, the prohibition on yelling "fire" in a theater only applies to instances where there is no fire. A person who yells "fire" when there is, in fact, a fire is quite likely a hero. I'm not saying that the people ridiculing Muhammad -- be they the makers of the "Innocence of Muslims" trailer or the editors of a French magazine -- have truth on their side. But blasphemy is not a question of scientific fact, merely of opinion. And in America we give a very wide legal berth to the airing of such opinions. Loudly declaring "It is my opinion there is a fire in here" is not analogous to declaring "It is my opinion that Muhammad was a blankety-blank."

You know why? Because Muslims aren't fire, they're people. And fire isn't a sentient entity, it is a force of nature bereft of choice or cognition of any kind. Just as water seeks its own level, fire burns what it can burn. Muslims have free will. If they choose to riot, that's not the same thing as igniting a fire.

Indeed, the point is proven by the simple fact that the vast majority of Muslims don't riot. More than 17 million people live in greater Cairo. A tiny fraction of a fraction of that number stormed the U.S. Embassy to "protest" that stupid video. And yet, the logic seems to be that the prime authors of Muslim violence are non-Muslims who express their opinions, often thousands of miles away.

Capablanca-Fan
22-09-2012, 03:35 AM
Stevens Video: Dancing With Corpses, Dancing in Blood (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12208)
Israel National News, September 21, 2012


Remember the ghoulish lynching of the two Israeli reservists in Ramallah in 2000? And how the Palestinians danced for joy in the streets on 9/11? In 2012, the Arab Street, the Islamist Muslim Street, is again dancing in blood, dancing with corpses.

People have cautioned me not to write about mob mass rape without proper sources. They are right. But today, what constitutes a credible source? Would one turn to the New York Times (or Huffington Post or NPR) or to The Wall Street Journal, National Review, or the Weekly Standard?

What constitutes irrefutable proof—the kind accepted by all?

Remember the Mumbai massacre? Islamist terrorists forced hotel guests to strip naked to humiliate them before they killed them. Remember the Chabad Rabbi and his very pregnant wife in Mumbai? They were both tortured in full sight of each other and their genitals were mutilated.

I know of many instances of Islamist Muslim mobs on a rampage. They have attacked civilians, including women and children, with axes, swords, knives, whips, chains, and rocks and they hacked, stabbed, lashed, and stoned their victims to death. The mob also be-headed their victims and sexually mutilated them, both while they were still alive and after death. They have also been known to gang-rape and gang-grope their victims.

Capablanca-Fan
22-09-2012, 06:29 PM
GCXHPKhRCVg

Ian Murray
22-09-2012, 11:38 PM
Who's afraid of Muslim Rage? (http://en.avaaz.org/783/muslim-rage-protests-newsweek-salafists?utm_source=avaaz_newsletter&utm_medium=blast&utm_campaign=stop-the-clash)
avaaz.org
20.9.2012


A US magazine cover screams out the general media slant of the last two weeks: the Muslim world is burning with anti-western anger over an Islamophobic film, with hordes of violent protesters on the streets threatening us all ... but is it really? Citizens and new media are responding, and Gawker has brilliantly satirised the hype (http://gawker.com/5943828/13-powerful-images-of-muslim-rage) with alternative images of "Muslim Rage

Seven things you may have missed in the 'Rage':
Like everyone else, many Muslims find the 13 minute Islamophobic video "Innocence of Muslims" trashy and offensive. Protests have spread quickly, tapping into understandable and lasting grievances about neo-colonialist US and western foreign policy in the Middle East, as well as religious sensitivities about depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. But the news coverage often obscures some important points:

1. Early estimates put participation in anti-film protests at between 0.001 (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129168313878423.html) and 0.007% (http://news.sky.com/story/986078/prophet-film-protests-a-stormy-week-ahead) of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims – a tiny fraction of those who marched for democracy in the Arab spring.

2. The vast majority of protesters have been peaceful. The breaches of foreign embassies were almost all organised or fuelled by elements of the Salafist movement (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138129/william-mccants/the-sources-of-salafi-conduct), a radical Islamist group that is most concerned with undermining more popular moderate Islamist groups.

3. Top Libyan and US officials are divided (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/was-the-attack-on-the-libya-consulate-planned-or-not/2012/09/16/6f1136be-0042-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_blog.html) over whether the killing of the US ambassador to Libya was likely pre-planned to coincide with 9/11, and therefore not connected to the film.

4. Apart from attacks by radical militant groups in Libya and Afghanistan, a survey of news reports on 20 September suggested that actual protesters had killed a total of zero people. The deaths cited by media were largely protesters killed by police.

5. Pretty much every major leader, Muslim and western, has condemned the film, and pretty much every leader, Muslim and western, has condemned any violence that might be committed in response.

6. The pope visited Lebanon at the height of the tension, and Hezbollah leaders attended his sermon (http://news.kuwaittimes.net/2012/09/16/be-peacemakers-in-me-pope-tells-christians-hezbollah-politicians-attend-mass-at-seafront/), refrained from protesting the film until he left, and called for religious tolerance. Yes, this happened.

7. After the attack in Benghazi, ordinary people turned out on the streets in Benghazi and Tripoli with signs (https://en.avaaz.org/755/not-in-our-name-libyans-reject-terror), many of them in English, apologising and saying the violence did not represent them or their religion.

Add to that the number of really big news stories that were buried last week to make room for front page, angry Muslim "Clash" coverage. In Russia tens of thousands of protesters marched through Moscow (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/world/europe/anti-putin-protesters-march-in-moscow-russia.html?_r=0) to oppose Russian President Vladimir Putin. Hundreds of thousands of Portuguese and Spaniards turned out for anti-austerity protests (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/15/us-portugal-protests-idUSBRE88E0GZ20120915); and more than a million Catalans marched for independence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/11/catalan-independence-rally-barcelona).

Muslim rage or Salafist strategy?
The "Innocence of Muslims" was picked up and peddled with subtitles by far-right Salafists – radical followers of an Islamic movement long supported by Saudi Arabia. The film was a cheaply made, YouTube failure until an Egyptian Salafist TV host, Sheikh Khaled Abdullah began promoting it to viewers (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/egyptian-outrage-peddler-who-sent-anti-islam-youtube-clip-viral/56826/) on 8 September.

Most insulted Muslims ignored the film or protested peacefully, but the Salafists, with their signature black flags, were leading instigators (http://world.time.com/2012/09/14/what-we-can-learn-from-the-attacks-on-u-s-embassies/) of the more aggressive protests that breached embassies. Leaders of the Egyptian Salafist party attended the Cairo protest that broke into the US embassy.

Like the far-right in the US or Europe, the Salafist strategy is to drag public opinion rightwards by seizing on opportunities to fan radical anger and demonise ideological opponents. This approach resembles that of anti-Muslim US pastor Terry Jones (who first promoted the film in the west) and other western extremists. In both societies, however, the moderates far (far!) outnumber the extremists. A leading figure in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood (the more powerful and popular political opponent of Egypt’s Salafists) wrote to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/opinion/our-condolences-the-muslim-brotherhood-says.html) saying: "We do not hold the American government or its citizens responsible for acts of the few that abuse the laws protecting freedom of expression".

Good reporting
A lonely band of journalists and scholars have approached the protests with an intent to truly understand the forces behind them. Among them, Hisham Matar (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/09/what-was-really-behind-the-benghazi-attack.html), who powerfully describes the sadness in Benghazi after J Christopher Stevens' killing, and Barnaby Phillips (http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2012/09/2012918212550140834.html), who explores how Islamic conservatives manipulated the film to their advantage. Anthropologist Sarah Kendzior cautions against treating the Muslim world as a homogenous unit (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129168313878423.html). And Professor Stanley Fish tackles a tough question: why many Muslims are so sensitive to unflattering depictions of Islam (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/libya-violence-and-free-speech/?ref=global-home).

Capablanca-Fan
23-09-2012, 06:07 PM
The Insane Stream Media Hates Gracious Christianity and Loves Violent Islam (http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/09/23/the_insane_stream_media_hates_gracious_christianit y_and_loves_violent_islam/page/full/)
Doug Giles, 23 September 2012


In Robert Spencer’s book, Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Bob shows those who can still be shown anything factual the massive and fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity. They are not equal no matter how much the blatherers of political correctness purport them to be. Their beliefs are not similar, nor their practices, nor their means of spreading their message—and to think otherwise could cost you your ass.

Spencer points out the crystal clear facts that clash with the current anti-Christian hype, such as …

· Most Muslims do not condemn jihad.

· Christianity and Islam have neither similar traditions nor similar modern realities.

· Christian religious violence, real or imagined, does not mitigate the reality of jihad.

· A “Christian theocracy” in America is a figment of the Left’s imagination.

· The Islamic world has never developed the distinction between religious and secular law that is inherent in Christianity.

· Christianity has embraced reason—and Islam has embraced … “Silence! I kill you!”

· The Koran does not invite interpretation, and Muslim leaders refuse to discuss how to fit their beliefs into modern society.

· Youtube flicks, Political differences and unwanted international interference are not, in fact, the cause of the turmoil in Iraq and Middle Eastern antagonism toward the west.

· Jews, Christians and peoples of other faiths (or no faiths) are equally at risk from militant Islam—especially gays and women.

· The most determined enemies of western civilization may not be the jihadists at all, but the leftists who fear their churchgoing neighbors more than Islamic terrorists.

Listen, 21st century truth reconstructors … you’ve gotta relax. Please do us all a favor and go get healed from your bad Sunday school experience and lay down your church-grinding axe. Thinking people aren’t buying the “Christianity = Islam” smack.

Get real, Goofy. You and I both know that regardless of what a few loopy CINOs (Christians in name only) have done via violence in the name of the Father, it’s not in the body of Christian doctrine to hack off the noggin of the obstreperous. There’s not even an obscure passage in the Book of Revelation that some demented clod could twist like your Gumby doll to make Christian Scripture green-light your demise or anyone else’s. Additionally, Christians aren’t longing for TBN to replace D.C. as our nation’s headquarters.

So chill, you shrill shredders of Christianity.

Ian Murray
23-09-2012, 08:28 PM
The Insane Stream Media Hates Gracious Christianity and Loves Violent Islam
Doug Giles, 23 September 2012
I bet Giles and Andrew Bolt are penpals

Igor_Goldenberg
25-09-2012, 09:49 AM
I wonder why nobody asks the simple question:
- Who was the main promoter of "Innocence of Muslims"?

Could it be because the answer would destroy the myth of spontaneous outrage?

Excerpt from Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims):

"The 14 minute video clips were initially uploaded to YouTube in July 2012, under the titles The Real Life of Muhammad and Muhammad Movie Trailer.[5] Videos dubbed in the Arabic language were uploaded during early September 2012,[6] and were promoted by Morris Sadek by email and on the blog of the National American Coptic Assembly.[7] On September 9, 2012, an excerpt of the YouTube video was broadcast on Al-Nas TV, an Egyptian Islamist television station"

I haven't watched the trailer, can only rely on some "reviews" from the people who saw. According to them the quality of the movie doesn't warrant wasting 15 minutes to watch it. It's a little wonder it was in the obscurity until Egypt began actively promoting it.

Cui bono?
And who is the main blasphemer?

Igor_Goldenberg
25-09-2012, 10:04 AM
It was covered in news, Wikipedia article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Egyptian%E2%80%93Israeli_border_attack)

"Egyptian intelligence chief Morad Mowafi said that Egypt had also received comprehensive intelligence warnings before the attack took place. However, the Egyptian authorities never imagined that this type of attack would happen, in which "a Muslim would kill a Muslim on the hour of breaking the fast in Ramadan."

The warning, I presume, came from Israel.

The most intriguing part is an after-match. Islamist president of Egypt, who lacked real power, swiftly replaced the head of military and police with his people, effectively wrestling the power from the army.
Turkish president took almost ten years to wrest control from the military. Mosri achived it within a month.
Mosri also moved significant armed forces to Sinai peninsula (the pretext was to fight terrorism) in a clear defiance of peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.

Cui bono?
Is it a coincidence that Egypt played a major role in inciting world-wide Muslim protests a month later?

Ian Murray
25-09-2012, 01:55 PM
I wonder why nobody asks the simple question:
- Who was the main promoter of "Innocence of Muslims"?
No need to ask - already answered. See my Post #1153:

The "Innocence of Muslims" was picked up and peddled with subtitles by far-right Salafists – radical followers of an Islamic movement long supported by Saudi Arabia. The film was a cheaply made, YouTube failure until an Egyptian Salafist TV host, Sheikh Khaled Abdullah began promoting it to viewers on 8 September.

Most insulted Muslims ignored the film or protested peacefully, but the Salafists, with their signature black flags, were leading instigators of the more aggressive protests that breached embassies. Leaders of the Egyptian Salafist party attended the Cairo protest that broke into the US embassy.

Like the far-right in the US or Europe, the Salafist strategy is to drag public opinion rightwards by seizing on opportunities to fan radical anger and demonise ideological opponents. This approach resembles that of anti-Muslim US pastor Terry Jones (who first promoted the film in the west) and other western extremists. In both societies, however, the moderates far (far!) outnumber the extremists. A leading figure in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood (the more powerful and popular political opponent of Egypt’s Salafists) wrote to the New York Times saying: "We do not hold the American government or its citizens responsible for acts of the few that abuse the laws protecting freedom of expression".

Ian Murray
26-09-2012, 05:11 PM
...Mosri also moved significant armed forces to Sinai peninsula (the pretext was to fight terrorism) in a clear defiance of peace agreement between Egypt and Israel....

Clear defiance? From the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=280330), the Israeli conservative daily:

Israel will consider any Egyptian request to deploy additional military forces in the Sinai in an effort to retake control of the peninsula and weed out a global jihad terrorist infrastructure, defense officials said on Monday....

Until now, Israel has permitted the Egyptians to deploy about seven battalions in the Sinai, although under the peace treaty the peninsula is meant to remain demilitarized...

Igor shooting from the hip again.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-09-2012, 10:31 AM
No need to ask - already answered. See my Post #1153:

The "Innocence of Muslims" was picked up and peddled with subtitles by far-right Salafists – radical followers of an Islamic movement long supported by Saudi Arabia. The film was a cheaply made, YouTube failure until an Egyptian Salafist TV host, Sheikh Khaled Abdullah began promoting it to viewers on 8 September.

Most insulted Muslims ignored the film or protested peacefully, but the Salafists, with their signature black flags, were leading instigators of the more aggressive protests that breached embassies. Leaders of the Egyptian Salafist party attended the Cairo protest that broke into the US embassy.

Like the far-right in the US or Europe, the Salafist strategy is to drag public opinion rightwards by seizing on opportunities to fan radical anger and demonise ideological opponents. This approach resembles that of anti-Muslim US pastor Terry Jones (who first promoted the film in the west) and other western extremists. In both societies, however, the moderates far (far!) outnumber the extremists. A leading figure in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood (the more powerful and popular political opponent of Egypt’s Salafists) wrote to the New York Times saying: "We do not hold the American government or its citizens responsible for acts of the few that abuse the laws protecting freedom of expression".

It a known fallacy of leftists to liken anything they don't like (or like but cannot publicly accept) to a virtually non-existent "far-right extremists of the West". An analogy between Arab world and the West is misleading at best and cynical smear and distortion at worst.

FYI, Egypt's parliament is dominated by extreme Islamists, with Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Bloc controlling more then 60% of seats.
Portraying them as "moderate" against "extremist Salfists" is at best naive and at worst a cynical deceit.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-09-2012, 10:36 AM
Clear defiance? From the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=280330), the Israeli conservative daily:

Israel will consider any Egyptian request to deploy additional military forces in the Sinai in an effort to retake control of the peninsula and weed out a global jihad terrorist infrastructure, defense officials said on Monday....

Until now, Israel has permitted the Egyptians to deploy about seven battalions in the Sinai, although under the peace treaty the peninsula is meant to remain demilitarized...

Igor shooting from the hip again.
Did Israel accept it grudgingly or with a joy? It was simply outmanoeuvred and tried to save face by pretending to welcome it. In fact that terrorist attack was such a good pretext to:
- purge army and police from any secularist and, essentially, stage a silent coup
- deploy significant force in Sinai,
that one wonders who was behind it. If we recall that Muslim Brotherhood is, essentially, a terrorist organisation sponsored by Saudi Arabia (as well as jihadists attacking Jews) then suspecting that Mosri et al were behind a plot is not a far-fetched conclusion.

Ian Murray
28-09-2012, 10:56 AM
Did Israel accept it grudgingly or with a joy? It was simply outmanoeuvred and tried to save face by pretending to welcome it. In fact that terrorist attack was such a good pretext to:
- purge army and police from any secularist and, essentially, stage a silent coup
- deploy significant force in Sinai,
that one wonders who was behind it. If we recall that Muslim Brotherhood is, essentially, a terrorist organisation sponsored by Saudi Arabia (as well as jihadists attacking Jews) then suspecting that Mosri et al were behind a plot is not a far-fetched conclusion.
Is that all wild conjecture on your part, or do you actually have a source or two?

Capablanca-Fan
28-09-2012, 11:29 AM
Netanyahu: 'Clear red line' needed to stop Iran's nuclear program (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/netanyahu-will-never-be-uprooted-again/#ixzz27ivi0UOF)
27 September 2012

etanyahu claimed Thursday that Iran would have enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb by next summer. His remarks before the U.N. General Assembly amounted to an appeal to the U.S. and other nations to join Israel in drawing a line that Iran cannot cross without risking a military response.
Netanyahu argued that nothing less than the "security of the world" is at stake.
"The red line must be drawn on Iran's nuclear enrichment program," Netanyahu said. "I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down."
The prime minister displayed a "diagram" showing a crudely drawn sketch of a bomb, divided into sections representing the three stages of uranium enrichment. Using a marker, Netanyahu drew a red line before the end of the second stage.
"Red lines don't lead to war, red lines prevent war," he said. "Nothing could imperil the world more than a nuclear-armed Iran."
Netanyahu warned that it would be a "dangerous assumption" to think Iran could be deterred like the former Soviet Union.
"Imagine their long-range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs -- who among you would feel safe in the Middle East?" he said.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-10-2012, 11:51 AM
Is that all wild conjecture on your part, or do you actually have a source or two?
What sources do you need? A source on August terrorist attack? A source confirming that Mosri cleansed the top command of police and the army?
A source confirming that Israel is not celebrating it joyfully?
Any reasons for calling conjecture wild? (apart from it running contrary to ideological dogmas)?

Goughfather
02-10-2012, 12:32 PM
What sources do you need? A source on August terrorist attack? A source confirming that Mosri cleansed the top command of police and the army?
A source confirming that Israel is not celebrating it joyfully?
Any reasons for calling conjecture wild? (apart from it running contrary to ideological dogmas)?

I believe that's the rather long winded way of saying "No, I don't have a source."

Ian Murray
02-10-2012, 02:34 PM
What sources do you need? A source on August terrorist attack?
There was a terrorist attack

A source confirming that Mosri cleansed the top command of police and the army?
Egypt moving to civilian government

A source confirming that Israel is not celebrating it joyfully?
Why should security consultations between two countries be a cause for celebration or otherwise?

Any reasons for calling conjecture wild? (apart from it running contrary to ideological dogmas)?
Because finding a sinister link between these incidents is groundless conspiracy theory on your part, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

There is one extant conspiracy theory which you might like to cling to. I can't link to it from here due to forum policy, but google August 5 Sinai Attack Bears All the Hallmarks of an Israeli False Flag and enjoy!

Igor_Goldenberg
03-10-2012, 09:32 AM
Egypt moving to civilian government

You can call terrorist organisation at the helm a "civilian government", but it's far fetched. You can claim that full on cleansing of army commandment is spontaneous reaction to an oversight, but I think it's very naive.



Because finding a sinister link between these incidents is groundless conspiracy theory on your part, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Is suspecting a terrorist group of organising a terrorist attack to achieve it's goal (of absolute power) a "groundless conspiracy theory"?


There is one extant conspiracy theory which you might like to cling to. I can't link to it from here due to forum policy, but google August 5 Sinai Attack Bears All the Hallmarks of an Israeli False
Flag and enjoy!
I understand this conspiracy theory is closer to your heart. BTW, you didn't provide links either. Could it be because googling doesn't yield any reputable source, only usual anti-Semitic Islamist rant?
However, this theory doesn't stand ground because it fails to answer the question: "What Israel gains from it?" and overlooks that Israel ends up as a losing side. It's telling, btw, that Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are the first to point fingers at Israel.

Ian Murray
03-10-2012, 09:54 AM
You can call terrorist organisation at the helm a "civilian government", but it's far fetched. You can claim that full on cleansing of army commandment is spontaneous reaction to an oversight, but I think it's very naive.


Is suspecting a terrorist group of organising a terrorist attack to achieve it's goal (of absolute power) a "groundless conspiracy theory"?
The Muslim Brotherhood is not included in the lists of terrorist organisations maintained by any country, except Russia. Your Russian mentality is clouding your judgement.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-10-2012, 10:07 AM
The Muslim Brotherhood is not included in the lists of terrorist organisations maintained by any country, except Russia.
You are quite anxious to be a terrorist apologist, aren't you? As I understand, Russia put it on proscribed list meddling in Chechnya.
However, it only legalised in Egypt in 2011.

Are you seriously insisting it is not a terrorist group?


Your Russian mentality is clouding your judgement.
Why did you decide to bring up my background? How is it relevant?

Ian Murray
03-10-2012, 10:32 AM
You are quite anxious to be a terrorist apologist, aren't you? As I understand, Russia put it on proscribed list meddling in Chechnya.
However, it only legalised in Egypt in 2011.

Are you seriously insisting it is not a terrorist group?
Apart from Russia, no-one else thinks the MB is a terrorist organisation. What makes you think you are right and everyone else is wrong?

Why did you decide to bring up my background? How is it relevant? Because Russia is out of step with the rest of the world, and you were brought up Russian.

Capablanca-Fan
03-10-2012, 02:20 PM
Labor’s hypocritical stand on freedom of speech (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/labors_hypocritical_stand_on_freedom_of_speech/)
Piers Akerman
3 October 2012


Then we learnt that Bowen had strung out the personal approval process for a visitor’s visa for a law-abiding Dutch MP, The Hon Geert Wilders MP, Leader of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, for so long that Wilders was forced to postpone his trip to Australia planned for later this month.

This was after Bowen had made no moves to block a visit by hate-preacher Taji Mustafa, leader of the radical extremist Islamist fundamentalist organization, Hizb ut Tahrir, last month.

Mustafa wants to bring about the collapse of Western civilisation and establish an Islamic caliphate under sharia law.

Wilders, a supporter of Western civilisation, is free to travel and speak freely in Europe, Canada, the USA and Israel, but is apparently listed on Australia’s Movement Alert List though he does not have a criminal record and poses no risk to Australian security.

Europe is no longer a model for multiculturalism, as the summer riots regularly show.

There is no such thing as free speech if the government determines what free means.

Bowen, or better yet, Gillard, should explain why a Dutch MP is a greater threat to Australia than an Islamist firebrand.

That would be the real expression of this hypocritical government’s intellectual tolerance.

Ian Murray
06-10-2012, 10:56 PM
Labor’s hypocritical stand on freedom of speech
Piers Akerman
3 October 2012


Then we learnt that Bowen had strung out the personal approval process for a visitor’s visa for a law-abiding Dutch MP, The Hon Geert Wilders MP, Leader of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, for so long that Wilders was forced to postpone his trip to Australia planned for later this month....
Akerman for some reason does not mention that Wilders is a virulent islamophobe, prosecuted (but later acquitted) in the Netherlands for 'incitement to hatred and discrimination'.

Wilders has campaigned to stop what he views as the "Islamisation of the Netherlands". He compares the Quran with Mein Kampf and has campaigned to have the book banned in the Netherlands. He advocates ending immigration from Muslim countries, and supports banning the construction of new mosques.

He has a right to free speech here. I'm sure Alan Jones would welcome him as a guest on his radio show.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-10-2012, 12:01 AM
Apart from Russia, no-one else thinks the MB is a terrorist organisation. What makes you think you are right and everyone else is wrong?
What makes you think that no-one thinks Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organisation?
BTW, do you think yourself MB is not a terrorist organisation?

Because Russia is out of step with the rest of the world, and you were brought up Russian.
FYI, the population of Russia is over 140 millions. Different people have different opinions. What is the reason for your wild conjecture.
Once again, how my background is relevant to the discussion?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-10-2012, 12:03 AM
Akerman for some reason does not mention that Wilders is a virulent islamophobe, prosecuted (but later acquitted) in the Netherlands for 'incitement to hatred and discrimination'.
banning the construction of new mosques.

Why such a disrespect to the rule off law?

Ian Murray
07-10-2012, 07:51 AM
Why such a disrespect to the rule off law?
?? He was prosecuted and acquitted. It is Akerman who was being dishonest in telling only part of the story.

Ian Murray
07-10-2012, 08:10 AM
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood: Perception and Reality (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/egypts-muslim-brotherhood_b_1913246.html)
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/)
The Huffington Post
25 Sep 2012


Those who draw hasty conclusions that an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) will soon become an Islamic state fashioned after Saudi Arabia or the oppressive regime in Iran neither appreciates Egypt's uniqueness nor its storied history. It is one thing to criticize the MB for their public anti-American and anti-Israeli pronouncements when they were an oppressed group in dire opposition to the Mubarak regime, but it is an altogether different matter now that they rule the country.

For the MB to stay in power and ensure their success when new legislative elections are held, they must adopt a balanced foreign and domestic policy and strive to change the outside world's perception of their hardcore Islamic polity. Mr. Morsi, Egypt's first democratically elected President, knows that he must face reality and focus on economic development, avoid adventurism by preserving the peace with Israel, and maintain good relations with the United States. This political realism still remains consistent with Morsi's professed desire to assert Egypt's role and independence. He insists that while Egypt will not be hostile toward the West, and in particular the U.S., it will not be as compliant as it was under Mubarak's leadership, while restoring Egypt's sui generis leadership in the Arab world...

Igor_Goldenberg
07-10-2012, 06:08 PM
?? He was prosecuted and acquitted. It is Akerman who was being dishonest in telling only part of the story.
You insist he is a "virulent Islamophobe" based on the fact he was prosecuted. His acquittal negates your reasoning.
Once again, why did you bring up my background? I remember sometime ago you tried to peddle the line about institutional racism. Please explain why, based on your logic, "Your Russian mentality is clouding your judgement" is not a racist attack?

Ian Murray
07-10-2012, 07:25 PM
You insist he is a "virulent Islamophobe" based on the fact he was prosecuted. His acquittal negates your reasoning.
Based on his record and notoriety - see:
Geert Wilders (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/geert_wilders/index.html)
U.S. groups helped fund Dutch anti-Islam politician Wilders (http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/u-s-groups-helped-fund-dutch-anti-islam-politician-wilders-1.464326)
'Hateful' Islam critic Geert Wilders wants visa to speak in Australia (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/hateful-islam-critic-geert-wilders-wants-visa-to-speak-in-australia/story-fncz7kyc-1226476824892)
Dutch lawmaker brings his crusade against Islam to conservative confab (http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/993597-dutch-lawmaker-brings-his-crusade-against-islam-conservative-confab)
Geert Wilders, Marked For Death: A Muslim's Response (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/geert-wilders-marked-for-death-a-muslim-response_b_1537884.html)


Once again, why did you bring up my background?
Already answered

Please explain why, based on your logic, "Your Russian mentality is clouding your judgement" is not a racist attack?
Are Russians a race?

Capablanca-Fan
08-10-2012, 02:47 PM
?? He was prosecuted and acquitted. It is Akerman who was being dishonest in telling only part of the story.
In what way? He was acquitted. Many of those Islamofascists he criticized are murderous hesperophobes. But leftards like IM are OK with advocates of terror being allowed into the country, but not those who oppose them.

Ian Murray
08-10-2012, 03:27 PM
In what way? He was acquitted. Many of those Islamofascists he criticized are murderous hesperophobes. But leftards like IM are OK with advocates of terror being allowed into the country, but not those who oppose them.
Read my lips (Post 1177): He [Wilders] has a right to free speech here. I'm sure Alan Jones would welcome him as a guest on his radio show.

Mrs Jono
08-10-2012, 07:37 PM
Please explain why, based on your logic, "Your Russian mentality is clouding your judgement" is not a racist attack?
Are Russians a race?

Ethnocentrism and racism are equally offensive, Ian, and there is only a fine line dividing the two.

In fact, Dr. Richard W. Franke, (Ph.D., Harvard) Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Montclair State University, wrote "Racism is the biological version of ethnocentrism."

Mrs Jono
08-10-2012, 07:39 PM
Once again, how my background is relevant to the discussion?

It's not, Igor. Ian is dabbling in the common Liberal use of Alinsky Rule 13 - Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Desmond
08-10-2012, 08:14 PM
It's not, Igor. Ian is dabbling in the common Liberal use of Alinsky Rule 13 - Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.Ian was probably being too generous in his appraisal of Igor's views - attributing them to align with Russian policy when Igor demonstrated no knowledge of same. In other words, Ian assumed Igor put two and two together, but Igor vehemently denies this. I'm inclined to trust Igor on this one. :lol: Ian should retract any suggestion of single digit addition on Igor's part.

Ian Murray
09-10-2012, 07:54 AM
Ian was probably being too generous in his appraisal of Igor's views - attributing them to align with Russian policy when Igor demonstrated no knowledge of same. In other words, Ian assumed Igor put two and two together, but Igor vehemently denies this. I'm inclined to trust Igor on this one. :lol: Ian should retract any suggestion of single digit addition on Igor's part.

I have no problem being linked with liberal attributes, but Liberal! She really knows how to hurt a guy :P


Ian is dabbling in the common Liberal use..

Mrs Jono
09-10-2012, 08:11 AM
I have no problem being linked with liberal attributes, but Liberal! She really knows how to hurt a guy :P

I didn't give you that much credit; I said you were dabbling there. ;P

Mrs Jono
09-10-2012, 08:13 AM
Ian assumed Igor put two and two together

When Igor was doing much higher maths than Ian, eh?

Rincewind
09-10-2012, 09:10 AM
When Igor was doing much higher maths than Ian, eh?

Even in the set of complex numbers, two plus two still equals four.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-10-2012, 04:42 PM
Based on his record and notoriety - see:
Using his record (correctly or incorrectly) is valid, but you tried to base on it on the court case where he actually was acquitted.


Are Russians a race?
You throw racism accusations so freely I assumed you know that slur based on nationality or background is also classified as racism.
But mostly it shows you are a star hypocrite.

Ian Murray
09-10-2012, 04:50 PM
You throw racism accusations so freely I assumed you know that slur based on nationality or background is also classified as racism.
But mostly it shows you are a star hypocrite.
You are just so-o-o precious, Igor. As if it is a racial slur to call you and Russians out of step with the rest of the world - get real!!

Mrs Jono
09-10-2012, 05:02 PM
Even in the set of complex numbers, two plus two still equals four.

2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2 ;)

Mrs Jono
09-10-2012, 05:06 PM
As if it is a racial slur to call you and Russians out of step with the rest of the world

ethnocentrism
1. Sociology . the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
2. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.

Ian Murray
09-10-2012, 05:33 PM
ethnocentrism
1. Sociology . the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
2. a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one's own.
Rather than be seen as ethnocentric, I'm happy to concede that the rest of the world is out of step with Igor and Russians.

Rincewind
09-10-2012, 07:21 PM
2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2 ;)

That is funny in the same way as the guy who didn't worry about the counterexample to his conjecture because he had a second proof.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-10-2012, 07:24 PM
You are just so-o-o precious, Igor. As if it is a racial slur to call you and Russians out of step with the rest of the world - get real!!
It only shows:
- you incivility in trying to offend me.
- you xenophobic bigotry (that you often call racism) in thinking there is some "Russian mentality", i.e that all Russians think in the same way.
- your xenophobic bigotry and anti-immigration bias in thinking that someone who spent almost 20 years in Australia and follows local affairs more then Russian politics would still be clouded by "Russian mentality" that only exists in your imagination.

The above is, of course, minor. However, is shows gross hypocrisy of someone who screams racism and xenophobia at the drop of the hat and tries to pose himself as a champion of immigrant's rights.

And speaking about being precious - another gross hypocrisy.

Ian Murray
10-10-2012, 01:58 PM
It only shows:
- you incivility in trying to offend me.
- you xenophobic bigotry (that you often call racism) in thinking there is some "Russian mentality", i.e that all Russians think in the same way.
- your xenophobic bigotry and anti-immigration bias in thinking that someone who spent almost 20 years in Australia and follows local affairs more then Russian politics would still be clouded by "Russian mentality" that only exists in your imagination.

The above is, of course, minor. However, is shows gross hypocrisy of someone who screams racism and xenophobia at the drop of the hat and tries to pose himself as a champion of immigrant's rights.

And speaking about being precious - another gross hypocrisy.

That probing analysis by Yogi has convinced me that all along I have been a self-hating liberal xenophobe, similar to those self-hating Jews who oppose the Israeli government.

I have been compelled to expand my sig accordingly.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2012, 09:16 AM
Two Israelis are sitting on the beach in Tel Aviv, reading. One has got a quality newspaper, the other an antisemitic rag. "Why on earth are you reading that?" one asks. "I used to read a quality paper like you," the other sighs, "but I couldn't handle it any more – the rockets from Gaza and Hezbollah getting stronger every day and the Iranian nuclear programme and the suffering economy and growing antisemitism across Europe…" He points to the antisemitic rag. "Now I read this and I feel much better. Turns out there's actually a Jewish global conspiracy and we control the entire world."

Ian Murray
05-11-2012, 12:30 PM
Two Israelis are sitting on the beach ...
That would certainly resonate with Jono and his extreme right 'news' sites, although the Jewish tale is intended as a joke.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2012, 01:51 PM
That would certainly resonate with Jono and his extreme right 'news' sites, although the Jewish tale is intended as a joke.
Really Ian? Your insight is amazing. That must be why I got it from A Mexican, a Kiwi and a Nigerian walk into a bar … (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/04/global-sense-of-humour)

Desmond
05-11-2012, 03:20 PM
A Mexican, a Kiwi and a Nigerian walk into a bar … (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/04/global-sense-of-humour)Some good uns there :lol:

Kevin Bonham
05-11-2012, 04:23 PM
Yes, I found that full link rather interesting.

Adamski
06-11-2012, 11:28 PM
Two Israelis are sitting on the beach in Tel Aviv, reading. One has got a quality newspaper, the other an antisemitic rag. "Why on earth are you reading that?" one asks. "I used to read a quality paper like you," the other sighs, "but I couldn't handle it any more – the rockets from Gaza and Hezbollah getting stronger every day and the Iranian nuclear programme and the suffering economy and growing antisemitism across Europe…" He points to the antisemitic rag. "Now I read this and I feel much better. Turns out there's actually a Jewish global conspiracy and we control the entire world."
LOL. A good laugh before bed!

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2012, 08:13 AM
Israel defends itself against hundreds of rocket attacks. Tut-tut! (http://www.melaniephillips.com/israel-defends-itself-against-hundreds-of-rocket-attacks.-tut-tut)
Melanie Phillips, 14 November 2012


In the four days from Saturday until yesterday, Islamic terrorists under the Hamas umbrella fired more than 120 rockets from Gaza at Israeli civilians, along with a number of mortar shells. Some hit civilian homes and factories; some civilians were lightly wounded and others treated for shock. Some million or so inhabitants of southern Israel have been under siege from such attacks for years, with air raid sirens giving people just a few seconds to find shelter. If there weren’t so many shelters, there would be more casualties.

None of this has caused the slightest concern in Britain or the west. The rocket attacks have barely been reported. But today, Israel finally took action. In a targeted drone strike on Gaza it killed Ahmed Jabari, the leader of Hamas’s military wing and second-in-command of the Iranian proxy al-Qassam Brigades, a man who was linked to hundreds of terror operations and human bomb attacks over several decades, and his second-in-command, Raed Al Attar.

If you look at the video footage of the strike, you can see the care the Israelis took to avoid other casualties, waiting until the terror commanders’ car had passed other traffic before striking it.

Rocket attacks on Israelis are not news; Israeli military action to defend Israel against such attacks is. Suddenly, media indifference has been transformed into media hyperactivity. And in the eyes of the British media and foreign office Israel is at fault; astoundingly, it is apparently Israel which is responsible for inflaming the situation, not the Palestinians. Never mind the 120 rockets in four days or the 50 further rockets this evening, including 17 Grads fired at the city of Beersheva; or that since the beginning of 2011, 1,100 rocket have been fired on Israeli targets, 797since the beginning of this year; or that a staggering 5274 rockets have been fired from Gaza at southern Israel since 2006 (what’s that—you had absolutely no idea about the scale of these attacks? Of course not—the British media haven’t bothered to report them. Didn’t you know? Israeli victims don’t count—especially when not enough of them actually die to meet the British definition of ‘proportionality’).


VGaXIhT3SRI

Ian Murray
16-11-2012, 08:16 PM
General elections coming up in Israel, so again Netanyahu and Defence Minister Barack ramp up the confrontation with Hamas to show the electorate who's toughest on defence. Don't be surprised to see a repeat of the lead-up to the last elections, when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, lasting three weeks, killing 1400 Palestinians and flattening swathes of housing and infrastructure in Gaza.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2012, 02:03 AM
General elections coming up in Israel, so again Netanyahu and Defence Minister Barack ramp up the confrontation with Hamas to show the electorate who's toughest on defence. Don't be surprised to see a repeat of the lead-up to the last elections, when Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, lasting three weeks, killing 1400 Palestinians and flattening swathes of housing and infrastructure in Gaza.
If the Hamas terrorists weren't hiding among civilians, then they wouldn't have been harmed. Israel goes out of its way to avoid hurting civilians, while your beloved Hamas thugs go out of their way to target them.

Since Israel traded land for peace, and didn't get peace, they should take back the land acquired under clearly false pretenses.

Rincewind
17-11-2012, 08:46 AM
Since Israel traded land for peace, and didn't get peace, they should take back the land acquired under clearly false pretenses.

An interesting position. How much land did Israel have in 1947?

Ian Murray
17-11-2012, 09:55 AM
An interesting position. How much land did Israel have in 1947?
Fast-forwarding to 2005, in Jono's worldview the unilateral Israeli evacuation from Gaza before sealing its borders and airspace was a 'land for peace' deal. A deal in which the Gazans had no say.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2012, 02:48 PM
An interesting position. How much land did Israel have in 1947?
An absurdly small part of their historic homeland, only nine miles wide in one place. After Israel won the six-day war against Arabs sworn to wipe it out, they expanded their borders so they were defensible, and took the Golan Heights from which the Syrians were launching rockets.
ytWmPqY8TE0

Rincewind
17-11-2012, 08:26 PM
An absurdly small part of their historic homeland, only nine miles wide in one place. After Israel won the six-day war against Arabs sworn to wipe it out, they expanded their borders so they were defensible, and took the Golan Heights from which the Syrians were launching rockets.

I said 1947.

Ian Murray
18-11-2012, 09:34 AM
http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2012/11/articles/main/20121117_wwd000.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2012, 04:30 AM
O7ByJb7QQ9U

Transcript: Do the Palestinians really want peace? Debunking the Palestinian lies (http://www.thesuburbannews.ca/content/en/17611), which concludes:


Many times over the last 63 years, both the international community and the State of Israel have offered the Arabs of Palestine their own state.

Each time, these offers have been met by more violence against Jewish citizens. Neither President Abbas nor President Obama are ignorant of this fact. They simply both choose to ignore it.

For Mr. Abbas, this refusal seems to be part of a consistent thread woven throughout the Arab war against the Jews. Mr. Obama’s positions remain more mysterious.

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2012, 03:20 PM
Guilty anyway, suggests Fairfax reporter (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/guilty_anyway_suggests_fairfax_reporter/)

21 Nov 2012

Reporters so imbued with Palestinian chic and so keen to denounce Israel for war crimes might care to examine a certain cultural difference. Fairfax’s Ruth Pollard reports (http://www.smh.com.au/world/gazas-motorcycle-lynch-mob-spies-executed-corpse-dragged-through-streets-20121121-29or1.html#ixzz2CnXtfMMA):

Militants believed to be from the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigade publicly executed six men accused of collaborating with Israel, as Israel’s air force stepped up its aerial bombing campaign in one of the deadliest days of its military campaign in Gaza.

The corpse of a collaborator [alleged collaborator, please, Ms Pollard] was tied to the back of a motorcycle and dragged through central Gaza City in front of a convoy of bikes, his pants pulled down and his arms splayed behind him.

Witnesses said six men had earlier been taken onto a main street in the Sheikh Radwan neighbourhood in Gaza City and forced to lay down on the ground, where they were shot to death.

The rest of Pollard’s article seems to treat the dead as guilty, the incident an aberration, the sentiments understandable, and the possibility of Muslim resistance to terrorist Hamas inconceivable - and I wonder if the same leniency would have been extended to Jews shooting “collaborators” and dragging their bodies through the street:


“Some of the names that have been mentioned to me tonight [as collaborators who were killed] had already been charged and sentenced to death. They were not just taken from the street today and shot,” Mr Yousef said.

Charged by whom? Sentenced by whom? Which court ordered the dragging of the bodies? …

Capablanca-Fan
22-11-2012, 07:35 AM
Hamas and the Islamists at War with Civilisation (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/11/21/hamas-and-the-islamists-at-war-with-civilization/)
Bill Muehlenberg, 21 Nov 2012

The Islamist Palestinian movement Hamas was founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the militant Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Since 2007 it has controlled Gaza. The 1988 Hamas Charter made it clear that the complete removal of the Israelis and the establishment of a totalist Islamic state must occur.

For years now it has been involved in firing rockets into Israeli civilian centres. Moreover, it launches these rockets from civilian centres in Gaza. If any Israeli retaliation takes place, there may in fact be collateral damage. Thus civilians are being killed in both areas due to the deliberate actions of Hamas. …

I am not aware of any other nation which goes to such great lengths to protect civilians in enemy territory. Yet for all this the MSM tends to paint Israel as the aggressor, and Hamas as the victim. But on occasion truth gets out—even if in unexpected places. A piece yesterday in the leftist UK Guardian was one such example.

In it Danny Ayalon argues that “Hamas leaves Israel no choice”. He writes,

Hamas’s charter includes the aspiration that ‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews)’. While many concentrate on its death-cult worship, its bloodthirsty killing of adversaries, or its contempt for women, Christians and homosexuals, it is this aspiration for genocide that is at the root of Hamas activities. This is the primary reason why Hamas, the governing regime in Gaza, will never recognise or accept a peace accord with Israel in any form. …
Every rocket from Gaza is a double war crime. First, the rockets are aimed at civilians; second, they are fired from built-up civilian areas, often close to schools, mosques and hospitals. And about 10% of Hamas rockets fired from Gaza don’t reach Israel, exploding in Gaza. Mohammed Sadallah—a four-year-old killed on Saturday, his body displayed in a press conference with Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s leader—was, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, most likely killed by an errant Hamas rocket.

Finally, if there remains any doubt as to why Israel is fighting a life and death battle for the preservation of civilisation from the inroads of the barbarians, simply consider this example of Hamas “justice”. The link below features the sickening pictures of a supposed Israeli collaborator who was dragged through the main streets of Gaza City behind a motorcycle. He was one of six men killed, without a trial, without witnesses, without anything.

That is Hamas justice pure and simple. No wonder Israel is fighting for its life. Despite its many faults and weaknesses, it is the only nation in the region which is a thriving democracy, with human rights, freedoms of all kinds, and the rule of law.

Hamas kills six "collaborators," drags one body behind motorcycle (PHOTO) (UPDATE) (http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/hamas-kills-six-collaborators-drags-one.html)

Igor_Goldenberg
22-11-2012, 08:51 AM
Any Palestinian who dares to resist Hamas rule will be killed in most barbaric way.
Strangely, it's not on the front page of BBC and Guardian. Should I be surprised?
Will they also be counted as Palestinian casualties in the conflict?

http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/palestinians-body2.jpg?w=940&h=600

Igor_Goldenberg
22-11-2012, 10:05 PM
Sderot Resident: "We Cease, They Fire" (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162396#.UK4SGYY4EYs)

1st ceasefire: From November 26, 2006, until May 15, 2007.


During that 'ceasefire', the Gaza Hamas regime l launched 315 attacks on Sderot and the western Negev. There was no IDF response to those attacks during that “ceasefire”.

2nd ceasefire:


The second ‘ceasefire’ took place from June 19, 2008 (1 year after the Hamas military took control of Gaza) until December 19, 2008.during those six months of “we cease, they fire”,The Gaza Hamas regime launched 530 attacks on Israel.


3rd ceasefire:


From the last day of Operation Cast Lead (January 18, 2009) until the 1st day of Operation Pillar of Defense, the Gaza Hamas regime launched 2,000 aerial attacks against Israel. That was the third ‘ceasefire’ between Israel and Hamas.

The media is usually silent while Hamas violates ceasefire and don't start their reporting until Israel response.

Ian Murray
24-11-2012, 08:32 PM
...Charged by whom? Sentenced by whom? Which court ordered the dragging of the bodies? …
Barbaric. But at least you now agree that summary execution of enemy agents without trial is a crime. You were of the opinion that there was no crime in American soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge summarily executing German agents provocateur in American uniforms, despite their protection under the Hague Convention.

Ian Murray
24-11-2012, 09:30 PM
After the ceasefire
An old dawn (http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2012/11/after-ceasefire?fsrc=nlw|newe|11-23-2012|4228644|107158053|AP)

The Economist
22.11.12


...Hamas cadres have particular reason to celebrate. For over six years, Israel, the region and western powers, led by the United States, have tried to bypass the movement that won the 2006 elections. Unlike the ceasefire that ended Israel's 2009 offensive, its terms include an end to Israeli incursions and the restoration of civilian life in what Israel calls its buffer zone. Hillary Clinton promised to help Gaza, without insisting that the aid go through the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. No one mentioned the conditions laid down by the quartet of America, Russia, the European Union and the UN for dealing with Hamas.

Israel demonstrated its military superiority once again. But over the course of the campaign, Israeli negotiators discovered that the military asymmetry was matched by a contrary political mismatch, resulting from the region's new political landscape. So angered was Egypt, say Arab officials, by the killing of Ahmed Jabari—after Israel lowered his guard by expressing interest in a formal truce—that for the first two days Egyptian officials refused to pick up the phone when their Israeli counterparts called. A few days in, Israel had still failed to penetrate the upper echelons of Egypt's politicians, relying instead on its intelligence contacts. "Morsi [Egypt's president] was talking directly to Meshal [Hamas's leader], but he wouldn't speak to a single Israeli," said a former adviser to Israel's Defence Minister, Ehud Barak. "Hamas lost the military battle but won the political war."...

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2012, 04:57 AM
Atheist talks some sense on Jews and Israel, and the futility of appeasing Islamofascists and other Jew-haters. He also talks some sense against many multiculti leftatheopaths who cravenly appease Islamofascism because they really hate America, which is why he abandoned leftism.

eIesXORjBps tLBQfO0KFfc&feature=related

Capablanca-Fan
25-11-2012, 05:32 AM
HAMAS VICTORY: HUDNA WINDFALL, WEAPONS SMUGGLING BONANZA (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/11/hamas-victory-hudna-windfall-weapons-smuggling-bonanza.html)

Under Islam, a hudna is a temporary ceasefire to regroup and rearm, and that is exactly what Hamas is doing. Why would civilized men reward the targeting of innocent civilians? Hamas initiated the use of force, and they should pay, dearly. The people of Gaza elected these barbarians; they must pay the price of their government, just as we pay for the sins of ours. And if the people of Gaza support Hamas (as many of them do), they deserve what the government of Hamas deserves.

The hudna calls on Israel to stop all attacks on Gaza, including targeting of individuals (mass murderers and such). It also requires “all Palestinian factions” to stop all hostilities against Israel from Gaza, including rocket fire and attacks along the border. But it won’t stop “splinter” groups that merely rename themselves overnight in order to continue the campaign of Islamic terror. Israel is going to relax border restrictions with Gaza, which means that weapons smuggling will step up in intensity.

Obama praised Netanyahu for accepting the ceasefire proposal that had been advanced by Morsi, thereby adding to Morsi’s stature even as he assumed dictatorial powers in Egypt. It was no accident that after Obama propped him up as his partner in negotiating the Hamas hudna, Morsi issued a decree banning challenges to his rulings.

Meanwhile, Morsi’s ceasefire proposal doesn’t include any penalty for Hamas if they fire a new round of rockets at Israeli civilians. And even worse, Morsi has declared that Egypt’s treaty with Gaza requires it to regard an attack on Gaza as a declaration of war on Egypt.

Ian Murray
25-11-2012, 07:55 AM
The Middle East has always been a bit of a trouble spot, ever since religion was invented sometime in the early 1900s. Sometimes it seems like there is simply no way to resolve the tensions that arise when you put a lot of people out in the desert with no talkback radio hosts to direct their hatred towards.

The current hoo-haa, of course, all began in 1948, when the world decided that to heal the world, the Jewish people would be granted the right to a permanent homeland in Palestine, and the Palestinians would be granted the right to huddle in tents. This seemed a fair and even-handed solution to the problem which had plagued the world for centuries: how to improve the dangerously low levels of religious hatred prevalent in the human race.

Unfortunately, the plan backfired, and instead of the happy, laughing, harmonious society that was envisioned when a bunch of people kicked a bunch of other people off their land, it’s turned into a little bit of a quagmire. Frankly, things have gotten out of hand of late, and it is time something is done.

Not, of course, that the interested parties have been completely idle. Hamas, the democratically elected terrorist cell of Gaza, has made positive steps towards peace by firing rockets into Israel, as if to say, "Hey! Let’s be friends! Have some rockets!" It’s possible, however, that this gesture of goodwill has been misunderstood by some in the Israeli establishment, and isn’t that always the way? You fire a few hundred rockets at someone, and suddenly they think you’re somehow "aggressive".

Yet it has to be admitted that, despite Hamas’s best intentions, the rocket path to peace has not been a raging success, and they may soon have to reconfigure their approach to reconciliation to a less ballistically intensive style.

Likewise, one can’t fault Israel’s energy and good-heartedness in dealing with the situation. Their strategy of sweetening the Palestinians by providing free bulldozing services having failed to take off, they’ve now opted for slightly more robust persuasion. "Does this persuade you?" they ask, from their bombers. Yet bizarrely enough, being bombed has not, as yet, placated the hard-to-please Palestinians.

In fact, in some ways, having fire and death rain down upon them has only made them angrier, which must really be a bummer for the peace-loving Israelis, who were hoping that this time, the powerful yearning for peace inherent in their tactical missile strikes would really come through loud and clear. Still, as an old Middle Eastern saying goes, "If bombs don’t bring peace, it’s just because you’re not using enough bombs", and everyone seems to agree that this is an important principle to keep in mind. ...

http://newmatilda.com/2012/11/22/modest-proposal-gaza

Igor_Goldenberg
26-11-2012, 09:56 AM
How do you explain the situation to someone who tries to prove that Israel's response to rocket fires is "disproportionate"?
1. Ask your opponent whether he agrees with Israel's response to Hamas rocket fire.
2. If he answers "No", ask "Why?"
3. Wait until some rubbish like "It will intensify the violence and will lead to even higher loss of innocent life... it's terrible...
4. In the middle of the next sentence smash him in the nose
5. When he tries to respond stop him by explaining that, according to his world-view, will lead to even more violence and suffering.
6. Wait until your opponent agrees with you and promise not to respond to your attacks.
7. Smash him in the nose again.
8. Repeat steps 5-7 until your opponent decides to reconsider his opinion.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2012, 11:15 AM
Also, a "proportionate response" to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor would be the US bombing a Japanese harbour and calling it even. Then would Japan be the peaceful nation it is today?

Ian Murray
26-11-2012, 12:22 PM
Also, a "proportionate response" to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor would be the US bombing a Japanese harbour and calling it even. Then would Japan be the peaceful nation it is today?
After winning the war the US and BCOF occupied Japan for seven years, spending billions of dollars in aid before handing the country back to the Japanese.

After 45 years Israel still occupies Gaza and the West Bank, with no intention of relinquishing control. Israel is not the victim - Israel wields the power in the region.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2012, 01:35 PM
After winning the war the US and BCOF occupied Japan for seven years, spending billions of dollars in aid before handing the country back to the Japanese.
After nuking Japan, forcing a belated unconditional surrender, and replacing Bushido with a constitutional government with respect for human rights and freedom of religion. When Japan was ready, America left them, showing that leftards are lying when they call America an "imperialist" nation (something Obamov believes).


After 45 years Israel still occupies Gaza and the West Bank, with no intention of relinquishing control. Israel is not the victim—Israel wields the power in the region.
What crap. Israel "relinquished control" of Gaza to the thugs, so the region is still under an Islamofascist regime with no rule of law (see the men murdered and dragged by motorbikes through the street), who are thus not fit to govern (unlike Japan in 1952). Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East with freedom of speech and religion. The only acceptable solution to IM's heroes, Hamas, is the obliteration of Israel.

Ian Murray
26-11-2012, 10:12 PM
Israel "relinquished control" of Gaza ...
While Israel dictates by force who and what enters and leaves Gaza, it remains occupied territory with or without boots on the ground.

Capablanca-Fan
27-11-2012, 12:57 AM
While Israel dictates by force who and what enters and leaves Gaza, it remains occupied territory with or without boots on the ground.
It just tries to stop weapons that could be used against it by an enemy with a declared aim to wipe Israel off the map, like the current batch of Iranian-made rockets.

Holy Land Conflict: No Peace Among Wolves (http://patriotupdate.com/articles/holy-land-conflict-no-peace-among-wolves)
by J. Matt Barber, 26 November 2012



So, in truth, Israel no more occupies this fictional “Palestine” than do Californians “occupy” Sacramento.

Yet imagine the Mexican government launching dozens of rockets each day, for years, into Los Angeles neighborhoods, intentionally targeting innocent American citizens.

Or visualize a Mexican suicide bomber with full government authority strolling into a crowded Toys “R” Us in suburban Bakersfield, ripping himself and dozens of women and children to shreds.

Picture, if you will, a quiet, unassuming woman cleverly disguised as an expectant mother boarding a San Francisco trolley and blowing it up along with scores of innocent passengers.

Do you not think the international community would forcefully condemn such horrific acts of terror? Do you not think America would respond with that level of force necessary to eliminate the threat? Would she not have an absolute right – indeed an absolute duty to do so?

Of course she would.

Yet, despite a recent fragile cease-fire which Hamas violated within hours (http://www.france24.com/en/20121122-twelve-rockets-hit-israel-after-truce-police), this is exactly what peace-loving Israelis face each day. This is their reality.

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority—with Iran’s full economic and military backing—have been attacking innocent Israeli citizens in this very fashion for years, recently ramping up such attacks.

The only wonder is that Israel has shown such remarkable restraint in her response.

Yet it is the Arab authorities who bathe in the blood of innocents. Responsibility for these deaths rests solely at the feet of those wicked men who intentionally shield themselves behind their own women and children—who deliberately place military launch sites and terrorist headquarters next to mosques, homes, playgrounds and the like.

They attack innocent Israelis and then shamelessly cower behind these human shields—their own people—as their intended victims answer back with pinpoint strikes against terrorists and military personnel.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2012, 01:01 PM
tAxaFQPRZNI

Compare:
“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.” — Benjamin Netanyahu

“It’s time to stop blaming Israel for all the region’s problems. Israel is not what’s wrong with the Middle East. Israel is what’s right with the Middle East.” — Benjamin Netanyahu

“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.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2012, 02:29 PM
4 Questions for Anyone Who Supports a Palestinian State (http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/4-questions-for-anyone-who-supports-a-palestinian-state/)
November 29, 2012 By Daniel Greenfield

1. How can a place with no elected officials be considered a state?

2. How can Palestine be a state if it’s actually two mutually hostile states run by two different governments?

3. How can a place that is almost entirely subsidized by foreign aid qualify for statehood?

4. How can a place that has made no progress in 20 years qualify for statehood?

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2012, 03:03 PM
Since when were 1, 3 and 4 obstacles to Statehood status for existing nation-states?

Ian Murray
01-12-2012, 11:20 PM
Since when were 1, 3 and 4 obstacles to Statehood status for existing nation-states?
They are no obstacles to the Vatican being recognised as a state with UN observer status.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2012, 01:53 PM
Atheist talks sense about Israel and those Islamofacist barbarians in the UN kakistocracy who dare to condemn Israel for human rights violations while ignoring far worse ones in Islamic hellholes.


GpXMe_R2BZk

Ian Murray
02-12-2012, 05:54 PM
Disregarding the usual rant, of particular interest is how member states voted on the Palestine resolution (the total was 138 for, 9 against, 41 abstained). The nine opposed were Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States. Only one European country. Apart from the US automatically siding with Israel, Canada and Panama were the only others of any significance. Australia abstained, incurring US wrath in the process.

It is also significant that the resolution, eventually accepted by Hamas and Fatah after early dissatisfaction, recognises the state of Palestine at the pre-1967 borders, complementing the 1947 resolution establishing the state of Israel. So Hamas and Fatah tacitly recognise Israel as a state, once unthinkable.

Last month's ceasefire also specifically referred to 'the Israeli side', the first time Israel has been implicitly accepted as a state.

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2012, 07:59 PM
I've seen two different theories about Australia's abstention. The first is that Gillard's original idea of voting with the US and against the motion came from talking to a too-small group of colleagues, Labor pals from Melbourne seats with big Jewish populations, without canvassing widely. The second is that Labor got spooked by the prospect of vote losses among Islamic voters in parts of Sydney.

Interesting there were so many abstentions. John Howard said abstaining was pathetic but obviously a lot of countries either disagree with him or just want to stay out of it.

Ian Murray
02-12-2012, 08:42 PM
I've seen two different theories about Australia's abstention. ...
Bruce Haigh looks at the bigger picture on Crikey, explaining why Australia cannot continue being seen as a US sycophant:


...As Australia prepares to take up the two-year appointment to the Security Council, the Prime Minister needs to take advice from people who understand the labyrinthine, byzantine and duplicitous reality of international relations. Good advice might be sourced from people she does not like, but take it she must, if the disaster the Prime Minister was about to embark on over the Palestinian vote does not become a reality in some equally sensitive area of foreign policy. She cannot afford poor and ill-judged advice from hand-picked expert committees, who are not expert.

However, in the first instance the Prime Minister should listen to Foreign Minister Bob Carr, the man who led the cabinet charge for an abstention on Palestine. And he in turn must listen to his department, which has professional practitioners in the subtle and complex art of diplomacy. But they must listen and take this advice and not flick it aside at the urging of ministerial advisers, who too often prefer spin to substance for short term gain. The craft of creating foreign policy is about the long term....

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/11/29/bruce-haigh-gillards-palestine-problem-bad-start-to-our-un-stint/

Adamski
03-12-2012, 11:21 PM
Hmm. How often do politicians in government not only listen to but actaully act on the advice of their professional public servants staff?

Ian Murray
06-12-2012, 08:57 AM
Israel settlements: UK considers 'further steps' over expansion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/04/uk-israeli-expansion-hague-settlements)
The Guardian
5.12.12.


Britain and other European countries will consider "further steps" if Israel refuses to reverse its plans for settlement expansion after a wave of diplomatic protests, the foreign secretary, William Hague, has told parliament.

Australia and Brazil joined five European countries in summoning Israeli ambassadors to hear condemnation of plans to build thousands of settler homes and develop highly sensitive land east of Jerusalem. The Israeli announcement is seen as a direct response to the UN's recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state. In addition to last week's announcement, which came within hours of the UN vote, Israel said on Tuesday it would proceed with two more construction programmes in East Jerusalem...

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2012, 10:02 AM
Antisemitism is clearly on the rise, if Israel is being attacked for building settlements in its own historic capital.

pax
06-12-2012, 10:24 AM
Antisemitism is clearly on the rise, if Israel is being attacked for building settlements in its own historic capital.

In disputed East Jerusalem, not to mention elsewhere in the West Bank. In "retaliation" for Palestine receiving observer status at the UN. How on earth is it antisemitic to disagree with this policy, which is arguably against the interest of Israelis?

You like to complain about overly liberal use of the word "racist", yet will happily throw "antisemitic" at anyone who disagrees with the policy of the Israeli government. I suppose all the Jews who oppose this policy are also antisemitic?

Ian Murray
06-12-2012, 12:38 PM
It is more a matter of Israeli arrogance in flouting international law in the face of world opinion. Yet again.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-12-2012, 01:34 PM
3ViFr3oIM4M

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2012, 02:33 PM
It is more a matter of Israeli arrogance in flouting international law in the face of world opinion. Yet again.
Pfffft, "world opinion" is the opinion of the thugs who "lead" their countries by murdering and torturing their own people. Who gives a flying &%$@ what genocidal Islamofascist regimes and their Western appeasers think? And even if the UN were not a kakistocracy, where do they get off telling a sovereign member state where to build in its own capital city? If the UN told Australia not to build in Canberra, Aussies would tell it to &%$@ off.

Rincewind
06-12-2012, 03:24 PM
Pfffft, "world opinion" is the opinion of the thugs who "lead" their countries by murdering and torturing their own people. Who gives a flying &%$@ what genocidal Islamofascist regimes and their Western appeasers think? And even if the UN were not a kakistocracy, where do they get off telling a sovereign member state where to build in its own capital city? If the UN told Australia not to build in Canberra, Aussies would tell it to &%$@ off.

It might be a different story if we tried to built our capital city in Papua New Guinea.

Ian Murray
06-12-2012, 04:18 PM
Pfffft, "world opinion" is the opinion of the thugs who "lead" their countries by murdering and torturing their own people.
Only eight states supported Israel in voting against the Palestine motion. Dismissing the rest of the world as thugs might make you feel good, but Israel remains a global pariah.

...where do they get off telling a sovereign member state where to build in its own capital city?
Building a capital city outside its own borders on occupied territory is totally unjustifiable. Your historic claims are meaningless. There are no extant entitlements to ancient homelands - ask the American Indians or Australian aborigines.

Ian Murray
06-12-2012, 04:39 PM
Netanyahu Airs Complaints Ahead of Germany Visit (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/netanyahu-airs-complaints-ahead-of-visit-to-berlin-a-871199.html)
Der Spiegel
5.12.12


Germany's abstention in the recent UN vote to recognize a Palestinian state, along with Israel's reaction of announcing new settlement construction, have chilled relations between the traditional allies. Ahead of a visit to Berlin, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu even said that he is "disappointed" in Chancellor Merkel....

Israel's tit-for-tat response was ill-received in a number of European capitals, with Great Britain, France, Spain, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands all summoning the Israeli ambassadors to voice their concerns. And while Berlin may not have followed suit, the German capital still used unusually sharp words to criticize Israel's building plans, with Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert calling them a "negative message" -- an indirect appeal from the chancellor to reverse the decision. ...

Even employees of the Israeli foreign ministry have been angered by this behavior, according to Israeli media reports. The newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth wrote that it's completely understandable for the diplomats that Israel's actions would be perceived in Europe as defiant and vindictive. Europeans are truly angered this time around, the daily said -- even Germany, Israel's closest ally....

Yedioth Ahronoth called the German abstention at the UN General Assembly "the heaviest diplomatic blow." The newspaper Haaretz has also speculated over whether Germany would even support European sanctions against Israel. European leaders, however, say sanctions are not on the table at the moment....

pax
06-12-2012, 10:35 PM
You like to complain about overly liberal use of the word "racist", yet will happily throw "antisemitic" at anyone who disagrees with the policy of the Israeli government. I suppose all the Jews who oppose this policy are also antisemitic?

Jono conveniently ignores his own hypocrisy.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2012, 12:29 AM
Only eight states supported Israel in voting against the Palestine motion. Dismissing the rest of the world as thugs might make you feel good, but Israel remains a global pariah.
They are either thugs or thug-appeasers. The UN kakistocracy frequently condemns Israel, the only democracy in the middle east with full rights for Arabs, women, and gays. But hardly a peep at Syria that's killed 40,000 of its own people, Iran with widespread torture and murder by government and crushing of pro-democracy protesters, North Korea with over 200,000 political prisoners in inhumane conditions, Venezuela taking over opposition TV stations, Saudi Arabia where women are second-class citizens, Zimbabwe a failed state with child soldiers.

Yes, Pax, that's why I call this widespread criticism of Israel anti-semitism: Israel is singled out for condemnation while far worse abuses hardly raise a peep. And all the above thugocracies are part of the UN voice against Israel aka "world opinion".


Building a capital city outside its own borders on occupied territory is totally unjustifiable. Your historic claims are meaningless.
Occupied by its rightful owners. If Jerusalem is really sacred to Arabs, then why do they shoot rockets at it? The Arabs already have their Palestinian state--it's called Jordan.


There are no extant entitlements to ancient homelands - ask the American Indians or Australian aborigines.
None had concepts of ownership of land.

pax
07-12-2012, 01:06 AM
They are either thugs or thug-appeasers. The UN kakistocracy frequently condemns Israel, the only democracy in the middle east with full rights for Arabs, women, and gays.

Just no rights for the millions of Palestinians living within its borders.



But hardly a peep at Syria that's killed 40,000 of its own people, Iran with widespread torture and murder by government and crushing of pro-democracy protesters, North Korea with over 200,000 political prisoners in inhumane conditions, Venezuela taking over opposition TV stations, Saudi Arabia where women are second-class citizens, Zimbabwe a failed state with child soldiers.

All of those states receive enormous criticism. Especially Syria under the current circumstances. In many cases, not a lot is actually done about it, but then neither is anything done about Israel.



Yes, Pax, that's why I call this widespread criticism of Israel anti-semitism: Israel is singled out for condemnation while far worse abuses hardly raise a peep. And all the above thugocracies are part of the UN voice against Israel aka "world opinion".
This is garbage. You just don't hear the criticism of Syria, Zimbabwe, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas because it doesn't suit you.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2012, 01:56 AM
Just no rights for the millions of Palestinians living within its borders..
Arabs have full civil rights in Israel, more than in Islamofascist thugocracies you love. Said thugocracies encouraged many Arabs to leave after Israel declared independence, and they could return after the Arabs pushed the Jews into the sea. Now they are kept in squalid conditions to be used as pawns, while "aid" money is spent on arms and luxuries for the leaders. Conversely, 800,000 Jews were expelled from Islamist countries and their property confiscated, and Israel settled them all in a tiny strip of land.


This is garbage. You just don't hear the criticism of Syria, Zimbabwe, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas because it doesn't suit you.
How many UN resolutions against these thugocracies. Some of them even sit on the absurdly named "human rights" council.

Ian Murray
08-12-2012, 07:34 AM
They are either thugs or thug-appeasers.
Thug-appeasers or US sycophants. Interesting choice for us.

In reality, after four years of Netanyahu rule, Israel has never been more isolated as erstwhile friends (like Australia) distance themselves from his intractable stance and defiance of western diplomatic overtures.


Occupied by its rightful owners. If Jerusalem is really sacred to Arabs, then why do they shoot rockets at it? The Arabs already have their Palestinian state--it's called Jordan.
Israelis already have their state - it's called Israel. Land seized by force is not an entitlement any more - the colonial days are over.


None had concepts of ownership of land.
Garbage. Native Americans and Australians have an affinity with their land far beyond any European concept of land titles. Their land belongs to their clans and their clans belong to their land in a spiritual symbiosis totally foreign to westerners. See e.g. -
http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/land/meaning-of-land-to-aboriginal-people#toc0
http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us1.htm

Capablanca-Fan
08-12-2012, 08:06 AM
Thug-appeasers or US sycophants. Interesting choice for us.
And it should be a no-brainer except for leftards.


Israelis already have their state - it's called Israel. Land seized by force is not an entitlement any more - the colonial days are over.
Yes, they have a tiny fraction of the original Palestinian Mandate. They rightly took more of the historically Jewish homeland in the Six Day War, because they were only 9 miles wide before then. The Arab thugs you love so much will never be satisfied until all Israel is pushed into the sea—they say so!


Garbage. Native Americans and Australians have an affinity with their land far beyond any European concept of land titles.
Rubbish, they thought that the land transcended ownership, and had frequent wars of conquest.


Their land belongs to their clans and their clans belong to their land in a spiritual symbiosis totally foreign to westerners. See e.g. -
http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/land/meaning-of-land-to-aboriginal-people#toc0
http://www.landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us1.htm
Good grief, you trust self-serving revisionism by "creative spirits"?

Ian Murray
08-12-2012, 08:53 AM
Palestinian President Abbas: The only leader fighting for the Jewish state (http://972mag.com/palestinian-president-abbas-the-only-leader-fighting-for-the-jewish-state/61223/)
+972, Tel Aviv
2.12.12


Following the United Nations vote to recognize Palestine as a non-member observer state, Israel quickly announced it would reignite construction in the E1 area of the West Bank, long considered by the U.S. as the last nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. The move is not only Israel’s affront to the two-state solution, but to its existence as a Jewish state.

In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas made his commitment to a two-state solution explicitly clear:

Palestine comes today to this prestigious international forum, representative and protector of international legitimacy, reaffirming our conviction that the international community now stands before the last chance to save the two-state solution.

Just moments later, Israel’s UN envoy Ron Prosor went up to the podium in the General Assembly, and what he said indicates that he either didn’t bother to listen to what Abbas said, or preferred to lie through his teeth:

President Abbas, I did not hear you use the phrase “two states for two peoples” this afternoon. In fact, I have never heard you say the phrase “two states for two peoples.” Because the Palestinian leadership has never recognized that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.

But Abbas did say it. Not verbatim “two states for two peoples,” but he said “two-state solution,” which is exactly the same thing. So Prosor’s words are baseless. Furthermore ... he also made a point to emphasize that the UN bid for non-member observer status is not aimed at delegitimizing Israel, as in fact, it has nothing to do with Israel.

We did not come here seeking to delegitimize a state established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the state that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine