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
20-03-2015, 12:32 AM
American turnout at mid term elections are abysmal.
Agreed, but turnout at Presidential elections is nothing to write home about either.


Republicans were able to to get their voters to turn out.
Yes, and in 2012 they were not, because of the perceived inadequacy of the candidate.


None of this has anything to do with the Republican brand being less toxic to Women, Blacks, Hispanics and Jewish voters.
Evidently not toxic enough to change the 2010 and 2014 election results. And at best, it is only a perceived toxicity, not a real one, and mainly for those who want government handouts. Conversely, married women favour Republicans.

Patrick Byrom
20-03-2015, 01:18 AM
Well, Republicans ran on a conservative, anti-Obamov platform and won handily, taking the Senate and increasing the House and Governorships. ...
Basically it was just a return to the divided government that Americans seem to prefer - they know that Obama is still able to veto anything he doesn't like.


Yes, reality has a conservative bias. Appeasement of despots who want to kill you was tried in the 1930s, and is the prevailing leftist view today. But it fails to understand that evil aggressors are deterred only by force.Except that the appeasers in the 1930s were the conservatives. It was the left that led the fight against Hitler.

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2015, 06:27 AM
Basically it was just a return to the divided government that Americans seem to prefer - they know that Obama is still able to veto anything he doesn't like.
They don't like that this division is unable to undo many things that the undivided government foist upon them, such as the Spendulus and Obamovcare that had not a single Republican vote.


Except that the appeasers in the 1930s were the conservatives. It was the left that led the fight against Hitler.

You've gotta be kidding. Churchill was a Conservative but was in the political ‘wilderness’. Germany allied with the Soviet Union, now known to be right wing. The Peace Ballot of 1934-35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Ballot) that opposed re-armament was largely supported by the anti-Conservative Opposition parties, Labour and Liberal. E.g. Clement Attlee, who would defeat Churchill as PM after the war, said, "For our part, we are unalterably opposed to anything in the nature of rearmament" and "we on our side are out for total disarmament". Chamberlain and his predecessor Baldwin were indeed Conservative, and Baldwin was wimpy on re-armament because he feared that it would cost him the election and result in an even more pacifistic Labour government, as he answered Churchill rather pathetically:


From 1933, I and my friends were all very worried about what was happening in Europe. You will remember at that time the Disarmament Conference was sitting in Geneva. You will remember at that time there was probably a stronger pacifist feeling running through the country than at any time since the War. I am speaking of 1933 and 1934. You will remember the election at Fulham in the autumn of 1933...That was the feeling of the country in 1933. My position as a leader of a great party was not altogether a comfortable one. I asked myself what chance was there...within the next year or two of that feeling being so changed that the country would give a mandate for rearmament? Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and we must rearm, does anybody think that this pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment! I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the election from my point of view more certain...We got from the country – with a large majority – a mandate for doing a thing that no one, twelve months before, would have believed possible.

Later in 1938, Attlee abandoned his disarmament and pacifism and criticized appeasement, and was a loyal deputy PM in Churchill's wartime coalition.

Ian Murray
20-03-2015, 09:13 AM
Who can save Israel now? (http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/save-israel-now?)
Philip Weiss
Mondoweiss
18.3.15


...But I was right about this being a hugely clarifying election. All has been revealed to a watching world. Netanyahu’s reversion to racism in the last days of a desperate campaign, his explicit denunciation of “Arab voters” on Facebook so as to get his people out, along with his repudiation of the two-state solution—and the huge reward delivered to him by Israelis for these statements — should be clarifying revelations to the American political class. This is Israel. Everything you have been told about the “Jewish democracy” by the Israel supporters: it is wrong. It may be Jewish, but it is no democracy, this is a white settler society where a fearful privileged group of Jews holds on to its power in ever-expanding colonies by reelecting a strong leader, now in his tenth year as premier, who will use threats and violence against the Palestinians. This place is what Ali Abunimah and Max Blumenthal told us it was years ago. Blumenthal’s video Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem was censored just about everywhere he put it up six years ago. MJ Rosenberg, a liberal Zionist, said that Blumenthal had caricatured the Israeli public by quoting a few yokels.

Well today those yokels have spoken, and they are Israel....

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2015, 12:14 PM
It shows the Netanyahu Derangement Syndrome of western leftards that Palestinians are ranting far less than they are. Israeli Arabs, regardless of the result of the election, are grateful that they can do something that Arabs in Muslim countries cannot: vote! E.g.

The Election that Didn’t Happen Matters Far More than the One that Did (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/03/18/the-election-that-didnt-happen-matters-far-more-than-the-one-that-did-israel-palestinians/)
Evelyn Gordon, Commentary, 18 March 2015

In the West, where regular elections are taken for granted, what interested people about yesterday’s Israeli ballot was the outcome. But in the Middle East, many were envious of the very fact that it took place. Nowhere was this truer than among Palestinians, who haven’t had an election in 10 years – not because Israel is preventing them from doing so, but because their own leadership is. And anyone who actually cares about the peace process ought to be far more worried by the Palestinian election that didn’t happen than by the outcome of the Israeli one that did.

A veteran Palestinian journalist from Ramallah summed up the prevailing sentiment succinctly. “We say all these bad things about Israel, but at least the people there have the right to vote and enjoy democracy,” he told (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5380/palestinians-want-democracy) Jerusalem Post reporter Khaled Abu Toameh before the election. “We really envy the Israelis. Our leaders don’t want elections. They want to remain in office forever.”

Ghanem Nuseibeh, an East Jerusalem Palestinian now living in Britain, put out an illuminating series of tweets throughout Election Day, including, “Over a million Arabs take part (https://twitter.com/gnuseibeh/status/577692166245330947) in Middle East’s most democratic elections today”; “The Arabs in Israel are the only Middle East Arab group that practices (https://twitter.com/gnuseibeh/status/577693057069416448) true democracy”; and “Israel is secure (https://twitter.com/gnuseibeh/status/577695340205223937) not because it will elect Bibi or Buji, but because of what it is doing today.” He was rooting for Isaac Herzog (“Buji”) and deplored Benjamin Netanyahu, but after acknowledging that his candidate had lost, he nevertheless tweeted, “Israel is the world’s most vibrant (https://twitter.com/gnuseibeh/status/577939304149725184) democracy” …. “If an Arab country had the same wide spectrum (https://twitter.com/gnuseibeh/status/577948050208878592) of political parties as Israel does, it would be fighting a civil war unseen in human history.”

Thus if Western leaders are serious about wanting Israeli-Palestinian peace, working to rectify the lack of Palestinian democracy would be far more productive than wringing their hands over the choices made by Israel’s democracy. For precisely because Israelis can always change their minds again in a few years, the Palestinian democracy deficit is far more detrimental to the prospects for peace than the outcome of any Israeli election ever could be.

Patrick Byrom
20-03-2015, 01:06 PM
You've gotta be kidding. ...
It's not only the UK where conservatives were appeasers. You're forgetting about FDR in the US, who supported Churchill and opposed Republican isolationism. And about the appeasement by conservatives in Australia before the war.

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2015, 01:28 PM
As I See It: Benjamin Netanyahu, the Jew among world leaders (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/As-I-See-It-Benjamin-Netanyahu-the-Jew-among-world-leaders-394522)
Melanie Phillips, Jerusalem Post, 19 Mar 2015
"Shocked and appalled by their failure to finish him off politically – only to see him reelected stronger than ever – the Left immediately intensified its campaign of distortion and demonization."


Netanyahu complained that V15 was busing Arabs to the ballot box in order to bring the left to power. Without missing a beat, the Obama administration and Israel’s enemies accused Netanyahu of racism and of wanting to deny Arab Israelis their vote.

But once again, this distorted Netanyahu’s words. He said that Israeli Arabs have every right to vote. What he was objecting to was the supposed interference in Israel’s election by foreign money manipulating that vote.

Whenever the US interfered in elections in the developing world, the left would howl its outrage over such colonialist practices. Yet when it comes to Israel, such claims are dismissed and its democratically elected politicians are blamed for complaining.
This unprecedented campaign against Netanyahu rests on the supposed belief that he alone is the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. This is an eye-watering inversion of reality.

The Islamists aside, there is no interlocutor for peace on the Palestinian side. Abbas’s Palestinian Authority extols and incites terrorism, teaches its children to hate and murder Israelis, and declares that no Jew will be allowed to live in the state of Palestine. All those impatient for such a state are therefore backing a racist, murderous project – and they are blaming Netanyahu for standing in the way of such an obscenity.

In any event, the Palestinians have been offered a state alongside Israel many times – which has produced only more mass murder as a response. Which is hardly surprising, since if you reward aggression and punish its victims you get more aggression. This, however, is the bone-headed strategy employed by the US and the West. That is the real reason there is no peace in the Middle East. It is not Netanyahu who stands in its way. It is the Obama administration, the EU, and Britain.

It is astounding that Netanyahu is demonized by those giving a free pass to Abbas and Iran for their unmitigated and genocidal aggression. You don’t have to be a Netanyahu fan to spot that something is very amiss here. Double standards, blaming the victims, and accusing them of cosmic malice are the hallmarks of classic Jew-hatred. If Israel is accordingly the Jew among nations, Netanyahu is surely the Jew among world leaders.

Capablanca-Fan
20-03-2015, 03:17 PM
It's not only the UK where conservatives were appeasers. You're forgetting about FDR in the US, who supported Churchill and opposed Republican isolationism. And about the appeasement by conservatives in Australia before the war.

FDR had also slashed the military budget before the war so he could buy votes with his social programs. So in the beginning of the war, many American lives were lost because of antiquated and too few weapons (http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=2224). Republicans were isolationist but this is different from appeasing. But when America was attacked, they stood behind their commander in chief, unlike the Democraps with GWB.

In Australia, both sides supported appeasement. But when Britain declared war, PM Menzies declares war the same day:


Fellow Australians. It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war.

Labor's John Curtin opposed Menzies sending Aussie troops to help.

Rincewind
20-03-2015, 07:35 PM
Labor's John Curtin opposed Menzies sending Aussie troops to help.

Not sure if you are clueless or deliberately misleading here. Curtin opposed committing troops to the European theatre when Australia had a present threat in the Pacific theatre. With the fall of the Malay peninsula and Singapore there was very little resistence preventing Japan from invading Australia.

Ian Murray
20-03-2015, 09:17 PM
FDR had also slashed the military budget before the war so he could buy votes with his social programs. So in the beginning of the war, many American lives were lost because of antiquated
Antiquated? US forces were well equipped in 1941 (http://ww2-weapons.com/Armies/Orders-of-Battle.htm). The exception was the Marine Corps, which was still evaluating and unlike the Army had not approved for deployment the Garand M1, the only semi-automatic military rifle at the time. So the marines in the Philippines lacked the best available when the Japanese invaded.


and too few weapons.
Where did you get that from? Not the source you cited.


Republicans were isolationist but this is different from appeasing. But when America was attacked, they stood behind their commander in chief, unlike the Democraps with GWB.
Iraq did not attack America

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2015, 12:06 AM
No Peace Any Time Soon, but Not Because of Bibi (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415690/no-peace-any-time-soon-not-because-bibi-charles-krauthammer)
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, 19 March 2015\

Palestinians have demonstrated neither the will nor the leadership to sign a deal with Israel. Of all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister.

I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state — with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted — only to be rudely rejected. This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001, and 2008 — three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the last 15 years. Every one rejected.

The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership — from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas — has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.

Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East.

Peace awaits three things. Eventual Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state. A Palestinian leader willing to sign a deal based on that premise. A modicum of regional stability that allows Israel to risk the potentially fatal withdrawals such a deal would entail. I believe such a day will come. But there is zero chance it comes now or even soon. That’s essentially what Netanyahu said in explaining — and softening — on Thursday his no-Palestinian-state statement. In the interim, I understand the crushing disappointment of the Obama administration and its media poodles at the spectacular success of the foreign leader they loathe more than any other on the planet. The consequent seething and sputtering are understandable, if unseemly. Blaming Netanyahu for banishing peace, however, is mindless.

antichrist
21-03-2015, 10:11 AM
One of Malcolm Fraser's last advertised tweet was against Benjamin Netanyahu stating that an anti-Netanyahu rally proved not all Israelis were as dangerous as him. Instead all recent Australian PMs have been grovelling to everything Israel - good on you Malcolm.

Ian Murray
21-03-2015, 10:22 AM
The worst aspect of Netanyahu's last-minute campaigning was his attack on Israeli Arabs exercising their right to vote - ‘Arabs coming in droves to the ballot box.’ He's promoting internal racism, which a democratic leader would never do. Israel under Netanhayu is not a democracy, which is causing increasing concern (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.648028) among her US conservative Jewish supporters.

antichrist
24-03-2015, 07:01 PM
Matthew 27:25 arguably stands out as one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted passages in all of Holy Scripture. … The true meaning of Matthew 27:25, like any other Bible verse, is found within the context in which it is written. When looking at the context of Matthew’s Gospel (specifically, chapters 26 and 27) it is quite obvious that the entire Jewish race was not totally responsible for having Jesus crucified. … From the context of Matthew 26–27 Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus applies only to Judas, the religious leaders of Jerusalem, and the mob of Jerusalem before the judgment seat of Pilate. It was the unbelieving Jews of Jerusalem and Israel, not all Jews in general, whom Matthew and the New Testament indict for their failure to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and their complicity in His death.

AC: but when it comes to lining up for free land in Palestine that was immorally obtained the queue is a hundred miles long - but of course there are fantastic Jews whom are completely against such robbery

antichrist
30-03-2015, 10:12 PM
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1048975238464415&id=203569976338283&substory_index=0
................................
In 2008, Australians for Palestine, Women for Palestine and the Australian Friends of Palestine sought a parliamentary acknowledgement of 60 years of Palestinian suffering as a counterpoint to the bipartisan motion passed congratulating Israel on its 60 years of independence. Not a single reply to our letters was received from any member of parliament. It was Malcolm Fraser who wrote a very public and honourable endorsement by way of an article saying that he supported our appeal to the Australian Parliament “to pass a resolution recognising the hardships of the Palestinian people and committing Australia to work for a fair and peaceful resolution and the establishment of a viable independent state for Palestinians.”
He was always ready to defend Palestinian human rights and especially criticised Israel’s whittling away of Palestinian land to build illegal Israeli settlements, including in East Jerusalem. His government had firmly maintained Australia’s even-handed Middle East policy, but he saw that position being eroded with each successive government increasing support for Israel “in lock-step with the US”.
Unlike so many Canberra politicians, he never resorted to craven declarations of allegiances to Israel. In a 2011 article, he said, “There is an Israeli lobby that governments are not prepared to offend” and he went on to say that if Israel and the US persist in dividing the Palestinians into hostile camps between Fatah and Hamas, “Israel will lose more and more friends and will place its own future in danger.”
He was very aware that debating issues on Israel/Palestine invariably stirs up charges of anti-Semitism as a way of protecting Israel, but he believed that we should no more stop ourselves from criticising Israel’s bad policies or actions out of fear of being called anti-Semitic, than we would stop ourselves criticising any other country for bad policies because it might be construed as a racist slur against its people. “Paying lip service to our even-handedness”, he said in a 2009 article, is not the way for Australia to play an effective role in finding a just and peaceful solution to what is universally regarded the longest-running human tragedy and injustice of our times. He believed that Australia “must not be cowed into an uncritical view of Israel’s action.”
.................................................. .....................

and on and on the article goes, Malcolm had guts to wreck Oz conventions by blocking supply he also had guts and intellect to see the Israel Zionists for what they are - murderers and robbers

Ian Murray
31-03-2015, 04:35 PM
The Israel Lobby (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby)
Prof John Mearsheimer
University of Chicago
Prof Stephen Walt
Harvard University


For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical...

Capablanca-Fan
01-04-2015, 09:05 AM
Oh, Mearsheimer above ↑↑ has been a long-standing usual antisemitic propagandists.

A Challenge to Walt and Mearsheimer's Publisher (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/a-challenge-to-walt-and-m_b_33191.html?)
Alan Dershowitz, Huffington Post, 25 May 2011

Once again, Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer have disproved their own thesis.

Central to Walt and Mearsheimer's hate-filled screed against Jewish participation in American politics was their assertion that it is perilous to speak out against Israel. Anyone who does so, wrote the authors, faces squashing at the hands of the "Israel Lobby," a shady conglomeration of lobbyists, journalists, philanthropists, academics, and public servants. "The core of the Lobby is comprised of American Jews who make a significant effort in their daily lives to bend U.S. foreign policy so that it advances Israel's interests" over those of the United States.

One has to wonder just how powerful this Israel Lobby is if, since exposing the Lobby and decrying its tactics and objectives, Walt and Mearsheimer have become international celebrities and campus rock-stars. In fact, things have gotten so bad for Walt and Mearsheimer that just last week The Forward announced their book deal with Farrar, Straus and Giroux to publish an expanded version of their Israel Lobby paper.

Apparently, like God, the Israel Lobby works in mysterious ways. (Perhaps that explains Walt and Mearsheimer's ascribing vengeful omnipotence to Jews.)

I'll briefly review only a few representative mistakes:

• Walt and Mearsheimer update the centuries-old "blood libel" by claiming that citizenship in Israel is based on "blood kinship."
• On two separate occasions, Walt and Mearsheimer intentionally quote David ben-Gurion out of context so as to make it appear that he is saying the exact opposite of what he actually said.
• The authors claims that "Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better-equipped, and better-led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence...."
• They insist that "The mainstream Zionist leadership was not interested in establishing a bi-national state or accepting a permanent partition of Palestine."
• They repeat Yasir Arafat's "Bantustan" accusation - that Prime Minister Barak didn't offer the Palestinians a contiguous West Bank in 2000 - concluding, contrary to the published maps, that "no Israeli government has been willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state of their own."

Regardless of one's views on the validity of Walt and Mearsheimer's conclusions, no one who has commented on the Israel Lobby paper - aside from perhaps David Duke, who supported it wholeheartedly - has failed to mention that the writers' scholarship was sloppy and that they included numerous factual inaccuracies.

Ian Murray
01-04-2015, 08:56 PM
Oh, Mearsheimer above ↑↑ has been a long-standing usual antisemitic propagandists.

A Challenge to Walt and Mearsheimer's Publisher (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/a-challenge-to-walt-and-m_b_33191.html?)
Alan Dershowitz, Huffington Post, 25 May 2011

One has to wonder just how powerful this Israel Lobby is...
It is naive of Dershowitz to suggest that the Israeli lobby is powerless


I'll briefly review only a few representative mistakes:

• Walt and Mearsheimer update the centuries-old "blood libel" by claiming that citizenship in Israel is based on "blood kinship."...

Dershowitz's original rebuttal is now unavailable, so all we have is these nitpicking bullet points. Taking only the first, one of the 211 footnotes to Mearsheimer and Walt's article expanded on the blood kinship laws of Israel, citing three Ha'aretz articles. One of them:

Breaking an Iron Rule (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/breaking-an-iron-rule-1.120245)
Amira Hass
Ha'aretz Op-Ed
21.4.04


Every Jew, man or woman, citizen of any country in the world, has potentially more rights in Israel than any Arab native citizen in the state. The Jew will have more chances to find a job, respectable housing, financial aid for higher education, personal advancement. Every foreign Jew has, de facto, more rights in the West Bank and Gaza (depending on what the Likud referendum decides) than Palestinians...

Every Jew in the world, at any given moment, can move to Israel and win the full rights of a citizen of Tel Aviv or Haifa, and more than that if they choose to live in Ma'aleh Adumim, the Old City of Jerusalem or Hebron. But an Israeli citizen from Umm al-Fahm cannot move to Efrata, for example. If a man from Umm al-Fahm chooses to marry and live in Bethlehem, he could lose his Israeli civil rights. His spouse will not be allowed to live with him in Israel, and he will face difficulties registering his children as Israeli citizens...

Nothing has changed since 2004. Israel still discriminates against its citizens on ethnic grounds. Dershowitz's attempt to equate the blood libel and blood kinship issues is deplorable, but typical of the conservative Jewish resort to anti-semitism charges against any criticism.

The facts remain that Israel receives a massive slice of the US aid budget, which it doesn't really need, and in exchange provides virtually no political or military support to the US in the region.

Capablanca-Fan
02-04-2015, 12:47 AM
The worst aspect of Netanyahu's last-minute campaigning was his attack on Israeli Arabs exercising their right to vote - ‘Arabs coming in droves to the ballot box.’ He's promoting internal racism, which a democratic leader would never do. Israel under Netanhayu is not a democracy, which is causing increasing concern (http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/.premium-1.648028) among her US conservative Jewish supporters.

Once again, Israel-haters like Finn and the unlamented Fraser are more worked up by remarks by Netanyahu than about Abbas serving his 11th year of a 4-year term or by Hamas murdering and maiming political opponents.

antichrist
02-04-2015, 12:59 AM
It is naive of Dershowitz to suggest that the Israeli lobby is powerless


Dershowitz's original rebuttal is now unavailable, so all we have is these nitpicking bullet points. Taking only the first, one of the 211 footnotes to Mearsheimer and Walt's article expanded on the blood kinship laws of Israel, citing three Ha'aretz articles. One of them:

Breaking an Iron Rule (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/breaking-an-iron-rule-1.120245)
Amira Hass
Ha'aretz Op-Ed
21.4.04


Every Jew, man or woman, citizen of any country in the world, has potentially more rights in Israel than any Arab native citizen in the state. The Jew will have more chances to find a job, respectable housing, financial aid for higher education, personal advancement. Every foreign Jew has, de facto, more rights in the West Bank and Gaza (depending on what the Likud referendum decides) than Palestinians...

Every Jew in the world, at any given moment, can move to Israel and win the full rights of a citizen of Tel Aviv or Haifa, and more than that if they choose to live in Ma'aleh Adumim, the Old City of Jerusalem or Hebron. But an Israeli citizen from Umm al-Fahm cannot move to Efrata, for example. If a man from Umm al-Fahm chooses to marry and live in Bethlehem, he could lose his Israeli civil rights. His spouse will not be allowed to live with him in Israel, and he will face difficulties registering his children as Israeli citizens...

Nothing has changed since 2004. Israel still discriminates against its citizens on ethnic grounds. Dershowitz's attempt to equate the blood libel and blood kinship issues is deplorable, but typical of the conservative Jewish resort to anti-semitism charges against any criticism.

The facts remain that Israel receives a massive slice of the US aid budget, which it doesn't really need, and in exchange provides virtually no political or military support to the US in the region.

The Judeo-Nazis certainly learnt well off the German Nazis - this sounds substantially like what happened in the early days of the Nazi regime. They also copied killing dozens for each of their own killed.

Ian Murray
02-04-2015, 08:24 AM
Once again, Israel-haters like Finn and the unlamented Fraser are more worked up by remarks by Netanyahu than about Abbas serving his 11th year of a 4-year term or by Hamas murdering and maiming political opponents.

Standard tactics for Jewish right-wing media - attack the messenger, not the message. Hate is a nice emotive word they use a lot - Israel-hating, Jew-hating, self-hating, hate-filled. Nevermind that I don't hate Israel or anyone else. I subscribe to an Israeli newspaper online and two liberal Jewish blogs (one in Tel Aviv, one in USA), and have done two MOOCs run by Israeli universities. I have no time for the policies and practices of Israeli conservative governments, particularly the current one. And I exercise my right to criticise the Israeli government. I also exercise my tight to criticise the Australian government.

BTW it wasn't too long ago that an Israeli assassination squad was masquerading as Australians (http://www.smh.com.au/national/israel-responsible-for-faking-aussie-passports-diplomat-expelled-smith-20100524-w5a3.html) to murder a political opponent.

antichrist
02-04-2015, 09:48 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
Once again, Israel-haters like Finn and the unlamented Fraser are more worked up by remarks by Netanyahu than about Abbas serving his 11th year of a 4-year term or by Hamas murdering and maiming political opponents.

AC: if this does happen one must understand the context of which it may occur. The Palestinians have been in concentration camps for almost 70 years, subdued, repressed, dispossessed, everything against them, just like OZ Aborigines - so of course there will be violence when they have been subjected to violence from Zionist 70 years. They did have elections but then Israel proceeded to lock up their parliamentarians - great champions of democracy Israel is - like they claim to be, WHAT A BIG JOKE. Extreme Zionists even killed their own president who was trying to make peace - the Palestinians have never done that.

Capablanca-Fan
03-04-2015, 11:55 AM
Israeli Officials: Iran Deal an 'Historic Mistake' (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193597#.VR3zDfnF_ng)
Israeli officials say new framework deal with Iran "will make the world far more dangerous." Lapid, Herzog and Livni speak out as well.
by Elad Benari, 3 April 2015

Left and right in Israel were on Thursday night united in their opposition to the new framework agreement reached between Iran and six world powers on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Israeli government officials said that the framework deal will be remembered as a "historic mistake".

"If an agreement is reached on the basis of this framework, it is an historic mistake which will make the world far more dangerous," said the officials, briefing journalists on condition of anonymity.

"It is a bad framework which will lead to a bad and dangerous agreement. The framework gives international legitimacy to Iran's nuclear program, the only aim of which is to produce a nuclear bomb," they added.

Meanwhile, Yesh Atid chairman MK Yair Lapid wrote on Facebook that “there is no opposition and coalition when it comes to the Iranian nuclear issue.”

Ian Murray
03-04-2015, 12:24 PM
Iran nuclear framework agreement: Not a bad deal (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.650355)
Ha'aretz
3 Apr 2015


Israel will have a hard time fighting this agreement, or portraying it as bad; if Iran upholds the terms, its nuclear threat will be severely mitigated...

In-depth examination of the details shows that the deal includes many positive aspects that preserve Israeli security interests and answer some of Jerusalem’s concerns.

Iran perhaps scored some victories in terms of the narrative. Its rights, as it sees them, were respected by the world powers, and Iran can declare that its nuclear facilities won’t be closed, that uranium enrichment will continue, and that the humiliating sanctions will be lifted. But the world powers made significant achievements of their own on the real practical issues.

The framework agreement levels many restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program for generations to come. The Israeli government’s claims that in a decade, Iran’s nuclear program will be normalized in the eyes of the world, and that the Islamic Republic could then do as it wishes, have turned out to be baseless.

Correct, the limitations on the number of centrifuges Iran will be allowed to operate will expire in 10 years’ time. It would have been preferable if that timeframe was longer. However, over the next 15 years, Iran won’t be able to enrich uranium past 3.5 percent, and at that level, it cannot be used for nuclear weapons. The most the Iranians could do with such uranium would be to use it for peaceful purposes, or leave it in storage, collecting dust.

Also, the tight, invasive oversight of Iran’s nuclear program as defined by the framework, which will certainly be fleshed out in the final agreement, includes allowing UN inspectors into every Iranian nuclear facility, as well as uranium mines and storage facilities for a period of between 20 and 25 years.

One positive aspect of the agreement is that Iran agreed to sign and ratify the additional protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows the UN to conduct surprise inspections at any facility suspected of housing nuclear activity. The significance is that it will be very difficult for Iran to develop a nuclear program in secret, and if it tries to do so, it will likely be uncovered. Attempts to limit or obstruct inspectors would constitute a gross violation of the agreement, which could lead to reinstatement of the international sanctions...

antichrist
03-04-2015, 12:25 PM
Poor crying Israel having a little fit because Iran may be making nuke weapons - exactly the same that Israel has had for about 40 years!

About 50 years ago many Middle East countries signed to be nuke free but Israel went the other way, making maybe a few hundred (or 25 can't remember) nuke weapons. This may not be due to security concerns that they handle quite well with non-nuke weapons, and their use of chemical weapons when not under threat points to them using nuke weapons when they please. What else displays to why their nuke capacity is without security concerns is their stated policy, even before the Holocaust etc that they wanted to be the greatest power in the M/E.

So Israel have absolutely no moral authority on who may or may not have nuke weapons.

jammo
03-04-2015, 12:37 PM
Poor crying Israel having a little fit because Iran may be making nuke weapons - exactly the same that Israel has had for about 40 years!

About 50 years ago many Middle East countries signed to be nuke free but Israel went the other way, making maybe a few hundred (or 25 can't remember) nuke weapons. This may not be due to security concerns that they handle quite well with non-nuke weapons, and their use of chemical weapons when not under threat points to them using nuke weapons when they please. What else displays to why their nuke capacity is without security concerns is their stated policy, even before the Holocaust etc that they wanted to be the greatest power in the M/E.

So Israel have absolutely no moral authority on who may or may not have nuke weapons.

It's a relatively simple concept which you don't seem to have grasped AC. We want the good guys to have nukes and the bad guys not to.

antichrist
03-04-2015, 02:45 PM
It's a relatively simple concept which you don't seem to have grasped AC. We want the good guys to have nukes and the bad guys not to.

But who stole whose land so who is the good and who is the bad guys? And who are committing war crimes in stealing more land every single day? And it is announced yesterday that Palestine has signed on to the International Criminal Court for Israel's war crimes
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/palestine-formally-joins-international-criminal-court-150401073619618.html

jammo
03-04-2015, 04:12 PM
But who stole whose land so who is the good and who is the bad guys? And who are committing war crimes in stealing more every single day? And it is announced yesterday that Palestine has signed on to the International Criminal Court for Israel's war crimes
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/palestine-formally-joins-international-criminal-court-150401073619618.html

Again it's really very simple. The good guys are the ones on our side and the bad guys are the ones who oppose us.

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2015, 03:44 AM
We want the good guys to have nukes and the bad guys not to.
Right, and Iran is one of the worst bad guys, with its repeated desires to annihilate Israel and "death to America", while it persecutes non-Muslims like Christians, Jews, and gays. Meanwhile, it sponsors terrorists to such a degree that Arab Muslim countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia agree with Israel that Iran should not be allowed nukes.

Meanwhile, Obamov, who is so keen for Iran to develop nuclear power, although it's hardly short on energy, blocks any attempt to build a new nuclear power station in the USA.

Rincewind
05-04-2015, 11:33 AM
...non-Muslims like Christians, Jews, and gays...

There are gay muslims.

antichrist
05-04-2015, 11:40 AM
And there are Christian Jews like Jono, but it occurred to me recently that Muslims have much more in common with Judaism then Christians have with Judaism. Only the Christian advertise their lesser attachment more. And it was the Christians who pulled off the Holocaust and pogroms etc.. It was mainly territorial conflicts that brought trouble between Jews and Muslims.

Ian Murray
05-04-2015, 09:34 PM
Right, and Iran is one of the worst bad guys, with its repeated desires to annihilate Israel and "death to America",...
The days of the mad mullahs are gone. The new Iranian president is a moderate, and his cabinet includes more PhDs from American universities than Obama's. There is no more Great Satan or Israel into the Sea rhetoric.


...while it persecutes non-Muslims like Christians, Jews, and gays. ..
Iran's human rights record is not good, but is improving. The new regime has released a draft Citizenship Rights Charter (http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2014/feb/10/president-rouhani%E2%80%99s-new-rights-charter) for public discussion.


Meanwhile, it sponsors terrorists to such a degree that Arab Muslim countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia agree with Israel that Iran should not be allowed nukes....
Ingenuous. Egyptians and Saudis are Sunni Muslims, historical enemies of Iran's Shia for centuries. They don't support Israel, they oppose Iran. Iran supports Shi'ite populations in the region, including supply of arms.

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2015, 01:27 AM
The days of the mad mullahs are gone. The new Iranian president is a moderate, and his cabinet includes more PhDs from American universities than Obama's. There is no more Great Satan or Israel into the Sea rhetoric.
Come off it, there was just this very recently, chants of Death to America (which doesn't worry American leftards nearly as much as "I don't want to cater a gay wedding"), and still a refusal to recognize Israel.


Iran's human rights record is not good, but is improving. The new regime has released a draft Citizenship Rights Charter (http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2014/feb/10/president-rouhani%E2%80%99s-new-rights-charter) for public discussion.
But even your own site has a heading Weaknesses, which points out:


Despite its ambitious list of rights to address, the draft Charter suffers from serious shortcomings, both in terms of its unclear legal status within the Iranian legal system and in the actual content of the Charter itself.

Then it lists how it does nothing about Iran's high rate of executions, cruel and inhuman punishments like flogging and amputation (most people on ChessChat would include capital punishment under that description), the blatant discrimination against women, persecution of Bahais; while it reinforces the restrictions on speech and association. I'm just going by Finn's source here, and that doesn't even mention that Iran murders gays as well.


Ingenuous. Egyptians and Saudis are Sunni Muslims, historical enemies of Iran's Shia for centuries. They don't support Israel, they oppose Iran. Iran supports Shi'ite populations in the region, including supply of arms.
And the traditional view of the region is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." These Arab Sunnis see the huge danger of Iran with nukes, and would probably want to develop their own.

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2015, 01:28 AM
There are gay muslims.

Not true Muslims though, according to Muslim law.

antichrist
08-04-2015, 06:45 AM
Jono: Well, all your favorite countries in the Middle East, i.e. the enemies of Israel, persecute gays including murdering them.

AC: Israel indiscriminately kills/imprisons/torturers thousands of Palestinian freedom fighters - relatively speaking gay persecution would be a minute(tiny) amount in comparison.

Capablanca-Fan
08-04-2015, 12:47 PM
I hope lots of Muslims will listen to this man:

No justification for terror in any religion (http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/03/31/no-justification-for-terror-in-any-religion/)
By Shawky Allam, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, 1 April 2015

There is no true religion that does not regard the sanctity of human life as one of its highest values, and Islam is no exception. Indeed, Allah made this unequivocal in the Qur’an. He emphasized the gravity of the universal prohibition against murder, stating that when a person takes even one life, “it is as if he has killed all mankind.”

Egyptians are still torn by grief for the 21 countrymen who were horrifically beheaded in Libya. It was an exceptionally sad day for the Egyptian nation to have to watch a video of its citizens massacred by a group of thugs. The scenes of bloodbath are heart-wrenching in their severity.

This grisly crime finds no justification in any reasonable understanding of any religion. Only extremists who have perverted the essence of Islamic teaching could countenance the idea that our religion of mercy and reason might allow the killing of innocent workers earning money so their families can live dignified lives.

Beyond a military war on terror, we are in an ideological battle — one we must win — against radical extremists who use terror as a weapon to achieve their goals of disrupting global stability and the conscience of the peaceful world. Winning this war requires not just victory on the ground but, more important, in the successful exchange of ideas and information that refutes the dogma of radical clerics.

Let me be clear: Islam is utterly against extremism and terrorism. Unless we dismantle and deconstruct all ideas of extremism propagated by these groups, however, we will never eradicate this scourge. All terror groups essentially carry the same intellectual poison. This must be understood in order to build a better future that can bring an end to this grave situation that is destroying the world.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2015, 12:15 AM
Don't be fooled by the lies of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions [against Israel only] Movement. They pretent to care about the rights of Palestinians (although evidently not for those murdered by Hamas or under the yoke of Abbas in the 11th year of his 4-year term), but the end of Israel itself.

What Does the BDS Movement Want? (https://www.academia.edu/11875248/What_Does_the_BDS_Movement_Want)
Ronald Hendel, the Norma and Sam Dabby professor of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at U.C. Berkeley

antichrist
12-04-2015, 09:58 PM
http://www.wakefieldpress.com.au/product.php?productid=1207&cat=0&page=84

Launched by Bob Carr a former Friend of Israel

antichrist
12-04-2015, 09:59 PM
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Palestine-International-Perspective/dp/0822335395

antichrist
14-04-2015, 06:26 PM
The problem with Luther is not his language, it is what he says:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. ...
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ...
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. . . .
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ...
Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ...
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. ... For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause. ...
Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]). ...

AC: Gee much of this sounds like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/palestinian-child-labourers-reap-grim-harvest-on-israelirun-farms-20150413-1mk3zs.html

Beirut: Palestinian children - some as young as 11 - are performing "gruelling and hazardous" work on farms run by Israeli settlements, growing, harvesting and packing produce for Israel's multimillion-dollar export market.

The children are paid low wages and subjected to dangerous conditions in violation of international labour laws, working on settlements that are themselves considered a violation of international law, a new report from Human Rights Watch has found.

During peak harvest periods, some children reported working up to 12 hours a day for more 60 hours a week, starting as early as 5.30am, the report found. Those who worked part-time or on weekends were often exhausted when they were at school, their teachers told Human Rights Watch.

antichrist
14-04-2015, 11:44 PM
http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2015/01/16/hollandes-netanyahu-snub-proves-need-israel

The right place for Israel would have been to carve it out (maybe as multiple enclaves) of the countries that were the greatest historical persecutors of the Jewish people - Germany, Russia, Poland, etc., thus establishing Israel right in the faces of those who were primarily responsible for anti-Semitism through the centuries since the death of Jesus Christ. That way, those nations would never have been allowed to forget their guilt and culpability in one of the greatest crimes of the Millenium (the Holocaust).

Instead, the Europeans, with the active connivance of the US, performed the ultimate act of Imperialism by taking land that was not theirs and giving it to yet others whose land it wasn't either. Establishing Israel in the Middle East effectively outsourced the expiation of European Christian guilt over their anti-semitism. It also created whole new nations of Anti-Semites, namely the Arabs and the Persians, who, under the Ottomans, were far more tolerant of their Jewish citizens than the Hapsburgs or Hohenzollerns or Romanovs or other European governments/empires.

So, yes, Israel was (and is) needed. It was just created in the wrong place, by people (the US and European winners of WW2 under the auspices of their handmaiden, the UN) who had no right to do what they did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

seems just and sensible to me

antichrist
15-04-2015, 01:57 PM
AC:
We know only too well how the Jews have suffered from dangers of a spiritual belief yet they now have nuke weapons that indeed create a scenarios where it may alas be necessary to go to war to prevent some maniac Israeli president from using them.

KB:
In the unlikely case that this really is a problem then it is a bit late for that now - I was talking about pre-emptively discouraging a rogue country from acquiring a nuclear programme. Anyway you seem to be again trying to smuggle your Israel rants into multiple threads so any further discussion on that can be had on the I-P thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AC: I consider Isreael one of the worst rogue states, does not recognise the International Criminal Court, or International Court of Justice, created by terrorists and still grabs land by terrorism, tortures prisoners etc, plus weapons of mass destruction, what part is not a rogue state?

Kevin Bonham
15-04-2015, 02:02 PM
AC: I consider Isreael one of the worst rogue states, does not recognise the International Criminal Court, or International Court of Justice, created by terrorists and still grabs land by terrorism, tortures prisoners etc, plus weapons of mass destruction, what part is not a rogue state?

Whatever you may think of them they don't appear to be self-destructive idiots. And again, you are missing the point that I was talking about pre-emption of acquiring nuclear weapons.

antichrist
15-04-2015, 10:42 PM
Whatever you may think of them they don't appear to be self-destructive idiots. And again, you are missing the point that I was talking about pre-emption of acquiring nuclear weapons.

A history of the development of nuke weapons have shown that it is upon a neighbour, enemy or potential enemy obtaining nuke weapons that has spurred that nation to acquire weapons. USA then USSR, then China, then India, then Pakistan. Israel then attempts by Syria, Iraq etc.. The unfortunate part about this was that many M/E countries had already signed treaty rejecting acquiring of nuke weapons. So it is highly hypocritically and useless to expect nations to stay empty handed when their enemy neighbour posses them. The only reason they weren't used since Japan was that USSR possessed them as well.

In many contexts Israel can be seen as self-destructive idiots. For example, violently taking over land that is highly populated creating enemies that posses Right of Return, that eventually could lead to Jews being a minority in Israel if only one state persists that seems to be the case - they are becoming international pariahs and rightly so. Even decent Israelis are renouncing Israeli citizenship they are so disgusted with their govt. Even Righteous Gentiles are deserting them - Bob Carr has joined the Palestinian side.

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2015, 02:26 AM
So it is highly hypocritically and useless to expect nations to stay empty handed when their enemy neighbour posses them.

Oh, it is to be expected that neighbouring nations will try. Whether they should be allowed to succeed is another matter. Ideally, any further nuclear proliferation is best avoided because it always increases the chance of weapons falling into the hands of a nutcase who might actually use them.


The only reason they weren't used since Japan was that USSR possessed them as well.

It's hard to say if that is true. If we imagine a world with only one country having nukes for a long time, it is likely that following Hiroshima all other nations would realise that antagonising the US risked such attacks, and not engage in them.

But in any case we have noticed that in regional conflicts there have been imbalances in which nuclear weapons have not as yet been used. So it does not follow that a local balance is necessary to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, and nor does it follow that it will be effective.


In many contexts Israel can be seen as self-destructive idiots. For example, violently taking over land that is highly populated creating enemies that posses Right of Return, that eventually could lead to Jews being a minority in Israel if only one state persists that seems to be the case - they are becoming international pariahs and rightly so. Even decent Israelis are renouncing Israeli citizenship they are so disgusted with their govt. Even Righteous Gentiles are deserting them - Bob Carr has joined the Palestinian side.

I recall refuting the demographic-swamping idea somewhere else (the ultra-orthodox are breeding like rabbits, IIRC, was the answer to that one.) Mere counterproductiveness of strategy is not the kind of insanity I had in mind; I mean the sort of fanaticism where a person will kill millions for their cause and destroy their own nation in the process.

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2015, 04:43 AM
After the Islamofascist attack on the Muhammad-cartoon drawing contest, Megyn Kelly defends the American First Amendment right to free speech, and interviews leading legal scholar Eugene Volokh pointing out that there is no exception for blasphemy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=250&v=99ellx9APL4

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2015, 04:45 AM
Here Megyn Kelly interviews another legal scholar Alan Dershowitz. He pointed out that MLK was deliberately provocative of the most violent racists so that the evils of Jim Crow could be exposed. We can't have an assassin's veto on free speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoaS0Zg1SYk

Ian Murray
09-05-2015, 08:53 AM
Watching 20 mins of Fox News? I value my time a bit more than that!

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2015, 09:08 AM
Watching 20 mins of Fox News? I value my time a bit more than that!
Yes, I can believe that legal scholars like Dershowitz and Volokh would be above your head.

Rincewind
09-05-2015, 10:29 AM
If you could get Dershowitz without Megyn Kelly then it might be worth watching.

Ian Murray
09-05-2015, 08:00 PM
Yes, I can believe that legal scholars like Dershowitz and Volokh would be above your head.

I get my progressive Jewish insights from my subscriptions to mondoweiss.org and 972mag.com - I don't need the Barbie-Doll presenters fronting for Fox News.

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2015, 11:49 PM
If you could get Dershowitz without Megyn Kelly then it might be worth watching.
Yet Dershowitz unexpectly praised Megyn Kelly's insights into free speech.


I don't need the Barbie-Doll presenters fronting for Fox News.
Typical of leftists to make sexist remarks. However, she has degrees in political science and law, was associate editor of the Albany Law Review, and has co-authored a paper in the American Bar Association's journal, Litigation. If you want a real Barbie Doll, try that leftard Katie Couric, who just has a BA in English.

Rincewind
10-05-2015, 12:38 AM
Yet Dershowitz unexpectly praised Megyn Kelly's insights into free speech.

I'll take your word for that. Dershowitz needs to be be nice to the media because it is difficult to be a commentator without media access. So "guest pays compliment to host of tv program" is not really a news story.

Ian Murray
10-05-2015, 11:23 AM
Typical of leftists to make sexist remarks. However, she has degrees in political science and law, was associate editor of the Albany Law Review, and has co-authored a paper in the American Bar Association's journal, Litigation.

Qualifications are of minor importance - female anchors on Fox News first have to be foxy. Some preference shown for blondes.

Top 10 Hottest Fox News Girls (http://www.wonderslist.com/top-10-hottest-fox-news-girls/)

Meet the Blondes of Fox News (http://www.vh1.com/celebrity/2014-11-25/meet-the-blondes-of-fox-news/)

Fox News Makeup For Women Anchors: Why So Much? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/fox-news-makeup-women-anchors_n_1824659.html)

Image of 9 white, blond women shows 'amazing diversity of Fox News anchors' (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/09/facebook-posts/facebook-post-blondes-fox-news/)

Capablanca-Fan
13-05-2015, 10:15 PM
I'll take your word for that. Dershowitz needs to be be nice to the media because it is difficult to be a commentator without media access. So "guest pays compliment to host of tv program" is not really a news story.
Oh come on. I've seen plenty of Megyn Kelly's interviews where a guest doesn't compliment her, and plenty of Dershowitz interview where he doesn't compliment a host. As was clear from Dershowitz's subsequent comments, his praise of Kelly was heartfelt.


Qualifications are of minor importance - female anchors on Fox News first have to be foxy. Some preference shown for blondes.
It doesn't disprove that Megyn Kelly has good qualifications. It seems that you are swallowing the "dumb blonde" stereotype. In any case, the leftist CNN has a preference for blondes as well (http://rare.us/story/10-hottest-babes-of-cnn/).

Ian Murray
14-05-2015, 08:57 AM
It doesn't disprove that Megyn Kelly has good qualifications. It seems that you are swallowing the "dumb blonde" stereotype. In any case, the leftist CNN has a preference for blondes as well (http://rare.us/story/10-hottest-babes-of-cnn/).

I'm not suggesting she doesn't have good qualifications. They helped in her hiring, but first she had to fit the Fox-girl mould. Al Jazeera (http://tvnewsroom.org/al-jazeera-international/al-jazeera-english-presenters-9558/) seeks balance with multicultural presenters rather than meticulous make-up and coiffure.

Rincewind
14-05-2015, 11:25 AM
I've seen plenty of Megyn Kelly's interviews

My sympathies.

Ian Murray
17-05-2015, 08:12 PM
Talking of Fox News, they found Pablo Picasso's art to be too explicit for their viewers, and airbrushed the - shock, horror - naked women's breasts visible in his work The Women of Algiers, which sold last week for $179m.

Fox news station blurs out breasts on record-breaking Pablo Picasso artwork (http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/fox-news-station-blurs-out-breasts-on-recordbreaking-pablo-picasso-artwork-20150514-gh19o5.html)

Capablanca-Fan
19-05-2015, 04:42 AM
My sympathies.

Well, the leftist CNN "was very interested in hiring her", according t (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/business/media/fox-news-anchor-megyn-kelly-renews-contract.html?_r=0)o the far-left New York Times. She also trounces Goughfather's heroine Rachel Madcow in the ratings for their shared 9pm slot (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tuesday-cable-ratings-foxs-megyn-kelly-1-in-demo-beating-oreilly/). About Fox News in general, Charles Krauthammer said back in 2009 (http://nypost.com/2009/06/10/how-fox-news-opened-america/):


In that respect, there should be a special award for Fox News. Fox has done a great service to the American polity — single-handedly breaking up the intellectual and ideological monopoly that for decades exerted hegemony (to use a favorite lefty cliché) over the broadcast media.

I said some years ago that the genius of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes was to have discovered a niche market in American broadcasting — half the American people. The reason Fox News has thrived and grown is because it offers a vibrant and honest alternative to those who could not abide yet another day of the news delivered to them beneath layer after layer of often undisguised liberalism.

Rincewind
19-05-2015, 08:51 AM
Great comedy Jono. Definitely give up your day job.

antichrist
19-05-2015, 03:13 PM
I see that the Vatican has recognised the State of Palestine to the great consternation of Israel - nothing lasts forever, the wheel of justice is slowly turning

Ian Murray
19-05-2015, 04:05 PM
I see that the Vatican has recognised the State of Palestine...

Netanyahu painted himself into a corner internationally when he declared when electioneering that "a Palestinian state would not be established on his watch (http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-no-palestinian-state-under-my-watch/)". Despite his efforts to backflip, the world now sees Israel as intractable and direct action needs to be taken in support of Palestinian rights.

As a Brookings Middle East analyst (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/05/15-israel-netanyahu-new-government-obama-washington?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=17740453&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--BAgP49_v7x3EIf4FKtWsdjr_GgCwqaYiN2H1OCFg_4Ex1rh6Vk hG5N1l--890uOIx2atONgXVejX1JNWm6Nn_xA4qxYLlj2Iysm75hoqRFRd lIn8&_hsmi=17740453) sees it, "...Internationally, Israel faces the prospect of increasing diplomatic isolation, as the breakdown in any negotiating process with the Palestinians leads more and more international actors to recognize a Palestinian state that so far exists only in name. The Vatican signed a new treaty with Palestine this week, prompting an outpouring of concern among Israelis that a diplomatic dam was breaking against them.

Netanyahu’s words, on the final day of the campaign, are part of what landed his country in such hot water abroad. As long as Israel’s government was formally committed to negotiating its conflict directly with the Palestinians, with a stated objective of Palestinian statehood, Israel and its allies could stave off action in international fora and argue that direct talks between the parties should take precedence. Netanyahu’s affirmative answer to a reporter’s question, suggesting that a Palestinian state would not emerge in his next term, seemed to belie this formal commitment to the negotiations. Despite his subsequent backtracking, those words pulled the rug out from under the US government, which had long defended Israel from actions at the United Nations even when the proposals on the table were in accordance with longstanding US policy. Now Washington and Jerusalem have a shared problem in how to stave off unilateral steps at the UN and elsewhere that could disadvantage Israel internationally and in any future negotiations. Netanyahu must work with Washington to resolve it..."

antichrist
20-05-2015, 10:58 AM
That is one way; the other way is to fight the enemy with his own weapons........................................... . You on the other hand demands that someone who wants to adhere to Marquess of Queensbury boxing rules would make a far better case for them if he stuck to them while his opponent used kicks and a knife and killed him

AC: so you are recommending that the Palestinians also acquire Nuke weapons to match their enemy Israel? And cluster bombs etc?

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2015, 11:04 AM
Video clips (http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/29011-just-in-case-you-come-across-any-liberals-who-feel-like-rewriting-democrat-history) of leading leftist Democrats agreeing that Sodom Hussein had WMDs and supporting GWB taking him out.

antichrist
25-05-2015, 11:45 AM
Video clips (http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/29011-just-in-case-you-come-across-any-liberals-who-feel-like-rewriting-democrat-history) of leading leftist Democrats agreeing that Sodom Hussein had WMDs and supporting GWB taking him out.

Well at the time I was in demos protesting against invasion, are you admitting that I knew better or made better decisions than the whole USA establishment?

Ian Murray
25-05-2015, 06:39 PM
Video clips (http://chicksontheright.com/blog/item/29011-just-in-case-you-come-across-any-liberals-who-feel-like-rewriting-democrat-history) of leading leftist Democrats agreeing that Sodom Hussein had WMDs and supporting GWB taking him out.

I too believed the case presented by Colin Powell, based on US intelligence. Why would anyone suspect that the intelligence analysis was worthless?

antichrist
26-05-2015, 10:30 PM
Imagine Yasser Arafat: Nope nope nope

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2015, 02:39 AM
I too believed the case presented by Colin Powell, based on US intelligence. Why would anyone suspect that the intelligence analysis was worthless?

Not just US intelligence, but from other countries, as well as the historical fact that Sodom had used WMDs against his own people.

But the above shows that "Bush/Howard lied" is itself a leftard lie.

antichrist
27-05-2015, 10:20 AM
But they were all too pushy on controversial so called evidence that an Oz intelligence officer resigned over that fact and now is in parliament. For being honest and moral. Bush, Howard and McCool were stupid whereas the only Lebo here was protesting on the streets against the invasion. Saddam's use of WMD had half an excuse whereas the USA use of such at end of WW2 was unjustified. The Yanks were worse than Saddam in that respect. Sorry McCool I say as I see it.

Ian Murray
27-05-2015, 07:29 PM
Not just US intelligence, but from other countries, as well as the historical fact that Sodom had used WMDs against his own people.
I don't recall Powell presenting any foreign intelligence.

While Saddam was using war gases against Iran and the Kurds, he was receiving US military and intelligence support for his war effort. Their use can't legitimately be used later as grounds to invade Iraq.


But the above shows that "Bush/Howard lied" is itself a leftard lie.
Cui bono? Only Bush needed international support to make his long-held invasion plans look legitimate. Howard believed what he was told.

Patrick Byrom
27-05-2015, 07:47 PM
Not just US intelligence, but from other countries, as well as the historical fact that Sodom had used WMDs against his own people.
But the above shows that "Bush/Howard lied" is itself a leftard lie.
The Bush administration distorted the intelligence to justify the case for war. Paul Krugman sums it up (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-right-and-wrong-questions-about-the-iraq-war/393497/):

The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that.

For example (http://www.salon.com/2015/05/20/george_w_bushs_cia_briefer_admits_iraq_wmd_intelli gence_was_a_lie/):

On Tuesday night, former CIA Deputy Director and Bush’s intelligence briefer Michael Morell appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” where he, under an amount of good cable news duress, admitted that the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence.
The show played a clip of Cheney saying, “We know [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
“Was that true or not,” host Chris Matthews asked.
“We were saying–”
“Can you answer that question? Was that true?”
“No, that was not true,” he finally said.

Another example (http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/):

While one Iraqi source told the CIA that there were no WMD, information that was true but distorted to prove the opposite, another Iraqi source was a fabricator whose lies were eagerly embraced. “The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused,” said one of the former CIA officers. “The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear.”

You can't blame Democrats for accepting the misleading information they were given by the administration.

antichrist
27-05-2015, 10:49 PM
Saddam used WMD when against the ropes and down for the count, whereas the USA used their WMD nuke weapons when under no threat at all

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2015, 12:42 AM
You can't blame Democrats for accepting the misleading information they were given by the administration.

Of course I can, because the Clintons and their staff said the same thing before the Bush administration even existed. The Dems had access to the same information Bush had. It was common knowledge that Sodom had gassed the Kurds, as part of the 100,000 Iraqis he killed with WMDs. Indeed, some of the leftist arguments against invading Iraq was that he might use WMDs against our troops. Saddam had also sheltered terrorists who had killed Americans, and tried to kill a former US president. [Crap from serial leftist propagandists Krugman and Hardball deleted]

Patrick Byrom
28-05-2015, 12:41 PM
Of course I can, because the Clintons and their staff said the same thing before the Bush administration even existed. The Dems had access to the same information Bush had. ...
The Democrats did not have access to the same information that Bush did (http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/):

In the congressional debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, even those voting against it gave credence to the notion that Saddam possessed WMD. Even a leading opponent such as Sen. Bob Graham, then the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had instigated the production of the NIE, declared in his floor speech on Oct. 12, 2002, “Saddam Hussein’s regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity.” Not a single senator contested otherwise. None of them had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence.

But Bush did (same link):

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister [Naji Sabri], a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

antichrist
28-05-2015, 11:02 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/browse/video_popup.htm?vidURL=/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/03/01/3147927-mediarss-full.xml&vidTitle=Peter%20Beinart:%20Failure%20of%20the%20U S%20Jewish%20Establishment&vidLength=Full

An excellent talk by a liberal USA Jew concerning the dangerous areas where Israel is heading.

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2015, 04:42 AM
The Democrats did not have access to the same information that Bush did (http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/):
They had access to info Bush probably lacked for a time, like that from the Clinton administration about Sodom's demonstrable use of WMDs and his danger to the free world.

Capablanca-Fan
30-05-2015, 04:44 AM
Netanyahu painted himself into a corner internationally when he declared when electioneering that "a Palestinian state would not be established on his watch (http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-no-palestinian-state-under-my-watch/)". Despite his efforts to backflip, the world now sees Israel as intractable and direct action needs to be taken in support of Palestinian rights.
Of course not, given the present state of Palestinian leadership. Not when the Palestinian leaders refuse to recognize Israel, and even keep language in the Hamas Charter calling for Israel's annihilation. But previously said that if they would just recognize Israel, Israel would be the first to recognize them.

antichrist
30-05-2015, 10:31 AM
Of course not, given the present state of Palestinian leadership. Not when the Palestinian leaders refuse to recognize Israel, and even keep language in the Hamas Charter calling for Israel's annihilation. But previously said that if they would just recognize Israel, Israel would be the first to recognize them.


why should Palestinians have to recognise the Isareli robbers, almost al of Israel proper is stolen land. Would Oz have recognised Australia as Japanese if Japan had conquered Australia? Talk about salt to the wound.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2015, 08:10 AM
Why did America invade Iraq in 2003? Was it for oil? Or was it because Saddam Hussein was a mass-murdering dictator who harbored terrorists and threatened the region with Weapons of Mass Destruction? If it was the former, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just buy Iraq's oil on the open market? And if it was the latter, why did Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry support President Bush? Noted British historian, Andrew Roberts, has the answers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=38&v=T2tbpUqNwRU

Johns
01-06-2015, 10:44 AM
Why did America invade Iraq in 2003?
Beutiful propaganda for peoples who don"t know how US supported Iraq by giving it poison gas. Or that the US say to Hussien they had no objection to Iraq invading Kuwait.

Cartoon smiley and frowny faces must say to you this video is for children. Capafan, friend, you lose credibly if you use videos like this. You are smarter than this to use propaganda rubbish.

Capablanca-Fan
01-06-2015, 02:22 PM
Beutiful propaganda for peoples who don"t know how US supported Iraq by giving it poison gas. Or that the US say to Hussien they had no objection to Iraq invading Kuwait.
Any proof?


Cartoon smiley and frowny faces must say to you this video is for children. Capafan, friend, you lose credibly if you use videos like this. You are smarter than this to use propaganda rubbish.

Just listen to the content as I do; it comes from a reputable British historian, and is in line with what Clinton and his administration thought. The cartoons are a minor visual aid.

Patrick Byrom
02-06-2015, 12:27 AM
... And if it was the latter, why did Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry support President Bush?
Saddam obviously had WMDs at some point. But George W Bush had intelligence that Bill Clinton did not, which demonstrated that Saddam did not have WMDs when Bush invaded (http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/04/25/media-largely-ignore-ex-cia-officials-disclosur/135493):

In a segment titled, "A Spy Speaks Out," 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley spoke with Drumheller, who recently retired after 26 years in the CIA, most recently as the chief of the agency's European operations. Drumheller disclosed that, more than six months before the Iraq invasion, Naji Sabri Ahmad Al-Hadithi, Saddam's foreign affairs minister, agreed to provide the CIA with Iraqi military secrets. According to Drumheller, when then-CIA director George Tenet personally shared the news with Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and then-National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice, "they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis." Sabri subsequently informed intelligence officials that Saddam "had no active weapons of mass destruction program." But when the White House learned of Sabri's disclosure in September 2002, "[t]hey stopped being interested in the intelligence." Drumheller further recounted the administration's reaction: "The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they're no longer interested. And we said, 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

The Democrats who supported Bush were not told about this intelligence, which turned out to be completely accurate.

Capablanca-Fan
02-06-2015, 01:20 AM
More leftist agitprop and hearsay. Sodom Hussein certainly bluffed the world into thinking that he had them, so it was reasonable to take him at his word. Especially when he expelled the UN weapons inspectors, contrary to the Gulf War Ceasefire conditions, he convinced leaders from both parties that he had something to hide.

Patrick Byrom
02-06-2015, 12:46 PM
More leftist agitprop and hearsay.
Ironically, this is almost exactly the same reaction your hero GWB had when presented with the evidence that Saddam did not have WMDs! And we all know how that turned out.

If you can dismiss the evidence of a 26 year veteran of the CIA (who was the European chief of operations) as "agitprop" without providing any contrary evidence, then obviously nothing will change your mind. Fortunately, unlike George W Bush, your ignorance is not likely to have serious consequences.

Rincewind
02-06-2015, 12:53 PM
It is not ironic that far and away the greatest spruker of misinformation here - Capa-Fan - describes reasoned dissenting arguments as propaganda.

Capablanca-Fan
03-06-2015, 02:23 AM
Ironically, this is almost exactly the same reaction your hero GWB had when presented with the evidence that Saddam did not have WMDs!
Evidently this evidence eluded the Clintons and all the other Dems who thought he had them, as did KRudd. All of them presented other reasons to topple Sodom Hussein as well.


And we all know how that turned out.
Very well: toppling Saddam, killing loads of terrorists, allowing the Iraqis a free vote with their purple fingers, with historically very low American casualties (less than the first day of the D-Day landings). What didn't work out well was Obamov's cutting and running and leaving the vacuum for ISIS.

I note that most of those criticising Bush for going to war (with Congressional approval and support from many other countries) had no problem with Obamov's war in Libya that just let terrorists take charge and kill the USA Ambassador.


If you can dismiss the evidence of a 26 year veteran of the CIA (who was the European chief of operations) as "agitprop" without providing any contrary evidence,
Evidence provided. And big whoop: Iraq is not in Europe.

Patrick Byrom
03-06-2015, 10:07 AM
Evidently this evidence eluded the Clintons and all the other Dems who thought he had them, as did KRudd.
I will try to explain this one last time: The evidence from Sabri was given to GWB, who did not give it to the Democrats (let alone Kevin Rudd)! You have provided no evidence that this information was given to the Democrats, although you continue to claim that it was.


Evidence provided. And big whoop: Iraq is not in Europe.
Europe was his most recent posting - he is still a veteran CIA agent. And again you have not provided any evidence that the Sabri intelligence was incorrect, or that it wasn't given to GWB.

Ian Murray
03-06-2015, 05:04 PM
from edX MOOC War for the Greater Middle East
Prof Andrew Bacevich
Colonel US Army (ret'd), professor emeritus, School of Global Studies, Boston University


Had the United States achieved victory in Iraq,
overall victory in America's war for the greater Middle East
just might have followed.
But failure in Iraq, even if that failure remains unacknowledged,
doomed a larger enterprise.
By the time US forces left Iraq, in 2011,
winning the war for the greater Middle East
--in Donald Rumsfeld's formulation changing
the way they live-- was no longer even plausible.
Much fighting was still to come, of course,
but as far as the United States was concerned with the failure of Operation
Iraqi Freedom, the larger war's final outcome was now foreordained.
Washington was not going to achieve its aims.
So, it's important for us to understand why the United States chose
to invade Iraq in the first place.
And why US military efforts there went so badly awry.
Complicating the challenge involved in achieving that understanding
is the vast amount of misinformation sewn by the United States government
and by war propagandists purporting to be
journalists, or disinterested observers.
The official rationale for invading Iraq,
the one sold to the American public, emphasized two things.
Danger and opportunity.
The ostensible danger was that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
might forge a partnership.
The Iraqi dictator then providing the Al Qaeda leader
with weapons of mass destruction.
Allow that to happen, and the next 9/11 would be beyond horrific,
according to such officials as National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice, who publicly conjured up images of nuclear weapons
detonating in major American cities.
Rice was hardly the only Cassandra.
The most senior officials in the Bush administration
launched a coordinated campaign meant to convince the American public, the US
Congress and the wider world, that Saddam Hussein represented
a mortal threat.
At the same time, war with Iraq presented an opportunity,
supporters claimed, in this sense: It would demonstrate American beneficence.
Ousting the evil Saddam, and freeing Iraqis,
would boost America's standing in the eyes of Muslims everywhere.
Hitherto respected authors and journalists such as Max Boot and Thomas
Friedman publicly voiced support for the administration's rush
to war, arguing that ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein
would improve the lives of Iraqis, and, thus,
enhance the reputation of America in the region.
That Iraqis yearn for liberation, and would repay their deliverers
with gratitude was, therefore, taken for granted.
Speaking at a Pentagon press conference, on the eve of the Iraq War,
Paul Wolfowitz assured reporters that quote,
"You're going to find Iraqis out cheering American troops. "
He was hardly alone in that expectation.
Of course the argument that Saddam posed a great danger has not held up.
Not only did Saddam possess no weapons of mass destruction,
he had already abandoned efforts to acquire them.
That's simply a fact.
Further, the likelihood of Bin Laden ever forging a partnership with Saddam
was remote, to put it mildly.
Apart from each ranking high on Washington's enemies list,
the two had next to nothing in common.
Indeed, the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad represented the sort
of corrupt, decadent, Arab regime that Bin Laden and his followers despised.
Did the Bush administration know in advance
that Saddams WMD arsenal did not exist?
Or did senior officials, and others on the outside clamoring for war,
commit an honest mistake?
In other words, did they lie or did they err?
Well, until Google makes it possible to search the human heart,
we can't know for sure.
Let's just say this-- In all walks of life, but especially in politics,
people believe what they find it convenient to believe.
Whatever supports their agenda, or advances their own interests,
that's what they tend to see as true.
In other words, people often lie to themselves before they lie to others.
Those within the Bush administration who were eager for war
against Iraq accepted at face value wisps of evidence
suggesting that Iraqi WMD did exist.
And they dismissed, out of hand, evidence to the contrary.
The picture of Saddam as a looming threat
was the picture they wanted to see.
Such was the view of senior British officials well situated
to interpret the thinking among Bush's closest advisors.
To the Brits, it was clear that Washington was hell bent on war
with Iraq.
Therefore, as a highly classified British assessment put it,
quote, "The intelligence, and facts, were being fixed around the policy."
This tendency to see what you want to see also
pertained to the supposed rewards awaiting the United States
when it liberated Baghdad.
In retrospect, Vice President Cheney's prediction that US troops to be quote,
"Greeted as liberators."
Comes across as naive.
Even so, it was expedient for Cheney to believe this at the time.
Who knows?
Maybe he even meant what he said.
So whether those promoting the war were knaves or fools,
consciously dishonest or merely stupid, is an interesting question.
But ultimately, it's a distraction.
Why?
Because the war's official, or public, rationale did not tell the whole story.
The punitive danger posed by Saddam, and the supposed opportunity
inherent in liberating Iraqis, we're merely
the means devised to market the war.
To sell it.
They do not describe Operation Iraqi Freedom's actual rationale.
No.
The ambitions persuading Bush and his advisers to invade Iraq
extended well beyond Iraq itself.
Going to Baghdad was not the end.
It was the means to a much larger end.
Iraq was merely step one in a project of breathtaking scope.

Capablanca-Fan
05-06-2015, 05:22 AM
No, Mr. President, you don’t fully understand our fears (http://www.timesofisrael.com/no-mr-president-you-dont-fully-understand-our-fears/)
Op-Ed: Don’t just blame Israelis for seeing danger where you see possibility, as you did in your latest TV interview. Work to give us a tangible basis upon which to rebuild our hopes for a peaceful future
BY DAVID HOROVITZ, Times of Israel, 3 June 2015

Discussing Israeli reservations about the Iran nuclear deal you are so energetically pushing, Mr. President, you asserted in your striking, heartfelt Israel Channel 2 interview broadcast Tuesday that “I can say to the Israeli people: I understand your concerns and I understand your fears.”

But here’s the thing, Mr. President: You don’t. And your interview made that so unfortunately plain. You don’t fully understand our concerns and our fears — not as regards the ideologically and territorially rapacious regime in Tehran, driven by a perverted sense of religious imperative, and not as regards the Palestinian conflict.

You implore us, again and again, to give more thought to the plight of the Palestinians, to turn away from leadership — in the seemingly ever-present shape of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — that peddles the politics of fear, and instead to choose the path of optimism and opportunity. But Israel just elected Netanyahu again, ignoring your entreaties, because the evidence of danger outweighed the evidence upon which to build hope. And here’s the irony, Mr. President: Your policies and your rhetoric haven’t helped.

You claimed that you are “always trying to balance a politics of hope and a politics of fear.” You acknowledged that the Arab Spring has turned into the disaster of Syria; you lamented the anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world; you mentioned the threats from Gaza and from south Lebanon. And you said that you have “never suggested” it was inappropriate for Israel “to insist that any two-state solution take into account the risk that what appears to be a peaceful Palestinian Authority today could turn hostile.”

You said all that, but have you truly advised and chivied and acted on that basis?

Have you truly internalized the fact that five years ago, Israel was contemplating relinquishing the Golan Heights, the high strategic ground, for a peace deal with Bashar Assad. Where would that have left us now? Utterly vulnerable to the brutal spillover of anarchic violence across that border.

Have you really, truly internalized that Israel left southern Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, to the applause and reassurance of the international community, only to see the vicious terrorist armies of Hezbollah and Hamas fill the respective vacuums? Have you really, honestly, utterly internalized that Hamas booted out the forces of the relatively moderate Mahmoud Abbas from Gaza in a matter of hours in 2007, and that there is every reason to believe that Hamas would seek to do the same in the West Bank were Israel to do as you wish, and pull out? And Hamas in the West Bank would entirely paralyze this country. A single Hamas rocket that landed a mile from the airport last summer prompted two-thirds of foreign airlines to stop flying to Israel for a day and a half — including all the major US airlines. A single rocket. Hamas rule in the West Bank would close down our entire country.

If our enemies were to lay down their weapons right now, Mr. President, there would be peace. If we were to lay down our weapons, our country would be destroyed. And therefore, Mr. President, we will need a great deal more reassurance before we dare to hope.

You can still help with that. Really, you can. Start by demanding an end to incitement against Israel in Palestinian schools, in Palestinian media and by Palestinian spiritual leaders. Incidentally, demand similar efforts on the Israeli side, by all means. Tell Abbas that a governing partnership with Hamas is unacceptable. Tell him to stop battering Israel in every international forum, denouncing us for “genocide” at the UN, seeking our isolation and economic devastation. Again, make demands of Israel too, by all means. Urge Netanyahu to stop building at settlements in areas even he does not envisage retaining under a permanent accord. Ensure we do ease movement for Palestinians in the West Bank, when it’s safe to do so. Encourage the prime minister in his recent minor shift toward a more positive take on the Arab Peace Initiative as a basis for a regional peace effort.

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2015, 02:12 AM
Well, well, even the über-leftist Huffington Compost makes an admission against interest:

Does Religion Really Cause War—And Do Atheists Have Something To Answer For? (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/14/religions-war-cause-responsible-evidence_n_6156878.html)
Louise Ridley, Huffington Post (UK), 17 November 2014

It is the most common comeback from atheists to people of faith: religion is the main cause of wars. Without faith, many say, there would have been no 9/11 attacks, no Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no Troubles in Northern Ireland, no violent disputes over words in holy texts—even no Islamic State.

But academic studies consistently challenge the link between religion and war. Research published in October from the New York and Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace (http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/news/1085) looked at all of the wars that took place in 2013. It found no ‘general causal relationship'’ between religion and conflict.

In fact, religious elements played no role at all in 14 (40%) of the 35 armed conflicts in the research, and only five (14%) had religious elements as their main cause, the report showed. All of the wars had multiple causes, and the much more common motivation was opposition to a government, or to the economic, ideological, political or social systems of a state, which was named as a main factor in nearly two thirds of the cases studied.

The Encyclopedia of Wars, an extensive study published in 2008, chronicles 1,763 wars throughout human history. It names just 123 as '‘religious in nature’—a little under 7%.

The Institute for Economics and Peace (http://economicsandpeace.org/) report also found that having less religion in a country doesn’t make it more peaceful. The proportion of atheists in a country had no bearing on levels of peace.

Countries with the highest levels of atheism—mainly communist or former communist states like Russia and the Czech Republic—were not necessarily the most peaceful. North Korea, which has one of the lowest rates of people practising religion, was one of ten ‘least peaceful’ countries in world last year, according to the report.

But religion’s positive role in maintaining peace is often overlooked in the media, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace. It found that taking part in any social group—a religion or a sports team, for example—can strengthen the bonds between citizens in a country, and corresponds with slightly higher levels of peace. Indeed, some of the most iconic advocates for peace are, or were, deeply religious: Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi and Bishop Desmond Tutu.

“One needs to look at examples where religious people are working hard on the peace-building front, which I think seldom gets reported as much as the other side of the coin," Professor John Wolffe of the Open University tells me.

Indeed, some of the biggest conflicts in the past 100 years—the First and Second World Wars, the Cold War, and Vietnam War—highlight how non-religious motives can be seen as being equally destructive as religious ones, raising the question of whether militant atheism has just as much to answer for as religion.

As Rachel Woodcock points out in her book [For God's Sense]: "It's not just religious ideology that causes problems—state-imposed atheism was a defining feature of brutal 20th century regimes led by Stalin, Tito, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot among others, which resulted in the suffering and murder of millions. Tens of thousands of Russian Christians alone were executed for their beliefs by atheists intent on purging religion from the Soviet Union."

Rincewind
06-06-2015, 01:18 PM
Well, well, even the über-leftist Huffington Compost makes an admission against interest:

Well, well. It would take a complete moron to think that all liberals are athiest and all conservatives are theist. The two aren't related except that education tends to correlate with liberalism and atheism.

Anway HuffPost-UK ran a month long series of stories about the positive effects of Britons who have "taken on their faith to create a force for change". Old news now but Jono never was the sharpest tool in the shed. Sadly the article is full of strawmen, begging the question and non sequiturs, I'm not sure why anyone would bother repeating when it was current let alone now.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2015, 02:53 AM
Op-Ed: Jews are Excluded from European Universities. Does it Ring a Bell? (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17067#.VXxgDPlViko)
Insidious, but more and more pervasive and lethal, is the academic boycott.
12 June 2015

The case of Orange, the French mobile phone company that is considering abandoning the Israeli market, was on the front pages of all major newspapers. But there is a silent boycott of the Jewish State which is more insidious, latent and even more dangerous because it undermines Israel's cultural superiority and cuts Israel's link with the rest of the world.

In 2002, the year of the beginning of the academic campaign against Israel, Paul Zinger, the head of the Scientific Association of Israel, revealed that more than seven thousand scientific research projects are sent from Israel abroad every year. Dozens of scientific papers were returned that year, with the terse explanation: "We refuse to examine any document from Israel". That phenomenon now seems out of control.

"The academic boycott is illegal according to all academic organizations in the world," says Professor Zvi Ziegler, a mathematician at the Technion (Institute of Technology in Haifa) and head of the main scientific forum fighting the boycott. "It is against progress, so you will not find universities or European academics who officially boycott Israel. But many do silently, behind the scenes".

antichrist
14-06-2015, 07:43 AM
Not only that Jono, the boycott movement against Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions is gaining traction with goods from Occupied Territories being refused into more and more countries. Europe is making it compulsory that goods have labels where they were manufactured. In short the world is waking up to Israel's big con - its apartheid, it robbery, its genocide and its murder.

What is Israel's to Palestine based on: texts in a discredited so-called Holy Book that the Hebrews could commit genocide to claim Palestine, current Zionists claim that the recorded genocide 3,000 years ago justifies today's genocide. What twisted and tortured morality!

Rincewind
14-06-2015, 09:10 AM
How hypocritical to describe a group of academics who boycott Israel because of its de facto apartheid treatment of Palestinians as Nazis when in almost the same breath you support bakers to be able to refuse service to fellow citizens because they don't happen to agree with the occasion that their customers want to celebrate with a cake.

Talk about deeply conflicted.

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2015, 03:49 PM
How hypocritical to describe a group of academics who boycott Israel because of its de facto apartheid treatment of Palestinians
Did AC steal RW's keyboard? Normally AC has the monopoly on Israel-hating antisemitism here.


as Nazis when in almost the same breath you support bakers to be able to refuse service to fellow citizens because they don't happen to agree with the occasion that their customers want to celebrate with a cake.
I support the right of bakers to refuse to serve any customer for any reason. The bakers in question did not refuse to serve a customer a cake, just not to right a statement the baker found offensive. Even leftist, atheist, pro-gay actor Patrick Stewart supported this (http://www.mrctv.org/videos/actor-patrick-stewart-sides-christian-bakers-who-refused-make-gay-marriage-cake-0):


“Finally I found myself on the side of the bakers. It was not because this was a gay couple they objected, it was not because they were going to be celebrating some kind of marriage, it was the actual words on the cake they objected to, they found them offensive.

“I would support their right to say, ‘No, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I [will] not do it.’ But I feel bad for them that it cost them [500] quid [$US736].”

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2015, 03:53 PM
BESA: Muslims Who Saved Jews in World War II (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0815609345), by Norman H. Gershman. (Syracuse University Press, 125 pp. $39.95)

The tradition of besa—keeping one's word—is so deeply rooted among Albanians that when they committed themselves to saving the lives of Jews during World War II, they did so despite the danger they put themselves in. It is because of the courage and conscience of the mostly Muslim Albanians that the country's 2,000 Jews survived the Holocaust.

Norman H. Gershman's black-and-white photographs and captions bring to life the heroic tales of rescuers and the pride of their descendants. For example, in one photo, the family of Ali and Ragip Kraja stand next to a sign they erected that reads: “The Jewish Refugees of Solomon Adixhes and family drank from this nearby well while being sheltered by Ali and Ragip Kraja when being chased by the Nazis.” In an interview, the Krajas add: “We sheltered the Adixhes family out of the goodness of our hearts. We are all brothers and proud of our heritage. If need be, we would do it again.”

The nearly 60 images of the aging children of heroes are accompanied by testimonies and recollections; some display photos of fathers or husbands; others clutch the certificate of the Righteous Among the Nations, awarded to their family by the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial museum in Jerusalem. Yet others pose with grandchildren—a new generation to whom the idea of besa is being passed.

The images are part of a traveling exhibit of the same name under the auspices of Yad Vashem; upcoming is a documentary, God's House: Muslims Who Saved Jews in World War II, about Gershman's journey to Albania and Kosovo.—Hadassah magazine

Patrick Byrom
14-06-2015, 05:55 PM
You mean like the Muslims in Iran, who support Jews publicly practising their faith - unlike the Muslims in Saudi Arabia.

antichrist
14-06-2015, 07:19 PM
How hypocritical to describe a group of academics who boycott Israel because of its de facto apartheid treatment of Palestinians as Nazis when in almost the same breath you support bakers to be able to refuse service to fellow citizens because they don't happen to agree with the occasion that their customers want to celebrate with a cake.

Talk about deeply conflicted.

Fantastic, someone else has learnt not cross thread to make a point - my speciality. So in the same vein Jono is expecting the Palestinians to be like Jesus - that is lay down their lives for the sins of others, in this case for the Germans whom done wrong against the Jews. With Jesus it was involuntarily same with the Palestinians - so the Palestinians are no less moral than the one and only Jono-condoned Jesus

Capablanca-Fan
15-06-2015, 02:15 AM
You mean like the Muslims in Iran, who support Jews publicly practising their faith - unlike the Muslims in Saudi Arabia.

You mean the 9,000 left of the 100,000 Jews who lived in Iran under the Shah, and are still second-class citizens who can't hold high office? Anyway, here is one article from earlier this year: Iran's Jews: It's Our Home And We Plan To Stay (http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/02/19/387265766/irans-jews-its-our-home-and-we-plan-to-stay).

antichrist
15-06-2015, 07:55 AM
Jono from: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

What would you know? Indeed, Scripture does control people: would be thieves, murderers, tyrants, etc.

AC: Scripture condoned genocide by Hebrews 3,000 years ago and this same God's blessing is used for murder & robbery against today's Palestinians. It is unfair to decently minded Jews for extremists to bring Judaism such bad publicity.

antichrist
16-06-2015, 07:25 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Really??? Is that the case with the supposed campaign of Joshua against the Canaanites?

Jonathan Sarfati:
Of course. See How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

AC: Exactly, but now you have completely demolished any basis for the State of Israel - set the Palestinians free

Ian Murray
16-06-2015, 06:06 PM
Interview: The man behind the BDS movement (http://972mag.com/interview-the-man-behind-the-bds-movement/107771/)

As the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement grows, its co-founder, Omar Barghouti, has become a target for Israeli demonization. +972's Rami Younis sits down with Barghouti for a rare discussion about BDS's goals, its recent successes, and increasingly frequent accusations that the boycott movement constitutes anti-Semitism.

Rincewind
29-06-2015, 12:49 AM
Here is an article on the academic boycott written by an Irish academic...

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20150624145306127

Academic freedom versus academic freedom
by John Kelly

The debate in support of an academic boycott of Israeli universities has been gaining momentum across the international academic world in recent years, but only recently has it taken off in Ireland, with the newly established Academics for Palestine forum getting many hundreds of signatures from academics in the universities and higher education institutions across the island for the following pledge:

“In response to the call from Palestinian civil society for an academic boycott of Israel, we pledge not to engage in any professional association with Israeli academic, research and state institutions, and with those representing these institutions, until such time as Israel complies with international law and universal principles of human rights.”

antichrist
29-06-2015, 06:41 AM
Here is an article on the academic boycott written by an Irish academic...

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20150624145306127

Academic freedom versus academic freedom
by John Kelly

The debate in support of an academic boycott of Israeli universities has been gaining momentum across the international academic world in recent years, but only recently has it taken off in Ireland, with the newly established Academics for Palestine forum getting many hundreds of signatures from academics in the universities and higher education institutions across the island for the following pledge:

“In response to the call from Palestinian civil society for an academic boycott of Israel, we pledge not to engage in any professional association with Israeli academic, research and state institutions, and with those representing these institutions, until such time as Israel complies with international law and universal principles of human rights.”

What would you expect from those traitorous Irish (love'em), keep it a secret but the IRA taught the PLO how to make bombs. Nothing lasts for ever but some Israelis have held their head real high by even renouncing their Israeli citizenship in disgust at Israeli actions. Israeli bombing of Gaza was bombing refugees whom had to flee terrorism at creation of the Israeli state 70 years ago. What an injustice the UN and OZ Doc Evatt inflicted on an innocent people - worse than what Germany suffered for perpetrating the Holocaust!

Ian Murray
29-06-2015, 07:31 AM
In op-eds, church leaders say BDS is moral response to Netanyahu’s rejection of Palestinian statehood (http://http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/netanyahus-rejection-palestinian?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=abd08a520f)
Mondoweiss
26.6.15

In op-eds timed to Episcopal and United Church of Christ conventions, church leaders say BDS is not anti-Semitic and is required as a moral response to new Israeli government's expansionist policies

antichrist
05-07-2015, 07:21 PM
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/abetz-mushrooms-and-shaky-same-sex.html
It's a bit rich to support denying people rights and then insist that they just pass the peace pipe. (concerning anti-SSM campaigners - AC)

I guess you would apply the same valid principle to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Expecting the Palestinians to submit to their killer/robbers and recognise a Jewish state that would cement their exclusion from the State of Israel that was their Palestine?

Kevin Bonham
05-07-2015, 09:47 PM
http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/abetz-mushrooms-and-shaky-same-sex.html
It's a bit rich to support denying people rights and then insist that they just pass the peace pipe. (concerning anti-SSM campaigners - AC)

I guess you would apply the same valid principle to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Expecting the Palestinians to submit to their killer/robbers and recognise a Jewish state that would cement their exclusion from the State of Israel that was their Palestine?

My comment shouldn't be taken out of context - it referred to those who make critical comments about those who deny them rights (and are then accused of vilifying the rights-deniers for doing so). It didn't refer to any particular action other than criticism in response to the denial.

I think in the I-P conflict it's far too much to expect friendly rhetoric from either side of the issue, and if all they were doing was "vilifying" each other then that would be great progress.

antichrist
06-07-2015, 05:20 PM
http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the_top_10_documentaries_about_the_israelpalestine _conflict/

looking for something else when found these beauties

http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the_zionist_story_2009/
this is a classic by a Jewish independent film maker

antichrist
17-07-2015, 01:45 PM
On the news today it reports that Angela Merkel leader of Germany told a Palestinian refugee that Germany cannot take in all the refugees. Apparently Germany takes in more refugees than any other country in Europe. All very good we may think. BUT, it is only because of Germany's actions during WW2 the Holocaust that the State of Israel was created and the Palestinians are refugees, i.e., Germany is directly responsible for those Palestinian refugees. Germany may refuse other refugees but should not be allowed to refuse Palestinian refugees.

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2015, 01:37 AM
On the news today it reports that Angela Merkel leader of Germany told a Palestinian refugee that Germany cannot take in all the refugees. Apparently Germany takes in more refugees than any other country in Europe. All very good we may think. BUT, it is only because of Germany's actions during WW2 the Holocaust that the State of Israel was created and the Palestinians are refugees, i.e., Germany is directly responsible for those Palestinian refugees. Germany may refuse other refugees but should not be allowed to refuse Palestinian refugees.

They are responsible only because the Palestinian leaders allied with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBFBvceJvIU

antichrist
21-07-2015, 08:14 AM
New [20-07, 01:35] Capablanca-Fan: Why should we care what that UN kakistocracy says? Many of the countries are brutal despotisms that restrict women and murder gays.

AC: exactly Capa Fan, why should the Palestinians take any notice of the UN Resolution creating the State of Israel that stole their land from under their feet?

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2015, 06:30 AM
New [20-07, 01:35] Capablanca-Fan: Why should we care what that UN kakistocracy says? Many of the countries are brutal despotisms that restrict women and murder gays.

AC: exactly Capa Fan, why should the Palestinians take any notice of the UN Resolution creating the State of Israel that stole their land from under their feet?

Why should we take any notice of AC with his antisemitism and leading questions?

antichrist
22-07-2015, 07:54 AM
Why should we take any notice of AC with his antisemitism and leading questions?

I am anti-zionist which h is a lot different to be antiSemitic. No peoples have the right to steal based on religion, Zionists bring a bad name on Judaism. There are many Israeli Jews completely opposed to what has happened in Palestine.

antichrist
24-07-2015, 11:31 AM
This is the president who pass the affordable care legislation, who signed a nuclear deal with Tehran and normalised relations with Cuba. These are big changes to the American political landscape and I think will secure his legacy as a one of the greatest presidents of the last century. It just shows the amount of power the arms industry has in Washington that Obama cannot move gun laws one iota.

AC: and it shows the power of the Israeli Lobby that he can't make progress with justice for Palestinians.

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2015, 06:26 PM
Moderation Notice

As he continues posting Israel/Palestine analogies on other threads no matter how often he is warned otherwise, AC is banned from this thread for a month and banned from mentioning Israel/Palestine (or anything related) on the whole board for a month.

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2015, 07:33 AM
Political correctness is fuelling homegrown extremism, claims proud British Muslim
BRITAIN'S culture of political correctness is fuelling a worrying rise in homegrown extremism, a leading Muslim voice has warned today.
By NICK GUTTERIDGE, EXCLUSIVE
Express, UK, 21 July 2015

Proud British Muslim Haseeb Ahmed said fear of causing offence is stifling serious debate about how to stop disaffected young Britons joining terror groups like the so-called Islamic State (ISIS).

The 26-year-old cousin of boxer Amir Khan - who shot to fame after his inspirational YouTube attack on Islamist fanatics went viral - said the burqa should be banned [I disagree with banning genuine choices of clothing—C.F.] and that people who do not speak English should not be allowed to move to Britain.

In a wide-ranging interview, he told Express.co.uk that Muslims in Britain need to be more open in their condemnation of ISIS, and that those who refuse to speak out against terrorists are "contributing to the problem".

Haseeb, who is "as British as you can get", said successive governments' reluctance to tackle cultural issues like the burqa, speaking English and female genital mutilation (FGM) head-on has contributed to the problem.

He said: "People often get culture and religion mixed up and they are two different things. That's why we need to talk about these things head-on, not in an extreme right-wing way but in a sensible way and educate people.

"Some people might be gobsmacked, but I'm fully in support of the burqa being banned. It should not be worn in the UK. People should be aware of where they're living - they aren't in Pakistan and it's not 1985.

"The burqa isn't religious it's cultural, an old Arab tradition. In Islam you're only supposed to wear a headscarf.

"Similarly people talk about FGM, but that's nothing to do with Islam, it's a tribal practice. As a British Muslim, I don't think anyone who doesn't speak English should be allowed to come to Britain and live here either.

"It frustrates me, people not speaking English. If I went to Germany, I'd learn German so I could contribute to everyday life and it's a shame that's not happening here.

"The problem is that as a British public we're afraid to say this because of fear of causing offence. We should be educating people as to why some things aren't appropriate."



https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=37&v=EmgGG8CbsLI

Capablanca-Fan
11-08-2015, 10:23 AM
Where in the world is the worst place to be a Christian? (http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jul/27/where-in-the-world-is-it-worst-place-to-be-a-christian)
Persecution of Christians has increased dramatically in parts of the world. Here we list the top 25 most anti-Christian countries
From that well-known right-wing rag, The Guardian, Monday 27 July 2015

Desmond
12-08-2015, 06:59 PM
Where in the world is the worst place to be a Christian? (http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jul/27/where-in-the-world-is-it-worst-place-to-be-a-christian)
Persecution of Christians has increased dramatically in parts of the world. Here we list the top 25 most anti-Christian countries
From that well-known right-wing rag, The Guardian, Monday 27 July 2015Many of those it's not so much that the person is a Christian, but that are not something else - Eg Not a Muslim, not a Communist, not a worshipper of Kim Jong-un.

antichrist
04-09-2015, 06:10 AM
Israel, for her terrorism, has no moral soul, good fair minded Jews are also the losers with only international waters to moor their boats

antichrist
19-09-2015, 08:01 PM
http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/ga11676.doc.htm
The UN votes to fly the Palestinian flag outside their headquarters - pissweak, crawling, gravel guts Australia voted against following America and Israel.

Capablanca-Fan
25-09-2015, 08:42 AM
Palestinian human rights activist shows that the so-disant Palestinian leaders are the true oppressors while Israel has a right to exist and wants to live in peace.

We Palestinians hold the key to a better future (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/we-palestinians-hold-the-key-to-a-better-future/)
Bassim Eid, Times of Israel, 12 FEBRUARY 2015

“In Gaza, our schools are controlled by Muslim fanatics who indoctrinate our children, and Hamas uses our civilians as human shields in a losing battle against Israel. Hamas maintains power through violence, and it ensures that money is spent on its arsenal rather than on making the Palestinians’ lives better. While President Abbas is quick to denounce Israel whenever it attacks Hamas, he has absolutely no ability to stop Hamas from provoking Israel.

In the West Bank, while Abbas has been incapable of stopping the construction of Israeli settlements, the only good jobs are with Israeli companies, and the BDS (Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment) movement is doing its best to take those jobs away from us. Abbas runs a corrupt dictatorship that uses international funds to consolidate its own administration rather than to develop the Palestinian economy.

In East Jerusalem, the PA is so mistrusted that most Palestinians would prefer to live under Israeli rule than under PA rule, and yet some of us seem unable to live in peace with the Jews.

In Palestinian camps in Arab countries, our human rights are constantly being violated, and we are simply used by our Arab hosts to further their own goals.

The facts about Israel

Despite what we tell ourselves, Israel is here to stay. What’s more, it has a right to exist. It is the nation of the Jews but also a nation for Israeli Arabs who have better lives than Arabs anywhere in Arab countries. We must accept these facts and move on. The antisemitism promoted by Hamas, Fatah, and the BDS movement is not the answer for us Palestinians.”

Video of him in Auckland recently (http://www.middleeastvoices.net/bassem-eid-bds-apartheid-media/).

antichrist
25-09-2015, 09:27 AM
That guy is probably summing up the corruption which is to be expected when any power stays in power for over ten years. The Israeli govt leaders are also very corrupt and that is official. I can understand the Israeli situation being better because they have not being under occupation for 70 years, as well they brought over a lot of more educated and sophisticated people from Europe, who are not proper ethnifc Jews BTW but convert blow-in land robbers. Israel created Palestine and is illegally occupying all of Israel. Those Muslim religious fanatics are exactly what Israel needs to show them that people will not give up their land without a fight.

Ian Murray
27-09-2015, 01:29 PM
We Palestinians hold the key to a better future (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/we-palestinians-hold-the-key-to-a-better-future/)
Bassim Eid, Times of Israel, 12 FEBRUARY 2015

“...To make peace with Israel, we need to change our approach. We need to accept that the right of return will be resolved through financial compensation that will allow Palestinian refugees to settle either in Arab countries or in Palestine. We need to accept that Israel’s security is a key to any solution. We need to accept that East Jerusalem may have to remain part of Israel....”

With East Jerusalem ceded to Israel and the West Bank being systematically divided into Jews-only settlements, where does he envisage the state of Palestine being established?

antichrist
15-10-2015, 05:09 AM
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/10/15/israel-eases-gun-control-laws.html?cid=BP_RSS_top-stories_2_israel-eases-gun-control-laws_151015


Israel eases gun control laws
Updated: 5:51 am, Thursday, 15 October 2015

Israel has announced further drastic measures to try to end a wave of Palestinian attacks, easing firearms laws for Israelis and stripping some east Jerusalem residents of their residency permits.

Hours after police set up checkpoints in Palestinian neighbourhoods of annexed east Jerusalem, Interior Minister Silvan Shalom on Wednesday said he was revoking the residency status of Palestinians from the city who had taken part in attacks on Jews.

A wave of mainly stabbing attacks by Palestinians has raised fears of a full-scale uprising, while a gun-and-knife attack on a Jerusalem bus on Tuesday killed two people and led to outrage among Israelis.

'Nineteen attackers from east Jerusalem - I think that is the number more or less - will have their residency cancelled,' Shalom told public radio.

'I have decided to revoke their residency. They are no longer residents of Israel and will not be able to receive all the privileges.'

Some 310,000 Palestinians live in east Jerusalem, which was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and annexed in a move never recognised internationally.

The Jewish state granted them permanent residency status - a blue ID card giving them access to social benefits and health care.

They do not have full citizenship, although they can apply if they meet certain conditions. The vast majority have not done so for political reasons.

Human Rights Watch said revoking their residence rights was 'tantamount to deportation' and forbidden under international humanitarian law.

'East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law,' the group's Israel/Palestine director Srai Bashi told AFP. 'Deportation is strictly prohibited.'

.....................................
- See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/10/15/israel-eases-gun-control-laws.html?cid=BP_RSS_top-stories_2_israel-eases-gun-control-laws_151015#sthash.adefjIHq.dpuf


AC
Israel is in overdrive killing and hassling people off their land with teargas and bullets. The terrorist murderer in Parramatta a few weeks ago was brainwashed into extremism, the main example used worldwide is the injustice towards the Palestinians that has endured for 70 years - and Australia recently voted against the Palestinian flag being flown at the UN, we are really in filthy Israel's back pocket.

Now wait - all of this because there supposedly is a god who chose the Hebrews and gave them permission and power for genocide, well this is what is claimed in their stupid holy book and they expect the Palestinians to lay down and be bulldozed into rubbish tips for them.

antichrist
26-10-2015, 09:17 AM
How dare Jews defend themselves? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_dare_jews_defend_themselves/)
Andrew Bolt, 22 October 2015


Brendan O’Neill on the West’s near-silence on the new Intifada (http://www.jewishnews.co.uk/opinion-brendan-oneill-according-to-the-left-israeli-citizens-deserve-to-be-murdered/):

Leftists are far more alarmed by Israel’s response to the stabbings than they are by the stabbings themselves. They’ve castigated Israel for putting more soldiers on the streets and for making it easier for citizens to buy guns (nothing freaks out the left more than a Jew with a gun)…

It is a sick sign of the decline of Labor that an MP - Melissa Parke in this case - can urge more sympathy for the terrorists than for their victims, and call unjust the fact that many were shot dead as they attacked:

50 years ago Israel was the FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH with Aussie Lefties but the wheel has turned.

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2015, 12:51 AM
50 years ago Israel was the FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH with Aussie Lefties but the wheel has turned.

Probably true. The USSR supported Israel becoming a member country of the UN, while the UK abstained and Truman supported Israel over the strong objection of the Arab-appeasers like Marshall.

Capablanca-Fan
02-11-2015, 02:04 AM
Atheist professor admits: Fear ‘keeps me from critiquing Islam’ (http://conservativefiringline.com/atheist-professor-admits-fear-keeps-me-from-critiquing-islam/)
Joe Newby, 1 November 2015

While participating in a panel discussion on religious liberty at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., Phil Zuckerman, a professor of secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., who also happens to be an atheist, admitted that fear prevents him from criticizing Islam on his blog.

He also said that it’s acceptable to criticize Christians, because he doesn’t have to worry about retaliation from those who follow Christ.

Liberty Unyielding (http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/10/31/atheist-explains-honestly-why-he-feels-free-to-criticize-christians/)’s J.E. Dyer wrote:


Penny Star of CNS News reports that Kirsten Powers, journalist (and Fox News contributor), was another of the panelists. During the discussion, she asked why Christians are criticized — often brutally — for their beliefs about same-sex marriage, whereas Muslims aren’t.

CNS News said (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/atheist-okay-disparage-christians-islam-limits-because-fear):


[Kirsten] Powers cited the hidden video recordings made earlier this year by Steven Crowder, who asked Muslim bakers in Michigan if they would bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and they refused.

“If these had been Christian bakeries, it would have been on the front page of the New York Times, so I’m wondering why we’re able to have this amicable, disagreement with Muslims for having this view,” she said. “Why are we not able to do that with Christians?

“I absolutely agree that it is okay for those on the left to critique, mock, deride Christianity, but Islam gets a free pass, which is so strange, because if you care about women’s rights, if you care about human rights, if you care about gay rights, then really Islam is much more problematic – sorry to paint Islam with a huge brush – and much more devastating,” Zuckerman said in response.


CNS added:


“I would say two things,” Zuckerman said. “I know what keeps me from critiquing Islam on my blog is just fear.

“I’ve got three kids,” he said. “So I know I can say anything about Christianity or Mormonism, and I’m not living in fear, which is a testament to Christianity and Mormonism, and that’s wonderful. Thank you.

“I would never write the same kind of stuff that I do about certain religions – Judaism, Christianity, LDS, whatever – as I would about Islam – just straight up fear,” Zuckerman said.

Capablanca-Fan
02-11-2015, 02:16 AM
Dearborn Free Speech Victory- Court Says Cops Shouldn’t Take the Side of Muslim Aggressors (http://conservativefiringline.com/dearborn-free-speech-victory-court-says-cops-shouldnt-take-the-side-of-muslim-aggressors-video/)
Faye Higbee, 30 Oct 2015

The Christians were the ones being attacked simply because of their peaceful protest at an Arab Festival in downtown Dearborn. The police, completely cowed by the Muslims, cited the Christians for the disturbance when it was the Muslims who started pitching items at the group. Backwards, obviously. All they have to do is riot, and everybody loses their minds in favor of the rioters.


The American Freedom Law Center reported (http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/press-release/sixth-circuit-county-officials-violated-constitutional-rights-of-christians-by-siding-with-a-violent-muslim-mob/),


The 6th Circuit completely reversed a lower court decision which ruled in favor of Wayne County and officials from the County Sheriff’s Office who silenced the Christians’ speech in response to the hostile mob’s reaction. The case, Bible Believers v. Wayne County (http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/case/bible-believers-et-al-v-wayne-county-et-al/), was brought by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of the Christians.

The court ruled,


“When a peaceful speaker, whose message is constitutionally protected, is confronted by a hostile crowd, the state may not silence the speaker as an expedient alternative to containing or snuffing out the lawless behavior of the rioting individuals. Nor can an officer sit idly on the sidelines-watching as the crowd imposes, through violence, a tyrannical majoritarian rule-only later to claim that the speaker’s removal was necessary for his or her own protection.”

Tyranny—the court hit that nail right on the head. Allowing violence to dictate response instead of stopping lawlessness shows that the Wayne County deputies were completely out of line. They did not protect everyone, as they claimed in the video, and actually contributed to the behavior of the violent Muslims by allowing them to continue.

antichrist
02-11-2015, 08:49 AM
Well the cops there the same as some in Australia. I know three counts of the cops taking away the protester's right to demonstrate against Christian processions in public streets. The protesters were even assaulted by the Christians and then arrested as well by the police, now Capa Fan will you also condemn the Oz police and apologise to me for the actions of those violent Christian extremists?

Ian Murray
04-11-2015, 08:35 PM
Israel Hand-Outs: The Art Of Spreading Talking Points And Propaganda (https://newmatilda.com/2015/11/04/israel-hand-outs-the-art-of-spreading-talking-points-and-propaganda/)
New Matilda
4.11.15

If a government suggests you should write something, you should probably ask a few questions first, writes Michael Brull.

Back in 2013, I spoke on a panel at Limmud Oz with Rabbi Jeffrey Kamins, from Emanuel Synagogue, and Yair Miller. Miller was then serving as the Vice President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), and also as the President of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies (JBD).

Given the opportunity to speak first, I criticised the organisations he helped lead, arguing that they peddled the official party line on Israel, which, I said, Miller would soon spout too. He did not deny this charge: he admitted that during times of conflict, organisations received talking points from the Israeli government.

As is obvious, this propaganda eventually finds its way into whatever parts of the Australian media are ready to reproduce those talking points. The results are tedious, and usually not very impressive or persuasive.

In the case of the knife uprising in Israel and Palestine, the efforts have been meagre in an interesting way, with a dash of gratuitous claims about Palestinians. And they haven’t had much luck in getting their message out.

For example, Liberal MP Michael Sukkar gave a speech on what was happening. ... He reads out the entire speech, occasionally glancing up from the speech. The text is here (http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2015-10-19.138.1). He draws attention to a “sermon” by Muhammad Salah to stab Jews, claiming that these were “commands”, not rhetoric, implemented by his followers. Also charged with incitement is “Palestinian President”, Mahmoud Abbas, who “supposedly represents the more moderate Palestinian factions”.

Sukkar distributes some blame to him, as he “told his people”: “Every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem is pure, every shahid [martyr]will reach paradise, and every injured person will be rewarded by God.” Sukkar implies this speech incited the murder of a Jewish couple (the Israeli government alleges the attack was actually committed by a Hamas cell in the West Bank)....

...These talking points are enough to fill a 700 word op ed. They just aren’t enough to impress many. For example, if the words of the speech by Abbas were accurately reported, they occurred in September – weeks before the stabbings started. An Israeli army intelligence assessment said that Abbas worked to prevent violence once it started. The Shin Bet also found that he was “instructing his security forces to prevent terror attacks as much as possible”.

The claims about the speech by Salah can be found in trashy right wing media, and in Ruth Pollard’s report for Fairfax. Like the others, Pollard doesn’t cite the source for her claims about the speech.

The Times of Israel reports that the speech was provided by MEMRI, and provides quotes cited by the others. It can be found here (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5098.htm).

MEMRI was founded by a Colonel from Israeli intelligence, who happens to have defended torture in 1995. It purports to provide translations of speeches in Arabic, which are primarily designed to show Arabs as evil, and to generally advance the interests of the Israeli government. It has repeatedly been charged with mistranslating Arabic....

...Let us suppose that MEMRI is right. Salah gave the speech, as described. The speech is from October 9. The first stabbing was October 3. It is a little hard to credit a speech from six days later as the inspiration for the stabbings.

Furthermore, if Islamic preaching is the cause of stabbings, then what caused Jews stabbing Palestinians, and even other Jews who were thought to look Arab?

None of the Israeli talking points, recycled wherever possible, are meant to be serious analysis about what is actually happening. There is no interest in understanding it. The goal is to stress that Israel is not at fault, and terrorists are senselessly killing Israelis. Just like the senseless murder in Parramatta....

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2015, 02:43 AM
Douglas Murray (himself gay and atheistic): Asserting the Superiority of Western Values, compared to Islamofacist nations where he could live safely. He notes the double standards: holding Islamist countries to a lower standard, e.g. accepting that a Palestinian state should be more judenrein than Nazi Germany. Also, only in the West could we be having this debate in the first place.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z7CBFZJCBg

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2015, 03:30 PM
Cronulla riots 10 years on: Muslim to Muslim — if you don’t like it here, leave (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cronulla-riots-10-years-on-muslim-to-muslim--if-you-dont-like-it-here-leave/news-story/524dd9d3f72691196106daf455d6721d?nk=c24c40e04d28e1 46eea9cd1241b870bc-1449897759)
John Lyons
THE AUSTRALIAN, 12 DECEMBER 2015

Hassan Awada has a message for his fellow Muslims — if you don’t like it in Australia, he’ll buy you a one-way air ticket to a place of your choosing.

And Mr Awada is in a position to follow through.

He is now a highly successful Sydney businessman — he and his eight siblings between them employ more than 200 people full-time.

That in itself is extraordinary given that when Mr Awada came to Australia from Lebanon at the age of 22, he could not speak any English.

Today he is Deputy Mayor of Sutherland Shire Council, which covers Cronulla, made famous for its race riots 10 years ago this weekend.

“If you don’t like Australia, I’m happy to contribute to a one-way ticket to fly you wherever you want to go,” he said this week.

Ian Murray
12-12-2015, 04:37 PM
Cronulla riots 10 years on: Muslim to Muslim — if you don’t like it here, leave
John Lyons
THE AUSTRALIAN, 12 DECEMBER 2015

Strange article - the Cronulla riots had nothing to do with whether or not Muslims liked Australia.

Ian Murray
17-12-2015, 04:41 PM
3005

Banksy’s Christmas Card Shows a Bible Scene Abruptly Interrupted by Middle East Conflict (http://blogs.artinfo.com/artintheair/2012/12/07/banksys-christmas-card-shows-a-bible-scene-abruptly-interrupted-by-middle-east-conflict/)

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2015, 09:07 AM
Is the Israeli military a paragon of morality and wartime ethics? Or is it an oppressive force that targets innocent Palestinian civilians and commits war crimes as a matter of policy? Colonel Richard Kemp, who was the commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, was in Israel during its war against Hamas in 2014, and analyzes whether Israel's military is ethical, evil, or somewhere in between.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN1MkAGuVyY

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2015, 09:28 PM
Saw a bit of a Twitter spat about this one:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/australian-citizen-evyatar-slonim-jailed-without-charge-in-israel-extremism-case-20151218-glqrhw.html

Extremist or terrorist?

Ian Murray
20-12-2015, 05:21 PM
...Colonel Richard Kemp, who was the commander of British Forces in Afghanistan...

Not quite. He commanded some British forces in Afghanistan. A theatre commander holds General rank,

Capablanca-Fan
23-12-2015, 09:19 AM
Two Muslim women speak out against non-Muslims’ wearing of headscarves as a show of support (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/21/two-muslim-women-speak-out-against-non-muslims-wearing-of-headscarves-as-a-show-of-support)
By Eugene Volokh, Volokh Conspiracy, 21 December 2015


For us, as mainstream Muslim women, born in Egypt and India, the spectacle at the mosque was a painful joke and reminder of the well-financed effort by conservatives to dominate modern Muslim societies. This modern-day movement spreads an ideology of political Islam, called “Islamism,” enlisting unsuspecting well-intentioned do-gooders, while promoting the headscarf for women as a virtual “sixth pillar” of Islam, after the traditional “five pillars,” the shahada (or proclamation of faith), prayer, fasting, charity and pilgrimage. We reject this interpretation. We are not too sexy for our hair. . . .

To us, the headscarf is a symbol of an interpretation of Islam we reject that believes that women are a sexual distraction to men, who are weak, and, thus, we must cover ourselves. We don’t buy it. This ideology promotes a social attitude that absolves men of sexually harassing women and puts the onus on the victim to protect herself by covering up.

In the name of “interfaith,” well-intentioned Americans are getting duped by the agenda of Muslims who argue that a woman’s honor lies in her “chastity,” pushing a platform to put a headscarf on every woman.

Please do this instead: Do not wear a headscarf in “solidarity” with the ideology that most silences us, equating our bodies with “honor.” Stand with us instead with moral courage against the ideology of Islamism that demands we cover our hair.

Capablanca-Fan
28-12-2015, 02:27 AM
Minister for Islamic Apologetics (http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2015/12/minister-islamic-apologetics/)
Rev. Dr. Mark Durie
Quadrant, 27 Dec 2015

Other than the need to discredit her party's former leader and push what might be termed the Turnbull Doctrine of warm-and-cuddly relativism, what in the name of Heaven could have possessed the Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs to present Islamic dogma as incontrovertible fact?

It is entirely appropriate for Australians to hold Muslims accountable for the statements and actions of their religious leaders. Writing in The Australian, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells has attempted to throw light on the challenge of Islamic radicalism. She offers a ‘reality check’ by injecting what she asserts are ‘basic facts’ into the public debate. However she only succeeds in promoting misinformation and multiplying confusion.

Why must the Australian assistant minister for multicultural affairs present Islamic dogma as incontrovertible fact? Fierravanti-Wells astonishingly declares the Koran to be ‘a collection of revelations from God to the Prophet Mohammed.’ Does she really accept it as a ‘basic fact’ – for the purpose of public debate – that Mohammed was God’s prophet, or that the Koran is a genuine revelation from God? Surely only a believing Muslim could make such a declaration and mean it?

Why does Fierravanti-Wells not understand that many Christians will see her list of ‘basic facts’ as a crude distortion of what they believe? Does she really mean to imply that the Christians of the world have a single overarching authority to ‘establish or forbid’ religious practices or interpretation of the Bible? They do not. In this respect Muslims are no different from Christians. Of course some Christians do recognise an authority for their own denomination, but so do some Muslims sects.

All these errors aside, the bottom line is that it is up to the Muslims of Australia who they choose to listen to and appoint as their religious leaders. If what Fierravanti-Wells implies is true, namely that the vast majority of Australian Muslims want a ‘moderate’ form of Islam preached in their mosques, then let them take steps to ensure this happens. If they are unhappy with their imams, let them replace them, or else vacate those mosques to frequent other mosques they like better, with imams whose teachings they find more congenial. This is how religious freedom works. It is precisely because Australian Muslims do have religious freedom that it is reasonable for Australians to hold the Muslim community to account for the utterances of their leaders.

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2016, 08:53 AM
But the left want more of these savages to come here. As usual, the feminists are silent about this rampant abuse of women and girls.

Behind the Veil (http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-veil-1453497589)
When 16-year-old Zahra al-Azzo was murdered by her brother for being raped, her family threw a party.
By ASRA Q. NOMANI, WSJ, 22 Jan 2016

...
Katherine Zoepf’s chilling book “Excellent Daughters: The Secret Lives of the Young Women Who Are Transforming the Arab World” doesn’t specifically address taharrush gamea, or collective humiliation. But the themes of honor, shame, power, sex and Islam are woven throughout her intimate portraits of Muslim women and girls in the Middle East and North Africa.

Ms. Zoepf has been reporting on the region since 2004, as a stringer for the New York Times and contributor to the New Yorker, and her book is like a “Lonely Planet” guide to the dark underbelly of the purity culture of Muslim societies. From Damascus to Jeddah—and, yes, now to the capitals of Western Europe—women who transgress their perceived “social responsibilities” in this matrix of honor and shame are fair targets for humiliation and violence.

In one particularly poignant chapter, Ms. Zoepf steps through the doors of a girls’ prison in Syria, where 16-year-old Zahra al-Azzo was jailed for being raped. (That’s right, they jailed her.) The prison is a sort of holding facility for girls like Zahra who are at risk of being murdered by their families in a so-called honor killing. Yet there is little to protect the young women once they leave. “One of the girls came to me, crying, the other day,” the head social worker tells Ms. Zoepf. “She wanted to go home and it’s an honor crime situation. I told her, ‘Try to relax here for a while because they’re going to kill you anyway when you’re released.’ It sounds cruel, but I needed to calm her down, to get her to behave sensibly.’”

Zahra was eventually freed from the prison in order to marry a cousin. Shortly thereafter, she was hacked to death in her apartment by her own brother—with the blessing of their parents. Zahra’s crime: “losing her virginity out of wedlock.” Her brother believed he was “washing away the shame” to the family. The day of her murder, Ms. Zoepf chronicles, the girl’s family threw a party.
...
The trouble is that, for all of her meticulous reporting and access to the women she writes about, Ms. Zoepf shies away from drawing certain uncomfortable conclusions. She acknowledges the problems with “many Salafi, or fundamentalist interpretations of Islam,” and she rightly notes, for example, that honor killings are “almost unknown outside the Islamic world and its diaspora.” Yet she goes on to say, in the next sentence, that “honor killings are not mentioned in the Qur’an.” This is typical of the kind of careful dance she does throughout the book. She bears witness to tyrannical situations but remains always an observer, holding back from expressing moral outrage or insisting on the need to reform Islam. Given the horrific state of affairs she documents, perhaps she feels like the argument makes itself.
...
Ms. Nomani, a former Journal reporter, is the author of “Standing Alone: An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam.”

Ian Murray
25-01-2016, 04:11 PM
But the left want more of these savages to come here. As usual, the feminists are silent about this rampant abuse of women and girls.

Even though those women and girls would be safe in the west, you want to stop the refugees?

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2016, 04:24 PM
Even though those women and girls would be safe in the west, you want to stop the refugees?
Not the women and children, but the many young men without families without proper checks. Do we want any more of these types of "refugees"?

Inside the “Refugee Centers:” A Worker Speaks (http://newobserveronline.com/inside-the-refugee-centers-a-worker-speaks/)

JANUARY 18, 2016 BY TNO STAFF— IN EUROPE

Death threats against welfare workers, aggressive behavior, lies, forged documents, verbal abuse, misogyny, sexual attacks, and even physical assaults—these are the daily burdens which German social workers in the “refugee centers” have to face, according to a disillusioned employee who has broken her silence.
...
“First, if I’m honest, about 90 percent of those who I counselled were unpleasant. First, many of them are extremely demanding.

“They came to me and demanded that I immediately set them up with an apartment, a fancy car, and a really good job. When I told them this was not possible, they would become loud and very aggressive. An Afghan threatened to kill himself there and then [if I did not help him with these demands].

“And a number of Syrians and Afghanis declared that they will go on hunger strike until I’d help them to move to another place. An Arab shouted at another colleague, ‘We behead you!’”

Because of these death threats “and other things,” she continued, they had to call upon the police for protection “several times a week.”

Capablanca-Fan
26-01-2016, 07:40 AM
Palestinians: Western Media's Ignorance and Bias (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7271/palestinians-western-media)
by Khaled Abu Toameh
21 January 2016


Foreign journalists based in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv have for years refused to report on the financial corruption and human rights violations that are rife under the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas regimes. Palestinian "suffering" and the "evil" of the Israeli "occupation" are the only admissible topics.
Another Ramallah-based colleague shared that a few years ago he received a request from a cub correspondent to help arrange an interview with Yasser Arafat. Except at that point, Arafat had been dead for several years. Fresh out of journalism school and unknowledgeable about the Middle East, the journalist was apparently considered by his editors a fine candidate for covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Western reporters would do well to remember that journalism in this region is not about being pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. Rather, it is about being "pro" the truth, even when the truth runs straight up against what they would prefer to believe.

Ian Murray
27-01-2016, 07:25 PM
Not the women and children, but the many young men without families without proper checks. Do we want any more of these types of "refugees"?

Inside the “Refugee Centers:” A Worker Speaks (http://newobserveronline.com/inside-the-refugee-centers-a-worker-speaks/)

JANUARY 18, 2016 BY TNO STAFF— IN EUROPE

Death threats against welfare workers, aggressive behavior, lies, forged documents, verbal abuse, misogyny, sexual attacks, and even physical assaults—these are the daily burdens which German social workers in the “refugee centers” have to face, according to a disillusioned employee who has broken her silence....

You can't seriously believe this is a factual account! An alleged report by an extreme right German news broadcaster about what it describes as "the nonwhite invaders", based on the unsubstantiated and uncorroborated so-called story by an anonymous "volunteer worker". It's not journalism, it's fictional anti-immigrant hate speech.

For responsible reporting of the issues, see the likes of Der Spiegel's Special Report. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/spiegel-cover-story-the-new-germany-a-1050406.html), with interviews with named sources on both edges of the divide, as well as the majority of sympathetic Germans.


...So far, the vast majority of Germans have shown themselves to be immune from right-wing populism. Alexander Gauland and his Alternative for Germany party is struggling to remain above the 5 percent mark in polls and it is anything but certain that it will clear the hurdle for seats in parliament in the next general election two years from now. But even if it does, it won't necessarily pose a significant threat. Right-wing populist parties are a part of the political spectrum across Europe. That's certainly not something people should welcome, but even if AfD does get seats, it won't pose a threat to democracy. Germany would be able to withstand it. ...

As for the problems volunteer workers are facing:


...It would already be helpful if those willing to assist refugees weren't hamstrung by the pitfalls of German bureaucracy. Just about every helper you talk to has stories to share about how solutions and support are hindered by some regulation or other....

Capablanca-Fan
28-01-2016, 01:40 PM
So the planned gang rape in Cologne (http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/cologne-new-years-eve-rape-mob-attacks-were-planned-minister/news-story/689821299fd8bc4162598e7438699a9a) was also a right-wing beat up, as well as Sweden becoming the rape capital of the west (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape), or even Australia's own Sarcofelis al-Hilaly (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/26/australia.marktran)?

Rather, it's you leftists who ignore the elephant in the room.

Patrick Byrom
28-01-2016, 03:17 PM
So the planned gang rape in Cologne (http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/cologne-new-years-eve-rape-mob-attacks-were-planned-minister/news-story/689821299fd8bc4162598e7438699a9a) was also a right-wing beat up, as well as Sweden becoming the rape capital of the west (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape), or even Australia's own Sarcofelis al-Hilaly (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/oct/26/australia.marktran)?
Rather, it's you leftists who ignore the elephant in the room.
Using crime statistics to compare countries is well known to be misleading because different countries have different definitions of specific crimes. It's particularly silly in this case, as if Islam is linked to rape, wouldn't actual Islamic countries (like the UAE) have a much higher rate than Sweden?

ER
28-01-2016, 04:41 PM
... It's particularly silly in this case, as if Islam is linked to rape, wouldn't actual Islamic countries (like the UAE) have a much higher rate than Sweden?

Not really!

http://www.emirates247.com/crime/local/why-uae-women-won-t-report-crimes-against-them-2012-09-04-1.474035

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2016, 06:10 PM
Using crime statistics to compare countries is well known to be misleading because different countries have different definitions of specific crimes.

Also different reporting rates for the same offences. In some countries rape is virtually impossible to prove in law and claiming to have been raped places a woman's life in serious danger, so rape victims are unlikely to report. (The same countries often have very strong punishments for rape but those punishments might not be a deterrent if the crime is basically unprovable.)

[EDIT: I see Elliott's link makes much the same point.]

Ian Murray
28-01-2016, 08:11 PM
So the planned gang rape in Cologne (http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/cologne-new-years-eve-rape-mob-attacks-were-planned-minister/news-story/689821299fd8bc4162598e7438699a9a) was also a right-wing beat up, as well as Sweden becoming the rape capital of the west (http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape),....

I take it you concede that your German "news article" is a right-wing beat up, as you make no effort to defend it.

Now you resort to a libertarian site massaging rape-crime figures in an effort to blame it all on Muslims. Easily refuted at Is Sweden now the rape capital of the world? No. (https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/36d3z8/is_sweden_now_the_rape_capital_of_the_world_no/).

Your other two attempts are better - al least you cite mainstream media sources. There is a problem of sorts, but nowhere near as incendiary as your neo-Nazi friends try to make out.

Patrick Byrom
28-01-2016, 08:56 PM
Not really!
http://www.emirates247.com/crime/local/why-uae-women-won-t-report-crimes-against-them-2012-09-04-1.474035
But even if the reporting rate for rape in the UAE is only 5% of the reporting rate in Sweden, the rate of actual rape in UAE would still be lower than Sweden's, according to the link from Capablanca-Fan. And the reported rate in Indonesia (another Islamic country) is shown as even lower than for UAE.

However, as Finn McCool's link explains, Swedish statistics are not directly comparable to other countries.

Ian Murray
29-01-2016, 07:06 AM
But even if the reporting rate for rape in the UAE is only 5% of the reporting rate in Sweden, the rate of actual rape in UAE would still be lower than Sweden's, according to the link from Capablanca-Fan. And the reported rate in Indonesia (another Islamic country) is shown as even lower than for UAE.

However, as Finn McCool's link explains, Swedish statistics are not directly comparable to other countries.

It is also noteworthy that, according to that chart beloved by the right, New Zealand is one of the world's most dangerous countries for women. The risk of being raped should be included in Australian Government travel advisories for tourists.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2016, 10:17 AM
Anyone who sees a chart implying women are thirty times more likely to be raped in NZ than, say, Serbia, and takes it on face value is a mug.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2016, 07:35 AM
I take it you concede that your German "news article" is a right-wing beat up, as you make no effort to defend it.
Argument from silence is a fallacy.


Your other two attempts are better - al least you cite mainstream media sources.
Why should I cite the Leftmedia?


There is a problem of sorts, but nowhere near as incendiary as your neo-Nazi friends try to make out.

What neo-Nazi friends? You are ideologically closer to the Nazis (National Socialists) than I am, since you are left-wing and hate the Jewish state.

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2016, 07:43 AM
Using crime statistics to compare countries is well known to be misleading because different countries have different definitions of specific crimes. It's particularly silly in this case, as if Islam is linked to rape, wouldn't actual Islamic countries (like the UAE) have a much higher rate than Sweden?

Not if rape victims are punished, as per this Norwegian woman raped in the supposedly moderate Dubai who was jailed (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/20/world/meast/uae-norway-rape-controversy/), and the same happened to several other Western women (and note this is from one of the far-left MSM sources that Finn loves). Or else they are "honour-killed" by their own twisted families, e.g. in Libya (again, another far-left MSM sourc (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13760895)e).

Ian Murray
01-02-2016, 03:55 PM
What neo-Nazi friends? You are ideologically closer to the Nazis (National Socialists) than I am, since you are left-wing and hate the Jewish state.

That's a dead horse you're flogging. Neo-Nazism is the name for a modern offshoot of Nazism. It is a radically right-wing ideology, whose main characteristics are extreme nationalism and violent xenophobia. That's according to The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (http://www.holocaust-education.dk/eftertid/nynazisme.asp)

You provide us with links to anti-refugee sites, which you presumably endorse, that relate to "the nonwhite invasion" (of Germany) or present patently spurious statistics labelling Muslims as rapists. If the cap fits ...

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2016, 04:25 PM
That's a dead horse you're flogging. Neo-Nazism is the name for a modern offshoot of Nazism. It is a radically right-wing ideology, whose main characteristics are extreme nationalism and violent xenophobia. That's according to The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies (http://www.holocaust-education.dk/eftertid/nynazisme.asp)
Note that site also links neo-Nazism with Holocaust denial, which I leave to your Muslim buddies. And they march on Hitler's birthday, which some of your Muslim buddies wouldn't mind, considering that their hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini was Hitler's confidante during WW2. Where is the evidence of any real right ideas that these neo-Nazis support? The real right wing, if it is to be contrasted with the Left, supports the free market. It also rejects the nationalistic call for protectionism and subsidies.


You provide us with links to anti-refugee sites, which you presumably endorse, that relate to "the nonwhite invasion" (of Germany) or present patently spurious statistics labelling Muslims as rapists. If the cap fits ...
I don't care what colour people are (I leave that to the Left), but only that if they come to Australia, they respect Australian law and values. This includes democracy, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom of women not to wear head coverings on pain of a leading Islamist calling them "cat's meat".

Also, I provided links from CNN (Communist News Network) and BBC (well known for what they claim is a "soft-left" bias (http://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/)which sensible people just call rabidly left).

Capablanca-Fan
01-02-2016, 04:35 PM
Merkel’s open door for migrants takes Europe towards ruin (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/merkels-open-door-for-migrants-takes-europe-towards-ruin/news-story/c72b6b60cca15c3c518a3882f2b0289f)
DOUGLAS MURRAY, THE AUSTRALIAN, 30 JANUARY 2016

Has the road to modern Europe’s future been paved with good intentions? Or did the opening of the continent’s borders to the rest of the world constitute one of the most cynically destructive acts ever carried out on a democratic public?

These are just a couple of the questions now being tossed around among European publics. But whichever answer you veer towards — naive decency or cynical destruction — there can be little doubt that the path on which its leaders have put the continent tends towards hell.

Consider this month’s news alone. The new year began with a mass sexual assault against German women carried out by migrants in the centre of Cologne. Such is the self-designated role of much of the media these days that this story didn’t properly emerge for nearly a week. For in Germany and many other countries across the continent, the media has decided that its role is not to report the news. Rather, it has decided that its role is to mediate between events and the possibly negative reactions of the general public should they learn of such events.

Indeed, if it were not for a few gutsy websites the news might have taken weeks or months to come out. Which is not so unlikely. After all, in Britain when gangs of Muslim immigrant men in the north of England raped and abused as many as 1400 girls — many underage — every arm of the state and much of the media worked to keep the facts and the identities of the attackers secret for almost 15 years.
...

Patrick Byrom
01-02-2016, 05:08 PM
Not if rape victims are punished, as per this Norwegian woman raped in the supposedly moderate Dubai who was jailed (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/20/world/meast/uae-norway-rape-controversy/), and the same happened to several other Western women (and note this is from one of the far-left MSM sources that Finn loves). ...
But UAE still had a high incidence of reported rape, which means that some rapes must be reported! Elliot covered this in his post, which suggested that the reporting rape may only be 5% - but that would still make the actual rate much less than Sweden's, if the chart could be taken at face value.

Patrick Byrom
01-02-2016, 05:31 PM
... Where is the evidence of any real right ideas that these neo-Nazis support? The real right wing, if it is to be contrasted with the Left, supports the free market. It also rejects the nationalistic call for protectionism and subsidies.If Neo-Nazis are so left-wing, why are you relying on them to support your arguments - you don't see Finn or myself quoting these 'left-wing' websites? Of course the right wing idea that Neo-Nazis support is opposition to Muslim immigrants, which is also supported by Ted Cruz (as well as many many other right wingers).


... I don't care what colour people are (I leave that to the Left), but only that if they come to Australia, they respect Australian law and values. This includes democracy, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom of women not to wear head coverings on pain of a leading Islamist calling them "cat's meat".Doesn't our freedom of speech give a Muslim the right to refer to women who don't wear head coverings as "cat's meat" - no matter how offensive that is? I thought you would be defending his right to free speech, not attacking it :)

Ian Murray
02-02-2016, 09:41 PM
Note that site also links neo-Nazism with Holocaust denial...

But note the disconnect between neo-Nazism and anti-semitism. The goal now is racial purity, to be maintained by barring immigrants.

The neo-Nazis do not constitute a homogenous group. It is rather the overall name for many different groupings that all belong on the far right of the political spectrum. The neo-Nazis’ typical enemy is no longer the Jews – although they still remain a hated group – but rather foreigners and immigrants. Thus, the main purpose of neo-Nazism is to stop immigration and hereby secure the survival of the national ‘race’. As a result, mainstream politicians are frequently accused of ‘treason’ for passing moderate immigration laws.

In general, neo-Nazism is anti-intellectual. Consequently, it has no coherent political ideology, but is, however, most often characterised by two defining elements: extreme nationalism and xenophobia. An important aspect of neo-Nazism is the strong social element, the ideology brings to its members. Neo-Nazi groups meet to drink, play music (especially racist ‘White Pride’ music) and sing old and new Nazi battle songs. They also arrange parades and marches, for instance on Hitler’s birthday.

However, a number of neo-Nazi groups, particularly in Germany, also carry out violent assaults. Homeless, “losers”, “foreigners”, “people of presumed Jewish heritage” and others have been assaulted and in some instances murdered.


The real right wing, if it is to be contrasted with the Left, supports the free market. It also rejects the nationalistic call for protectionism and subsidies.

To qualify as a “leftist”, according to the Right, one must believe at least one of the following heresies: that climate change is happening and man-made; that the Stolen Generations exist; that minorities should be protected from bigotry; that companies should be restricted from selling harmful food products to consumers on the free market; that governments should go into debt during downturns or times of slow growth; that experiences of Indigenous people should be incorporated into the narratives of Australian history; that education should promote critical thought; that governments should support education, health care and public broadcasting out of general revenue; that social security is a vitally important safety net; that taxes should be progressive and redistributive; that prison should be used only rarely; that employees should be entitled to minimum wages and conditions, and penalty rates for long or irregular hours; that drug use should be decriminalised; that fossil fuel-based energy should be replaced by renewable energy sources; that the powers and activities of police, security and intelligence organisations should be kept in check and subject to scrutiny; that most government information should be freely available; that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry; that the power of governments and corporations should be limited and subject to scrutiny; that the rights of people seeking asylum should be protected; that Australia should be a multicultural community. If these views are regarded as extremist by the conservative Right, then who are the real extremists?


I don't care what colour people are ...

When you endorse racist sites which vilify "the nonwhite invasion" then you tar yourself with the same brush


Also, I provided links from CNN (Communist News Network) and BBC (well known for what they claim is a "soft-left" bias (http://biasedbbc.org/quotes-of-shame/)which sensible people just call rabidly left).

That's really pretty funny. If CNN and the Beeb are rabidly left, where does that leave the likes of the Socialist Alliance's Green Left Monthly or The Socialist Worker or Pravda?

ER
02-02-2016, 09:49 PM
Doesn't our freedom of speech give a Muslim the right to refer to women who don't wear head coverings as "cat's meat" - no matter how offensive that is? I thought you would be defending his right to free speech, not attacking it :)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28564984
Militant Islamists in Somalia have shot dead a Muslim woman for refusing to wear a veil, her relatives say.
and here?
Muslim woman 'viciously attacked' on Swanston Street in Melbourne
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/muslim-woman-viciously-attacked-outside-state-library-of-victoria-in-melbourne-20151029-gkmeu4.html
In both cases, the incidents were widely reported, so free speech is seen in action.
However,
Is free speech the question?

Capablanca-Fan
02-02-2016, 10:00 PM
If Neo-Nazis are so left-wing, why are you relying on them to support your arguments - you don't see Finn or myself quoting these 'left-wing' websites? Of course the right wing idea that Neo-Nazis support is opposition to Muslim immigrants, which is also supported by Ted Cruz (as well as many many other right wingers).
Here you go again with the "neo-Nazi" tag, although you fail to explain why a Jew like me would like such a group, although it's more plausible that an Israel-hating leftist like Fin would.


Doesn't our freedom of speech give a Muslim the right to refer to women who don't wear head coverings as "cat's meat" - no matter how offensive that is? I thought you would be defending his right to free speech, not attacking it :)

Yes, he has free speech, but doesn't mean that they have the right to enter our country with that attitude.

Patrick Byrom
02-02-2016, 10:56 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28564984
Militant Islamists in Somalia have shot dead a Muslim woman for refusing to wear a veil, her relatives say.
and here?
Muslim woman 'viciously attacked' on Swanston Street in Melbourne
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/muslim-woman-viciously-attacked-outside-state-library-of-victoria-in-melbourne-20151029-gkmeu4.html
In both cases, the incidents were widely reported, so free speech is seen in action.
However, Is free speech the question?
I'm not sure what your point is. Capablanca-Fan said: "and freedom of women not to wear head coverings on pain of a leading Islamist calling them "cat's meat" ". I was pointing out that C-F supports the right of people to make offensive comments, so he can't logically oppose the right of a "leading Islamist" to do so. Violence against women is another matter entirely, and in Australia it is often non-Muslims who attack women wearing veils.

Patrick Byrom
02-02-2016, 11:20 PM
Here you go again with the "neo-Nazi" tag, although you fail to explain why a Jew like me would like such a group, although it's more plausible that an Israel-hating leftist like Fin would.I didn't say you supported the group, only that you were using their website to support your arguments - which is a fact. Although Jews do sometimes support far-right (and probably neo-Nazi) parties (http://forward.com/news/214230/why-are-jews-supporting-a-german-right-wing-moveme/):

Jews are terribly afraid of the Muslims, according to Henryk Broder, a well-known journalist and outspoken personality in the German-Jewish community. Broder said German Jews should support the anti-Islamization movement. “The Muslim community in Germany is the only threat to the Jews,” Broder said, adding that he does not agree with everything Pegida says, but thinks the Jewish establishment should listen to the movement instead of just demonizing it.



Yes, he has free speech, but doesn't mean that they have the right to enter our country with that attitude.Are you saying that people should be prevented from entering Australia because of their offensive speech? And what about people already in Australia - if someone can be prevented from entering Australia due to their speech, then surely a person in Australia can also be punished for offensive speech?

Of course, the "...freedom of women not to wear head coverings on pain of a leading Islamist calling them "cat's meat". " wouldn't be significantly enhanced by excluding people from Australia, as the excluded could still make comments on the internet.

ER
02-02-2016, 11:49 PM
I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is no matter how free or not free speech is in describing it, violence, wherever and wherever it occurs is the root of evil.


Violence against women is another matter entirely,
how can it be another matter entirely when Muslim preachers are on record
claiming that women who do not wear the veil are provoking rape
and that rapists should not be punished? Doesn't that kind of freedom of speech
incite violence?


Australia it is often non-Muslims who attack women wearing veils.
but that's why I gave the example above ...
Muslim woman 'viciously attacked' on Swanston Street in Melbourne
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/mu...29-gkmeu4.html

Patrick Byrom
03-02-2016, 12:44 AM
My point is no matter how free or not free speech is in describing it, violence, wherever and wherever it occurs is the root of evil.

how can it be another matter entirely when Muslim preachers are on record claiming that women who do not wear the veil are provoking rape and that rapists should not be punished? Doesn't that kind of freedom of speech incite violence?
I think you're confusing me with Capablanca-Fan. I'm on record as supporting restrictions on offensive free speech, such as Section 18C; he is the one who is against such restrictions. But I'm not sure that either of us would restrict the above examples of speech (at least in isolation). They don't seem to be directly encouraging violence against women, and are not offensive enough by themselves (I would think) to justify the application of 18C.

Can you provide some direct quotes of people saying these (or similar) things preferably in Australia? I doubt that any Muslim preacher would say that rapists should not be punished.

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2016, 08:03 AM
I didn't say you supported the group, only that you were using their website to support your arguments - which is a fact. Although Jews do sometimes support far-right (and probably neo-Nazi) parties (http://forward.com/news/214230/why-are-jews-supporting-a-german-right-wing-moveme/):

Jews are terribly afraid of the Muslims, according to Henryk Broder, a well-known journalist and outspoken personality in the German-Jewish community. Broder said German Jews should support the anti-Islamization movement. “The Muslim community in Germany is the only threat to the Jews,” Broder said, adding that he does not agree with everything Pegida says, but thinks the Jewish establishment should listen to the movement instead of just demonizing it.

Even bad sources can sometimes be right. But once again, I leave it to the Left to make a huge deal about race. The genuine Right do not care. And no group wanting to restrict immigration would have much problem with say Tibetan refugees escaping the Chinese Communist tyranny; the point is that they are peaceful, and their "non-whiteness" doesn't even enter the equation.


Are you saying that people should be prevented from entering Australia because of their offensive speech? And what about people already in Australia - if someone can be prevented from entering Australia due to their speech, then surely a person in Australia can also be punished for offensive speech?
Not at all. We can have both freedom of speech as well as the freedom to decide whom to allow to immigrate. Similarly, we don't deport criminals who are Aussie citizens, but we also don't allow foreign criminals to immigrate.


Of course, the "...freedom of women not to wear head coverings on pain of a leading Islamist calling them "cat's meat". " wouldn't be significantly enhanced by excluding people from Australia, as the excluded could still make comments on the internet.
Doesn't mean that we should import people with such views.

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2016, 08:24 AM
In general, neo-Nazism is anti-intellectual.
No wonder it is a movement of the Left, but their fellow travellers in the Left find it convenient to demonize it as "right".


Consequently, it has no coherent political ideology, but is, however, most often characterised by two defining elements: extreme nationalism and xenophobia. An important aspect of neo-Nazism is the strong social element, the ideology brings to its members. Neo-Nazi groups meet to drink, play music (especially racist ‘White Pride’ music) and sing old and new Nazi battle songs. They also arrange parades and marches, for instance on Hitler’s birthday.
As if any Jew would do that.


However, a number of neo-Nazi groups, particularly in Germany, also carry out violent assaults. Homeless, “losers”, “foreigners”, “people of presumed Jewish heritage” and others have been assaulted and in some instances murdered.[/INDENT]
In that case, they need to be convicted and sentenced to the full extent of the law.


To qualify as a “leftist”, according to the Right, one must believe at least one of the following heresies: [I]that climate change is happening and man-made;
And that we need to cede more control to national and international governments, and give even more of our money to them.


that the Stolen Generations exist;
This question is matter of history, not really a left-right issue. Also the Right could accept that while opposing reparations when both victims and perps are long dead.


that minorities should be protected from bigotry;
Except that the right believes that the free market is the best protection they have, and also that the majority should not be disadvantaged by government.


that companies should be restricted from selling harmful food products to consumers on the free market;
Once again, in a free market, reputation is the best restriction of all. An example is American meat companies, since many go beyond what the law requires to deliver hygienic meat.


that governments should go into debt during downturns or times of slow growth;
Note that even the Keynesian prescription is not followed properly, because he wanted surpluses in times of fast growth. This is why Australia did relatively well in the GFC: Howard and Costello had accumulated a budget surplus.


that experiences of Indigenous people should be incorporated into the narratives of Australian history;
Which ones? Noel Pearson's?


that education should promote critical thought;
Fine, rather than the unopposed leftism at many Western unis.


that governments should support education, health care and public broadcasting out of general revenue;
Even if governments should fund education and health care, it doesn't mean that they have to run them. They could give money to the students and patients and allow them to choose their education or treatment.

Public broadcasting might have made sense in the infancy of the technology, but now with so many sources of broadcasting in the private sector, it is anachronistic.


that social security is a vitally important safety net;
Safety net is something even Milton Friedman agreed with. But when welfare becomes a lifestyle, or if people are better off on financially (at least short term) on welfare than working, there is something badly wrong: a perverse incentive not to work.


that taxes should be progressive and redistributive;
Once again, who does the redistribution? The more redistribution, the greater the power of government, and the greater its cut of the tax revenues.


that prison should be used only rarely;
I agree: a lot of non-violent drug offenders occupy American prisons for a lot longer than violent criminals, which is most unjust.


that employees should be entitled to minimum wages and conditions, and penalty rates for long or irregular hours;
The real minimum wage is zero.


that drug use should be decriminalised;
OK by me, but this is a libertarian view not necessarily left-right.


that fossil fuel-based energy should be replaced by renewable energy sources;
OK if done by the market, not by government.


that the powers and activities of police, security and intelligence organisations should be kept in check and subject to scrutiny
OK by me. A traditional conservative distrusts any person or group with too much power.


that most government information should be freely available;
OK by me.


that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry;
Of course: a gay man has as much right to marry a woman as a straight man. A conservative doesn't agree with changing the historical definition of marriage. Also not the traditional left-right divide. Far-left governments like Mugabe's and Stalins opposed homosexual behaviour.


that the power of governments and corporations should be limited and subject to scrutiny;
OK by me, especially the former. And corporations have no right to harm third parties.


that the rights of people seeking asylum should be protected;
Yes, if they really are seeking asylum.


that Australia should be a multicultural community.
OK by me. With my ancestry, I was born multicultural. But not multiple sets of laws, e.g. Sharia.


That's really pretty funny. If CNN and the Beeb are rabidly left, where does that leave the likes of the Socialist Alliance's Green Left Monthly or The Socialist Worker or Pravda?
Well, probably mainstream according to you. But the Beeb even admits to a "soft Left" bias, which really means unashamedly Left.

Patrick Byrom
03-02-2016, 01:36 PM
Even bad sources can sometimes be right. But once again, I leave it to the Left to make a huge deal about race. The genuine Right do not care. And no group wanting to restrict immigration would have much problem with say Tibetan refugees escaping the Chinese Communist tyranny; the point is that they are peaceful, and their "non-whiteness" doesn't even enter the equation.Who said anything about race? The fact is that you and Ted Cruz, as well as the neo-Nazis, are opposed to Muslim immigration (and not just to 'non-peaceful' Muslims). That doesn't mean that you or Ted Cruz are neo-Nazis, of course.


Not at all. We can have both freedom of speech as well as the freedom to decide whom to allow to immigrate. Similarly, we don't deport criminals who are Aussie citizens, but we also don't allow foreign criminals to immigrate.I'm glad we agree on the important point that people can be punished by the government just for offensive speech.

ER
05-02-2016, 10:57 PM
Can you provide some direct quotes of people saying these (or similar) things preferably in Australia? I doubt that any Muslim preacher would say that rapists should not be punished.

Apologies for the delayed response. I have been extremely busy and haven't logged on here for the last few days.

Not sure how the "preferably in Australia" parenthetical note relates to the topic of our discussion; however, I will endeavour to do some search for Australian sources (I am sure there are such) when I have more time. For the time being I will provide a very well known case that occurred in Britain.

Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, said that men who rape their wives should not be prosecuted because "sex is part of marriage". And he claimed that many married women who alleged rape were lying.

Source Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rape-impossible-in-marriage-says-muslim-cleric-2106161.html

Patrick Byrom
05-02-2016, 11:48 PM
Apologies for the delayed response. I have been extremely busy and haven't logged on here for the last few days.

Not sure how the "preferably in Australia" parenthetical note relates to the topic of our discussion; however, I will endeavour to do some search for Australian sources (I am sure there are such) when I have more time. For the time being I will provide a very well known case that occurred in Britain.

Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, said that men who rape their wives should not be prosecuted because "sex is part of marriage". And he claimed that many married women who alleged rape were lying.
Source Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rape-impossible-in-marriage-says-muslim-cleric-2106161.html
No problem about the delay: Direct quotes can be hard to locate, so I realise they may take time. My suggested restriction to Australia was because the discussion has been about freedom of speech in Australia, but any Western country would be fine.

Rape in marriage has generally been treated differently from rape outside marriage, so the Sheik's statement is less surprising than a statement that rapists in general should not be prosecuted. You might be surprised to learn that in the US, rape in marriage is still 'semi-legal' in some states. For example, in Ohio (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/09/marital-rape-is-semi-legal-in-8-states.html):

In essence, as one Ohio local paper put it in a recent staff editorial: “In Ohio, a woman can be drugged and sexually assaulted—legally—if the perpetrator is her spouse.”

My point is that, while I find the Sheik's comments offensive, his views are not that extreme, and definitely not restricted to Muslims.

Capablanca-Fan
06-02-2016, 06:17 AM
My point is that, while I find the Sheik's comments offensive, his views are not that extreme, and definitely not restricted to Muslims.
Not serious: it was practically saying that women who don't cover themselves from head to feet are fair game for rapists. We don't need to import people withsuch views.

Capablanca-Fan
06-02-2016, 07:13 AM
The Holocaust as ‘white on white crime’ and other signs of intellectual decay (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/05/the-holocaust-as-white-on-white-crime-and-other-signs-of-intellectual-decay/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_volokh)
David Bernstein, Volokh Conspiracy, 5 February 2016

In a recent post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/26/israel-derangement-syndrome-envelops-the-far-left-six-examples/?tid=a_inl), I alluded to a Facebook post by a recent Oberlin alumna, clearly a political progressive herself, recounting what she described as various anti-Semitic incidents she experienced at the school at the hands of the SJW left. I noted that I found most remarkable her assertion that multiple students had dismissively referred to the Holocaust as “white on white crime,” as if the “progressive” students there found it impossible to conceive of horrific racist violence outside the parameters of paradigmatic examples of racist violence in the United States. What’s remarkable about the incidents recounted, which range from gross insensitivity to blatant anti-Semitism, is not that such attitudes exist, nor that they are necessarily serious compared with what other minority students may face at college, but that, if the Facebook post in question is true, some of the most purportedly progressive students, those who are the most acutely sensitive to and active against other forms of racism, ignore anti-Semitism, belittle it and, in some cases participate in it.

Patrick Byrom
06-02-2016, 03:41 PM
Not serious: it was practically saying that women who don't cover themselves from head to feet are fair game for rapists. We don't need to import people withsuch views.
Umm... I was replying to Elliot, and referring to Sheik Sayeed.

I would agree with you that offensive speech is a good justification for not allowing people into Australia, and there have been several recent cases where this has occurred. However Sheil Hilaly became a permanent resident in 1990, while those comments by him were made in 2006, so it's academic in his case.

Ian Murray
18-02-2016, 07:48 AM
Resisting anti-Semitism does not contradict resisting the Israeli state (http://mondoweiss.net/2016/02/resisting-anti-semitism-does-not-contradict-resisting-the-israeli-state)
Mondoweiss
16.2.16
Reproduced from an article by Nit In Aundzer Nomen, McGill University


Coming to the realization that being Jewish does not require supporting Israel is cause for both internal and social conflict. At McGill in particular, it can be quite a marginalizing experience. Campus rhetoric consistently pairs anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, preventing Jewish students from speaking out comfortably against Israel’s state policies for fear of being labelled a “self-hating Jew.” On a campus where the heart of Jewish life is dominated by Hillel, an organization whose vision is one where “every student is inspired to make a commitment to Jewish life, learning and Israel,” and by Chabad, which wants its members to “apply the timeless Jewish principle of Ahavat [the love of] Israel” – not to mention Israel on Campus – it is crucial for Jews to act to break down the hegemony of this discourse at our university. ...

The discourse on campus has conflated Jews of all backgrounds with a nationalistic, militaristic, and racist government agenda, and as Jewish students who believe in justice, we feel a particular responsibility to speak out in support of the Palestinian people. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has given us a way to mobilize from a distinctly Jewish perspective in a way that does not contradict our values. In doing so, we are also actively resisting the use of our Jewish identities as a justification for stripping millions of people of their basic rights. ...

Ian Murray
05-03-2016, 08:51 PM
Paul Sheehan suspended by Sydney Morning Herald over false rape story (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/04/paul-sheehan-suspended-sydney-morning-herald-false-rape-story?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+AUS+v1+-+AUS+morning+mail+callout&utm_term=160218)
Sydney Morning Herald
4.3.16

The Sydney Morning Herald columnist Paul Sheehan has been “stood aside until further notice” over his false story of the woman “Louise” who claimed she had been raped and beaten by Arabic-speaking men.

The Herald’s editor-in-chief, Darren Goodsir, issued a statement on Friday citing unacceptable breaches of fundamental journalistic practice.

“I have concluded a formal review into the column “The horrifying untold story of Louise”, published on Monday, February 22,” the statement said.

“The article has since been retracted, and on behalf of the Herald, I once again unreservedly apologise for the column and the hurt and distress it understandably caused. The formal review, which included a comprehensive examination of editorial processes, found unacceptable breaches of fundamental journalistic practice. ...

Desmond
05-03-2016, 09:41 PM
I read that story on the way to work. It made the blood drain from me, made me sick to my stomach. Wasn't it real?

Kevin Bonham
05-03-2016, 10:32 PM
I read that story on the way to work. It made the blood drain from me, made me sick to my stomach. Wasn't it real?

Apparently not. (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-story-of-louise-why-the-police-have-no-case-to-answer-but-i-do-20160224-gn2a89.html) His source had significant mental issues and had constructed an elaborate fantasy about terrible things that had supposedly happened to her. I had a flatmate once with a similar condition - he would tell stories of how he had witnessed the death of one of his girlfriends in a hit-and-run, the subsequent suicide of her mother, how he had killed a person in self-defence and so on; it would seem very believable as you listened to it but I believe it was actually all fictitious. (The scary bit: this person had guns!)

Wasn't a fan of Sheehan even before this incident and I hope he is put out to pasture for quite a while.

Ian Murray
06-03-2016, 07:43 AM
Wasn't a fan of Sheehan even before this incident and I hope he is put out to pasture for quite a while.

A subsequent apology does not repair the damage done to the Muslim community, of course. It is hard to understand how a seasoned journalist would allow his personal bigotry to override standard professional fact-checking.

Capablanca-Fan
09-03-2016, 11:47 AM
Israeli Victim in Terrorist Stabbing Spree Pulls Blade Out of Own Neck — Kills Palestinian Attacker With Weapon (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/08/israeli-victim-in-terrorist-stabbing-spree-pulls-blade-out-of-own-neck-kills-palestinian-attacker-with-weapon/)
8 March 2016

As a comment said, the likes of AC, the Leftmedia, and "World Opinion" will twist this to “Israeli Murders Palestinian Protester with Stolen Knife”.

Ian Murray
10-03-2016, 03:18 PM
Study: At least 78% of humanitarian aid intended for Palestinians ends up in Israeli coffers (http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/study-at-least-78-of-humanitarian-aid-intended-for-palestinians-ends-up-in-israeli-coffers/?utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=44fc02cc76-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b86bace129-44fc02cc76-398533981)
Mondoweiss
8.3.16

...While Europe may think of itself as part of an enlightened West, using aid to defend Palestinians’ rights, the reality is less reassuring. The aid may actually be making things significantly worse.

Shir Hever, an Israeli economist who has spent years piecing together the murky economics of the occupation, recently published a report that makes shocking reading.

Like others, he believes international aid has allowed Israel to avoid footing the bill for its decades-old occuption. But he goes further.
His astonishing conclusion – one that may surprise Israel’s settlers – is that at least 78 per cent of humanitarian aid intended for Palestinians ends up in Israel’s coffers.

The sums involved are huge. The Palestinians under occupation are among the most aid-dependent in the world, receiving more than $2bn from the international community a year. According to Hever, donors could be directly subsidising up to a third of the occupation’s costs.

Other forms of Israeli profiteering have been identified in previous studies.

In 2013 the World Bank very conservatively estimated that the Palestinians lose at least $3.4bn a year in resources plundered by Israel...

Ian Murray
18-04-2016, 08:11 AM
To save his Middle East legacy, Obama must recognize a Palestinian state now (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/04/14-obama-palestinian-state-fraihat)
Brookings Brief
14.11.16

To salvage his Middle East legacy, advance American interests in the Arab world, and align with the position of the international community on this conflict, Ibrahim Fraihat argues, President Obama must make the long overdue decision of recognizing a sovereign and independent Palestinian state before leaving office....

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2016, 02:57 PM
↑↑↑ Sure, on condition that that Palestinian state recognizes Israel.

Meanwhile:

If Israel's Oppressive, Why Do Arabs Seek Treatment Here? (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/28712/Default.aspx)
Israel Today, Ryan Jones, 14 April 2016

Israel is a racist and oppressive state that practices apartheid against non-Jews.

That’s what the Palestinian leadership and its cronies around the globe are trying to get everyone to believe.

But if that’s true, then why do so many Arabs, including those connected to the Palestinian leadership itself, seek medical treatment in Israel? Aren’t they afraid they’ll be mistreated, or worse?

The simple answer is that, no, they aren’t worried about any mistreatment, because despite the propaganda they themselves propagate, these Palestinian leaders known full well that Israel is NOT an apartheid state.

For example, in 2013, Gaza-based Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh sent his granddaughter, Amal Haniyeh, to receive emergency medical care after she contracted an acute infection of her digestive tract.

Now, whatever else you might think of Haniyeh, we can pretty safely assume he loves his granddaughter.

So, why send her to “apartheid” Israel?

Haniyeh is a wealthy man. He could have sent the child to Egypt or Jordan or Saudi Arabia or even Europe. It wouldn’t have taken much longer to reach those destinations than it did to obtain the proper authorizations to transfer Amal into Israel.

And that’s another thing. If Israel is so hateful toward Arabs, why permit Amal to enter and save her life? After all, not only is she an Arab, she is the granddaughter of a man whose organization routinely attacks and murders Israeli Jews.

Ian Murray
18-04-2016, 09:24 PM
...
Israel is a racist and oppressive state that practices apartheid against non-Jews....

Correct.

Equal Rights for Palestinians (http://www.seamac.org/equalrights.htm)

More than 5 million Palestinians are denied equal rights by the state of Israel under a system of apartheid, a deliberate policy of racial or ethnic segregation.

Under Israeli military occupation, millions of Palestinians live in conditions which closely resemble the apartheid system that existed in South Africa:

No right of free speech, assembly or movement
Arrest and imprisonment without charge or trial
Torture
House searches without warrant
Assassination, extra-judicial murder
No right to vote for the Israeli government (even though it controls their lives)

Israel controls all Palestinian borders, all imports and exports, and all movement between towns and cities.

THE GAZA STRIP, still surrounded, besieged and controlled by Israel, has been sealed off and effectively turned into the world’s largest open-air prison....

Ian Murray
19-04-2016, 09:06 AM
↑↑↑ Sure, on condition that that Palestinian state recognizes Israel.

How Many Times Must the Palestinians Recognize Israel? (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.579701)

Netanyahu’s new 'Jewish state' mantra negates the fact that Palestinians recognized Israel more than twenty years ago. They’re still waiting for Israel to recognize Palestine.
Ha'aretz
13.3.14

...There is an international consensus in favor of a two-state solution, and even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman now say they, too, support this goal after long careers opposing it. And in the quarter-century campaign to achieve a conflict-ending two-state agreement through direct talks, there remains a dangerous anomaly. One side, the Palestine Liberation Organization, recognized Israel up front. All other details aside, they have long since performed the sine qua non of a two-state agreement by recognizing Israel. The other side, Israel, has never recognized a Palestinian state or, in any formal, written, or legal sense, even the Palestinian right to a state...

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2016, 01:44 AM
Correct.

Equal Rights for Palestinians (http://www.seamac.org/equalrights.htm)

More than 5 million Palestinians are denied equal rights by the state of Israel under a system of apartheid, a deliberate policy of racial or ethnic segregation.

Under Israeli military occupation, millions of Palestinians live in conditions which closely resemble the apartheid system that existed in South Africa:

No right of free speech, assembly or movement
Arrest and imprisonment without charge or trial
Torture
House searches without warrant
Assassination, extra-judicial murder
No right to vote for the Israeli government (even though it controls their lives)

Israel controls all Palestinian borders, all imports and exports, and all movement between towns and cities.

THE GAZA STRIP, still surrounded, besieged and controlled by Israel, has been sealed off and effectively turned into the world’s largest open-air prison....
The above antisemite misses the point. In Israel itself, Arabs have full human rights, indeed far superior to what they have in any Arab country. The Gaza Strip on the other hand was ceded to the Palestinians, and they elected the terrorist group Hamas that launches rockets against Israeli civilians.

Ian Murray
20-04-2016, 10:30 AM
In Israel itself, Arabs have full human rights, indeed far superior to what they have in any Arab country.

Yeah, sure. Israeli Arabs in the Negev Desert are denied access (http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/negev-bedouin-face-jewish-settlers-destruction-of-farmland) to electricity, water, sanitation, roads and other facilities, and their homes and crops are routinely demolished, to drive them off their land so Jewish settlers can move in.


The Gaza Strip on the other hand was ceded to the Palestinians, and they elected the terrorist group Hamas that launches rockets against Israeli civilians.

Israel maintains an iron grip on Gaza, determining what its people eat and how much they eat, who can enter and who can leave, what they can import and export, which homes may be rebuilt after destruction by the IDF. They elected Hamas as a resistance movement to defend them against Israeli oppression. Only Israel and a handful of other states list Hamas as a terrorist organisation. A European Union court has ordered Hamas to be delisted (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30511569), as its terrorist listing was not evidence-based.

ER
21-04-2016, 07:20 PM
Only Israel and a handful of other states list Hamas as a terrorist organisation. A European Union court has ordered Hamas to be delisted (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30511569), as its terrorist listing was not evidence-based.

I thought that EU (29 countries incl. the UK) still keeps them on their terrorist list! http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/eu-hamas-still-terrorist-blacklist-265258229
The "handful of other states" - Australia, USA, Canada, UK are all major exponents of freedom and democracy. One couldn't really expect them not to condemn
a murderous organisation which endorses massacres of innocent people!

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2016, 01:06 AM
Israel maintains an iron grip on Gaza,
Which would cease immediately if Hamas, the terrorist organization, stopped shooting rockets at Israeli civilians and hiding the rocket launchers among their own civilians, a double dead-baby strategy. It's not rocket science!

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2016, 01:10 AM
Where the Streets Have No Jokes (cont) (http://www.steynonline.com/7515/where-the-streets-have-no-jokes-cont)
Steyn on Europe, 15, April 2016


You can take the girl out of East Germany, but you can't take the East Germany out of the girl. In the Eighties, Angela Merkel, was a board member of the FDJ - the "Free German Youth", the kiddie wing of the one-party state - and the local secretary in charge of "agitprop". So she has a deep understanding of how art and even humble jokes must serve the needs of the regime - in this case, kissing up to the new sultan:

Chancellor Angela Merkel's government granted Turkey's request to proceed with legal action against a German satirist who derided President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, risking a domestic backlash over freedom of expression.


"We're allowing this because we are confident of the strong justice system in our state," Merkel told reporters in Berlin Friday.

There's no end of grim soundbites in her press conference today. How about this one?


"In a country under the rule of law, it is not up to the government to decide," Merkel said. "Prosecutors and courts should weight personal rights against the freedom of press and art."

Bog off, tosser. A free society does not threaten a guy with years in gaol for writing a poem. If you don't know that that's wrong, you should just cut to the chase and appoint yourself mutasarrıfa of Erdogan's neo-Ottoman sanjak of Berlin.

What a disgraceful person she is, the worst German chancellor since ...well, I don't want to go all Godwin's this early in the piece. But a few years ago, when Maclean's and I had our triple-jeopardy difficulties with the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, the Ontario "Human Rights" Commission and the British Columbia "Human Rights" Tribunal, the response of many of my fellow Canadians to the eventual outcome was along the lines of: "Well, I don't know what Steyn was making such a fuss about. The process played itself out and he was acquitted. So the system worked."

Some of these people were genuine innocents who've never been caught up in a time-consuming seven-figure legal battle before. But many others were making the argument cynically. They know that, if you can tie up a book or a magazine article in court, then there will be fewer books and magazine articles.

As I said, people who say, well, we have a "strong justice system" so let's let the process play out are either innocents who've never been tied up in court or cold cynics. The German Chancellor can hardly be an innocent in these matters. Like the Canadian Islamic Congress, she has a "strategic objective" and regardless of the verdict this trial will help her achieve it: There will be fewer poems, fewer satirical sketches, fewer jokes - not just about Erdogan, but about Islam in general. To reprise my old line: The process is the punishment.

Ian Murray
22-04-2016, 03:29 PM
Which would cease immediately if Hamas, the terrorist organization, stopped shooting rockets at Israeli civilians and hiding the rocket launchers among their own civilians, a double dead-baby strategy. It's not rocket science!

Don't be naive. Israel has no intention of unilaterally ending its occupation and brutal subjugation (there can be no kindly subjugation) of the indigenous population. The war will only end through negotiation or when the price for Israel becomes too high.

Rincewind
22-04-2016, 03:38 PM
when the price for Israel becomes too high.

With American foreign aid still freely flowing into Israel that probably won't be happening anytime soon.

Patrick Byrom
22-04-2016, 04:36 PM
Where the Streets Have No Jokes (cont) (http://www.steynonline.com/7515/where-the-streets-have-no-jokes-cont)
Steyn on Europe, 15, April 2016 ……
What is the connection between this and Israel/Palestine? Or between this and religious terrorism? Unless suing someone for libel now counts as 'terrorism'?

Ian Murray
22-04-2016, 04:47 PM
With American foreign aid still freely flowing into Israel that probably won't be happening anytime soon.

Quite so. It's a bottomless abyss. Hamas retaliates, Israel retaliates, Hamas retaliates, until Israel invades with massive force. Repeat the process.

Ian Murray
22-04-2016, 04:50 PM
What is the connection between this and Israel/Palestine? Or between this and religious terrorism? Unless suing someone for libel now counts as 'terrorism'?

Gives him a chance to slip in 'dhimitude' to impress us with his verbiage

Capablanca-Fan
03-05-2016, 12:09 PM
WHY ARE THERE STILL PALESTINIAN REFUGEES? (https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/why-are-there-still-palestinian-refugees)

It has been seven decades since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and yet there are still an estimated 4 million Palestinian refugees...and zero ‪#‎Jewish‬ refugees. With so many nearby Arab allies of the ‪#‎Palestinians‬, how did this happen? What does it say about ‪#‎Israel‬? What does it say about its ‪#‎Arab‬ neighbors? Dumisani Washington, Diversity Outreach Coordinator for Christians United for Israel (CUFI) explains.

Ian Murray
04-05-2016, 10:17 AM
WHY ARE THERE STILL PALESTINIAN REFUGEES?

It has been seven decades since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and yet there are still an estimated 4 million Palestinian refugees...and zero ‪#‎Jewish‬ refugees.

The reality in Israel is another matter. Nowadays African refugees (http://ardc-israel.org/en/content/refugees-israel) are turned back at the border or detained indefinitely, while Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis who look like Arabs are in constant danger of attacks by racist mobs (https://newmatilda.com/2016/04/19/youtube-executions-state-sponsored-retribution-and-israels-racial-divide/).

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2016, 10:25 AM
More Pallywood (http://www.pallywood.com/) nonsense.

Rincewind
04-05-2016, 12:03 PM
More Pallywood (http://www.pallywood.com/) nonsense.

More of Jono just justifying his own violent extremism in the name of his invisible friend.

Ian Murray
04-05-2016, 12:19 PM
More Pallywood nonsense.

None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see
- Matthew Henry

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2016, 02:30 AM
More of Jono just justifying his own violent extremism in the name of his invisible friend.

More of RW projecting, at least the violent extremism that comes from the Palestinian side that tries to maximize civilian casualties, both its own and Israel's. But the real reason RW and IM hate Israel is their hatred of the Judeo-Chrisitan world view, even though Israel has by far the best record on religious and press freedom, and rights for women and gays.

Ian Murray
10-05-2016, 08:25 AM
Was This Top Israeli General Right To Denounce Jewish Extremism on Holocaust Day? (http://forward.com/opinion/340173/was-this-top-israeli-general-right-to-denounce-jewish-extremism-on-holocaus/#ixzz486jJfQ82)
Forward
8.5.16

What on earth could have possessed the second-in-command of Israel’s armed forces to kick off Yom Hashoah, the national Holocaust remembrance day, with a May 4 speech likening Israel today to Germany on the eve of World War II?...

The IDF General Who Challenged Netanyahu’s Suffocating Holocaust Analogies (http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.718231)
Ha'aretz
6.5.16

...Golan’s main message, as Netanyahu probably knows, was that the kind of inflamed nationalistic rumble that erupted from the demonstrations in favor of Sgt. Elor Azaria, the soldier who shot the terrorist – which Netanyahu, at best, did nothing to quell – were ugly and dangerous and, yes, reminiscent of darker times. That such rallies, as well as statements made by irresponsible politicians, carry an implicit and often explicit message that killing Palestinian terrorists, no matter what the circumstances, is not only excusable but also desirable (and they’re all terrorists in the end, as everyone knows). And that the IDF’s anachronistic efforts to cling to its old-time leftist and defeatist values of “purity of arms” and to adhere as much as possible to the commonly accepted laws of war and rules of engagement have no place in today’s all-out battle to the death against Israel’s enemies....

Capablanca-Fan
23-05-2016, 11:09 PM
Caroline Glick shut down the debate with this bombshell speech (http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/caroline-glick-shut-down-the-debate-with-this-bombshell-speech/)

Leftists want to throw Jews out of certain lands they own and make more judenrein states, just to appease Hamas whose charter stated the annihilation of all Jews and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbad who denies the Holocaust.

Ian Murray
24-05-2016, 09:07 AM
Caroline Glick shut down the debate with this bombshell speech

Leftists want to throw Jews out of certain lands they own and make more judenrein states, just to appease Hamas whose charter stated the annihilation of all Jews and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbad who denies the Holocaust.

Despite the histrionics, even the Supreme Court of Israel agrees that the settlements are in violation of international law.

Capablanca-Fan
22-06-2016, 02:03 PM
Column One: Obama and the moderate Muslims (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Obama-and-the-moderate-Muslims-457032)
Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, 16 June 2016


On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in Obama’s view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.

But what moderate Muslims is Obama trying to help? Consider his treatment of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

Sisi is without a doubt, the most outspoken and powerful advocate of a moderate reformation of Islam, and of Islamic rejection of jihad, alive today.

Certainly since September 11, 2001, no Muslim leader has issues a clearer call for moderation in Islam than Sisi did in that speech. And he has continued to speak in the manner ever since.

No other Muslim leader of note has put everything on the line as Sisi has to defeat the forces of jihad both on the field and in the mosques.

Moreover, Sisi has put his anti-jihadist belief into action by expanding security cooperation between Egypt and Israel and by bringing the Gulf states into his undeclared alliance with the Jewish state.

He has also acted to end the demonization of Israel in the Egyptian media.

Obviously, supporting Sisi is a no-brainer for a leader who insists that his goal is to empower moderate Muslims. And yet, far from being Sisi’s greatest supporter, Obama opposes him.

Since Sisi led the Egyptian military in overthrowing the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime as it was poised to transform Egypt into a jihadist terrorist state, Obama has worked to undermine him.

Ian Murray
23-06-2016, 09:31 AM
Column One: Obama and the moderate Muslims (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Obama-and-the-moderate-Muslims-457032)
Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, 16 June 2016


On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in Obama’s view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.

But what moderate Muslims is Obama trying to help? Consider his treatment of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi…

Sisi, a moderate! To far-right Israelis maybe, but not to the rest of the world. He runs an authoritarian regime best known for its murderous repression, but also for its suicidal economic mismanagement.

Egypt Under al-Sisi: The Republic of Dread (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-williams2/egypt-under-al-sisi-the-r_b_9296690.html)

The United States can’t save Egypt from itself (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/04/04-egypt-advocacy-letter-wittes)

Rincewind
23-06-2016, 11:21 AM
Sisi, a moderate! To far-right Israelis maybe, but not to the rest of the world.

I believe your equivocating. Although an extreme authoritarian, Sisi ins a moderate Muslim and has initiated programs towards more moderate forms of Islam. He as also attempted to build bridges between Muslims and Coptics in Egypt. e.g. Egyptian president attends Coptic Christmas Eve mass in Cairo (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/egypt-president-sisi-coptic-christmas-mass-cairo)

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2016, 02:14 PM
Sisi, a moderate! To far-right Israelis maybe, but not to the rest of the world. He runs an authoritarian regime best known for its murderous repression,
As RW said above, a moderate Muslim but not a moderate politician. But what would you replace him with? The deeply unpopular Morsi and the Muslim brotherhood, not exactly moderate Muslims, nor moderate politicians, since Morsi gave himself unlimited powers and removed judicial review of his decrees. Under Morsi, many Christians were tortured and murdered (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/august/egypt-christians-allege-torture-under-morsi-regime/?mobile=false), and many schools and churches burned. Of course, it would be far better to have a thriving democracy with a free press and checks and balances—like Israel.

Patrick Byrom
23-06-2016, 03:36 PM
As RW said above, a moderate Muslim but not a moderate politician. But what would you replace him with? The deeply unpopular Morsi and the Muslim brotherhood, not exactly moderate Muslims, nor moderate politicians, since Morsi gave himself unlimited powers and removed judicial review of his decrees. Under Morsi, many Christians were tortured and murdered (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/august/egypt-christians-allege-torture-under-morsi-regime/?mobile=false), and many schools and churches burned. Of course, it would be far better to have a thriving democracy with a free press and checks and balances—like Israel.
It's not our responsibility to find a suitable replacement. President Sisi should hold free and democratic elections, and let the Egyptians vote on a replacement - if they want to. Killing and imprisoning non-violent protestors will inevitably create more violent radicals - which is why Obama is keeping his distance from the regime.

ER
23-06-2016, 05:30 PM
...President Sisi should hold free and democratic elections...

:lol:

Rahane_S (Axiom)
23-06-2016, 08:30 PM
It's not our responsibility to find a suitable replacement.

Except if we're trying to export Freedom.

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2016, 03:13 AM
It's not our responsibility to find a suitable replacement.

If you want something to change, then it is your responsibility to make sure that the replacement is better, or butt out. There are plenty of historical examples of a bad regime being overthrown but being replaced by a far worse one, e.g. Tsarist Russia, the French monarchy, the Weimar Republic.


President Sisi should hold free and democratic elections, and let the Egyptians vote on a replacement - if they want to.
As the American founding fathers realized, democracy can lead to mob rule if there are not constitutional protections for the minority. A majority vote for murders of Christians is not what should be encouraged, but that has been the unfortunate reality in the middle east, except for Israel and a few other countries.


Killing and imprisoning non-violent protestors will inevitably create more violent radicals -
We all agree that persecuting non-violent protestors is wrong. But then, many people who whinge also hate Israel that has freedom to protest non-violently, alone of all the countries in the middle east.


which is why Obama is keeping his distance from the regime.

Didn't stop him helping to oust Mubarak and helping usher in the oppressive Muslim Brotherhood regime, whose leader Morsi was transforming into an absolute ruler. More likely, Obamov doesn't like Sisi because his regime doesn't persecute Christians as Morsi's did.

Patrick Byrom
24-06-2016, 12:41 PM
If you want something to change, then it is your responsibility to make sure that the replacement is better, or butt out. There are plenty of historical examples of a bad regime being overthrown but being replaced by a far worse one, e.g. Tsarist Russia, the French monarchy, the Weimar Republic.You don't seem to grasp the idea that I want the Egyptians to make their own choices. If the Muslim Brotherhood is as unpopular as you say, then President Sisi should be re-elected in a landslide!


As the American founding fathers realized, democracy can lead to mob rule if there are not constitutional protections for the minority. A majority vote for murders of Christians is not what should be encouraged, but that has been the unfortunate reality in the middle east, except for Israel and a few other countries.And lack of democracy can lead to even worse outcomes - as happened with Tsarist Russia and the French monarchy.


Didn't stop him helping to oust Mubarak and helping usher in the oppressive Muslim Brotherhood regime, whose leader Morsi was transforming into an absolute ruler. More likely, Obamov doesn't like Sisi because his regime doesn't persecute Christians as Morsi's did.I see you've become an advocate of the Trump conspiracy theories about Obama. It's no surprise that NeverTrump was such a failure, since Trump's opponents agree with him on so many issues.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2016, 03:07 AM
You don't seem to grasp the idea that I want the Egyptians to make their own choices.
Oh really? Except when there are massive protests against Morsi, evidently. Also, I note that you don't want the British to be able to make their own choice independent of unelected and unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats.

Also, as the American founders realized, the majority should not always be allowed to make choices if they infringe on individual life, property, and liberty. Many of Morsi's supporters murdered Christians (which is why Obamov loves them), and I don't care if this had majority support.


If the Muslim Brotherhood is as unpopular as you say, then President Sisi should be re-elected in a landslide!
Why is your ilk concerned about free elections, until it concerns a leftist, black African, or Islamist despot?


And lack of democracy can lead to even worse outcomes - as happened with Tsarist Russia and the French monarchy.
But this proves my point: if you want to overthrow an autocratic regime, make sure that it is not replaced with one even more tyrannical and murderous.


I see you've become an advocate of the Trump conspiracy theories about Obama.
I don't care what Trump says about Obamov or about anything else. It is a matter of observation that Obamov has supported the more Islamist regime in Libya, Egypt, and even Israel/Palestine.


It's no surprise that NeverTrump was such a failure, since Trump's opponents agree with him on so many issues.
If a man speaks on both sides of his mouth and constantly changes position, then it's not surprising that you can cherry-pick to find points of agreement. That's a mistake the Trumpanzee Cult makes all the time.

Patrick Byrom
25-06-2016, 02:14 PM
Oh really? Except when there are massive protests against Morsi, evidently. Also, I note that you don't want the British to be able to make their own choice independent of unelected and unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats.Where have I said anything about the protests against Morsi - except to point out that if there is so much support for President Sisi, why is he afraid to hold free elections? And the British people made a democratic choice to join the EU 45 years ago. I have no problem with them making a second choice, but I have a democratic right to argue that they should have stayed in the EU.


Also, as the American founders realized, the majority should not always be allowed to make choices if they infringe on individual life, property, and liberty. ...The American founders were in favour of free elections, of course, as I am.


Why is your ilk concerned about free elections, until it concerns a leftist, black African, or Islamist despot?Are there any Chess Chat posts defending African or Islamist despots for me to respond to? Have I ever opposed democratic elections anywhere?


I don't care what Trump says about Obamov or about anything else. It is a matter of observation that Obamov has supported the more Islamist regime in Libya, Egypt, and even Israel/Palestine.You may not care what Trump says, but you still agree with him on many, many issues. But I'm glad that you're no longer agreeing with Trump that Obama is in favour of persecuting Christians, as you did previously: "More likely, Obamov doesn't like Sisi because his regime doesn't persecute Christians as Morsi's did."

Capablanca-Fan
26-06-2016, 11:59 AM
The American founders were in favour of free elections, of course, as I am.
But not democratic elections. It doesn't matter if a majority wants to ban free exercise of religion; they can't do it according to the Constitution. But the "democracy" that resulted in Morsi also meant 10 radical Muslims and one Christian voting on whether Christians should be persecuted. Screw that sort of democracy.


You may not care what Trump says, but you still agree with him on many, many issues.
This crap again. But you don't really know what Trump's position is on almost any issue, because it changes day by day.


But I'm glad that you're no longer agreeing with Trump that Obama is in favour of persecuting Christians, as you did previously: "More likely, Obamov doesn't like Sisi because his regime doesn't persecute Christians as Morsi's did."
I stand by that. His state department took far too long to recognize this (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/07/isil-murder-christians-middle-east-recognition-genocide-column/76932274/), although did so belatedly a few months ago (http://www.npr.org/2016/03/17/470861310/state-department-declares-isis-attacks-on-christians-constitute-genocide), but actively discriminates against Christian refugees (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees).

ER
26-06-2016, 12:22 PM
... But the "democracy" that resulted in Morsi also meant 10 radical Muslims and one Christian voting on whether Christians should be persecuted. Screw that sort of democracy.

Which reminds me of a picture I took in Canada recently ... :)

3166



Caption: So you demand a bit more personal space huh? well we can always put it on the vote mate!
Lonsdale Quay Photo:Elliott Renzies

Patrick Byrom
26-06-2016, 03:27 PM
But not democratic elections. It doesn't matter if a majority wants to ban free exercise of religion; they can't do it according to the Constitution. But the "democracy" that resulted in Morsi also meant 10 radical Muslims and one Christian voting on whether Christians should be persecuted. Screw that sort of democracy.Or if a majority in a state wants to ban gay marriage or abortion, of course, they are also prevented by the US Constitution.

But I'm not sure why you're bringing up the US Constitution. Egypt has its own constitution (http://www.sis.gov.eg/Newvr/Dustor-en001.pdf), which was passed under President Sisi, which imposes Sharia Law (Article 2): "Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language. The principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation." So why not hold elections under that Constitution?

EDIT: I should clarify that Presidential elections were held under that Constitution in 2014. However, the constitution has severe restrictions on political parties (Article 74), so several of the parties boycotted the election:

All citizens shall have the right to form political parties by notification as regulated by Law. No political activity may be practiced and no political parties may be formed on the basis of religion or discrimination based on sex, or origin, or on sectarian basis or geographic location.
So no Muslim Brotherhood or Christian Democrats - not exactly freedom of religion.


I stand by that. His state department took far too long to recognize this (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/07/isil-murder-christians-middle-east-recognition-genocide-column/76932274/), although did so belatedly a few months ago (http://www.npr.org/2016/03/17/470861310/state-department-declares-isis-attacks-on-christians-constitute-genocide), but actively discriminates against Christian refugees (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees).So no evidence for Obama actively supporting the persecution of Christians. That last reference is the closest, but as it refers to the myth of "the Muslim no-go and Sharia patrol areas of Britain", I find it hard to take seriously.

Ian Murray
27-06-2016, 08:29 AM
...So no evidence for Obama actively supporting the persecution of Christians. That last reference is the closest, but as it refers to the myth of "the Muslim no-go and Sharia patrol areas of Britain", I find it hard to take seriously.

The last reference accuses the State Dept of choosing "to adhere to a definition of refugees as people persecuted by their own government", which has no basis in fact. The reference link is to a WND report (http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/u-n-sending-thousands-of-muslims-to-america/#!) which states "The announcement came Tuesday on the State Department’s website" and goes on to say:

The State Department announcement was careful to explain that the U.S. will take in only those Syrians who are “persecuted by their government.” Christians in Syria are being killed by ISIS and other Muslim rebels, not by “their government,” but the Sunni Muslims are being killed by the Shiite-led government

The State announcement (http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/remarks/2014/234855.htm) says nothing of the sort. The factual refugee policy is outlined here (http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2016/254651.htm). Note particularly that UNHCR does the initial processing outside Syria. There is no refugee processing within Syria by the US or anyone else because of the civil war.

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2016, 12:18 PM
The Palestinian Incentive Program for Killing Jews (http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-01/the-palestinian-incentive-program-for-killing-jews)
Eli Lake, Bloomberg, 1 July 2016

Whoever said crime doesn't pay hasn't talked to the family of a Palestinian terrorist. For the Palestine Liberation Organization and the related Palestinian Authority, the killers of Jewish Israelis are considered "martyrs." And as such, their families are paid for the service these murderers have done for the Palestinian cause.

This has come to light this week after a Palestinian, Mohammed Tarayra, stabbed Hallel Yaffa Ariel, a 13-year-old Israeli girl (http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/As-investigations-begin-reports-that-father-of-murdered-teen-among-security-forces-who-found-her-459194), as she was sleeping in her bed. The stabbing was part of a wave of attacks by Palestinians who have for nearly eight months been shooting, stabbing and running down Jews with the encouragement of social media and popular songs.

According to the latest report of the Russian, European, U.S. and U.N. group known as the Quartet, there have been 250 of these kinds of attacks since October. It says, "These terrorist attacks, which have been carried out mostly by young, unaffiliated individuals, contribute to the sense among Israelis of living under constant threat."

But this misses important context. The Quartet's report, which is even handed to a fault, makes no mention of the "martyr's fund," through which the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization pay the families of all Palestinian prisoners and the families of martyrs. So while there is no evidence that the Palestinian government plans these killing sprees, it encourages them as a legitimate act of resistance.

Capablanca-Fan
03-07-2016, 03:06 AM
Palestinian terrorism and Muslim hypocrisy: An open letter from a Muslim woman (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-terrorism-and-muslim-hypocrisy-an-open-letter-from-a-muslim-woman/)
Times of Israel, 1 July 2016


I am a Muslim, and I know that when it comes to Palestinian terrorism, too many Muslims are hypocrites. I have seen firsthand the casual, destructive anti-Semitism that plagues the Muslim community. I have heard it from the mouths of our religious leaders, from our politicians, and even from our otherwise peaceful, liberal Muslim activists. I have witnessed in horror the desperate attempts to justify Palestinian terrorism from people who I once respected. Why? Why do we decry all other types of terrorism, but bend over backwards to legitimize violence against Israeli Jews?

We blame it on “Zionism.” We blame it on “occupation.” We blame it on “apartheid.” We lap up the tired, anti-Semitic lies fed to us by Al-Jazeera: “Israelis cut off the water supply!” “Israelis are going to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque!” We’re not even willing to admit that Israel is a country. We call it “Palestine.” We refuse to call violence against Israelis “terrorism,” and we hypocritically scream, “Resistance is not a crime!”

Let me tell you something. Stabbing pregnant women in the stomach is not “resistance.” Shooting people at a cafe is not “resistance.” Driving your car into pedestrians is not “resistance.” Bombing a bus is not “resistance.” Breaking into a woman’s home and murdering her in front of her children is not “resistance.” And stabbing a little girl to death in the one place where she was supposed to be safe is certainly not “resistance.” Terrorism is not resistance. Terrorism is an unjustifiable crime.

Ian Murray
05-07-2016, 05:59 PM
The Palestinian Incentive Program for Killing Jews
Eli Lake, Bloomberg, 1 July 2016

Whoever said crime doesn't pay hasn't talked to the family of a Palestinian terrorist. For the Palestine Liberation Organization and the related Palestinian Authority, the killers of Jewish Israelis are considered "martyrs." And as such, their families are paid for the service these murderers have done for the Palestinian cause....…

Israeli and Israel-endorsed casualties or their families also receive lump-sum and monthly payments if killed or injured while occupying the Palestinian territories.
https://www.mishpahot-hantzaha.mod.gov.il/mhn/documents/english%20version.pdf
https://www.btl.gov.il/English%20Homepage/Benefits/Benefits%20for%20Victims%20of%20Hostilities/Pages/default.aspx

jammo
05-07-2016, 10:07 PM
Israeli and Israel-endorsed casualties or their families also receive lump-sum and monthly payments if killed or injured while occupying the Palestinian territories.
https://www.mishpahot-hantzaha.mod.gov.il/mhn/documents/english%20version.pdf
https://www.btl.gov.il/English%20Homepage/Benefits/Benefits%20for%20Victims%20of%20Hostilities/Pages/default.aspx

Perhaps they are different if one is compensation for being killed whilst the other is reward for doing the killing?

Ian Murray
06-07-2016, 12:59 PM
Perhaps they are different if one is compensation for being killed whilst the other is reward for doing the killing?

Payment of compensation to the family of someone killed by hostile forces is not a reward. Same applies to Israelis injured while attacking Palestinians, with the difference that they have overwhelming force of arms and are much less likely to be killed. Even their senior officers are free to kill (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israeli-killing-of-palestinian-teen-offers-study-in-west-bank-perceptions/2015/07/08/7f46afb4-240c-11e5-b621-b55e495e9b78_story.html) unarmed boys with impunity, an example not lost on the other ranks.

Capablanca-Fan
07-07-2016, 03:30 AM
↑↑ The usual moral equivalence from the Israel-haters here. No Israeli is paid to murder Palestinian civilians. It should have been obvious: Israeli families are compensated if Israelis are injured or killed; Palestinian families are compensated also when Israelis are killed.

Ian Murray
08-07-2016, 06:39 AM
↑↑ The usual moral equivalence from the Israel-haters here. No Israeli is paid to murder Palestinian civilians. It should have been obvious: Israeli families are compensated if Israelis are injured or killed; Palestinian families are compensated also when Israelis are killed.

When an Israeli is killed, the family of the assailant is turned out on the street and their home demolished (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.627845), under the collective punishment policy practised by the Netanyahu regime. And taxes paid by Palestinians are redirected to the Israeli coffers as punishment for payment of "martyrs' compensation".

And talking of moral eqivalence, IDF members have to choose between the rules of engagement (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.703897) framed by their high command and the urgings of their religious and political leaders (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.708648) to ignore the ROE and kill Arabs indiscriminately. The result is the ongoing killing of non-combatants with no fear of punishment.

The uneasy truce between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, with mutual security assistance, is as good as it will ever get for Israel while it maintains the occupation and oppression. But that doesn't suit the Netanyahu narrative, which feeds on demonising Palestinians, so he is ever looking for ways to expand provocation.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2016, 08:01 AM
When an Israeli is killed, the family of the assailant is turned out on the street and their home demolished (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.627845), under the collective punishment policy practised by the Netanyahu regime. And taxes paid by Palestinians are redirected to the Israeli coffers as punishment for payment of "martyrs' compensation".
Again, this is whinging about Israeli inflicting punishment for killing an Israeli; the Palestinian Authority rewards those who kill Israelis.


And talking of moral eqivalence, IDF members have to choose between the rules of engagement (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.703897) framed by their high command and the urgings of their religious and political leaders (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.708648) to ignore the ROE and kill Arabs indiscriminately. The result is the ongoing killing of non-combatants with no fear of punishment.
It should tell everyone but the hardened antisemite something: that Israelis have rules of engagement, while Palestinians are rewarded for deliberately killing non-combatants. Once again, invading a home and killing a mother in front of her family, shooting people in a cafe, and stabbing a little girl are not "resistance" but terrorism.


The uneasy truce between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, with mutual security assistance, is as good as it will ever get for Israel while it maintains the occupation and oppression. But that doesn't suit the Netanyahu narrative, which feeds on demonising Palestinians, so he is ever looking for ways to expand provocation.
Palestinians do a great job of demonizing themselves by murdering children and shooting rockets from their own civilian areas into Israeli civilian areas. Israel is far more restrained than almost any

Ian Murray
09-07-2016, 09:42 AM
Again, this is whinging about Israeli inflicting punishment for killing an Israeli; the Palestinian Authority rewards those who kill Israelis.
The Israelis inflict punishment on those who have committed no crime, the families of terrorists (who can't themselves be punished - they're dead).


It should tell everyone but the hardened antisemite something: that Israelis have rules of engagement, while Palestinians are rewarded for deliberately killing non-combatants. Once again, invading a home and killing a mother in front of her family, shooting people in a cafe, and stabbing a little girl are not "resistance" but terrorism.
The IDF has rules of engagement which are not binding on its forces, who are free to deliberately kill non-combatants with impunity, which is also terrorism. Even the shooting of a teenager in the back several times by a senior officer, because he was suspected of stone-throwing, was dismissed as "an error of judgment".

As an Australian, I compare the performance of Australian forces in Afghanistan against Taliban terrorists. Only armed combatants could be engaged. Once a combatant became unarmed, e.g. by abandoning his weapon, he became a non-combatant and could not be fired upon. In the IDF it's OK to shoot them in the head while they're unarmed and incapacitated.

Ian Murray
14-07-2016, 02:32 PM
Why We Must Speak Out Against The Occupation (http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/why-we-must-speak-out-against-occupation#H5WeVpQHJAA0u2bI.99)
The Jewish Week
12.7.16

...We agree that an end to the occupation is not the end of the story. We understand that such an action is rather part of a larger agreement that must, in our view, fulfill the vision of two sovereign states – a secure and democratic Israel, and a viable Palestine – living side-by-side in peace and security. ... there are no easy answers. Securing Israel’s future and achieving a Palestinian state will take the leadership of many actors; we in the American Jewish community are only one part of a much larger, much more complicated puzzle....

What could leaders do to prevent Israel’s further drift toward a one-state nightmare of isolation and violence?

We have some thoughts. Last week, the Israeli government announced its plans to construct 42 new homes in Kiryat Arba, following the tragic and devastating murder of a 13-year-old girl there. In the same week, a new funding package for settlements, intended especially to bolster tourism, was announced. Most in our community ... agree that settlement announcements like this will never bring an end to the violence and will only further entrench the conflict....

The JCPA – or the AJC, ADL, or any other institution – could have taken this opportunity to express concern and alarm over such counterproductive moves by the government. Doing so wouldn’t solve the conflict. It also wouldn’t preclude speaking out against terror and counterproductive actions taken by Palestinians. But it would demonstrate our values by making clear that we will not support Israeli government policies that harm the very state that they, and we, seek to protect.

Negotiations toward a peace deal may seem far away at the moment. Still, there are Jewish community leaders who see how, in the interim, settlement expansion is making the prospects for an eventual agreement more difficult. And they are beginning to speak out about this. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of Union of Reform Judaism, publicly declared his movement’s opposition to settlements at its biennial, citing that “the occupation threatens the very Zionism we hold dear.” Jeremy Burton, Executive Director of the Boston JCRC, wrote earlier this year that despite Jewish communal discomfort around the word “occupation,” we must acknowledge the reality of occupation in order to commit to a secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. Others should follow their lead....

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2016, 03:09 AM
↑↑ It's crass to reward terrorism.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2016, 10:29 AM
As we would have expected, the thug who murdered 80 French people was another conservative Christian, this time by the name of Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel (http://toprightnews.com/breaking-identity-of-french-truck-terrorist-revealed-trump-responds/).

We also clearly need more truck control laws.

Patrick Byrom
16-07-2016, 12:28 PM
...We also clearly need more truck control laws.If mass killings by truck were anywhere near as common as mass shootings, we would.

Kevin Bonham
16-07-2016, 12:54 PM
As we would have expected, the thug who murdered 80 French people was another conservative Christian, this time by the name of Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel (http://toprightnews.com/breaking-identity-of-french-truck-terrorist-revealed-trump-responds/).

The early indications are that he was not especially religious if he was even religious at all, and that he was anything but a devout Muslim. Of course it may well be that he converted or was radicalised prior to the attack, as has been the case with many of these other lunatics.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2016, 05:44 AM
If mass killings by truck were anywhere near as common as mass shootings, we would.

Of course, we should ban only automatic trucks and semis, or more precisely, assault trucks.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2016, 05:20 AM
It's not our responsibility to find a suitable replacement. President Sisi should hold free and democratic elections, and let the Egyptians vote on a replacement - if they want to. Killing and imprisoning non-violent protestors will inevitably create more violent radicals - which is why Obama is keeping his distance from the regime.

Restricting Democracy in Order to Protect Other Liberal Values (http://volokh.com/2013/07/05/restricting-democracy-in-order-to-protect-other-liberal-values/)
by Ilya Somin, Volokh Conspiracy, 5 July 2013

Some argue that it would be hypocritical for the United States or other Western nations to support the recent military coup against radical Islamist Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. After all, we supposedly champion democracy, and Morsi was democratically elected. Whether the US should endorse the post-coup government, oppose it, or take a wait-and-see attitude is a tough question. But it isn’t inherently hypocritical for liberal democrats to—in some cases—support the overthrow of an elected government.

That’s because democracy is not the only important liberal value, and not always the most important one. At the very least, the liberal tradition, broadly defined, also values individual freedom, equality for women, toleration of religious and ethnic minorities, economic progress, and the prevention of mass murder, slavery, and genocide. Most of the time, democracy promotes these other liberal values better than the available alternative regimes. But not always. Democracy and liberal values conflict in cases where public opinion is highly illiberal and cases where the democratic process brings to power parties that intend to shut down future political competition. Both problems are relevant to the present situation in Egypt and at least some other nations.

I. Illiberal Majority Opinion.

II. The “One Man, One Vote, One Time” Problem

Patrick Byrom
19-07-2016, 12:44 PM
Restricting Democracy in Order to Protect Other Liberal Values (http://volokh.com/2013/07/05/restricting-democracy-in-order-to-protect-other-liberal-values/)
by Ilya Somin, Volokh Conspiracy, 5 July 2013

Some argue that it would be hypocritical for the United States or other Western nations to support the recent military coup against radical Islamist Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. After all, we supposedly champion democracy, and Morsi was democratically elected. Whether the US should endorse the post-coup government, oppose it, or take a wait-and-see attitude is a tough question. But it isn’t inherently hypocritical for liberal democrats to—in some cases—support the overthrow of an elected government.
Obviously, if a democratically elected government refuses to hold fair elections, then it can no longer claim democratic legitimacy. Which is a problem with the government of President Sisi. But this needs to be established before an overthrow can be justified - there have been a lot of claims about what Morsi was going to do, but now we'll never know for certain.

I'm surprised that you're quoting Somin's 'Illiberal Majority Opinion' argument, as you have consistently opposed this in the past. For example, in the US majorities were making illiberal choices on gay marriage so - based on Somin's argument - the Supreme Court was perfectly justified in overthrowing their democratic decisions.

That makes sense in the US, as the majority of US voters support marriage equality. But imposing values that a majority don't support is probably not going to work in general, and simply creates a problem for the future.

The final problem with supporting coups is that it inevitably leads to further coups - like the recent one in Turkey.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2016, 02:23 PM
An axe-man who stormed a passenger train and hacked at terrified passengers while shouting "Allahu Akbar" has been identified as a 17-year-old Afghan who entered Germany as a lone refugee (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/germany-train-axe-attack-afghan-8445784) and became a devout Lutheran. Ban assault axes!

Rincewind
19-07-2016, 02:47 PM
An axe-man who stormed a passenger train and hacked at terrified passengers while shouting "Allahu Akbar" has been identified as a 17-year-old Afghan who entered Germany as a lone refugee (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/germany-train-axe-attack-afghan-8445784) and became a devout Lutheran. Ban assault axes!

I'd rather ban people make specious analogies. It appears that this guy was suffering from a mental illness and fortunately he was not in the US where we would have had ready access to firearms or else we may have seen another Aurora incident. Aurora is a good example of why there needs to be some control to firearms because without that 21 injured could easily become 12 dead and 70 injured.

Desmond
19-07-2016, 11:46 PM
As we would have expected, the thug who murdered 80 French people was another conservative Christian, this time by the name of Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel (http://toprightnews.com/breaking-identity-of-french-truck-terrorist-revealed-trump-responds/).

Was he one of the 30-40% of French who are non-religious?

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2016, 11:18 AM
Highly Educated Idiots (http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/07/highly-educated-idiots/)
TIMOTHY COOTES, Quadrant, 20 July 2016

There on the ABC, right on schedule after the Nice massacre, was an argument for moral equivalence being presented by no less than a full-blown academic from the University of Sydney. It takes that sort of mind to grasp that the US is no different from its Islamist adversaries.

For a measure of proof, I invite the reader to consider last Friday’s episode of ABC’s The Drum, which featured Peter Chen, a senior lecturer in politics at University of Sydney. The topic was the ongoing assault on French civil society, but Chen seemed to wonder if this was a conversation worth having at all. He argued that what happened in Nice was awful, of course, but it was hardly new: the conversion of trucks into weapons of suicide terror happens every day in other parts of the world. For Chen, shock was an invalid emotional response. It proved that Westerners only care about their own. He sneered: “Why are we shocked about this? Because it occurred in France.”

It’s easy to rejoin with the obvious point that the French Riviera and the Middle East are different places; that it’s reasonable to have a stronger emotional connection to one over the other; and, most importantly, that most people are shocked by Islamist terror no matter where it takes place. This is because the goal is always the same: the Islamist fanatics who randomly murder and immiserate their subjects in Baghdad and Beirut and elsewhere have plans for our society, too. If we reject that vision here, we must reject it everywhere.

[There is a] standard left-wing response to a terror attack, which goes something like this: let’s ransack the past for an instance of inexpiable Western guilt; we rid ourselves of moral authority and the responsibility to condemn; we exculpate the perpetrators, and as for the victims, well, let’s just say they deserve what they get.

Regarding the role of Islam, the response is: “I think we can call this radical Islamic terrorism if we can call civilian casualties of drone strikes radical Christian terrorism, because the United States is a Christian country. All its political elites, you know, they swear on the Bible, they are extremely pious.”
And here, right on schedule, is the argument for moral equivalence. Apparently, the US government is no different from its Islamist adversaries. A shabby argument, yes, and even Chen would agree. He added that because a sensible person would reject such a religious characterisation of the US, one must therefore reject any connection between Islam and terror, too.

This is somewhat shabbier, to put it mildly. It’s a rather lengthy leap of logic and it’s no surprise that Chen ends up supine. But that’s exactly where he wants us to be. Such a worldview offers neither a plan of action, nor a coherent way of thinking. Chen added: “There is nothing we can do … to prevent these lone-wolf attacks.” And there you have it, the whole package: equivalence, uselessness, and a chirpy fatalism at no extra charge.

Patrick Byrom
20-07-2016, 01:49 PM
Highly Educated Idiots (http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/07/highly-educated-idiots/)TIMOTHY COOTES, Quadrant, 20 July 2016…
But there's no argument of moral equivalence in that quote. The academic is making the valid (and obvious) point that attaching the label "Islamic" to every action carried out by a Muslim is as meaningless as attaching the label "Christian" to every action carried out by a Christian.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2016, 05:34 AM
↑↑↑ More moral equivalence, just what the author critiqued.

Patrick Byrom
21-07-2016, 11:03 AM
↑↑↑ More moral equivalence, just what the author critiqued.And where did I imply any moral equivalence between anything? My point applies to chess openings, for example - an opening isn't 'Islamic' just because it's played by a few Muslim players. Is this an example of moral equivalence?

ER
11-09-2016, 12:34 PM
Burka banning! oh no, not in France or Australia! :P

http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/isis-bans-women-from-wearing-burkas-after-chiefs-attacked-by-veiled-assassins/news-story/5356534a06f3213389835f34281ecf80?utm_source=outbra in&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=World_Desktop

ISIS = Intolerant bastards??? Burka non Islamic after all??? :P LOL

Meanwhile back in Australia

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/man-charged-with-committing-terrorist-attack-attempted-murder-after-alleged-stabbing-in-sydney/ar-AAiJD25?ocid=spartandhp

Desmond
12-09-2016, 07:44 AM
A burka ban balk?

ER
12-09-2016, 12:59 PM
A burka ban balk?

LOL sounds like it! :)

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2016, 09:08 AM
GAUNTLET THROWN: Netanyahu Calls UN a ‘Global Moral Farce’… (http://louderwithcrowder.com/netanyahu-lowers-boom-un-global-moral-farce/)
23 September 2016

“For the disgrace of the General Assembly, that last year passed 20 resolutions against the democratic state of Israel and a grand total of three resolutions against all the other countries on the planet. Israel: 20, rest of the world: three.

“And what about the joke called the U.N. Human Rights Council, which each year condemns Israel more than all the other countries of the world combined. As women are being systematically raped, murdered, sold into slavery across the world, which is the only country that the U.N.’s Commission on Women chose to condemn this year? Yep, you guessed it, Israel. Israel, where women fly fighter jets, lead major corporations, head universities, preside, twice, over the Supreme Court, and have served as speaker of the Knesset and prime minister.

“Ladies and gentlemen, the U.N., begun as a moral force, has become a moral farce.”

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2016, 07:38 AM
‘Islamist Terrorists Continually Slaughter Christians’: Trump Says What Obama Refused to Say (https://stream.org/islamist-terrorists-continually-slaughter-christians-trump-says-obama-refused-say/)
Michael Brown, 20 December 2016


And so yesterday, in the aftermath of the horrific truck attack at the Christmas market in Germany, the Obama administration (not the president himself, who is apparently on his final Christmas break) issued a statement, saying, “The United States condemns in the strongest terms what appears to have been a terrorist attack on a Christmas Market in Berlin, Germany, which has killed and wounded dozens.”

In stark contrast, President-elect Trump stated:


Our hearts and prayers are with the loved ones of the victims of today’s horrifying terror attack in Berlin. Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday. ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad. These terrorists and their regional and worldwide networks must be eradicated from the face of the earth, a mission we will carry out with all freedom-loving partners.

In one short statement, Trump has done what Obama failed to do in eight years.

1) He identified “Islamist terrorists” by name, directly associating them with ISIS.

2) He specified that their victims have often been Christians, here during the Christmas season, and at other times, in their places of worship.

3) He declared war on these terrorists, asking “all freedom-loving partners” to join him in the battle, thereby opening the door to so-called moderate Islamic nations to join us in the battle. (Would Saudi Arabia fit in this category? How about Pakistan? Yemen? Syria? Libya?)

4) He used the term “global jihad,” again with specific reference to Islamic terror.

The significance of this can hardly be exaggerated.

Yet it is Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, who has connected the dots (really, these dots are all but connected for anyone with eyes to see), which is one reason that many Americans said No to four (or eight) more years of Obama policies (in the person of Hillary Clinton) and Yes to dramatic change in the person of Donald Trump.

It is true that his tweets can be reckless and unpresidential and that not all his saber-rattling is helpful. But it is also true that the world needs leaders like Trump who will call out Islamic terror by name, which is why right-leaning, populist movements are growing around the world — and it is not because Americans and Europeans and others are suddenly becoming “Islamophobic.”

No, the problem lies with radical, murderous, terroristic Islam and the failure of these governments to address it head on, as the leaders appear to be more concerned with offending “moderate Muslims” than with protecting their own citizens — including unarmed children, women, and men.

The time for that is over.

Adamski
21-12-2016, 04:05 PM
Good one, Trump. I often read Michael Brown - from the photo I see it is the same one as in "Ask Dr Brown". I own 4 books by him!

Patrick Byrom
22-12-2016, 01:35 PM
So Trump has transformed the war against terrorism into a 'war' between Islam and Christianity. It's no wonder ISIS was celebrating his election victory.

I notice that he has had almost nothing to say about the far worse slaughter of Muslims in Aleppo.