PDA

View Full Version : The Jewish lobby: what a precious lot



qpawn
07-08-2006, 01:07 PM
What a precious lot these people are who crucify Mel Gibson for his drunken outburst.

Does anyone know what we would blurt out if we were drunk? Can anything said in a drunken state be said to be the political soul of a person?

Israel has acted without due regard for innocent civillians in its its recent bombings of Lebanon. Then the Jewish lobby has the gall to crucify someone for an intoxicated outburst.

It's enough to make me stay a teetotaller for the rest of my life; if I start blurting out support for L Ron Hubbard, Jeff Kennett and the teletubbies during my night on the booze I could be in real trouble. Then again I am a nobody in the scheme of things. No one would care. But when you are a public figure the various political groups wait like sharks under the water ready to rip you to bits.

bergil
07-08-2006, 02:43 PM
What a precious lot these people are who crucify Mel Gibson for his drunken outburst.

If I start blurting out support for L Ron Hubbard, Jeff Kennett and the teletubbies during my night on the booze I could be in real trouble.
Damn right! If that happens I expect those in Victoria to do the right thing and go to a lumberyard and procure the materials needed. :P

MichaelBaron
07-08-2006, 05:55 PM
What a precious lot these people are who crucify Mel Gibson for his drunken outburst.

Does anyone know what we would blurt out if we were drunk? Can anything said in a drunken state be said to be the political soul of a person?

Israel has acted without due regard for innocent civillians in its its recent bombings of Lebanon. Then the Jewish lobby has the gall to crucify someone for an intoxicated outburst.

It's enough to make me stay a teetotaller for the rest of my life; if I start blurting out support for L Ron Hubbard, Jeff Kennett and the teletubbies during my night on the booze I could be in real trouble. Then again I am a nobody in the scheme of things. No one would care. But when you are a public figure the various political groups wait like sharks under the water ready to rip you to bits.

If you are drunk, you still have to accept full legal responsibility for your actions. Being drunk is no excuse.

bergil
07-08-2006, 06:38 PM
If you are drunk, you still have to accept full legal responsibility for your actions. Being drunk is no excuse.
That's right being drunk is no excuse but it'll blow over in time but it will never be forgotten, I mean its not like he murdered anyone of help fund a state to commit murder now did he? :uhoh:

firegoat7
07-08-2006, 07:28 PM
Qpawn,
I think your title for this thread is really ordinary. I also believe that comparing a celebrities moral behaviour with that of ordinary people is pretty much a waste of time. Mel Gibson is an elite with millions of dollars, he can afford, at the very least, not to drink drive. He is also a role model for many people, that is, he has a position in society which can influence the behaviour of others. I think the Jewish lobby groups are correct in reacting to his anti-semitism, what sort of idiot would behave in such a way? Answer: A rich ignorant one.

cheers fg7

qpawn
07-08-2006, 07:51 PM
Firegoat, your post nether surprises nor offends me. I say it how it is; I have always done so even if it offends people.

FYI I have nothing against individual Jewish people. It is just their lobbyists who have the brains of a can of paint thinner.

I feel sorry for anyone who sees Mel Gibson as a role model. I mean, role model for what? Hooning your car like MAD mAX? Donning a kilt and calling yourself the defender of the Scottish people? Knowing what on earth is going on inside the female sex: what womsn want??? Now, that is a real worry if someone models their romantic life upon that of Mr Gibson...:D

Of course as a high profile guy he is going to cop it from the Jewish lobby. He knows that. But the fact that such censure is a reality does not justify its nature or extent.

MichaelBaron
07-08-2006, 08:37 PM
Lets leave Mel Gibson's high profile aside for a moment.

Both drink-driving and anti-simetism are Legal offences under US and international laws. Thus, he is to face the punishment. The charges were not brough against him because of his profile and his movie credits. It is a trivial case of a person committing legal offences.

As for Mel's relationship with a "Jewish Lobby" it is Mel who is trying to patch things up because by shouting antisemitic slogans, he has committed a punishible legal offence. Now he is trying to do anything he can to avoid legal charges.

qpawn
07-08-2006, 08:55 PM
Michael, please refer to some spec ific aspect of US law/statute that shows a verbal expression of anti-semitism to be a sanctionable offence.

If you can come up with any link that satisfies the above I will be quite surprised.

firegoat7
07-08-2006, 10:04 PM
Firegoat, your post nether surprises nor offends me. I say it how it is; I have always done so even if it offends people.


No worries...handshake.


FYI I have nothing against individual Jewish people. It is just their lobbyists who have the brains of a can of paint thinner.

But it is fair enough that they expose Gibson's comments...yeah?
Especially when he was making a film called Holocaust...yeah?



I feel sorry for anyone who sees Mel Gibson as a role model.


Me too.

Cheers Fg7

Cat
07-08-2006, 10:50 PM
People with such extreme prejudices that command such power are a genuine menace in society.

His film, The Passion of Christ, brought up all the old anti-semitic sentiments that have rippled through the ages, and culminated in the holocaust. He took those prejudices and injected them into a fabricated history which reached an audience of millions.

Most people do not possess enough historical insight to be aware of the manipulation that was taking place. They saw a film which superficially displayed stark realism, yet was historically inaccurate and was framed in an anti-semitic pastiche.

When one thinks that Arnie is now a Governator, Ronnie was a President and money and fame buy political patronage very readily in the USA, what kind of political figure would Mel cut?

qpawn
07-08-2006, 11:28 PM
Cat, I totally diagree with your last post.

A film can not be "manipulative" towards anybody. [ unless it was a piece of nazi propaganda in 1935 lol] . A film is an exploration of the human condition that , like all good art , can be provocative and make us confront issues that we would prefer to hide from.

It would be a fallacy to conclude that anti-semitic sentiments in a film are the product of the fim's producer's political stance. I don't know for sure if CAT was trying to make this connection between Mel Gibson's fim making, such as the passion of teh Christ, and his supposed anti-semitic bent. If Cat was making such a connection I strongly disagree that the this is sound reasoning.

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2006, 11:34 PM
While I think a bit too much has been made of this (it's not like he broadcast these views in the News of the World) I also don't believe alcohol is any excuse at all. If others can get plastered without making racist outbursts I don't see why Mel Gibson should be any different. People, especially me, should be held as responsible for things they do drunk as if they do them sober.

Gibson has apologised to the Jewish community and the so-called "Anti-Defamation League" (who I do wish would find a less confusing name; a race cannot be defamed under law) have accepted his apology. So is this really still an issue?

qpawn
07-08-2006, 11:39 PM
I have never subscribed to theories about Jewish domination and ownership of the US film scene.

But if there is any truth to those theories then MEL Gibson could find that the accusations impede his career for a long time.

MichaelBaron
08-08-2006, 12:03 AM
I have never subscribed to theories about Jewish domination and ownership of the US film scene.

But if there is any truth to those theories then MEL Gibson could find that the accusations impede his career for a long time.

If what he is being accused of is true, then it is only fair that his career (same as careers of other people who carry out criminal offences) will be affected:hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2006, 12:33 PM
What should've surprised me (but actually didn't) is that Hollywood, despite the havy Jewish presense, is not as loud as you'd expect it to be, especially when compared with Hollywood obsession with Bush critisim.

As far as Gibson's movie is concerned, I cannot comment as I did not see it. The reason I did not see is becasue I did not feel I can learn something new from it and it would not be worth money and time spent.

However, his drunk anti-semitic outburst goves credibility to the claim that the movie is an anti-Jewish slur.

To qpawn - check under the bed, powerful Jewish lobby is hiding there.

A question - can someone help me to get a payment from my Jewish masters after spending so much time on this board defending Israel? If Jewish lobby rules the world, I want to be rich as well.

qpawn
08-08-2006, 02:34 PM
Igor, there is one convenient, healthy way to support the Jewish establishment and keep their corporations' high share prices:

drink one tub of Yakult every day.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2006, 02:35 PM
Igor, there is one convenient, healthy way to support the Jewish establishment and keep their corporations' high share prices:

drink one tub of Yakult every day.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I just hope you understand what you mean.

antichrist
08-08-2006, 02:48 PM
If Mel did not have anti-Semiticism in him it would not have came out when he was drunk. His is the anti-intellectual, gut re-action, follow-the-leader type that does not add anything worthwhile to anything.

He jibe at Jews starting wars could have been referring to his interpretation of the Middle East and US's foreign policy. But as he can't elaborate we will never know.

I can see Qpawns point, often the same type made by Matt and FG7, that to verbally insult someone is something, but nothing compared to the physical violence that Israel is now committing.

But we can't blame Jews in general for perceived wrong policies as many of their own people opposes their government's policies.

The communist parties in Israel and Lebanon have both opposed their government policies and would bring their countries together peacefully I imagine. But get back to Blood on Hands aye.

qpawn
08-08-2006, 03:39 PM
hMy precise objection to Israel's violence is that all proportionate force is absent. So too is any concern for letting in humantarian help. Even allowing for the tactics of Hezbollah that they position their rocketlaunchers in civillian areas, Israel's actions include gross violations: hitting an ambulance whose lights were flashing, and cutting off all roads that could be used by evacuees to escape.

Antichrist, with respect you have missed one of the subtleties of my argument about Mel Gibson. There is a difference between reflecting awareness of anti-semitism and being anti-semitic. It is entirely possible that Mel Gibson was showing the former - a mere awareness - in his drunken spiel. If his father was anti-semitic, as some people claim, then such inculcation will be rooted in Mel's consciousness. But that doesn't mean that Mel agrees with it. That's like if I were forced to watch pornographic films for days on end. Then I get drunk and blurt out the names of sexual acts, lesbian politics etc. In that case I would not be expressing support for pornography; I would be merely expressing my aware ness of it in my life.

Cat
08-08-2006, 10:11 PM
Cat, I totally diagree with your last post.

A film can not be "manipulative" towards anybody.

All communication is to some extent manipulative. All ideas and opinions compete with each other for currency. That was Richard Dawson's big idea, when he articulated 'meme' theory and it's the basis of modern marketing. It contributed to the evolution of Post Modernism.


A film is an exploration of the human condition that , like all good art , can be provocative and make us confront issues that we would prefer to hide from.

Films have many different purposes and genres, as you would surely know.


It would be a fallacy to conclude that anti-semitic sentiments in a film are the product of the fim's producer's political stance. I don't know for sure if CAT was trying to make this connection between Mel Gibson's fim making, such as the passion of teh Christ, and his supposed anti-semitic bent. If Cat was making such a connection I strongly disagree that the this is sound reasoning.

One of the big problems for the early Roman Church that accepted Christ as their Messiah was that the mythology depicted Christ as a Jew executed by the Romans. This was a major intellectual and emotional struggle for the Romans who needed to find some way to explain to their citizens how the Romans had come to execute their own God.

The Passion stories were hence reworked many times, ultimately to create a theme of 'the Jews made us do it'. Crucifixion was a distinctly Roman tradition - there is no precedent in Jewish tradition. This was indeed something of an awkward fact.

Down the centuries this theme was used many times to beat the Jews. There were many other factors that contributed to the prejudices and all these themes coalesced towards the holocaust.

Since the War there has been a healthy respect afforded by the orthodox churches towards Judaism and generally both religious have become more closely associated. The old scores were buried and I guess I'd say we'd entered a period of enlightenment - at least over this theme.

Mel's film reopened old sores which we best kept closed. Nothing good has ever come from these perceptions in 2 millenia and it's unlikely anything of value would ever be found by an egocentric aging film star.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2006, 11:25 PM
While I am no fan of Mel Gibson and his movie, and his antisemitism troubles me, it pales in comparison to the the most aggresive and militant modern antisemitism coming from Islamic world.
In other words, the likes of Nasrallah are much bigger concern to me then the likes of Gibson.
Therefore I do not understand those that atack Gibson and at the same time defend terrorists.

Cat, good analysis of "The Passion"

antichrist
09-08-2006, 01:14 PM
...........Therefore I do not understand those that atack Gibson and at the same time defend terrorists......



I imagine you are putting supporters and benefactors of the Stern Gang terrorists in this category?

Igor_Goldenberg
10-08-2006, 10:23 AM
I imagine you are putting supporters and benefactors of the Stern Gang terrorists in this category?

You can argue to your heart content whether Lehi was terrorist group or not. Quote from Wikipedia
"While the British have labeled Lehi as a "terrorist" organization, it should be noted that they did not carry out indiscriminate attacks against civilians as the term implies today."

However, one ghost of the past (more then 60 years) does not seem to be an equivalent of thousands of much more deadlier terrorists of today. If Lehi is the best you can come up with, you have a formidable task in front of you.

qpawn
10-08-2006, 12:36 PM
Having watched that interview last night with that Irish soldier who had served in a UN force in Lebanon, I am left in no doubt that Israel is as violent an outfit as any of the other countries in the middle east: kidnappings of UN peacekeepers and indiscriminate 360 degree firing were regular tactics of Israel.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-08-2006, 12:43 PM
Having watched that interview last night with that Irish soldier who had served in a UN force in Lebanon, I am left in no doubt that Israel is as violent an outfit as any of the other countries in the middle east: kidnappings of UN peacekeepers and indiscriminate 360 degree firing were regular tactics of Israel.

Can you site any incident of UN peacekeepers kidnapping?

antichrist
10-08-2006, 01:14 PM
How about moving the debate to Blood on Hands thread, more convenient especially for reference later and following up points, thanks in anti

Igor_Goldenberg
10-08-2006, 03:07 PM
How about moving the debate to Blood on Hands thread, more convenient especially for reference later and following up points, thanks in anti

You mentioned Lehi and qpawn enlightened us after becoming an expert watching one nightshow.
I am used to empty accusation, but I does not mean I am going to leave them unanswered.

And remember, someone has to second your posts in another thread before I am going to answer.

antichrist
10-08-2006, 05:11 PM
You mentioned Lehi and qpawn enlightened us after becoming an expert watching one nightshow.
I am used to empty accusation, but I does not mean I am going to leave them unanswered.

And remember, someone has to second your posts in another thread before I am going to answer.

I can't remember mentioning Lehi? Is he/she in the Old Testament?

Igor_Goldenberg
10-08-2006, 07:26 PM
I can't remember mentioning Lehi? Is he/she in the Old Testament?

You don't even know your stuff.

William Tell
17-08-2006, 05:25 PM
Having watched that interview last night with that Irish soldier who had served in a UN force in Lebanon, I am left in no doubt that Israel is as violent an outfit as any of the other countries in the middle east: kidnappings of UN peacekeepers and indiscriminate 360 degree firing were regular tactics of Israel.
How can anyone disagree with that?

The fact that America supports Israel unwaveringly, even when it is blatently worng, is also very troubling.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-08-2006, 05:53 PM
I am still waiting for qpawn to give a single example of Israel kidnapping UN soldier.

antichrist
18-08-2006, 02:00 PM
answered in Blood on Hands

arosar
18-08-2006, 04:18 PM
For anyone interested, the July/August issue of Foreign Policy magazine has an interesting debate on this topic. The article is available online via paid subscription. However, the original paper that provoked the debate is available for free.

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

AR

antichrist
18-08-2006, 06:41 PM
For anyone interested, the July/August issue of Foreign Policy magazine has an interesting debate on this topic. The article is available online via paid subscription. However, the original paper that provoked the debate is available for free.

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

AR

I have a letter to editor from Jewish guy who reakons Israel is giving all Jews around the world (70%) a bad name as people associate Israel with Jews.

qpawn
18-08-2006, 08:41 PM
If Igor wanted to go to the ABC lateline site and dig up that interview with the UN Irish soldier there would be instances of Israel's kidnappings of UN soldiers .

But I have the feeling that Igor believes whatever he wants to believe and may not want to find the aforementioned facts.

FYI I hate all the parties in the conflict equally. Israel, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran proxies - they are all bloodthirsty mongrel scumbags with about the humanity of a crocodile possessed by Dracula.

MichaelBaron
18-08-2006, 09:44 PM
If Igor wanted to go to the ABC lateline site and dig up that interview with the UN Irish soldier there would be instances of Israel's kidnappings of UN soldiers .

But I have the feeling that Igor believes whatever he wants to believe and may not want to find the aforementioned facts.

FYI I hate all the parties in the conflict equally. Israel, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran proxies - they are all bloodthirsty mongrel scumbags with about the humanity of a crocodile possessed by Dracula.

What you are saying about Israel involved in kidnapping is not true...Pls post the link to the interview over here....must be some sort of falsification:hmm:

qpawn
19-08-2006, 09:10 AM
When the soldier said that Israel had kidnapped UN soldiers in the past Tony Jones got him to repeat it and he said it again. To this day Israel has been asked to return the body of one of these victims: a certain Private Joyce. But Israel refuses to do so.

Of course if you want to believe that Israel is somehow better than everyone else in the middle east then go ahead.

Personally, I prefer to call barbarians barbarians.

bergil
19-08-2006, 01:02 PM
What you are saying about Israel involved in kidnapping is not true...Pls post the link to the interview over here....must be some sort of falsification:hmm:
I believe he is refering to this:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1711145.htm

antichrist
19-08-2006, 02:43 PM
As I stated in Blood on Hands, Israel killed maybe dozens of UN soldiers when Israel commenced the 1967 war, it was reported by British newspapers at the time.

The remainding UN soldiers stated that Israel did this so that the UN would not be witness to their further actions.

Kidnapping is a bit worse than murdering I think.

bergil
19-08-2006, 04:19 PM
As I stated in Blood on Hands, Israel killed maybe dozens of UN soldiers when Israel commenced the 1967 war, it was reported by British newspapers at the time.

The remainding UN soldiers stated that Israel did this so that the UN would not be witness to their further actions.

Kidnapping is a bit worse than murdering I think.
Back up the truck A/C, the claim was that Lebanese christians kidnapped Private Joyce on behalf of the IDF, not that the IDF did the kidnapping.

qpawn
19-08-2006, 04:36 PM
So you don't recognise the tactic of using a proxy to do your dirty work Bergil? :confused:

bergil
19-08-2006, 04:45 PM
So you don't recognise the tactic of using a proxy to do your dirty work Bergil? :confused:
I do but its not been substantiated that the IDF was responsible for the Lebanese Christian militias actions in kidnapping Private Joyce.

antichrist
20-08-2006, 02:42 PM
Back up the truck A/C, the claim was that Lebanese christians kidnapped Private Joyce on behalf of the IDF, not that the IDF did the kidnapping.

My reply of Israeli deliberately killing UN soldiers was in response to Mike Baron post 36 asking example of such. Nothing to do with the Irish - Orange or Green.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-08-2006, 06:38 PM
OK, I read the interview.
Another lame attempt to claim the moral equality between Israel and Hezbollah. For quite a few soldiers abducted by Hezbollah he claimed one unproven case by Israel.

It's a quite familiar strategy - for many terrorist's act by Islamic group find one or two by Jews and then claim that both sides are wrong.
For example a/c was munching about single Jewish group that ceased it's operations 60 (sixty!) years ago (never mind that it did not target civilians) as a counter-example to many Arab terrorist group operating today.

I offer wonder - despite heavely restraining itself, Israel is still criticized and morally equated to Arab terrorists.
Why bother restraining then? When antichists and arosars of the world scream about genoside after killing two hundred people, what would they say if Israel killed hundred times more?

But pure hate does not need logical analysis, so they keep screaming at the top of their lunges.

bergil
22-08-2006, 08:14 AM
I offer wonder - despite heavely restraining itself, Israel is still criticized and morally equated to Arab terrorists.
Why bother restraining then? When antichists and arosars of the world scream about genoside after killing two hundred people, what would they say if Israel killed hundred times more?

But pure hate does not need logical analysis, so they keep screaming at the top of their lunges.
Why bother? A few reasons spring to mind and believe it or not they are all in Israel's self interest.

1.Israel is reliant on U.S support it must be seen to at least be the good guy in the American/Western press to maintain political, economic and military support.

2. As Israel is a nation based on its religion it wouldn't do to lose favoured martyr status and become a fundamentalist or pariah state. (UN resolution 3379 “severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology.”) This was revoked in 1991

3. Humanity

antichrist
22-08-2006, 02:38 PM
Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
OK, I read the interview.
Another lame attempt to claim the moral equality between Israel and Hezbollah. For quite a few soldiers abducted by Hezbollah he claimed one unproven case by Israel.

A/C
But there is a possibility that Israel has deliberately killed many times more UN peacekeepers that the opposing sides has by accident and deliberately.

Igor
It's a quite familiar strategy - for many terrorist's act by Islamic group find one or two by Jews and then claim that both sides are wrong.
For example a/c was munching about single Jewish group that ceased it's operations 60 (sixty!) years ago (never mind that it did not target civilians) as a counter-example to many Arab terrorist group operating today.

A/C
They only stopped because they were successful and no longer necessary and blended into the IDF - then became STATE TERRORISTS.


I offer wonder - despite heavely restraining itself, Israel is still criticized and morally equated to Arab terrorists.
Why bother restraining then? When antichists and arosars of the world scream about genoside after killing two hundred people, what would they say if Israel killed hundred times more?

A/C
Israel restraints amounts to killing 10:1, about on par with the Nazi SS - the Star of David about a 3/4 length behind the Swastika!

Igor
But pure hate does not need logical analysis, so they keep screaming at the top of their lunges.
A/C
Hatred of pure injustice upon pure injustice - the same revulsion felt in response to the Holocaust

antichrist
22-08-2006, 02:42 PM
(UN resolution 3379 “severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology.”) This was revoked in 1991

Igor_Goldenberg
30-08-2006, 10:52 AM
I offer wonder - despite heavely restraining itself, Israel is still criticized and morally equated to Arab terrorists.
Why bother restraining then? When antichists and arosars of the world scream about genoside after killing two hundred people, what would they say if Israel killed hundred times more?


Why bother? A few reasons spring to mind and believe it or not they are all in Israel's self interest.

1.Israel is reliant on U.S support it must be seen to at least be the good guy in the American/Western press to maintain political, economic and military support.

That's my point. They criticise Israel irrespectably of the level of restrain it demonstrates.



2. As Israel is a nation based on its religion it wouldn't do to lose favoured martyr status and become a fundamentalist or pariah state.


It is a secular state.



(UN resolution 3379 “severely condemned Zionism as a threat to world peace and security and called upon all countries to oppose this racist and imperialist ideology.”) This was revoked in 1991

At least once UN admitted it was wrong.



3. Humanity

Finally the word of wisdom. I'd say it's the main reason, which Hezbollah cannot comprehend (and therefore they hate Jews and Israel even more)

Igor_Goldenberg
30-08-2006, 10:58 AM
During the recent war Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, asked Arab population of Haifa to leave the city because of the incoming bombing.

Hezbollah/Lebannon was at war with Israel. Arabs living in Haifa a citizens of Israel (not Lebannon). The only reason of asking them to leave (and avoid bombardment) is racial.

Yet this example of blatant racism goes completely unnoticed (while Israel is constantly accused, among other things, of racism).

antichrist
30-08-2006, 04:52 PM
During the recent war Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, asked Arab population of Haifa to leave the city because of the incoming bombing.

Hezbollah/Lebannon was at war with Israel. Arabs living in Haifa a citizens of Israel (not Lebannon). The only reason of asking them to leave (and avoid bombardment) is racial.

Yet this example of blatant racism goes completely unnoticed (while Israel is constantly accused, among other things, of racism).

You are still only treating the effect not the cause - and that is the biggest land grab on Earth Post WW11.

Hezbollah could only send rubbish rockets over - Israel had the latest high-precision cluster bombs from the USA, and Israel began sending the rockets over first by two days. It shows in the toll, about 12:1, exactly copying the Nazis - the Star of David is catching the Swastika!

MichaelBaron
30-08-2006, 05:59 PM
You are still only treating the effect not the cause - and that is the biggest land grab on Earth Post WW11.

Hezbollah could only send rubbish rockets over - Israel had the latest high-precision cluster bombs from the USA, and Israel began sending the rockets over first by two days. It shows in the toll, about 12:1, exactly copying the Nazis - the Star of David is catching the Swastika!


"Rubbish rockets" are mostly made in Iran and Syria. They did hurt a lot of innocent Israeli citizens. As for adequacy of the Israeli response, you can not deny any country a right to defend itself! What was Israel supposed to do? Remain Scielent and "swollow" the capture of its soldgers?:hmm:

antichrist
31-08-2006, 05:47 PM
"Rubbish rockets" are mostly made in Iran and Syria. They did hurt a lot of innocent Israeli citizens. As for adequacy of the Israeli response, you can not deny any country a right to defend itself! What was Israel supposed to do? Remain Scielent and "swollow" the capture of its soldgers?:hmm:
-------------------------------------------------------
Israel's Conscientious Objectors
The Categorical Imperative
By URI AVNERY

Some years ago, when the jury for the annual Israel Prize announced its award to Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, I decided to invite him to give a lecture to the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, the group that established the first contacts with the PLO.

"I am ready to come," he said, "on one condition: I shall speak only about the duty to refuse to serve in the occupied territories." For him, that was the alpha and omega of the fight against the occupation.

I told him that he was free to speak about whatever he saw fit, even if I myself did not quite share his view.

(The lecture, by the way, had an unexpected result. In his usual provocative style, Leibowitz compared the Special Units of the Israeli army to the Nazi SS. His words were published, aroused a storm of protest and the prize jury wanted to cancel the award, whereupon Leibowitz himself announced that he refused it.)
Since then I had an ongoing debate with myself about this hard and painful subject.

I am not a pacifist, in the sense of totally refusing to bear arms. My heart is certainly with Yonathan Ben-Artzi, who is standing trial now because of his uncompromising pacifistic stand. He is a wonderful and admirable youngster. But as a member of a generation that experienced the war with the Nazis, I cannot accept the principle that every war is evil. Once the Nazis had taken hold of Germany and started to carry out their aggressive designs, there was no way of stopping them other then by force of arms.

As long as there is no world order and no world government, no world legislature or world police (all of which I hope will be in place by the end of the 21st century), no country can do without with a defense force. And as long as there is no world government that enables every people striving for liberty to attain its goal by peaceful means, freedom-fighters will need to use arms.

But Leibowitz was no pacifist. He did not advocate a general refusal to bear arms, but the refusal to serve the occupation. He believed in the moral value of this refusal, in the duty of every moral person to draw a line between himself and an unjust regime and to declare that he will not lend his hand to a policy that is inhuman, immoral and illegal by its very nature. He also believed that the personal example of the objectors was bound to influence the general public.

This approach is beset, of course, with several pitfalls, which made me hesitate.

First, it undermines the democratic order. The army is supposed to serve the legal government that was elected by the citizens. If you refuse to follow the orders of the legal government, you shake the very foundations of democracy.

Second, you legitimise the same actions by your opponents. According to the "categorical imperative" of Immanuel Kant, you have to behave "as if the principle by which you act were about to be turned into a universal law of nature". If A has the right to refuse to serve the occupation, B has the right to refuse to remove settlements.

Third, you corrupt the army. If all moral people leave the army, it will remain in the hands of the immoral ones. The checkpoints will be manned exclusively by Arab-haters, operations will be executed by sadists. But if the decent people remain in the army, they can influence its spirit, preventing by their very presence injustices and atrocities, or, at least, bringing them to light.

I have always had a lot of respect for conscientious objectors. I know how much courage is needed for a young person (and an old one, too) to withstand the social pressure of family, comrades and neighbors and to bear the consequences. I am impressed much more by such moral fortitude than by physical heroism in battle, when you know that all the people are behind you. (And I speak as one who has served in a so-called "elite unit".)

Therefore I have always supported an individual's right to refuse. But I myself was not ready to call upon young people to follow this line. My position was that persons must decide for themselves where they will best serve the fight against the occupation--inside or outside the army.

But I feel that my position is changing.

First of all, many soldiers have convinced me that it is almost impossible to withstand the pressure inside the army. The brainwashing is intense and unrelenting; those in the higher ranks are more and more like robots with blunted senses, the products of the occupation; not to mention the members of the religious academies connected with the army, Arab-haters and settlers with "knitted kippas" (associated with the extreme right-wing national-religious party.)

Second, the occupation itself has become a monster that nobody can serve without losing his humanity. When the members of the "cream of the Israeli army", the Sayeret Matkal (General Staff commandos) say so and refuse to go on, their testimony is persuasive. When the Airforce combat pilots revolt against their commander, who has said that he "feels nothing but a slight bump" when he releases a bomb that kills women and children, respect is due to them. When five 19-year old youngsters choose to go to prison rather than enjoy the freedom of the occupiers, Kant himself would have saluted them. The protest against an immoral regime is a categorical imperative.

Does this refusal prepare the ground for the refusal of right-wing soldiers? There is, of course, no symmetry between freedom-lovers, who refuse to take part in an ongoing injustice, and the settlers, who are themselves part of the injustice. But if one recognizes the right to refuse for reasons of conscience, one must apply Kant's principle to them, too. If there ever is an evacuation of the settlements, the right of a soldier to refuse to take part for reasons of conscience must be assured.

Is this a blow against democracy? Most certainly. But this is a blow for the good. Israeli democracy is being whittled away with every day of occupation. We are witnessing an continuous decline: the government has become Sharon's kindergarten, the Knesset attracts general contempt, the Supreme Court has largely become an instrument of the occupation, the media are marching in step. It is the refusers who have introduced a moral dimension into the public discourse.

The accumulation of refusals, with one act inspiring the next and one military unit influencing another, is bound to have a lasting effect on the general public. It is both an expression of change and a stimulus for change.

But above all, the act of refusal shines like a beacon in the darkness. It drives out the despair that has infects every part of the collective body. It restores faith in the State of Israel and its younger generation.

Of course, the objectors are few. They are a small minority of the people and the army. But the course of human history would have been quite different without such minorities--people who had the courage to march on when the chorus of conformists shouted: "Stop!"

And not least: these people allow us to be proud again. A nation that has sons like these can have hope.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism. He can be reached at: avnery@counterpunch.org.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is the voice of reason and justice - the rest of Israel and their supporters in Aussie are not worth two bob and it is they who get Jewry a bad name

MichaelBaron
31-08-2006, 06:07 PM
-------------------------------------------------------
Israel's Conscientious Objectors
The Categorical Imperative
By URI AVNERY

Some years ago, when the jury for the annual Israel Prize announced its award to Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, I decided to invite him to give a lecture to the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, the group that established the first contacts with the PLO.

"I am ready to come," he said, "on one condition: I shall speak only about the duty to refuse to serve in the occupied territories." For him, that was the alpha and omega of the fight against the occupation.

I told him that he was free to speak about whatever he saw fit, even if I myself did not quite share his view.

(The lecture, by the way, had an unexpected result. In his usual provocative style, Leibowitz compared the Special Units of the Israeli army to the Nazi SS. His words were published, aroused a storm of protest and the prize jury wanted to cancel the award, whereupon Leibowitz himself announced that he refused it.)
Since then I had an ongoing debate with myself about this hard and painful subject.

I am not a pacifist, in the sense of totally refusing to bear arms. My heart is certainly with Yonathan Ben-Artzi, who is standing trial now because of his uncompromising pacifistic stand. He is a wonderful and admirable youngster. But as a member of a generation that experienced the war with the Nazis, I cannot accept the principle that every war is evil. Once the Nazis had taken hold of Germany and started to carry out their aggressive designs, there was no way of stopping them other then by force of arms.

As long as there is no world order and no world government, no world legislature or world police (all of which I hope will be in place by the end of the 21st century), no country can do without with a defense force. And as long as there is no world government that enables every people striving for liberty to attain its goal by peaceful means, freedom-fighters will need to use arms.

But Leibowitz was no pacifist. He did not advocate a general refusal to bear arms, but the refusal to serve the occupation. He believed in the moral value of this refusal, in the duty of every moral person to draw a line between himself and an unjust regime and to declare that he will not lend his hand to a policy that is inhuman, immoral and illegal by its very nature. He also believed that the personal example of the objectors was bound to influence the general public.

This approach is beset, of course, with several pitfalls, which made me hesitate.

First, it undermines the democratic order. The army is supposed to serve the legal government that was elected by the citizens. If you refuse to follow the orders of the legal government, you shake the very foundations of democracy.

Second, you legitimise the same actions by your opponents. According to the "categorical imperative" of Immanuel Kant, you have to behave "as if the principle by which you act were about to be turned into a universal law of nature". If A has the right to refuse to serve the occupation, B has the right to refuse to remove settlements.

Third, you corrupt the army. If all moral people leave the army, it will remain in the hands of the immoral ones. The checkpoints will be manned exclusively by Arab-haters, operations will be executed by sadists. But if the decent people remain in the army, they can influence its spirit, preventing by their very presence injustices and atrocities, or, at least, bringing them to light.

I have always had a lot of respect for conscientious objectors. I know how much courage is needed for a young person (and an old one, too) to withstand the social pressure of family, comrades and neighbors and to bear the consequences. I am impressed much more by such moral fortitude than by physical heroism in battle, when you know that all the people are behind you. (And I speak as one who has served in a so-called "elite unit".)

Therefore I have always supported an individual's right to refuse. But I myself was not ready to call upon young people to follow this line. My position was that persons must decide for themselves where they will best serve the fight against the occupation--inside or outside the army.

But I feel that my position is changing.

First of all, many soldiers have convinced me that it is almost impossible to withstand the pressure inside the army. The brainwashing is intense and unrelenting; those in the higher ranks are more and more like robots with blunted senses, the products of the occupation; not to mention the members of the religious academies connected with the army, Arab-haters and settlers with "knitted kippas" (associated with the extreme right-wing national-religious party.)

Second, the occupation itself has become a monster that nobody can serve without losing his humanity. When the members of the "cream of the Israeli army", the Sayeret Matkal (General Staff commandos) say so and refuse to go on, their testimony is persuasive. When the Airforce combat pilots revolt against their commander, who has said that he "feels nothing but a slight bump" when he releases a bomb that kills women and children, respect is due to them. When five 19-year old youngsters choose to go to prison rather than enjoy the freedom of the occupiers, Kant himself would have saluted them. The protest against an immoral regime is a categorical imperative.

Does this refusal prepare the ground for the refusal of right-wing soldiers? There is, of course, no symmetry between freedom-lovers, who refuse to take part in an ongoing injustice, and the settlers, who are themselves part of the injustice. But if one recognizes the right to refuse for reasons of conscience, one must apply Kant's principle to them, too. If there ever is an evacuation of the settlements, the right of a soldier to refuse to take part for reasons of conscience must be assured.

Is this a blow against democracy? Most certainly. But this is a blow for the good. Israeli democracy is being whittled away with every day of occupation. We are witnessing an continuous decline: the government has become Sharon's kindergarten, the Knesset attracts general contempt, the Supreme Court has largely become an instrument of the occupation, the media are marching in step. It is the refusers who have introduced a moral dimension into the public discourse.

The accumulation of refusals, with one act inspiring the next and one military unit influencing another, is bound to have a lasting effect on the general public. It is both an expression of change and a stimulus for change.

But above all, the act of refusal shines like a beacon in the darkness. It drives out the despair that has infects every part of the collective body. It restores faith in the State of Israel and its younger generation.

Of course, the objectors are few. They are a small minority of the people and the army. But the course of human history would have been quite different without such minorities--people who had the courage to march on when the chorus of conformists shouted: "Stop!"

And not least: these people allow us to be proud again. A nation that has sons like these can have hope.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is one of the writers featured in The Other Israel: Voices of Dissent and Refusal. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book The Politics of Anti-Semitism. He can be reached at: avnery@counterpunch.org.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is the voice of reason and justice - the rest of Israel and their supporters in Aussie are not worth two bob and it is they who get Jewry a bad name

Every country has its share of traitors.
Israel is no different! It should be obvious by now that PEACE is in the Best Interest of the country! It is also obvious that if Israeli army would really use the "butchering tactics" neither Hesbollah nor Hamaz would be in a position to cause trouble.

Israel has sufficient military power to wash South Lebanon off the face of the universe. It is only the concern for civil population and other humanitarian concerns that enable Hesbollah and Hamaz-controlled territories to remain terrorist nests

antichrist
31-08-2006, 06:15 PM
Every country has its share of traitors.
Israel is no different! It should be obvious by now that PEACE is in the Best Interest of the country! It is also obvious that if Israeli army would really use the "butchering tactics" neither Hesbollah nor Hamaz would be in a position to cause trouble.

Israel has sufficient military power to wash South Lebanon off the face of the universe. It is only the concern for civil population and other humanitarian concerns that enable Hesbollah and Hamaz-controlled territories to remain terrorist nests

And just as Hitler had the capacity to wipe all Jewry in Europe is obsene so is Israel's capacity to wipe out Hezbollah and Hamaz - because they only formed in reaction to illegal and immoral actions by the UN and Israel.

Israel's gutless IDF will only go in after bombing the Christ, Mohammed and Jehovah out of the Palestinians etc. They won't go in with equal weapons - gutless.

ONe day I expect Israel to cop nuke weapons, due to it being the first power in the M/E to obtain such after the Arab states had declared the place a nuke free area. Then you can gloat about wiping other innocent, injusted people off the map.

I have seen those "traitors" on tv and they are of the highest integrity. As I have often stated, Jews are amongst the very best in the world but unfortunately their image is dragged down by people I won't even try to describe as I don't like to talk about peolple that way. They paid for their sins in advance it seems.

MichaelBaron
31-08-2006, 07:37 PM
And just as Hitler had the capacity to wipe all Jewry in Europe is obsene so is Israel's capacity to wipe out Hezbollah and Hamaz - because they only formed in reaction to illegal and immoral actions by the UN and Israel.

Israel's gutless IDF will only go in after bombing the Christ, Mohammed and Jehovah out of the Palestinians etc. They won't go in with equal weapons - gutless.

ONe day I expect Israel to cop nuke weapons, due to it being the first power in the M/E to obtain such after the Arab states had declared the place a nuke free area. Then you can gloat about wiping other innocent, injusted people off the map.

I have seen those "traitors" on tv and they are of the highest integrity. As I have often stated, Jews are amongst the very best in the world but unfortunately their image is dragged down by people I won't even try to describe as I don't like to talk about peolple that way. They paid for their sins in advance it seems.

You want "equal" weapons to be used? Does it mean that Israel should train some suiside bombers and start sending missiles all over the Arab states? Israeli response...is one of a civilized state while people they are dealing with are TERRORISTS. It is not a war against any particular state (e.g. Lebanon) it is a war against terrorism

arosar
31-08-2006, 07:43 PM
ATTENTION Israeli Lover!!

What is so civilized about killing innocent civvies?

AR

Alan Shore
31-08-2006, 08:43 PM
ATTENTION Israeli Lover!!

What is so civilized about killing innocent civvies?

AR

Is this the most hypocritical thing I've seen?

If you know anything about law, you'll find intent is very impotant in determining both a verdict and the length of a sentence.

Israeli forces have targeted Hezbollah militants. Palestinians terrorists have targeted civilians deliberately.

Why don't you explain yourself on that front before you make such a comment?

antichrist
02-09-2006, 02:06 PM
Is this the most hypocritical thing I've seen?

If you know anything about law, you'll find intent is very impotant in determining both a verdict and the length of a sentence.

Israeli forces have targeted Hezbollah militants. Palestinians terrorists have targeted civilians deliberately.

Why don't you explain yourself on that front before you make such a comment?

The new "settlers" so-called civilians in the occupied terroritories are part of the problem in that they went there against UN resolutions and against international law. They also took arms with them to defend themselves against Palestinians wanting their land back.

If Israel can see fit to bomb all infrastructure etc in Lebanon to slow down Hezbollah's supplies then collateral damages seems to be also okay for the Hezbollah or Palestinians. Not that I necessarily endorse it - only I don't criticise it as again "walk a mile in their shoes".

The funny thing about those settlers when evicted from Gaza and getting $1/4 million in compo, they asked them where they were going - and guess their answer? They were going to the West Bank to pick up another $1/4 million when they hoped it was also handed back to Palestinians. Yes they will put up screaming and shouting to ensure the "price is right".

When talking about terrorists, Hezbollah and PLO, all are we talking about is the response of people wanting their stolen land back, or wanting Israel Defense Forces driven off their terroritory.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-09-2006, 04:49 PM
Is this the most hypocritical thing I've seen?

If you know anything about law, you'll find intent is very impotant in determining both a verdict and the length of a sentence.

Israeli forces have targeted Hezbollah militants. Palestinians terrorists have targeted civilians deliberately.

Why don't you explain yourself on that front before you make such a comment?

Belthasar, if you look "Blood on Hand" thread, you'll see that arosar tried to make the same claim there without being able to substantiate anything. Which means he is not making an honest mistake, he is blatantly lying.

Alan Shore
04-09-2006, 04:52 PM
Belthasar, if you look "Blood on Hand" thread, you'll see that arosar tried to make the same claim there without being able to substantiate anything.

Yeah I know... I kicked things off in that thread right back on page 1. I'll let you and Michael carry the flag for now though, you guys seem to have more information at your disposal anyway.

arosar
04-09-2006, 06:02 PM
The two of youse Israeli lovers must spend your days and nights inhaling the fumes of Israeli gunpowder. It's like your both in a permanent state of headspins.

What is it that's so hard eh? Israel is a nuclear-armed state, with all sorts of fancy armaments, and they go around terrorising the most innocent of civies. They've been at it from day 1. What's the poor Arabs to do but rise up and fight back?

AR

MichaelBaron
04-09-2006, 10:47 PM
The two of youse Israeli lovers must spend your days and nights inhaling the fumes of Israeli gunpowder. It's like your both in a permanent state of headspins.

What is it that's so hard eh? Israel is a nuclear-armed state, with all sorts of fancy armaments, and they go around terrorising the most innocent of civies. They've been at it from day 1. What's the poor Arabs to do but rise up and fight back?

AR

"Poor" Arabs are not fighting Israeli army...They are fighting women and children.

Axiom
04-09-2006, 10:51 PM
when will people here realise "jewish" DOES NOT EQUAL "Zionist" ???:rolleyes: :doh: :wall:

Alan Shore
05-09-2006, 12:37 AM
when will people here realise "jewish" DOES NOT EQUAL "Zionist" ???:rolleyes: :doh: :wall:

Yes, it seems a difficult concept for some to grasp, particularly when they are so intent on making inaccurate generalistions. :rolleyes:

antichrist
05-09-2006, 05:12 PM
You want "equal" weapons to be used? Does it mean that Israel should train some suiside bombers and start sending missiles all over the Arab states? Israeli response...is one of a civilized state while people they are dealing with are TERRORISTS. It is not a war against any particular state (e.g. Lebanon) it is a war against terrorism

You have always honed in on this angle whilst ignoring the Zionists terrorists in setting up the Zionist state and also ignoring that those terrorists are only trying, in many instances, to enforce UN resolutions. Also that Israel is a terrorist state - just like Syria and Iraq was.

Concerning your statement above reminds me of what I asked a doc of philosophy years ago, that was, for a principle to hold up does it have to be internally and externally consistent?

Well is Israel civilized?
a) Yesterday's SMH covered how their PM is corrupt as well as many others in government.

b) Israel possesses nuke weapons

c) Israel tortures "prisoners of war"

d) Israel defies a "hundred" of UN resolutions that defies the rights of other people to their land, rights, life and peaceful living.

e) Israel has fanatics who would turn on the Final Solution of Palestinians if they could get away with it.

f) Israel has seen fit to "create" millions of refugees and thousands of civilians including children

g) Israel has proven it is prepared to bomb other peoples back to stone age.

h) Israel's only civilising influence is those you call traitors, the peace movement and the liberal left.

Internally and externally Israel is morally repungant.

MichaelBaron
05-09-2006, 11:21 PM
Let me repeat my question for AC since it was completely ignored in his posting.

"Should Israel also use suiside bombers?"

Kevin Bonham
07-09-2006, 04:47 PM
Thread locked as original issue - to the extent it was distinctive - has been talked out and thread has drifted to become a clone of "Blood on Hands". Feel free to copy stuff from this thread to that one should you wish to reply to it.