voileazur


voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Thu 03/25/10 05:23 PM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel
's1lowhand', I don't care to insult you, but you need to regroup. Maybe you personally find your sources of information the 'be all, end all', but it can't be taken seriously. Maybe that explains your nervous use of laughing emoticons. Repeating "international law violations" does not make it so. There's a very clear discussion which refutes the slur that Israel is violating international law in my posts above. But here is some more: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm =-=-=-= Israeli Rights in the Territories Under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967 -- that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles -- Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This deliberate language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. For example, the Soviet Union attempted to introduce the word "all" before the word "territories" in the British draft resolution that became Resolution 242. Lord Caradon, the British UN ambassador, resisted these efforts.10 Since the Soviets tried to add the language of full withdrawal but failed, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the withdrawal clause contained in Resolution 242, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council. Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Britain's foreign secretary in 1967, George Brown, stated three years later that the meaning of Resolution 242 was "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."11 Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart. Actually, the last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." The members of the League of Nations did not create the rights of the Jewish people, but rather recognized a pre-existing right, that had been expressed by the 2,000-year-old quest of the Jewish people to re-establish their homeland. =-=-=-= The Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs: « focuses on the main issues affecting Israel's security and international standing in order to wage the war of ideas in global opinion"[1] and "has developed and implemented an array of cutting-edge programs to present Israel's case to the world » Come on 's1lowhand', you don't want to go there!!! The JCPA is an independent Public Relations task force. A public opinion 'spin' squad!!! You can read, use, and quote The Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs work all you want, but how do you honestly expect anyone to take your claims seriously in this exchange, when you propose this organization's 'OPINIONS', in OPPOSING the official verdict of the International Court of Justice??? The fact that you and your friends don't like the verdict of the only official International Court of Law, which holds full Authority in dealing with such matters, and the fact that you keep repeating your disagreement, TRULY DOESN'T MAKE YOUR UNOFFICIAL OPINIONS SO! ... to paraphrase a formula of yours. The verdicts of the International Court of Justice on the other hand, DOES PRECISELY MAKE IT SO!!! And given all the words you have against terrorist actions, I doubt you yourself would support such anarchic and terrorist position that would refuse to recognize the simple principles of 'rule of law' which govern our free and democratic societies. Also failure to recognize the qualitative and quantitative difference between inconveniences such as checkpoints, fences, inspections and crimes against humanity such as bus bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians makes assertions about Israeli human rights abuses absurd. Even the checkpoints, fences, inspections would not be necessary if the Palestinians refrained from attacks on civilians. 'INCONVENIENCES!?!?!?' And I suppose the overall occupation, intensification of construction in occupied Palestinian territories, and the Gaza War are also more of those simple inconveniences!?!?! No further comment your honor!!! The Goldstone report is another discredited laughing matter. Among it's many flaws are: =-=-=-=-= # The report violates international standards for inquries, including UN rules on fact-finding, replicating earlier UNHRC biased statements. # The Commission systematically favored witnesses and evidence put forward by anti-Israel advocates, and dismissed evidence and testimony that would undermine its case. # The commission relied extensively on mediating agencies, especially UN and NGOs, which have a documented hostility to Israel; the report reproduces earlier reports and claims from these agencies. # At the same time, the Commission inexplicably downplayed or ignored substantial evidence of Hamas’ commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of terror, including specifically its victimization of the Palestinian population by its use of human shields, civilian dress for combatants, and combat use of protected objects like ambulances, hospitals and mosques. http://www.goldstonereport.org/ You must stop doing this 's1lowhand'. You are now proposing a bloggers' website, exclusively aimed at opposing and discrediting the Goldstone Report. « This site has been established by a group of bloggers who have followed the news stories and NGO reports from Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, and the history of the Goldstone Commission. We have come together to offer a site that will put together the most cogent, empirically based, and logically argued critique of the Goldstone Commission.» I mean heck, why don't you submit your own personal opinions??? They would have as much impact on the official consensus as the opinions of your 'blogging' friends. Which is NONE!!! Some of the points the 'bloggers' raise here, were thrown as potential discredit of the Goldstone report by 3 so-called experts. One of those 'expert' was your good friend Dershowitz. Upon receiving their 'vague' and 'teasing' points of discord, the commission invited each party to substantiate their discording claim, such that it could be addressed intelligently. I'll let you whether or not the commission ever got a formal substantive critic form any of the three 'experts'!?!?!? And while many parties through different public relations 'SPINS', in an attempt to discredit the report, NO FORMAL CHALLENGE HAS BEEN MADE TO FINDINGS OF THE REPORT. You systematically fail to recognize the simple distinction between personal consensus, however many personal friends you might have whom agree with you, and OFFICIAL CONSENSUS, which is founded on our principles of 'rule of law'. There is OFFICIAL CONSENSUS for the verdicts reached by the International Court of Law. There isn't consensus, however for your 'blogging' friends, or your 'Public Affairs' friends, nor is their consensus for the far right factions of Israel politics. 'Bloggers', and 'public affairs' independent public opinion influencers!?!?!? Get real 's1lowhand'!!! The U.S.Congress recognizes the lack of value of the Goldstone report and condemned it: US Congress condemns UN Goldstone Report, 344 to 36 http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=511 Again, where is the credibility!?!?!? UN Watch is affiliated to the American Jewish Commitee, one of the oldest hunting club of anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment within the UN. Nothing wrong with that. It is their privilege. But the UN Watch and the AJC, have always landed on the same side of the coin, regardless of facts and findings. It is their mission. That's fair. But please, don't come and propose UN Watch, cimented at the hip of the AJC, as credible opposition to the findings of the Goldstone Report. Again, they have thrown a lot of superficial public relation 'spin' stuff, but never made their case on any substantive point of the report. Again, credibility is key in establishing OFFICIAL CONSENSUS. Tyranny is often described as a breakdown in a country or society's respect for the 'rule of law'. This is what is at stake, when claiming gratuitously that rulings from the International Court of Law, and rigorous findings from the Goldstone Report, are mere LAUGHING MATTER, as you so profoundly put it earlier. =-=-=-=-= So yes, the other sources are heavily biased against Israel's well known and well supported positions on the matter and the anti-Israel arguments are easily refuted. And it is amusing to see obviously pro-Palestinian arguments being repeatedly put forth as if they were the only acceptable point of view. When they are not even a reasonable point of view. What is really unconscionable is the support some of these anti-Israel arguments give to those militant groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade which encourage them in their true crimes against humanity - perpetuating the violence and forcing the Israelis to defend themselves militarily. The blood of many innocent parties on both sides of the conflict is on the hands of these groups and they use such arguments (as easily discredited as they are) to support their jihad. Unfortunately, after all the terrorist attacks such as 911, The Madrid and London train bombings, the Breslan school hostage crisis, the Bali nightclub bombing, and the attacks in Mumbai and Delhi, the world will not tolerate such terrorist attacks and recognizes them and the now familiar arguments used to justify these crimes. Your comments above, give me the impression those are the round about attacks you resort to when you don't have any other PR stuff to throw around!!! Enough said.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Thu 03/25/10 05:22 PM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel
's1lowhand', I don't care to insult you, but you need to regroup. Maybe you personally find your sources of information the 'be all, end all', but it can't be taken seriously. Maybe that explains your nervous use of laughing emoticons. Repeating "international law violations" does not make it so. There's a very clear discussion which refutes the slur that Israel is violating international law in my posts above. But here is some more: http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp470.htm =-=-=-= Israeli Rights in the Territories Under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 22, 1967 -- that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles -- Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "the territories" or "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This deliberate language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. For example, the Soviet Union attempted to introduce the word "all" before the word "territories" in the British draft resolution that became Resolution 242. Lord Caradon, the British UN ambassador, resisted these efforts.10 Since the Soviets tried to add the language of full withdrawal but failed, there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the withdrawal clause contained in Resolution 242, which was unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council. Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Britain's foreign secretary in 1967, George Brown, stated three years later that the meaning of Resolution 242 was "that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories."11 Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart. Actually, the last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory: "recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." The members of the League of Nations did not create the rights of the Jewish people, but rather recognized a pre-existing right, that had been expressed by the 2,000-year-old quest of the Jewish people to re-establish their homeland. =-=-=-= The Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs: « focuses on the main issues affecting Israel's security and international standing in order to wage the war of ideas in global opinion"[1] and "has developed and implemented an array of cutting-edge programs to present Israel's case to the world » Come on 's1lowhand', you don't want to there!!! The JCPA is an independent Public Relations task force. A public opinion 'spin' squad!!! You can read, use, and quote The Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs work all you want, but how do you honestly expect anyone to take your claims seriously in this exchange, when you propose this organization's 'OPINIONS', in OPPOSING the official verdict of the International Court of Justice??? The fact that you and your friends don't like the verdict of the only official International Court of Law, which holds full Authority in dealing with such matters, and the fact that you keep repeating your disagreement, TRULY DOESN'T MAKE YOUR UNOFFICIAL OPINIONS SO! ... to paraphrase a formula of yours. The verdicts of the International Court of Justice on the other hand, DOES PRECISELY MAKE IT SO!!! And given all the words you have against terrorist actions, I doubt you yourself would support such anarchic and terrorist position that would refuse to recognize the simple principles of 'rule of law' which govern our free and democratic societies. Also failure to recognize the qualitative and quantitative difference between inconveniences such as checkpoints, fences, inspections and crimes against humanity such as bus bombings and indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians makes assertions about Israeli human rights abuses absurd. Even the checkpoints, fences, inspections would not be necessary if the Palestinians refrained from attacks on civilians. 'INCONVENIENCES!?!?!?' And I suppose the overall occupation, intensification of construction in occupied Palestinian territories, and the Gaza War are also more of those simple inconveniences!?!?! No further comment your honor!!! The Goldstone report is another discredited laughing matter. Among it's many flaws are: =-=-=-=-= # The report violates international standards for inquries, including UN rules on fact-finding, replicating earlier UNHRC biased statements. # The Commission systematically favored witnesses and evidence put forward by anti-Israel advocates, and dismissed evidence and testimony that would undermine its case. # The commission relied extensively on mediating agencies, especially UN and NGOs, which have a documented hostility to Israel; the report reproduces earlier reports and claims from these agencies. # At the same time, the Commission inexplicably downplayed or ignored substantial evidence of Hamas’ commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of terror, including specifically its victimization of the Palestinian population by its use of human shields, civilian dress for combatants, and combat use of protected objects like ambulances, hospitals and mosques. http://www.goldstonereport.org/ You must stop doing this 's1lowhand'. You are now proposing a bloggers' website, exclusively aimed at opposing and discrediting the Goldstone Report. « This site has been established by a group of bloggers who have followed the news stories and NGO reports from Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, and the history of the Goldstone Commission. We have come together to offer a site that will put together the most cogent, empirically based, and logically argued critique of the Goldstone Commission.» I mean heck, why don't you submit your own personal opinions??? They would have as much impact on the official consensus as the opinions of your 'blogging' friends. Which is NONE!!! Some of the points the 'bloggers' raise here, were thrown as potential discredit of the Goldstone report by 3 so-called experts. One of those 'expert' was your good friend Dershowitz. Upon receiving their 'vague' and 'teasing' points of discord, the commission invited each party to substantiate their discording claim, such that it could be addressed intelligently. I'll let you whether or not the commission ever got a formal substantive critic form any of the three 'experts'!?!?!? And while many parties through different public relations 'SPINS', in an attempt to discredit the report, NO FORMAL CHALLENGE HAS BEEN MADE TO FINDINGS OF THE REPORT. You systematically fail to recognize the simple distinction between personal consensus, however many personal friends you might have whom agree with you, and OFFICIAL CONSENSUS, which is founded on our principles of 'rule of law'. There is OFFICIAL CONSENSUS for the verdicts reached by the International Court of Law. There isn't consensus, however for your 'blogging' friends, or your 'Public Affairs' friends, nor is their consensus for the far right factions of Israel politics. 'Bloggers', and 'public affairs' independent public opinion influencers!?!?!? Get real 's1lowhand'!!! The U.S.Congress recognizes the lack of value of the Goldstone report and condemned it: US Congress condemns UN Goldstone Report, 344 to 36 http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=511 Again, where is the credibility!?!?!? UN Watch is affiliated to the American Jewish Commitee, one of the oldest hunting club of anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiment within the UN. Nothing wrong with that. It is their privilege. But the UN Watch and the AJC, have always landed on the same side of the coin, regardless of facts and findings. It is their mission. That's fair. But please, don't come and propose UN Watch, cimented at the hip of the AJC, as credible opposition to the findings of the Goldstone Report. Again, they have thrown a lot of superficial public relation 'spin' stuff, but never made their case on any substantive point of the report. Again, credibility is key in establishing OFFICIAL CONSENSUS. Tyranny is often described as a breakdown in a country or society's respect for the 'rule of law'. This is what is at stake, when claiming gratuitously that rulings from the International Court of Law, and rigorous findings from the Goldstone Report, are mere LAUGHING MATTER, as you so profoundly put it earlier. =-=-=-=-= So yes, the other sources are heavily biased against Israel's well known and well supported positions on the matter and the anti-Israel arguments are easily refuted. And it is amusing to see obviously pro-Palestinian arguments being repeatedly put forth as if they were the only acceptable point of view. When they are not even a reasonable point of view. What is really unconscionable is the support some of these anti-Israel arguments give to those militant groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade which encourage them in their true crimes against humanity - perpetuating the violence and forcing the Israelis to defend themselves militarily. The blood of many innocent parties on both sides of the conflict is on the hands of these groups and they use such arguments (as easily discredited as they are) to support their jihad. Unfortunately, after all the terrorist attacks such as 911, The Madrid and London train bombings, the Breslan school hostage crisis, the Bali nightclub bombing, and the attacks in Mumbai and Delhi, the world will not tolerate such terrorist attacks and recognizes them and the now familiar arguments used to justify these crimes. Your comments above, give me the impression those are the round about attacks you resort to when you don't have any other PR stuff to throw around!!! Enough said.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Thu 03/25/10 10:36 AM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel
As I have provided in the references above there is a compelling and real case to be made that Israel is not violating international law. Human rights abuses have occurred on both sides but I would argue that the Palestinian abuses have been much more egregious using their own people as human shields, cafe bombings, firing rockets into civilian areas, teaching hatred in their elementary school textbooks, and advocating suicide bombing as a political tactic. What could possibly be worse than that?! There is no basis for your claims. It is extreme right doctrine. But, in a group of Nations, of which Israel is a member, there is consensus and binding obligation to uphold the 'rule of law'!!! That is the ONLY possible basis for a 'COMPELLING CASE', as you put it. In the domain of the rule of law, and with respect to the group of Nations which have agreed to uphold it, it The International Court of Justice that hears and renders verdicts in matter of International law violations. The ICJ is the only basis we have to establish violation or non-violation when it comes to crimes against humanity or violation of human rights. With respect to Israel and the case of settlements in general, and East Jerusalem in particular, the verdict has fallen, and it is clear. Israel violates human rights in the settlements, and violates international in East Jerusalem. Your opinion, the opinion of the far right, or the opinion and claims of its extreme right leader 'Bibi', matter absolutely not. Follow the rule of law, build your case, present it to the I.C.J., and bring it to change its verdict!!! Until then, the law is the law!!! And Israel is violating International law. If you consider that yours, or Israel's extreme right opinion rules over and above The ICJ, then anyone else's opinion will be just as valid as yours. This is not about YOUR CASE or the EXTREME RIGHT'S CASE, this is about our obligations and responsibilities in upholding the rule of law as a fundamental tenet of our just and free societies. Since 1967, Israel has been illegally occupying land, and East Jerusalem is very much part of that illegally occupied land. As I stated way back 's1lowhand', I have no intentions of convincing you of anything. You obviously have a right to your opinion, however much I disagree with it, and, it clearly appears that there is no room to discuss anything outside of your opinion. The objective problem I see with this, is that there no official consensus for your opinion. Your friends of the extreme right, and the current extreme right coalition administering the Knesset at the moment, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OFFICIAL CONSENSUS IN OUR RULE OF LAW. These opinions have no say in the matter of establishing 'OFFICIALLY' whether or not there are violations with respect to International Law. If anyone else is following this exchange, seeking to go beyond the demagoguery and political propaganda, in a sincere effort to objectively understand the conflict and its possible solutions, I strongly invite to view them the following visual documents: 1) An interview with Norman Finkelstein, giving his impressions of the Clinton's and Netanyahu's comments in front of AIPAC, a few days ago. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/23/norman_finkelstein_responds_to_clinton_netanyahu 2) A most enlightening interview with Norman Finkelstein, sharing his views on the 'Next Steps Towards Resolution in Israel-Palestine'. 3) The complete Bill Moyer Interview of Richard J. Goldstone (born October 26, 1938), a former South African Constitutional Court judge who served as the chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda from 15 August 1994 to September 1996, and in 2009 led an independent fact-finding mission created by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the Gaza War. Judge Goldstone signed the Goldstone Report, investigation of the Gaza war during the winter of 2008-2009 . Part 1: Judge Goldstone signed the Goldstone Report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iya6reWxxg0&feature=related Part 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM4x_YCJppg&feature=related Part 3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD-SFXpXqGU&feature=related Part 4 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6CAYrANXSI&feature=related Part 5 (conclusion): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZfvC0_7vs&feature=related Regardless of all the demagogic and totally unsubstantiated denial from far left adversaries, the following scholars and official organizations: - The International Court of Justice, - Justice Godlstone and the Goldstone Report, - B'Tselem (Israel's Human Rights organization) - an overwhelming number of International Human Rights Organizations, - Norman Finkelstein, - Avi Shlaim, - Raul Hilberg, - Noam Chomsky, - the current US administration, and a large proportion of the Israeli population and political representatives, CANNOT ALL BE TARGETS OF GRATUITOUS AND PREPOSTEROUS 'ANTI-SEMITE', 'ANTI-ZIONISTS', 'ANTI-ISRAEL', 'HOLOCAUST DENIERS', AND 'JEW HATERS'!!! The 'far right' agenda, and its monopoly on the media and public opinion is flat out wrong. And in a democracy, acting through reasonable and factual dissension, on what one considers wrong, is a moral duty. Checkpoints? Border closures? Cargo Inspections? Fence building? I would join most Israelis in finding disgusting, your treating of the far right Israel abuse of human rights in the occupied territories, a simple 'laughing' matter!!! Anti-Israel (Anti-Zionist) rants won't sway anybody or even get anyone excited except bigots. There you go again!!! You suffer from delusional abuse of language. Who are you calling Anti-Isreal and Anti-Zionist??? You either don't understand, and that wouldn't your fault, or you are acting in the worst of bad faith, resorting to cheap and hypocritical hateful clichés when you have nothing to intelligent to say. I take personal offense to your using such language in our discussions. I am there is nothing in my discourse that is anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. I denounce far right or far left extremist fanatic factions which can be found in all legitimate groups. Zionists and Israelis are against extremists in the highest of proportions. Your simpleton defense of extremism, without any regard of the rule of law, doesn't have a leg to stand on. Ultimately, your comments can easily be construed as being counterproductive towards achieving a peaceful and prosperous Israel for both the Jewish and Palestinian Nations. Although I wouldn't indulge in the abuse of the terms such as you do, YOUR COMMENTS could accurately qualify as anti-Israel and anti-Zionist !!! I haven't attacked anyone. Repetitive gratuitous hypocritical and unfounded insinuations of 'anti' this and 'anti', most definitely end up being attacks. If not, I ask you to retract your empty insinuations, and debate the substance of this exchange. I am a live and let live type of person. In my humble opinion, your blind and obsessive defense of the far right's position which denies the verdict of International Law, and violations of Human rights by Israel, suggest that you only TALK the talk!!! However, that does include the Israelis who should be left alone to live and prosper and all the Palestinians have to do is nothing. Stop terrorism, make peace and they could prosper too. There you go again! Yes the Palestinian will never be right in committing acts of terrorism. AND ISRAEL WILL NEVER BE RIGHT IN THEIR PERSISTING DENYAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. It takes two to tango. Palestinians have a responsibility in the outcome of situation. But wake-up 's1lowhand', SO HAS ISREAL. However, violence is never the path toward peace. That's right, and as much as the 'rocket' attacks are inexcusable, denial of International Law and persistent violations of Human Rights is just as inexcusable. There is never going to be a resolution to this nonsense. Neither side has any reason to move forward and come to a peaceful conclusion. The state of war makes both sides money. Arafat died a multi- millionaire for christ sake. You're are right that specific corrupt individuals, political factions, biased lobbies would stand to loose billions, were there a settlement to the conflict. That being said, those extreme and self-serving minority groups have no integrity in the ultimate outcome. Their money buys them time, THAT'S IT!!!

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Thu 03/25/10 09:16 AM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel Edited by voileazur on Thu 03/25/10 09:41 AM
As I have provided in the references above there is a compelling and real case to be made that Israel is not violating international law. Human rights abuses have occurred on both sides but I would argue that the Palestinian abuses have been much more egregious using their own people as human shields, cafe bombings, firing rockets into civilian areas, teaching hatred in their elementary school textbooks, and advocating suicide bombing as a political tactic. What could possibly be worse than that?! There is no basis for your claims. It is extreme right doctrine. But, in a group of Nations, of which Israel is a member, there is consensus and binding obligation to uphold the 'rule of law'!!! That is the ONLY possible basis for a 'COMPELLING CASE', as you put it. In the domain of the rule of law, and with respect to the group of Nations which have agreed to uphold it, it is The International Court of Justice that hears and renders verdicts in matters of violations of International law. The ICJ is the only official organe we have to establish violation or non-violation when it comes to crimes of war against humanity, or violation of human rights. With respect to Israel, and the case of the settlements in general, and East Jerusalem in particular, the verdict has fallen, and it is clear. Israel violates human rights in the settlements, and violates International Law in East Jerusalem. Your opinion, the opinion of the far right, or the opinion and claims of its extreme right leader 'Bibi', matter absolutely not. Follow the rule of law: build your case, present it to the I.C.J., and convince it to change its verdict!!! That is how 'rule of law' works!!! You don't like the law?!?!? TOUGH!!! You must abide by it, while you may argue that it should be changed, and may act to attempt to change it!!! Until then, the law is the law!!! And Israel is now in violation International law and Human Rights conditions. If you consider that yours, or Israel's extreme right opinion rule over and above The ICJ, then anyone else's opinion will be just as valid as yours. This is not about YOUR CASE or the EXTREME RIGHT'S CASE, this is about our obligations and responsibilities in upholding the rule of law as a fundamental tenet of our just and free societies. Since 1967, Israel has been illegally occupying land, and East Jerusalem is very much part of that illegally occupied land. As I stated way back 's1lowhand', I have no intentions of convincing you of anything. You obviously have a right to your opinion, however much I disagree with it, and, it clearly appears that there is no room to discuss anything outside of your opinion. The objective problem I see with this, is that there is no official consensus for your opinion. Your friends of the extreme right, and the current extreme right coalition administering the Knesset at the moment, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OFFICIAL CONSENSUS IN OUR INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW, WHICH TO WHICH ISRAEL SUBSCRIBE. These opinions have no say in the matter of establishing 'OFFICIALLY' whether or not there are violations with respect to International Law. Checkpoints? Border closures? Cargo Inspections? Fence building? I would join most Israelis in finding disgusting, your treating of the far right Israel abuse of human rights in the occupied territories, a simple 'laughing' matter!!! Anti-Israel (Anti-Zionist) rants won't sway anybody or even get anyone excited except bigots. There you go again!!! You suffer from delusional abuse of language. Who are you calling Anti-Isreal and Anti-Zionist??? You either don't understand, and that wouldn't your fault, or you are acting in the worst of bad faith, resorting to cheap and hypocritical hateful clichés when you have nothing to intelligent to say. I take personal offense to your using such language in our discussions. I am there is nothing in my discourse that is anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. I denounce far right or far left extremist fanatic factions which can be found in all legitimate groups. Zionists and Israelis are against extremists in the highest of proportions. Your simpleton defense of extremism, without any regard of the rule of law, doesn't have a leg to stand on. Ultimately, your comments can easily be construed as being counterproductive towards achieving a peaceful and prosperous Israel for both the Jewish and Palestinian Nations. Although I wouldn't indulge in the abuse of the terms such as you do, YOUR COMMENTS could accurately qualify as anti-Israel and anti-Zionist !!! I haven't attacked anyone. Repetitive gratuitous hypocritical and unfounded insinuations of 'anti' this and 'anti', most definitely end up being attacks. If not, I ask you to retract your empty insinuations, and debate the substance of this exchange. I am a live and let live type of person. In my humble opinion, your blind and obsessive defense of the far right's position which denies the verdict of International Law, and violations of Human rights by Israel, suggest that you only TALK the talk!!! However, that does include the Israelis who should be left alone to live and prosper and all the Palestinians have to do is nothing. Stop terrorism, make peace and they could prosper too. There you go again! Very clear, the Palestinian will never be right in committing acts of terrorism, and there is unanimous International consensus in condemning such. AND THERE IS EQUAL (UNANIMOUS) CONSENSUS TO CONDEMN ISRAEL'S PERSISTENT DENIAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS. It takes two to tango. Palestinians have a responsibility in the outcome of the conflict. But wake-up 's1lowhand', SO HAS ISREAL. However, violence is never the path toward peace. That's right, and as much as the 'rocket' attacks are inexcusable, denial of International Law and persistent violations of Human Rights are just as inexcusable. If anyone else is following this exchange, sincerely seeking to go beyond the demagoguery and political propaganda, in a sincere effort to objectively understand the conflict and its possible solutions, I strongly invite you to view the following clips : 1) An interview with Norman Finkelstein, giving his impressions of the Clinton's and Netanyahu's comments in front of AIPAC, a few days ago. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/23/norman_finkelstein_responds_to_clinton_netanyahu 2) A most enlightening interview with Norman Finkelstein, sharing his views on the 'Next Steps Towards Resolution in Israel-Palestine'. 3) The complete Bill Moyer Interview of Richard J. Goldstone Richard J. Goldstone: (born October 26, 1938), a former South African Constitutional Court judge who served as the chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda from 15 August 1994 to September 1996, and in 2009 led an independent fact-finding mission created by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate international human rights and humanitarian law violations related to the Gaza War. Judge Goldstone signed the Goldstone Report, investigation of the Gaza war during the winter of 2008-2009 . Part 1: Judge Goldstone signed the Goldstone Report. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iya6reWxxg0&feature=related Part 2 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM4x_YCJppg&feature=related Part 3 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD-SFXpXqGU&feature=related Part 4 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6CAYrANXSI&feature=related Part 5 (conclusion): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZfvC0_7vs&feature=related Regardless of all the demagogic and totally unsubstantiated denial from far left adversaries, the following scholars and official organizations: - The International Court of Justice, - Justice Godlstone and the Goldstone Report, - B'Tselem (Israel's Human Rights organization) - an overwhelming number of International Human Rights Organizations, - Norman Finkelstein, - Avi Shlaim, - Raul Hilberg, - Noam Chomsky, - the current US administration, and a large proportion of the Israeli population and political representatives, CANNOT ALL BE TARGETS OF GRATUITOUS AND PREPOSTEROUS 'ANTI-SEMITE', 'ANTI-ZIONISTS', 'ANTI-ISRAEL', 'HOLOCAUST DENIERS', AND 'JEW HATERS'!!! The 'far right' agenda, and its monopoly on the media and public opinion is flat out wrong. In a democracy, acting reasonably and objectively on those wrongs, through reasonable and factual dissension is nothing other than our moral duty.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Wed 03/24/10 08:03 AM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel Edited by voileazur on Wed 03/24/10 08:41 AM
Educating yourself to become more balanced in understanding the conflict is your job. You seem to have developed a purely one-sided pro-Palestinian viewpoint favoring the terrorists, peace obstructionists,Holocaust deniers and revisionist historian positions (Hamas, Arafat, Iran, and Finkelstein) over the positions of the Israelis who have consistently made peace agreements and have refrained from terrorist activity and prosecuted anyone who has engaged in it. Of course you may see yourself as the voice of the downtrodden. But the Israelis have been abused in more unsavory ways by the bus bombs and rocket attacks not only by the Palestinians but by all of their other neighbors at one time or another many of whom have in their charters and core ideology a denial of Israels very right to existence. The suffering has been on both sides. But the ways of trying to resolve the problems have been quite different. Israel negotiates and Hamas, Al-Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah bomb. You ask me to be open-minded and I oblige. I am always willing to consider different points of view. I do understand and sympathize with the Palestinians. That is why I feel that they really should have accepted the Camp David 2000 proposal. The one which the chief negotiator David Ross has described. (inexplicably dismissed by voileazur even though Ross was the principal party brokering the negotiations and Clinton and Malley support his description of the offer). You describe it as "cantons" even though Ross for one has explicitly stated that such a description is false. So, I respectfully suggest that you reconsider your own biases! In the best of cases, your comments are pure projection. They perfectly apply to your attitude: you haven't commented or exchanged on any of the points I have proposed, other than this obstinate 'We're right and the rest of the world is wrong' clichés rebuttal of the Israeli extreme right flavour (and there is a lot more to Israel than its extreme right, however loud they may be). Here is the quintessential single-doctrine filter through which YOU view everything: «... You seem to have developed a purely one-sided pro-Palestinian viewpoint favoring the terrorists, peace obstructionists,Holocaust deniers and revisionist historian positions (Hamas, Arafat, Iran, and Finkelstein) over the positions of the Israelis who have consistently made peace agreements and have refrained from terrorist activity and prosecuted anyone who has engaged in it...» If we don't agree with the extreme delusions you and the extreme positions espoused by the Israeli extreme right share, - total disregard for Intermnational Law and Human rights violations in the settlements as clearly documented and supported by B'TSELEM, The Quartet of Nations, the UN, the current US administration, and a large and growing majority of US and Israeli Jews, - we become targets of your calumnious, empty, and totally gratuitous accusations of ONE-SIDED PALESTINIAN SUPPORTERS, HOLOCAUST DENIERS, and HISTORY REVISIONISTS. If you can't bring yourself to realize that Israel, being driven by the far right factions, is totally denying its violations of International and Human Rights laws, of course Israel in your eyes is blameless. But who are you and your little friends to decide unilaterally that you are beyond the respect of International laws, and Human Rights violations. And that is the case for closed-mindedness: incapable of seeing one's own biases, where one is always right, and where the 'other' is always wrong!!! In that light, who are you to gratuitously accuse people of of being one-sided!?!?!? of being holocaust deniers and history revisionists!!?!?!? It's elementary 'Watson', you discard everything that doesn't agree with your position, and I mean everything, and then go on to accuse people of being close-minded!?!?!? Sounds like the pyromaniac fireman!!! Finkelstein is a highly respected scholar and a PhD, whom is an authority in the matter of the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. He is the son of holocaust survivors, and has lost nearly all members of his extended family to the Nazi concentration camps. Who are you to call him a holocaust denier!?!?!? Should you put your money where where your mouth his, you would be sued for libel. There is nothing to support such hateful accusations. Finkelstein finds it disgusting that people like you and your friends Foxman and Dershowitz, reduce the pain and suffering of holocaust victims to a mere cliché'd caricature ONLY TO EXPLOIT THE COMMERCIAL AND MONEY MAKING ASPECTS OF IT. Anti-semitism should never be reduced to a mere commercial 'trademark', as the Foxmans, Dershowitzs and certain Jewish American Lobbies of the world treat it, and profit from it. Shame on you for not even questioning their 'corrupted' positions. Simply be very clear that you are not to insinuate that I, or the likes of Finkelstein, are holocaust deniers, or anything of the sort which would so conveniently serve yours and your friends corrupted views. If you haven't noticed, there is a just, peaceful, and prosperous future for the Jewish community of the world, and the Nation of Israel BEYOND THE EXTREME AND ANTIQUATED ZIONIST DOCTRINES. We are in an era where it is possible to discuss the abuse and shortcomings of Zionism, the fascist role it has played in the past and is still playing now, as a totally distinct phenomenon from the sanctity of the Jewish People worldwide, and the contemporary sovereign State of Israel!!! Whether or not those whom have indecently profited from the situation agree or not, IT IS NOW PERFECTLY HEALTHY TO CRITICIZE THE FASCIST AND DOGMATIC ELEMENTS OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, AS MOST DETRIMENTAL AND PROFOUNDLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE CAUSE OF ISRAEL, without exposing ourselves to empty / fascist accusations of anti-Semite, holocaust deniers, and anti-Israel. This is where the discourse is at. No one should be exposed to the stigmatizing and calumniously unfounded attacks you and your closed-minded friends perpetrate, against those whom legitimately criticize the corrupt, extreme and counter productive positions and views of Zionism. Should you keep up with your line of unfounded attacks, it would right for anyone to qualify your comments and accusations of being downright fascist. P.S.: Reminding you of your own moral: 'Educating yourself 's1lowhand', to become more balanced in understanding the CURRENT stakes of the conflict is your job'.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 04:12 PM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel
As I wrote, ... not edifying to say the least!!!

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 03:42 PM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel Edited by voileazur on Tue 03/23/10 03:43 PM
Not at all. A lot of people attack Foxman because they disagree with his/ADL positions or how the organization is run. But he is still well respected and continues the fine work of the ADL regardless. Finkelstein has no following outside a small group of anti-Israel ideologues and his work is widely recognized as propaganda rather than scholarship that is one reason why he has been denied tenure everywhere and is criticized by Dershowitz among others. s1lowhand, You are conveniently re-arranging facts to suit your perception of things. Foxman has little to no supporters left. And that comes from ADL people themselves. FOXMAN NO LONGER HAS TEH SUPPORT OF ADL PEOPLE THEMSELVES, save a few bedfellows!!! « One activist went so far as to demand “a class-action lawsuit by ADL donors to demand new leadership,” reports Goldberg.» « Perhaps the hardest hit against Foxman came from FORMER ADL VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL SPRAYREGEN. Describing recent ADL history, Sprayregen says: “ADL stumbled so egregiously. As observed by many, including myself, who have left the organization, the ADL has declined into an autocracy where no opinion counts other than that of its long-time national director Abraham Foxman, whom the New York Times described as “a one-man Sanhedrin for life.” When Foxman hatches a crackpot idea like the “Rage Report,” no one can restrain him…Foxman is driven to justify his half-million dollar-plus salary (matched in virtually no other Jewish organization)…To generate publicity for himself, he launches (and then summarily drops) foolish initiatives, such as his attack on Christian evangelicals, Israel’s most consistent supporters…” You can stick your head in the sand, and take leave of reality, but don't spread such delusions that Foxman is doing a great job for the ADL!!! The ADL itself doesn't agree with you!!! Never the rest of the world!!! Come on 's1lowhand', you have shown an ability to make sense on other topics in the past, what's so different with this one, that you've gone completely dogmatic!?!?! Dershowitz is a serious attention deficit media hugger. He's a criminal lawyer that can't seem to get enough attention from that first job, so he started a second job as a media commentator. Finkelstein debunked his book 'The case for Israel', and egocentric punk never forgave him. He used up all his media and Jewish lobby friends to prosecute and condemn Finkelstein in the public place, a child of holocaust survivors, as an anti-semite and jew hater, and pursued his crusade to the tenur revision committee of DePaul University, to deny Finkelstein of tenur. When a bunch of donors, Dershowitz Jewish friends in this case, threaten to cut off funding, even tenur committees of reputable universities listen. Finkelstein is a scholar of impeccable repute, whom happens to reveal facts which upset the McCarhy like Jewish establishment. So keep bringing up Dershowitz and Foxman and goons of the same family. You'll simply reinforce that there is a very obstinate and powerful lobby that dictates a single track doctrine, and comes down on all whom do not comply. Not edifying to say the least.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 02:13 PM Topic: Joe Biden...
Gotta love him... quote - "This is a big f****in deal!!".... $.02 Yeah! Reminds me of the 'KCUF YOURSELF' delivered by Big 'Dick' Cheney to Senator Leahy, on the day Senate passed legislation described as the "Defense of Decency Act" by 99 to 1. Looks like Cheney in that case WAS THE 1 !!!

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 01:07 PM Topic: States Go To War Edited by voileazur on Tue 03/23/10 01:20 PM
'STATES GO TO WAR' !!! Nostalgic about the Confederates, are we!?!?!? Is there no end to the demagoguery people will spread!!! And more to the point, do you really believe demagoguery makes any difference, apart from endowing its author with the illusion of having expressed something 'significant'. 'STATES GO TO WAR' !!! What's it going to be this time??? Coastal vs 'fly-over' states??? Republicans are pissed off that they're not in charge!!! A desperate attempt at creating an 'end of the universe demagogic scenario' to influence the upcoming mid-terms, so that, at the very least, it might reverse their sour ssa fortune in Congress in the fall, ... is all that is going on. Desperate, wasteful, empty and disingenuous is all it is. Power hungry spoiled brats whom will go to ANY LENGTHS, no matter how delusional, to get back in the playground and win back all the toys of power. Well, they'll just have to wait a while now, cause they left the playground in an awful shape, last time they occupied it, and Obama has just started the clean-up and 'rebuild'!!!

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 12:54 PM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel Edited by voileazur on Tue 03/23/10 12:56 PM
The ADL has been fighting discrimination of all sorts for nearly 100 years. "The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens." ADL Charter October 1913 They have fought discrimination of all sorts throughout their history. You can look it up decade by decade for jews and non-jews alike. Read about it here: Foxman is only their latest director. http://www.adl.org/ADLHistory/intro.asp The Anti-Defamation League was launched in 1913 in response to rampant anti-Semitism and discrimination against Jews. Unquestionably, many things have changed -- mainly for the better -- for Jews and other minorites in America since 1913. Discrimination in hiring, schooling, and housing, once so common, is now prohibited by law. Unlike in the past, few Americans feel compelled to conceal their origins. Offensive caricatures rarely appear in the mass media, and racial and religious stereotypes, on the whole, no longer dominate American popular culture. These changes are due, in large measure, to the efforts of the League and its allies. What has "remained the same," unfortunately, is the persistence of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry -- which in recent years have included attacks on immigrants, Blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, gay men and lesbians. And while the hatemongers of today may be lacking in numbers and in economic and political power, they still have the ability to cause emotional pain, physical injury, property destruction, even death -- not to mention the incalculable damage they do to the social fabric of America and to this country's cherished ideals of mutual respect and equal treatment for all. The mission of ADL today is, as it has been in the past, to expose and combat the purveyors of hatred in our midst, responding to whatever new challenges may arise. Where once we protested admissions quotas at leading graduate schools, today we expose Internet sites devoted to Holocaust denial and white-supremacist propaganda. In the past, we challenged the anti-Semitic ranting of demagogues like Father Coughlin; in the present, we are no less vocal in opposition to Louis Farrakhan. The particulars may change, but the goal remains the same: to stand up for the core values of America against those who seek to undermine them through word or deed. We can look to our past record to inspire us as we go forward into the new millennium and the second century of ADL.... S1owhand, You seem to be having a conversation with yourself. You address none of the points I have been raising, just for the sake of EXCHANGING views. On your last post, you miss the point completely!!! Abe Foxman is severely criticized for burning all the goodwill that the ADL has built over the years. You answer back that the ADL has been doing great work over the years, and that it will continue to do so. What about Foxman?!?!? You just ignore the critics? You just wash off the bad press generated by Foxman's megalomaniac style and actions?!?!? anyone and everyone, Finkelstein and all the prominent authorities supporting him, whom criticizes your heroes, are all wrong!?!?!? Just like that!?!?! We are well aware of your 'position'. Now can you address the questions at hand, or are you going to repeat the same single track position over and over again?!?! It would appear that this is a sensitive topic with you, and you don't appear to have much leeway to discuss or explore outside of the received doctrine!!! If that is the case, let me know. I have no intention of converting you away from your dogma. Just looking for an open-minded exchange.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 10:35 AM Topic: International law is clear: Israeli settlements are illegal
Wow. Hit a nerve, huh ... ? Yay me. I'm so happy you feel I have a 'right' to MY opinion ... mighty big of you. As for B'Tselem, their 'opinion' is just as idiotic as that of Jews who know [sic] history yet choose to ignore it and who vote for people who will volitionally give orders that have direct negative impact on their life, health and well-being in order to serve some 'greater international good'. Never. Again. Just because B'Tselem can fool the Knesset and others means nothing. That's just called 'public relations'. You have stated your opinion. We understand the first time around. You don't need to repeat yourself. Now, do you have anything of substance to say, which you might support with reputable third party sources, other than : 'the work or opinions of B'Tselem is 'idiotic', and simple 'p.r.' work'? I say that, because your opinion and position on the matter, which I am sure is still popular with some of your obvious bedfellows, is no longer shared in mainstream American and Israeli Jewish circles.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 09:53 AM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel
Dershowitz has as much a right as anyone to produce a fair rebuttal of Finkelstein. It is not difficult. Nothing wrong with Foxman and the ADL. Nothing wrong with Dennis Ross or Clinton or any of the others I have cited. All have valid and well articulated opinions, well constructed arguments, excellent supporting documentation, and fantastic reputations. OK! Let's take your unsupported points one your first point, let's take a look at Foxman. You claim about Foxman: '... Nothing wrong with Foxman and the ADL. ... valid and well articulated opinions, well constructed arguments, excellent supporting documentation, and fantastic reputations...' Well, let me argue with you that the prestige and reputation of Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has never been lower. I submit a recent biting article by J. J. Goldberg, in the Jewish Forward, revealing that criticism of Foxman continues to expand, especially from leaders of the American Jewish community. Increasingly, American Jewish intellectuals fear that Foxman, while decrying the anti-Obama “paranoia” of the religious right, may be a victim of his own paranoid obsession with anti-Semitism where it doesn’t exist. (See Goldberg article Foxman Fever Doesn’t Discriminate) http://www.forward.com/articles/125423/ Goldberg: “Foxman is the country’s most prolific anti-Semitism spotter, the gestalt guy who sees Jew-haters under every bed and invents them if he can’t find them.” He writes of respected journalist James Traub’s 2007 New York Times Magazine profile: In his telling, Foxman is “the hanging-judge of anti-Semitism,” an “anachronism” who continues to “harp on Jewish insecurity” in a world where Jews have become “the most widely admired religious group in America, as well as the most successful.” Portraying him as a blustering alarmist, Traub seemed bemused by Foxman’s warnings about “jihadist” anti-Semitism as a serious threat in today’s world and troubled by Foxman’s focus on “good for the Jews, bad for the Jews” to the exclusion of broader goals of “promoting tolerance and diversity.” One activist went so far as to demand “a class-action lawsuit by ADL donors to demand new leadership,” reports Goldberg. Perhaps the hardest hit against Foxman came from FORMER ADL VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL SPRAYREGEN. Describing recent ADL history, Sprayregen says: “ADL stumbled so egregiously. As observed by many, including myself, who have left the organization, the ADL has declined into an autocracy where no opinion counts other than that of its long-time national director Abraham Foxman, whom the New York Times described as “a one-man Sanhedrin for life.” When Foxman hatches a crackpot idea like the “Rage Report,” no one can restrain him…Foxman is driven to justify his half-million dollar-plus salary (matched in virtually no other Jewish organization)…To generate publicity for himself, he launches (and then summarily drops) foolish initiatives, such as his attack on Christian evangelicals, Israel’s most consistent supporters…” Decline of ADL power, and such criticism of ADL among Jews is unheard of in ADL’s 97-year history. And while I personally could never be associated with Evangelicals, it is important and insightful to notice how they are terrified of ADL!!! More than any force except Jewish media, ADL is destroying the moral underpinnings of our nation and civilization. ADL now boasts that it is architect of 45 US state hate laws as well as the federal law. Are evangelicals seizing this moment to weaken ADL’s destructive influence? No. In his article, Goldberg says “Republicans” are heaping criticism on Foxman for his “Rage Report.” Actually, Republican leaders who did so, at least initially, were few. Jonathan Tobin blasted ADL in Commentary. Joseph Farah wrote a piece for World Net Daily basically warning ADL, “Don’t call me anti-Semitic!” I wrote a salvo of articles alerting America to ADL’s attack which soared to reprints on over 100 blogs and websites. In contrast, a cowering religious right remains eerily silent about ADL’s characterization of millions of conservatives as “conspirators.” Evangelicals still remember ADL’s previously unrestrained powers of recrimination. But such power is fading and could end if evangelicals emerge from hiding—and give chase! It’s time to drive this bullying, corrupting, illegal agent of a foreign power from the only remaining country able to be a beacon of freedom and free speech to the world. At this auspicious moment, Christian conservatives can make no greater contribution to liberty than to speak out boldly in criticism of ADL, suggests J.J. Goldberg. Here's more on J.J. Goldberg's character: http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=26040&lan=en&sid=0&sp=0 So, you were saying about Foxman: «...valid and well articulated opinions, well constructed arguments, excellent supporting documentation, and fantastic reputations...» Other than bedfellows, there is no support for the claims you make about 'Foxman', 's1lowhand'!!!

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 08:30 AM Topic: International law is clear: Israeli settlements are illegal Edited by voileazur on Tue 03/23/10 08:34 AM
Two words: Never again. B'Tselem and its skewed 'opinion' is irrelevant. Well, B'Tselem doesn't work in the public relation field of opinions, and 'spin' science. It provides the only data and factual documents available, to members of the Knesset and the Israeli population at large, helping to keep some form of integrity in The Israeli Sovereign Nation obligations to respect Human rights and International laws. The only part that is 'skewed' here, is your rash rebuttal which shows total ignorance of this organization's work and contribution to Israel, the high degree of respect shown for their mission from the Israeli population, the Knesset, the international community, and the Quartet of Nations!!! You don't like 'em!?!?!? Well, that is YOUR skewed opinion, and quite honestly, with all due respect to you personally, and your legitimate right to an opinion, IT IS MOST IRRELEVANT!!!

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 07:53 AM Topic: International law is clear: Israeli settlements are illegal
B'Tselem On LAND EXPROPRIATION AND SETTLEMENTS (excerpt) http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/ Because the very establishment of the settlements is illegal, and in light of the human rights violations resulting from the existence of the settlements, B’Tselem demands that Israel evacuate the settlements. The action must be done in a way that respects the settlers’ human rights, including the payment of compensation. Clearly, evacuation of the settlements will be complex and will take time; however there are intermediate steps that can be taken immediately so as to reduce, to the extent possible, human rights violations and breaches of international law. For example, the government should cease new construction in the settlements – both the building of new settlements and the expansion of existing settlements. It must also freeze the planning and building of new bypass roads and must cease expropriating and seizing land intended for the bypass roads. The government must return to Palestinian villages all the non-built-up land that was placed within the municipal jurisdiction of the settlements and the regional councils, eliminate the planning boards in the settlements, and, as a result thereof, revoke the power of the local authorities to draw up outline plans and grant building permits. Also, the government must cease the granting of incentives to encourage Israeli citizens to move to settlements and must make resources available to encourage settlers to move inside Israel’s borders.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 07:50 AM Topic: International law is clear: Israeli settlements are illegal Edited by voileazur on Tue 03/23/10 07:54 AM
B'Tselem on EAST JERUSALEM http://www.btselem.org/English/Jerusalem/ Since East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, the government of Israel’s primary goal in Jerusalem has been to create a demographic and geographic situation that will thwart any future attempt to challenge Israeli sovereignty over the city. To achieve this goal, the government has been taking actions to increase the number of Jews, and reduce the number of Palestinians, living in the city. At the end of 2005, the population of Jerusalem stood at 723,700: 482,500 Jews (67 percent) and 241,200 Palestinians (33 percent). About 58 percent of the residents live on land that was annexed in 1967 (45 percent of whom are Jews, and 55 percent Palestinians). With the Palestinians having a higher growth rate than the Jews, Israel has used various methods to achieve its goal: - Physically isolating East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, in part by building the separation barrier; - Discriminating in land expropriation, planning, and building, and demolition of houses; - Revoking residency and social benefits of Palestinians who stay abroad for at least seven years, or who are unable to prove that their center of life is in Jerusalem; - Unfairly dividing the budget between the two parts of the city, with harmful effects on infrastructure and services in East Jerusalem. Israel’s policy gravely infringes the rights of residents of East Jerusalem and flagrantly breaches international law. East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Therefore, it is subject, as is the rest of the West Bank, to the provisions of international humanitarian law that relate to occupied territory. The annexation of East Jerusalem breaches international law, which prohibits unilateral annexation. For this reason, the international community, including the United States, does not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Tue 03/23/10 07:50 AM Topic: International law is clear: Israeli settlements are illegal Edited by voileazur on Tue 03/23/10 08:16 AM
Powerful Israeli lobbies have succeeded in establishing a far right agenda world wide when it comes to the Israelo-Palestinian situation, which has a lot more to do with McCarthy like suppression of 'freedom of speech' through demagogic propaganda, impeachment of character and calumnious attacks, than seeking truth and justice. In spite of the fact that the 'religious-fundamentalist-far right-extremist' lobbies have succeeded in the past to win the Public Relation game and World sympathy, more and more voices of dissent from within the Jewish and Israeli families are courageously and honestly trying to set the record straight. One of those voices is B'Tselem, which, as an Israeli Human rights watch organization, serving the Isareli population and the Knesset, in bringing a perspective rich with facts and rigorously documented, which serves to bring to light the fact that it is time for Israel's far right faction to retire, and allow the more objective and 'open-minded' factions of the Sovereign State of Israel to take full account, and act on their National and International responsibilities as a Sovereign Nation. About B'TSELEM http://www.btselem.org/English/About_BTselem/Index.asp B'Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was established in 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. It endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Mon 03/22/10 05:58 PM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel
Finkelstein Taking the Bait [on Norman Finkelstein] by Alan Dershowitz The New Republic May 21, 2007 read the full article here: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/3379 A few years ago, I barely knew the name Norman Finkelstein. I was vaguely aware of his screed, The Holocaust Industry, which argued that Jews "fabricated" their victimhood. I had heard of his comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany. (" can't imagine why Israel's apologists ... would be offended by a comparison with the Gestapo," he once wrote.) And I had caught wind that neo-Nazi Holocaust-deniers like Ernst Zundel, now in an Austrian prison, praised him for "making three-fourths of our argument--and making it effectively." But I certainly never imagined meeting such a person. Like David Duke, who is now teaching in the Ukraine, Finkelstein is a failed academic. By his own account, he has been fired by "every school in New York," including Brooklyn College and NYU. One of his former department chairs attributed Finkelstein's firing to "incompetence," "mental instability," and "abuse" of students with different politics from his own. That may help explain why he accepted a job at DePaul, a school Finkelstein describes as "a third-rate Catholic University." With a political science department known as hard left, Finkelstein finally saw a path toward tenure--a sorry possibility now being debated, and one that I may have inadvertently helped along. While I was touring in 2003 for my book The Case for Israel, I was invited by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now to debate Noam Chomsky. I agreed, but, when I showed up, it was Finkelstein in the studio. "Chomsky couldn't make it, so we have a substitute," Goodman said. Unbelievably, Finkelstein's performance sunk well below Chomskian standards of honesty. He accused me of not having written or "read" my own book, which he implied was written by Israeli agents. For good measure, he also accused me of plagiarizing it from a 1984 book written by Joan Peters. (His absurd accusation was that I found quotes from Mark Twain and others in Peters's book and attributed them to the original authors rather than to Peters.) Finkelstein knew that, as an academic, I would have to rebut these charges. I asked Harvard to investigate them, which it did and dismissed. Yet Finkelstein continued to repeat his lies--and I kept responding.... =-=-=-= etc. etc. etc. There is a good reason why Dershowitz is on the faculty at Harvard and Finkelstein has "been fired by every school in New York". Finkelstein has already been thoroughly debunked. I read him and I agree with the debunkers. That's it!!! I work in good faith to try and establish an intelligent exchange on this worthy topic, I propose Malley/Agha on the one hand, and Finkelstein on the other, take the time to back it up an document it with reputed authorities on the subject : - B'Tselem - Raul Hilberg, - Avi Shlaim - Charles Glass - William B. Quandt - Noam Chomsky - The Middle East Journal - The London Review of Books - The Quartet of Nations - more than 60% of the Isareli population And all you have to respond with are gratuitous and simple dismissive clichés and formulas, never addressing the question at the heart of this exchange, and providing a very weak line of defense indeed: - Dennis Ross, clearly one sided. - Abe Foxman, ADL, clearly one-sided. and now, - Alan Dershowitz, whom was publicly 'undressed' by Finkelstein, who alleged that 'The Case for Israel', by Alan Dershowitz, was "a collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism and nonsense". A.D. did everything in his power to block the publication of Finkelstein's own book, where he made an exhaustive and scientifically documented charge to support his allegations against A.D. A.D. threatened to sue for libel. But disregarding the lame threats, Finkelstein's book was published, and ... A.D. never sued!!! Many scholars and Israelo-Palestinian experts all threw their support on the Finkelstein's account. Since the showdown, the humiliation seems to fuel A.D. to pursue Finkelstein with a vengence at every corner. He threw all the power and influence of the Israel Lobby to directly influence DePaul University to deny Finkelstein's tenur. So... proposing Alan Dershowitz as a credible critic of Finkelstein, is hardly serious. Dershowitz is another clearly 'one-sided pony', with a serious lame. If you are going to be equally one-sided 'Israel fundamentalist Lobby' as your friends, stop claiming you are open-minded, and stop faking any form of debating. Extremist, one-sided, fundamentalist views such as the ones held by your 'friends' are now clearly part of the problem, and drowning any possible solution. So think about it, and let me know if you are still interested in a real open minded exchange. And by the way, I am not judging you for your positions. You have the right to cultivate whatever opinion you wish. But if you wish to debate, you'll have to consider that there might be an emerging school of thought out there worth 'exploring', and composing with. That is where all positive change for humanity has come from.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Mon 03/22/10 02:44 PM Topic: UN Chief Slams Israeli Blockade of Gaza
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted at the opening of the 61st General Assembly on September 20, 2006, that Israel is often unfairly judged at the United Nations. “On one side, supporters of Israel feel that it is harshly judged by standards that are not applied to its enemies,” he said. “And too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies.”1 Starting in the mid-1970s, an Arab-Soviet-Third World bloc joined to form what amounted to a pro-PLO lobby at the United Nations. This was particularly true in the General Assembly where these countries — nearly all dictatorships or autocracies — frequently voted together to pass resolutions attacking Israel and supporting the PLO. In 1974, for example, the General Assembly invited Yasser Arafat to address it. Arafat did so, a holster attached to his hip. In his speech, Arafat spoke of carrying a gun and an olive branch (he left his gun outside before entering the hall). In 1975, the Assembly awarded permanent representative status to the PLO, which opened an office in midtown Manhattan. Later that year, at the instigation of the Arab states and the Soviet Bloc, the Assembly approved Resolution 3379, which slandered Zionism by branding it a form of racism. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html U.S. Ambassador Daniel Moynihan called the resolution an “obscene act.” Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog told his fellow delegates the resolution was “based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance.” Hitler, he declared, would have felt at home listening to the UN debate on the measure.1a On December 16, 1991, the General Assembly voted 111-25 (with 13 abstentions and 17 delegations absent or not voting) to repeal Resolution 3379. The repeal vote was marred by the fact that 13 of the 19 Arab countries — including those engaged in negotiations with Israel — Syria, Lebanon and Jordan — voted to retain the resolution, as did Saudi Arabia. Six, including Egypt — which lobbied against repeal — were absent. No Arab country voted for repeal. The PLO denounced the vote and the U.S. role. The Arabs “voted once again to impugn the very birthright of the Jewish State,” the New York Times noted. “That even now most Arab states cling to a demeaning and vicious doctrine mars an otherwise belated triumph for sense and conscience.”2 Less than a week before repealing the measure, the General Assembly approved four new one-sided resolutions on the Middle East. On December 11, 1991, it voted 104-2 for a resolution calling for a UN-sponsored peace conference that would include the PLO. Also that day, it voted 142-2 to condemn Israeli behavior toward Palestinians in the territories. On December 16 — the very day it repealed the Zionism measure — the UN voted 152-1, with the U.S. abstaining, to call on Israel to rescind a Knesset resolution declaring Jerusalem its capital, demand Israel's withdrawal from “occupied territories,” including Jerusalem and denounce Israeli administration of the Golan Heights. Another resolution expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. As Herzog noted, the organization developed an Alice-In-Wonderland perspective on Israel. “In the UN building...she would only have to wear a Star of David in order to hear the imperious Off with her head at every turn.” Herzog noted that the PLO had cited a 1974 UN resolution condemning Israel as justification for setting off a bomb in Jerusalem.3 Bloc voting also made possible the establishment of the pro-PLO “Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” in 1975. The panel became, in effect, part of the PLO propaganda apparatus, issuing stamps, organizing meetings, preparing films and draft resolutions in support of Palestinian “rights.” Today, approximately 20 committees are dedicated to the Palestinian issue. In 2004-2005, the UN allocated $5.5 million to the Division for Palestinian Rights, $255,000 for the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, $60,000 for the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and $566,000 for Information Activities on the Question of Palestine.3a =-=-=-= Diplomatic and Legal Aspects of the Settlement Issue Jeffrey Helmreich One may legitimately support or challenge Israeli settlements in the disputed territories, but they are not illegal, and they have neither the size, the population, nor the placement to seriously impact upon the future status of the disputed territories and their Palestinian population centers. The outbreak of the Al Aqsa Intifada in the fall of 2000 began to erode the orthodoxy that settlements were driving Palestinian anger and blocking peace. New York Times foreign affairs analyst Thomas L. Friedman wrote in October 2000: "This war is sick but it has exposed some basic truths." In particular, Friedman wrote, "To think that the Palestinians are only enraged about settlements is also fatuous nonsense. Talk to the 15-year-olds. Their grievance is not just with Israeli settlements, but with Israel. Most Palestinians simply do not accept that the Jews have any authentic right to be here. For this reason, any Palestinian state that comes into being should never be permitted to have any heavy weapons, because if the Palestinian had them today, their extremists would be using them on Tel Aviv." http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief2-16.htm In recent months, however, the settlements have re-emerged as an explanation for the failure of nearly every ceasefire and diplomatic effort to quell the conflict. The Mitchell Report in 2001 and recent remarks by visiting U.S. senators have raised the question of settlements (though not directly blaming them for the conflict), and the UN General Assembly concluded its 2002 session with over 15 agenda items condemning "illegal" Israeli settlements. Settlements have also become a focal point in the Quartet's December 2002 "road map." In fact, since their establishment nearly three decades ago, settlements have been the cause celebre of critics seeking to attribute the persistence of the conflict to Israeli policy. The criticism falls into two categories: moral/political arguments that settlements are "obstacles to peace," and legal claims that settlements are illegitimate or a violation of international norms. The pervasiveness of these claims masks the fact that, upon closer scrutiny, they are false, and they hide the true source of grievances and ideological fervor that fuel this conflict. Wouldn't it be wonderful if it were that simple??? «... The pervasiveness of these claims (persistent violation of International Law) masks the fact that, upon (YOUR) closer scrutiny, they are false, and they hide the true source of grievances and ideological fervor that fuel this conflict...» Please 's1lowhand' share 'YOUR CLOSE SCRUTINY' with us. Give us some authoritative sources that would help us counter ALL OF THE CURRENT AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES CLAIMING SUCH PERSISTENT INTERNATIONAL VIOLATIONS. One cannot be making such 'flaky' claims, without validation support, and expect to be taken seriously on this topic. Isreal's violations of occupied territories according to International Laws are persistent and overwhelming, and are documented by a several highly respected world organizations, one of being an Israel based institution: 'B'Tselem'. The game of blaming Palestinian acts, while ignoring or forgiving Israel's persistent Human Rights and Occupied Territories violations, cannot be deemed 'acting in good faith'. Let's all get real; Isreali and Palestinian families deserve better than the deceitful games religious and political 'elites' are playing at THEIR expense.

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Mon 03/22/10 02:13 PM Topic: It Passed
I have Strong Opinions YES. And I stand by the fact I think they way Obama runs this country and passes laws the way he passes them makes him no better than any other Slimy Domestic Terrorist... But I would NOT even think about doing anything stupid? Hell no... Your the one who ASSUMED that crap I would never EVER make a threat AGAINST ANYONE much less the "supposed" POTUS. Clear? Good. I am not assuming anything. « God Help Us All... After this I refuse to call Barry Sorento Hussain Obama President (you are insinuating that you do not recognize the duly elected President of the USA! I asked a clarifying question. Do you recognize President Obama as the duly elected President of the USA, YES or NO???) He has stuck a Knife in the Heart of America As Deep As any Radical Muslim...... I now call Obama`s Presidency Jihad Against the American People (these two statements insinuate that you hold the President of the USA, whom you refuse to call President, guilty of leading a Jihad against the American people!!! Again, simple questions, ARE YOU SERIOUS about that statement? Or are you just trying to impress the gallery with big words???) Won't call the President of the USA, the President of the USA! Insinuating that the President of the USA has committed some sort of act of terrorism worthy of '... any Radical Muslim...' and further insinuating that the Presidency of the USA is '... a Jihad against the American people...' brings one to question whether the person posting such crap has all his marbles, or is just trying to impress the 'girls'!!! The 'are you crazy?' question you asked me, applies perfectly to your comments!!! If you didn't mean it, as you mow seem to imply, and which was the purpose of my questions, we'll just leave it at the fact that you were trying to impress the 'girls', and that there was no meat behind your empty words!!! Is that CLEAR??? GOOD!!!

voileazur Joined Sun 03/11/07 Posts: 2140	Mon 03/22/10 01:33 PM Topic: White House Ups Ante With New Criticism of Israel
The ADL carries a lot more credibility. I have read Finkelstein firsthand and it is not worthy of discussion. I don't mind going there at all. Anyone with an open mind would see the value of the ADL efforts against discrimination in general and antisemitism in particular. Their research is impeccable and they are very careful in how they address various controversial issues. Nothing but respect for the ADL. Why don't you read some of the ADL work firsthand with a fair and open mindset and you might find them to be actually very reasonable. http://www.adl.org/about.asp?s=topmenu I don't pay much attention to Fox. May 09, 2007 « It takes an enormous amount of courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there”—world-renowned holocaust, Israel scholars Raul Hilberg and Avi Shlaim defend DePaul Professor Norman Finkelstein as he fights for tenur! » To claim 'Finfelstein' is 'NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION', while defending the 'credibility' of the McCarthy like fascist approach of Foxman through the ADL, leaves me perplexed with regards to your open mind claim. The ADL, under Foxman, calling Finkelstein a 'Holocaust denier', anti-Israel, has absolutely no credibility. Demagoguery at best, sinister hidden agenda at worst. '... The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier" and accused him of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda. Although the ADL is known as a defender against anti-Semitism, it is also a frequent advocate for the government of Israel and opponent of Palestinian interests. Finkelstein has called the ADL's accusations against him empty and undeserved. "I am Jewish and my parents are Holocaust survivors. With others you could say, 'you're an anti-Semite' or 'you're a Holocaust denier,' [but] you can't do that with me," he once responded, "you have to argue the facts." Neither the ADL nor similar groups have quoted Finkelstein denying that the Holocaust actually occurred...' (http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Norman_Finkelstein/) The ADL under Foxman, has been repeatedly accused of having adopted a very counter productive 'McCarthy' like fascist doctrine in pursuing their goals. Denouncing anti-semitism is laudible. Using anti-semitism as a weapon to silence critics, is just plain evil. And that is precisely what Foxman has done with Finkelstein. To suggest Finkelstein is a Holocaust denier is so preposterous, you would have to accuse Hilberg, Shlaim, Chomsky, hell a list of 100's of Jews, whom simply treat Israel as a sovereign nation, not above criticism as any other sovereign nation. Although this is a highly charged topic, it is disgusting to witness Jewish people whom seek to stand for traditional Judaism values and principles, without the propaganda and demagoguery, being 'McCarthyszed' on the public place. The following excerpt from a 'Democracy Now!' article with Amy Goodman, helps put things this complex situation in perspective: (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/9/it_takes_an_enormous_amount_of) The excerpt: AMY GOODMAN: Professor Shlaim, what about the whole issue of when you criticize the Israeli government, being charged with anti-Semitism? What is your response to this? You were born in Iraq. You’re also an Israeli citizen and then moved to Britain? AVI SHLAIM: I am. I was born in Baghdad. I grew up in Israel. I served in IDF. And for the last forty years, I have lived in Britain, and I teach at Oxford. My academic discipline is international relations, and I am a specialist in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And I think that there is no—that we must be very careful to separate questions of anti-Semitism from critique of Israel. I am critical of Israel as a scholar, and anti-Semitism just doesn’t come into it. My view is that the blind supporters of Israel—and there are many of them in America, in particular—use the charge of anti-Semitism to try and silence legitimate criticism of Israeli practices. I regard this as moral blackmail. Israel has no immunity to criticism, moral immunity to criticism, because of the Holocaust. Israel is a sovereign nation-state, and it should be judged by the same standards as any other state. And Norman Finkelstein is a very serious critic and a very well-informed critic and hard-hitting critic of Israeli practices in the occupation and dispossession of the Palestinians. His last book, Beyond Chutzpah, is based on an amazing amount of research. He seems to have read everything. He has gone through the reports of Israeli groups, of human rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Peace Now and B’Tselem, all of the reports of Amnesty International. And he deploys all this evidence from Israeli and other sources in order to sustain his critique of Israeli practices, Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinians, Israeli house demolitions, the targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants, the cutting down of trees, the building of the wall—the security barrier on the West Bank, which is illegal—the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the West Bank, and so on and so forth. I find his critique extremely detailed, well-documented and accurate. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Hilberg, like you, Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust victims, his mother and his father both in concentration camps. Your final thoughts on this whole dispute and whether Norman Finkelstein should get tenure at DePaul University in Chicago? RAUL HILBERG: Well, let me say at the outset, I would not, unasked, offer advice to the university in which he now serves. Having been in a university for thirty-five years myself and engaged in its politics, I know that outside interferences are most unwelcome. I will say, however, that I am impressed by the analytical abilities of Finkelstein. He is, when all is said and done, a highly trained political scientist who was given a PhD degree by a highly prestigious university. This should not be overlooked. Granted, this, by itself, may not establish him as a scholar. However, leaving aside the question of style—and here, I agree that it’s not my style either—the substance of the matter is most important here, particularly because Finkelstein, when he published this book, was alone. It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost. Raul Hilberg , (Wikipedia: June 2, 1926, Vienna – August 4, 2007, Williston, Vermont) was an Austrian-born American political scientist and historian. He was widely considered to be the world's preeminent[1][2] [3] Holocaust scholar, and his three-volume, 1,273-page magnum opus, The Destruction of the European Jews, is regarded as a seminal study of the Nazi Final Solution. Avi Shlaim , (Wikipedia: born October 31, 1945, is an Iraqi-born British historian. He is a professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford and a fellow of the British Academy. Shlaim is especially well-known as a historian of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is considered one of the leading New Historians, a group of Israeli scholars who put forward critical interpretations of the history of Zionism and Israel.of St Antony's College, Oxford University). I guess you don't pay much attention to the New York Times either, but here is what they have to say about the ADL and its current head. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/magazine/14foxman.t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1 And here is what some people have to say about Finkelstein's latest work: Here is what Avi Shlaim has to say about Finkelstein: "Norman Finkelstein is one of the most radical and hard-hitting critics of the official Zionist version of the Arab-Israeli conflict and of the historians who support this version. ... The book makes a major contribution to the study of the Arab-Israeli conflict and deserves to be widely read, especially in the United States." Charles Glass : (Wikipedia: Charels Glass is an American author, journalist, and broadcaster specializing in the Middle East. He writes regularly for The Spectator, was ABC News chief Middle East correspondent from 1983-93, and has worked as a correspondent for Newsweek and The Observer. His work has appeared in newspapers and magazines, and on television networks, all over the world. "Anyone interested in seeing justice brought to the Middle East must read 'Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict'." William B. Quandt : (Wikipesdia: (born 1941) is an American scholar, author, professor and member of the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia. He previously served as senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution and as a member on the National Security Council in the Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter administrations. He was actively involved in the negotiations that led to the Camp David Accords and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. His areas of expertise include Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, the Peace Process, and U.S. Foreign Policy) "...this thoroughly documented book is guaranteed to stimulate and provoke. It will be required reading in the continuing war of the historians." "...the most revealing study of the historical background of the conflict and the current peace agreement." Noam Chomsky, The GUARDIAN "... a thought-provoking work which calls into question many of the accepted 'truths' associated with the Israel-Palestine conflict." THE MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL "...both an impressive analysis of Zionist ideology and a searing but scholarly indictment of Israel's treatment of the Arabs since 1948." THE LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS A large number of authorities on the subject disagree with you 's1lowhand' and strongly recommend on the contrary, ... THAT FINKELSTEIN IS VERY MUCH WORTH DISCUSSING!!! ...

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 24 25 Next

Community > Posts By > voileazur

Boost Your Matches & Safety Share Location!

Unable To Connect

Boost Your Matches & Safety
Share Location!