digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at prospect-magazine.co.uk

Cover story: 'A liberal Israel lobby' by Gershom Gorenberg |

prospect-magazine.co.uk — Imminent launch of liberal pro-peace Israel lobby in DC to counter the inimical impact of AIPAC on U.S. policy toward Israel.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yonoz, on 03/27/2008, -6/+12Good article, finally some SANE criticism of AIPAC.
  • kieranmaine, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Indeed, a good article. It's interesting that the polls quoted in the article make it appear that politicians don't necessarily have to take a hawkish position with regards to Israel. The fact that a lot of politicians do however suggests that they see Israel as nothing more a useful outpost in the region. Until the US views the middle east as more than a objective that provides them with power throughout the world, peace will be hard to come by.
    • idisagree, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0No, the fact that, "a lot of politicians do" (take a hawkish position with regards to 'Israel') suggests that something else is occuring behind the US political scenes which 'persuades' many of our spineless Congressmen and Congresswomen to put forth Zionist legislation and to vote the way they do; these behaviors do not suggest that, "they see Israel as nothing more a useful outpost in the region." Everyone knows that many polls are not scientific and that all data is subject to personal interpretation.
  • Jeff82, on 03/27/2008, -5/+6Not enough time to read it all. But, anyone who thinks peace will be achieved with the arabs (short of the extermination of all Jews) is extremely blind. Until the "peace" with the anti-Christ, there will be no peace. Therefore Israel must do what is right for it's citizens and for Jews around the world. It is incumbent upon all true Christians to support this effort. Right now I don't believe the Israeli gov't is doing it's citizens any good. They need to provide security and need to provide it fast and for the long term. Let the chips fall where they may. Our God is in control, what do you fear?
    • caferrell, on 03/27/2008, -5/+8Speaking as a Christian, let me tell you that we should not determine our foreign policy by your literal and confused understanding of the Book of the Apocalypse.
      If there is one area where we really need to separate church and state it is in the formulation of foreign policy. Foreign policy decisions can either lead towards peace or towards death. Israelis base their policies of occupation of all Biblical Israel on the Torah, which leads towards death and war. You want to continue to base your policies on a misunderstanding of the Bible instead of basing it on practical and moral considerations. Your basis for deciding foreign policy leads to death and war.

      The same happens when the Muslims base their foreign policy decisions on interpretations of the Koran. It ends in death and war.

      Neither the Bible nor the Torah nor the Koran has any business in foreign policy
      • yonoz, on 03/27/2008, -1/+11"Israelis base their policies of occupation of all Biblical Israel on the Torah"
        What Israelis would these be? The Israeli government is secular.
        • caferrell, on 03/28/2008, -10/+2And its real goal is the reoccupation of biblical Israel.
        • wpi97, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10 If that were its goal, then Jordan, which was part of biblical Israel, would have been reoccupied long ago. Is that why the current Israeli government had the plans ready for the unilateral withdrawal from most of the West Bank, which included Hebron, first capital of biblical Israel?
          • idisagree, on 03/30/2008, -6/+0Yes, thats part of the goal and no Jordan was not apart of biblical Canaan (oops! Israel). The Zionist government left Gaza only because they were forced out; as they will be forced out of the 'West Bank' after Hamas assumes control there. By the way, according to the Zionists, 'Israel' proper extends from the borders of Egypt to the Euphrates river. The Zionists haven't acheived this only because they have been held in check by resistance fighters from Hamas and Hisbullah in spite of massive military aid from the INVERTEBRATE BUSH and company.
          • yonoz, on 03/30/2008, -1/+8Don't let reality get in the way of your teen angst, tool.
          • wpi97, on 04/01/2008, -1/+6"By the way, according to the Zionists, 'Israel' proper extends from the borders of Egypt to the Euphrates river."
            Correct, except not according to the Zionists, but according to history.
            Here is the map of Solomon's kingdom: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/solkingd.htm
            And here is the map of David's kingdom: http://www.bible-history.com/map-davids-kingdom/ma ...
            Both include present-day Jordan, and most of present-day Syria.

            "The Zionists haven't acheived this only because they have been held in check by resistance fighters from Hamas and Hisbullah"
            LOL. That's the most ridiculous thing I've read all day! You really should read up on the history of the region, and the current situation.
          • idisagree, on 04/05/2008, -5/+1You should read the JEWISH PRESS (published every wednesday) OR HAMODIA (daily or weekend edition), OR THE JEWISH WEEK to read for yourself all of the KVETCHING AND WHINING ABOUT HOW POWERFUL a resistance force with no aircraft, no armor, no mobile artillary and NO INVERTEBRATE LIKE PRESIDENT BUSH to give them 50 BILLION $ US (like he gave to Sharon in his failed attempts to 'defend' Gaza FROM ITS RIGHTFUL OWNERS). Lest I forget, read the MARCH ISSUE OF COUNTRY YOSSI MAGAZINE, which, oi vey!, whines about 'Israel's' need to continue using banned cluster bombs because OF "HIZBULLAHS MASSED FORCES' in Ed Lasky's laughable propaganda piece on the our next president. But you won't read it will you? Your myoptic vision is too broad for you and even that is giving you headaches !!
          • idisagree, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2You should also read the New York Post's PAGE SIX; you might learn something.
            “Page Six” is a “fix” for the New York Post as a malicious gossiper is for a Loshon Hara addict. On 8 April, 2008 Page Six grabbed my attention with a bold face font that screamed, “Static over banned Jewish ad.” On a day to day basis, Rupert Murdoch's New York Post can't seem to differentiate between fact and fantasy when it comes to the conflict between the TERRORIST ZIONIST REGIME and the Palestinians and this instance proved no different. However, even I was surprised that Page Six staff can't tell the difference between a radio station choosing not to air putrid Zionist propaganda (ie, democracy in action), and a government or state agency attempting to strangle free expression (by “BANNING”) as in the case of the TERRORIST ZIONIST REGIME, breaking the arms and legs of young people who dared to display the Palestinian flag during the 80's and 90's. THATS B-A-N-N-I-N-G.

            Secondly, Although the 60 second ad was sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, whose stated goal is to, “...safeguard and strengthen Jews and Jewish life worldwide.”, the ad is not a “Jewish ad”, IT IS A ONE-SIDED PRO-ZIONIST AD. Unfortunately for Jewish people worldwide, most of the leaders of so-called mainstream Jewish agencies do not represent the opinions of the average Jew in regards to finding win-win solutions to the Palestinian-Zionist conflict.

            In the ad a narrator asks the listener to, “Imagine you had fifteen seconds to find shelter from an incoming missile. Fifteen seconds to locate your children, help an elderly relative, assist a disabled person to find shelter; Blah, Blah, Blah.” If these agencies told THE TRUTH, it would go something like this: “Imagine hundreds of thousands of immigrants came to your homeland, set up an independent government, and because of what they had recently suffered in foreign lands, they proceeded to take your land, and to discriminate against all people who are not apart of their RACIST HIERARCHY who remained in 'their' newly declared country. How would you feel?

            Lets face it, these AIPAC affiliated 'Jewish' agencies are not going to tell Americans, “Yes, Hamas is firing missiles indiscriminately at 'Israeli' civilians, however 'Israel's' Zionist government FIRST PUT GAZANS UNDER A SIEGE, AND ARE INTENT ON STARVING PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS INDISCRIMINATELY.” AIPAC LOVES THE INVERTEBRATE BUSH, and the last thing they want is a two-sided debate that would provide real solutions or a president who will think for himself and put America's interest first. AIPAC doesn't really care how many innocent Jews or Palestinians suffer horribly; all of those precious people are just propaganda props for a RACIST, GREEDY, ELITIST, INHUMANE MOVEMENT THAT HAS NO PLACE EITHER IN TORAH OR THE MODERN WORLD.
        • yonoz, on 03/28/2008, -1/+9Oh, its "real" goal.
          Right.
          ...and here I thought this was just another political government, you know - like in every other representative democracy.
          • idisagree, on 03/30/2008, -8/+1A regime with no CONSTITUTION cannot guarantee equality for ALL ITS CITIZENS (and not just formerly European Ashka-NAZI Jews), who seem strangely enough, to be the UPPER CASTE in the Zionist regime is NO DEMOCRACY.
          • yonoz, on 03/30/2008, -1/+9I don't see what this has to do with what I wrote.
            The UK and New-Zealand have no written constitution either.
            Every country has what you may call an "upper caste", and strangely enough, most of them seem to be Western ("European").
            What made you single Israel out?
          • kieranmaine, on 03/31/2008, -8/+1I can understand why people think Israel has some racism issues - See this article http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/information ... I've also read about racism between Jews depending on where they come from.

            As you say the UK has no written constitution and as far as I know all citizens over here have equal rights. I disagree with you that most countries with an "upper caste", or what I would call an upper class, only seem to be western European. India has a far more discriminatory caste (class) system than all of western Europe. The US has an increasing divide between rich and poor. South Africa still has a large, poverty stricken underclass. In fact I'd say Europe is one of the most progressive entities in the world when it comes to rights and equality.
          • yonoz, on 03/31/2008, -1/+8Show me a country that has no racism issues... and who would've thought there are racist Jews - bIg surprise there!
            The link you provided is broken but the "About us" page on the site should give you a hint on that organisation's agenda. I have to see what it is you actually intended to present.
            I stand by my claim that every country has what idisagree would call an "upper caste", or what I would call an elite. I did not claim they were ONLY western, rather that MOST of them SEEM western. I can't think of a country where the elite isn't more western ("European") than the lower classes, except maybe Bhutan.
            I understand how Europe would seem progressive, they do a great job at hiding their new colonialism.
          • kieranmaine, on 04/01/2008, -7/+1Sorry I misunderstood your comment. I'd agree that most upper castes appear western. I guess this is due to the British Empire (and the other colonial powers), and more recently the US, putting in place puppet governments of their choosing.
            Here's the link to the story
            http://digg.com/world_news/Anti_Arab_racism_and_in ...
            I also found this one that i feel backs up my point
            http://digg.com/world_news/Settlers_attack_Palesti ...
            I'm not saying that Israel is the only country with racism issues. It's just I doubt you would see the things that are listed in the above articles happening in a western country; and if they did the people commiting the crimes would be arrested and punished.
          • yonoz, on 04/01/2008, -2/+8The first link leads to quite a long article, I'm not going to address the whole thing, except it's quite clear from the start it's a one-sided propaganda piece: "Abunimah also co-founded The Electronic Intifada".
            The second one is an article about a house settlers claim to have bought. I can see 8 in the photo, hardly a representative portion of Israeli society.
          • hadees, on 04/01/2008, -2/+8I would like to point out that the Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Arabs have equal rights in Israel.
          • kieranmaine, on 04/02/2008, -5/+1I'd like you to address the whole article. It seems like a lot of established sources are quoted (Haaretz, NYT, AP), so I'm just wondering what presented in the article is incorrect? I've never heard of the eletronic intafada. I will look into them.

            It's not the actions of the settlers that represent Israeli society, but the response of the security forces. The article says the following has happened: 'extensive abuse and violence by settlers in the new settlement, carried out before the eyes of security forces' and 'abuse and violence by security forces posted at or near the new settlement;'. There numerous other examples in the article of security force failings. Since the security forces are government controlled and the government is voted in by some of the people of Israel, the actions of the security forces are representative of SOME of Israeli society - I don't associate being Israeli with being
            racist.
          • yonoz, on 04/02/2008, -2/+8I'd like you to bring forward individual claims in the article that you'd like me to address. If you expect me to go into all the trouble of addressing every single issue in the article, you might as well show a bit of decency and put some effort into it yourself. I've already shown the author's bias, the article as a whole is tainted.
            The article claims abuses happen, yet does not bring forward a single example - let alone "numerous other examples" as you claim.
          • kieranmaine, on 04/02/2008, -3/+3I'll go through the first article tomorrow.
            Sorry I was taking the Btselem article at face value that what it says was true - I try and find out the exact incidents it's referring to. Do you think Btselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel is just making things up?
            The "numerous other examples" were:
            * "increased prohibitions on movement enforced by Israeli security forces;"
            * "failure to enforce the law on violent settlers;"
            * "attempts by settlers to cut access paths to the settlement through Palestinian farmland or on Palestinian streets, which led to violent confrontations."
            * "Also, many residents have stopped parking their cars near the settlement, fearing the cars will be damaged by settlers or by security forces."
            Again I'll try and get some more info on these incidents.
          • yonoz, on 04/04/2008, -2/+8I believe the people that work for these organisations are not qualified investigators. When there is no evidence, it's pretty much up to who you choose to believe. Seeing as there have been NUMEROUS claims of genocide, massacres etc that have been proven false by genuine investigators, I take Palestinians' claims of abuse with more than a grain of salt. That's not to say abuses don't occur - it's simlpy that there is so much exaggeration and straight-out lying, that I place these claims beneath a gigantic question mark until I am presented with proof.
            All those examples do not support the claim of the State of Israel being racist, or having racist policies. There are some mean settlers, but they are a minute fraction of Israeli society. It's funny how the pro-Palestinians complain about "failure to enforce the law". Talk about hypocrisy.
          • idisagree, on 04/05/2008, -8/+2The amazing thing is that President Bush and yonaz constantly parrot AIPAC's party line, that “the Zionist state is a democracy and shares our American values.” Let's examine that assertion.

            UNLIKE ACTUAL DEMOCRACIES, the Zionist state DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTION OR A BILL OF RIGHTS. America HAS BOTH. The Zionist regime does not even pretend that all 'Israeli' citizens have equal rights.

            UNLIKE ACTUAL DEMOCRACIES, the Zionist state claims to be a “Jewish State” of the chosen people; A SIMILIAR CLAIM was made by a regime in Central Europe over sixty years ago; ANOTHER RACIST STATE that claimed to be an “Aryan State” of a superior people. All other people are (were), second-class citizens under both regimes. America IS A DEMOCRACY; it is a nation for all of its citizens and we do not OFFICIALLY DISCRIMINATE based upon a citizens RELIGION, RACE, or COLOR, as the Zionist regime does.

            UNLIKE ACTUAL DEMOCRACIES, the Zionist state demolishes the homes of Palestinian women and children (but not Jews) and America doesn't do that, although the INVERTEBRATE PRESIDENT BUSH, to our NATIONAL SHAME, has given the Zionist regime the Caterpillar brand D-9 armored bulldozers that are used to commit these CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

            UNLIKE AN ACTUAL DEMOCRACY, the Zionist state has forced Palestinian civilians to serve as human shields during Zionist sweeps for resistance fighters. America doesn't do that either. Some “common values” huh?

            UNLIKE AMERICA AND OTHER ACTUAL DEMOCRACIES, the Zionist state, assigns Palestinians different colored license plates than Jews and they are forbidden from driving on 60% of roads of the 'West Bank' that have been taken over by the Zionist regime and designated as “Jewish roads”.

            UNLIKE ACTUAL DEMOCRACIES, 'Israeli' Palestinians are denied the right to serve in the armed forces, which guarantees that their employment opportunities will be limited. All 'Israeli' citizens of Palestinian descent are assumed by the racist regime to be disloyal. In America, all races, and religions may serve.

            UNLIKE ACTUAL DEMOCRACIES, The Zionist regime prohibits Palestinians from (in many cases) living where they want, driving where they want, ie, enjoying their lives the way they want to. This list could go on and on, however, any reasonable civilized would conclude that 'Israeli' Palestinians may "get along" with Zionists and Jews in general but they do not "get along fine" by any means and that President Bush, yonaz, and AIPAC desperately need refresher courseS on DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC VALUES.

            Secondly, Missiles are not being launched “from day-care centers (in Gaza), into shopping malls”, because in 2006-07, Zionist forces deliberately demolished Hamas affiliated institutions: day-care centers, clinics, senior-citizen centers and soup-kitchens. Yes, resistance fighters are launching missiles. However, they only began to do so after the Zionists began the siege of Gaza with the intent of STARVING CIVILIANS TO DEATH. Is not a siege an act of war? Gophergreg, if you get your cerebrum out of your rectum, and wipe all of the Zionist, racist, and religious elitist drek away, you'll be able to think a whole lot cleare
          • yonoz, on 04/06/2008, -2/+7My my, what a load of ignorant rubbish.
            A "real democracy" does not require a constitution. On the contrary, there are quite a few scholars who say a constitution is anti-democratic.
            Israel has a human rights law that has a constitutional stature, there have been several laws that have been annulled by the Supreme Court on account of it.
            All Israeli citizens have equal rights, and the same license plates.
            I've asked you before - do you belong to an anti-Zionist religious group?
          • yonoz, on 04/06/2008, -2/+6BTW, you do realise that from Dred Scott to Guantanamo, the US was, and still is, treating citizens unequally, and discriminating between citizens of different races and faiths, even after the introduction of the Bill of Rights?
          • kieranmaine, on 04/07/2008, -4/+3In the defense of the US you have a black man running for president with a chance of winning - in a country where in the last century black people we're subject to huge amounts of racism. I think this shows that progress has been made.

            Could a Palestinian run for head of state in Israel and have as much chance of winning as Obama does in the US?

            Still there's no doubting racism still exists there - a friend of mine had trouble getting into the US because she was BORN in Iraq (she's italian). Plus they support a lot of dodgy regimes - as do a lot of western countries.
          • yonoz, on 04/07/2008, -2/+6There's no need to defend the US as it is not under attack here. I was simply giving idisagree - who seems to think a constitution is somehow democratic, and that a country with a constitution can protect minority rights whereas a country with no constitution can not protect them - a crash course in contitutional law. The UK has no constitution and it is doing rather well protecting minority rights, while in the US the Constitution and Bill of Rights were even used by the Supreme Court to deny rights from Dred Scott.
            Rights are a temporal concept. Tomorrow we'll argue on who's rights we infringed today. A constitution, like any other law, needs to be interpreted by people who live in the here and now.
            As for your question, keep in mind that African Americans never challenged the US's very reason for existence, and never engaged in warfare against it. Even the most moderate Palestinian will challenge Israel's existence and borders. As in your friend's case, there's racism, and there's genuine, legitimate distrust.
          • kieranmaine, on 04/07/2008, -4/+3I looked into the license plate comment. idisagree says 'Palestinians', and not 'Israeli citizens' as you state, have different number plates. I looked online and it appears Palestinians do have different number plates and Israeli citizens (Jewish, Arab) do have the same number plates (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KZH/is_/ai ... http://nigelparry.com/diary/ramallah/plates.html, http://jewishvoices.squarespace.com/shabbat-va-yik ...
          • yonoz, on 04/07/2008, -2/+6Kind of a moot point, don't you think?
            Palestinian cars have different plates because they are administered by the Palestinian Authority.
          • kieranmaine, on 04/07/2008, -4/+3I guess it's the reason why people have different number plates that matter - if soldiers see a palestinian car they know not to let them onto certain roads. Onto what I was going to post...
            While challenging the right of Israel to exist is wrong, challenging the borders of Israel I believe is fair. As you have pointed out that not all Israelis are racist (I agreed with this) you're saying that even the most moderate Palestinian challenges the existence of Israel. Aren't making a generalization here? I'm currently reading the chapter 'Rejectionism and Accommodation' from the book 'The Fateful Triangle' by Noam Chomsky. It cover the 70's and early 80's and talks about how the PLO and Arab states offered Israel peace and were rebuffed. I haven't looked at the believes of Palestinians in detail for the past 20 years, but in the time frame in the book, Palestinians most definitely wanted peace and would have recognized Israel - although I'm sure the borders of Israel would have been under discussion.
            Just out of interest why, in your opinion, won't Israel move back to the pre-1967 borders?
          • yonoz, on 04/08/2008, -2/+6The reason for Palestinians having different license plates is that they're not Israeli citizens and are not administered by the Israeli Ministry of Transport. It would be against international law for Israel to administer them as Israeli citizens, as that would mean annexation.
            "... in the time frame in the book, Palestinians definitely wanted peace and would have recognized Israel" - the key words here are "in the book". Chomsky is a linguist, and a linguist with a clear anti-Israeli agenda for that matter. If you would like to bring forward actual parts of the book we can discuss those. Arab and Palestinian "Peace proposals" usually come with certain demands - again, if you could be more specific about them we can discuss them here.
            Israel won't move to the pre-1967 border because of several reasons, the most substantial one at this time being the distrust of Palestinians. If the Gaza Strip was is a model for a future Palestinian state, we certainly don't want that sort of state within firing range of our entire national infrastructure and most of our civilian population.
          • kieranmaine, on 04/08/2008, -4/+2I'm going through the EI article atm. The fateful triangle will have to wait for another day. In preparation I recommend you purchase the book - it interesting throughout and gives a good description of events, especially the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I wouldn't say Chomsky is anti-Israeli. He's not against the existence of the state of Israel. He's just writes about what is excluded from the US media. Back to the EI article; I'm reading through the sources to try and discover the lies that you say exist in it - I'm not sure why you can't just tell what in it is fictitious. This source seems reasonable though http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0 ... - it validates that there is substantial racism towards the Arab minority.
          • yonoz, on 04/08/2008, -2/+6How much of that is racism, and how much is distrust? It's very easy for someone who lives on an island to accuse Israelis of being racist.
            http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/852611.html
            I would certainly say Chomsky is anti-Israeli.
          • kieranmaine, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2I'm presenting facts that says there is racism against Israeli Arabs. I'm not sure what living on an island has to do with things. Lets go through article for examples of racism.
            1. The first line says - "Finding a pattern of government ''prejudice and neglect'' toward Israel's Arab minority". Prejudice is a racist quality.
            2. Second paragraph - "The commission said insensitivity by the Israeli ''establishment'' permitted widespread discrimination against Israeli Arabs". If you discriminate against someone based on there race, you're racist.
            3 "the report concluded that Israel ''must educate its police that the Arab public is not the enemy, and should not be treated as such.'' More than a million of Israel's 6.6 million citizens are Arabs.". If your police force is treating your own citizens as enemies because they're Arabs they are racist.

            Distrust breeds racism, but distrusting someone based on their race is racist - regardless of what some Arabs may have done.

            Putting the racism thing aside I was shocked to read about "the use of sniper fire to disperse crowds". The crowds did kill a motorist through stone throwing, but I doubt that any western European country would control violent crowds using snipers.
          • yonoz, on 04/09/2008, -1/+6Living on an island has a lot to do with assertions of racism, as your home hasn't been on the receiving end of Arab fire for the last 6 decades. People who are attacked tend to be suspicious and distrustful of people who have much in common with their attackers. It does not mean they're racist.
            That first line is an assertion, not a fact.
            "Insensitivity" does not equal racism.
            "If your police force is treating your own citizens as enemies because they're Arabs they are racist." "Distrust breeds racism, but distrusting someone based on their race is racist - regardless of what some Arabs may have done." - well then, colour everyone racist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling
            Sniper fire doesn't necessarily mean fire with intent to kill. Snipers are better at hitting limbs than ordinary shooters.
          • yonoz, on 04/09/2008, -1/+6"I doubt that any western European country would control violent crowds using snipers." - I doubt any western European country faced with such severe internal disruptions in concert with an external enemy would treat the fifth column with less severety. They were attacking police with molotov cocktails and live fire, blocking major traffic routes and destroying public infrastructure.
          • kieranmaine, on 04/09/2008, -3/+1Do you agree about the racism issue now?
          • yonoz, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4No, why? What's changed?
          • idisagree, on 04/09/2008, -3/+1yonoz, Constitutional Rights (ie equal rights for 'Israeli' Arabs) in 'Israel' are even less than, "a temporal concept"; they are ephemoral and nebulous, and most 'Israeli' Arabs would probably say NON-EXISTENT. You curiously have no comments on the other valid points that were brought to your attention.


            yonaz also stated to another party that, "Kind of a moot point, don't you think? Palestinian cars have different plates because they are administered by the Palestinian Authority." However AIPAC (er yonaz) knows for a fact that plates allocated to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are doled out by the ZIONIST OCCUPATION AUTHORITIES. Don't you think that Palestinians would prefer to drive on their own roads? Roads IN PALESTINE that have been designated "JEWISH ROADS" by the racist, Zionist regime? If they were issuing their own plates, it would be easier to blend in with their occupiers if they all had the same color plates, but then again, we already know that don't we yonaz?

            yonaz also exclaims,"The reason for Palestinians having different license plates is that they're not Israeli citizens and are not administered by the Israeli Ministry of Transport. It would be against international law for Israel to administer them as Israeli citizens, as that would mean annexation." First of all, SINCE WHEN DOES 'ISRAEL' ABIDE BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS? secondly, annexation is the goal, along with ethnic-cleansing, (as has already been done in Yerushalyim) by the arbitrary 'fencing off of the local Palestinian populance. In fact a former Zionist Minister of Tourism who openly advocated ethnic cleansing NOT REMOVED BY THE 'DEMOCRATIC', 'EGALITARIAN', 'PEACEFUL', TERRORIST REGIME, because he was a siren for the underlying principles of Zionism. He was however killed by resistance fighters. After the 'IDF's' incursion into Gaza recently that killed 80 CIVILIANS; the people who attacked the yeshiva did not do so randomly, as AIPAC (er yanoz) know all too well. That yeshiva was the number one advocate of the Zionist, Terrorist, 'Settlement' movement in Israel. Throughout our long history the Jewish people (and other people) have suffered needlessly because of those appointed 'Rosh Yeshivas' DO NOT EMBODY TORAH OR ANYTHING PERTAINING TO ETHICAL PRINCIPLES. We are reminded constantly that, "The Torah is the way of peace." However, when you ask some of these appointed Tzadiks (Righteous people of our age), "Why don't the PEACEFUL, WISE, SAGES OF JUDAISM AND THE PEACEFUL, WISE SAGES OF ISLAM BREAK BREAD TOGETHER AND SEE IF WE CAN OBTAIN A WIN-WIN SITUATION; YOU CLEARLY COMPREHEND BY THEIR RATIONALIZATIONS AS TO WHY THIS CAN NEVER HAPPEN, THE REALITY OF THE EXTREMIST DOGMA (AND WHERE IT COMES FROM) THAT SO MANY PRECIOUS JEWISH AND MUSLIM CHILDREN ARE BEING INDOCTRINATED WITH.
          • kieranmaine, on 04/09/2008, -2/+1In response "Living on an island...", I feel the UK has had it's fair share of terrorism due to the trouble in N. Ireland - although it's no where near as bad as what has happened to Israel, which in turn isn't as bad as what has happened to Palestinians and Lebanese. Still me living on an island has nothing to do with identifying actions of a government, or bodies that it controls, as being racist. Racial profiling is racist. It doesn't color everyone racist - just those that do it.

            If you want to view the Orr Commission as a list of assertions that is up to you. Still it's "assertions" are that the government and Israeli police are racist, NOT because they are "insensitive", but because they "discriminate" and are "prejudice". If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice, racial profiling is listed as a manifestation of prejudice. Everyone can understand why someone could be distrustful or fearful of a group of people because of what other people in that group have done. The problem is when you act on that fear and treat Arabs differently and condone, or believe it is OK, to think that the police treating Arab Israelis as "the enemy" is OK. Do you agree with this much at least?

            I know that in the Brixton riots (London - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brixton_Riots) Molotov cocktails were used, public infrastructure was destroyed, shops were looted and cars were set alight - however there was no live gunfire. It was considered that snipers were not needed to control the crowd though. Similar riots in Toxteth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxteth_riots) didn't bring about the use of sniper fire or rubber bullets. If someone with a gun was involved in the riots I'm sure sniper fire would have been used - it would not have been used to "disperse crowds". You say "I doubt any western European country faced with such severe internal disruptions in concert with an external enemy would treat the fifth column with less severity.". I think these riots can be considered "severe internal disruption" and they were treated with far less severity than the way the Israel police treated the protesters in 2000.

            Interestingly the riots were in response not only to social and economic conditions but also the racism of the police. I feel this is a good example of how much trouble racism in the police can cause and should serve as a good example of how the Israel police should look at reforming themselves to be as least racist as possible - if indeed that is what they have done.
          • kieranmaine, on 04/09/2008, -2/+1Yonoz, Just out of interest if more Jewish Israelis were murdered by other Jewish Israelis, than killed by Palestinian terrorist actions, would you fear and distrust Israelis more than Arabs? I was trying to look for some stats on this and found the following, both of which didn't give me the answer to the number of murders between Jewish Israelis. http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000396.ht ... and http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton56/st11_07.pdf. Anymore info on this would be good.
          • yonoz, on 04/10/2008, -1/+3idisagree, get your facts straight. There are no "Jewish Roads" in the Occupied Territories. You do not speak for Israeli Arabs either, who, as Palestinians, have more rights in Israel than in any other ME country.
            One more thing - try to control your rage.
          • yonoz, on 04/10/2008, -1/+4kieren, you seem to be out of touch with the political reality of Israel. I was not referring simply to terrorism, but also 60 years of calls for Israel's destruction and several wars fought for Israel's very survival. The Irish army never invaded Britain's mainland, the Irish government never called for pushing Britain into the sea, etc. This isn't the Falklands or Afghanistan either, our soldiers serve a few hours' drive from their homes at most.
            If you agree racial profiling is racist then Israel, its government and police force are no more racist than any other country, government and police force. However, Israeli Arabs had full rights before Australian Aboriginies, the Israeli government does not keep a detainment camp on foreign soil for the purpose of not having to answer to its Supreme Court (vis a vis constitution), and Israeli Arabs hold more prominent public positions than the natives in the aforementioned countries.
            The Brixton riots had how many rioters? No more than a thousand. They were not a concerted effort across different locations. The UK police could simply divert forces to Brixton from other areas. Here is a map of the October 2000 riots - each of those circles represents a "Brixton Riot". FYI that map covers about a quarter of Israel's population.
            The Brixton riots were not in concert with an external enemy, the rioters can not be considered a fifth column. They also did not cut off one of Britain's most important traffic routes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_65_%28Israel% ...
            But I believe the best proof of racism in the UK security forces is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)
            You mentioned the Orr Commission - the Widgery Tribunal was a joke, and it took the UK over a quarter of a century to set up the Saville Inquiry, that has not convened since 1995. Looks like you Brits could take a lesson from us,. Then again, you've gathered a lot of experience in oppressing the Irish.
            If Jewish Israelis were to kill other Jewish Israelis on account of being of a certain ethnicity, I'd imagine those of the victims' ethnicity would fear and distrust them more. I have no reason to fear any Israeli with whom I have no quarrel, but during the October riots I might've been lynched had I found my way into a riot, simply because I'm Jewish.
          • yonoz, on 04/10/2008, -0/+4Here's that map: http://elyon1.court.gov.il/heb/veadot/or/d.htm
          • kieranmaine, on 04/10/2008, -2/+2I agree the investigation into bloody sunday was a joke. There's no doubting the racism towards the Irish by both the UK establishment and the public. In the 70's shops would have signs that read 'No blacks, no dogs, no Irish'. The Birmingham six were falsely imprisoned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six). Looking back further we were opressors the world over in India, Africa, Middle east, America. Historically we're far worse than Israel, IMO. To this day we still sell weapons to the likes of Saudi Arabia, something my own MP endorses. Sadly money talks.

            I can admit and face up to the racist history off my country. Why can't you?
          • yonoz, on 04/11/2008, -2/+2I understand you agree then, that no western European country would handle these riots less harshly.
            My family lives a few minutes drive from where the worst riots occurred. I regularly shop and dine in those areas. I work with Arabs from those areas. I know that for me it's not about race. There's one Arab restaurant that used to be very popular, while the riots were still going, I went there with my family to show solidarity with the ordinary citizens of those areas that do not take part in the Muslim movements organised riots and strikes. It wasn't packed as usual, but there were quite a few other Jewish families there. My uncle and his family live right inside that area. They had to take a back road to get in and out of their homes during the riots, and genuinely feared for their safety. That didn't stop their daughter from returning to work at the Arab cafe on the junction where some of the worst riots occurred once calm returned. There are racist Israelis, just as there are racist Europeans. I believe that considering our history, Israeli society is less racist than European societies.
          • idisagree, on 04/12/2008, -1/+2yonaz sayz, "idisagree, get your facts straight. There are no "Jewish Roads" in the Occupied Territories. You do not speak for Israeli Arabs either, who, as Palestinians, have more rights in Israel than in any other ME country." yanoz knowz that its illegal for any 'Israeli' citizen to travel to the Occupied Territories; so even though many, many credible people have personally witnessed those "Jewish roads", we know that 'Israeli' laws would prohibit the average citizen from traveling to the Occupied Territories to verify my assertiion personally. However, I am truly happy that finally one of AIPAC's mouth pieces have admitted that PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES ARE IN FACT OCCUPIED. yonaz does have a valid point though; I will bite my cybernetic lip and try not to use so many CAPITAL LETTERS, to emphasize concepts. I will also to define the brutal, racist, Zionist occupation in more sanitized, less offensive terminology. Like the US State Department recently reminded us with their 'Israeli' produced study on 'anti-semitism'; its not the actions the Zionists are doing, (ie demolishing the homes of women and children, using civilians as human shields when trying to capture resistance fighters etc; its the LANGUAGE used to refer to these 'behaviors' which causes animosity towards the Jewish people, world wide. I maintain that the 'State Department's' premise is not rational.
            yanoz states that, " I went there (where the worst "riots" occured") with my family to show solidarity with the ordinary citizens of those areas that do not take part in the Muslim movements organised riots and strikes. I know a nice lady who really cares about 'Israeli'-Arabs, but in a very abstract way; not in a way that is practical and will bring about any meaningful changes. What good is your "solidarity" with "oridinary citizens" who don't take part in Muslim movements and strikes? There are lots of Jewish labor movements in 'Israel'. Why shouldn't Muslim workers organize and strike when necessary? One of yonaz's tactics is to divert you from the issues at hand; notice he responded to only one of my initial assertions, and now will happily debate with you the merits of the Orr Commission and "Bloody Sunday" from now until 2009 and you won't be any closer to find out what is really happening in 'Israel' (get the facts, agree on them, mutually define the problem and agree on definitions, actively seek a win-win solution).

            Concerning the selling of arms, 'Israel' is in 4th place (but not for long); the US, Russia, and France sell more arms than the Zionist regime currently. And you are correct; money usually triumphs over principles (Ambrose Bierse, "The Cynic's Wordbook" aka "The Devil's Dictionary".

            I truly agree with the first part of yonaz's opinion that, "There are racist Israelis, just as there are racist Europeans." The second part, "I believe that considering our history, Israeli society is less racist than European societies.", I feel is just a sly ploy to divert you again into arguing "whose vice is worse", rather than saying, "How can we fix what is broken in the land of 'Israel'-Palestine?
        • idisagree, on 03/30/2008, -8/+1"The 'Israeli' government is secular?" Why do extremist rabbis control who can marry whom in the Zionist state? Why are religious extremists allowed to have their own private police forces in the Zionist state? Why are religious extremists exempt from defending the Zionist regime in 'Israel'?
          • yonoz, on 03/30/2008, -1/+11Israel recognizes civil unions performed overseas, including same-sex marriages.
            All three major religions have systems that oversee marriages performed within Israel.
            There are no private police forces in Israel.
            Jews who declare religious study as their profession are exempt from military service. Most such individuals belong to the Haredi stream, who, in general, are not Zionist. They claim various religious reasons for this, but it is mostly the military's liberal atmosphere - virtually all roles are open to women, and there are no military units without females except for a couple of experimental Haredi-only units - that turn the Haredi leadership against military service. Granted, they do use their political power to extend these exemptions, but this is a political compromise, that clearly conflicts with Zionism.
        • idisagree, on 04/05/2008, -6/+1I will rephrase the same question. Why does the Zionist regime permit (ie agree with) religious extremists to decide who can and cannot marry 'Israeli' Jews. Why do the Zionist authorities along with the religious extremists forbid public discussion of religion and religious principles between people who may want to convert to another religion under pain of imprisonment? Why does the Zionist regime allow PRIVATE RELIGIOUS POLICE (which they do in the Haredi communities; just as in the US, they are equipped with sirens, flashing lights etc)? For a 'secular' regime; the religious seem to have an inordinate amount of power IN REALITY.
        • idisagree, on 04/09/2008, -2/+1yonoz, We are constantly reminded that, "Every Jew is responsible for every other Jew." Thats why I am indulging you; so that you will wake up from your intellectual and ethical slumber and see that the reality is, "What's good for humanity is good for the Jews." When comes Moshiach? When we begin to realize that, "Whats good for the Jews and f**k everybody else, no longer applies. Wake up yanoz. Wake up brother, take the red pill.
        • idisagree, on 04/13/2008, -0/+0yonaz answers the assertion that,"Israelis base their policies of occupation of all Biblical Israel on the Torah" with, "What Israelis would these be? The Israeli government is secular." Yes, it must truly be be secular ! That's why the religious extremists are allowed to demand that secular 'Israeli's' not display Chometz (or even sell; if the customer can't see the product, they won't by it), on Pesach (and get away with it) in spite of the 'Israeli' court saying that it's not kosher !!
          Yes, the 'Israeli' government must be secular ! Why else would they permit religious extremists to continue to segregate state owned public transportation (Egged buses), even after a Jewish female who was too tired to "move to the back of the bus" (ie, see Rosa Parks, during the time of US government sanctioned segregation) was thereafter physically beaten (along with a male 'Israeli' soldier who tried to protect her? Secular, schmeckular, right yanoz?
      • SampleX, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Speaking as a Christian, let me advise you that your revision of what the 'Book of the Apocalypse' actually is, doesn't work.
        Mostly because you've taken it right out of context with the rest of the book.
        Moreover, it is irrelevent whether the 'foreign policy' from here on in is modelled in one fashion, or in another fashion. Because the authority of 'The Book of the Apocalypse' lies in it's predictive nature... war WILL escalate in the Middle East... borders will be conceded... Israel will compromise... God will not be pleased... the Islamists WILL attempt genocide... a new Empire of Global Rule WILL emerge... it's leader WILL be the embodiment of anti-Christ... his rise WILL trigger a countdown to judgement... the world WILL face terrible trials... billions of people WILL die... Christ WILL return... He WILL restore Israel to the people He promised it to with the full border as he originally laid it out... the fraudulent inhabitants WILL be removed if they don't lay down their genocide... God WILL defend Israel Himself... AntiChrist WILL attempt to wage war on God... He WILL have his ass handed to him and a lifelong retirement plan by a lake with a prime spot for barbeque.

        And God's promise WILL stand... 'I will bless them that bless you, and curse them that curse you.'

        The politics of Israel are irrelevent... while ever the wellbeing of the Jewish people, the Hebrew identity, rests on their nation being able to maintain its own defence, then to challenge and condemn Israel for their insistance on survival in the face of a genocidal, bloodthirsty enemy, is to play a risky game with God's good graces. Historically, nations which turned on the Jews have not fared well.

        "Israelis base their policies of occupation of all Biblical Israel on the Torah, which leads towards death and war."
        Two points... firstly, an entire rabbinical movement in Israel would disagree with your statement. The Israelis based their policies of occupation upon Zionism, which is independent of the Torah. If they were following the boundaries laid out in the Torah, there would be no West Bank, no Gaza Strip, no Golan Heights, and no buggering around placating the followers of Mohammed's cult. The repeated concessions of land are probably exacerbating the situation, because they may be pleasing the Mohammedans, but they're creating a rod for their own back, and they're running a risk of offending God, who's land they're living on, and they keep giving chunks of it away to the blood cult. Second, two thousand years of history tells me that 'death and war' where Jews are concerned, as not associated with borders in Israel, or the existence of their state, but instead with two thousand years of organised (and prophecied) persecution, hatred, violence, jealousy, and despise. Jews had 'no' land in Nazi Germany, and war and death befell them. Now the Mohammed-Osama's are trying to do exactly the same thing, just as they wanted to do during the second world war - genocide for reasons best known to the cult - longstanding and illogical hatred manifest in the modern day, whether Israel has land and a right to defend herself or not.
        And in fairness, the Israelis at least had the smarts to declare themselves a nation on the day that the Bible prophecied, May 14 1948... The Palestinians, who were fraudulently arguing that this was 'their' land, didn't bother to do so until 40 years later.

        "The same happens when the Muslims base their foreign policy decisions on interpretations of the Koran. It ends in death and war."
        I don't think there are many options with the follower of the Arabian pedophile... they kind of exist to manifest his bizarre blood cult, nationalistic, religious imperialism and for no other reason.

        "Neither the Bible nor the Torah nor the Koran has any business in foreign policy"
        Not sure you've demonstrated why. More death, human rights abuse and war has been conducted on behalf of atheistic nations with no 'holy book' and socialist ideologies in just 100 years, than that which was conducted under the influence of ALL the world's religions for ALL of human history. That kind of suggests that 'death and war' are entirely independent of religious ideology, except where that religious ideology expressly demands death and war, like Islam.
        • idisagree, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1If you knew a little about Jewish history, you would know that the Golden Age of the Jews in the last 2000 years was in Muslim controled Spain. To 'Zionist'-Christians, oppression of non-Jews (or more accurately, non-Zionists) is OK as long as its not happening to them. The racists who currentlly control the Zionist regime look upon you as "just another goy". Why not, the next time you go to "the Holy Land", you share your faith with the local Jewish people and see what happens to you. I'll tell you: you can be imprisoned for up to one year for sharing your 'Zionist'-Christian faith. Thats only if you are lucky !! Private vigilante groups such as Yad L'Chim, if they get to you first, will gently stroke your cheek with their fists and boots !! That organization is in the US as well, listed as a 'charity'. They have a great new website which attempts to soften their "sweet" image; however, if you google them, you will read many eye witness accounts of beatings etc..
          So I say: SampleX put your faith into action !! You won't like the reality if you try. But you must do what the TRUE FOUNDER of your religion said to do when this happens: Turn the other cheek; now if someone could only read the words of Jesus to President Bush, the world would be a better place.
    • idisagree, on 03/28/2008, -5/+2Actually, what Jeff is stating is his belief that peace is only possible by the extermination of the Palestinians, and by extention all Arabs, and we would have to be brain-dead not to see through his reverse-psycholoigy. He seems to be the product of an extremist background that believes that ALL THE GOYIM ie "them" are all evil and hate "us", the Jewish people. This underlying philosohy is not in our poeples' (Jews) self-interest.. Look where this philosophy of hate has gotten us throught the centuries. I fear that he is just another victim of this xenophobic, racist, hateful religious dogma. On the contrary, it is incumbent on all true Christians to FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS, which went something like this: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. He was quoting from Leviticus, which some of our more extremist rabbis have interpreted as "LOVE YOUR FELLOW JEW AS YOURSELF" and to hell with everybody else. JESUS also spoke of OVERCOMING EVIL WITH GOOD, not colluding with THE EVIL ACTIONS OF OTHERS such as bombing and starving and demolishing the homes of non-combatants. It matters not whether this guy is a mis-informed Jew or an ignorant Christian who fancies himself as a "Christian Zionist"; the path that he (and AIPAC) advocates has brought nothing but misery to our people.
  • w3bsag3, on 03/29/2008, -2/+1Another self-hating lunatic left Jew. They are the ones who gave us Oslo and 15 years of war. Go live in Gazastan.
    • kieranmaine, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1Do you want to expand on your comment with some references to facts?
    • idisagree, on 04/20/2008, -0/+0w3bsag3, i'm gonna share something with you; something you may not have been nurtured with: Love is like the warmth of the sun; you can love everyone and still have enough love for your "own people". Love comes in virutually limitless quantities as does hate. i can choose to love you in spite of your hateful rhetoric and yanoz in spite of his deceptive disingenuousness even though i won't permit either of you to harm me or my committment to follow my conscience while i attempt to chisel away at your heart of stone (to get to the soft human part) and try to pry open your fanatical clam-like biases and misperceptions about the world (rational thought), that lead you to feel that if someone can feel for others' suffering (as well as one's 'own people'), one must be a, "self-hating lunatic left Jew" rather than a person who is better equiped to perceive reality and to offer real solutions rather than just distressed and hateful speech.
      • idisagree, on 04/20/2008, -0/+0w3bsag3, i'm gonna share something with you; something you may not have been nurtured with: Love is like the warmth of the sun; you can love everyone and still have enough love for your "own people". Love comes in virutually limitless quantities as does hate. i can choose to love you in spite of your hateful rhetoric and yanoz in spite of his deceptive disingenuousness even though i won't permit either of you to harm me or my committment to follow my conscience while i attempt to chisel away at your heart of stone (to get to the soft human part) and try to pry open your fanatical clam-like biases and misperceptions about the world (TO EXPOSE YOUR MIND TO RATIONAL THOUGHT), that lead you to feel that if someone can feel for others' suffering (as well as one's 'own people'), one must be a, "self-hating lunatic left Jew" rather than a person who is better equiped to perceive reality and to offer real solutions rather than just distressed and hateful speech. DIGG HAS A HABIT OF REARRANGING OR OMITING WORDS THAT ARE PERCEIVED TO BE 'ANTI-JEWISH'; HOWEVER I DON'T MIND RESTATING MY ACTUAL THOUGHTS.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.