Page 5 of 55 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 1634

Thread: Zionuts

  1. #121
    Judaism doesn't have central dogmas in the sense that some other religions do - there's no catechism or List of Things All Jews Must Believe to Be Good Jews. The closest you'd get is the Rambam's 13 principles of faith, but those are neither comprehensive nor fully agreed upon (there are other lesser known lists of fundamental principles of Jewish faith, and they don't all agree). In fact, the emphasis in the last 1500-2000 years has been on 'orthopraxy' rather than 'orthodoxy' - that is, normative practice of Judaism by following established Jewish law, rather than normative belief. As such, you can imagine that a great deal of attention has been given to the study and strict adherence to these laws, starting from the Mishnah (ca. 200 CE) forward.

    This isn't to say that matters of belief, theology, and 'meta-legal' considerations aren't discussed at all in rabbinic literature. It's just that there's a subtext that while there can be a fairly large number of variants of beliefs that are often pretty set in other religions (for example, Jewish eschatology is remarkably diverse in its approach), the end state of a legal discussion will be settled one way or another. Thus, the variations in Jewish practice are remarkably small among the religious world (mostly dealing with either customs of little legal import or debates about adopting additional stringencies), but Jewish thought is much more heterogeneous.

    Thus, to challenge an aspect of Jewish thought can be potentially heretical but may still be acceptable in the pale of the religious world. Yet to challenge its practice and the primacy of law - which the Mitnagdim feared Hasidic Judaism was doing - is another matter entirely. Hasidic Judaism very consciously chose to de-emphasize law in favor of a more personal, spiritual relationship with the divine. This did not sit well with the theological leaders of a religion that had only survived through careful preservation of that legal system in a lengthy and scattered diaspora.

  2. #122
    In fact, the emphasis in the last 1500-2000 years has been on 'orthopraxy' rather than 'orthodoxy' - that is, normative practice of Judaism by following established Jewish law, rather than normative belief. As such, you can imagine that a great deal of attention has been given to the study and strict adherence to these laws, starting from the Mishnah (ca. 200 CE) forward.

    'meta-legal' considerations

    the end state of a legal discussion will be settled one way or another. Thus, the variations in Jewish practice are remarkably small among the religious world (mostly dealing with either customs of little legal import or debates about adopting additional stringencies), but Jewish thought is much more heterogeneous.

    Yet to challenge its practice and the primacy of law - which the Mitnagdim feared Hasidic Judaism was doing - is another matter entirely. Hasidic Judaism very consciously chose to de-emphasize law in favor of a more personal, spiritual relationship with the divine. This did not sit well with the theological leaders of a religion that had only survived through careful preservation of that legal system in a lengthy and scattered diaspora.
    Sorry to chop your articulate post up that way but I'm asking about the interchangeable use of Law and Legal. Sounds to me like Dogma. It is complex, of course, but to "outsiders" that's because being a Jew can be a cultural, racial, or religious identity.

    There are "legal" definitions of being Jewish, but don't they stem from maternal genes or proven birth records? Hard to explain my question without sounding like a total idiot, but I know plenty of non-religious Jews view Judaism from a cultural and genetic "Law". Marry within the race, keep the race pure. Converts don't "count".

    Probably not a stretch to say many non-Jews don't know what "being Jewish" means. Especially when Jews themselves can't really explain it. Even after very eloquent and knowledgeable posts such as yours.

  3. #123
    Always refreshing to see that there's a way to blame Israel.
    That's your OP, when you started this thread, wiggin.

    At face value, that sounded strictly political, but it's taken many turns since then. Including religious and cultural ideations and alliances. Not just Israel but the whole middle-east. Zionuts? How about Zionutty?

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Sorry to chop your articulate post up that way but I'm asking about the interchangeable use of Law and Legal. Sounds to me like Dogma. It is complex, of course, but to "outsiders" that's because being a Jew can be a cultural, racial, or religious identity.

    There are "legal" definitions of being Jewish, but don't they stem from maternal genes or proven birth records? Hard to explain my question without sounding like a total idiot, but I know plenty of non-religious Jews view Judaism from a cultural and genetic "Law". Marry within the race, keep the race pure. Converts don't "count".

    Probably not a stretch to say many non-Jews don't know what "being Jewish" means. Especially when Jews themselves can't really explain it. Even after very eloquent and knowledgeable posts such as yours.
    I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this, but I'll try to respond:

    The reason I say Judaism has little dogma is that dogma is associated with mandated beliefs, not mandated practices. Law falls into the latter category. Now, there are some beliefs mandated by such law (e.g. 'loving one's fellow' and the like), but generally they are of peripheral importance. Obviously the reasons why Jews might choose to follow such laws could be seen as a dogma (at its very basics, it probably has to do with a general belief in a divine revelation after the exodus from Egypt), but there's a great deal of debate over even that simple question. Rather, the emphasis is less on the 'whys' and more on the actual actions themselves.

    As for your question about being Jewish (though where did Jewish identity get into this?), I want to draw a clear distinction between secular law (including Israeli law) and religious 'law'. According to traditional rabbinic Judaism, there are two ways to be Jewish - have a Jewish mother or convert. Both of these borders were probably fuzzier if you go back 2500+ years, but they started getting pretty well delineated around the time of Ezra (ca. 500 BCE) and were well established by the late Second Temple period. I'm not sure where you get the concept that converts don't 'count' - King David is supposed to have descended from a convert (Ruth), and there are clear statements in the Torah forbidding the mistreatment of converts (for the classic reason 'for you were strangers in the land of Egypt), and clear positive commandments that they will be like any citizen of the land. The later sociological reality in some Jewish communities is largely irrelevant to the question of whether converts count.

    That's in sharp distinction to secular law, which has viewed 'Jewishness' as different things over the years. In some societies (e.g. Inquisition Spain) it was at least theoretically possible to renounce being Jewish by a simple act of conversion. In others, you were Jewish whether you liked it or not if you had a single grandparent who was Jewish (e.g. Nazi Germany and possibly the USSR?). In yet others, conversion to Judaism was largely off-limits as it was often punishable by death or at least ostracism. In modern secular law, Judaism is generally irrelevant except as a checkbox on some countries' census forms. Israel is a more complex case for obvious reasons, but they generally accept a very broad definition of Jewish for the purposes of instant citizenship (the 'law of return'), but leave the wrangling over who is actually considered Jewish from a religious perspective up to the rabbinate. There's plenty of problems with this approach, but it still draws a distinction between what secular governments care about (very little) and what religious authorities/law decide.

  5. #125
    I'm not sure about early Soviet practices, but by the '80s, you were Jewish if both your parents were Jewish. If only one of your parents was Jewish, the parents got to choose what "ethnicity" to put down on your documents.

    Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13838347 Unclear if the dog story actually happened.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I'm not sure about early Soviet practices, but by the '80s, you were Jewish if both your parents were Jewish. If only one of your parents was Jewish, the parents got to choose what "ethnicity" to put down on your documents.

    Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13838347 Unclear if the dog story actually happened.
    Yeah, I'm not sure if I was right about the USSR. I've heard conflicting stories on this account, and it might have to do with different eras or might just be based on erroneous information.

  7. #127
    Appreciate the explanation, wiggin

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13838347 Unclear if the dog story actually happened.
    Zionuttery works in mysterious ways!
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    In others, you were Jewish whether you liked it or not if you had a single grandparent who was Jewish (e.g. Nazi Germany
    Three, actually. The rest were classified as Mischlinge by some criterion.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Three, actually. The rest were classified as Mischlinge by some criterion.
    Well, yes, but I didn't want to complicate matters. From the perspective of persecution, it didn't matter all that much.

  11. #131
    So it's not permissible to literally defend your own border against potentially thousands of infiltrators?

    U.N. Slams Israel for Lethal Reply to Protesters Along Lebanese Border

    By JOE LAURIA at the United Nations and CHARLES LEVINSON in Jerusalem

    The United Nations sharply criticized Israel for using live ammunition in May against Palestinian protesters who tried to scale an Israeli security fence on the Lebanese border, according to a U.N. report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

    The confidential report to the U.N. Security Council, dated Friday, also accuses Israel of violating the 2006 cease-fire agreement that ended the six-week conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group. The May 15 incident near Maroun al-Ras, Lebanon, led to seven deaths and 111 injuries.

    The report also accuses about 1,000 protesters of a group of 10,000 that day of violating the cease-fire by carrying out a "provocative and violent act."

    The report appears to have further strained relations between the U.N. and Israel and is likely to increase Israel's isolation amid an international campaign to challenge its policies on the occupied territories.

    The U.N. blamed Israel for turning too quickly to live ammunition to stop the protesters advancing on the Israeli border. "Other than firing initial warning shots, the Israel Defense Forces did not use conventional crowd-control methods or any other method than lethal weapons against the demonstrators," the report said. It added that the act "constituted a violation of [the cease-fire] resolution and was not commensurate to the threat to Israeli soldiers."

    Israel, which was caught off guard by the size and tenacity of the demonstration, accused Iran, Hezbollah's principal supporter, of orchestrating the march on the Israeli-Lebanese border, including paying some people to participate. Hezbollah has not commented on the accusation.

    Israeli officials said Israeli soldiers fired warning shots in an attempt to ward off the marchers, and said that only when that failed to stop the procession did soldiers open fire on individual protesters trying to break through the border fence. Israel said some protesters threw Molotov cocktails at soldiers.

    Israel also said that the majority of the casualties along the border were the result of shots fired by Lebanese soldiers trying to halt the protesters.

    A senior Israeli official said Michael Williams, the U.N. special coordinator for Lebanon, would be unlikely to find any Israeli officials willing to meet with him in the wake of the report, which he wrote. But the official denied reports that Israel had officially cut off the U.N. representative.

    "We haven't cut off Michael Williams," the official said. "But Michael Williams knows that it is preferable to delay his next visit to Israel if he wants to actually meet people."

    The official said Israel would be sending a detailed letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in coming days expressing Israel's "criticisms with big chunks of the report."

    The U.N. report differs from the Israeli account. It said Palestinian and Lebanese groups, among them Hezbollah, organized the protests to commemorate Nakba, the Palestinians' flight from present-day Israel in 1947. But the U.N. said that Israelis, not Lebanese soldiers, fired the fatal shots.

    The report said that after IDF "directed live fire at the protesters" which led to the casualties, Lebanese Army reinforcements "managed quickly to push back the crowd, using batons, tear gas and heavy firing in the air."

    The demonstrators crossed a mine field to advance to the Israeli fence, where they were initially stopped by Lebanese Armed Forces firing into the air, the report said. The Lebanese troops were unable to stop a second attempt by protesters who "unearthed 23 antitank mines, threw stones and two petrol bombs across the fence and attempted to climb it and bring it down," the report said.

    At the request of the Lebanese Armed Forces, U.N. peacekeepers in the area didn't intervene, the report said. The Lebanese army was able to prevent a repeat demonstration on June 2 to mark the anniversary of the 1967 war, said the report.

    "I call on the Israel Defense Forces to refrain from responding with live fire in such situations, except where clearly required in immediate self-defense," U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said at the conclusion of the report. Mr. Ban also blamed the protest organizers who he said were "were responsible for ensuring that demonstrators did not approach the technical fence and did not become violent."

    Write to Joe Lauria at newseditor@wsj.com and Charles Levinson at charles.levinson@wsj.com

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...286454046.html

  12. #132
    I think the better question is how Israeli soldiers on the border with a hostile nation were supposed to be equipped with riot dispersal gear.

  13. #133
    Hey, they control the banks, media, weather and flows of global information. They should have known precisely how many people were going to show up and how many would try to infiltrate. Then they should have called-up the right number of border police, given them riot training if need be and then deployed them to the specific location the infiltrators were going to break-through. Instead, we have yet another offense taking place on Islamic land.

  14. #134
    Is the complaining to stay in character with the stereotype, or is there actually some truth to the stereotype?

    The report also accuses about 1,000 protesters of a group of 10,000 that day of violating the cease-fire by carrying out a "provocative and violent act."
    Mr. Ban also blamed the protest organizers who he said were "were responsible for ensuring that demonstrators did not approach the technical fence and did not become violent."
    What's up UN? Stay on focus FFS.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  15. #135
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Aren't protests at those borders relatively common? If so it wouldn't be crazy to have at least some riot equipment, it's better than shooting everybody every time.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Aren't protests at those borders relatively common? If so it wouldn't be crazy to have at least some riot equipment, it's better than shooting everybody every time.
    No, they're not.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Aren't protests at those borders relatively common? If so it wouldn't be crazy to have at least some riot equipment, it's better than shooting everybody every time.
    Israel's international borders have never been the site of such a protest to my knowledge. All infiltration attempts in the past have been carried out by terrorists. You might be confusing this with some relatively lower-violence protests along the West Bank security fence, which happen weekly and rarely result in serious injuries or death (precisely because IDF soldiers use non-lethal and less-lethal methods of riot dispersal).

    Ziggy - I actually wasn't too upset with the report, though I did think it was a bit of a double standard (can you imagine Indian troops doing any different if hundreds of violent Pakistani tried crossing the border one day?).

  18. #138
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Okay, I stand corrected I remember it being in the news a few times lately, so I assumed that.

    You would expect the intelligence to pick up on a 10.000 people protest though.

  19. #139
    People tend to assume intelligence services are more intelligent than they really are.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  20. #140
    There were some rumbles about planned protests, but nothing about hundreds to thousands or people trying to breach Israel's borders (with countries they are at war with). This was a new tactic, and frankly wouldn't have been allowed to happen had Syria and Hezbollah not been interested in creating a provocation. Syria probably did it to try deflecting attention from the unrest in the country; Hezbollah probably just because they're Hezbollah.

    A repeat of the protests/attempted crossings happened about a month later, and IDF soldiers were prepared with riot dispersal gear, with much less violent results. I have to say, I think they acted 100% correctly in both cases.

  21. #141
    I do want to know what the purpose of having UN troops on the Lebanese-Israeli border is when they cease their duties when either side asks them to. It reminds me of what Egypt used to do with UN peacekeepers.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I do want to know what the purpose of having UN troops on the Lebanese-Israeli border is when they cease their duties when either side asks them to. It reminds me of what Egypt used to do with UN peacekeepers.
    To maintain a "political presence." The last thing peacekeepers want to do is actually get involved, they've learned the lessons from UNPROFOR in Croatia and Bosnia.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  23. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    To maintain a "political presence." The last thing peacekeepers want to do is actually get involved, they've learned the lessons from UNPROFOR in Croatia and Bosnia.
    What's the purpose of this political presence when they vanish the second trouble calls?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #144
    Wow, this is pretty ridiculous. I can't believe it passed - and I'm sure it's going to be struck down by the Israeli supreme court. But definitely Zionutty!

    A friend of mine works for the sponsor of the bill; I'm going to have to ask her what the hell is going on with this.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...093950,00.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Yediot Acharonot
    Knesset votes in favor of 'boycott bill'

    Controversial bill which calls for imposing sanctions against anyone declaring embargo on Israel garners 47 ayes, 38 nays. Kadima: Bibi crossed red line of stupidity, national irresponsibility.

    Moran Azulay
    Latest Update: 07.11.11, 23:39 / Israel News

    The Knesset voted Monday in favor of the controversial "boycott bill," which proposes imposing sanctions against anyone declaring a commercial embargo on Israel. The vote was carried 47 to 38.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were conspicuously absent from the vote, while Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin abstained. The Kadima faction voted against the bill, and members of the Independence faction abstained and were not present for the bill's second and third readings.

    The bill, which was backed by the cabinet, states that any boycott against Israel or any group located within its territory, including the West Bank, will be labeled a civil offense and its initiators will be subject to litigation. The legislation has been the focus of harsh criticism.

    Kadima blasted Netanyahu for his absence from the vote: "Netanyahu's government harms Israel and should be the first to pay the price... Netanyahu's scuttle from tonight's vote does not diminish the harm he has done. He has crossed a red line of stupidity and national irresponsibility.

    "Netanyahu knows the gravity the law's impact will have, but is demonstrating political flaccidity and total capitulation to the extreme right which is taking over the Likud. The boycott bill is a mark of disgrace for Netanyahu's government and the State of Israel and its citizens will pay for it dearly."

    Several human rights groups, including Adalah – the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, The Public Committee against Torture in Israel and Physicians for Human Rights, immediately announced that they would file a High Court appeal against the new law, and asked that it be annulled.

    The groups plan to argue the law is anti-constitutional, that it impedes political freedom of expression, and violates international law and the laws of torts.

    Dr. Yishai Menuchin of the Public Committee Against Torture said: "The road to anti-democratic hell is sometimes paved with good intentions – but not this time. The Knesset is full of legislators who took it upon themselves to infringe on Israel's democracy time and time again.

    "The boycott law is just another step by the legislator to eradicate democracy in Israel. Warnings by human rights groups and many others in Israeli society had failed this time. The Knesset has led Israeli society another step closer to hell."

    Adalah Director Hassan Jabarin echoed the sentiment, saying that "Once more we are seeing how the Knesset is trying to promote legislation which does not coincide with international law… The (bill) fails to meet any criteria and we believe the High Court won't accept it."

    'Bill anti-democratic'

    Ahead of the vote, the Knesset plenum convened for a filibuster, which saw heated arguments from both Left and Right.

    The opposition vowed to fight the bill, which it labeled "anti-democratic"; several prominent legalists said that it was "grayish" at best, and unlikely to withstand High Court scrutiny.

    Knesset Member Ilan Gilon (Meretz) was the first to speak before the Knesset plenum; he said the recent "anti-democratic" laws, in his words, legislated by the Knesset "black dysentery" that de-legitimizes the State of Israel.

    "I know of nothing that causes more de-legitimization for Israel abroad than these acts of legislation," he said adding that they leave Israel in a position of "a nation on its own shall dwell."

    The Kadima faction said it would oppose the bill, with MK Shai Hermesh (Kadima) saying that the bill was a "muzzling bill, a bill that harms the basic rights."

    MK Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al) took things to a personal level, wondering from the podium if Likud faction Chairman MK Zeev Elkin's "past as a shunned schoolboy who got beaten up" prompted him to initiate the bill.

    Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) said that "the majority of those who oppose the bill, do it in the name of freedom of expression. That begs the question – does freedom of expression in a democratic state includes the right to call for financial boycotts.

    "It's a principle of democracy that you don't shun a public you disagree with by harming their livelihood. A boycott on a certain sector is not the proper manifestation of freedom of expression. It is an aggressive move meant to force a sector that thinks a different way to capitulate. Boycotts are aggressive and wrong," he said.

    Netanyahu initially wanted to defer the vote, to avoid presenting Israel in a negative light as the Quartet gears to meet for a crucial discussion over the intention of the Palestinian Authority to seek UN recognition for a Palestinian state.

    The Palestinians also denounced the bill, saying that if it passes, "the content of an impending Quartet announcement regarding the possible renewal of negotiations will become irrelevant."

  25. #145
    Besides the obvious math fail over how billions are fractions of trillions, I find it amusing that MPACUK getting less attention leads them to let their guard down and start publishing stuff like this again.

    Israeli Funding From The USA

    3:49 am, Sun 17 Jul 2011

    Israel’s presence in the United States is far from simple, but remains a necessary aspect of the US’s continual economic and governmental stronghold. However, disengaging from Israel’s clutches will become an insurmountable task for the US, as its economy continues to plummet in the face of massive debt.

    As of January 2011, US debt is currently $14 trillion dollars and according to The Washington Times:
    “[Obama's government] will run a deficit of $1.645 trillion this year, topping 2009’s previous record by more than $230 billion.”
    In previous years, despite the insistence of American taxpayers, the government continually exceeded records upon records and this sight of a new record remains insignificant. As Congress increases the debt ceiling, an incredible pressure will overcome the US as its status of being the reserve currency falls to complete halt–jeopardizing the entire American infrastructure.
    What does this have to do with Israel?

    It’s quite clear, with the federal and governmental loans being provided to Israel at an alarming rate, it is no doubt that this money can be used to further increase America’s standard of living. While the American standard of living is nothing short of 3rd world nations, it’s quite clear that the responsiveness and a functioning democracy must be revised in order to reshape America all together. Of course, this is purely a fantastical outlook because, these betterments will not come unless the US stops its aid to Israel.

    While I’ve said that the US should stop Israeli aid, this is simply not possible because both Israel and the US would head towards complete bankruptcy.

    Despite mounting debt and the threat to the US’s currency reserve status, will the US continue to provide Israel a significant portion of its funding?

    The only way for the US to break out of this with conscious and life-sustaining determination is to cease Israeli funding.

    The extent of Israeli funding is incredible, that the average American will be appalled to know that the primary reason for the poor quality of life is simply due to American (specifically taxpayer dollars) being funnelled callously into the hands of a vicious tyrant. According to the Congressional Research Service (2010), “Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants to Israel”. More alarmingly is what the CRS reported here:

    “In August 2007, the Bush Administration announced that it would increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the next decade. The agreement calls for incremental annual increases in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to Israel, reaching $3 billion a year by FY2011.”
    The reason why the Americans continually increase Israeli funding is primarily to Israel’s powerful elite of “soldiers” deeply inside all significant areas of American economy, financing, and government in the form of what Petras (2009) called a “collective”.
    The power of the Zionist Lobby (“Lobby”) in the United States comprises of a massive and powerful network system connecting every Zionist person to the next, with the single purpose of pure Israel support, even if it means supporting politicians in the United States to achieve their goal. According to Petras (2009), 65% of funding for the Democratic Party of the US comes from the Lobby, 30% for the Republicans (the Republicans don’t need as much persuasion). When Obama wishes to come out of Israel’s influence, he’s talking about saving American’s international image, because actually doing that is impossible.

    Kofi Annan, the former United Nations Secretary General, once said:

    ”The whole world is demanding that Israel withdraw [from occupied Palestinian territories]. I don’t think the whole world … can be wrong”
    ce: Quoted in Forward (New York City), April 19, 2002, p. 11. 2.).

    Consider this, Jews barely consist of 2% (not all of those are Zionists) of the American population but are 40% of American billionaires, 25% are elite Journalists and publishers, 17% are the leaders of public interest organizations, and over 15% are top US civil servants (source) What is this supposed to mean to you? Simply put, quoted from Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Prize winner in 1984:


    “The Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic. People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful — very powerful”
    (Source: D. Tutu, “Apartheid in the Holy Land,” The Guardian (Britain), April 29, 2002. 3)

    Breaking away from the clutches of Israel is, as I said above, an insurmountable and nearing impossible task. With Zionist funding coordinated primarily by these influential ethnic groups and their equally right-wing zionist fanatics, it’s quite clear that America is headed into a place of no return, a debt ceiling which will continue to strangle the American population, as all the countries money gets funnelled away from hard-earning taxpayers into the greedy hands of a violent, terrorist Israel state.

    All in all, Americans are screwed and for them, it’s totally alright.

    Author:
    Sufi M and his staff operate The Glaring Facts, one of the leading and densely populated websites involving psychology, media-related material, history of science, and money management. We are certain you will find something that will fascinate you.

    http://www.mpacuk.org/story/170711/i...nding-usa.html

  26. #146
    Portrait of useful idiots? Bolded part says it all.

    July 26, 2011
    Where Politics Are Complex, Simple Joys at the Beach

    By ETHAN BRONNER

    TEL AVIV — Skittish at first, then wide-eyed with delight, the women and girls entered the sea, smiling, splashing and then joining hands, getting knocked over by the waves, throwing back their heads and ultimately laughing with joy.

    Most had never seen the sea before.

    The women were Palestinians from the southern part of the West Bank, which is landlocked, and Israel does not allow them in. They risked criminal prosecution, along with the dozen Israeli women who took them to the beach. And that, in fact, was part of the point: to protest what they and their hosts consider unjust laws.

    In the grinding rut of Israeli-Palestinian relations — no negotiations, mutual recriminations, growing distance and dehumanization — the illicit trip was a rare event that joined the simplest of pleasures with the most complex of politics. It showed why coexistence here is hard, but also why there are, on both sides, people who refuse to give up on it.

    “What we are doing here will not change the situation,” said Hanna Rubinstein, who traveled to Tel Aviv from Haifa to take part. “But it is one more activity to oppose the occupation. One day in the future, people will ask, like they did of the Germans: ‘Did you know?’ And I will be able to say, ‘I knew. And I acted.’ ”

    Such visits began a year ago as the idea of one Israeli, and have blossomed into a small, determined movement of civil disobedience.

    Ilana Hammerman, a writer, translator and editor, had been spending time in the West Bank learning Arabic when a girl there told her she was desperate to get out, even for a day. Ms. Hammerman, 66, a widow with a grown son, decided to smuggle her to the beach. The resulting trip, described in an article she wrote for the weekend magazine of the newspaper Haaretz, prompted other Israeli women to invite her to speak, and led to the creation of a group they call We Will Not Obey. It also led a right-wing organization to report her to the police, who summoned her for questioning.

    In a newspaper advertisement, the group of women declared: “We cannot assent to the legality of the Law of Entry into Israel, which allows every Israeli and every Jew to move freely in all regions between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River while depriving Palestinians of this same right. They are not permitted free movement within the occupied territories nor are they allowed into the towns and cities across the green line, where their families, their nation, and their traditions are deeply rooted.

    “They and we, all ordinary citizens, took this step with a clear and resolute mind. In this way we were privileged to experience one of the most beautiful and exciting days of our lives, to meet and befriend our brave Palestinian neighbors, and together with them, to be free women, if only for one day.”

    The police have questioned 28 Israeli women; their cases are pending. So far, none of the Palestinian women and girls have been caught or questioned by the police.

    The beach trip last week followed a pattern: the Palestinian women went in disguise, which meant removing clothes rather than covering up. They sat in the back seats of Israeli cars driven by middle-aged Jewish women and took off headscarves and long gowns. As the cars drove through an Israeli Army checkpoint, everyone just waved.

    Earlier, the Israelis had dropped off toys and equipment at the home of one of the Palestinian women, who is setting up a kindergarten. The Israelis also help the Palestinian women with medical and legal troubles.

    Israel’s military, which began limiting Palestinian movement into Israel two decades ago to prevent terrorism at a time of violent uprisings, is in charge of issuing permits for Palestinian visits to Israel. About 60,000 will be issued this year, twice the number for 2010 but still a token amount for a population of 2.5 million. Ms. Hammerman views the permits as the paperwork of colonialist bureaucrats — to be resisted, not indulged. Others have attacked her for picking and choosing which laws she will and will not obey.

    The Palestinian visitors came with complicated histories. In most of their families the men have been locked up at some point. For example, Manal, who had never been to the sea before, is 36, the mother of three and pregnant; five of her brothers are in Israeli prisons, and another was killed when he entered a settler religious academy armed with a knife.

    She brought with her an unsurprising stridency. “This is all ours,” she said in Tel Aviv.
    She did not go home a Zionist, but in the course of the day her views seemed to grow more textured — or less certain — as she found comfort in the company of Israeli women who said that they, too, had a home on this land.

    Another visitor lives in a refugee camp with her husband and children. Her husband’s family does not approve of her visits (“ ‘How can you be with the Jews?’ they ask me. ‘Are you a collaborator?’ ”) but she did not hide the relief she felt at leaving her overcrowded camp for a day of friends and fun.

    The beach trips — seven so far — have produced some tense moments. An effort to generate interest in a university library fell flat. An invitation to spend the night met with rejection by Palestinian husbands and fathers. Home-cooked Israeli food did not make a big impression. And at a predominantly Jewish beach, a policeman made everyone nervous.

    So, on this latest visit, the selected beach was one in Jaffa that is frequented by Israeli Arabs. Nobody noticed the visitors.

    Dinner was a surprise. Hagit Aharoni, a psychotherapist and the wife of the celebrity chef Yisrael Aharoni, is a member of the organizing group, so the beachgoers dined on the roof of the Aharonis’ home, five floors above stylish Rothschild Boulevard, where hundreds of tents are currently pitched by Israelis angry with the high cost of housing. The guests loved Mr. Aharoni’s cooking. They lighted cigarettes — something they cannot do in public at home — and put on joyous Palestinian music. As the pink sun set over the Mediterranean, they danced with their Israeli friends.

    Ms. Aharoni was asked her thoughts. She replied: “For 44 years, we have occupied another country. I am 53, which means most of my life I have been an occupier. I don’t want to be an occupier. I am engaged in an illegal act of disobedience. I am not Rosa Parks, but I admire her, because she had the courage to break a law that was not right.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/wo...st/27swim.html

  27. #147
    I'm glad such sober-minded people work at the Egyptian foreign ministry.


    Protest of Thousands in Cairo Turns Violent

    By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and HEBA AFIFY
    Published: September 9, 2011

    CAIRO— A demonstration that brought tens of thousands to the city’s central Tahrir Square to reiterate the demands of the Egyptian revolution turned violent on Friday, when thousands of people tore down a protective wall around the Israeli embassy and assaulted the grounds while others defaced the headquarters of the Egyptian Interior Ministry.

    Late in the evening, the Ministry of Health said that 88 people had been injured in clashes with the police at the Israeli embassy and 31 were injured near the Interior Ministry. Protesters apparently had scaled the walls of the Israeli embassy to tear down its flag. There were reports that some had broken inside and were spilling papers into the street.

    By 11:30 p.m., about 50 trucks with Egyptian riot police officers had arrived and filled the surrounding streets with tear gas. Witnesses said protesters had set on fire a kiosk in front of a security building near the embassy, and that the police had fired rubber bullets to disperse the crowd from both buildings.

    In addition, a fire broke out in the basement of the Interior Ministry, but it appeared to have been started from the inside and not by the protesters surrounding the building. The fire was in a room believed to store criminal records.

    The scale of the protests and the damage inflicted represented a departure from the previously peaceful character of the demonstrations staged periodically in Tahrir Square since the Egyptian revolution in January and February. Organizers of Friday’s demonstrations had said they would call for a list of familiar liberal goals, like retribution against former President Hosni Mubarak and an end to military trials of civilians. But thousands of people marched off from the square to express their anger over disparate recent events, including a recent border incident with Israel and a brawl between soccer fans and the police at a recent match.

    Thousands of hardcore soccer fans — known here as ultras — were for the first time a conspicuous if not dominant force in the protests. They led the attacks on the Interior Ministry and the security building near the Israeli embassy. At the Interior Ministry, groups of political activists were seen attempting to form human barriers to protect the building, urging protesters to retreat to the square and chanting, “peacefully, peacefully.”

    The Israeli embassy, which has been the site of several previous demonstrations after Israeli armed forces accidentally killed five Egyptian officers while chasing Palestinian militants near the border last month, was an early target on Friday. In response to almost daily protests since the border episode, the Egyptian authorities had built a concrete wall surrounding the embassy, and by early afternoon thousands of protesters — some equipped with hammers — were marching toward the building to try to tear down the wall.

    After using the hammers and broken poles to break through sections of the wall, protesters began using ropes attached to cars to pull away sections. By the end of the night the wall was virtually demolished. Two protesters then climbed up the building and took down the Israeli flag, which had been replaced after a protester removed it three weeks ago.

    Egyptian military and security police officers largely stood by without interfering with the demolition, though they clustered at the entrance to the embassy to keep protesters out. The security forces had pulled back from Tahrir Square and other areas before the start of the day to avoid clashes with the protesters, although the military had issued a stern warning on its Facebook page against the destruction of property.

    Israeli radio interrupted its programming to report on the attack at the embassy, Reuters reported. Citing Foreign Ministry officials, the broadcast said that the Israeli ambassador was safely at his residence and that Israel was in contact with the Egyptian government and others about the episode.

    Egyptians outside the embassy seized on the wall as a symbol. “We were attacked inside our own land,” said Ahmed Abdel Mohsen, 26, a government employee. “They can’t lock us out in a wall in our own country. Nothing will stand in the way of Egyptians again.”

    Ayman Ibrahim, 36, an employee at the Foreign Ministry, said, “Israel killed five Egyptians and Egypt builds a wall to protect them, as if they are telling us to bang our heads against that wall.”

    He added: “This is stupidity. They never understood how the Egyptian people think.”

    The soccer fans, who dominated the assault on the Interior Ministry, turned out in response to a melee with the police after a match on Tuesday that left more than 100 people injured and more than 20 fans arrested and jailed. The Ultras have long been known for obscene chants, rowdy conduct and clashes with the police. But they have become increasingly engaged in politics since the revolution, in which they played a major role in defending Tahrir Square from plainclothes Mubarak supporters. Police officials told Egypt’s state-run newspaper Al Ahram that the Ultras had attacked police officers with bottles and debris at the match. But after the match, riot police officers attacked the fans, and in a rare moment of the unity the fans of both of the competing Egyptian soccer teams — Ahly and Zamalek — vowed to turn out together on Friday to protest their treatment and demand the release of the detained fans.

    By Friday night, a few hundred protesters had managed to pull down 9 of the 13 letters in the Arabic signs on the wall of the Interior Ministry. And graffiti on the wall went far beyond the contentious soccer brawl to attack the military council running the country in the name of the revolution and its leader, Field Marshall Mohamed Hussein Tantawi.

    “Down with the traitorous council!” some of the graffiti read. “Down with the Field Marshall.”

    Late in the evening, protesters had also gathered outside the state television building, calling for reform of the state media organizations.

    The demonstration took place against the backdrop of Mr. Mubarak’s trial, and one large sign featured his photo, a noose and the words “verdict of the people.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/wo...t/10egypt.html

  28. #148
    Note that it says "employee" and not "diplomat", which suggests the guy is probably a secretary.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  29. #149
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Note that it says "employee" and not "diplomat", which suggests the guy is probably a secretary.
    Why a secretary? Foreign ministries need janitors too, right?
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  30. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Note that it says "employee" and not "diplomat", which suggests the guy is probably a secretary.
    Indeed. I've just noticed people at all levels of our State Dept at least generally understand diplomacy, the value of existing relationships and don't make a habit of giving interviews to the NYTimes complaining that they aren't being allowed to burn-down another embassy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •