Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.
Never Too Much Rage
littlegreenfootballs.com — Brian Ledbetter has tracked down another professional rage beast, a Palestinian demonstrator who somehow manages to get his contorted, snarling features into a lot of MSM photographs: Professional Protester, Palestinian-Style.
vault- 37 diggs
- digg it
- Albionshores, on 12/27/2007, -18/+4So what? There are no photos of him with a gun, or hitting anyone...he's protesting and it does seem like he has a lot to protest and be angry about, what with all the apartheid and ethnic cleansing going on...
- DreadPirate, on 12/28/2007, -3/+14Albion - you really have trouble with the definition of Apartheid, don't you? Israel has arabs *in the government*! You can't have apartheid when members of the minority are part of the government. But of course facts like that don't suit your anti-isreal ranting, does it?
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -13/+3Not really no; I use the International Criminal Court's definition as laid out in the 2002 Rome Statute (part 2, article 5) and it is applicable it to the Occupied Territories. Hence the argument of government representation does not apply here.
Nor is it anti-Israel ranting. There are more and more Israelis petitioning exactly the same thing, more and more Israelis are refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories. If anything it is I that represents the majority of Israeli interests and the moderate majoirty. In that sense it is you when you attempt to rant against me that rants against Israel.
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm#ar ...- Idiggapony, on 12/28/2007, -0/+12I followed Albionshores' link. Part 2, article 5 doesn't define "apartheid." However, part 2, article 7 does. Here's their definition:
"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
You can then go back and read the "inhumane acts" in paragraph 1. Israel certainly imprisons people, and makes laws prohibiting noncitizens from accessing some areas, as does every other country on Earth. Israel never does any of this based on race, so none of this could even remotely be considered as constituting apartheid under this definition.
I can think of one way in which Israel's policies could be considered "apartheid" under the Rome Statue. Israel deports people, as does every other country. Israel doesn't deport people because of their race. However, Israel does automatically accept Jews as new citizens, and it doesn't automatically accept non-Jews. And this is done to preserve the Jewish-ness of Israel as a state, which could be broadly construed as maintaining a regime. So maybe Albionshores means to argue that this policy constitutes sort of an implied deportation-in-advance of non-Jews. It's a weak argument, I think, but it could be made. It could be made with equal validity with respect to other countries that will accept people of a particular race as new citizens. For example, some Arab countries will accept any Arab, except a Palestinian, as a new citizen.
Albionshores, was that the sense in which you meant "all the apartheid going on?"
- Idiggapony, on 12/28/2007, -0/+12I followed Albionshores' link. Part 2, article 5 doesn't define "apartheid." However, part 2, article 7 does. Here's their definition:
- buddarien, on 12/28/2007, -1/+13Gee, albion, what a completely baseless link to support your claim. You must be an ACLU attorney to pull that one out. Do you point to that link when terror enabling states commit crimes under international law, or is it reserved for anything Israel ever does?
As dreadpirate stated, arabs sit in the knesset and the judiciary. There is no apartheid. PERIOD. You cannot dispute facts no matter how hard you don't want them to exist.
By the way, "occupied territories" has been an invention of the islamist propaganda machine for decades and seems to have caught on with nobody ever questioning it. Could the UK call the USA "occupied territories"? I am sure your marxist collective feels that way. However, Egypt and trans-Jordan lost land through acts of war and aggression. To the winner go the spoils.
And no, calling you out for your lies and distortions is not ranting against Israel, Mr pseudo-Orwell. You hold Israel to one standard and hold the rest of the ME to another. You do not represent Israeli views on anything which you demonstrate by your comment history. You do not even deal with facts, so how can you be expected to speak with intelligence on any topic?
No, you are just a terrorist apologist that would rather blame Israel for the acts committed by savages than the savages themselves. So progressive.
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -13/+3Not really no; I use the International Criminal Court's definition as laid out in the 2002 Rome Statute (part 2, article 5) and it is applicable it to the Occupied Territories. Hence the argument of government representation does not apply here.
- DreadPirate, on 12/28/2007, -3/+14Albion - you really have trouble with the definition of Apartheid, don't you? Israel has arabs *in the government*! You can't have apartheid when members of the minority are part of the government. But of course facts like that don't suit your anti-isreal ranting, does it?
- Erythroxylum, on 12/27/2007, -2/+16He really does look like a young Edward James Olmos. Sort of. Maybe he should leave the hopeless, open sewer/'Palestine' and go to Hollywood and become a star. I mean, we know he can 'do angry'. And he has a nice hairdo. He'd make a great support in some romantic comedy. You know as the lead's genocidal, woman-beating, Jew-hating room-mate or something.
Hilarious.- StepCousin, on 12/28/2007, -2/+5The LGF photo looks more like Alec Baldwin.
- Maninthemiddle, on 12/28/2007, -2/+18Albion refers to ethnic cleansing - I assume he is referring to many formally Christian towns like Bethlehem - who have been stripped of almost all Christian residents by the Palestinian terror groups and are now majority Muslim.
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -19/+3I don't care which ethnic cleansing you talking about - it is ALL WRONG whoever does it. I was actually thinking about the Ehtnic Cleansing carried out against the whole of Palestine but Bethlehem is a fair case sample. You don't have much of a leg to stand on; you're certainly not seeing the elephant in the room.
National Geographic on Bethlehem?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0dpK5O72bI- Zacktopia, on 12/28/2007, -2/+16http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outl ...
The latest National Geographic blood libel was written by self-admitted fabricator Michael Finkel. - Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -14/+2If you are going to slur someone for politcal machination at least see who it is you are slurring. The link is to a YouTube video of Betlehem by CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON on the behalf of NationalGeographic's 2007 December issue. It is PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence and personal testimony.
- Zacktopia, on 12/28/2007, -1/+15Please reread my sentence. The latest NG blood libel...etc. In other words, they are known for that sort of thing. Your source is tainted, but you're offering different fruit from the same tree. No thanks.
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -10/+1Wow how bigotted was that! A man is asked to go to Bethlehem to shoot some photographs for National Geographic and you dismiss him as 'bad fruit' before his dust cap is off!
Out of interest which sources are now considered bad fruit. I mean obviously you think LGF is fine but have issues with the BBC, Amnesty Inteantional, presumably now the Red Cross after their latest report, Reuters, National Geographic.....
b,b,b-but, but it is them that have the problem with bad fruit not you. Feel the walls closing in much? - Zacktopia, on 12/28/2007, -0/+7Rejecting the work of Leni Riefenstahl and Nazi apologists during the time of the Third Reich was also prejudiced, but the right thing to do. The sources you cite have all been exposed at times for their anti-Israel, pro-genocide agendas. An International Red Cross official once shocked the head of the American Red Cross by equating the Star of David with a Nazi swastika. Since that time, the IRC has changed its tune and admitted Magen David Adom as a member, proving that incremental progress is possible. A time may come when the various sources of your strain of "anti-Zionist" anti-Semitism are merely of academic interest - as with Riefenstahl, et al. We are not there yet. Your propagandists for the the Dark Side will continue be confronted, shamed, and boycotted until they change or cease to exist.
On the other hand it is quite possible that your side will succeed in wiping Israel off the map (as promised). Of course, that's been done before, and the action didn't seem to take. The tide of history is not flowing in your favor, Albionshores.
It's alternatively possible that other "extinct" indigenous cultures with reclaim their pieces of the Islamic Empire. Israel's example of resurrecting native forests from the desert wastelands they became under Muslim rule, and the natural human urge to throw off stifling Islamic totalitarianism are forces of light arising from the universe to gently advance my cause. Your victories can only be temporary. The walls, you see, are not closing on me - I am part of the wave of "walls" which will eventually overcome you.
I've already made peace with Almighty Nature, which is why I support Israel and all other indigenous cultures - even Islam within the confines of Arabia (properly a visiting guest culture elsewhere). The Islamic Empire's opposition to Nature comes with too high a price to be sustained long term. People will gradually feel compelled to bring themselves back to harmony with nature in their native lands. I have felt and yielded to that force, and some day you will also. I'm not afraid to spiritually merge at the end of this life with the ocean of spirits, one droplet of which will once have been Albionshores. You oppose me now. You will become me later, and your past advocacy a mere academic interest.
Here's a little suggestion for Albionshores: Don't bother admitting how dead wrong you are on issues related to Israel. Just let go of your anger, let go of the sick malignancy that is the Palestinian cause, recover and celebrate your true roots as Zionist Jews have done. You'll feel better. Promise.
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -10/+1Wow how bigotted was that! A man is asked to go to Bethlehem to shoot some photographs for National Geographic and you dismiss him as 'bad fruit' before his dust cap is off!
- Zacktopia, on 12/28/2007, -1/+15Please reread my sentence. The latest NG blood libel...etc. In other words, they are known for that sort of thing. Your source is tainted, but you're offering different fruit from the same tree. No thanks.
- Idiggapony, on 12/28/2007, -0/+13Yes, it is Christopher Anderson's video, and I just watched in its entirety. At least, I watched the entire excerpt that you linked to on youtube.
That video is not about ethnic cleansing. There is only one scene which could possibly be construed as relating to ethnic cleansing: it's a photograph of children playing by the ruins of a house that was reportedly demolished by Israel to make room for their separation barrier. If the house had been demolished in order to clear the area of Arabs and replace them with Jews, then that would certainly constitute an act of ethnic cleansing. But by Anderson's own description, that's not what Israel did. They demolished the house to make room for the wall. You may not think that's right, but you can't call it ethnic cleansing just because you don't like it.
Anderson alludes briefly to the fact that Bethlehem is a majority-Muslim town He doesn't mention that, just a few decades ago, this wasn't the case. Bethlehem's large Christian majority has been recently eliminated by Muslims who attacked and murdered the Christians, or harassed them and stole their property so that they left voluntarily. That wasn't ethnic cleansing either, as it was done on the basis of religion, not race. Nevertheless, that's the real elephant in the room.
I find your argument that Israel is guilty of "ethnic cleansing" to be invalid, and your argument that Israel is guilty of "apartheid" to be extremely tortuous, at best. Nevertheless, I respect and appreciate that you're making these arguments, rather than just burying this story as spam in order to suppress discussion, the tactic favored by the majority of Israel's many, many, many detractors here on digg.com.- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -11/+1Then you need to go away and learn what ethnic cleansing is - then you will see how it is applicable to this report.
As an aside for he who brought up the persecution of Christians in Bethlehem. Sounds like they are quite happy to beating each other up. From today's Independent :D
"Robed Greek Orthodox and Armenian priests attacked each other with brooms and stones inside the Church of the Nativity yesterday as long-standing rivalries erupted in violence during holiday cleaning.
The basilica, built over the grotto in Bethlehem where Christians believe Jesus was born, is administered jointly by Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic authorities. Any perceived encroachment on one group's turf can set off vicious feuds."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/ar ... - Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -10/+1Here....this'll serve to put you in the right direction. It has all the buzzwords from this thread in there; 'Palestine', 'Christian', 'Ethnic Cleansing' - and it comes from a collection of sources International, Palestinian and Israeli. The title is 'Christians in Palestine'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QHzuYcuIQY&feature ... - Idiggapony, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9Per your suggestion, I "went away" and tried to learn what ethnic cleansing is. Many definitions have been offered. Here's United Nations definition:
"rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group"
I'll buy that -- I'm willing to accept that ethnicity can refer to religion. Nevertheless, there is nothing whatsoever in the video that you linked to that refers to ethnic cleansing, except perhaps for the mention of Bethlehem's Muslim majority, which is a result of ethnic cleansing of Christians by Muslims (although Anderson doesn't mention HOW Bethlehem came to have a Muslim majority).
In the late 1940's, about 700,000 Arabs left their homes in what was then Palestine. Most left voluntarily, but many were violently removed from their homes by Jewish groups seeking a more ethnically pure Jewish state of Israel, and this would certainly meet the UN's definition of ethnic cleansing. It's worth noting that, at about the same time, approximately 800,000 Jews fled Arab countries to live in Israel, and many of them were deported or violently induced to do so. This too would constitute ethnic cleansing. And there are numerous other examples of what could now be considered ethnic cleansing throughout history. Many of these are ongoing, including the ethnic cleansing of Christians from Bethlehem at hands of Muslims, which is conveniently left out of Anderson's Israel-bashing video (at least, it's left out of the part that I saw on youtube).
Israel carried out ethnic cleansing in the past, and it may again in the future, as some of its politicians have brought up the idea of deporting some of its Arab citizens to preserve a Jewish majority of the population. But at the moment, Israel, unlike its Arab neighbors, does not have any policies that could be considered ethnic cleansing. - Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -11/+1Did you see the photographs in the video? Do you see that UN defintion definition you found on my instruction?
You see all that restriction, that wall, all that queueing, the effective curfew, all causing damage to trade and the impoverishment imposed?
Here's the UN defintion again...
"rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group"
FORCE OR INTIMIDATION: Ethnic cleansing.
Another example of FORCED eviction, provided for by B'TSelem:
http://www.btselem.org/english/Video/20071125_Forc ...
"This policy led to the economic collapse of the center of Hebron and drove many Palestinians out of the area."
http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summar ...
FORCE OR INTIMIDATION TO REMOVE: ethnic cleansing. - buddarien, on 12/28/2007, -1/+9The restriction, the wall, the queuing, the curfew are all the result of the palestinian intifada. They did not exist prior to 2000. It is a fact. Look it up. Dispute it. You cannot.
You are desperately trying to suggest a moral equivalence between protecting ones' citizens and ethnic cleansing. It just isn't there.
Sane people do not feel sorry for those that refuse to help themselves when they are fully capable of doing so. The palis never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. For decades now, they have successfully played the victim and for decades their arab brethren have allowed them to. They have no interest or desire to do otherwise, as their actions have proven.
Then again, why would the arab countries give up the best scapegoat they will ever have? Do you honestly think it is in their best interest to destroy Israel and then have to answer to their own people about their economic and social malfeasance? If you do, I know of a really nice bridge you may wish to purchase.- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -10/+1I'm not arguing a moral equivalence ----I'm saying it actually IS ethnic cleansing. I look at what the UN defines ethnic cleansing as....I look at what is being imposed on people....I also look at what humanitarian groups are reporting...I look at a number of news sources and reports. I look at a people (not just militants but all people) being restricted, impoverished, intimidated and oppressed and the systematic measures in place to make life a struggle and along with the international community, Israeli humanitarian groups and the free thinking world I SEE ETHNIC CLEANSING.
"For decades now, they have successfully played the victim "
OH THE IRONY!!!!!! - buddarien, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9The UN needs to look in the mirror, dontcha think? Of the 192 member countries, how many are bastions of human rights and civil rights?
And you choose to elevate the UN as a higher moral authority, why?
The reason why measures are systematically implemented is because the palis refuse to restrain and prevent their own from doing harm to innocents. Do you honestly think Israeli soldiers enjoy checkpoints? They are human beings with families too. And they would like to go home to their family rather than turn loose a homicidal nut bent on killing himself along with others.
You do not deal in reality. You wish to overlook why security measures are in place. You will not accept the reason for the measures.
The PA just received billions of dollars in aid. That is a fact. They could very well take that money and improve their situation more than any other group of people on this planet. And you know what? They won't. Just you watch. They will not. They can choose prosperity and life. They will not. Think I am wrong?
They have created a culture of death and destruction. And weak minded people such as yourself do nothing to help, but apologize for their barbarism.
Oh the irony indeed. A people so invested in their own misfortune have not taken any opportunity to better themselves for decades. Dispute it. You cannot. Blame Israel. That you do well.
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -10/+1I'm not arguing a moral equivalence ----I'm saying it actually IS ethnic cleansing. I look at what the UN defines ethnic cleansing as....I look at what is being imposed on people....I also look at what humanitarian groups are reporting...I look at a number of news sources and reports. I look at a people (not just militants but all people) being restricted, impoverished, intimidated and oppressed and the systematic measures in place to make life a struggle and along with the international community, Israeli humanitarian groups and the free thinking world I SEE ETHNIC CLEANSING.
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -11/+1Then you need to go away and learn what ethnic cleansing is - then you will see how it is applicable to this report.
- Idiggapony, on 12/29/2007, -0/+4I saw the photos in the National Geographic video. There weren’t even any allegations of anything that would constitute ethnic cleansing.
As for “all that restriction… all that queuing,” in that particular video, the Palestinians who were being forced to wait in long lines at checkpoints had to do so because they wanted to temporarily enter Israel and come back again. Is it really “ethnic cleansing” if a country regulates how and when non-citizens are allowed to enter?
Curfews do not forcibly remove anyone from anywhere. They’re not ethnic cleansing.
The wall that Israel has built is designed to protect Israel from terrorist attacks, and it has been extremely successful in that respect. It has also caused financial hardships for Palestinians. One might argue that, without the wall, the enormous increase in Arab terrorist attacks would bring an increased Israeli military presence, yet more restrictions upon travel and trade, and a lot more Israeli tank shells, which would bring far greater financial hardship than the wall does. Alternatively, one might argue that the wall inflicts an unacceptable degree of suffering upon too many Palestinians, including those that are in no way involved with terrorism, and that Israel is unjustified in trading so many Palestinians’ well-being for its secutiry. In either case, the wall has not removed anyone from anywhere, except for a few people whose houses were demolished to make room for it. Those people were chosen by location, not by ethnicity, and they weren’t forced to move anywhere except a hundred feet away. The wall is may be bad, but it’s absolutely not ethnic cleansing. It’s not meant to remove anyone from anywhere, and it hasn’t succeeded in doing so. If the United States builds a wall on the Mexican border, a lot of Mexican people may get poorer, but that’s not ethnic cleansing either.
I can’t comment on the two links above, as they didn’t work for me.
Israel’s many detractors are fond of saying that it’s possible to legitimately criticize Israel’s policies without being anti-Semitic. That’s absolutely true, and I have criticized Israel in this very thread. It’s also true that it’s possible to legitimately criticize Israel without resorting to words like “fascist,” “Nazi,” “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “ethnic cleansing.” These are words chosen for their inflammatory capacity, not their meaning.
By using them inappropriately as you have, you devalue them, and you insult those who have suffered from their real examples in the world.
The use of “ethnic cleansing” in this particular discussion has another effect: it dramatically weakens whatever anti-Israel argument is being offered, by exposing its intellectual dishonesty. No matter what chain of reasoning one may assemble in arguing that the _effects_ of Israel’s policies are to cause ethnic cleansing, it is at least Israel’s _stated_ intention that its policies have no such purpose. Indeed, as I have mentioned, Israeli courts explicitly debate the degree of suffering that Palestinians may incur as a result of Israeli actions, and explicitly prohibit anything that could be regarded as ethnic cleansing. You may choose to argue that some architects of Israeli policy actually harbor a secret desire to achieve ethnic cleansing, but seeking to prove intentions of someone who denies them is a challenging task.
Israel’s opponents, on the other hand, hold ethnic cleansing at the very core of their explicitly stated policy goals. Their most fundamental value, the goal that explains and maintains their existence, is the extermination of every Jew in the Middle East. It is the archetypal example of ethnic cleansing. There has never been and could never be a more perfect example of ethnic cleansing. Yet somehow you have failed entirely to acknowledge this, and the entirety of the current discussion of ethnic cleansing has been dedicated to the question of whether or not _Israel_ is guilty of it.
If the basis of the argument is to bring to light and resist the crime of ethnic cleansing, then the first, second, third, and fourth elements of the argument, as it applies to the Middle East, absolutely must be about the explicitly stated and proudly proclaimed goal of most of the parties to the Israel-Palestinian dispute to rid the Middle East of Jews. To discuss ethnic cleansing in the Middle East in any other way is to demonstrate that the primary basis of the argument is not the criminality of ethnic cleansing, but rather a fundamental desire to attack Israel rhetorically in any way possible, using the most inflammatory language possible.
- Zacktopia, on 12/28/2007, -2/+16http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outl ...
- Donald2007, on 12/28/2007, -1/+16More on the Palis ethnic cleansing of Christians http://adeeperlookweblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/yaak ...
- Idiggapony, on 12/28/2007, -0/+10To make a fine point, I suppose it's not really ethnic cleansing as the Christians have been exterminated and driven away because of their religion, not their race. But I'm glad that you brought this up. To ignore its central importance to the changing complexion of Bethlehem is, frankly, dishonest.
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -19/+3I don't care which ethnic cleansing you talking about - it is ALL WRONG whoever does it. I was actually thinking about the Ehtnic Cleansing carried out against the whole of Palestine but Bethlehem is a fair case sample. You don't have much of a leg to stand on; you're certainly not seeing the elephant in the room.
- Maninthemiddle, on 12/28/2007, -1/+15One has to wonder about the efficacy of an ethnic cleansing program by the Israelis that has enabled Palestinian census to rise from the 700,000 that were (often voluntarily) displaced in 1948 to what some estimate to be 5 million today.
Add to this one the lowest infant mortality rates and longest longevity rates in the Arab world.
The Serbs, Hutus, and various Muslim groups in several nations have shown the indiscriminate blood on the ground with ethnic cleansing.
I have written of my disagreements with Israeli policy. Ethnic cleansing is not among them.- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -11/+2Yeah they are determined as hell to not be driven out. Doesn't change it from being ethnic cleansing though. When land is taken, trade routes stopped, access removed, re-entry prohibitted with thousands trapped on borders, when services like medicine, food and electricity are restricted and tax dollars with held, with constant harassment - that is ethnic cleansing.
"I have written of my disagreements with Israeli policy. Ethnic cleansing is not among them."
Well then if you find yourself not disagreeing with ethnic cleansing maybe you should try a little more introspection. Or not. Your call really but personally I disagree with it.- Idiggapony, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9I dugg this comment up, because I think it deserves to be read and considered. To restate the UN definition of ethnic cleansing:
"rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group"
There is simply nothing that Israel has done recently that meets this definition. Withholding tax revenues from a terrorist group that is currently engaged in attacking and attempting to eliminated Israel is an act of self-defense, and does not seek the removal of any ethnic group from any land.
The Israeli government's funding of settlements in the West Bank is considered illegal by many international entities. I personally believe that Jews have every right to live safely in the West Bank, which was known historically as Judea and Samaria, is historically a home for the Jewish people, and contains important Jewish religious sites. Just as Arabs have every right to live safely within the Jewish state of Israel, and to access Muslim or Christian holy sites there, as they do. There is ample historical and legal basis for the existence of Jews in the West Bank. I personally do not believe that Israeli governmental funding of West Bank settlements is justified or even advisable. However, every Arab authority in the disputed territory has dedicated itself to the extermination of Jews living there (ethnic cleansing, certainly), rather than to their protection, and it is clear that the safety of Jews living anywhere in the Middle East can only be assured by protection by the Israeli government. Israel's attempts to secure the safety of Jews living in the disputed territory does not constitute ethnic cleansing. Quite the opposite, it attempts to prevent ethnic cleansing. Israel's control of roads and natural resources in the disputed territories is again of questionable moral and legal standing, but it does not seek to remove Arabs from their homes, and doesn't constitute ethnic cleansing. Israeli courts expend considerable time and effort debating the legality of West Bank settlements, with the intention of ensuring that the settlements do not displace Arab inhabitants. Some settlements have been found to be illegal, and Israel has arrested and removed Jewish settlers from those settlements. In short, the Israeli government actively ensures (or seeks to ensure) that Israel does not enact any policy in the West Bank that could be considered ethnic cleansing.
The current Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip has several goals. One is certainly interdiction of the flow of weapons into Gaza, which is ruled by a terrorist group that is sworn to murdering every Jew in the Middle East (a policy of genocide, or ethnic cleansing ). As terrorist attacks on Israel continue on a very frequent basis, this action is certainly justified. Another purpose of the Gaza blockade is to allow into Gaza only the minimum quantity of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies necessary for survival, but no more. I think that this is a political move, designed to erode support for Hamas by creating in Palestinians' minds the idea that pursuing a policy of genocidal terrorism will only lead to their own discomfort. I personally believe that such a policy is not only unfair, amounting to collective punishment of Palestinians because they elected a terrorist regime, but frankly ineffectual. Palestinians' political goals have always focused on annihilating Israel, at the expense of their own short- and long-term living conditions, and subjecting the Palestinians of Gaza to suffering will strengthen, not weaken their resolve to attack Jews at every oportunity. Nevertheless, the blockade does not seek to remove anyone from Gaza, and cannot be construed as ethnic cleansing.
In summary, the Jewish groups that would be responsible for creating Israel carried out policies of ethnic cleansing around the time of Israel's creation, but no recent Israeli policy can be considered ethnic cleansing. Indeed, Israel actively works to ensure that this is the case. This is in contrast to numerous bona fide examples of ethnic cleansing that are undertaken constantly, on an ongoing basis, by Israel's neighbors, including not just the gradual eradication of the Christian population of Bethlehem, but the primary goal of every major Palestinian terrorist organization, including those constituting Palestinian governmental authority, which is the extermination of every Jew in the Middle East. Accusing Israel of "ethnic cleansing" in this setting is profoundly ironic, and just as profoundly inaccurate. - Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -8/+1"rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group"
'RENDERING AN AREA': THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
'ETHNICALLY HOMOGENOUS': ISRAELI SETTLERS (CHECK UN - VALID ETHNICITY GROUP)
'FORCE OR INTIMIDATION': ROADBLOCKS. RESTRICTION OF TRAVEL TAX MONEY, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, TRADE, ELECTRICITY, FOOD, SECURITY AND LAND. BUILDING ENCOMPASSING WALLS.
TO REMOVE FROM A GIVEN AREA: INCREASINGLY ENCROACHED PALESTINE.
PERSONS OF ANOTHER ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS GROUP: PALESTINIANS QUALIFY AS AN ETHNIC GROUP (see UN)
So the statement stands. You then go on to argue:
"Withholding tax revenues from a terrorist group that is currently engaged in attacking and attempting to eliminated Israel is an act of self-defense, and does not seek the removal of any ethnic group from any land."
But is the tax held solely from those engaged in attacking - or do innocents suffer from it too? Does restricting electricity, medicine, money to be spent on social services, infrastructure, - the people, make it much harder to live there. Restriction of trade and movement empoverishes the area. Are Palestinians always just freely allowed to cross back home once they have left Palestine? NO! It is not just me arguing it. Humanitarian groups the world over argue it to be so too. Moderate Israelis argue it. People refuse military service because of it. The vast majority of the world, Israelis included, recognise Palestine and its plight. Your propaganda to the contrary is not washing anymore with moderates who are becoming anaethestised to the hawkish agendas. Ethnic cleansing, regardless of who is doing it is not justifiable.
You seem quite happy to condemn it when arguing that it is being carried out by those you do not agree with you but quite reluctant to condemn it when it supports your own agenda.
An Israeli Doctor Lecturing on the beginnings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxxMppPxXCw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHFXRcdFoCw&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZFhfbUUbrE&feature ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWeN57DXTp0&feature ...
But this is a beautifully sad video showing Israelis Against Occupation and how exactly Palestinians are facing a cleansing process to move them on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1smEBBHvzR8&feature ...
Here's another of International protesters campaigning against the bulldozing of Palestinian homes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZIWaQ-A6jY&feature ...- buddarien, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9Just out of curiosity, do you hold these same views when hamass and fatass are slaughtering each other for control of the land? Where are all of the humanitarians and human rights groups condemnations?
The roadblocks, travel restrictions and security wall are all the outcome of the intifada. They did not exist before 2000. They are a response by the Israeli government to protect its citizens from suicide bombings. Yet, you imply that they are in place to intimidate because of an ethnic cleansing agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are blaming the victim for protecting herself rather than the perpetrators for committing heinous acts. How very liberal of you.
Nice also how you are so concerned about innocents not receiving tax revenue from Israel. Where is your concern when money that is donated to the PA for infrastructure, medicine, supplies, etc finds its way into bank accounts of leaders and terrorists alike? These thugs have no concern for the well being of their own people and use them as pawns to reap sympathy from those all too willing to fall prey to guilt.
With all the money that arafat and abbass have received over the years, do you not feel that the palis should have better living conditions by now? Ya think?
"You seem quite happy to condemn it when arguing that it is being carried out by those you do not agree with you but quite reluctant to condemn it when it supports your own agenda." You state your hypocrisy perfectly.
Why is there still a UNRWA after all this time? Because maybe the palis are too valuable as little pawns of the oppressors to be dealt with. I am sure there are many videos of liberal Israelis supporting their own suicide. We have that here in the US. To imply that Israel has a hawkish agenda is laughable. Rockets rain into Israel on a daily basis. The fact that they do not respond with overwhelming force is dovish and displays the weakness that encourages more of the same.
Keep repeating the lies. Maybe someday people will not question them. I, for one, will.
- buddarien, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9Just out of curiosity, do you hold these same views when hamass and fatass are slaughtering each other for control of the land? Where are all of the humanitarians and human rights groups condemnations?
- Idiggapony, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9I dugg this comment up, because I think it deserves to be read and considered. To restate the UN definition of ethnic cleansing:
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -11/+2Yeah they are determined as hell to not be driven out. Doesn't change it from being ethnic cleansing though. When land is taken, trade routes stopped, access removed, re-entry prohibitted with thousands trapped on borders, when services like medicine, food and electricity are restricted and tax dollars with held, with constant harassment - that is ethnic cleansing.
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -11/+1And still nobody has offered why the gentleman in the thread should not be allowed to protest (nor why LGF should consider it newsworthy)
- buddarien, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9It was not and has not been stated that he shouldn't be allowed to protest. He has every right to protest. (Do note the irony that if he were to protest in any other country in the ME, he does not have the same rights afforded him as he does in Israel. In fact, he could be and probably would be killed for speaking out against any of the arab countries)
As for being newsworthy, the same person manages to get himself into pictures that are distributed across the major news wires consistently. Quite a feat by anyone's standards. Whether or not you feel it is newsworthy is up to you.- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -10/+1Well the first paragraph is out an out deception.
And the second one is clearly obtuse to LGF's motive. - buddarien, on 12/28/2007, -0/+7Out and out deception? Please illustrate where it has been stated that this man should not be allowed to protest. You cannot. And because you cannot, you project deception onto others when it is you that deceives.
Dispute the fact that he would have the right of protest in any other ME country. You cannot.
As to the motives of LGF, they are to expose the global islamist threat to a population that the MSM would rather placate. The racists and bigots of the left tend to denounce the identification of those that would do harm to others as racist and bigoted. Why as a free press they choose to whitewash stories is anybody's guess. Yet it happens. All too often.
LGF lets you take that red pill and follow Alice down the rabbit hole. You don't have to like what you see. But to deny that it exists is naive and dangerous. It is also to deny the survival instinct that we are all born with. At least most of us are born with.- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -4/+1.
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -10/+1Well the first paragraph is out an out deception.
- Idiggapony, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9Nobody said he shouldn't be able to protest.
It's newsworthy because snappedshot.com has presented a series of journalists' photos of Palestinians' demonstrations, dating back to 2005, which claim to show the same man in various states of dramatic rage. In some of them, the resemblance is, I think, unconvincing. In many dating at least to 2006, I think it's probably the same person.
Palestinians operate an enormous propaganda operation that churns out photos and videos that are supplied to media outlets around the world, in order to engender sympathy for the Palestinian cause. In many cases, these photos and videos depict supposed Israeli attacks on civilians that quite obviously never happened, and were just very crude hoaxes that were staged for the cameras' benefit. The Mohammed al-Dura hoax is the most well-known example, but there are many others, and they're usually snapped up by the representatives of international media organizations, whose seek to discredit Israel, even when they know that the events that they claim to report are entirely fake. The industry that produces Palestinian propaganda is so large and well-organized that some have called it "Pallywood," derisively comparing is prodigious output of movies to that of Hollywood. Here's a little video about Pallywood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys
Obviously, the pictures of this man don't depict any staged attacks. They don't depict any attack at all. The implication is only that the man's repeated appearance in so many journalists' photos over such a long period, combined with his devilishly handsome appearance and his knack for achieving facial expressions that so dramatically evoke the rage and defiance of the oppressed, suggest that he may be a "professional protester." I.e. part of the Pallywood media operation, selected and trained to be an iconic political figure, and directed to appear at demonstrations that are staged as photo opportunities.
Maybe he's not. Maybe he's just a man who shows up at a lot of demonstrations to sincerely express outrage, and, because of his dramatic and inspiring appearance, the anti-Israel media tend to take a lot of pictures of him in making their point.- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -10/+1So basically it was LGF shaking a mocking-stick at a 'Pali' doing nothing wrong and getting people to post a load of hate comments on their wacky antagonist's hate site.
- Idiggapony, on 12/29/2007, -0/+5I took the time to write a five-paragraph response to your comment. I intended for my response to be clear, non-inflammatory, and to-the-point. You've ignored my comment, and completely changed the subject, opting instead to voice your disapproval of LGF.
I don't wish to be cast in the role of apologist for and defender of LGF and its thousands of registered members. There are, to be sure, many "nuke Mecca now!" comments that appear on LGF. Charles Johnson, who runs the site, disapproves of this sort of thing, and deletes some of those posts. Many of them persist. I think they're ugly and offensive, and I don't enjoy reading them. However, in general I find the intellectual level of discourse on LGF to be somewhat above that of digg.com. And the prevalence of posts that express nothing but naked hatred, in the absence of any logical substance whatsoever, is I think greater on digg.com than on LGF. Perhaps that makes digg.com a hate site too. For that matter, the intellectual value of the comments on youtube is far beneath that of either LGF or digg.com, and expressions of extreme hatred are even more common there. It's commonplace on youtube to read comment after comment to the effect of "you are a worthless piece of sh*t and you should go shoot yourself in the head." Maybe that makes youtube a hate site too.
LGF is a site run by one person. Therefore, I suggest that people form their own opinions about LGF by reading what Charles Johnson chooses to post, and what he says about it. Then read the comments, and form an opinion about the people who post at LGF. If you're into factual content rather than emotionality, you find that the many "stupid leftist moonbat idiots!" posts are too numerous for you to feel like scrolling through them to get to anything else. You may or may not feel similarly about the many "stupid neocon zio-nazi idiots!" posts on digg.com. In either case, I hope you'll refrain from joining the "LGF=bury" brigade, which has no counterargument for the LGF posts, so instead seeks to reduce their impact by impeding others' access to them.
- Idiggapony, on 12/29/2007, -0/+5I took the time to write a five-paragraph response to your comment. I intended for my response to be clear, non-inflammatory, and to-the-point. You've ignored my comment, and completely changed the subject, opting instead to voice your disapproval of LGF.
- Albionshores, on 12/28/2007, -10/+1So basically it was LGF shaking a mocking-stick at a 'Pali' doing nothing wrong and getting people to post a load of hate comments on their wacky antagonist's hate site.
- buddarien, on 12/28/2007, -0/+9It was not and has not been stated that he shouldn't be allowed to protest. He has every right to protest. (Do note the irony that if he were to protest in any other country in the ME, he does not have the same rights afforded him as he does in Israel. In fact, he could be and probably would be killed for speaking out against any of the arab countries)
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is