I am a big, warm, kind but ferocious Bear (not a teddy bear). An equalist. Danish, well spoken, loyal, caring, history buff, spiritual, ACDF, socially anxious, musical, artistic, dog owner, married, and Jewish.
What am I about?
My life is dedicated to Tikkun Olam - Mending The World - if need be one being at a time. I don't have time for stupidity, I have no patience with arrogance, false humility, hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty. If I think you are either of the above, I will call you on it. I will say that the Emperor is naked, even if the whole world says he is dressed and even if it hurts the Emperor's feelings.
I am very passionate about Human Rights, Children's Rights and Equal Rights, and chances are that if you are not, I am going to be up your rear with a chainsaw.
I believe that G-d, the Creator of all there is, meant us to be His hands, eyes and voice to each other in Life. That is the task we have been charged with, and that is what we are here to do. It doesn't matter to me what path you choose to do this on, as long as that is what you are doing.
In addition to being a Bear, I am also an Ogre - like Shrek - and like all Ogres I am bound to respond forcefully to kicks in the groin, burnings of my house, beating of my kids and friends. I am also VERY grumpy in the morning. I am true to myself, not to you or to social conventions. I have been through and seen so much bull crap and horse manure in my life, that I'll bet my last dime that I recognize both when they come across my path. If you poop on my floor, I will ask you to scoop it up and put it in the trash. If you do, that's the last you will hear about it, if you don't, if you don't, I'll come after to you till you do or one of us die, which ever comes first.
Here are all the blogs that I am allowed to link to on Care2:
That certainly depends on what one means by "Israel". If one means the existence of the State of Israel, the answer is categorically NO, both from a moral and ethical point of view, because UN-Resolution 181 is generally accepted - and it is not likely to be rescinded.
Sure, one can discuss all the possible reasons it was drafted and accepted, an probably find all sorts of non-reasons, but the fact of the matter is that as the existence of the State of Israel is NOW a fact, rescinding it would be a violation of the Israelis' basic right to nationality as expressed in UDHR article 15:
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
If one by "Israel" means the entire national entity and it's population in it's entirety, the answer is yet again a categorical NO, simply because an entire nation and population cannot be held responsible, as there within a national entity and population will always be those , (the number is irrelevant) that disagree with others on a multitude of matters.
If one by "Israel" means the Government or Representative Body, the answer must also be NO, because a Government or Representative Body, although often consisting of a majority of representatives that are in agreement on many issues, does not contain only those, but also those in opposition or at least in disagreement with the majority of representatives.
Therefore one can only criticize those that are directly, actually and objectively responsible for the decisions, and none of those are named "The State of Israel."
Who then is there to criticize?
One can very well criticize individual representatives, such as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, individual Commanding Officers and individual Legislators - one can even criticize pieces of legislation, propositions and drafts of those, when there is irrefutable evidence that those individuals one is criticizing have in fact acted or put forward material that violates International Law.
What is there to criticize?
One can justifiably criticize the practice of demolishing the homes of alleged suicide murderers and their families - and I deliberately say 'alleged', because if there is irrefutable evidence of the identity of said suicide murderer, then a crime has been committed, and from a point of justice a penalty has to be implemented. Yes, parents can, and should be held responsible for how they have raised their children.
One can further justifiably criticize if and when minors are detained and imprisoned in regular prisons. Minor, if there is evidence of their guilt, should be detained under such conditions that take into consideration that they are children.
One can also justifiably criticize imprisonment and detention without a just hearing and trial for any time-period other than what is stipulated in International Law - i.e it must be accepted that an alleged criminal can be held for questioning during the duration of the investigation of the crime and during the trial.
One can justifiably criticize any practice implemented by law-enforcement or military that is a violation of International Law, provided that an impartial, judicially knowledgable and objective investigation has been conducted by International Law Agencies that are not ethnically or otherwise compromised by connections to the area or peoples.
One can naturally criticize such political parties as are appropriate, provided that one can give irrefutable evidence that said parties in their "manifesto" endorse any of the above practices or violations of International Laws.
One has to be very careful that one, when criticizing ANY nation for human rights and International Law violations, has taken into consideration, objectively, all aspects of International Laws, and that one's criticism is not overlooking or willfully ignoring International Law in its particulars or entirety. One also need the KNOW exactly what is International Law, so one does not assume that Recommendations, Advice and/or Declarations are International Law.
When all of the above has satisfactorily been taken into consideration and implemented in one's reasoning, one can bring forth the criticism, but not until then.