If Americans Only Knew! (Palestinians and Jews)

[Karen the KAT]

Karen, I'm wondering two things:
1. Is it your belief that the Muslims must be annihilated?
2. What do you make of the total lack of agreement with your position, here on WACCO?

kp

1) No, neither do I propose any such thing. I would hope that they can be educated away from their beliefs, but I also don't claim to have any answer to the problem either.

2) You are wrong, I have received a lot of gratitude, look at my posts. However I do note that the majority of Waccos are extremely leftist, and as I note in a couple of my posts, nowhere do you meet with such closed minds as with the extreme left and the extreme right.

OK wait, I'm going to change that. I'm a transsexual, and as such I've done a HUGE amount of research on the subject. Using this research I can easily demonstrate that transsexuals are in no way related to transgendered gays, we have absolutely nothing in common with LGBT. We simply have an unfortunate birth defect of having been incompletely sexualized in the womb. IE: The Chromosomes correctly determined our genitals to be one sex, but those genitals then didn't produce enough, or produced too much of the proper hormone, resulting in a brain that doesn't match the genitals.

When I explain this to extreme Right Christians, I have been invariably met with understanding, love and compassion, however when I explain this to Extreme liberals (especially LGBT) I am met with an attitude that I'm lost and I just need to embrace who I really am. I've had people from the extreme left get quite angry with me over this, and yet there is a preponderance of information that proves them wrong, starting with the whole European medical establishment and ending with (surprise) the AMA.

In fact I wont be surprised if I get a response to this right here.

To my mind this and many other examples lead me to beieve that the extreme leftists (Which most, but not all Waccos are) have some of the most closed minds of all Americans. I think the problem comes from political indoctrination during school. Very few instructors are anything but extreme leftists, and therefore they produce more extreme leftists. Hey, when you live in a World where you are paid to theorize and your theories are almost never challenged except by your same thinking peers, it's so easy to become convinced that you really do know what you're talking about.

"I was surrounded by some very intelligent people who all had higher degrees than I did and we were all in agreement, and you are going to try and tell me I'm wrong? Hah! I've known these things to be truths since I was 20 years old"...

American academia has been divorcing itself from reality more and more since the 40's. Only in the science departments do you find peer review that extends beyond academia, out into the real World.

If your 2+2 doesn't = 4, you are going to hear about it from other scientists in a big hurry.

This is why the concept that man is the major contributor to global warming gains so much traction in the media, but so little among the World's scientists.

There was recently a report "by 250 scientists" who support global warming. Well one would think that if it was as the article says it is "a life threatening problem" you could get more than 250 of the millions of scientists to sign on.

However, good luck with that. We all recognize global warming, that's not the issue, it's how much man has contributed to it that the majority of scientists disagree with. While the public is enamored with Al Gore and Polar Bears, the scientific community at large is not.

For many, it seems a huge waste to spend trillions worrying about CO2 emissions, when they believe that man is only responsible for (and able to effect either positively or negatively), an insignificant 2-3%.

No I'm not entertaining a discussion on CO2 emissions on Wacco, I once tried that and in response to lots of peer reviewed, I got lots of Al Gore style emotions and very little in the way of hard science. I'm just using it as a point.

People on the extremes of the left and right are people who are very emotionally connected to their ideals, and their minds are therefore by necessity, hard to sway, regardless of logic or truth.

Here's an letter I wrote to to a transsexual friend on facebook, that gives a pretty good idea of who I am, and as you can see, I'm pretty much an independent, even though I agree with parts of the left and right in about equal proportions.

I also by the way, represent the independent, self thinking people who control elections, and I have a little news for ya'all: Say goodbye to the Democratic control of Congress, and in fact if we can, we are going to impeach Obama (I'm not a lawyer, so I'll avoid the hows), and retroactively, Bush too if we can.

I'm personally not so sure that would be a good idea; Can you imagine Joe "When FDR watched the depression on TV....", Biden as President:

"Oops, I thought that red button was to order another scotch"...

Anyway (come on laugh...), here's me, and as you can see, I'm not such an evil person after all. I may argue voraciously here on the forum, but in my actual dealings with people, if I don't agree, I just shut up, listen, and love them anyway.

I will however note that the realist in me believes that not everyone is savable, and making the decision of whom to spend yourself on and whom to avoid, is one of the hardest decisions anyone can make.

Anyway, all my best Karen

Here ya' go:



Kelli, I so agree with you. This is why I keep preaching these things:

"Divorce yourself from LBGT, because they don't give a _____ about you as a transsexual (in fact on the whole, they neither understand nor like us), stand on your own feet, and demand your rights as a woman".

If you are pre-op: "Respectful, gently and graciously educate everyone you meet (especially other women who are more receptive and compassionate) that you are nothing more than a regular woman ("Just like you") who was born with a simple birth defect that you are in the act of correcting".

If you are post-op: "Respectfully, gently and graciously educate that you are just a regular woman who has recovered from a simple birth defect".

"Don't talk about anything to do with gay, transvestites, trans-gender etc.". If the subject comes up, respectful, gently and graciously steer it away from those subjects and onto something neutral.

"Whatever you do, don't argue with people's religious or political (One and the same) principals". Whatever you say will stick in their mind as being what is wrong with transsexuals and will negate any gains you have made". I'm not saying that you should roll over and play dead, just respectful, gently and graciously refuse to engage.

I am what might be called "The Christian Right", although that wouldn't really be correct, so I'll elaborate, because I'm sure that statement makes many people curious, but it also gives me a view into their minds that many don't see:

I am a spiritual person, and I try to make my higher power the center of my life. I try to live by the concept of: "Love your God, love yourself, and love your neighbor", because that's what Jesus was all about, according to the book written by the only person who was actually there: John

FYI: You will find no hate in the book of John, only love, understanding, peace, patience and tolerance, however you will also find that Jesus wasn't a wimp when it came to those who were abusive towards others. Regardless of your beliefs, you'll probably agree with those concepts, so why should we argue? Yet another: Go figure...

I'm a fiscal conservative, and I believe that charity starts with your family, extends out to your neighbors, and thus to your community and then to society at large. I temper this with the knowledge that "I can't save them all", for among other reasons, primarily, that many don't want to be saved. Socialism has financially broken every everyone who has tried it: From Russia, to Greece last week, to Spain, Italy and France this summer, everybody eventually learns that there is no such thing as a free lunch, that conformity enforces mediocrity and suppresses diversity and innovation, and that Thomas Jefferson was right about big government. (Hey, it only took 70 years, but bit by bit Germany is going to own Europe)

I believe that the Constitution has been trampled on by every President in the last 90 years in an exponential fashion (Yes, Starting with Woodrow Wilson and his sell out elite big money IE: Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Vanderbilts, etc. and their creation of the "Federal Reserve", as a means of controlling the economy, to FDR's house of cards entitlement programs and push for WWII, to Nixon, Bush and Obama's "Shut up, I know what's best for you", they have each gotten progressively worse than the last, but that's another discussion.)

I believe that people have a right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't cause serious trouble for other people, and this goes hand in hand with my belief that we need to be tolerant of other people and their beliefs as long as they are not being malicious, careless, or just plain stupid (This is obviously where it all gets subjective).

I guess I'm a "Liberal Conservative", or a "Conservative Liberal" (Politically I'm nominally a Libertarian, but...), but I can tell you that there are a lot of "me" out there, we're the ones that get labeled "Independent", and we are the ones that control elections (Now I'm a power hungry bitch...)

For once, I'm OK with the label society attaches to me, in fact I'm a little proud of being thought of as "Independent", as to me it means I think for myself, and I think everyone should question the extremes, as there's both good and bad to be found in both sides.

I say this because so many think the right is the enemy, and yet I have found just as much acceptance from the right as the left, IF, they are approached in a respectful, gentle and gracious way. If you go into a situation being confrontational from the beginning, don't be surprised when it ends the same way it started, just magnified.

I have talked to many extreme Christian Conservatives, and so far the only one who hasn't walked away with understanding and compassion for us so-called "Trans-women", is my own dear mother.

I have also talked to many extreme Liberals, and have found minds just as closed, and I have also been able to open most of them too, (although here I have found more resistance here to separating us from LGBT, go figure...Yes, to me the left is more closed, probably because in indoctrination in school.)

The key to it all has been to be respectful, gentle and gracious. LISTEN to their opinions, don't make fun of them, don't condemn them, don't act like some jackass male who knows it all (Something I still do on occasion). Be a gentle and gracious person, it's a wonderful trait, and people almost always respond positively to it (Note to self: If you practiced this more with mom, you might see better results).

Some minds are closed permanently, but actually their number is quite few when you practice the love that you profess.

[babaruss]

I didn't think I'd be mad enough to engage you again Krazy Kat.
I neither like nor dislike trans-sexual people. I am wise enough to admit I know nothing about that subject. Only fools attack that which they do not understand.
If this is who you are, then this is who you are, and if it cannot be changed, ( or you have no desire to change should change be possible) you must be accepted....just as one accepts all aspects of nature.
As I remember..... Thoreau, and a few friends were once watching a powerful night storm......thunder clapping, lightening flashing, winds howling, etc. and one of the members of that group...no doubt hoping to sound expansive said: "Ah I accept nature"..to which Thoreau responded: "Well by God you'd better !".
One must accept certain things...but one must also combat that which is unnatural and intolerable...in this case your viscous attacks on all of Islam, and blind support of Israel.
Baba

1) No, neither do I propose any such thing. I would hope that they can be educated away from their beliefs, but I also don't claim to have any answer to the problem either.

2) You are wrong, I have received a lot of gratitude, look at my posts. However I do note that the majority of Waccos are extremely leftist, and as I note in a couple of my posts, nowhere do you meet with such closed minds as with the extreme left and the extreme right.

OK wait, I'm going to change that. I'm a transsexual, and as such I've done a HUGE amount of research on the subject. Using this research I can easily demonstrate that transsexuals are in no way related to transgendered gays, we have absolutely nothing in common with LGBT. We simply have an unfortunate birth defect of having been incompletely sexualized in the womb. IE: The Chromosomes correctly determined our genitals to be one sex, but those genitals then didn't produce enough, or produced too much of the proper hormone, resulting in a brain that doesn't match the genitals.

When I explain this to extreme Right Christians, I have been invariably met with understanding, love and compassion, however when I explain this to Extreme liberals (especially LGBT) I am met with an attitude that I'm lost and I just need to embrace who I really am. I've had people from the extreme left get quite angry with me over this, and yet there is a preponderance of information that proves them wrong, starting with the whole European medical establishment and ending with (surprise) the AMA.

In fact I wont be surprised if I get a response to this right here.

To my mind this and many other examples lead me to beieve that the extreme leftists (Which most, but not all Waccos are) have some of the most closed minds of all Americans. I think the problem comes from political indoctrination during school. Very few instructors are anything but extreme leftists, and therefore they produce more extreme leftists. Hey, when you live in a World where you are paid to theorize and your theories are almost never challenged except by your same thinking peers, it's so easy to become convinced that you really do know what you're talking about.

"I was surrounded by some very intelligent people who all had higher degrees than I did and we were all in agreement, and you are going to try and tell me I'm wrong? Hah! I've known these things to be truths since I was 20 years old"...

American academia has been divorcing itself from reality more and more since the 40's. Only in the science departments do you find peer review that extends beyond academia, out into the real World.

If your 2+2 doesn't = 4, you are going to hear about it from other scientists in a big hurry.

This is why the concept that man is the major contributor to global warming gains so much traction in the media, but so little among the World's scientists.

There was recently a report "by 250 scientists" who support global warming. Well one would think that if it was as the article says it is "a life threatening problem" you could get more than 250 of the millions of scientists to sign on.

However, good luck with that. We all recognize global warming, that's not the issue, it's how much man has contributed to it that the majority of scientists disagree with. While the public is enamored with Al Gore and Polar Bears, the scientific community at large is not.

For many, it seems a huge waste to spend trillions worrying about CO2 emissions, when they believe that man is only responsible for (and able to effect either positively or negatively), an insignificant 2-3%.

No I'm not entertaining a discussion on CO2 emissions on Wacco, I once tried that and in response to lots of peer reviewed, I got lots of Al Gore style emotions and very little in the way of hard science. I'm just using it as a point.

People on the extremes of the left and right are people who are very emotionally connected to their ideals, and their minds are therefore by necessity, hard to sway, regardless of logic or truth.

Here's an letter I wrote to to a transsexual friend on facebook, that gives a pretty good idea of who I am, and as you can see, I'm pretty much an independent, even though I agree with parts of the left and right in about equal proportions.

I also by the way, represent the independent, self thinking people who control elections, and I have a little news for ya'all: Say goodbye to the Democratic control of Congress, and in fact if we can, we are going to impeach Obama (I'm not a lawyer, so I'll avoid the hows), and retroactively, Bush too if we can.

I'm personally not so sure that would be a good idea; Can you imagine Joe "When FDR watched the depression on TV....", Biden as President:

"Oops, I thought that red button was to order another scotch"...

Anyway (come on laugh...), here's me, and as you can see, I'm not such an evil person after all. I may argue voraciously here on the forum, but in my actual dealings with people, if I don't agree, I just shut up, listen, and love them anyway.

I will however note that the realist in me believes that not everyone is savable, and making the decision of whom to spend yourself on and whom to avoid, is one of the hardest decisions anyone can make.

Anyway, all my best Karen

Here ya' go:



Kelli, I so agree with you. This is why I keep preaching these things:

"Divorce yourself from LBGT, because they don't give a _____ about you as a transsexual (in fact on the whole, they neither understand nor like us), stand on your own feet, and demand your rights as a woman".

If you are pre-op: "Respectful, gently and graciously educate everyone you meet (especially other women who are more receptive and compassionate) that you are nothing more than a regular woman ("Just like you") who was born with a simple birth defect that you are in the act of correcting".

If you are post-op: "Respectfully, gently and graciously educate that you are just a regular woman who has recovered from a simple birth defect".

"Don't talk about anything to do with gay, transvestites, trans-gender etc.". If the subject comes up, respectful, gently and graciously steer it away from those subjects and onto something neutral.

"Whatever you do, don't argue with people's religious or political (One and the same) principals". Whatever you say will stick in their mind as being what is wrong with transsexuals and will negate any gains you have made". I'm not saying that you should roll over and play dead, just respectful, gently and graciously refuse to engage.

I am what might be called "The Christian Right", although that wouldn't really be correct, so I'll elaborate, because I'm sure that statement makes many people curious, but it also gives me a view into their minds that many don't see:

I am a spiritual person, and I try to make my higher power the center of my life. I try to live by the concept of: "Love your God, love yourself, and love your neighbor", because that's what Jesus was all about, according to the book written by the only person who was actually there: John

FYI: You will find no hate in the book of John, only love, understanding, peace, patience and tolerance, however you will also find that Jesus wasn't a wimp when it came to those who were abusive towards others. Regardless of your beliefs, you'll probably agree with those concepts, so why should we argue? Yet another: Go figure...

I'm a fiscal conservative, and I believe that charity starts with your family, extends out to your neighbors, and thus to your community and then to society at large. I temper this with the knowledge that "I can't save them all", for among other reasons, primarily, that many don't want to be saved. Socialism has financially broken every everyone who has tried it: From Russia, to Greece last week, to Spain, Italy and France this summer, everybody eventually learns that there is no such thing as a free lunch, that conformity enforces mediocrity and suppresses diversity and innovation, and that Thomas Jefferson was right about big government. (Hey, it only took 70 years, but bit by bit Germany is going to own Europe)

I believe that the Constitution has been trampled on by every President in the last 90 years in an exponential fashion (Yes, Starting with Woodrow Wilson and his sell out elite big money IE: Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Vanderbilts, etc. and their creation of the "Federal Reserve", as a means of controlling the economy, to FDR's house of cards entitlement programs and push for WWII, to Nixon, Bush and Obama's "Shut up, I know what's best for you", they have each gotten progressively worse than the last, but that's another discussion.)

I believe that people have a right to do whatever they want, as long as they don't cause serious trouble for other people, and this goes hand in hand with my belief that we need to be tolerant of other people and their beliefs as long as they are not being malicious, careless, or just plain stupid (This is obviously where it all gets subjective).

I guess I'm a "Liberal Conservative", or a "Conservative Liberal" (Politically I'm nominally a Libertarian, but...), but I can tell you that there are a lot of "me" out there, we're the ones that get labeled "Independent", and we are the ones that control elections (Now I'm a power hungry bitch...)

For once, I'm OK with the label society attaches to me, in fact I'm a little proud of being thought of as "Independent", as to me it means I think for myself, and I think everyone should question the extremes, as there's both good and bad to be found in both sides.

I say this because so many think the right is the enemy, and yet I have found just as much acceptance from the right as the left, IF, they are approached in a respectful, gentle and gracious way. If you go into a situation being confrontational from the beginning, don't be surprised when it ends the same way it started, just magnified.

I have talked to many extreme Christian Conservatives, and so far the only one who hasn't walked away with understanding and compassion for us so-called "Trans-women", is my own dear mother.

I have also talked to many extreme Liberals, and have found minds just as closed, and I have also been able to open most of them too, (although here I have found more resistance here to separating us from LGBT, go figure...Yes, to me the left is more closed, probably because in indoctrination in school.)

The key to it all has been to be respectful, gentle and gracious. LISTEN to their opinions, don't make fun of them, don't condemn them, don't act like some jackass male who knows it all (Something I still do on occasion). Be a gentle and gracious person, it's a wonderful trait, and people almost always respond positively to it (Note to self: If you practiced this more with mom, you might see better results).

Some minds are closed permanently, but actually their number is quite few when you practice the love that you profess.

[Karen the KAT]

I didn't think I'd be mad enough to engage you again Krazy Kat.
I neither like nor dislike trans-sexual people. I am wise enough to admit I know nothing about that subject. Only fools attack that which they do not understand.
If this is who you are, then this is who you are, and if it cannot be changed, ( or you have no desire to change should change be possible) you must be accepted....just as one accepts all aspects of nature.
As I remember..... Thoreau, and a few friends were once watching a powerful night storm......thunder clapping, lightening flashing, winds howling, etc. and one of the members of that group...no doubt hoping to sound expansive said: "Ah I accept nature"..to which Thoreau responded: "Well by God you'd better !".
One must accept certain things...but one must also combat that which is unnatural and intolerable...in this case your viscous attacks on all of Islam, and blind support of Israel.
Baba

Please, stop with the name calling. Normally I'd take "Krazy Kat" as a compliment, but I don't get the feeling you meant it that way.

This coming from the same person who so rudely doubted that I have been injured by a Palestinian bomb (Thanks again for making me relive that...).

As far as blindly supporting Israel, and universally condemning Islam, I have done neither, I have simply set forth the facts of the matter. These can be summed up as follows:

Israel has been the most attacked country in history, and in fact it's simply atrocious the number of PLO bombings that have happened in the last 20 years. Israel has tried over and over to negotiate with the PLO, and the PLO has again and again walked from the negotiations and resumed their bombing campaign. srael has behaved far better than Islam in their conflicts.

Islam's central precept is a totally Muslim World at any cost.

I have never said that Israel has behaved perfectly, and I have never said that every Palestinian is a bad person. The closest thing I have said to that, is (again) the central precept of Islam is a goal of a totally Muslim planet, and that otherwise peaceful Muslims share this belief with their more sociopathic members.

I'll add to this the simple fact that EVERYBODY wishes the World would operate on their terms, but most people don't believe that those who disagree with them should be killed if they will not convert.
Again, I don't profess to have an answer to this problem, because I don't see that there can be peace unless one of three completely improbable things happens:

1) Everybody converts to Islam
2) Islam exterminates all the Infidels
3) Islam decides they don't need to control the World, and starts getting along with everybody else (and not because they fear them).

As I note, there are what we call Muslims who don't believe in World domination, but they are not accepted by either the Sunni or the Shia, and are thus considered to be Muslim by neither.

Back to my favorite phrase: Go figure

BTW: You owe me an apology for behaving like an asshole as per your comments about my experiences in Israel, Your rudeness, name calling, implying I am a liar, malicious taunting and general lack of respect is beyond the pale, and you earned every bit of anger in my response. I have forgiven your rudeness and general lack of decency, but it's not forgotten.

You further compound it by again resorting to yet again calling me names.

I ask you: Is this how you behave when you don't agree with someone, but can't come up with any solid logic to support your position, because it's the mark of a sociopath.

May I respectfully suggest some therapy.

[babaruss]

I did not make you relive anything Kat....you were quite willing to give an over abundance of detail with out the least provocation.
It's that over abundance of detail which leads me to believe nothing you say is true.
It's fairly obvious who needs therapy here, and it's not me.
Krazy Kat is a cartoon character from the 30's who was always throwing bricks. If you find that characterization insulting o.k....I'll apologize for that.
But certainly not for anything else.
Baba

Please, stop with the name calling. Normally I'd take "Krazy Kat" as a compliment, but I don't get the feeling you meant it that way.

This coming from the same person who so rudely doubted that I have been injured by a Palestinian bomb (Thanks again for making me relive that...).

As far as blindly supporting Israel, and universally condemning Islam, I have done neither, I have simply set forth the facts of the matter. These can be summed up as follows:

Israel has been the most attacked country in history, and in fact it's simply atrocious the number of PLO bombings that have happened in the last 20 years. Israel has tried over and over to negotiate with the PLO, and the PLO has again and again walked from the negotiations and resumed their bombing campaign. srael has behaved far better than Islam in their conflicts.

Islam's central precept is a totally Muslim World at any cost.

I have never said that Israel has behaved perfectly, and I have never said that every Palestinian is a bad person. The closest thing I have said to that, is (again) the central precept of Islam is a goal of a totally Muslim planet, and that otherwise peaceful Muslims share this belief with their more sociopathic members.

I'll add to this the simple fact that EVERYBODY wishes the World would operate on their terms, but most people don't believe that those who disagree with them should be killed if they will not convert.
Again, I don't profess to have an answer to this problem, because I don't see that there can be peace unless one of three completely improbable things happens:

1) Everybody converts to Islam
2) Islam exterminates all the Infidels
3) Islam decides they don't need to control the World, and starts getting along with everybody else (and not because they fear them).

As I note, there are what we call Muslims who don't believe in World domination, but they are not accepted by either the Sunni or the Shia, and are thus considered to be Muslim by neither.

Back to my favorite phrase: Go figure

BTW: You owe me an apology for behaving like an asshole as per your comments about my experiences in Israel, Your rudeness, name calling, implying I am a liar, malicious taunting and general lack of respect is beyond the pale, and you earned every bit of anger in my response. I have forgiven your rudeness and general lack of decency, but it's not forgotten.

You further compound it by again resorting to yet again calling me names.

I ask you: Is this how you behave when you don't agree with someone, but can't come up with any solid logic to support your position, because it's the mark of a sociopath.

May I respectfully suggest some therapy.

[Karen the KAT]

I did not make you relive anything Kat....you were quite willing to give an over abundance of detail with out the least provocation.
It's that over abundance of detail which leads me to believe nothing you say is true.
It's fairly obvious who needs therapy here, and it's not me.
Krazy Kat is a cartoon character from the 30's who was always throwing bricks. If you find that characterization insulting o.k....I'll apologize for that.
But certainly not for anything else.
Baba

Who can discuss anything with you. I don't give you enough details, I'm lying, I give you detail, I'm lying. Sounds completely pre-judged as to me, as in prejudiced.

Your rudeness knows no bounds.

I gave you details because I thought it might make you a little more human, it's not something I really wanted to do, it's not something I like to relive. As you can see, it's a hurtful memory to me.

You contradict yourself: You say I relived it, but you say it's not true. How can both be true?

Hey, I don't care if you believe it, it doesn't change the fact that it happened (Just like your Thoreau story in an isometric way, but it does make the whole thing a waste of my energy and emotion.

Thanks for that too, you're a real winner

Your mind is Soooo closed, it's amazing to me.

If you don't like a truth, you just deny it, and clim the other person is a liar. Obama should hire you to write his speeches...

I know who Krazy Kat is, and yes, I took it as you meant it.

All I can say is WOW....

[theindependenteye]

Some thoughts on this tormented thread:

>>>you could at least read an old copy of the Koran (before they started to print special versions for Westerners).
Is it the case, then, that people who believe so literally in the authority of the Koran have put out an edition that intentionally distorts the Koran? I would have thought extremist Muslims would kill them for having done so.
If there's a concrete source for this information, it suggests to me the same kind of controversy over intention and translation that besets Biblical translators, undoubtedly driven in part by political or religious biases but also by serious scholarly-based differences. But in that case there would seem to be some disunity among the Elders of Islam.

>>>For the umpteenth time: Read the Bloody Koran... (and bloody it is) >>>Islam's central precept is a totally Muslim World at any cost.

And I've also read the Pentateuch & Old Testament. From these I glean the information that all Jews are required to stone to death homosexuals, disobedient children, adulterers, and a considerable number of the population of Sonoma County; that if God so orders, they are to annihilate every non-Jewish man, woman, and child in cities they claim as theirs; that they are especially Chosen among all races on Earth... etc. Now, the Jews I know aren't like that at all, so I guess there must be a few exceptions.
True that Judaism isn't a "universal" religion in the same sense as Christianity or Islam and hence doesn't have the same long, bloody history of aggression.

>>>Well actually the Jews DON'T strap bombs to the backs of their children or fire rockets indiscriminately into urban areas like the Palestinians do, That's called terrorism.

Terrorism is a tactic used by people with political objectives but without the armaments required by conventional warfare. Getting blown up by a rocket fired indiscriminately by Hamas or discriminately by the Israelis wasting the inhabitants of a building to possibly kill one guy -- well, I'd call either one pretty terrifying.
There was a post on this thread at some point asking for instances where Western powers used terroristic methods in "non-warfare" situations. Do I understand, then, that irebombing Tokyo, Dresden, and dozens of Japanese cities prior to Hiroshima isn't terrorism because it's in a war that we've declared? To Hamas et al, it's a war whether or not Israel chooses to declare it so, and they use the means they have.
Horrible means, I agree.

>>>I never said there was a way to peace, in fact I said the complete opposite; There will never be peace until one party is annihilated.

It seems to me that that's the premise that keeps the extremists of both sides in power, certainly what resulted in the assassination of Rabin. The only logical implication is extermination. As Col. Chivington said before Sand Creek, "Nits make lice."
But I'm afraid that I agree with the assessment that it's very hard to see a way out. Israel has been pushed further and further into a South African-style siege mentality -- both by Palestinian violence and by the Greater Israel faction who won't settle for anything less than the boundaries of David's empire. And the Palestinians will not give up. Maybe in 50 years they'll come to a compromise, as has sorta happened in Northern Ireland, if there's not an atomic war first.
And for better or worse, Israel has become America's 51st state, though the only one with an independent army and foreign policy. I do worry about that, though maybe that's only because I'm one of those naive Leftists.

Peace & joy, or fear & trembling, as you wish--
Conrad

[Debunker]

Great post, and don't forget, the bible says good Jews should beat their uppity slaves, even to the point of death!

"Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."

--Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America
What the Bible says about slavery

Some thoughts on this tormented thread:

>>>you could at least read an old copy of the Koran (before they started to print special versions for Westerners).
Is it the case, then, that people who believe so literally in the authority of the Koran have put out an edition that intentionally distorts the Koran? I would have thought extremist Muslims would kill them for having done so.
If there's a concrete source for this information, it suggests to me the same kind of controversy over intention and translation that besets Biblical translators, undoubtedly driven in part by political or religious biases but also by serious scholarly-based differences. But in that case there would seem to be some disunity among the Elders of Islam.

>>>For the umpteenth time: Read the Bloody Koran... (and bloody it is) >>>Islam's central precept is a totally Muslim World at any cost.

And I've also read the Pentateuch & Old Testament. From these I glean the information that all Jews are required to stone to death homosexuals, disobedient children, adulterers, and a considerable number of the population of Sonoma County; that if God so orders, they are to annihilate every non-Jewish man, woman, and child in cities they claim as theirs; that they are especially Chosen among all races on Earth... etc. Now, the Jews I know aren't like that at all, so I guess there must be a few exceptions.
True that Judaism isn't a "universal" religion in the same sense as Christianity or Islam and hence doesn't have the same long, bloody history of aggression.

>>>Well actually the Jews DON'T strap bombs to the backs of their children or fire rockets indiscriminately into urban areas like the Palestinians do, That's called terrorism.

Terrorism is a tactic used by people with political objectives but without the armaments required by conventional warfare. Getting blown up by a rocket fired indiscriminately by Hamas or discriminately by the Israelis wasting the inhabitants of a building to possibly kill one guy -- well, I'd call either one pretty terrifying.
There was a post on this thread at some point asking for instances where Western powers used terroristic methods in "non-warfare" situations. Do I understand, then, that irebombing Tokyo, Dresden, and dozens of Japanese cities prior to Hiroshima isn't terrorism because it's in a war that we've declared? To Hamas et al, it's a war whether or not Israel chooses to declare it so, and they use the means they have.
Horrible means, I agree.

>>>I never said there was a way to peace, in fact I said the complete opposite; There will never be peace until one party is annihilated.

It seems to me that that's the premise that keeps the extremists of both sides in power, certainly what resulted in the assassination of Rabin. The only logical implication is extermination. As Col. Chivington said before Sand Creek, "Nits make lice."
But I'm afraid that I agree with the assessment that it's very hard to see a way out. Israel has been pushed further and further into a South African-style siege mentality -- both by Palestinian violence and by the Greater Israel faction who won't settle for anything less than the boundaries of David's empire. And the Palestinians will not give up. Maybe in 50 years they'll come to a compromise, as has sorta happened in Northern Ireland, if there's not an atomic war first.
And for better or worse, Israel has become America's 51st state, though the only one with an independent army and foreign policy. I do worry about that, though maybe that's only because I'm one of those naive Leftists.

Peace & joy, or fear & trembling, as you wish--
Conrad

[Karen]

The abused child grows up to be an abusive adult. Is that relevant to what is happening in Israel? Noam Chomski doesnt answer that question but he knows his history and has a valuable P.O.V.
Kat, this is especially 4 u.

The Real Threat Aboard the Freedom Flotilla

By Noam Chomsky

June 08, 2010 "In These Times" - -Israel’s violent attack on the Freedom Flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza shocked the world.

Hijacking boats in international waters and killing passengers is, of course, a serious crime.

But the crime is nothing new. For decades, Israel has been hijacking boats between Cyprus and Lebanon and killing or kidnapping passengers, sometimes holding them hostage in Israeli prisons.

Israel assumes that it can commit such crimes with impunity because the United States tolerates them and Europe generally follows the U.S.’s lead.

As the editors of The Guardian rightly observed on June 1, “If an armed group of Somali pirates had yesterday boarded six vessels on the high seas, killing at least 10 passengers and injuring many more, a NATO task force would today be heading for the Somali coast.” In this case, the NATO treaty obligates its members to come to the aid of a fellow NATO country—Turkey—attacked on the high seas.

Israel’s pretext for the attack was that the Freedom Flotilla was bringing materials that Hamas could use for bunkers to fire rockets into Israel.

The pretext isn’t credible. Israel can easily end the threat of rockets by peaceful means.

The background is important. Hamas was designated a major terrorist threat when it won a free election in January 2006. The U.S. and Israel sharply escalated their punishment of Palestinians, now for the crime of voting the wrong way.

The siege of Gaza, including a naval blockade, was a result. The siege intensified sharply in June 2007 after a civil war left Hamas in control of the territory.

What is commonly described as a Hamas military coup was in fact incited by the U.S. and Israel, in a crude attempt to overturn the elections that had brought Hamas to power.

That has been public knowledge at least since April 2008, when David Rose reported in Vanity Fair that George W. Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Elliott Abrams, “backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.”

Hamas terror included launching rockets into nearby Israeli towns—criminal, without a doubt, though only a minute fraction of routine U.S.-Israeli crimes in Gaza.

In June 2008, Israel and Hamas reached a cease-fire agreement. The Israeli government formally acknowledges that until Israel broke the agreement on Nov. 4 of that year, invading Gaza and killing half a dozen Hamas activists, Hamas did not fire a single rocket.

Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire. The Israeli cabinet considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to launch its murderous invasion of Gaza on Dec.27.

Like other states, Israel has the right of self-defense. But did Israel have the right to use force in Gaza in the name of self-defense? International law, including the U.N. Charter, is unambiguous: A nation has such a right only if it has exhausted peaceful means. In this case such means were not even tried, although—or perhaps because—there was every reason to suppose that they would succeed.

Thus the invasion was sheer criminal aggression, and the same is true of Israel’s resorting to force against the flotilla.

The siege is savage, designed to keep the caged animals barely alive so as to fend off international protest, but hardly more than that. It is the latest stage of longstanding Israeli plans, backed by the U.S., to separate Gaza from the West Bank.

The Israeli journalist Amira Hass, a leading specialist on Gaza, outlines the history of the process of separation: “The restrictions on Palestinian movement that Israel introduced in January 1991 reversed a process that had been initiated in June 1967.

“Back then, and for the first time since 1948, a large portion of the Palestinian people again lived in the open territory of a single country — to be sure, one that was occupied, but was nevertheless whole. …”

Hass concludes: “The total separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank is one of the greatest achievements of Israeli politics, whose overarching objective is to prevent a solution based on international decisions and understandings and instead dictate an arrangement based on Israel’s military superiority.”

The Freedom Flotilla defied that policy and so it must be crushed.

A framework for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict has existed since 1976, when the regional Arab States introduced a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state settlement on the international border, including all the security guarantees of U.N. Resolution 242, adopted after the June War in 1967.

The essential principles are supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran) and relevant non-state actors, including Hamas.

But the U.S. and Israel have led the rejection of such a settlement for three decades, with one crucial and highly informative exception. In President Bill Clinton’s last month in office, January 2001, he initiated Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Taba, Egypt, that almost reached an agreement, participants announced, before Israel terminated the negotiations.

Today, the cruel legacy of a failed peace lives on.

International law cannot be enforced against powerful states, except by their own citizens. That is always a difficult task, particularly when articulate opinion declares crime to be legitimate, either explicitly or by tacit adoption of a criminal framework—which is more insidious, because it renders the crimes invisible.

[pnicholson]

hi karen - i was just reading this article a bit ago. very insightful. thanks for posting such an astute point of view. the whole flotilla tragedy is difficult to deal with still. i participated in three demonstrations in sf last week. rousing and heartbreaking at the same time. hopefully it will turn out to be the exposure that israel cannot recover from.

kind regards,
pnicholson

The abused child grows up to be an abusive adult. Is that relevant to what is happening in Israel? Noam Chomski doesnt answer that question but he knows his history and has a valuable P.O.V.
Kat, this is especially 4 u.

The Real Threat Aboard the Freedom Flotilla

By Noam Chomsky

June 08, 2010 "In These Times" - -Israel’s violent attack on the Freedom Flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza shocked the world.

Hijacking boats in international waters and killing passengers is, of course, a serious crime.

But the crime is nothing new. For decades, Israel has been hijacking boats between Cyprus and Lebanon and killing or kidnapping passengers, sometimes holding them hostage in Israeli prisons.

Israel assumes that it can commit such crimes with impunity because the United States tolerates them and Europe generally follows the U.S.’s lead.

As the editors of The Guardian rightly observed on June 1, “If an armed group of Somali pirates had yesterday boarded six vessels on the high seas, killing at least 10 passengers and injuring many more, a NATO task force would today be heading for the Somali coast.” In this case, the NATO treaty obligates its members to come to the aid of a fellow NATO country—Turkey—attacked on the high seas.

Israel’s pretext for the attack was that the Freedom Flotilla was bringing materials that Hamas could use for bunkers to fire rockets into Israel.

The pretext isn’t credible. Israel can easily end the threat of rockets by peaceful means.

The background is important. Hamas was designated a major terrorist threat when it won a free election in January 2006. The U.S. and Israel sharply escalated their punishment of Palestinians, now for the crime of voting the wrong way.

The siege of Gaza, including a naval blockade, was a result. The siege intensified sharply in June 2007 after a civil war left Hamas in control of the territory.

What is commonly described as a Hamas military coup was in fact incited by the U.S. and Israel, in a crude attempt to overturn the elections that had brought Hamas to power.

That has been public knowledge at least since April 2008, when David Rose reported in Vanity Fair that George W. Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Elliott Abrams, “backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.”

Hamas terror included launching rockets into nearby Israeli towns—criminal, without a doubt, though only a minute fraction of routine U.S.-Israeli crimes in Gaza.

In June 2008, Israel and Hamas reached a cease-fire agreement. The Israeli government formally acknowledges that until Israel broke the agreement on Nov. 4 of that year, invading Gaza and killing half a dozen Hamas activists, Hamas did not fire a single rocket.

Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire. The Israeli cabinet considered the offer and rejected it, preferring to launch its murderous invasion of Gaza on Dec.27.

Like other states, Israel has the right of self-defense. But did Israel have the right to use force in Gaza in the name of self-defense? International law, including the U.N. Charter, is unambiguous: A nation has such a right only if it has exhausted peaceful means. In this case such means were not even tried, although—or perhaps because—there was every reason to suppose that they would succeed.

Thus the invasion was sheer criminal aggression, and the same is true of Israel’s resorting to force against the flotilla.

The siege is savage, designed to keep the caged animals barely alive so as to fend off international protest, but hardly more than that. It is the latest stage of longstanding Israeli plans, backed by the U.S., to separate Gaza from the West Bank.

The Israeli journalist Amira Hass, a leading specialist on Gaza, outlines the history of the process of separation: “The restrictions on Palestinian movement that Israel introduced in January 1991 reversed a process that had been initiated in June 1967.

“Back then, and for the first time since 1948, a large portion of the Palestinian people again lived in the open territory of a single country — to be sure, one that was occupied, but was nevertheless whole. …”

Hass concludes: “The total separation of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank is one of the greatest achievements of Israeli politics, whose overarching objective is to prevent a solution based on international decisions and understandings and instead dictate an arrangement based on Israel’s military superiority.”

The Freedom Flotilla defied that policy and so it must be crushed.

A framework for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict has existed since 1976, when the regional Arab States introduced a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state settlement on the international border, including all the security guarantees of U.N. Resolution 242, adopted after the June War in 1967.

The essential principles are supported by virtually the entire world, including the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran) and relevant non-state actors, including Hamas.

But the U.S. and Israel have led the rejection of such a settlement for three decades, with one crucial and highly informative exception. In President Bill Clinton’s last month in office, January 2001, he initiated Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in Taba, Egypt, that almost reached an agreement, participants announced, before Israel terminated the negotiations.

Today, the cruel legacy of a failed peace lives on.

International law cannot be enforced against powerful states, except by their own citizens. That is always a difficult task, particularly when articulate opinion declares crime to be legitimate, either explicitly or by tacit adoption of a criminal framework—which is more insidious, because it renders the crimes invisible.

[Karen]

Eyewitness Report

Countering Israeli Propaganda

* Countering Israeli Propaganda* : ICH - Information Clearing House

Great BBC interview!

BTW, Barry, why is this in the censored section? This information shouldnt be suppressed.
Thanks for your reply.
Karen

[pnicholson]

hi karen. i watched this interview and it is very good. i did watch it again here and i am glad that you posted it. thanks. i too wondered why it is in the censored area. i thought it was okay to talk about israel now. there has been so much exposure lately it is a little late to try and censor conversation or criticism. israel israel israel israel israel israel. see? nothing happened. it really is okay. in fact it is absolutely vital.

Eyewitness Report

Countering Israeli Propaganda

* Countering Israeli Propaganda* : ICH - Information Clearing House

Great BBC interview!

BTW, Barry, why is this in the censored section? This information shouldnt be suppressed.
Thanks for your reply.
Karen

["Mad" Miles]

Hey Karen and PNicholsen,

(I can imagine readers here thinking, "MadMiles?!, again? Why can't he just STFU and let others have a say!!!")

Anyway, if you read the early part of this thread, you'll see Barry's post explaining why he moved it to Censored&Un-Censored, things got "too heated".

One way around this would be to post it as a new thread starter.

I'm often amused about how threads from two or three or four years ago, get renewed by additions, often by new "wacoons" (Love it too!). The "To Kill A Mockingbird" debate that came back to haunt us, is one example. Maybe we need a thread listing the perennial topics found here?

Waccobb.net, where conversations never finish and arguments from years ago can be renewed at will!

(Barry, if this slogan goes on the banner I want credit and a cut of the moolah... Just sayin')

Cheers,

[Karen]

I don't really understand what is meant by "too heated". Apartheid and genocide are difficult topics but as taxpayers and citizens of the USA, we are all complicit in this travesty of justice. We need to understand both sides very well to see that a just resolution is found.
How can words online be too heated? People may become too heated and maybe Barry was feeling too heated but words are just characters on a screen. I urge a rational discussion of the facts here. Calm down, try to understand what is going on in Palestine from a Palestinian perspective before you make a decision. (hint: You wont find the Palesitnians' P.O.V. on CNN.)

Hey Karen and PNicholsen,

(I can imagine readers here thinking, "MadMiles?!, again? Why can't he just STFU and let others have a say!!!")

Anyway, if you read the early part of this thread, you'll see Barry's post explaining why he moved it to Censored&Un-Censored, things got "too heated".

One way around this would be to post it as a new thread starter.

I'm often amused about how threads from two or three or four years ago, get renewed by additions, often by new "wacoons" (Love it too!). The "To Kill A Mockingbird" debate that came back to haunt us, is one example. Maybe we need a thread listing the perennial topics found here?

Waccobb.net, where conversations never finish and arguments from years ago can be renewed at will!

(Barry, if this slogan goes on the banner I want credit and a cut of the moolah... Just sayin')

Cheers,

["Mad" Miles]

I don't really understand what is meant by "too heated". Apartheid and genocide are difficult topics but as taxpayers and citizens of the USA, we are all complicit in this travesty of justice. We need to understand both sides very well to see that a just resolution is found.

Karen,

I agree with you, except.

Did you read Karen the KAT's early posts on this thread? They are highly volatile, racist, zenophobic. And replies to her were almost as combative. So Barry moved it to C&Un-C.

If I moderated this board she would have been booted and her posts dumped into oblivion. There's no way they comply with the requirement to be respectful and "conscious" here. Except that I'm a historian so I think the record should be preserved, if only to document the crazed views of some on this issue.

Given the conflict itself, and the risks to all involved (nukes, oil, human rights, etc.) it's no surprise that opinions get heated. Yes, we need to discuss it. As respectfully, rationally and productively as possible. But with history like this, don't get your hopes up!

Again, if you don't want your contribution to be in the C&Un-C category, just put it in a new thread. It's quite easy, and your post won't carry the burden of shit disturbance from this thread.

[Karen]

I started this thread a long time ago. I was surprised and delighted when years later, it drew out a vocal Zionist for us to examine. I think that was highly instructive, don't you? I love the title of this thread which is also a very illuminating website, btw. In the interest of continuity, i'm going to continue posting my responses here. Too bad it cant be two places at once.

To answer your question, no i didnt read much more than a paragraph or two of Kat's. That's all I wanted, actually. I havent read 95% of the thread to this day. Tell me, did any of the following data come up in the thread?
(fromhttps://www.ifamericansknew.org/)

Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed September 29, 2000 - Present
124 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 1,441 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)

Israelis and Palestinians Killed September 29, 2000 - Present
	1,072 Israelis and at least 6,348 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)

Israelis and Palestinians Injured September 29, 2000 - Present
8,864 Israelis and 39,019 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information.) Unfortunately, our sources have not updated these statistics in quite some time. We are working to find more up-to-date sources.

Daily U.S. Military Aid to Israel and the Palestinians Fiscal Year 2009
	During Fiscal Year 2009, the U.S. is providing Israel with at least $7.0 million per day in military aid and $0 in military aid to the Palestinians. (View Sources & More Information)

UN Resolutions Targeting Israel and the Palestinians 1955 - 1992
Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none. (View Sources & More Information)

Current Number of Political Prisoners and Detainees
	1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 7,383 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel. (View Sources & More Information)

Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes 1967 - Present
0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 24,145 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since 1967. (View Sources & More Information)

Current Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land
Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land. (View Sources & More Information)

Karen,

I agree with you, except.

Did you read Karen the KAT's early posts on this thread? They are highly volatile, racist, zenophobic. And replies to her were almost as combative. So Barry moved it to C&Un-C.

If I moderated this board she would have been booted and her posts dumped into oblivion. There's no way they comply with the requirement to be respectful and "conscious" here. Except that I'm a historian so I think the record should be preserved, if only to document the crazed views of some on this issue.

Given the conflict itself, and the risks to all involved (nukes, oil, human rights, etc.) it's no surprise that opinions get heated. Yes, we need to discuss it. As respectfully, rationally and productively as possible. But with history like this, don't get your hopes up!

Again, if you don't want your contribution to be in the C&Un-C category, just put it in a new thread. It's quite easy, and your post won't carry the burden of shit disturbance from this thread.

["Mad" Miles]

[quote=Karen;117066...Tell me, did any of the following data come up in the thread? ...[/quote]

Nope. At least not in such graphically, well displayed detail. Thanks for the resource.

I learned something last night. Since the 1980's it has been illegal for any tax reporting U.S. entity to boycott Israel. Apparently it's called the Ribicoff Amendment. The BDS movement (a term I only recently learned, I'm not as connected as I thought, back in the day we just referred to our South Africa anti-apartheid movement as "divestment") hasn't been advertising that fact.

I haven't looked it up and read the details, but if you're on the board of, say the Sacramento Food Coop like my sister, and being asked to withdraw funds from Israel, it turns out to be important to know!

It doesn't apply to individual consumer boycotts.

...

Here it is, half an hour later. Just read this:

Occupied Palestine: Good News and Bad

Lendman sure has a beef with the PA (see the end of his compilation) but this is a good summary of recent developments.

[Karen]

Thanks for telling me about the Ribicoff amendment. We are inextricably linked to Israel and all they do.

Thank you for the great website, Global BDS Movement , too! I encourage other people check it out.

Nope. At least not in such graphically, well displayed detail. Thanks for the resource.

I learned something last night. Since the 1980's it has been illegal for any tax reporting U.S. entity to boycott Israel. Apparently it's called the Ribicoff Amendment. The BDS movement (a term I only recently learned, I'm not as connected as I thought, back in the day we just referred to our South Africa anti-apartheid movement as "divestment") hasn't been advertising that fact.

I haven't looked it up and read the details, but if you're on the board of, say the Sacramento Coop like my sister, and being asked to withdraw funds from Israel, it turns out to be important to know!

It doesn't apply to individual consumer boycotts.

[Karen]

this is what I like to see!


Will a “Jewish Flotilla” Break the Gaza Blockade?

(Thankfully, Kat,
...the “Jewish community” doesn’t walk in lockstep...)

JERUSALEM (JTA) — A coalition of international Jewish organizations sympathetic to the Palestinians will send a flotilla to Gaza to try to break Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-run strip.
The “Jewish Boat to Gaza” will sail next month from an undisclosed location carrying passengers from the United States, Germany and Britain. At least one passenger is reported to be a Holocaust survivor.
American Jews for a Just Peace announced last week that it will serve as the U.S. coordinator for the Jewish boat. The other groups participating in the flotilla include “Judische Stimme” (”Jewish Voice” for a Just Peace in the Near East) and Jews for Justice for Palestinians, a British organization.
Glyn Secker, a British Jew and a longtime activist, will serve as captain. No weapons will be on board, according to the American Jews for a Just Peace website.
“Organizers are requesting that the Israeli government, the British government, the German government and the Obama Administration guarantee safe passage for the boat, its passengers and cargo,” according to the announcement.
The boat will take schoolbags and books, donated by German schoolchildren; musical instruments and art materials for the Gaza Community Mental Health Program; nets and tackle for fishermen; and medicines and small medical equipment.
According to the website, the principles of the mission are “To protest against and challenge the blockade of Gaza”; “to protest against Israel’s continuing occupation and settlement of Palestinian land, and the Israeli government’s self-evident intention of annexing much of that land”; and “to make clear that the current policies of Israel are not representative of all Jews and that there are thousands of us who wish to say ‘Not in our name.’”

This would not only be a difficult convoy for the Israeli government to handle aggressively but it would also serve as a powerful symbol that the “Jewish community” doesn’t walk in lockstep — that there is a vast gulf separating Jews who believe in self-governance and the principle of universal human rights and “pro-Israel’ hawks.

[pnicholson]

well, this should be an interesting development. with all the world watching....

i hope it does happen. i hope they do not back down. i can understand why iran backed down, but i think the flotillas need to keep coming. and this would be an exceptionally significant passenger list.

safety and success beyond expectations to this and other endeavors to free palestine.

thank you, karen.

this is what I like to see!


Will a “Jewish Flotilla” Break the Gaza Blockade?

(Thankfully, Kat,
...the “Jewish community” doesn’t walk in lockstep...)

JERUSALEM (JTA) — A coalition of international Jewish organizations sympathetic to the Palestinians will send a flotilla to Gaza to try to break Israel’s blockade of the Hamas-run strip.
The “Jewish Boat to Gaza” will sail next month from an undisclosed location carrying passengers from the United States, Germany and Britain. At least one passenger is reported to be a Holocaust survivor.
American Jews for a Just Peace announced last week that it will serve as the U.S. coordinator for the Jewish boat. The other groups participating in the flotilla include “Judische Stimme” (”Jewish Voice” for a Just Peace in the Near East) and Jews for Justice for Palestinians, a British organization.
Glyn Secker, a British Jew and a longtime activist, will serve as captain. No weapons will be on board, according to the American Jews for a Just Peace website.
“Organizers are requesting that the Israeli government, the British government, the German government and the Obama Administration guarantee safe passage for the boat, its passengers and cargo,” according to the announcement.
The boat will take schoolbags and books, donated by German schoolchildren; musical instruments and art materials for the Gaza Community Mental Health Program; nets and tackle for fishermen; and medicines and small medical equipment.
According to the website, the principles of the mission are “To protest against and challenge the blockade of Gaza”; “to protest against Israel’s continuing occupation and settlement of Palestinian land, and the Israeli government’s self-evident intention of annexing much of that land”; and “to make clear that the current policies of Israel are not representative of all Jews and that there are thousands of us who wish to say ‘Not in our name.’”

This would not only be a difficult convoy for the Israeli government to handle aggressively but it would also serve as a powerful symbol that the “Jewish community” doesn’t walk in lockstep — that there is a vast gulf separating Jews who believe in self-governance and the principle of universal human rights and “pro-Israel’ hawks.

["Mad" Miles]

I found Nicholas Kristof's column in today's PD to be pretty good. It's about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.

I am a big fan of his, because he's the only major U.S. commentator consistently defending human rights around the world, exposing the most egregious violations and exploring viable solutions to Third World development problems.

Recently on waccobb.net he was derided for being, "just a biased journalist," (my paraphrase) I found that ridiculous since the only bias I can find in his work is as a humanist. What a terrible form of discrimination!?

I guess that would make him a speciesist, except I recall him addressing threats to the African Wild Dog, so even that charge doesn't hold up.