Candidly Speaking: Jewish blood libels

[shira]

Defaming an individual is a criminal offense. To defame a nation by falsely presenting its soldiers as wanton murderers would be considered treasonable in most countries. For Israelis to defame their own youngsters when their nation is at war and battling false international accusations of war crimes - is simply unconscionable. They are promoting outright blood libels against their own people.

A handful of unnamed soldiers in a discussion at a mechina (pre-military college) made unsubstantiated allegations concerning two isolated acts of indiscriminate killing and vandalism perpetrated against Palestinian civilians. Upon further examination it transpired that one of the two raconteurs was relying on rumors and had not even served in Gaza. Nobody verified the allegations or attempted to consider the acts in the context of threats such as suicide bombers. The IDF was denied the names of the individuals making the claim and was not even granted advance notice to investigate and respond to the allegations. Which begs the question as to why the informants failed to report the alleged malpractices in the first instance.

The accusers did not merely allege that their comrades were indulging in barbaric Cossack-like rampages. They implied that such behavior was the byproduct of the ravings of fanatical rabbis who had goaded them to initiate killing sprees. They said the message was that goyim - gentiles - had invaded our sacred land and had to be expelled for interfering with our conquest of Eretz Yisrael. The anonymous informants depicted an atmosphere of religious hysteria in which IDF rabbis "anointed us with oil and stuck holy books into our hands." They sent us "booklets filled with Psalms....we could have filled the room with the Psalms they sent." They claimed that the war was effectively portrayed as a religious passion.

THESE REPORTS cast aspersions on all religious Zionist soldiers and officers who are represented in IDF combat units in far greater numbers than their proportion of the population. They display patriotism, love of country and are frequently held up as role models of dedication and self-sacrifice.

<snip>

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1237727540280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[panader0]

1. Just don't let any women sing around them.

[IndianaGreen]

2. About OP author: Isi Leibler is the single most corrupt and degenerate human

Comments:
http://mraussie.blogspot.com/
Isi J. Leibler
I simply cannot stay silent any longer.

Mr. Isi Leibler is the single most corrupt and degenerate human being I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. For my part, I will admit that I have an ax to grind. Mr. Leibler and I had a fallout some years ago over business. So, yes, I dislike the man and probably even worse and I am sure that that colors my sentiments. However, that does not take away from the fact that the courts in Australia referred to Mr. Leibler’s conduct in matters of business to be “unconscionable.”

I believe Mr. Leibler’s behavior in his personal life to be unconscionable as well. But most assuredly the manner in which he has conducted his affairs within the Jewish world cannot be imagined. No novelist, no playwright, no twisted mind could invent the progression of his possibly psychotic behavior. How and or why people even permit him to exist within the Jewish world remains a mystery to me.

We are all aware of his recent activities. From Israel to the States to Switzerland and back again, Mr. Leibler has been spreading a tale of woe so great as to warrant the expense of all his time and energy. He is a man obsessed. So enthralled with his own quest for power, martyrdom and legend-hood, this myopic individual has dragged his ignorant seed and henpecked wife into his tangled web.

Just this morning, Mr. Leibler circulated an article published today in a Swiss magazine. Mr. Leibler, incapable of speaking any languages, paid to have the article translated. This is not a surprise since he paid to have the article written in the first place.

Mr. Leibler circulated this article, with a cover note stating that he regretted that the entire story about alleged irregularities at the World Jewish Congress ever became public. Definitely, Mr. Leibler believes that his beloved readership, who care less about his rantings than you do mine, would believe his indulgent, self-righteous lamentation and forget that while in the United States on September 20th, he spent hours going from one Jewish news agency to another spreading his tale. He visited for hours with the Publisher of the Jewish Week, Gary Rosenblatt. He visited with the Jewish Forward. He visited with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

While in Israel, he pursued Haaretz. He pursued Jerusalem Post. He pursued Jerusalem Report. He pursued the Marker. He pursued Maariv. All of course while lamenting the public nature of the information he was providing.

In his delusional quest, Mr. Leibler spread his tale to all those who ears he could steal. From Ministers to lawyers, from academics to organizational hacks, from vacationers to socialites, if you were breathing and Isi Leibler saw you, you were told about how righteous he was and how crooked were his enemies.

http://adamrdavis.blogspot.com/2004/09/teshuvah-for-two.html

On edit, more... Leibler was a great supporter of rightwinger John Howard, former PM.

Aussies quit WJC over Leibler suit

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry quits the World Jewish Congress over its refusal to withdraw a USD 7.5 million libel suit against Australian Jewish community icon Isi Leibler

Peter Kohn Published: 07.27.06, 18:13 / Israel Jewish Scene

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) has formally quit the World Jewish Congress (WJC) over its refusal to withdraw a USD 7.5 million libel suit against Australian Jewish community icon Isi Leibler.

An ECAJ ultimatum to the WJC to drop its legal action, the largest of its kind in Israeli history, expired on Tuesday, with the US-based world body refusing to drop its lawsuit against Leibler, a former senior vice-president of the WJC and three-time ECAJ president.

Leibler allegedly libelled the WJC with criticism he made of its governance procedures in a leaked 2004 memo.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3282406,00.html

A financial scandal at the World Jewish Congress has exposed deep political schisms and changed the focus from fighting for world Jewry to infighting. Can the house that Edgar Bronfman built be put back in order?

By Craig Horowitz

Leibler, 70, has been involved with the World Jewish Congress as long as Bronfman has. A leader in the Australian Jewish community who turned a local travel agency into a huge, international discount-travel business, Leibler moved to Jerusalem with his family five years ago. He and Bronfman have never really gotten along. In addition to their personal animus, they have passionate, deeply held political differences.

Bronfman, who is closely aligned with Israel's Labor Party, believes peace between Israel and the Palestinians should be Israel's overarching priority. He advocates significant compromise with the Palestinians, particularly on territory and the dismantling of Jewish settlements. Leibler takes a much harder line. He is far less interested in compromise with the Palestinians than he is in Israel's security. Nevertheless, things had been relatively quiet between the two men - until the summer of 2003.

That summer, Bronfman wrote a letter to President Bush, which he got Lawrence Eagleburger to co-sign, urging him to take a more active role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Though the letter was fairly evenhanded, it did urge the president to pressure Ariel Sharon to make concessions, and it criticized Israel's construction of a security fence - referring to it, in what the right views as the language of Israel's opponents, as a "separation wall."

"Bronfman sees Singer as his ticket to redemption. He decided rather late that Judaism mattered to him, and Singer has, if you will, koshered him."

Leibler, a senior vice-president of the WJC, went nuts. Though Bronfman wrote the letter on personal stationery, Leibler contended it still carried the weight and the implied imprimatur of the World Jewish Congress. He was not alone in this feeling.

Finally, in what has been his battle cry ever since, Leibler accused Bronfman (he later broadened the charge to include Israel Singer) of running the World Jewish Congress as a "personal fiefdom" to promote his own agenda and argued that the organization was wholly without accountability and proper governance. He called on Bronfman to apologize for his letter or resign. Of course, Bronfman did neither. Instead, he threatened to have Leibler banished from the WJC.

And then it really got ugly. In an exchange of e-mails with Leibler, Bronfman said, "I'm writing this note despite my distaste for getting into a pissing match with a skunk." Two days later, he wrote, "When this is over, the person I will feel sorry for is Naomi, your long-suffering wife."

Bronfman was just as harsh in public. In an interview with The Forward that appeared on August 8, 2003, one day after the "long-suffering wife" e-mail, he called Leibler a "right-wing dog." In the New York Sun that same day, Bronfman was quoted as saying that Leibler is an "arrogant twit" who "has decided that G-d is dead and he is taking his place." In the same interview, he said Leibler is "to the right of Genghis Khan and a fool to boot."

http://www.gwb.com.au/murder/wjc.htm

[bemildred]

3. LOL. This ought to be good.

:popcorn::thumbsup:

[Fozzledick]

5. I wuz gonna ask you to pass the popcorn

but there's really not much to see here, just the usual ad hominim distraction taken to an obsessive extreme.

[bemildred]

6. Like any good Bruce Willis movie.

It is possible to evaluate people, to some extent, by the enemies they attract, and their zest for this sort of combat. Furthermore, anyone that finds ad hominems distasteful ought not spend much time in this forum, since they are a staple here. It's true that it's a shallow form of entertainment, but it's hard to be deep continuously, and boring, and people start to think you have a cob up your butt.

[Fozzledick]

9. Sorry, but I don't see how that applies to The Fifth Element or Pulp Fiction

You're not suggesting there are more, are you? :hide:

I don't find ad hominems particularly distasteful, just irrelevant and grossly overused as a distraction to avoid issues raised.

On the other hand, while serious discussion of the developing situation and the policies behind it tends to sink unnoticed, trying to liven things up by confronting the propaganda talking-points directly risks some very nasty name-calling from those who can't stomach having their dogma challenged.

[bemildred]

19. A couple of my favorites.

Reverse ad homs and putting words in other people's mouth is popular too. See post #7 for example. It was like a gift.

WRT your last point, it all depends on how bored you are and how much time you have to waste arguing with people that are not really paying attention.

[Sezu]

7. Gotta keep them axes sharpened for them lying war criminal

whitewashing Israeli liars who are war criminals and liars.

:sarcasm:

[Violet_Crumble]

16. And what's the distraction yr so bothered by?

Is it that someone provided some information on the author of the article? If it's that, why don't you think it's relevant to any discussion what the views of the author is? I've seen many threads where people point out that an author is prone to antisemitism, so why wouldn't you be opposed to that as well? I wouldn't be, coz knowing what the views of the writer is does put the article in context. In the case of the author of this article, he's well known here for his bigotry against the Palestinian people (there's a J-post article called 'evil is evil' where he froths at the mouth about what an evil society theirs is), and as was pointed out, he's an avowed RWer who steadfastly supported that little turd, John Howard...

[Sezu]

4. He admits he has an axe to grind. What's YOUR excuse? n/t

[geek tragedy]

8. It's a betrayal of Judaism to criticize the IDF, apparently.

Watching the Likudniks' brains melt should provide some degree of satisfaction, but given the harm these people are doing, notsomuch.

[henank]

10. You've mixed your metaphors,

your religions, your nationalities and your national institutions.

Please get them all straight, then straighten out your comment, and then perhaps your comment will make some sense. As it stands it's just a load of bigoted gibberish.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. If it was gibberish that didn't make sense, how would you know it was bigoted or not?

Knee-jerking is very unbecoming, y'know....What exactly about what GT said did you have trouble comprehending?

[henank]

26. You wanted to know

What was my problem with what GT said? Here goes:

GT said: "Watching the Likudniks' brains melt should provide some degree of satisfaction, but given the harm these people are doing, notsomuch."

"Likudniks" - meaning... what? Likud were NOT in power (for the umpteenth time) during the Gaza war and are still not actually in power. It was Kadima. So what do you mean by Likudnik? Is it left-speak for "Jew", "Zionist", "settler", "Israeli soldier" ... what?

"Given the harm" - what harm precisely are you tlaking about?

"these people" - once again, who do you mean? That term was used once upon a time by the nastiest people who did not want to actually appear nasty and condemn Jews. They used the word "you/those people".

[Violet_Crumble]

27. As I suspected...it was knee-jerking...

"Likudniks" - meaning... what? Likud were NOT in power (for the umpteenth time) during the Gaza war and are still not actually in power. It was Kadima. So what do you mean by Likudnik? Is it left-speak for "Jew", "Zionist", "settler", "Israeli soldier" ... what?

Someone who claims to be an Israeli doesn't know what *Likudnik* means? Did you consider just going to Wikipedia or something simple like that to clear up any confusion. A Likudnik is a member of the Likud party, y'know that bunch that are opposed to a Palestinian state, though I've seen the term used to describe people who support Likud's policies, especially in regard to the Palestinians. So, where is the bigotry in that?

"Given the harm" - what harm precisely are you tlaking about?

Why the fuck are you asking me what I'm talking about when I didn't say it. Regardless, there's no bigotry in that.

"these people" - once again, who do you mean? That term was used once upon a time by the nastiest people who did not want to actually appear nasty and condemn Jews. They used the word "you/those people".

Once again, why are you asking me what I meant when I'm not the one who said it? Though it doesn't take much in the way of reading comprehension to understand that the poster was talking about Likudniks when they said 'these people'. 'These people' being prefaced by 'likudnik' does tend to make it clear...

btw, I've noticed yr sensitivity whenever it comes to hardliners in Israel being criticised. I'd like to ask you where you stand politically as I've never seen you discuss anything at DU other than the I/P forum. What political party do you support? Is it always the same one or do you tend to move between support of parties or support more than one?

[Ken Burch]

47. The Likud Party was not in power itself during Operation Cast Lead

Nonetheless, Likud values were driving the war(as well as desperate attempts by Kadima, itself a breakaway faction from Likud and not that different from it on many many issues, and Labor, fighting yet another election under the most right-wing leader it could possibly have chosen, to "out-Likud Likud" during the run-up to an election).

The notion that this dispute can be settled by "crushing Hamas" or "defeating the Palestinians" is very much a Likud notion, as is the insistence on continuing to build more West Bank settlements so that any Palestinian state would have too little fertile land to be viable. The "non-Likud" parties in the last coalition were working, at least subconsciously, under the Likud analysis of the situation, an analysis that still argues for pushing for "Eretz Yisroel" and forced transfer of the Palestinian Arab population.

So the term "Likudnik" is still very valid in the way the poster used it.

And "the harm" is the continued oppression and immiseration of the Palestinian Arab population in both Gaza and the West Bank, the daily humiliations they are subjected to as a group(whether or not the individual Palestinian in question in any situation has ever harmed anyone). This harm is in both the continued injustice it inflicts upon the Palestinians AND the danger that the anger unavoidably stoked and intensified by this treatment creates for the Jewish population of Israel, who end up being put in riskier and riskier situations due to the ugliness and brutality of the Israeli government's "security" policies, the word "security" being placed in quotation marks here because it is the last thing such policies actually create.

[oberliner]

67. Which Israeli political parties are not driven by "Likud values" in your view? nt

Edit to add: Are Barak and Livni "Likudniks" in your opinion?

[Ken Burch]

75. I would call Barak and Livni "quasi-Likudniks" because they view the security issue

on, essentially, Likud terms-that is, they don't truly accept that the Palestinian struggle is driven by legitimate grievances that could be addressed through negotiations of equal parties and through acknowledgment and compensation, but rather still essentially see Palestinians, whether they consciously realize it or not, as "the enemy" that must be crushed. What they don't understand is that it is impossible to crush this "enemy", because attempting to do so and even appearing to succeed in doing so in the short-term simply creates newer and more militant forms of that struggle that are driven to "avenge the shame".

The Israeli political class still doesn't get it that humiliating the Palestinians simply doesn't achieve anything.

At the moment, there aren't really much of any non-Likudnik or non-quasi-Likud parties within the Israeli political spectrum. The leaders of almost all of them still basically see "peace through victory" as the default strategy, even though we've clearly established that "victory" as most of the world knows it isn't possible in this situation.

About the only one that isn't is Meretz, and it's showing this year was embarassingly weak. As yet, there haven't even been any dissident Labor MK's defecting to it in protest of Barak's betrayal of his commitment not to join a coalition with Netanyahu. Hadash is non-Likud, but because it's a joint Jewish-Arab party and because it isn't absolutely committed to a rigidly "Zionist" model of Israel, it has limits as to how far it can increase its support(and it is, of course, proscribed from formal participation in ANY forseeable future governing coalition.

I know Israelis have felt besieged, but what I don't get is why they stay loyal to the "crush the foe" mindset when it's clear that that approach can't work?

[geek tragedy]

18. Um, it's this abhorrent op-ed piece that accuses

Jewish whistleblowers of engaging in a blood libel against Jews.

It's a fascist piece of literature.

[Ken Burch]

11. It is truly unfair to invoke the "blood libel" imagery in this context

Or to compare criticism of the IDF to a slur against all Israelis, let alone all Jews.

Those who raise these issues are not seeking to make the world hate Jews. Nor are we even necessarily opposed to Israel's existence.

And, in the view of a lot of people, it is an insult to the values of the Jewish tradition to associate that tradition with the conduct of the IDF in the current war.

The IDF is an army, like any other army. It is an institution and like any other institution subject to criticism when it steps beyond certain bounds.

And, since the soldiers who made these accusations are themselves Jewish, they can hardly be accused of wishing to bring down scorn and derision on the Jewish world.

It is truly time for the world's Jewish communities to let go of the idea that their future is bound up in an unquestioning defense of the Israeli security apparatus. That apparatus and that army aren't really doing the Jewish peoples, Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, any real good.

I know that you take negative comments on the IDF very personally, shira. You've made that clear in many posts here. And I want to reassure you that, for myself at least, nothing I've posted here is in any way a criticism of every single soldier in the IDF, or of anything you ever did while serving in it(as I assume you did).

The problem is that that army, as is often the case, seems to have lost its way morally and things like the conduct of Operation Cast Lead, the accusations these soldiers made, and even(though it may be much more minor in some eyes)the "t-shirt" issue, are markers of the unpleasant direction certain groups in the IDF seem to be taking.

That direction is why a larger and larger group of IDF personnel have made it clear that they will no longer serve in the Territories. They are moral heroes for taking this stand(a stand that will land a lot of them in jail)and they have no other choice, since it now appears impossible to work within that army and do anything to persuade your fellow soldiers in it to refrain from going to dark places.

[LeftishBrit]

12. I've heard this many times before and not just about Israel

If you criticize your country's military, or even its military policies, you are committing treason/ playing into your enemies' hands/ obviously hate your country and want it destroyed. A view that IMO has helped to promote and aggravate wars over the ages.

It may be that some of the claims will turn out to be exaggerated, and that some may not go far enough. Investigations are needed. But this particular article is a nasty anti-whisleblower piece.

ETA: Of course some people and groups do perpetrate the age-old 'blood libels' against Israel and Jews- but that is not what these whistleblowers are doing. Any more than Brits or Americans who take part in anti-war demonstrations 'want the terrorists to win'.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Yeah, it reminds me a lot of US conservatives about the Iraq war...

And the OP was complete trash, but what can you expect from a whackjob who among his other offerings has been articles where he takes offense at Lieberman being labelled a racist and a fascist?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. Are Jews ever accused of blood libel? This is getting curiouser and couriouser.

Is that what is meant by pass the popcorn?

[geek tragedy]

17. Jews who criticize Israel are obviously Jew-hating anti-semites.

Just shows how empty the Neocon/Likudnik rhetoric is ringing now.

[henank]

20. There you go again

mixing your entities if not your metaphors. What has the Likud got to do with anything on this thread? You do know, don't you, that the Likud has not been in power for years, that it was Kadima in power during the Gaza war, that Likud is still not quite in power in Israel. You do know that don't you?

If so, why do you keep on over and over and over bringing up the dreaded "likudnik" word?

[Idealism]

21. If anything, this is one of Lieberman's principles. n/t

[Sezu]

22. The ignorance about Israeli politics displayed by those who

wish to comment with an unloaded mind is commonplace here. So many have clue none and look at everything filtered through their western eyes. It's almost comical if it weren't so sad.

[LeftishBrit]

30. I realize that the Olmert government wasn't Likud; but isn't Leibler a Likudnik?

He sounds it from his articles; e.g. criticizing Olmert for not being sufficiently hard-line.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. He definately is and he's written an article about it....

Why I support Likud

[oberliner]

58. What exactly is a "Likudnik" ?

I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the current usage of this word. Historically I thought it meant a member of the Likud party

Has the term now evolved to have a broader meaning than that?

Are the leaders of the parties who accepted the invitation to join the coalition government with Likud considered Likudniks?

For instance, do Lieberman and those who supported his political party qualify as Likudniks even though they are not part of Likud?

What about Ehud Barak? Is he a Likudnik now that he has agreed to be a part of the Likud-led governing coalition? Was he not a Likudnik up until that point?

Are Livni and Kadima not considered Likudniks because they have resisted calls to join the coalition? Does the fact that the party was founded by Sharon mean that Sharon is not a Likudnik?

Also, can non-Israeli politicians be considered Likudniks? I've seen the term used disparagingly to describe American politicians who take a hawkish position on Israel, even if this position is not necessarily one that is exclusive to the Likud party.

Anyway, I'm wondering if, when you come across the term, you take it to hold the more narrow definition connecting it solely to members of the Likud party of if you view it as having a broader definition than that, and if it's the latter - what do you perceive that definition to be?

[IndianaGreen]

59. Likudnik almost equal judeofascist

Barak is an opportunistic asshole!

Likudnik ≈ judeofascit (almost equal)

likudnik isn't defined yet, but these are close:

1. judeofascist

A fascist (i.e. violent right-wing nationalist) whose animating principle is the supremacy and sovereignty of the jewish people over the land they call "Greater Israel".

A judeofascist is not necessarily jewish, nor are all right-wing jews judeofascists. A judeofascist will never admit that he is a fascist, and will call you an antisemite if you point out the truth.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=likudnik

Likud is identified with the claim to indivisible sovereignty over the whole of the biblical Land of Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) and with free-market economics.

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Likudnik

[oberliner]

60. I've never come across that word "judeofascist" before

Whereas "Likudnik" seems to appear more and more frequently on this site and elsewhere.

[LeftishBrit]

76. I disagree

I am not in any case particularly keen on such terms as 'Islamofascist' or 'Christofascist' on which I assume 'Judaeofascist' is based. However, using the analogies, I assume it must mean 'Jewish Religious Rightie'. That would *not* apply to most of the Likud, who are mostly nationalistic, not religious, righties.

[IndianaGreen]

85. "A judeofascist is not necessarily jewish, nor are all right-wing jews judeofascists"

Per definition in urban dictionary.

You Brits don't have fifth columnists of AIPAC in Britain to deal with. They are a threat to America, and as Americans we will have to curtail their activities, such as having AIPAC registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and former McCain adviser Charlie Black was for the work he did on behalf of Angola.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. I take it to mean a member or supporter of Likud...

I appreciate all yr questions about the term 'likudnik'. Clearly this is a much more pressing issue than commenting on the bigoted attitude towards Palestinians that the author of the OP has displayed in his articles, specifically 'Evil is evil'....

[oberliner]

63. Thanks!

And I totally agree with your other point. In fact, I don't even know why people bother responding to (or posting) these RW Op-Ed pieces.

Anyway, based on your definition, you would not consider supporters of Yisrael Beiteinu or Kadima to be Likudniks? What about hawkish US politicians like Joe Lieberman or John Kyl?

It just seems like there hasn't yet been a consensus about what this term means, but it's thrown around as if it has some sort of agreed-upon definition. I don't see that the definition has been fully defined yet.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Uh, didn't I just tell you what I think *likudnik* means?

Doesn't that alone make it clear who I consider to be a likudnik? I just don't understand why yr asking more questions like the one in yr post...

I think you might have missed my annoyance at some people focusing on a term (hamasnik's been used a fair bit here yet no-one's been concerned about its definition) in preference to speaking out about bigotry against Palestinians (and I forgot to mention in my previous post, bigotry against Jews who support a peaceful resolution to the conflict) that the author displays in his articles...

[oberliner]

65. Well you had written "member or supporter"

Not sure how you were defining "supporter" - some might argue that coalition members are supporters of the Likud party as they are signing up to be part of the Likud-led government. Others might claim that politicians in the US (and elsewhere) are "supporters" if they speak favorably about policies that the party endorses. It just seems a fuzzy word and I was hoping you could clarify with some specific examples of individuals who I feel may or may not fall into your "supporter" category.

If you would want to share your thoughts on the definition of "Hamasnik" I'd be interested in that as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Supporter - someone who supports....

It's not exactly rocket science...

Listen, if you wish to discuss something like the bigotry of the author of the OP, go for it. But I'm not interested in helping you taking this thread off on a tangent while you ignore the anti-Palestinian bigotry that you'd be loudly opposing if similar was aimed at Israelis. Hope I've made myself clear this time, because when I said I was getting annoyed, I meant it...

[oberliner]

70. Apologize for any annoyance caused

I still find that the term "Likudnik" is problematic and vaguely defined but I will leave it alone if you do not care to discuss it further.

To your other point, many posts in this thread has taken it on different tangents from Bruce Willis to Amos Oz. This is probably because the OP itself is a right-wing op-ed piece. Not sure that it merits any particular comment. A right-winger writing a right-wing Op-Ed piece in a right-wing newspaper is going to present right-wing views. That is what we expect from people on that side of the political spectrum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you yourself did not comment on the OP itself but rather to other posters' comments about the OP. I would imagine that this is because you also do not feel the OP is worthy of serious discussion.

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Bullshit...

Save the insincere apology. If you were interested in not annoying me, you'd not be continuing down the path of annoyance. So seeing nothing's sunk in yet, I'll be very blunt about what I find annoying in yr case in particular. Other posters in this thread did comment on the bigotry displayed by the author of the OP (aimed at Jews in the OP, and at Palestinians in an article I linked to), including myself. Some went on to discuss other things, but yr the only one who didn't make any comment about the bigotry, despite the fact you do so on a regular basis when it comes to similar things aimed at Israelis. And what's with the stuff about only speaking of the OP and not the views of the writer, when you've done it so many times yrself in past threads? Is that again only something that applies for you when it comes to bigotry against Jews?

[oberliner]

72. I truly did not mean to annoy you

And the apology was sincere. I do not know why it did not come across that way. I know the internet can be part of the problem sometimes.

I do think it's useful that people posted additional background about the author of the OP to show that he is coming from a far RW position.

In any case, I would say that I am a lot more apt to respond to my friends on the left when they present views that I consider to be bigoted than when I see that kind of stuff from right-wingers.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Fair enough...

I do think it's useful that people posted additional background about the author of the OP to show that he is coming from a far RW position.

Not just a far RW position, but one of bigotry as well, wouldn't you agree? I've read a few of his articles now, and apart from his bigoted take on Palestinians, he's equally disgusting when it comes to Jews who criticise Israel for its policies and actions in the Occupied Territories. When it comes to his writing, he comes from a very ugly place. Not literally, of course, seeing he came from Australia, which the worst I could say is it's kind of boring in the looks department :)

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Oberliner, a question...

Do you consider it a bigoted view to argue that it's acceptable to make negative stereotypes of Palestinian society? Because if (and I'm sure you do think it to be the case) you do, then one of our friends on the left is futher down in the thread arguing that it's an acceptable thing. Race you to the posts in question! ;)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

80. Here is what a Likudnik is NOT:

The Likud party and its supporters are NOT the only party in Israel to have committed crimes against the people of Palestine.

So many times in this forum Israel's RW is identified as the "bad guys." I can see how the Likud's platform may stand in contrast to what American democrats believe. But vis-a-vis this conflict, it's worth repeating that EVERY GOVERNMENT since 1967 has expanded settlements, and committed a myriad of crimes against the people of Palestine, from murder of innocents, to assassination of leaders, to jailing without charge or trial, land theft, massive curfews, etc.

[oberliner]

81. I don't think people know what they are saying when they use that term

I think a lot of people in the US perceive the Israeli political spectrum through an American lens. Many seem to want to see it as a Republican/Democrat or RW/LW or Conservative/Liberal split. Thus, some seem to embrace this term "Likudnik" as a way of talking about the Republican/RW/Conservative side of Israeli politics. I've seen posts here, for instance, railing about actions of the "Likudniks" with respect to, for instance, the recent Gaza invasion, when Likud was not in power during that period. Observing that, it is not entirely clear to me what the people who use this term are taking it to mean.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

82. I agree entirely.

Many foreign spectators want to blame the Israeli RW for Israel's role in the conflict.

ALL PARTIES IN POWER share the blame. It's not a "right wing" thing at all. (this is one of my major beefs with LB.)

If all parties continue to commit crimes against the people of Palestine, what does that mean about Israel's role in the conflict?

[Ken Burch]

43. The term goes back to Medieval "Christian" Europe

When the insanely anti-Jewish fathers of the Church claimed that Jews used the blood of murdered Christian infants as part of the recipe for Passover matzohs.

It was a despicably ugly lie then. It is now.

However, nothing in the debate about the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is remotely similar to the vile act of spreading such a lie.

[azurnoir]

23. More on Leibler

from his own website, take a look around, get a feel for the guy and make your own judgement

http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1564

[IndianaGreen]

24. Disturbing to find this Israeli-Australian puke dictating to America what to do

Leibler should get his own TV show on Faux News, right after Glenn Beck.

[henank]

25. He wasn't dictating to anyone what to do

least of all America. Why don't you read the article? Which by the way is not in a US paper but in the Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem as in Israel, not Jerusalem, USA.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. I'm pretty sure you missed the point by a mile there...

The comment about a TV how on Faux sNews was a sarcastic reference to his strong conservative opinions. The guy's a self-confessed Likudnik http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=1299 Strange how you missed that about Leibler...

Most everyone else in this thread has picked up that the author of the OP has some rather unsavoury views. Please read this article called 'Evil is evil' and since you were so interested in bigotry further up in the thread, tell me if you find this article about the Palestinian people bigoted or not...

'Indeed the Jews have faced no such evil since the Nazis. That should not be construed as a racist statement or a primitive demonization of an entire people. It is calling a spade a spade. US President George W. Bush refers to evil states. Our Palestinian neighbors who seek the destruction of the Jewish people represent the essence of evil and barbarism. And now is the time for us to say so to the world at large, loud and clear. We are not suggesting that the Palestinian people are intrinsically or genetically any more evil than the Germans were under Hitler. We are saying that, like the Nazis, the Palestinian leaders have succeeded in indoctrinating their people and transforming them into a society which is inspired by evil.

It is evil when a society extols as heroes those who target civilians at gatherings such as a Pessah Seder, a bar mitzva, or a discotheque.

It is evil when a society sanctions the revival of the ancient custom of child sacrifice.

It is evil when a people bestows the highest level of merit on suicide bombers whose objective is to kill the maximum number of Jews.

It is evil when mothers display themselves on television conveying pride that their children have become “martyrs” and expressing the hope that their younger offspring will follow in the same tradition and also die killing Israelis.

It is evil when the proud parents of “martyrs” are publicly rewarded for sacrificing their children by being provided with $25,000 from Saddam Hussein and lauded for their contribution by Arafat himself.

It is evil when children in kindergarten are taught songs and poems which extol the virtues of killing Jews. When four year-olds are taught at summer camps how to shoot Jews and indoctrinated into accepting as role models the “heroic martyrs” who died in order to kill the “wicked” Jews who “usurped” their land.

One video repeatedly shown on Palestinian television incorporates a children’s song with the lyric “How pleasant is the smell of a martyr, how pleasant the smell of the land, the land enriched by the blood, the blood pouring out of a fresh body.”

It is evil when an entire religious establishment calls on its faithful to hate Jews because they are Jews; to “have no mercy on the Jews wherever they are, in any country. Fight them wherever they are. Whenever you meet them, kill them because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine.” That extract from a Gaza mosque sermon broadcast on Arafat’s television station, is typical of the daily diet of Islamic fundamentalist incitement directed against Jews.

And if not evil incarnate, how can one explain or justify the joyous street celebrations that erupt as soon as there is news of Israeli women and children having been blown apart by one of the heroic “shahids”?

How else to view such behavior other than as evidence of a truly evil society?

http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=773

[shira]

29. Violet, this quote is from Amos Oz, someone you respect very much

"As I listen to the rhetoric of the Palestinian official state and media, and of the Arafatesque intellectuals, I am hardly surprised by the lynching committed in Ramallah. The Palestinian people are suffocated and poisoned by blind hate. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oct/13/comment.israelandthepalestinians1

[shira]

31. more Amos Oz

"Yet today, the Palestinians are simultaneously launching two battles: on one hand for the just cause of their national liberation; on the other hand, many of them are openly fighting for their "right" to erase Israel and the Jewish people (in the eyes of fanatical Islam, Jews are too loathsome to be recognised as a nation - at best they could be tolerated as humbled individuals under the "protection" of an Islamic regime). "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/07/israel

[LeftishBrit]

32. Amos Oz isn't comparing the Palestinians with the Nazis

Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis should be immune to criticism. But demonizing either group is not helpful.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. So Shira, do you consider what was printed above hate speech?

Or was your Amos Oz quote designed to buttress that POV?

[shira]

35. no, I don't believe those comments by Oz were hate speech

But since Germany was brought up in a recent post about the author of the OP, do you believe 70 years ago that in parts of Europe, and in particular Germany, there existed some pretty sick and twisted antisemitic societies? This is not to say all Germans were sick and twisted, but in general Nazi society was sick, twisted and then some. Right or wrong?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

36. I was talkinga about what Leibler wrote. Is that hate?

[shira]

38. let's agree if that's hate, then labeling Israel constantly as a Nazi apartheid racist evil state

steeped in colonialism, imperialism, ethnic cleansing, and genocide - and with a completely immoral and evil IDF that deliberately and indiscriminately targets civilians - is also hate, okay?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

39. I never compare Israel to Nazis, nor I do use the term genocide.

As to the IDF being "evil," well... I know the bastards who sodomized my brother in law when he was 14 are evil. Although technically, that was the Shin Bet who raped the boy.

I do think that colonial, imperial and immoral are accurate descriptors of the occupation. Don't you?

[cali]

45. baloney. codswallop. you do both. it 's beyond belief that

you'd deny it. you have a sadly black/white view of the world and your hate is shockingly on display here.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

48. Bullshit.

Firstly, Nazi comparisons get you banned here.

And I do not accuse Israel of Genocide. I do believe they are out to undermine and destroy Palestinian society, to make it impossible for Palestinians to ever have a state. That belief is easily buttressed by facts.


Like I answered you on the Oliphant thread:


Your post is ironic, because you do more teacherly correcting, as though you have the authority to discern what is and is not bigoted/correct/appropriate/helpful, as though you are the true repository of the best interests of both sides.


A perfect example was my swarthy man comment above. Oberliner asked about Muslim offense at the use of the crescent. That's no parallel. People are openly, unashamedly bigoted towards Arabs in this country. On TV, movies, radio, internet, print, etc. You know that's true. Critics don't have to sneak in symbols to be subversive. They come right out with it. That is patently obvious. Yet you find it necessary to accuse me of "drama" and "hyperbole." Even Bemildred came up with examples to support my POV. You were dead wrong. But I don't chase you around pointing that out. Bemildred's post spoke for itself.

My goal in posting here is not to get people to use PC language, but to get them to re-think! I dream that one day LB and Oberliner will think differently about this stuff. I don't give a rat's behind about posters like Shira and BTA. And I assume they feel the same way about me.

I make no bones about my partisanship on this issue. Not sure why it so clearly drives you crazy. And frankly, I don't really care.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

54. Every time I substantively address one of your nasty posts, I get crickets.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Stereotypes against either Israeli or Palestinian society is generally steeped in bigotry...

For the record, I don't have the utmost respect for Amos Oz. While I like him and agree with some of what he says, I tend to find him a bit on the wishy-washy and not particularly accurate side. I'm very disappointed to see him descend to the level of the likes of Leibler, but I'm not sure what posting a quote from Oz is supposed to be proving? That what Leibler wrote wasn't bigoted? Of course it was....

btw, I get a bit annoyed when people seem to think it's okay to negatively stereotype an entire society as long as it's Palestinian, and then turn around and scream blue murder when they see Israeli society negatively stereotyped. Why can't people be consistant and recognise that both are very wrong, and due in most part to either complete ignorance of the society in question or based in bigotry?

[shira]

49. so using your argument about stereotyping I/P

do you think that argument applies also to the situation in Germany 70 years ago? I'm not certain you'd find many Jews of that time or afterwards saying that was NOT a sick society. I'm hoping one doesn't have to be Jewish to realize just how sick Germany became. It's not as if there wasn't popular support for what was going on.

What do you think?

Thanks.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. I don't think the same applies to Nazism...

But are you seriously trying to compare Palestinians to the Nazis??

[LeftishBrit]

53. Nazism was a truly extreme situation

There have been countless other wars; other massacres; even other genocides, such as the near-extermination of the Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians. But the Nazis were exceptional in their attempt to exterminate the Jews and other groups *simply* out of hate, without any other obvious (however selfish) motive; and in their cold-blooded use of modern machinery to accomplish this as rapidly as possible.

Neither the Palestinians nor Israelis come remotely into the same category. 'Godwinizing' is not appropriate to the I/P situation. As I said in another thread, the Americans and British have been responsible for far more deaths in Iraq than either side in the I/P conflict - should we be considered to resemble Nazis?

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Exactly....

Thanks for explaining that so well. I was in WTF?? mode when I read the post I replied to and just a bit gobsmacked that I was looking at an attempt to not only defend the bigotry of the writer of the OP, but to justify negative stereotyping of Palestinian society based on it, and I'm glad you came along and explained exactly why it's so wrong...

[shira]

66. to answer your question, no, no one can really be compared to the Nazis

but what do you mean when you wrote "I don't think the same applies to Nazism"? German society wasn't sick and twisted 70 years ago?

[Violet_Crumble]

69. I meant that Nazism and German society then can't be compared to anything else...n/t

[shira]

77. so you won't answer the question?

whether Germany at that time 70 years ago was a pretty sick society? My family came from Lithuania over 100 years ago, and the stories I heard about that society from which my great grandprents lived were pretty bad too, leading me to believe the same about Lithuania - although not quite as bad - as Germany. I don't see anything bigoted or racist about such a remark.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. No, I thought I'd already made it clear...

I obviously do think Nazism and German society of the time was about as unhealthy and sick as anything can get. But due to the extreme nature of Nazism, pointing out that fact isn't a negative generalisation. OTOH, neither Israeli nor Palestinian society are anything even remotely close to German society under the Nazis, and as you've acknowledged there's no comparison, I'm not really getting what yr point is...

[shira]

79. okay, sorry - I didn't see that you answered it

Alright good, so we agree German society was about as unhealthy and sick as anything could get.

My point is, such a statement isn't bigoted or racist. It's why I don't have a problem with what Amos Oz wrote. In fact, if Israel adopted some of Kahane's policies, and they were popularly supported by the masses and led to needless Palestinian suffering, the same descriptions (unhealthy, sick) could then start applying to Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. But now yr comparing the Palestinians to the Nazis?

A few posts back you said: 'no one can really be compared to the Nazis'

But now yr saying something very different: 'My point is, such a statement (that Nazism) isn't bigoted or racist. It's why I don't have a problem with what Amos Oz wrote.'

What does Nazism have to do with what Amos Oz wrote if you don't think anyone can be compared to the Nazis?

I'm going to repeat it again. Describing either Palestinian or Israeli society as evil, sick etc, is not only engaging in negative stereotyping, but is in both cases bigoted. And usually it comes from those who are ignorant of the very societies they label as evil, and who are also ignorant of what a society is. And whether those bigoted labels are being aimed at Israelis or Palestinians, in both cases the person throwing that label out there will rattle off all sorts of justifications for why it's okay to do it to one people but then yell demonisation and bigotry if the same is done to the other, and they never ever see the hypocrisy of what they're doing. Unfortunately, while this is a favoured tactic from conservatives (the article I posted by the author in yr OP is a good example), this sort of attitude does seep through to the Left, as exhibited by Amos Oz in this case.

[shira]

89. no

Amos Oz didn't mention Naziism at all; Naziism had nothing to do with his statement.

We agree that Germany of 70 years ago was a sick, twisted, and evil society. I see nothing wrong with applying those words to other deserving societies. That doesn't mean such a society is Nazi like.

If Israel were to start celebrating and rewarding the killing of Palestinian women and children, brainwash very young Jewish children to hate and be intolerant, force children or coerce them to 'volunteer' for combat roles, and use Israelis as human shields, I'd have to say that such an Israeli society is, without question, sick and evil, wouldn't you?

How is it bigoted to claim Israeli or Palestinian society is sick or evil, but not German society of 70 years ago?

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Sorry, but you were...

That's why I bolded the part of yr post that indicated that was exactly what you were doing. And it had nothing to do with what Oz said - it was yr argument that if it's acceptable to say German society was sick (and fyi, Nazism inserted itself into all parts of German life, so it's indistinguishable from the society), then it's okay to say that Palestinian society is evil. That's after me and LB explaining to you that the case of Nazism and German society was one that was unique and that neither Israeli nor Palestinian society is remotely comparable to German society...

And after me explaining to you that those folk who love nothing more than to label either Israeli or Palestinian society as evil will trot out their justifications for why it's okay for them to aim it at one society and not the other, you go and do exactly what I was talking about. Someone who wanted to label Israeli society as evil would be just as adament as you with their list of reasons why it's okay for them to do so, but neither they nor you are right. In fact, both are engaging in ugly negative stereotyping, and both will argue away that they're not. To say either Israeli or Palestinian society is evil is quite rightly viewed as unacceptable by the DU mods and posts claiming either is evil tend to get deleted.

[shira]

91. sorry, I know what I was thinking and am still thinking

If a society is sick, twisted, and evil, then it is what it is. That's not to say such a society is Nazi-like. You'll note in Amos Oz's articles that he never once mentions Nazis when he makes his point. Do you believe for some reason that Amos Oz is subtly making a Nazi/Palestinian comparison, and if so, how?

[Violet_Crumble]

92. Yes, you were...

Amos Oz didn't mention Naziism at all; Naziism had nothing to do with his statement.

While Oz didn't (and I never said he had), you on the other hand did in an attempt to be able to justify blind hatred of Palestinians by calling them *evil*

Here's what you said: 'so using your argument about stereotyping I/P do you think that argument applies also to the situation in Germany 70 years ago?' Not only I, but LB explained why the argument doesn't apply to Germany during the Nazi era, but you kept on using it as a justification for calling Palestinians *evil* anyway...

I see nothing wrong with applying those words to other deserving societies. I see nothing wrong with applying those words to other deserving societies.

And as I pointed out to you more than once, neither do those who see nothing wrong with calling Israeli society sick, evil etc. Like you, they all think it's totally acceptable as they expect everyone else to sit by and agree that the flinger of negative stereotypes is the final word in which society is deserving of being negatively stereotyped...

How is it bigoted to claim Israeli or Palestinian society is sick or evil, but not German society of 70 years ago?

Go back and reread the thread. It's been explained to you by more than one person. It's got a fair bit to do with neither Israeli nor Palestinian society resembling German society under the Nazis....

[shira]

93. no, I didn't, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped falsely accusing me

I'm not justifying blind hate of Palestinians. The society they live in is not Nazi Germany and doesn't even have to be like it in order to justify such a "sick, twisted, or evil" label. I agree with you and LB about Nazi Germany being unique, but I don't agree that it's the only sick, evil, twisted society in history - even when compared to others in this century - or even in this decade. While not as uniquely sick or evil as Nazi Germany, the label can still aptly be applied to other societies.

You're essentially arguing that since Hitler was uniquely evil, no one else can be evil - let alone sick or even twisted. Or since Hitler's regime was uniquely evil, no other regime in this century can possibly be labeled evil too, or sick and twisted. How ridiculous.

And here's why it's not a justification of blind hate towards Palestinians.

Any society that treats its own citizens like Hamas does is sick and twisted - as the civilians can at no time ever really feel safe within their own borders. Hamas encourages and endangers children who dig tunnels. They encourage children to become child martyrs who are supposed to hate Jews. They enlist children to help them in military operations. They encourage women, children and elderly to volunteer as human shields to thwart IAF attacks on buildings. They cynically, immorally, and quite deliberately conduct their military operations deep within civilian population centers. From weapons tunnels to caches in mosques, schools, and homes of Palestinians. All this activity from Hamas victimizes Palestinian civilians and makes them legitimate military targets.

So it's not Palestinians in general who are being demonized. This description of Hamas and how they run Gaza is nothing that justifies blind hate of Palestinians. It's a description of Hamas and how they run Gazan society.

Now I ask you to consider Hamas' actions against its own citizens. These actions are sick, twisted, and evil aren't they? If you believe these actions against Palestinians are sick, twisted, and evil - and since Hamas runs the show and things are what they are in Gaza because of Hamas, and Palestinians suffer greatly due to Hamas - then why - once again - would you object to calling Gazan society run by Hamas "evil, sick, or twisted"? Such a description does not mean Gaza is unique like Nazi Germany, only that it too, like other regimes today, is extremely cruel to its own civilians - and is therefore sick and evil.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. But yr entire argument is an attempt to justify blind hatred of the Palestinian people...

Using the language yr so fond of, let's call it demonisation. How on earth is labelling either Palestinian or Israeli society as *evil* anything but justifying blind hate? Such language sure doesn't encourage thoughtful discussion, but is intended to promote a one-dimensional vision of an entire group of people. After all, *evil* is to be hated, right?

And hot off trying to justify blind hatred by arguing that you think it's totally acceptable to label Palestinian society *evil*, you then have the nerve to turn around and talk as though you know how the Palestinian people think.

You clearly have no idea as to what constitutes a society. You claim it's solely the govt (interesting how the West Bank and it's govt doesn't seem to exist for you), but a society is an extended social group that has a common culture.

What's more, you popped in with that ugly quote from Oz in some sort of attempt to defend what the author of the OP you posted had written about Palestininan society in the link I posted (remember the one where he compares them to Nazis and says Palestinian society is *evil*). The OP itself was ugly enough, but the article I posted just increased the ugly hate factor....

So, in a nutshell, anyone who thinks it's acceptable to label either Palestinian or Israeli society as *evil* is indulging in promoting blind hatred and isn't anyone I'd ever take seriously on anything...

[shira]

95. can you admit that Hamas actions are evil

against the Palestinian people?

The cynical, immoral way in which they use human shields, abuse and brainwash children, treat women, sharia law, etc...is that not evil that should be roundly condemned since Palestinians are virtually incapable of speaking up for themselves against Hamas, for fear of their very lives?

You think Palestinians have no problem with all that and want their children to grow up and live that way under Hamas?

[Violet_Crumble]

96. I don't do the *evil* label coz it's hyperbolic crap...

Yeah, let's divide everything into *good* and *evil*. It's so childish. I have however been clear in my opinion of Hamas many times in the past, and I'm not wasting my time repeating what I've said on that to someone who has no problem with labelling Palestinian society as *evil*. Do you now understand why it's not acceptable at all to label Palestinian society as *evil*?

[shira]

97. let's see if I understand you

It's wrong to call Hamas' actions against Palestinians and Israelis evil, sick, or twisted, because by doing so, some people will get the wrong impression and take that to mean all Palestinians are evil?

[Violet_Crumble]

98. No, yr not understanding me...

I think if you go back and reread the thread, my strong objection was to you arguing that it's acceptable to label Palestinian society *evil*. The reason for that is because it's bigoted and indulging in negative generalisations. If anyone wants to call either Hamas or the Israeli govt evil, then I tend to ignore them as while I think it's pretty immature, it's not negatively generalising either the Israeli or Palestinian population. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you didn't know what a society actually is, and I really hope you now understand why calling either Palestinian or Israeli societies *evil* is unacceptable...

[shira]

99. forget the "evil" label then, let's go with "sick and twisted"

Given what we know about Hamas, are they sick and twisted? Do they forcefully run a society based on their sick and twisted actions?

[Violet_Crumble]

100. Don't change the subject, Shira...

Especially when you can't even be bothered to answer my question about whether you understand now why it's totally unacceptable to label Palestinian society as *evil*. If you don't want to answer, then I'll have to take the continued silence as you still believing that Palestinian society is *evil*...

[shira]

101. I believe that what Hamas does is evil

and that they force this evil upon their Palestinian and Israeli victims. Maybe you don't believe evil actions exist and that's the problem. Or maybe you don't believe that Hamas has successfully and forcefully integrated these evil actions into Palestinian society.

Maybe we should end it here. I think Hamas actions are sick, twisted, and evil - and that goes for those in Hamas who order, carry out such orders, or try to convince others that these actions are fine. You apparently disagree with all these labels. We have no common ground that would merit keeping this discussion going.

We can't even agree that Palestinian victims of this evil deserve more support from HRW and AI.

[Violet_Crumble]

102. That's not what this sub-thread has been about...it was about SOCIETY...

Yr still on that rather obvious change the subject track. I was really hoping you now understood why it's unacceptable to label Palestinian society as evil, but it doesn't look like yr the slightest bit interested in that. I can happily state that there's no common ground between me and anyone who believes either Israeli or Palestinian society is evil, whether it's you or the author of the OP you posted....

[shira]

103. I'm on topic, you don't like the answers apparently

Do you agree that Hamas' intentions and actions are evil, and if not evil, how about sick and twisted? If YES, and it is Hamas policy and action that rules Gazan society, then why is it wrong to label Gazan society sick and twisted if such a label is based primarily on Hamas' intentions and actions? Of course there's nothing wrong with it. And any intelligent person would know the difference between the Palestinians who are VICTIMS of this sick and twisted society and their sick, twisted, and appallingly regressive Jihadi leadership.

[Violet_Crumble]

104. For fucks sake, go back and reread this exchange! You are trying to change the subject!

Remember that article I posted from the author of the OP that not only said that Palestinian society was *evil*, but compared Palestinians to Nazis? Do you recall posting something from Amos Oz where he said that Palestinian society was *evil*? Do you recall posting in response to objections to calling either Palestinian or Israeli society *evil*, that you said you had no problems with Palestinian society being labelled *evil*? Then on realising that you actually didn't know what the definition of society is (it isn't the govt or leadership of a people), you refused to acknowledge that it is bigoted and making negative generalisations to label either society as *evil*, and changed the subject away from society to Hamas, and are now using Hamas as an excuse for you to be able to label Palestinian society as 'sick and twisted'. What about this are you having trouble comprehending? It's pretty damn simple...

[shira]

105. You think it's pretty damn simple?

Then on realising that you actually didn't know what the definition of society is (it isn't the govt or leadership of a people),

It's not? Even when that govt or leadership forcefully rules that society in every possible way - under penalty of death for those who wish to challenge them? Sorry, you're wrong. Hamas runs the show in Gaza. Those in Gaza who don't like Hamas better damned pretend that they do. If they challenge Hamas 'resistance' methods, they are in danger of being labeled traitors or collaborators. You know this.

Why not try putting yourself into some Palestinian shoes in Gaza, trying to raise your own family there? You hate the way they try to brainwash children and utilize them and your friends in combat roles. You don't like how they store weapons and dig weapon tunnels under your home, thereby making it a legit military target. You'd rather not send your kids to Hamas schools that mostly teach hatred, intolerance, and the benefits of being a martyr. In most of these cases you have no choice. Things are what they are and you deal with it for better or worse.

Would you as a citizen of Gaza, living in those conditions with your family, label Gazan society 'good', or no worse than any other?

[Violet_Crumble]

106. Read post 94

Where I said: 'You clearly have no idea as to what constitutes a society. You claim it's solely the govt (interesting how the West Bank and it's govt doesn't seem to exist for you), but a society is an extended social group that has a common culture.'

I'm not wrong on the definition of society, Shira. Maybe you think rewriting definitions to suit yr own agenda has some purpose, but I think it's both childish and ignorant. Please provide me with even one definition of society that defines it as merely being a govt or leadersip...

Here's the Oxford dictionary defiition:

society - the sum of human conditions and activity regarded as a whole functioning interdependently.

Gosh, even Wikipedia gets it right on what a society is:

'A society is a group of humans or other organisms of a single species that is delineated by the bounds of cultural identity, social solidarity, functional interdependence, or eusociality. Human societies are characterized by patterns of relationships between individuals that share a distinctive culture or institutions. Like other groups, a society allows its individual members to achieve individual needs or wishes that they could not fulfill separately by themselves, without the existence of the social group. Society, however, may be unique in that it is ontologically independent of, and utterly irreducible to, the qualities of its constituent individuals. As a reality sui generis, or "of its own kind", it is emergently composed of social facts that often hinder rather than help the pursuits of the subjects that form its physical and psychological underpinnings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

I don't know how explaining a concept like society to someone like you can be dumbed down any further, to be honest...

[shira]

107. you're contradicting yourself now

You wrote earlier:

"I obviously do think Nazism and German society of the time was about as unhealthy and sick as anything can get."

Then you wrote in post #90:

"and fyi, Nazism inserted itself into all parts of German life, so it's indistinguishable from the society"

===========================

So German society was about as unhealthy and sick as anything could get, and Nazism inserted itself into all parts of German life to the point that it was indistinguishable from the society.

Your words, Violet. And now you're resorting to definitions of "society"? Who are you kidding here?

If you want to claim no other society could possibly be as unhealthy and sick as German society 70 years ago, I agree. But for some reason you won't even concede to LESSER labels for a Palestinian society that has the Hamas Charter inserted into all parts of it to the point that "Hamasism" is indistinguishable from Palestinian society. How's about society under Hamas is sick and unhealthy but not nearly as sick and unhealthy as German society from 70 years ago? If you lived there with a family to support and had to grin and bear it, would you say that kind of society is healthy for your children? Would you say that society is no worse than any other on average? Of course not.

[Violet_Crumble]

108. No I'm not as unlike you I understand the impact of Nazism on German society...

It totally insinuated itself into all aspects of German society, while neither Israeli nor Palestinian leaderships have done that....

You know what's sick and twisted? Yr constant insistance that it's acceptable to label Palestinian society as *evil*. It's yr attitude that's sick and unhealthy, Shira...

[shira]

109. well you certainly don't understand the impact of Hamas on Palestinian society

if you don't think it insinuates itself into all aspects of Palestinian society.

Yes, Violet, go tell Gazans they're free to believe and practice what they wish and that they can criticize the govt and its resistance measures. See how far that gets you. Try living there for one year under sharia law and then attempt to come out claiming that Hamas does a great job running the show there and that you're happy your family and children were privileged to live as subordinates to Hamas' will.

I'll add that it's sick and unhealthy to whitewash, trivialize, or ignore what Hamas has done and is still doing to Gazan society. Realize that there are Palestinians there who really, really do not like what is going on under Hamas' brutal rule and are practically begging the outside world for help from their Hamas oppressors:

===========

"The journalist adds: "There are two options today that could take us out of this situation: Someone strong in the Gaza Strip who does not care about a confrontation with the clans, or an Israeli occupation. Many people in the Strip hope that Israel will reoccupy it because these phenomena were not prevalent during the Israeli occupation."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853107.html

============

Bassem Al-Nabris
Palestinian poet from Khan Younis, Gaza Strip

"If a there was a referendum in the Gaza Strip 'would you like the Israeli occupation to return?' half the population would vote 'yes'... But in practice, I believe that the number of those in favor is at least 70%, if not more - much higher than is assumed by the political analysts and those who follow . For the million and a half people living in this small region, things have gone too far - in practice, not just as a metaphor. with the internal conflicts, but even earlier, in the days of the previous Palestinian administration, which was corrupt and did not give the people even the tiniest hope. The fundamentalist forces which came into power also promised change and reform, but got a siege, with no security and no making a living... If the occupation returns, at least there will be no civil war, and the occupier will have a moral and legal obligation to provide the occupied people with employment and food, which they now lack."
http://www.elaph.com/elaphweb/elaphwriter/2007/5/236709.htm

===========

"People in Gaza are hoping that Israel will reenter the Gaza Strip, wipe out both Hamas and Fatah, and then withdraw again... They also say that, since the massacres, they miss the Israelis, since Israel is more merciful than who do not even know why they are fighting and killing one another. It's like organized crime, . Once, we resisted Israel together, but now we call for the return of the Israeli army to Gaza."

Faiz Abbas and Muhammad Awwad:
Al-Sinara (Nazareth), May 18, 2007

===========

"Between one murder and another, between one kidnapping and the next... our leaders continue to sit in their seats and to speak of 'resistance,' 'liberation,' 'unity,' and 'return'... They are all liars. The weapons they wish to retain, as the weapons of resistance, are actually weapons of internecine terrorism and murder... You are murdering the cause, people and future... Oh murderers, you have ruined our world, castrated our nationalism, prostituted our resistance... You have turned our lives into hell. hell is preferable... Take your government, your militias, and your gangs and go to hell."

Al-Ayyam (PA), May 17, 2007

[Violet_Crumble]

110. Considering you don't even know the definition of society, that's rich...

No, Hamas doesn't insert itself into all aspects of Palestinian society, and to claim otherwise is moronic. Hell, they're not even in power in the West Bank, but little facts like that don't ever seem to stop you in yr quest to try to justify why it's okay for you to be able to trot out hateful crap about Palestinians....

[shira]

111. do you know what a strawman is?

because I'm not trotting out hateful crap about Palestinians. I'm the only one here between the two of us actually making a very clear distinction between Palestinian victims and their Hamas oppressors - in Gaza mind you, not the W.Bank - yet another strawman. I don't claim, as you'd like people to believe, that all Palestinians are sick or evil.

I've had enough of this shit. You can have the final word here.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. I do, but clearly you don't...

Insisting that Palestinian society is *evil* is fucking hateful and bigoted. It's not a strawman to point that out. In insisting that Palestinian society is *evil*, you are indeed talking about Palestinians in general, which is why I find yr attitudes repulsive and not in the slightest progressive...

[Ken Burch]

86. The problem is, shira, that, even if the Israeli government and the IDF

aren't "constantly" any of the above, they are clearly headed in those particularly dark directions. The T-shirts, while minor in themselves, are a sign of a fascist pathology in development. They're like the neighborhood kid you'd report for hurting animals, because that's a sign he's going to hurt people when he grows up.

I know the population of Israel have faced a lot of danger. What you, decent person though you are, still don't seem to be getting is that the power-structure of your country's government and its military leadership are carrying out policies that are mainly INCREASING that danger. By keeping Palestinians in a perpetually repressed condition, the IDF and the government are actually inciting what they call "terrorism". If you give people no hope, no reason to live, they are going to turn into the kind of people that back groups like Hamas. No regime can't judge the morality of the resistance tactics of those they hold down. Given the kind of things the Irgun and Lehi got up to, for example, we can assume the Zionist movement, had it been defeated in 1948, would have carried on a guerrilla struggle whose methods would have been very similar to those of Hamas. The "slippery slope" of the ever-relaxing rules of engagement the IDF leadership gives its troops to follow are another sign.

The fatal error, shira, is the assumption that it's possible to resolve this dispute militarily. IT ISN'T. That's why the Gaza situation exists. The only way is to give up trying to "defeat" the Palestinians(something everyone in Israel knows is impossible anyway)and actually start changing the things that provoke Palestinians to the acts some of them commit.

One immediate short-term step would be for the IDF to immediately cease all repression of NON-VIOLENT Palestinian protest. Although the Western media don't usually cover these protests(and this is probably another reason why Hamas tactics have gained the support they hold within the Palestinian community, since at least those make it on to CNN)they occur continually. Far more Palestinians take part in nonviolent protests than in violence. Yet, rather than encouraging this by leaving those protests alone, the IDF almost always arrests and often beats people who take part in them, when it is clear that those people have committed no real crime. Accepting that non-violent resistance on the part of Palestinians is legitimate and actually rewarding it with meaningful concessions would do more to weaken Hamas than a million bombing runs over Gaza.

[LeftishBrit]

33. He's a disgusting right-winger but he's still not 'dictating' to America

His writings are extremely nationalistic and hawkish, e.g.

(attacking the Olmert government from the Right):

'Leaders who abandon their citizens, who lack the courage and determination to take the steps required to deter terrorists should no longer be permitted to remain in office. They can certainly not be trusted to negotiate peace on our behalf. They must be replaced by those willing to follow the courageous lead of our founding fathers and impress upon our enemies that they will pay a bitter price if they seek to murder or harm Israeli citizens.

The road to peace lies in strength and determination and the application of deterrence. History consistently shows that appeasement only encourages further aggression.

We have one of the most powerful armies in the region. It is now abundantly clear that we cannot coexist with this evil Hamas regime and, unless a dramatic change occurs, there is no alternative'

Or:

It is of course an outright lie to suggest that Hamastan remains an "occupied territory." It is a fully autonomous terrorist regime administered by fanatical criminals publicly committed to our destruction. Nor are most Gaza residents innocent victims. The vast majority supported the election of Hamas and continue to endorse their barbaric objectives.
Yet as the Palestinians literally celebrate killing Israeli women and children, we are being condemned for imposing "collective punishment" and breaking international law by reducing their electricity. Truly distorted logic!
THAT IS WHY it is now imperative for Netanyahu to ring the alarm bells and - as a last ditch effort - offer to participate in a unity government with a new prime minister. If his offer is accepted, Olmert will be replaced, the disastrous ongoing unilateral concessions that may otherwise prove to be irrevocable will be suspended, and transparency in government will be restored.
If the current leaders refuse to respond to such an initiative, they will stand condemned.
With a united voice and utilizing Netanyahu's communication skills, a unity government would be able to inform the world that we have reached the end of our tether. Our message would be simple: Unless the terror attacks on our civilians are halted forthwith, we will take whatever steps are necessary.
We will be at war and all Hamas leaders will immediately be targeted for assassination. If that does not bring an end to the missile attacks, we will have no choice. Despite bloodshed and possible loss of innocent lives, our response will be identical to that of all self respecting nations from time immemorial whose citizens were being wantonly murdered by their neighbors.'

He is not keen on Jewish peaceniks outside Israel:

'...Now with great fanfare and endorsement by much of the US liberal media, we have a new "progressive" initiative: an amalgam of various far-left organizations and individuals spearheaded by "Americans for Peace Now" and "Brit Tzedek V'Shalom" to establish "J.Street," a political action committee. Although proclaiming their intention to espouse "moderation" and bring "balance" into American Jewish leadership, their actual intent is to further US pressure on Israel and to undermine AIPAC, the highly effective pro-Israel lobby.
Such behavior is especially unconscionable since - aside from permits for extra housing to cope with natural growth in the densely Jewish populated settlement blocs implicitly endorsed by President Bush - the Olmert government has conceded to all US government demands. It has even discouraged AIPAC and American Jewish leaders from trying to neutralize State Department pressures on itself for fear of antagonizing the administration.
J Street also publicly opposes the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, which undermines Israel's campaign to pressure Iran from going nuclear. In addition, J Street supports a swift withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, calls for direct dealings with Hamas and urges Jews to boycott Christian Zionists - Israel's strongest allies. J Street intends to raise funds to provide $50,000 for selected Congressional candidates supporting these aims.
Aside from a number of respectable personalities under the illusion that they have associated themselves with a "moderate" body seeking to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians, J Street is mainly supported by prominent far-left Americans and Israelis like Ron Pundak, architect of the Oslo Accord. One of its principal theorists is Daniel Levy, a former adviser to Yossi Beilin who trivializes Palestinian incitement to murder .
...The US is the only country capable of withstanding pressure from Arabs and their allies to isolate and delegitimize Israel. Thankfully, US public opinion and Congress has never been more favorably disposed towards Israel than today.
Yet over the past year, the Bush Administration has tilted from its former policy. Nor can we exclude the possibility of a future US administration distancing itself further from Israel.
It is therefore imperative that American Jewish leaders not underestimate the damage "progressive pro-Israel" groups can inflict, especially in light of the mainstream liberal media support J Street has enjoyed at its launch.
In the face of existential threats, Israel needs the support of America Jewry more than ever. While all are free to express their opinions, "peaceniks" who have the gall to call on the US to put the heat on Israel to act as they believe best, rather than what the citizens of that democracy have decided is, must be exposed as fringe groups outside the Jewish mainstream.'

Lovely. And not I think views that would be widely shared on DU, even by most pro-Israel members.

Nonetheless, expressing an opinion, even a bunch of disgusting opinions, is not 'dictating' to anyone. It's just exercising one's basic human right to open one's mouth and and if one chooses. spout a lot of crap (and I'm putting it flippantly, but it is a basic human right). America is not going to change its course because someone in another country happens to talk some rubbish.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. You forgot to mention that his writings are also bigoted...

Did you read 'Evil is evil'?

I also noticed when reading through a few other of his rather puke-worthy articles that his bigoted ire isn't solely reserved for the Palestinians. He also accuses Israelis and Jews in the rest of the world of being anti-Jewish if they criticise Israeli policy and actions towards the Palestinians. I noticed he also uses the word *goyim*, which I've read is a derogatory word for people who aren't Jewish...

All in all, the author is a pretty vile sort of person and I'm glad he's no longer sharing the same continent as me...

[LeftishBrit]

44. He is certainly bigoted

And viciously anti-Palestinian, in a way that leads him to distort the truth in all kinds of ways. E.g. to give just one example, I was disgusted by his saying that the Palestinians are not to be regarded as innocent victims because 'a vast majority' voted for Hamas. Apart from everything else that's wrong with such a statement, Hamas did not get elected by a vast majority.

I also noticed his remarks about Jewish and Israeli peaceniks. That's me and some of my family members he's talking about!! In any case, I despise and distrust all who equate political dissent with treason.

The word 'goyim' is not always derogatory. In Hebrew, it's a neutral term simply meaning 'gentiles'. In English, it may be used in either a neutral or derogatory way, depending on context. So I might let him off the hook on that one - but he is certainly bigoted about Palestinians and about political dissenters.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Jerusalem Post is owned by Hollinger International. A RW rag since Conrad Black bought it

Conrad Black to sell 'The Jerusalem Post'

By Jane Robins, Media Correspondent

Conrad Black, the Canadian tycoon who owns The Daily Telegraph, has put The Jerusalem Post up for sale, reviving speculation that he may leave the newspaper business.

In July, Mr Black took £1.6bn from the sale of most of his 350 North American titles, and The Jerusalem Post is expected to fetch as much as $80m (£56m)

During his 11-year ownership of The Post, he has moved the newspaper away from a left-leaning tradition, which caused controversy earlier this year when the paper's editor, David Makovsky, quit because he felt the paper had moved too far to the right.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/conrad-black-to-sell-the-jerusalem-post-699160.html

[The Second Stone]

40. Defaming someone is a civil tort, not a criminal offense

Some IDF soldiers are accused murderers. It is irrelevant that the IDF "clears" them. Unless and until a court of law clears the accused, they are murderers being harbored by a rogue nation. No more support for Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

46. I agree with your first sentence but...

the idea that a nation should be treated on an official level as a 'rogue nation' because some of its citizens/ soldiers are accused murderers is a risky one. First of all, accusations need to be proved before treating a country as a 'rogue nation' (as before treating an individual as a convicted criminal). Secondly, this risks discriminating against nations that have whistleblowers over those that are better at enforcing cover-ups, and thus tempting nations to crush and punish whistleblowers.

[The Second Stone]

50. Proved in what international court

The United States accuses Iran of being a rogue nation frequently (an accusation I agree with), but there is not international body that declares "rogue nation" status. Does Israel comply with non-proliferation treaties? No. Does it comply with Resolution 242? Not for four decades and running. Does it treat occupied territories in compliance with international law norms? No. The list could go on and on and on. Israel does not deserve my tax dollars any more than Bernie Madoff does.

[LeftishBrit]

51. I suppose I tend to think that the term 'rogue nation' is rarely helpful

Some countries - such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc. - have governments that are out-of-hand and extremely dangerous, to their own people or to others. And the international community may need to act on this. But scapegoating 'bogeynations' as 'rogues', whether Iraq, Iran or Israel, is only going to aggravate problems. Especially as Bush and Blair were pretty disastrous for the world themselves!!!

As regards tax dollars for military aid to Israel: I am not a great enthusiast for big military aid anywhere (when there are so many people in the world who are literally starving and not getting aid), or the arms trade, or indeed the bloated defence budgets of our own countries. But it's not likely to stop soon, as the military-industrial complex is one of the few parts of the world economy that is still thriving, and no one is going to sacrifice it any time soon.

As America holds the purse-strings it does have an influence on Israel, through the carrot/stick of increasing/decreasing aid. Under Bush the pressures were toward war; I hope under Obama they will be toward peace.

[bemildred]

57. "rogue nation", like "failed state" is a pejorative term, and usually used that way, to dismiss.

A region may not have a centralized government, a nation may have some elements that are, ummm, unruly. Just like a family may be chaotic or given to internal strife. You don't just dismiss them all on that account. "The West" has had some unruly and chaotic periods too, and we might have some again one of these days.

[The Second Stone]

73. rogue state is also a technical term of international law

and it refers to states that do not abide by international law.

[bemildred]

83. But mainly used for propaganda in the news media.

Since there is no agreement about who is and is not obeying international law, it's hard to find agreement about much else in a "technical" sense.

[Idealism]

61. Small note:

Iran is not a rogue state, neither is Israel. Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, and Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.

I agree that Israel should not receive any of our tax dollars, especially when the money is used to buy weapons to further repress Palestinians with.

[Sezu]

84. Criminal Defamation Laws are rather common.

45-8-212. Criminal defamation. (1) Defamatory matter is anything that exposes a person or a group, class, or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace in society or injury to the person's or its business or occupation.
(2) Whoever, with knowledge of its defamatory character, orally, in writing, or by any other means, including by electronic communication, as defined in 45-8-213, communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed commits the offense of criminal defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 6 months in the county jail or a fine of not more than $500, or both.
(3) Violation of subsection (2) is justified if:
(a) the defamatory matter is true;
(b) the communication is absolutely privileged;
(c) the communication consists of fair comment made in good faith with respect to persons participating in matters of public concern;
(d) the communication consists of a fair and true report or a fair summary of any judicial, legislative, or other public or official proceedings; or
(e) the communication is between persons each having an interest or duty with respect to the subject matter of the communication and is made with the purpose to further the interest or duty.
(4) A person may not be convicted on the basis of an oral communication of defamatory matter except upon the testimony of at least two other persons that they heard and understood the oral statement as defamatory or upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-212.htm

And if you look around, there are a wide variety of countries which still have criminal defamation laws.